Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Global Warming & Statistics
tomos:
I'm disappointed to see this moved to the basement jesse :tellme:
I thought it was all quite civil (if very direct)
tomos:
The tone of most skeptics' delivery is guaranteed to alienate the majority
-tomos (February 03, 2013, 01:03 PM)
--- End quote ---
That's true. But on the other hand, Al Gore has admitted that he's willing to exaggerate the arguments if that's what it takes to make his point. When (at least) one side of the debate (maybe both) is willing to engage in intellectual dishonesty in order to achieve their own ends, the chances of reaching the best outcome is rather poor.
-CWuestefeld (February 03, 2013, 01:20 PM)
--- End quote ---
Absolutely!
What I said applies to both sides, but was directed at one side as it was responding to Ren who only chose to look at the flaws of the other side. I'm starting to sound like a tongue-twister here :-)
BTW, if Gore is exaggerating, at the end of the day he is giving the 'other' side ammunition. There's lots of ammunition that way on both sides - hence my campaign for neutral presentation of findings.
I still get stumped by the science (put it this way, I used be clearcut in what I believed - but now I *really* dont know what to believe). The dc thread Ren links to certainly persuaded me that what I believed (Global warming) is not to be taken for granted and that it's theories/projections are not proceeding according to plan. But I have to admit to being deeply suspicious of the vested interests on the other side. We all know how corporations work... But (again) I'm not well informed of what really could happen if Gore et al get their way(s).
Going back to your questions (the list), I guess the problem in relation with them is this:
with people coming down on one side or the other at a 'belief' level, they will have almost polar opposite responses. Which drags us back to the 'debate' of what-exactly-is-happening-here.
Here's an article I read this evening, it is *not* science but written by a scientist (I wasn't sure of his 'orientation' :P until reading it myself, so I'll not comment there). Anyways, it made me think a bit.
Defining Climate "Deniers" and "Skeptics"
(Edit/ I'm not saying I agree with all he says and I do find him a bit arrogant but still - he *did* make me think)
Tinman57:
While everyone else debates whether climate change is real or not, whether to call it climate change or global warming, whether it's caused by man or just a natural cycle, and everybody argues over statistics, people in the South Pacific (and other regions) are facing losing their ancestral lands, the only home they have ever known, their culture, their livelihoods, their language, their history, their communities...everything. They are being forced to find somewhere else to live.-app103 (February 02, 2013, 10:47 AM)
--- End quote ---
Whether it's humans global warming or nature's climate change, I don't see any country giving part of itself to the natives for a new home. Would you sign over your back yard so a family can move there to live? But that don't mean they're doomed to drown, there will be countries that will be more than willing to give them citizenship if or when that happens.
Somalia's people are, and have been starving for years during droughts, so what about them? Should we give them a state-sized chunk of land for free and say "Here you are, live long and prosper"? I don't think so, but the U.S. and other nations allow them to immigrate.
Cultures have been created and died a thousand times over on this rock we live on, usually from either disease, tectonic plate shifting and volcanic activities, but that don't necessarily mean it's the end of their culture, especially in these modern times.
It's not something that we can control, it's part of the never-ending changes of the Earth. We either adapt or perish.
CWuestefeld:
Would you sign over your back yard so a family can move there to live?
-Tinman57 (February 03, 2013, 06:32 PM)
--- End quote ---
Real estate really isn't the problem, there's more than ample room for everyone. Check my math, but by my calculation, if you divided the world's population of 7 billion into families of four, and gave them each 1/4 acre to live on; then add on another 20% for infrastructure (roads, schools, stores, etc.), then the entire population of the earth would fit into an area the size of Greenland -- which, we're told, will be pretty comfortable next century ;) .
Damage to culture is still worth discussing, but that question cuts both ways: what's being asked is a significant change in the way of life for the industrialized "rich" nations. I'm sure those who already have an opinion on the outcome will all be able to find moral arguments supporting either side of that argument.
Here's an article I read this evening, it is *not* science but written by a scientist
-tomos (February 03, 2013, 01:55 PM)
--- End quote ---
I respect Brin, particularly as a SF writer. But he is squarely missing the mark in this essay -- again, in the same manner I've been complaining about. Although in his introduction he very briefly mentions costs and alternatives, his discussion never actually visits those topics. The entire essay is entirely devoted to whether someone should be considered an open-minded skeptic, or is a closet denier. But knowing what label to hang on a person doesn't get us any closer to deciding if any action needs to be taken, and if so, which one.
40hz:
without suffering dire consequences.
...
those who are polar bears mostly think it sucks
--- End quote ---
With all due respect, 40hz, your comment is exactly the kind of lack of debate I'm talking about. You seem to have jumped directly from a scientific observation about climate, to a determination that high-carbon-footprint industries must be reined in, without engaging in any kind of cost-benefit analysis
-CWuestefeld (February 03, 2013, 01:20 PM)
--- End quote ---
With all due respect, that is exactly what I was talking about when I said that those who most benefit from the current status quo have the least incentive to change it and inevitably insist on further "studies" and "impact analysis" before they will deem it "appropriate" or "responsible" to seriously consider change.
Here's a little thought experiment - try reversing the argument: If it is questionable that high-carbon-footprint industries are not a problem, then doesn't it logically follow that having even more of them would be both desirable and beneficial?
But even the most diehard anti-eco advocates aren't saying that. Because even they know it's a real problem. What they really want is to keep what's already theirs while at the same time restricting such industries from spreading further. That's what I call maintaining status quo.
The other problem with economic impact studies on this issue seldom reflect the full cost of pollution. And that's because the industries that cause it don't pay the full price for it. Much of the cost of pollution is subsidized by governments which largely deal with (and pay for) the health and environmental consequences.
It's often been argued that if industries were held accountable, and billed in full for the environmental damage they caused, it would be economically unfeasible for them to continue operating - and therefor need no further regulation.
Want to stop industrial pollution? Stop subsidizing it with tax dollars. 8)
you don't get any points toward winning the debate
--- End quote ---
Oh, that's ok. I'm not very competitive to begin with. And I certainly don't see any of this as being a contest. ;D
---------------------
And I see i just broke my own rule about not participating in the Basement because I didn't notice this discussion had been reassigned. Ok. I'll let stand what I've already posted - but I'm out. Steady on! :Thmbsup:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version