Banning the term climate change won’t stop the reality

[KEW]

You mean that Hollywood which is largely left leaning and into this whole oil is bad thing is going to lead the fight against rampant consumerism? Cage, Streisand, Spielberg, Lucas, Damon, Affleck, Paltrow, Pitt, Jolie, DiCaprio, Clooney, etc. are going to lead the way? No more 100K+ gift bags, no more multiple homes, heated pools, private jets, designer clothing, private chefs, multiple cars? Bush, Clinton, Gore, and soon Obama will downsize their lives? Maybe we can have the State control the means of production and consumption.

Where did that come from (Hollywood)? Will discontent with Hollywood or these specific people serve a useful purpose?
If your point is that many people tend not to want to voluntarily make individual sacrifices even when it is recognized to be for the greater good. Then I agree with you 100%.
This has been established time and again. Look no further than the guy who brought Ebola un-monitored into the country.
Unfortunately the inability of individuals to do what is right often does require the government to intervene.
Unfortunately, our government is largely corrupted (and I hope you are not so naive as to believe the corruption is partisan). But, I should add, not nearly so corrupt as many.
It is a difficult situation anyway you look at it.

 

[Chu Gai]

Just providing an arbitrary ideological counterpoint to Koch, Kurt. And no, I don't think any one party is above corruption. If tomorrow we suddenly discovered a way to generate power both inexpensively and in a largely neutral fashion which could be implemented in a short time period, aside from the environmental benefits, I also see calamitous events. Areas of the world largely dependent on their ability to sell oil will find themselves in turmoil.

In a general sense, I agree with Haraldo that technology is going to be the means that will effectively address cost effective energy. As to what will address the continued increase in world population, I shudder to think what some rogue group is going to surreptitiously unleash one day.

 

[KEW]

As to what will address the continued increase in world population

Nature will do it, if people don't!

 

[TheWarrior]

Nature will do it, is doing it, regardless....

 

[Hobbit]

.... I also see calamitous events. Areas of the world largely dependent on their ability to sell oil will find themselves in turmoil.

.

LOL! Being today is tax day, isn't this a big reason why there is no tax reform? I believe there's close to a 1 million people in the tax preparation part of the industry alone generating $7-8 Billion. Most these people make over $60k/yr and are CPA's and programmers. There are actually very few lawyers.

Which party truly wants to put these people, and everyone else in the industry, out on the street? Lose precious PAC money? etc?! But touting reform while campaigning gets votes....

 

[herbu]

This has all been quite interesting. The FACT that both sides have experts producing credible data supporting their side tells me we don't really understand the truth of this issue.

The one thing we do know for certain is that liberals take the Democrat side, and conservatives take the Republican side... even on scientific issues. You can very easily read this thread and identify the political proclivity of contributors.

Fortunately, to my knowledge, this political bias has yet to invade our audio discussions. If that day comes, I wonder what shape the divisions will take. Liberals favor ribbon tweeters and conservatives favor domes? Ported vs sealed? Etc...?

 

[Hobbit]

This has all been quite interesting. The FACT that both sides have experts producing credible data supporting their side tells me we don't really understand the truth of this issue.

The one thing we do know for certain is that liberals take the Democrat side, and conservatives take the Republican side... even on scientific issues. You can very easily read this thread and identify the political proclivity of contributors.

Fortunately, to my knowledge, this political bias has yet to invade our audio discussions. If that day comes, I wonder what shape the divisions will take. Liberals favor ribbon tweeters and conservatives favor domes? Ported vs sealed? Etc...?

Can you point me to some data with plausible reasons why humans aren't the biggest factor in the current rate of climate change? If something was happening to cause global warming at the rate we're seeing it, we would surely be able to easily measure it and correlate/plot this cause to the effect; like what's been done with green house gasses. Is the sun putting out more energy? A volcano? Something spouting out CO2? Is it coming from the core of the earth? I guess I haven't heard an argument that trumps humans as the biggest cause.

We have the ability to measure small changes, and did, like measuring the temperatures rise after 9/11. This was just from planes being grounded and thus, not producing contrails.

I'm open to real science and don't buy into believing what the political party I MOSTLY agree with says! On a personal level I'm deeply concerned how we've gone from being centrists, people a little the right or left, who are trying to do the best for the country, to being completely polarized with no in between and no compromise.

 

[Chu Gai]

Let's say that humans are responsible for 100% of the reasons due to fossil fuel consumption, animal farts because we like meat, and deforestation. I think that pretty much covers the usual suspectss. Now let's say we've got 25, 50, 100 years to enact measures that reverses the warming so that the earth returns to some kind of state that it was pre-industrial revolution.

