Save the environment! ... From what?

[guy07]

Yup yup. Another discussion thread on yet another controversial topic. This time:

Climate change

Personally, I'm 50/50 on this topic. I never fully believe anything these days.
To sum it up, temperatures are rising globally, animals are dying and half the solid surface of earth is going to be covered in water possibly within our lifetime.
Now, scientists are trying to convince everyone that this is due to human activity resulting in too much carbon in our atmosphere. Interesting thing is, the climate is always changing.
If I remember correctly back when dinosaurs were at their largest, as were plants, carbon levels were WWAAYY higher than they are today, as were temperatures, but there were no humans to be blamed back then. Plants grown larger when there is more carbon monoxide present, resulting in more being consumed by the plants. Think of it like getting fatter with the more food you're given. Plants adjust to the carbon levels in the atmosphere to even things out.
The sun doesn't always give off the same amount of heat, sometimes it flares up and heats temperatures on earth, which is what could be going on now. Also, natural occurrences such as volcanoes give off more pollution than some cities when they erupt. Animals such as cows give off methane, which poisons the atmosphere if levels raise too high. So it's not like driving SUVs and coal plants are the only things that could be a possible cause for global warming. And lets not forget that we used to have coal powered everything, it's even possible that pollution levels were higher 100 years ago when everyone used burning wood to heat their houses.
From my point of view it seems at though somebody is doing a lot of fear mongering, but why? I'll point out a few more facts.
Al Gore made a movie to warn everyone about what's going on. And you had to pay money to see it. If you want to see him live, pay up 5,000 bucks. If this could possibly kill billions, wouldn't it be pretty damn sinful to make money off warning people? "You're all going to die! Give me money." Sound familial? No? Go to church some time, you'll figure it out. Less and less westerners are religious and they got to find one way or another to keep us fearing for our lives don't they? God forbid we be free to live our lives the way we want. Carbon tax? Get fucking real. : /
The world will flood because the ice caps will melt! Well, shortly after that the world will be cooler again. Water reflects light/heat given off from the sun while solid lands absorbs it, so the more water there is the cooler the temp on earth will be. It won't be the end of the world as they would like you to think, more like hitting the reset button. Maybe a few species will go extinct, but this has happened many times over. You don't see any raptors around, do you? Some species will survive, including humans. It's going to take a hell of a lot to wipe us out.
Or, everything I just said could be BS and we could really be running to our graves when we turn our TVs or go on a joy ride. There's no real way to know.
I'm not a big fan of glutton, I take what I need and not much more. But I won't judge others and call them bad people because they choose to drive a bigger vehicle or cut down some trees to feed their families.

Of course there are many arguments to make on this topic, but I'm tired of typing. So, discuss.

[seasons]

Plants grown larger when there is more carbon monoxide present

carbon monoxide?

And lets not forget that we used to have coal powered everything, it's even possible that pollution levels were higher 100 years ago when everyone used burning wood to heat their houses.

100 years ago the world's population was one-fourth of what it is today.

Al Gore made a movie to warn everyone about what's going on. And you had to pay money to see it. If you want to see him live, pay up 5,000 bucks. If this could possibly kill billions, wouldn't it be pretty damn sinful to make money off warning people? "You're all going to die! Give me money."

Because this scenario is so much more plausible than, get this, the possibility that he wanted to spread the word about an issue that he'd spent decades researching.

Water reflects light/heat given off from the sun while solid lands absorbs it, so the more water there is the cooler the temp on earth will be.

Water absorbs more heat than ice. The less ice on the planet, the more heat you've got. Having less land won't make up for this. And having more water means more vapor in the air, which warms the atmosphere and the surface even more.

But I won't judge others and call them bad people because they choose to drive a bigger vehicle or cut down some trees to feed their families.

This sort of implies that most environmentalists are assholes who do this shit all the time.

[godix]

To sum it up, temperatures are rising globally

False. Temps have pretty much stable over the last decade.

animals are dying

True but has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with man expanding into areas that were virgin nature (EG slash and burn agriculture in the Amazon).

half the solid surface of earth is going to be covered in water possibly within our lifetime.

False. http://flood.firetree.net/ Even if you set it for 14 meters, which is higher than almost anyone seriously predicts, the changes are fairly trivial on a global scale. On a local scale, well, Flordia is royally fucked. I'm not entirely sure that's a bad thing though.

Now, scientists are trying to convince everyone that this is due to human activity resulting in too much carbon in our atmosphere. Interesting thing is, the climate is always changing.

The argument isn't that the world's climate never changed, it's that this time it is mans activity causing it to change, it will be a change for the worse, and it's within our power to stop it. Saying the climate always changes doesn't address the actual arguments of global warming. Think of it this way, if your house is on fire how much comfort would you get if your neighbor goes 'Well, fires always happen. They happened long before man was around. Don't worry about this fire...'

