Anyone else have a problem getting worked up about global warming?

[Otara]

“Why is it hard to believe that if we put our mind to it and INTENTIONALLY attempted to affect the global CO2 level that it would be so hard to reverse?”

Because the problem gets a lot harder to undo the longer we leave it.

Reducing CO2 isnt too tricky in that it mostly involves social engineering - putting ice back on antarctica would be a lot harder.

Otara

[chorpler]

@bordelond

OK, so here’s the thing – there was concern in the very recent past (mid 1970s) that the Earth was going through global cooling. So what are our data here – a few decades of cooling followed by a few decades of (geologically rapid?) warming? And we have no way of distinguishing man-made effects from natural geological fluctuations, right (IOW, any experiments we can conceive of have no control)?

Actually, the whole global cooling thing is false. Scientists, as opposed to the popular press, were basically saying “We don’t know enough to predict what will happen with the climate” in the 1970s. Now our models are a bit better.

Here’s a good post by jshore talking about it. That whole thread is good.

[Grossbottom]

@BrainGlutton

Who in the world are you talking about?! That description doesn’t apply even to the Green Party!

Then why have a Green Party, if not to pursue political goals that are consonant with the Green ideal? What other purpose does such an organization serve but to garner support for plans and initiatives that the majority of the country does not currently support?

My earlier post admittedly may have indulged in some amount of hyperbole. But it would be naive to believe that a certain stripe of environmentalist does not favor forcing compliance with their beliefs via legislation and international agreement. See the supporters of the Kyoto Protocol. It is apparent to me that if an further successes were to be realized against industry, that more expectations for compliance from the general populace would be forthcoming.

I also think that Leaper’s recent OP does an excellent job of summarizing my own observations of a certain element of the environmental movement, and I would not hesitate to extend those beyond Peak Oilers: Apocalyptic Peak Oilers: "the liberal equivalent of Left Behind"? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board.

[Squink]

@Grossbottom

Then why have a Green Party, if not to pursue political goals that are consonant with the Green ideal?

We need a green party in order to prop up otherwise unelectable senate candidates who are dismissive of anthropogenic warming.

[BrainGlutton]

@Grossbottom

Then why have a Green Party, if not to pursue political goals that are consonant with the Green ideal?

It does, but you are mistaken in characterizing that ideal as “Luddite.” The Greens are not technophobes or frame-breakers. They want us to use our technology more wisely and with greater care for its environmental impact, but they value the benefits of technology as much as anybody. They don’t want us to go back to a 19th Century agrarian society with horse-drawn plows. The Third Key Value, “Ecological Wisdom,” says only:

Human societies must operate with the understanding that we are part of nature, not separate from nature.
We must maintain an ecological balance and live within the ecological and resource limits of our communities and our planet. We support a sustainable society which utilizes resources in such a way that future generations will benefit and not suffer from the practices of our generation. To this end we must practice agriculture which replenishes the soil; move to an energy efficient economy; and live in ways that respect the integrity of natural systems.

See their platform and tell me what you consider “Luddite” about it.