What's it going to cost? How will we pay for it? Who is we? What services that government currently provides will have to be eliminated- military, drug prevention, public assistance, disaster relief, funding and research to deal with killer asteroids, stc.?

 

[KEW]

Let's say that humans are responsible for 100% of the reasons due to fossil fuel consumption, animal farts because we like meat, and deforestation. I think that pretty much covers the usual suspectss. Now let's say we've got 25, 50, 100 years to enact measures that reverses the warming so that the earth returns to some kind of state that it was pre-industrial revolution.

What's it going to cost? How will we pay for it? Who is we? What services that government currently provides will have to be eliminated- military, drug prevention, public assistance, disaster relief, funding and research to deal with killer asteroids, stc.?

IOW, bend over and say "Whee!", cause there's no turning back.
Unfortunately, you make a good point.

Com' on, New Technology! Daddy needs a new pair of shoes world!

 

[herbu]

Can you point me to some data with plausible reasons why humans aren't the biggest factor in the current rate of climate change?

Nope... for several reasons... and that's my point.

1. You already stated in an earlier post that there are scientists who disagree.

2. It seems to be a valid argument to discount anyone who has appeared on FOX news. (I wonder if the people who do that would completely discount my opinion on anything if I said some scientist was unreliable because he appeared on ABC/CBS/NBC? What if I made my living as an expert offering unbiased evaluations of certain products? Would they continue to trust my opinions? I would have to be very careful.)

3. You are correct that the "middle ground" seems to be disappearing.

This is a debate without an answer... especially here. Nobody here is an expert on the subject. And though even the experts don't agree, we have chosen sides. And in spite of occasionally feigning an open mind, no one here will be swayed by any argument of anyone else here.

If all this political bias does invade the audio world, I have an idea for a tshirt for liberals... LIBS 4 RIBS. (That's Ribbon Speakers, not the delicious food.)

 

[Hobbit]

Nope... for several reasons... and that's my point.

1. You already stated in an earlier post that there are scientists who disagree.

But I didn't state I heard a strong data based argument from them

It wasn't too long ago that we were using leaded gas, lead in paint, lead toys, etc. Climate change isn't any different from this. Both sides had scientists to back their cause. Yet, and just like today, many of the scientists touting the use of leaded gas were making broken arguments without good data; drawing a conclusion from part of the data. Oddly enough, most of these scientists were funded by industry.... that used lead. One of the main people who figured out how much lead there was in our environment had his funding cut.

I remember one person on Fox stating how could there be ozone depletion when Los Angeles has too much? The whole idea of a statement like this is to appeal to the ignorant and get people on your side. Divide and conquer if you will. To iterate what I said before, this is physics/chemistry 101, and a statement like that is plain irresponsible.

We can find a very small minority of scientists out there that can match our beliefs (yes, beliefs, not science). Therefore, should we ignore the overwhelming majority of scientists and should do nothing?

 

[gene]

Let's say that humans are responsible for 100% of the reasons due to fossil fuel consumption, animal farts because we like meat, and deforestation. I think that pretty much covers the usual suspectss. Now let's say we've got 25, 50, 100 years to enact measures that reverses the warming so that the earth returns to some kind of state that it was pre-industrial revolution.

What's it going to cost? How will we pay for it? Who is we? What services that government currently provides will have to be eliminated- military, drug prevention, public assistance, disaster relief, funding and research to deal with killer asteroids, stc.?

What is it going to cost if we do nothing? How will NYC or Miami cope with being under water? How will people living near coastal areas cope with losing their homes? IT will cost a lot if we do something meaningful, but I assure you it will cost more if we do nothing.

 

[gene]

This has all been quite interesting. The FACT that both sides have experts producing credible data supporting their side tells me we don't really understand the truth of this issue.

The one thing we do know for certain is that liberals take the Democrat side, and conservatives take the Republican side... even on scientific issues. You can very easily read this thread and identify the political proclivity of contributors.

Fortunately, to my knowledge, this political bias has yet to invade our audio discussions. If that day comes, I wonder what shape the divisions will take. Liberals favor ribbon tweeters and conservatives favor domes? Ported vs sealed? Etc...?

This has all been quite interesting. The FACT that both sides have experts producing credible data supporting their side tells me we don't really understand the truth of this issue.

The one thing we do know for certain is that liberals take the Democrat side, and conservatives take the Republican side... even on scientific issues. You can very easily read this thread and identify the political proclivity of contributors.

Fortunately, to my knowledge, this political bias has yet to invade our audio discussions. If that day comes, I wonder what shape the divisions will take. Liberals favor ribbon tweeters and conservatives favor domes? Ported vs sealed? Etc...?

