Apolitical thought on global warming

[Rob]

The way I see this is humans have added an unnatural chemistry to the earth. We have unlocked carbon from the globe (thats been harvested for millions of years) and effectively burnt it into the atmosphere for 200 years.

In a scientific way we must be seen as a catalyst that has no historical equivalent which could have disastrous consequences, ironically for us, as we seem to have very little motivation or will to adapt.

Sent from my GT-I9505

Agreed 100%. The disaster is for us.

How do we prove a contribution and set a logical target? How does science communicate tangible goals for politicians?

[thewalrus]

I haven't seen any logical findings that correlate human contribution to some quantity that can be targeted without throwing darts.

I agree with almost everything you say. I don't agree that there's undeniable evidence or it could be quantified how we make necessary changes. If it was quantified, we would have a level-headed approach to pursue on an international scale.

At this point, I want to believe that we have a contribution and that we can set targets for how to manage it and we all get to rejoice. I don't see how this can happen with the current scientific debate.

I honestly don't see a ton of scientific debate about global warming. And I certainly I've seen none whatsoever on the issue of ocean acidification. In fact aside from the continuous, urgent, calls from Oceanographic Institutiones - like Scripps, like WHOI - I see very little discussion about it at all.

In any case, however, the point still stands. There are risks to not proceeding to act against CO2 emissions, and there are risks associated with proceeding. These risks will always exist. You might think that, in the fullness of time, some pure consensus will emerge about causes and amounts, and remove some of the risks associated with the latter course of action. This is hardly definitive.

This isn't about science. It's about politics. It has to be - your best intentions at the start of the thread notwithstanding. Politics is about risk management. Science isn't. Science has the luxury of being able to wait until something resembling certaing emerges before acting - or commenting. Politics can't. It's entirely possible that if Global Warming and Ocean Acification is caused by humans we're already to late in changing the tide. It's also possible that we're able to catch it - if we act now - but if we wait we miss our opportunity. To my mind, your issue isn't with global warming, it's with the way the world works. But that isn't going to change.

[Bwana]

Agreed 100%. The disaster is for us.

How do we prove a contribution and set a logical target? How does science communicate tangible goals for politicians?

It's about the RATE of growing problems, the SPEED in which it's taking place...man is causing the snowball to grow exponentially. Politics are in play, half of the US political parties don't believe it even exists..and KNOW the bible & faith will fix it. If Romney gets in the 2016 mix, we won't hear about global warming for at least 4 years...which is why this can't be discussed intelligently without politics entering the venue

This effects the world, and our politicians have to have summits/meeting to come up with solutions...that won't happen.

[Statius]

The issue here is not winnable. One will never get the 100% proof one needs that global warming is anthropogenic and therefore one will argue that one never need to change anything about one's lifestyle, because why do something that might cost one money if one need NOT REALLY NEED to do it? Even the UN's IPCC report was "only" 95% certain GW was caused by humans. So those who are predisposed to not change will cling to that 5% "doubt".

[pepperami]

Agreed 100%. The disaster is for us.

How do we prove a contribution and set a logical target? How does science communicate tangible goals for politicians?

For starters you have to find a politician who can see beyond the next election.

The global economy is driven by growth and the use of more and more resources, unfortunately this will blind us all to the truth/science until it's too late.






Sent from my GT-I9505

[Bwana]

For starters you have to find a politician who can see beyond the next election.

The global economy is driven by growth and the use of more and more resources, unfortunately this will blind us all to the truth/science until it's too late.






Sent from my GT-I9505

100% correct

[BlackNomad]

As far as I'm concerned Global Warming was Al Gore's political and economical agenda after he lost election in 2000.

Quote from Wikipedia "An Inconvenient Truth":
"Critical reviews.
Several reviews criticized the film on scientific and political grounds. Journalist Ronald Bailey argued in the libertarian magazine Reason that although "Gore gets [the science] more right than wrong," he exaggerates the risks.^[61]MIT atmospheric physicist Richard S. Lindzen was vocally critical of the film, writing in a June 26, 2006 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that Gore was using a biased presentation to exploit the fears of the public for his own political gain."

If nine mechanics said your car needs a new alternator, would you listen to the tire salesman who told you to replace your tires?

This came from Arnold Schwarzenegger (the Governor at that time) in form of "If nine doctors told you,that you need a surgery..." I remember watching that on TV.
At that time (around 2000) it became politically correct to blame humanity for increase of average temperature on Earth, and politically incorrect to state the opposite.
I think it was just another political game, that let bunch of people with monies to make more monies.... That is my opinion. I also have another politically incorrect opinions on the matters of gender, race, LGBT, obesity, legalized gambling, legalized recreational drugs, religion, fast food, education, pop-culture, etc.
I guess these days war on terror is better selling item then climate change. Don't get me wrong: my heart goes to families, people who lost their loved ones to ruthless, cold-blooded terrorist attacks, and it makes me feel even worse to know, that for somebody it is a political game and the way to score some "points".

[Blanchy]

CO2 levels have almost directly related to temperature levels for millions of years I have graphs with this data but im on my phone right now.

As for quantifying reduced emissions this is very easy (when you know what your doing) and is done regularly in showing the reduction in CO2 emissions in sustainable communities. You can grow your economy and reduce emissions at the same time, Ireland has saved €1 billion over 5 years by using renewable energy as opposed to fossil fuels.

Yes the ice caps have melted numerous times before and would have again but the speed of the current melt is down to human interaction.

[tribe125]

As far as I'm concerned Global Warming was Al Gore's political and economical agenda after he lost election in 2000.

And outside North America, where the actions of Al Gore were of little consequence, the scientific community and population at large were, as coolly and as rationally as possible, working things out for themselves.

This thread will be closed if it takes on a political hue.

[Spooky]

Doubt it.