Plants grown larger when there is more carbon monoxide present, resulting in more being consumed by the plants. Think of it like getting fatter with the more food you're given. Plants adjust to the carbon levels in the atmosphere to even things out.

Astoundingly, you actually managed to get one piece of information in all of this which is mostly accurate. Although a good argument could be made that with farmlands, cities, etc. that man won't let plants expand enough to adjust. Still, research has shown that biomass is on the increase worldwide and IIRC the Sahara desert has actually shrunk for the first time in recorded history because of expanded plant growth (I might be wrong on the Sahara, it's been awhile since I read that article so who knows how accurately I remembered it).

The sun doesn't always give off the same amount of heat, sometimes it flares up and heats temperatures on earth, which is what could be going on now.

It could be going on now, but a glance at any recent solar science will show that it isn't. Actually the sun has been unusually calm for awhile. I've heard valid arguments that this may explain the ten year trend of stabilized temps. I've also heard valid arguments that this is why warming occurred at all (odd as it sounds, an active sun = cooling by those theories. The 3rd grade science explanation of it is that active sun increases clouds, clouds reflect radiation, less radiation hits earth, so less warming occurs)

Also, natural occurrences such as volcanoes give off more pollution than some cities when they erupt.

True, but volcanoes don't run 24/7 worldwide. Volcanoes also cause global cooling, not global warming. Wiki krakatoa, I'm sure it'll have a line or two about it's effect on global temps back in the 80's.

Animals such as cows give off methane, which poisons the atmosphere if levels raise too high.

So absurd only a moron could claim it. Come on, this is one of those strawman arguments republican talk radio freaks put out. At least stick with real science.

And lets not forget that we used to have coal powered everything, it's even possible that pollution levels were higher 100 years ago when everyone used burning wood to heat their houses.

Have you ever even glanced at pretty much any chart showing the recent history of CO2? Hint: cars put out a *LOT* more pollution than coal plants. Another hint: most power plants worldwide currently are coal.



Something you should know, I'm a global warming skeptic. I basically agree with you, although for not the reasons you give. If someone who argrees with you can find this many faults in your argument, imagine what a believer could do to your 'logic'.

[Kionon]

Something you should know, I'm a global warming skeptic. I basically agree with you, although for not the reasons you give. If someone who argrees with you can find this many faults in your argument, imagine what a believer could do to your 'logic'.

Well played, sir.

After I read the first post, or more accurately during, I was thinking about responding in many of the ways godix did. Then I see he already has done it. Godix can attest I am a believer in global climate change, and as a philosopher, I am also someone trained in logic.

From now on, I think I'll just let godix do the heavy lifting. Besides, he uses much more colorful and amusing language than I do, I would bore people with terms like "warrant" and "epistemic justification" and "axiom."

[Garylisk]

I'll say 2 things.

1. I am a global warming skeptic, but I believe in climate change. (2 different things, people get them confused.)

2. The whole Al Gore thing, and the "green" movement, and the whole carbon tax and buying carbon credits thing, that's total crap. These mad geniuses are making big bank off guilty people. I agree with what you say about similarity to religion. You are made to believe that you should be guilty for your sins, which are defined to you very clearly, and that you should pay for these sins. If there's one thing people can't seem to get enough of, it's being guilted and trying to make up for their guilt to feel better. Problem is, they should probably not have felt so bad in the first place.

That was a lot of words for 2 things, but I swear, it WAS 2 things.

[Kionon]

I'll say 2 things.

1. I am a global warming skeptic, but I believe in climate change. (2 different things, people get them confused.)

The idea here is that there is a global change in climate, it is man made, it is negative, and it can be stopped. Whether it is uniformly warming or not is immaterial.

2. The whole Al Gore thing, and the "green" movement, and the whole carbon tax and buying carbon credits thing, that's total crap. These mad geniuses are making big bank off guilty people. I agree with what you say about similarity to religion. You are made to believe that you should be guilty for your sins, which are defined to you very clearly, and that you should pay for these sins. If there's one thing people can't seem to get enough of, it's being guilted and trying to make up for their guilt to feel better. Problem is, they should probably not have felt so bad in the first place.

Al Gore and those he works with are already wealthy and top of their fields. They personally are not "banking," and frankly do not need to, but as a matter of fact, they are showing ways in which climate change prevention is profitable. Although the text is quite dense, and reflects more the Al Gore of fact-spewing debates with George W. Bush for the presidency than it does the Al Gore of Oscar Fame, Our Choice is a very organised and regimented tour through the types of technology that are not only "green," but also can make (despite China, India, and Brazil moving past the US at record speeds in production of carbon dioxide, it is these same countries that have invested in the increase in green energy methods, and we are awfully slow on the uptake) lots of money for lots of US investors and US firms. Recycling beer cans and newspapers isn't going to save us, but pure old fashioned greed and American ingenuity just might.

