# At what point will the Global Warming Debate be resolved?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [March 20, 2013, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473 "2013-03-20T17:52:36Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 4
### Author:  [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2013, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/61 "2013-03-28T04:38:00Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> Fighting with yourself then seems to be the end game 🙂
>
> Repeating the point that you are using just comparing single steps in the upward escalator (That in context demonstrated that you were wrong, so at least I have to grant you points for finally learning something) does not make it sound like a smart point.
You said rates, I gave you rates, give me a time frame that you find acceptable.
The old escalator thing from SkS, which is their classic masturbatory screed, only works if the other guy actually says somehting like that.
Time frame, please.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2013, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/62 "2013-03-28T05:32:33Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> You said rates, I gave you rates, give me a time frame that you find acceptable.
> The old escalator thing from SkS, which is their classic masturbatory screed, only works if the other guy actually says somehting like that.
> Time frame, please.
Please, your points depend on ignoring the big picture. As mentioned, you are indeed just fighting with yourself.
---
### Author:  [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2013, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/63 "2013-03-28T17:50:47Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> Please, your points depend on ignoring the big picture. As mentioned, you are indeed just fighting with yourself.
What, no SkS quote?
---
### Author:  [@johnpost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnpost)
#### Post date: [May 16, 2013, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/64 "2013-05-16T17:22:19Z")
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
[http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article](http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article)
---
### Author:  [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)
#### Post date: [May 16, 2013, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/65 "2013-05-16T18:58:05Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> My position on AGW is clear. My points are in red.
>
> - A dramatic rise in sea level. Global warming will cause a continuing sea level rise of an uncertain amount. The IPCC reports a range of 9 – 88 cm (3.5 – 34.6 inches) up to 2100, but further contributions are possible from glacier and ice sheet discharge from Greenland and Antarctica. This small rise would cause significant disruption to coastal communities. If the whole Greenland ice sheet melted this would lead to a global rise of 7 m (23 ft). Sea level rise has not changed in the last 200 years. The melting of the whole Greenland ice sheet is impossible
Addressed by previous posters.
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> - More active weather systems. More energy in the atmosphere will lead to more active weather systems, with more frequent and more violent storms. If the last 100 years are any proof, it is false. aggregated cyclone enegry has been flat for decades.
Accumulated Cyclone Energy [ACE] is not the only measure of activity in weather systems or frequency/violence of storms. The [observed rise in extreme weather events](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-3-3.html) is evidence that we **are** seeing more active weather systems (and as noted in [this link](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Accumulated-Cyclone-Energy.html), that is not inconsistent with the lack of detected global warming signal in ACE).
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> - Disturbed rainfall patterns. Rainfall patterns will be significantly disrupted, with floods in some places and droughts in others. No evidence of major rain pattern changes in the last 100 years
[Yes, there is.](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-8-2-2.html) Of course, you can handwave it away by claiming that the change observed so far doesn’t count as “major”, but it is statistically significant. The increase in droughts is particularly salient.
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> - Acidification of the oceans. Carbon dioxide dissolves in water by reacting to make H2CO3 - carbonic acid, causing great damage to fish stocks and coral reefs. Note this is not a consequence of warming: it is a consequence of the forcing agent, CO2. To make matters worse, this acidification appears to have been an important factor in the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event — the most severe extinction Earth has ever known — and possibly every extinction other than the Cretaceous.[14] No important effect have been shown so far.
Again, this depends on how you choose to define “important”. If you mean that we haven’t yet undergone an AGW-related extinction event on the scale of the Permian-Triassic one, you’re right. If you’re trying to claim that there is no significant acidification of the oceans underway, [you’re wrong](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/acidity.html).
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> - Tipping points/feedback loops. Multiple possibilities here. As glaciers disappear, the planet will not reflect as much solar radiation back into space, leading to more warming. When northern permafrost melts, the organic material will decompose and release methane, again leading to more warming. As the oceans warm, their ability to dissolve carbon dioxide decreases, and if ever reach a certain temperature, the methane stored under pressure on the seafloor will vaporize, leading to (you guessed it) more warming. tpping points cannot exist in any reasonable temp rise. temperatures and CO2 have been higher and no tipping point was reached.
