" think I see where the O.P. is going… to paraphrase: Why are people ignoring that the earth is heating up, especially since many scientists believe that we’re the ones making it happen?"
That’s a better phrasing of the question than I came up with. People are so eager these days to cloak their opinions in a mantle of scientific respectability, that the actual reasons they have for holding an opinion can be hard to discern.
The groups that are more concerned with getting enough food, those who prefer to live with their heads in the sand, and those who think this is all just another “chicken little” type scare are easy to understand. What’s harder to grasp is the rationale behind the loud and at least quasi-informed denial of even the possibility that human induced global warming could be a problem.
If we look at the responses to several large scale yet unlikely threats:
1 When confronted with the remote possibility of asteroid strikes, resources get allocated to finding and watching rocks in near earth orbit.
2 When someone claims that Iraq or Korea might be able to produce a nuke that could reach the US within the next decade or so, we start considering a half trillion dollar missile defense system.
3 When evidence appears that indicates half of Florida may well disappear beneath a rising sea within the next hundred years, it is treated as a “fringy” sort of non-issue ?
The response to the possibility of global warming stands out as atypical.
The vehemence of that response suggests that there is a strong motivation to NOT accept the possibility of anthropogenic warming. So, science aside, what are those reasons ?
DDG:
[QUOTE]
It’s not a “faith” thing. It’s a “science” thing. Again, who HAVE you been talking to?
[/QOUTE]
It’s only a science thing among those who read and understand the science and are willing to debate it on just the scientific merits. Sad as it may be , my wife’s aunt isn’t a scientist, nor are many of the people who post opinions on the SDMBs. This doesn’t prevent them from having opinions, it just makes figuring out why they have the opinions they do a bit harder.
I am running at 50% in this thread, aren’t I? I apologize. Perhaps I am grumpy today.
Sigh, that’s why I provided links to scientific journals, ** not ** to popular media.
I would encourage a review of the data, above all the policy paper which includes some nice, easily understood graphical representation of trends. There is ** not ** a question that there ** is ** global warming. The actual questions are in re how to deal with it in re human action, if at all.
(The global cooling thing from the 1970s was in response to a real cooling trend which broke out. Of note is that we did not have long term data that we now do to properly contextualize this.)
Gets on mine too. To be fair, my post was easy to misinterpret, especially w/o my having much of a track record here.
True. If I felt that the science informing the public policy debate on global warming was somehow off-track, and wanted to have a say in changing it, I’d damn well better get out there with my own published research.
You were; I repeated my point to make sure I got it across.
morons are incurable. how do you protect yourself from their side effects?
Robert Anton Wilson invented the word STUPIDYNAMICS, it covers a lot of territory.
my property isn’t on a coast, so i’ll wait and see what global warming does. haven’t decided when i’ll start stockpiling food tho. need another 10,000 rounds of ammo.
Squink, I don’t know if we can catalogue them all, primarily because there’s no way to ascertain why folks think the way they do. As you point out with your missile defense and asteroid avoidance programs, people are irrational in what they perceive to be real threats.
Global warming has been politically categorized as an environmental issue. If recast as a public safety issue, a human health issue, or national security issue (God forbid the missile silos get flooded! We’ve got to DO something!) perhaps we’d get a different response from Fred and Ethel.
Perhaps because of a confusion of which this might be an example.
“Global warming” is not the same thing as “anthropogenic global warming leading to invariably negative results and which can be combatted only by immediate and draconian actions taken by intellectual elites armed with totalitarian powers”.
The current best estimate is that all volcanoes combined produce about 110 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, while humans produce about 10 billion tons per year. The other major greenhouse gas contributed by volcanoes is sulfur dioxide, which is converted to sulfuric acid aresols, which have a cooling effect.
Piddling? The lowest estimate I’ve read, on an anti-warming site, is that humans contribute “only” 3% of the carbon dioxide per year. Three percent is not an insignificant number, especially when you consider the destruction of rainforests and other carbon sinks. It’s not just a matter of emissions increases, sequestration decreases are also important.
Regarding the OP, I think some people view this as a kind of “apocalypse-of-the-week” type issue that will blow over when enough contrary evidence is found. I can understand this given past scientific predictions that have been way off base. But the evidence for Global Warming has been steadily mounting for a good two decades now, from a variety of fields. And the tools available to scientists are much more sophisticated now than 30 years ago.