[godix]

I'll say 2 things.

1. I am a global warming skeptic, but I believe in climate change. (2 different things, people get them confused.)

The idea here is that there is a global change in climate, it is man made, it is negative, and it can be stopped. Whether it is uniformly warming or not is immaterial.

I think you're missing the point. Global warming is the shorthand name for what you describe, man is causing the climate to change on a global scale. Climate change is simply climate change, it implies nothing more than the climate changes. The worldwide dip in temps after Krakatoa blew up is proof of climate change, but it has nothing at all to do with man. Garylisk is free to correct me if I'm misinterpreting him, but I think that's what he was going after. It's certainly where my beliefs fall. Climate change clearly happens, has always happened, and will probably always will happen until the day the sun dies out. Now if mankind is causing global climate change currently, that's the part I question.

they are showing ways in which climate change prevention is profitable.

Actually, given the usual proposals that are given for combating climate change, it is NOT profitable for any except a select few. If it were profitable, people would do it without government intervention. Instead the ideas floating around are for the government to drive up the costs of coal using power plants through artificially imposed limits on CO2. At the same time, there are proposals (and a few relatively minor existing programs) to drive down the cost of alternative energy via artificial means of subsidies. If you look at the real cost of large scale power production without factoring in artificial government interference then coal is by far the cheapest energy source we have. Nuclear is semi-expensive but still within reason if the country really wanted to go that way. Wind, solar, geothermal, etc. are all so expensive that there is no way they could be called economical on a large scale.

Now other environmental ideas, mostly to do with energy efficiency, are good and economical ideas. Encouraging people to buy cars instead of SUVs would save people money. Having energy efficiency in mind when designing new buildings does save money over the long run. Even the various programs to limit consumer electronics energy use are generally good economics from a consumer point of view. Notice that all of these are done by the marketplace already. When gas spiked to $4 a gallon SUVs sales died. Buildings are designed for efficiency these days. There are products and a market for them that cover low energy consumer electronics. If something is REALLY profitable then the government doesn't need to get involved. Although, as always, they've still poked their noses in these areas anyway.

Personally I wish Al Gore and his followers would get their head out of their ass and start talking about other benefits to their ideas. Encouraging greater MPH out of SUVs would help by extending our limited oil supply as well as cut down on pollution such as smog which has clear and direct health issues. It would also reduce CO2 emissions, but that's more of a side benefit rather than the main reason we should do it. Energy efficiency does help in that it means less coal would need to be burned. Again, it extends a limited resource and lowers pollution. Again, CO2 would be reduced as a side benefit. City designers should encourage mass transit more, and again because of extending limited resources and lowering pollution instead of CO2. If environmentalist would focus on what we should do instead of why it should be done then they wouldn't come off as such dicks. These are issues where environmentalist SHOULD open their arms and welcome me because we agree on what needs to be done. Instead I'm constantly bombarded with crap science, scare tactics, and frequently just insults because I have different reasons for thinking it should be done than they do. After watching how environmentalists act, I've become convinced they don't really want to save the world. They want to convert it.

[Kionon]

Now if mankind is causing global climate change currently, that's the part I question.

He explicitly stated "people sometimes get them confused." So I was explaining, when I say global climate change, I mean man-made global climate change, and went on to define in no uncertain terms what that means. Just so we would all be on the same page.

As for the rest, well, I disagree, research I have done suggests otherwise, and while I could counter, honestly. I don't begin to care to. I finally finished my philosophy graduate writing sample I started almost two years ago, and my willingness to research, quote, and cite even for academically credited arguments is quite low. For an internet forum? Fuck that.

[kenisama]

To quote Futurama... I await this...

This snow is beautiful. I'm glad global warming never happened.

Actually, it did. But thank God nuclear winter cancelled it out.

[Garylisk]

Garylisk is free to correct me if I'm misinterpreting him

You're not. You are spot on.

He explicitly stated "people sometimes get them confused."

Yeah, my bad for not expanding on the statement. I figured the meaning could be inferred easily enough, as godix did. I refuse to make statements about science as if they were fact when I am unsure of them, so to say that mankind is causing climate change is beyond what I am willing to say.

And also, admittedly, I know Al Gore is a name that brings out fire in people who believe in his work and movement, but I used him as an example anyway. I could have named anyone in the movement, though, but no one as recognizable. And when I say people are making bank, I don't even just mean him, but to say that he's not, or doesn't want to seems a little wrong. I can't believe that profit isn't the #1 desire for most of the people at the head of it. Who knows, maybe it's just me. (Well, ok, I know I am not the only one who thinks that, but anyone is free to disagree.)