Yes, there [have been tipping point episodes](http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/climate-change-tipping-point-55-million-year-old-lessons/) of sudden greenhouse-gas increases and rapid warming in the past.
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> - Spread of tropical diseases. As northern latitudes become warmer, vectors that spread tropical diseases (such as mosquitoes or other organisms) will begin to encroach into new areas. Even with the last 100 years of warming this hasn’t been shown to be true.
Yes it has, although disease-vector expansion is still small compared to its predicted growth in the coming decades. For instance, as [this article](http://www.ij-healthgeographics.com/content/7/1/24) notes, “Lyme disease is the commonest vector-borne zoonosis in the temperate world, and an emerging infectious disease in Canada due to expansion of the geographic range of the tick vector _Ixodes scapularis_.”
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> - Disruption of ocean currents. For example, the disruption of ocean currents could reduce the strength of the North Atlantic Drift that keeps Europe relatively warm for its latitude. “Could”, c’mon, they can do better than that. The drift is due mostly to the earths rotation. Salt concentration differences are minor.
Wrong again. The [tipping point event](http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=708) I mentioned above did have massive impact on ocean currents. The North Atlantic Drift is due largely to convection effects of ocean temperature and circulation, and not just to “the earth’s rotation”.
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> - Habitat loss or change faster than plants or animals can adapt. Mechanism such as species migration or changes in ecosystem boundaries often are slow, and in some cases could be slower than the speed of climate change. Some habitats may disappear completely: the loss of polar habitats will leave animals such as polar bears with no place to go. Polar bears have at least quadrupled their numbers in the last 40 years.
No, the alleged recent increase in polar bear populations is an [artefact of recent changes in survey methodology](http://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2012/04/09/scientist-responds-to-misleading-polar-bear-cov/185580). Climate-change-induced habitat loss remains a serious threat to populations of polar bears and others; habitat loss may impact [up to one-third of all animal species](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/13/animals-species-climate-change).
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> - Loss of mountain glaciers and snowpack exacerbating summer droughts. Glaciers and snowpack act as natural reservoirs, for example releasing water that had fallen as snow several months later when summer arrives and snow melts. The loss of this natural storage mechanism will lead to floods in winter and droughts in the summer. This hasn’t been shown to be true. More temprerature could also mean more rain is deposited in glaciers.
“More temperature could also mean more rain is deposited in glaciers”? What on earth does that even mean? Rain doesn’t get “deposited in glaciers”. If what you are clumsily trying to express is the fact that increased precipitation due to global warming causes **some** glaciers to grow instead of shrinking, that is true, but only for a small minority of them: [the net volume change of glaciers worldwide remains drastically negative](http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm).
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> Not all of these consequences are certain, and some may be mitigated. For example, whilst global warming might tend to promote the spread of tropical diseases, advances in medicine or control measures (insect spraying, swamp draining) could well counteract this, as has already happened during the industrial era for a number of previously common diseases.
>
> Equally though, there will probably be many unanticipated additional — probably negative — consequences. Or maybe longer growing seasons will increase production
Like the glaciers, doubtless **some** regions will benefit agriculturally from climate change. Again like the glaciers, though, [the current trends and longer-term predictions indicate that the _net_ effects worldwide are distinctly harmful rather than beneficial.](http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm)
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [May 16, 2013, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/66 "2013-05-16T19:07:05Z")
> [@desertmonk](#):
>
> **At what point will the Global Warming Debate be resolved?**
When a starving, heat-stroked polar bear eats the last denier.
---
### Author:  [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)
#### Post date: [May 18, 2013, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/67 "2013-05-18T00:47:31Z")
It seems to me the debate has shifted about what to do. At least; that’s the only debate that counts.
For most people, there is no direct effect of AGW proximate enough to warrant limiting one’s personal choices. Moreover, folks like me and Mr Gore are model archetypes of the typical response: “Let’s do Something collectively, but I personally intend to figure out how to not have that Something affect me personally.”
For this reason, I expect the debate about what to actually do to continue indefinitely, since most really effective measures would substantially affect lives for the average, non-wealthy, individual.
