The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[Kerostasis]

Originally Posted by AMosely

I have argued that we should err on the side of caution when it comes to matters of environmental consequence.

Indeed. But how do you decide which side is the "side of caution" here? Is it the side of Man, or the side of the Planet? Is it cautious to sacrifice benefits we know we can obtain for benefits that are uncertain?

[GhostintheShell]

Kerostasis thread above interests me....I'm willing to entertain a scenario here...let's say that man-made global warming exists. We'll assume that we "know" it exists with undeniable certainty, and that it is a reasonable level of increase, not global catastrophe levels, just a simple 0.6C per decade as is commonly bantered about as fact.

So, here are my questions to maybe redirect this into a more productive discussion, some fodder for the deadlocked parties to chew on.

What are the problems associated with global warming? Yes, of course there are problems...

What are the benefits? Yes, there are benefits too...lets not forget that.

What can we realistically do about slowing it down or reversing it? At what cost? per year? per century? how about other intangible costs such as human life?

What is the economic effectiveness on a lives saved per dollar basis?

Are we better to target the problems on an individual basis?
Instead of trying to fix problems by lowering the planet temperature are we better off to directly address the specific problem? ie. malaria, malnutrition (Not just in terms of direct cost but in terms of speed in dealing with the problem quickly.)

Do "feel good" programs such as Kyoto and carbon credit scheme's work in terms of real temperatures lowered vs. the cost when compared to direct benefit programs as above?

Can the global economy work its way out of the problem on its own? ie. An innovation that would change things so substantially that it would basically stop global warming in it's tracks in terms of greenhouse gases? ie. A carbon free/pollution free renewable energy source.

Would it not be more expedient and effective to direct our energies and finances towards finding such a permanent solution?

I know I said I wouldn't contribute to the discussion anymore but I am interested in reading what both sides have to say about these questions. Feel free to add questions, I tried not to make them too "leading" but I know they are and reflect some of my thoughts on the subject, so feel free to add reasonable questions of your own to the pile as long as they are not too inflammatory.

[ScratchMonkey]

I'd +rep you if I could, Ghost. You've pretty much captured my concerns.

[AMosely]

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

Indeed. But how do you decide which side is the "side of caution" here? Is it the side of Man, or the side of the Planet? Is it cautious to sacrifice benefits we know we can obtain for benefits that are uncertain?

I think that ideally it is all of the above - that what benefits the Earth also benefits mankind. The challenge of today, though, it is the things that harm both mankind and the planet - if the only benefit is economic (cheap and/or profitable activities) and the activity of producing or consuming has harmful side effects, the process should be carefully questioned. Humans can be even more wasteful though, and for worse reasons. Fountains in the desert that consume vast amounts of water through evaporation, green-lawned subdivisions in Las Vegas, clear-cutting and burning of vast tracts of forest - these are inherently wasteful and self-destructive activities, yet we continue to do them.

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

Can the global economy work its way out of the problem on its own? ie. An innovation that would change things so substantially that it would basically stop global warming in it's tracks in terms of greenhouse gases? ie. A carbon free/pollution free renewable energy source.

Would it not be more expedient and effective to direct our energies and finances towards finding such a permanent solution?

Yes. Add government sponsored regulation, complete with penalties, rewards and subsidies.

Take nanosolar technology - here's something that could be in the roofing material of millions of buildings. Imagine what would happen if the government got behind the production and purchase of these kinds of materials. Imagine if big-box stores and other buildings with 100,000+ square-foot roofs produced thousands of extra kilowatt-hours of electricity? If electricity became cheap enough through surplus, how many millions of homes could stop using propane and oil to fuel their furnaces? Oil and gas consumption would drop - emissions from the burning of these fuels would drop. This is the future, and it would come much sooner if governments such as the U.S. were less dependent on money from oil and gas companies.

[ScratchMonkey]

What's the cost of nanosolar? Toxicity of construction? Lifetime of the converters?

The danger of getting the government involved is that it distorts true costs. This is already a big problem with health care, and that distortion already exists in the energy industry. We should work to reduce that distortion, not exacerbate it.

[GlobalWarmin]

I think I have a stalker now...



Lucky, don't forget:

- One news story from any non political source where a major science group claims the IPCC assessment is incorrect and motivated by politics.

- A claim by one major science organization that rejects the idea of global warming.

- Proof that there are even articles appearing in any major news sources that confirm any claims made against the IPCC or the reality of global warming.