You making a false equivalency. The skeptic side is NOT producing credible evidence. They are instead creating a circle of confusion. The Republicans are the same party that deny human evolution, climate change, etc. They produce nonsensical theories called Intelligent Design to push an agenda to reach religion in schools. They are the same party that declares "legitimate rape". Both sides are NOT correct in these cases.

A scientific consensus exists on manmade climate change just like it did with the correlation between smoking and increased cancer rates but that didn't stop the tobacco industry from producing "credible data" to refute it and create the circle of confusion decades ago.

While we all still wonder about manmade climate change, it's interesting to see studies like this:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-04-17/this-has-been-the-hottest-start-to-a-year-on-record
I suspect you won't get an argument from anyone living in California about manmade climate change as they are too busy wondering where they will get fresh water from in the next 5-10 years due to the worst droughts in modern history in that state.

 

[mtrycrafts]

... The skeptic side is NOT producing credible evidence. ....

That is one of the problem calling that side skeptics. They are not as they do not accept evidence per your other examples. They are just deniers of facts.
I think there is an interesting article about false title bestowed on the deniers with this in last issue of SI

 

[mtrycrafts]

What is it going to cost if we do nothing? How will NYC or Miami cope with being under water? How will people living near coastal areas cope with losing their homes? IT will cost a lot if we do something meaningful, but I assure you it will cost more if we do nothing.

Not to mention New Orleans

But then, correction costs will not show up in the next quarter profit loss statements which is very good.
Business doesn't look into the future like 25 years and the rest, governments, not much interested what happens in 50 or 100 years from now. Those leaders will be long dead by then and are not worried about consequences or loosing an election.

 

[mtrycrafts]

But I didn't state I heard a strong data based argument from them

It wasn't too long ago that we were using leaded gas, lead in paint, lead toys, etc. Climate change isn't any different from this. ...

It is in one respect, the effects of lead shows up in ones life pretty quickly. The effects of climate change, nowhere near in sigh in their lifetime. That is the problem.
And the guilty will certainly not stand trial.

 

[Chu Gai]

What is it going to cost if we do nothing? How will NYC or Miami cope with being under water? How will people living near coastal areas cope with losing their homes? IT will cost a lot if we do something meaningful, but I assure you it will cost more if we do nothing.

1) you're dodging the original question which is what it will cost to get the world's atmosphere to approximate what it was pre industrial revolution. If not then, then pick a time period that works for you. For the purposes of my reply, I'm going to side with you. There's an equation that more or less approximates what's been happening climate wise. Further, as you've stated, we have measurements, albeit indirectly, of temperature from core ice and other means. So, we should have the means to estimate how many metric tons of CO2 need to be removed. If cost in terms of dollars isn't available then what technologies do we need to replace enough fossil fuel? By we I mean the world.

2) NYC and Miami won't be under water for a while. Enough time to take proactive means. Let's say it's 50 years. Figure out what it will take in terms of construction and begin allocating the funds necessary to build whatever to keep the water out. If Qatar and China can create islands in relatively short order, you mean we can't?

3) people living near coastal areas should look to relocate. For those who have mansions and mega mansions, truck them. And let's put assurances aside one way or the other. There must be some non partisan group that can crank out some numbers.

 

[Chu Gai]

While we all still wonder about manmade climate change, it's interesting to see studies like this:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-04-17/this-has-been-the-hottest-start-to-a-year-on-record
I suspect you won't get an argument from anyone living in California about manmade climate change as they are too busy wondering where they will get fresh water from in the next 5-10 years due to the worst droughts in modern history in that state.

Well, that's not a study but a summation. Further, it's a summation that neglects to put a number on what the average global temperature is as well as the uncertainty for some confidence level, let's say two sigma.

California for who knows how many years has talked about constructing dams to meet their water needs but what have hp they done? Every time it rains, billions of gallons runs off. No plans to capture it. William Shatner proposed a plan to construct an above ground pipe from Oregon, which has enormous rainfall, to California. Estimated cost, 30 billion. So double it. We'll just forget the significant population increases.

 

[Chu Gai]

It is in one respect, the effects of lead shows up in ones life pretty quickly. The effects of climate change, nowhere near in sigh in their lifetime. That is the problem.
And the guilty will certainly not stand trial.

The Aesop story of the ant and ether grasshopper. But you're correct and plenty of studies indicate that the further away that something is, the less likely are we to look to do something about it. In Freakonomics, they argue that one reason the death penalty doesn't seem to act like a deterrent is because the walk down the green mile is 20+ years away. Now if it was 1 week, well...

 

[TheWarrior]

Its funny that debates like this occur on a site founded on science and research. Unfortunately it puts in clear perspective, it won't sell, if it does not sound good.

Trouble is, the planet is not actually for sale.