I think there are also plenty of people who are simply sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting “it’s not true! It’s not true!” Like creationists, these people – more often then not – tend to be pretty ignorant of basic science, and twist what little they know to support their contention that this is just another “enviro nutcase topic”. They remember one cute statistic they heard from Rush that “proves” any observable warming is caused by the sun, and that’s enough for them. I should say I don’tthink anyone on this board falls into this latter category, but enough people in the U.S. do to make me worried.
Why set science aside? Scientific thought is one of the reasons why it is not given as much attention as the other issues you listed.
We KNOW that eventually countries like Iraq and Korea will have the technology to launch a missile over here, unless something is done to stop their weapons development. This has happened before. This is a REAL problem that we understand well.
We KNOW that the Earth will be struck by asteroids and/or comets in the future. We know that it has happened before, and if it happened it would be a global catastrophe. This too is a REAL problem that we understand well.
We do NOT know that mankind’s production of greenhouse gasses is having a significant effect on the climate, in fact we aren’t even in agreement that the world is getting warmer, or that temperature changes that are observed aren’t just a natural cycle. We know that past cases of global warming that led to the melting of the ice caps really happened, and we know that they had causes totally unrelated to mankind. Some experts believe that man is a significant contributor to global warming, many are undecided, and many disagree, and this is not a political disagreement, it’s just typical scientific disagreement over an unproven hypothesis.
I’m sure that if it was proven that man was causing global warming, and that global warming would be a bad thing for us, and that we could stop it, we would. Until that time, I don’t think it’s wise to start taking expensive preemptive measures to prevent a problem that may or may not be real. Reacting now is not the same as the case of the government reacting to the risk of an asteroid strike, as everyone agrees asteroids can hit the Earth. It would be more like the government spending money on a defense system to protect us from alien invaders. Yes, it is possible aliens might invade the Earth, but on the other hand there might not be any aliens at all, or they might all be friendly. If somebody proved that there were aliens and they wanted to conquer the Earth, then we would be justified in trying to protect ourselves from that.
Anyway, global warming could very well be a good thing for humanity. There’s a lot of land that could be producing food but isn’t because it’s too cold, and a small change in the average temperature could drastically change our climate in other ways that might actually be beneficial.
The chemicals that cause air pollution (O[SUB]3[/SUB], CO, SO[SUB]2[/SUB], NO[SUB]2[/SUB], and various photochemically-reactive incomplete combustion products) are not the same chemicals that are alleged to cause global warming (CO[SUB]2[/SUB] and CH[SUB]4[/SUB]). In fact, a perfectly-tuned non-polluting automobile engine would put out nothing but CO[SUB]2[/SUB] and H[SUB]2[/SUB]O.
Collounsbury mentioned the distinction between “air pollution” and “greenhouse gases” earlier in this thread, but it bears repeating. (You don’t want to fall into the same category as those eco-alarmists who confuse global warming with ozone-layer depletion, either. )
A couple points. We also know that the earth’s climate has changed dramatically in the past, and that this has been a catastrophe at least for some species. So, setting aside whether the causes are human or natural, climate change is also a potential threat. Agreed? There may be some positive aspects to warming, as you state. But will these offset the negative impacts? Doubtful, I think.
Also, one can assign probabilities to global warming scenarios. Taking a very conservative approach, let’s say there is a 50% chance the earth really is warming and will continue to warm in this century if nothing is done. Now let’s say there is 20% chance that this warming will have catastrophic effects on humanity by the end of this century. 50% times 20% = 10%. This risk is much higher than the danger posed by asteroids, even using very conservative estimates. (The threat of a catastrophic astroid strike this century is approximately .000001%)
I don’t know whether your figures are right or wrong, but they seem inconsistent with your concluson. Bear in mind that we could not eliminate human CO2, but could only only reduce it by some percentage.
E.g., suppose that we succeeded in making a 20% reduction in human-contributed CO2 worldwide. Using your figures, that would reduce total CO2 by 20% of 3% = 0.6%. In other words, the CO2 level would be at 99.4% of where it would have been in the absence of human CO2-reduction activities.