- Proof of one news story where a science organization reversed their position on global warming because of slightly different GISS data from NASA.

- Proof that either Livescience (and all of their partners CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, NASA, NOAA...), The Weather Channel, PBS (and all affiliates like Earth and Sky), Christian Science Monitor, Scientific American, Union of Concerned Scientists, NY Times, Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, World Resources Institute, World Wildlife Fund, BBC, AAAS, EGU, AGU, Joint Science Academies of the World, American Meteorological Society, RealClimate.org, Fair.org, Science Journal, Climate Change Journal, USA Today, National Geographic and others are disreputable in the eyes of independent watchdog groups, science organizations, major news media, or journalists organizations.

[Lucky Shot]

Looks like you had a pretty solid history of earning negative rep. And yet, your back posting what earned you the negative rep in the first place.

[AMosely]

Global, you seriously need to do something about your rep! -77!

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

I think I have a stalker now...

And, hopefully, posting your rep like that should be good for a dozen or so more neg rep votes.

Perhaps you should rethink the way you present yourself and your ideas in the TG forums?

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by AMosely

Global, you seriously need to do something about your rep! -77!

Considering it's all from trying to hold zealots accountable for their misguided opinions about global warming, and for posting AP news stories, I think it's amusing. What's even more amusing is if you actually read the posts that the negative rep comes from.

[GhostintheShell]

Amosely, I agree with your intentions there with nanosolar, definitely a possiblity.

I agree that government development programs are famously cost bloated and slow, but I think we need to have government/public sponsorship of innovation in science and innovative new technologies as they emerge because if not they could be repressed or controlled too much by private corporations. Microsoft vs. Open source anyone?

Imagine a scenario wherein a private corporation comes up with the penultimate solution to our power needs (and that pesky global warming issue) yet holds us at ransom with it to make the most profit...the worst case is to have that emerging technology locked in an oil corp vault somewhere until oil stocks are more expensive and depleted and some kind of planned obsolescence of oil is "manufactured" in order to maximize someone's profits.

[GhostintheShell]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

Considering it's all from trying to hold zealots accountable for their misguided opinions about global warming, and for posting AP news stories, I think it's amusing. What's even more amusing is if you actually read the posts that the negative rep comes from.

Zealots...misguided??? Whoa there! I'm a firm believer that you reap what you sow in this place, if you had some respect for the other members viewpoints in this thread you probably wouldn't be receiving negative rep.

I don't agree with much of what you and some other GW proponents post but I respect your opinion and your postings and actually read most of what is posted in case I come across something that may actually change my personal opinions. That's simply respecting your fellow TG member, the minimum requirement we have here in the sandbox.

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

Zealots...misguided??? Whoa there! I'm a firm believer that you reap what you sow in this place, if you had some respect for the other members viewpoints in this thread you probably wouldn't be receiving negative rep.

I don't agree with much of what you and some other GW proponents post but I respect your opinion and your postings and actually read most of what is posted in case I come across something that may actually change my personal opinions. That's simply respecting your fellow TG member, the minimum requirement we have here in the sandbox.

I'm using similar language that so-called global warming skeptics here use repeatedly to describe people like myself on purpose.

Feel free to disagree with my "opinions" about global warming, because they aren't really my opinions: They're the findings of scientist and journalists. I don't have any real opinions about the topic, because I'm not a climate scientist doing research right now.

Respect should be the minimum requirement. I was given negative rep. for the 5th time by Lucky, because I shared an article from the AP about the weather in 2007 I think critical thinking and accountability should be the minimum requirements, something that is sorely lacking from those who are so sure they know more about the climate than those who study it for a living.

[Tonk]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

I think critical thinking and accountability should be the minimum requirements, something that is sorely lacking from those who are so sure they know more about the climate than those who study it for a living.

why should accountability be a minimum requirement when we are only sharing our opinions about the topic of the thread? everyone is only throwing their 2cents into the conversation

if what you seek solely is accountability from 'those who study it for a living' join the TWC forums or something

[ikonic]

So I heard on the news that a new Solar Cycle is underway that happens about every 200 years -- this cycle is a "Solar Low", where the Sun's heat / energy will be diminished and will peak/occur in the year 2020, NOAA spaceforecasters predict extremely cool global temperatures (then again, EARTH forecasters cant predict tomorrows weather worth a darn...)

So, lets keep burning those fossil fuels and cutting down the Amazon to keep us warm, darn it! Ikonic wants all Mahogany dressers and tables!