We are not inclined to sacrifice for the common good. We love Great Causes, but we also love our stuff. Unfortunately, the root cause of anthropogenic gases is Stuff and the Good Life, and we will not be willing to reduce consumption or lead lamer lives while we figger out how to make Stuff or have a Good Life with less environmental effect.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [May 18, 2013, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/68 "2013-05-18T01:00:06Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#):
>
> It seems to me the debate has shifted about what to do. At least; that’s the only debate that counts.
>
> For most people, there is no direct effect of AGW proximate enough to warrant limiting one’s personal choices. Moreover, folks like me and Mr Gore are model archetypes of the typical response: “Let’s do Something collectively, but I personally intend to figure out how to not have that Something affect me personally.”
>
> For this reason, I expect the debate about what to actually do to continue indefinitely, since most really effective measures would substantially affect lives for the average, non-wealthy, individual.
>
> We are not inclined to sacrifice for the common good. We love Great Causes, but we also love our stuff. Unfortunately, the root cause of anthropogenic gases is Stuff and the Good Life, and we will not be willing to reduce consumption or lead lamer lives while we figger out how to make Stuff or have a Good Life with less environmental effect.
Nope, you love just repeating Godwin like arguments, that is repeating points that actually discredit your say so’s.
> **[Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?](https://skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm)**
>
> \While there are minor errors in An Inconvenient Truth, the main truths presented - evidence to show mankind is causing global warming and its various impacts is consistent with peer reviewed science.\
> [@](#):
>
> Note: the vilification of Al Gore is best understood in the context of personalisation. When opponents attack something abstract - like science - the public may not associate with the argument. By giving a name and a face and a set of behavioural characteristics - being a rich politician, for example - it is easy to create a fictional enemy through inference and association. Al Gore is a successful politician who presented a film, his training and experience suitable to the task. To invoke Gore is a way to obfuscate about climate science, for which Gore has neither responsibility, claim nor blame
---
### Author:  [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)
#### Post date: [May 18, 2013, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/69 "2013-05-18T01:28:30Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> Nope, you love just repeating Godwin like arguments, that is repeating points that actually discredit your say so’s.
>
> [Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?](http://www.skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm)
I’m not positive what your point is, but I think you are saying I am vilifying Al Gore instead of agreeing that AGW is a problem…
I leave it to others to decide if Mr Gore should be “vilified.” He (and I) are archetypes for folks who do not allow their personal lives to be disrupted the way that a Ghandi-esque phiilosophy would require when it comes to AGW. To wit: I must be the change I want to see in the world. Why, I’m looking at new golf clubs right now.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [May 18, 2013, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/70 "2013-05-18T01:35:21Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#):
>
> I’m not positive what your point is, but I think you are saying I am vilifying Al Gore instead of agreeing that AGW is a problem…
>
> I leave it to others to decide if Mr Gore should be “vilified.” He (and I) are archetypes for folks who do not allow their personal lives to be disrupted the way that a Ghandi-esque phiilosophy would require when it comes to AGW. To wit: I must be the change I want to see in the world.
Like if sarcasm and previous posting history could be ignored, others already know. Even conservative scientists know that Gore is more reliable than denialist FUD points.
> **[“Why Don’t You Bash Al Gore?”](https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/why-dont-you-bash-al-gore/)**
>
> Since I took the plunge and started publicly criticizing certain climate change contrarians, notably certain Utah politicians and Christopher Monckton, people on the other side of the fence have of…
---
### Author:  [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)
#### Post date: [May 18, 2013, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/71 "2013-05-18T02:07:33Z")
GIGObuster:
Perhaps I am confused, but it seems to me you think that criticizing Mr Gore for not being the change he wants to see in the world is tantamount to denying AGW science.
If so, why would you think that?
Could one accept the science and simultaneously be critical of our collective personal inaction, holding up Mr Gore as a typical example of how we as individuals have no intention of personally suffering for the sake of the common good?
