An Inconvenient Truth

[ZeTurd]

[ QUOTE ]
The evidence is there.

[/ QUOTE ]
That simply isn't true. You might argue that there's a high likelihood that recent global warming is man made, but that isn't the same thing. Carbon emissions correspond with temperature increases? Heard about correlation and causality? Anyway, I'm not even sure if that's right; I seem to remember reading somewhere that there were record high levels of CO2 during certain ice ages.

[ QUOTE ]
I guess the thing that really confuses me is even if we are not sure of the cause, why not try to do something to correct it? What could it hurt? The potential consequences alone make it worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's the ticket isn't it. I applaud individual efforts by people who want to contribute by being environmentally friendly. But what about businesses? How much are you willing to hurt our economy to maintain your "better safe than sorry" approach? What about third world countries or countries like India and China? Should their development be hindered by imposing reductions in carbon emissions? If not, should the west pay the economic cost for their environmental sins?

[John Kilduff]

There is a hidden reason all this concern about global warming may be misdirected. No, it is not what you are thinking. The reason is the following: as Middle East turmoils build and boil over, eventually nuclear war will likely come to pass. This will result in high amounts of dust in the atmosphere which will create a "nuclear winter" effect, although hopefully it will not be a full-blown nuclear winter, which could cause human extinction. The partial nuclear winter will reduce earth temperatures to the point that people will be praying for warmer times. The effects of global warming will be paltry compared to this effect. Google "nuclear winter" if you want to get an idea of what may be ahead for humanity as increasingly perilous times approach.

[John Feeney]

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody at least reasonably sane is questioning the "if" part. Global warming is happening. It's the cause, degree and potential consequences that's interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice, though, that they used to question the "if" part. Well, they didn't "question" it; they loudly and forcefully denied it. Not so much anymore. Score 1 for the working climate scientists not funded by Exxon et al., 0 for the mostly paid propagandists. (which includes some on that Wiki list)

Go back two or three years just in the forums here and you'll see posters insisting climate change wasn't happening at all. Now a few have shifted to the second stance, though some others haven't yet received the memo. (much less heard about the next memo, or read the Oreskes study) When you really think about it, the whole "skeptic" argument begins to collapse before your eyes.

[evil twin]

The evidence that the current trend of global warming is man made is very strong. Denying it just makes you look silly at this stage.

There's a thread in SMP about this at the moment, and as usual Wacki makes a series of excellent posts. SMP thread.

[eniven]

[ QUOTE ]

That's the ticket isn't it. I applaud individual efforts by people who want to contribute by being environmentally friendly. But what about businesses? How much are you willing to hurt our economy to maintain your "better safe than sorry" approach? What about third world countries or countries like India and China? Should their development be hindered by imposing reductions in carbon emissions? If not, should the west pay the economic cost for their environmental sins?

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect there is LOTS that businesses can do to reduce their carbon footprint all the while IMPROVING their bottom line. A few businesses are taking the lead and seeing tremendous results:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_And...(entrepreneur)

[spamalot]

Yes the idea that a we must choose between fiscal and environmental resposibility is a fallacy. Take for example hybrid cars. They do have a higher up front cost. But if everyone started to drive them, then the premium (difference between regular and hybrid) cost would go down. Not to mention, the decrease in demand for gasoline would cause the cost of gas to go down.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
The evidence is there.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. The only thing we have evidence for is that the planet has warmed over the last several decades, and the more decades you go, the worse that evidence gets. The idea that this is caused by man or that we're warmer now than we were a few hundred years ago has as much evidence against as supporting from what I've seen, and I've seen an awful lot. Most of the "evidence" of this type is ridiculously unscientific or statistically insignificant.

Of course, none of it really matters anyway. So long as "the air" is in "the commons", it is owned by everyone and should not be altered in any way that a reasonable portion of the population dislikes.

[The once and future king]

I found many of the points raised inconvientient so have chosen to ignore/dispute them.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the thing is, his "friends" just happen to be highly-knowledgeable scientists.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why not mention them?

[/ QUOTE ]

I just had to laugh here. It would seem you didn't watch the doc or pay attention. Seriously.

[claudenm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The evidence is there.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. The only thing we have evidence for is that the planet has warmed over the last several decades, and the more decades you go, the worse that evidence gets. The idea that this is caused by man or that we're warmer now than we were a few hundred years ago has as much evidence against as supporting from what I've seen, and I've seen an awful lot. Most of the "evidence" of this type is ridiculously unscientific or statistically insignificant.

Of course, none of it really matters anyway. So long as "the air" is in "the commons", it is owned by everyone and should not be altered in any way that a reasonable portion of the population dislikes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then you haven't seen enough evidence, or choose to ignore those that don't fit your point of view. What we have isn't just the fact that the earth has warmed over the past few years. We have the fact that the earth has warmed over the past few years AND the knowledge that chemicals we emit into the air create problems in our atmosphere AND that those chemicals exist in a volume higher than any in the past 500,000 years. So if you want to ignore strong causal relationships, be my guest. Perhaps you want to argue, like Hume that causation doesn't exist?