Why worrying about global warming is dumb

[Rule]

That is true, but in a situation where I don't know the percentages, I think it's safer to err on the side that will end up with this planet being more inhabitable. :)

There are several unknown situations like this though, not just global warming.  In many ways, by taking "global warming" seriously, you are doing so at the expense of other extremely good causes, where there aren't so many unknowns.  In that case you are likely doing harm, but with good intentions.  The problem with your mindset is that it assumes that there's no harm done, and possibly a lot of good done.

I think that reducing pollution is a good thing to do, whether or not it's going to have any influence on climate change.

It's another cost benefit situation.  If the cost to reducing pollution, which can be extremely significant, outweights the benefit, then it's not worth doing.  Yes, pollution continues to cause harm, but the resources in combatting it may be more effectively allocated.  Especially when we may not know what pollution we're looking for, and what it really does.

[iago]

That is true, but in a situation where I don't know the percentages, I think it's safer to err on the side that will end up with this planet being more inhabitable. :)

There are several unknown situations like this though, not just global warming.  In many ways, by taking "global warming" seriously, you are doing so at the expense of other extremely good causes, where there aren't so many unknowns.  In that case you are likely doing harm, but with good intentions.  The problem with your mindset is that it assumes that there's no harm done, and possibly a lot of good done.

I think that reducing pollution is a good thing to do, whether or not it's going to have any influence on climate change.

It's another cost benefit situation.  If the cost to reducing pollution, which can be extremely significant, outweights the benefit, then it's not worth doing.  Yes, pollution continues to cause harm, but the resources in combatting it may be more effectively allocated.  Especially when we may not know what pollution we're looking for, and what it really does.

That's true. What it really comes down to is the tragedy of the commons -- it is in a company's best interest (and required, in a lot of cases) to not care about the environment in order to be competitive. And as soon as one does it, every other has to, or they fail. That's a simplification, but it's part of the problem.

[Rule]

That is true, but in a situation where I don't know the percentages, I think it's safer to err on the side that will end up with this planet being more inhabitable. :)

There are several unknown situations like this though, not just global warming.  In many ways, by taking "global warming" seriously, you are doing so at the expense of other extremely good causes, where there aren't so many unknowns.  In that case you are likely doing harm, but with good intentions.  The problem with your mindset is that it assumes that there's no harm done, and possibly a lot of good done.

I think that reducing pollution is a good thing to do, whether or not it's going to have any influence on climate change.

It's another cost benefit situation.  If the cost to reducing pollution, which can be extremely significant, outweights the benefit, then it's not worth doing.  Yes, pollution continues to cause harm, but the resources in combatting it may be more effectively allocated.  Especially when we may not know what pollution we're looking for, and what it really does.

That's true. What it really comes down to is the tragedy of the commons -- it is in a company's best interest (and required, in a lot of cases) to not care about the environment in order to be competitive. And as soon as one does it, every other has to, or they fail. That's a simplification, but it's part of the problem.

We should be careful not to sidetrack too much.  I think reducing pollution and protecting the environment is extremely important, and there are ways we certainly can and should do this.  But I don't agree with the way global warming has been handled.  The Kyoto Protocol is, from how I understand, ineffectual and extremely expensive.  It's throwing a great deal of money at a problem that we don't understand, when that money could be used towards issues we do understand and where we know it would make a world of difference for the better.

I agree that sometimes it is good to regulate corporations, even though this inevitably results in a net loss in economic welfare.  But it's not good to markedly damage the economy, "just in case".   As I said, the money could be spent in a much better way.

Also, did anyone read the articles Crazed posted?  They are much more convincing than he is.   Sunspots are decreasing, and there is good cause now to predict another 'little ice age'.  A reasonably large data set has been collected, and there is evidence that world temperatures have dropped this year enough to "undo" all of the warming of the last century. 

Read:
http://www.dailytech.com/Solar+Activity+Diminishes+Researchers+Predict+Another+Ice+Age/article10630.htm

[CrAz3D]

That is true, but in a situation where I don't know the percentages, I think it's safer to err on the side that will end up with this planet being more inhabitable. :)

There are several unknown situations like this though, not just global warming.  In many ways, by taking "global warming" seriously, you are doing so at the expense of other extremely good causes, where there aren't so many unknowns.  In that case you are likely doing harm, but with good intentions.  The problem with your mindset is that it assumes that there's no harm done, and possibly a lot of good done.

I think that reducing pollution is a good thing to do, whether or not it's going to have any influence on climate change.

It's another cost benefit situation.  If the cost to reducing pollution, which can be extremely significant, outweights the benefit, then it's not worth doing.  Yes, pollution continues to cause harm, but the resources in combatting it may be more effectively allocated.  Especially when we may not know what pollution we're looking for, and what it really does.

That's true. What it really comes down to is the tragedy of the commons -- it is in a company's best interest (and required, in a lot of cases) to not care about the environment in order to be competitive. And as soon as one does it, every other has to, or they fail. That's a simplification, but it's part of the problem.

We should be careful not to sidetrack too much.  I think reducing pollution and protecting the environment is extremely important, and there are ways we certainly can and should do this.  But I don't agree with the way global warming has been handled.  The Kyoto Protocol is, from how I understand, ineffectual and extremely expensive.  It's throwing a great deal of money at a problem that we don't understand, when that money could be used towards issues we do understand and where we know it would make a world of difference for the better.