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [May 18, 2013, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/72 "2013-05-18T02:25:38Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#):
>
> GIGObuster:
>
> Perhaps I am confused, but it seems to me you think that criticizing Mr Gore for not being the change he wants to see in the world is tantamount to denying AGW science.
>
> If so, why would you think that?
>
> Could one accept the science and simultaneously be critical of our collective personal inaction, holding up Mr Gore as a typical example of how we as individuals have no intention of personally suffering for the sake of the common good?
More transparent one can not be, once again the idea is to personalize the issue, and indeed it is like a Godwin, it just shows a lack of any original ideas to deal with the issue. But contrarians still think it is a point that it can still fly (on this message board? Yeah, right). What many can see is that some still think that it is ok to discredit the subject by continue to remind people about Gore’s ideas on how to deal with the issue, when as pointed many times before:
“To invoke Gore is a way to obfuscate about climate science, for which Gore has neither responsibility, claim nor blame”
It has to be pointed out that not all experts think that just the ideas of Gore on carbon neutrality are the only ones that should be considered.
---
### Author:  [@Enuma\_Elish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enuma_Elish)
#### Post date: [May 18, 2013, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/73 "2013-05-18T03:18:22Z")
The OP asked a question about **Global Warming**. This is a very one-sided question. Some of the responses alluded to **Climate Change**. This is a not a response that agrees with the OP, though some would have it so.
What are we arguing here: **Global Warming** or **Climate Change**?
Also - anyone who brings the Bible into this conversation, other than a memory of what has possibly happened before - please state if you are claiming a religious stance, or if you are claiming that ancient sources may have had a possibly accurate description (handed down through the ages) of previous climate history.
---
### Author:  [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)
#### Post date: [May 18, 2013, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/74 "2013-05-18T12:44:48Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> More transparent one can not be, once again the idea is to personalize the issue, and indeed it is like a Godwin, it just shows a lack of any original ideas to deal with the issue. But contrarians still think it is a point that it can still fly (on this message board? Yeah, right). What many can see is that some still think that it is ok to discredit the subject by continue to remind people about Gore’s ideas on how to deal with the issue, when as pointed many times before:
>
> “To invoke Gore is a way to obfuscate about climate science, for which Gore has neither responsibility, claim nor blame”
>
> It has to be pointed out that not all experts think that just the ideas of Gore on carbon neutrality are the only ones that should be considered.
I swear I’m trying to figure out your point here.
You are correct that I have no original ideas on what to do. Nor do I even have any idea what to do based on assimilation of ideas from others.
Once again, I’m not invoking Mr Gore as a way to “obfuscate about climate science.” I am invoking him as an archetype for why nothing substantive is going to happen.
At an individual level, none of us are going to sacrifice for the common good. Not lifestyle; not money; not time.
Yet there are no large-scale solutions that will not involve sacrifices along those lines.
Are there?
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [May 18, 2013, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/75 "2013-05-18T14:58:03Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#):
>
> I swear I’m trying to figure out your point here.
>
> You are correct that I have no original ideas on what to do. Nor do I even have any idea what to do based on assimilation of ideas from others.
>
> Once again, I’m not invoking Mr Gore as a way to “obfuscate about climate science.”
Just stop there, it is indeed the lack of ideas that is leading you to the embarrassing use of a clutch like Gore for cheap shots that anyone can see is being used only to avoid confronting the issue in good faith. Specially when **you never mention what specifically is what Gore proposes** , that is a big bit of evidence that demonstrates that bringing Gore into the discussion has only been made to \*\*also \*\*dismiss the solutions that he proposes. (it is indeed a misrepresentation to claim that he is not proposing solutions or not doing any efforts to become carbon neutral)
Not expecting that you are completely aware of what Gore is proposing or doing, as usual I post for the others that would think that your points here have a leg to stand on.
> **[FACT CHECK: Al Gore's Home Energy Use](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/al-gores-energy-use/)**
>
> Al Gore's home uses twenty times as much energy as the average American home?
> [@](#):
>
> Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, pointed out that both Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home and she argued that “the bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And what Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint and take steps to reduce and offset it.”
>
> A carbon footprint is a calculation of the CO2 fossil fuel emissions each person is responsible for, either directly because of his or her transportation and energy consumption or indirectly because of the manufacture and eventual breakdown of products he or she uses.