Err, the threat of a civilization-destroying impact per century is roughly .03%. My earlier number (which should have been .0001%) was for an extinction-level event. Mea culpa. But I stand by my point that the risks from global warming appear to be much greater than the danger posed by asteroids.
**“Also, one can assign probabilities to global warming scenarios. Taking a very conservative approach, let’s say there is a 50% chance the earth really is warming and will continue to warm in this century if nothing is done. Now let’s say there is 20% chance that this warming will have catastrophic effects on humanity by the end of this century. 50% times 20% = 10%. This risk is much higher than the danger posed by asteroids, even using very conservative estimates.”
**
Ace makes a good argument for not ignoring global warming (although his/her probabilities are quite controversial.) However, the proper action must also depend on cost and the likelihood of success.
Suppose that a huge CO2 reduction has only 1 chance in 100 or 1 in 1000 of avoiding disaster, and suppose it would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Then, it would be better to do more research before using up so much resource for something that’s so unlikely to solve the problem.
Fortunately, the potential disaster is a hundred years away, so we have some time to make sure that our global warming remedy is truly effective.
I do get very cross when I think people have not followed up my citations.
I would question this assertion. Rather the contrary.
Eh, feh. Well this is another discussion.
Badtz, you know how agitated I get when I feel that people are not following up. Your comments strongly suggest that you have not reviewed the evidence to the contrary which I have just somewhat laboriously collected and proferred.
Statements like this are what lead me to this feeling. The world is ** clearly ** getting warmer. Denial of fact is not helpful. The real controversy lies elsewhere.
And this also suggests you did not bother to address my citations.
As I suggested, although I invite people to check the bona fides through the citations provided, consensus runs towards a declaration that your statements above are factually unsupported, that is false.
However, I readily admit I am not as well-read in this as I should be. If anyone has substantive corrections I welcome them.
I believe your placement of “some” and “many” are misplaced.
Again, please review the citations.
Well, that really depends. Firstly the problem is “proof” – the nature of the problem does not lend itself to clear proofs, but rather best guesses given this is a chaotic and large system and that there are a large number of variables.
I will comment below on the negatives.
I can partially agree here. Partially. I believe the evidence is clear the problem is real. That is not in question. However, I will also agree that expensive pre-emptive measures have to be justified, and since the processes are not well-understood, nor the dynamics of the various gases, Kyoto protocol style solutions are not appropriate.
As I mention below, proper responses may in fact be beneficial (e.g. pressure towards increased energy efficiency is likely, if done in the proper market-oreinted context, to lead to long term gains.). I sympathize with a reluctance to jump in bed with Greenpeace. On the other hand, denial is no good either.
No, I disagree, this is a matter of an easily visualized, easily understood problem but one of staggerlying small liklihood. Goes to emotion and simple responses. Climate change is very complex, not easy to understand and frankly not terribly emotional (and when done so, produces inappropriate responses per Kyoto IMHO).
No, it will not be. Uhuh. We’re abstracting away from a whole bunch of very nasty transition costs in grasping at this little straw.
Not bloody likely, you have to abstract away a lot of things to get to this such as extinction events as rapid climate change stresses systems, flooding/salt inundation of productive lowlands, instability in rainfall and decline in long term productivity based on this, soil stress, expansion of disease zones…
Just because it gets warmer doesn’t mean better nor does it mean “cold lands” will in near term be productive as lands stressed through desertification/drought.
Now, in re good old mother nature, the long term, don’t matter much. Planet fine. Human systems, short term – change imposes real costs. Possible benefits in some areas and clear elevated risks.
Of course there is no stopping it, so there question is really in re mitigation. But let me combine this with a comment to another poster:
Errr, not sure what you are getting at here Akatsumi in re the first part of your clause, for I read you as poopooing the seriousness of global warming as a risk.
Given present understanding, global warming is not likely to be positive in aggregate effects. Accepted effects such as rise in sea levels and increased climatic instability all impose costs.
Further climatic shifts perceived as marginally positive are anything but, increased warmth, perhaps growing season, also means ecological shifts (fine for mother nature in the long run, rather costly for ole humans in the short run) and expansion of tropical disease zones, increased risk of drought…
All in all I would say that reasonable efforts to mitigate global warming should be taken. Insofar as some of this might put pressure for increased energy efficiency, they could be economic positives in the medium run. I do have serious issues with Kyoto, because it uses inappropriate mechanisms and focuses on one gas w/o very much flexibility. However, that does not mean that global warming is something which only wooly headed enviros should be concerned about. It is a serious issue and it is a negative, although one which can be mitigated.