I agree that sometimes it is good to regulate corporations, even though this inevitably results in a net loss in economic welfare.  But it's not good to markedly damage the economy, "just in case".   As I said, the money could be spent in a much better way.

Also, did anyone read the articles Crazed posted?  They are much more convincing than he is.   Sunspots are decreasing, and there is good cause now to predict another 'little ice age'.  A reasonably large data set has been collected, and there is evidence that world temperatures have dropped this year enough to "undo" all of the warming of the last century. 

Read:
http://www.dailytech.com/Solar+Activity+Diminishes+Researchers+Predict+Another+Ice+Age/article10630.htm

;D


Also, I think business, with some regulation, can come out ahead.  There are many companies "going green" because it draws more customers.  Sure it's just a marketing ploy, but if it helps other things, why not?  Also, in the long run, it's only BETTER for the economy to "go green."  There will be many new jobs and businesses created if the green market/demand inceases

[Krazed]

Actually, that supports the idea that global climate change is happening.

Keep in mind that "global warming" will cause more severe weather patterns/shifts, which means, for example, colder winters, hotter summers, and more unpredictable events.

Mmm, summer. =(

[c0Ld]

A lot of "professionals" researching global climate change claim that the actual economic impact of cleaning up CO2 emissions is very small due to the large number of new jobs it'd create - both in creating and maintaining filters or what have you. Assuming that's true, you also have to consider the fact that if we do decide to pass laws and regulations to clean up our air/water, it isn't going to hurt the planet in any way -- it'll only help, even if we aren't actually the cause of the climate change after all.

[leet_muffin]

So, right about now, I'm thinking Crazed is probably the best troll ever. And the fact that you guys haven't caught onto that yet kinda' scares me. I mean... honestly using cold weather to disprove global warming....? C'mon, let's give him a round of applause, he's been trolling us for quite a long time now.

[iago]

I should also point out: the majority of "greenhouse gasses" come from the meat industry, not from where you'd expect. So if people are serious about reducing emissions, the first thing they should do is stop eating meat/dairy, then go after cars, industry, etc. :)

[CrAz3D]

That's an interesting lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png

[iago]

That's an interesting lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png

It doesn't say which industries those are coming from.

For each pound of meat on cattle, it takes 16 pounds of feed. So that's a ton of agriculture. Then there's obviously waste disposal, transportation, fuel, power, etc. involved.

I'm not saying that that graph is wrong, but it doesn't show the cross section that I'm talking about.

Here are some articles about it:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/environment/article/0,28804,1602354_1603074_1603171,00.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0220/p03s01-ussc.html
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3956

[CrAz3D]

It isn't necessarily the MEAT market, it's LIVING BEINGS.  If we stop living we'd stop producing methane like we do now...let's do that.  QUICK!  Kill yourself!  ::)

[iago]

It isn't necessarily the MEAT market, it's LIVING BEINGS.  If we stop living we'd stop producing methane like we do now...let's do that.  QUICK!  Kill yourself!  ::)

Now, go back and read my post and try replying something intelligent.

Also, read the post before that, and try the same thing.

All I'm saying is that the people worried about global climate change should be changing their lifestyles before trying to change others.

[MyndFyre]

It isn't necessarily the MEAT market, it's LIVING BEINGS.  If we stop living we'd stop producing methane like we do now...let's do that.  QUICK!  Kill yourself!  ::)

You are such.... a.... fucking.... idiot....

[CrAz3D]

It isn't necessarily the MEAT market, it's LIVING BEINGS.  If we stop living we'd stop producing methane like we do now...let's do that.  QUICK!  Kill yourself!  ::)

Now, go back and read my post and try replying something intelligent.

Also, read the post before that, and try the same thing.

All I'm saying is that the people worried about global climate change should be changing their lifestyles before trying to change others.

If you switch to vegetarianism, you can shrink your carbon footprint by up to 1.5 tons of carbon dioxide a year, according to research by the University of Chicago. Trading a standard car for a hybrid cuts only about one ton—and isn't as tasty.

Yeah, but think by how much you'd reduce it by killing yourself ... the benefits to the earth as a whole are FAR greater than the cost of life and enjoyment of that life ::).

It isn't necessarily the MEAT market, it's LIVING BEINGS.  If we stop living we'd stop producing methane like we do now...let's do that.  QUICK!  Kill yourself!  ::)

You are such.... a.... fucking.... idiot....

I'm just pointing out how his "no meat" thoughts lead to outrageous conclusions.

[Explicit]

It isn't necessarily the MEAT market, it's LIVING BEINGS.  If we stop living we'd stop producing methane like we do now...let's do that.  QUICK!  Kill yourself!  ::)

Now, go back and read my post and try replying something intelligent.

Also, read the post before that, and try the same thing.

All I'm saying is that the people worried about global climate change should be changing their lifestyles before trying to change others.

If you switch to vegetarianism, you can shrink your carbon footprint by up to 1.5 tons of carbon dioxide a year, according to research by the University of Chicago. Trading a standard car for a hybrid cuts only about one ton—and isn't as tasty.

Yeah, but think by how much you'd reduce it by killing yourself ... the benefits to the earth as a whole are FAR greater than the cost of life and enjoyment of that life ::).

If you believe that, then by all means, apply it. The earth will much appreciate it.