>
> The vice president has done that, Kreider argues, and the family tries to offset that carbon footprint by purchasing their power through the local Green Power Switch program generated through renewable resources such as solar, wind, and methane gas, which create less waste and pollution. “In addition, they are in the midst of installing solar panels on their home, which will enable them to use less power,” Kreider added. “They also use compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency measures and then they purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero.”
To get better ideas, the ones with less prejudging in their minds should read sources like Skeptical Science and [Realclimate.org](http://Realclimate.org) where real scientists contribute and tell others about what science is reporting on this issue, because most of the mainstream media many times gets it wrong, and denier sources many times manage to corrupt what the science actually says.
---
### Author:  [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)
#### Post date: [May 19, 2013, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/76 "2013-05-19T22:21:38Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#):
>
> I swear I’m trying to figure out your point here.
>
> You are correct that I have no original ideas on what to do. Nor do I even have any idea what to do based on assimilation of ideas from others.
>
> Once again, I’m not invoking Mr Gore as a way to “obfuscate about climate science.” I am invoking him as an archetype for why nothing substantive is going to happen.
>
> At an individual level, none of us are going to sacrifice for the common good. Not lifestyle; not money; not time.
>
> Yet there are no large-scale solutions that will not involve sacrifices along those lines.
>
> Are there?
Don’t you get it?
Agreeing 99.3% with him is like denying that humans produce CO2 or that the sun has spots.
It’s either total agreement or you’re a heretic and actually desire to see melting glaciers.
---
### Author:  [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)
#### Post date: [May 20, 2013, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/77 "2013-05-20T00:05:45Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> Just stop there, it is indeed the lack of ideas that is leading you to the embarrassing use of a clutch like Gore for cheap shots that anyone can see is being used only to avoid confronting the issue in good faith. Specially when **you never mention what specifically is what Gore proposes** , that is a big bit of evidence that demonstrates that bringing Gore into the discussion has only been made to \*\*also \*\*dismiss the solutions that he proposes. (it is indeed a misrepresentation to claim that he is not proposing solutions or not doing any efforts to become carbon neutral)
>
> Not expecting that you are completely aware of what Gore is proposing or doing, as usual I post for the others that would think that your points here have a leg to stand on.
>
> [Al Gore's Home Energy Use | Snopes.com](http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp)
> To get better ideas, the ones with less prejudging in their minds should read sources like Skeptical Science and [Realclimate.org](http://Realclimate.org) where real scientists contribute and tell others about what science is reporting on this issue, because most of the mainstream media many times gets it wrong, and denier sources many times manage to corrupt what the science actually says.
See, here’s my problem.
If I understand the above post, the idea is that we “reduce” our carbon footprint. So if I’m a Tanzania with a footprint of 300 pounds, and Al is a jetsetter with a footprint of 100 tons, we should both step up to the bar and reduce our footprint.
This is a little like saying the fat guy living on 10,000 calories a day should cut his consumption, and the starving Ethiopian living on 500 calories a day should also cut his consumption, because there’s a food crisis.
I find this unreasonable, narcissitic, and unlikely to produce any broadscale diminution in carbon footprints. We wealthy are going to buy our way out of any personal sacrifice, and the poor are going to try to catch up to our consumption.
What are your suggestions, based on your own passion and expertise for the topic?
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [May 20, 2013, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/78 "2013-05-20T01:44:26Z")
Not the point here, the point remains that you were not aware of it.
And “we should both step up to the bar” ‘and do the same level of effort’ is not the point of being carbon neutral, that is again a misrepresentation of what Gore or many others are saying, currently the developing nations are not forced to “step to the bar” as you are saying, they have more flexibility, but that does not mean that they would follow the same paths as the developed nations, once again, dealing with the problem does not mean being forced to not develop, nor does it mean that they should follow the same way to develop as the USA did:
> **[Mexican Climate Legislation and Other Hopeful News](https://skepticalscience.com/mexico-climate-legislation-hope.html)**
>
> In the wake of a lot of bad climate-related news, like the lack of progress at the Doha international climate conference, the World Bank Report finding that we're on track for 4°C global surface warming by 2100 and PricewaterhouseCoopers suggesting...