Well, leaving other issues aside (for the moment), let us deal with one thing off the bat, which I have too often seen weaselled around by those who style themselves “environmentalists”.
Whilst even GISS and CRU disagree on the exact magnitude, we can accept that the world is growing warmer. That is merely a measurement (putting to one side the question of what we’re measuring and how). Even the MRU data shows some warming.
Now, let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that the net effects of that warming will be negative. Let us also suppose that the anthropogenic forcings are not the main cause of the warming.
Given that scenario, do you (and, of course, the rest of the Teeming Thousands posting to this thread) support taking action to combat global warming (which, in such a case, may not be limited to reducing anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases)?
You’re saying that if global warming isn’t our fault, and the world is warming up anyway, all by itself, because we’re in the tail end of the last Ice Age, and maybe it’s not normal for a planet to have polar ice caps, that maybe we should “take steps” to make the world stop warming up?
Er, why? Do we have some kind of Mission from God to make sure Miami Beach doesn’t disappear under 4 feet of water? Is it important to keep the Corn Belt in the Corn Belt, instead of up by Great Slave Lake?
And, er, how? By artificially inducing a nuclear winter by pulverizing a few extra mountains? (Nobody would miss the Ozarks…) Does the phrase “tugging on Superman’s cape” mean anything? How about “your arm’s too short to start terraforming now”? How about “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”? How about “don’t spit into the wind and shit where you eat by starting something you maybe can’t stop”? Hello, New Ice Age!
Disclaimer, this is written on while pursuing my own alcohol based anti-bilharzia treatment program. Some thought processes may be lost in the process.
Well, I’m not clear here. You wish to suppose a counter-factual that anthropogenic influences are not “the main cause of global warming”? – Main is a troublesome word here, a little too subjective for my pickled self. I am going to presume significant, meaning human influences are not significant.
Well, the answer is it depends on the degree to which one can effect positive change through greenhouse gases oriented policy. That remains a big if. I do hope that I have been quite clear throughout that I do not support blind change. However, I do support reasonable steps to address the data, which certainly include market-oriented, efficiency oriented steps to reduce emmissions. Insofar as other factors recommend the same policy (long term questions about fossil fuel use etc.) it strikes me as perfectly prudent and reasonable, * even if predictions and concensus models* are wrong.
However, I sense that I read you correctly, that you are poopooing the impact of global warming. I suggest that given the more solid data that one does not need to be a chicken little to be moderately concerned in the medium term and quite concerned for the long term.
Frankly, I don’t consider meself as an “environmentalist.” I consider myself as someone devoted to rationale use of resources for near and long term good. Of course self-image is often distorted so I am open to correction.
Summary, reasonable steps in the context of economical change seem to me to be highly recommended. Draconian Kyoto protocol changes, insofar as they may misconstrue both the proper targets and the methods to use are not.
Both of these links ask me for a username and password before I can access the articles. I don’t think they’re available for people who haven’t subscribed to the online versions of Nature and Science.
With all due respect to the scientists and the scientific evidence, which, as DDG points out, reads to the average layperson as “well, yes, we do think that there is global warming going on, except for those scientists over there who don’t, except that their work has now been discredited, and we can’t really agree on what we’re supposed to do about it,” I think that we’ve forgotten the all important “in my lifetime” argument.
Hmmm…let me see…
Asteroid striking earth and demolishing all life…yup, could happen in my lifetime, to me and my family.
Nuclear attack on U.S. causing death and devastation…yup, could happen in my lifetime.
Global warming causing personal destruction to me and my way of life in my lifetime? Nah, I don’t think so, and even the scientists don’t seem to think so.
I think attitudes toward the global warming issue have a lot more to do with how much personal impact they could have on individuals than with spiritual beliefs.
I know that I’m a lot more worried about things like hit-and-run drivers and airplane crashes, regardless of their likelihood, than about global warming, simply because the first two are things that could easily take me out.
, my wife’s aunt isn’t a scientist, nor are many of the people who post opinions on the SDMBs. This doesn’t prevent them from having opinions, it just makes figuring out why they have the opinions they do a bit harder.
)