> [@](#):
>
> In the wake of a lot of bad climate-related news, like the lack of progress at the Doha international climate conference, the World Bank Report finding that we’re on track for 4°C global surface warming by 2100 and PricewaterhouseCoopers suggesting we may be headed for 6°C, both of these scenarios spelling climate catastrophe, it may be useful to look at some good news to keep a ray of climate hope alive.
>
> For example, in an important bit of news which somewhat flew under the radar, Mexico passed comprehensive climate legislation in April 2012. Some important components of the bill include:
>
> A mandate to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 30% below business-as-usual levels by 2020, and by 50% below 2000 levels by 2050.
>
> A stipulation that 35% of the country’s electricity should come from renewable sources by 2024.
>
> Mandatory emissions reporting by the country’s largest polluters.
>
> Establishment of a climate change commission to oversee implementation of the bill.
>
> Encouragement to develop a carbon-trading scheme.
>
> The legislation passed with bipartisan support, with a vote of 128-10 in the lower house, and unanimous support in the Mexican Senate (78-0), putting the political climate partisanship in the USA to shame.
> [@](#):
>
> The political will exists in the countries and localities listed above. Now we need to keep expanding the will, demanding that the USA follow California’s example, that Canada follow British Colubia and Québec’s example, and that nations worldwide arrive at a new agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol. Although we’re running out of time, it’s not yet too late to avert a climate crisis. As Al Gore recently argued,
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > “Changes like this [climate policy] don’t occur in a linear way. The potential for change builds up, unmanifested, until it reaches a critical mass. You don’t always see it coming. There are plenty of examples of that. I believe we’re seeing just that kind of movement just beneath the surface here in the U.S…I’m not saying we’re right on the tipping point. I know better than that. But neither do I think it’s accurate to say that we’re stuck in neutral…a lot of countries around the world are looking at their hold cards, they’re looking at the damage, and it is now translating into a set of commitments that are meaningful and will continue.”
---
### Author:  [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)
#### Post date: [May 20, 2013, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/79 "2013-05-20T11:19:49Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> Not the point here, the point remains that you were not aware of it.
>
> And “we should both step up to the bar” ‘and do the same level of effort’ is not the point of being carbon neutral, that is again a misrepresentation of what Gore or many others are saying, currently the developing nations are not forced to “step to the bar” as you are saying, they have more flexibility, but that does not mean that they would follow the same paths as the developed nations, once again, dealing with the problem does not mean being forced to not develop, nor does it mean that they should follow the same way to develop as the USA did:
>
> [Mexican Climate Legislation and Other Hopeful News](http://www.skepticalscience.com/mexico-climate-legislation-hope.html)
But those Mexico solutions you present are precisely the kind of thing I have a problem with…
They are “solutions” that mandate goals, but they are not solutions that actually execute those goals.
What I’m looking for is your notion of what to actually do.
If I weigh 300 pounds, I might create a mandate for myself to only weigh 250 pounds within two years. I might insist upon reporting my weight and progress. I might sign an agreement to stop weighing so much. I might stipulate that GIGObuster should check on my progress.
None of those things are actually approaches to losing weight, and none of them require me to do something today since the time limit is so distant and the sanction for failure so vague.
That’s why people are fat and that’s why humanity’s carbon footprint will not be reduced.
What does GIGObuster think he should do today personally, and what should the US do today?
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [May 20, 2013, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/80 "2013-05-20T13:43:40Z")
It is clear that even when told about the specific links it is too tough for a few to look at them as they do want to remain ignorant. As it is clear that in reality some like the Chief are ignorant about what they claim to “follow” are doing.
Not posting for him for others, Personally one has to read good sources and follow the advice. But there is something even more important, as it has been demonstrated, the inaction at high levels by the USA is happening because currently there are many deniers in congress, as the blind can not lead the blind it is very important to work at local levels to ensure that people that will follow what is needed will be elected.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473.md?page=3)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473.md?page=5)