# Global warming "tipping point" - why I think we're inevitably gonna go over it... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 17, 2008, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-tipping-point-why-i-think-were-inevitably-gonna-go-over-it/473079 "2008-11-17T02:48:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-tipping-point-why-i-think-were-inevitably-gonna-go-over-it/473079/21 "2008-11-17T08:25:07Z")
If we’re doomed shouldn’t the glaciers in Alaska and around the world cooperate and melt instead of [growing larger](http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm)? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-tipping-point-why-i-think-were-inevitably-gonna-go-over-it/473079/22 "2008-11-17T09:40:25Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > 1. **Not enough people care.** > > There are still people who say “see, it’s cold; that means global warming must be a hoax!” Putting aside the question of whether “global warming” is a hoax, what do you expect when (some) warmists say “see, it’s warm; that means global warming must be real!”? > [@](#): > > Oh, well, the coral reefs were nice while they lasted… As far as I know, coral reefs have made it through periods where CO2 levels were much higher than they are now. So I suspect that your concerns are misplaced. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-tipping-point-why-i-think-were-inevitably-gonna-go-over-it/473079/23 "2008-11-17T09:40:48Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > If we’re doomed shouldn’t the glaciers in Alaska and around the world cooperate and melt instead of [growing larger](http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm)? [Greenland’s glaciers melting](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11385475/) [Kilimanjaro’s](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0923_030923_kilimanjaroglaciers.html) glacier melting [Alaska’s permafrost melting](http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2006-09-06-permafrost-warming_x.htm) [Siberian permafrost melting](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/aug/11/science.climatechange1) The latter two stories mention how the release of methane from the melting will greatly increase the greenhouse effect. And the site you linked to just screams fraud. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-tipping-point-why-i-think-were-inevitably-gonna-go-over-it/473079/24 "2008-11-17T10:11:10Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > “see, it’s warm; that means global warming must be real!”? Just to clarify, I’m not claiming that anyone actually said those words. Just that many warmists have cited very specific weather events, implicitly in support of their position. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-tipping-point-why-i-think-were-inevitably-gonna-go-over-it/473079/25 "2008-11-17T12:47:59Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Probably a middle ground esitmate. It’s quite possible that the tipping point is already past. > > Nonsense. Doing nothing will cost much more and cause more suffering. > > And that is another reason why nothing will be done, at least in America. The political power of the Rapture-seeking, Apocalypse loving fundies who want to see as big and as many disasters as possible, in hopes of the end of the world and their entrance into heaven. They are pro-global warming for the same reason they’ve been pro-deforestation and pro-nuclear war. If there was an incoming asteroid that we could deflect, they’d fight to let it hit. I’m a bit disappointed in you. For some reason I thought you were a conspiracy theory mocker and here you are coming up with one of your own. Assuming you aren’t kidding: 1. AGW is the collective result of individuals pursuing their self-interest over the common interest. The poster child for how to promote AGW is Al Gore (and I am sure you remember the assorted threads in which his personal consumption was documented and ridiculed by me and others) and not G W Bush (you might remember his home v Mr Gore’s). AGW is not the fundie in his trailer park. It’s me and my wife in our 4,000 sq foot home buying a new cappucino-maker cuz the old one has a rust spot, and replacing the carpet because it looks dated. It’s the Chinese peasant looking to buy Chinese goods to raise his own standard of living. If Africa gets its sorry act together the Tanzanians will be joining the party as fast as they can. Not even wealthy liberals fly coach if they can fly first or fly first if they can NetJet around. And the bus is still pretty much for the peasant class. 2. Fundies may love the idea of an apocalypse in general, but not Right Now. The Right Now crowd checked out at Jonestown. For the most part fundies are good with living one more day. That’s why they need guns to protect themselves against the gubmint. You credit them with too much faith. It’s probably true they don’t buy into AGW, but that doesn’t mean they are hoping to croak. 3. I am getting forgetful, but I guess remember hearing the Dems have the House, the Senate, the Presidency and probably most of the bureaucracy. There was even a recent thread on the board about propping up the nearly-dead Republican Party so that the Democrats would have at least a strawman. Political power? Alas, Mr Shirt: it appears your spleen still needs venting but the windmills against which you have been tilting have fallen over. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-tipping-point-why-i-think-were-inevitably-gonna-go-over-it/473079/26 "2008-11-17T14:14:08Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > 1. AGW is the collective result of individuals pursuing their self-interest over the common interest. The poster child for how to promote AGW is Al Gore (and I am sure you remember the assorted threads in which his personal consumption was documented and ridiculed by me and others) and not G W Bush (you might remember his home v Mr Gore’s). AGW is not the fundie in his trailer park. It’s me and my wife in our 4,000 sq foot home buying a new cappucino-maker cuz the old one has a rust spot, and replacing the carpet because it looks dated. It’s the Chinese peasant looking to buy Chinese goods to raise his own standard of living. If Africa gets its sorry act together the Tanzanians will be joining the party as fast as they can. Not even wealthy liberals fly coach if they can fly first or fly first if they can NetJet around. And the bus is still pretty much for the peasant class. I fail to see your point. Of course people do destructive things if not restrained; that’s a major reason governments exist at all. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > 1. Fundies may love the idea of an apocalypse in general, but not Right Now. The Right Now crowd checked out at Jonestown. For the most part fundies are good with living one more day. That’s why they need guns to protect themselves against the gubmint. You credit them with too much faith. It’s probably true they don’t buy into AGW, but that doesn’t mean they are hoping to croak. They don’t think they will; they think they’ll be Raptured. These are the same people who wanted a nuclear war with the USSR because they thought they’d be sucked into Heaven before the bombs hit. These are the people like James Watt who consider it their duty, since God gave stewardship of the Earth to Man, to use the Earth up to the last tree and blade of grass. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > 1. I am getting forgetful, but I guess remember hearing the Dems have the House, the Senate, the Presidency and probably most of the bureaucracy. There was even a recent thread on the board about propping up the nearly-dead Republican Party so that the Democrats would have at least a strawman. Political power? And ? The Right still controls the great majority of the media and the wealth of this country. And the Democrats are both spineless and not very far to the left of the Republicans. And all the Republicans have to to is stop the Democrats from accomplishing anything, which shouldn’t be too hard even if the Democrats actually try for once. ---
**Author:** ![chacoguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/50afbb/32.png) [@chacoguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chacoguy)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-tipping-point-why-i-think-were-inevitably-gonna-go-over-it/473079/27 "2008-11-17T16:03:42Z")
I was going door-to-door 20 years ago trying to get people to wake up about global warming. I’m now convinced that the only thing that will significantly slow global warming will be the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. I’m glad that I’m not younger. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-tipping-point-why-i-think-were-inevitably-gonna-go-over-it/473079/28 "2008-11-17T16:17:18Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > I fail to see your point. Of course people do destructive things if not restrained; that’s a major reason governments exist at all. It’s not a conspiracy of fundies. It’s everyone. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > They don’t think they will (croak); they think they’ll be Raptured. These are the same people who wanted a nuclear war with the USSR because they thought they’d be sucked into Heaven before the bombs hit. These are the people like James Watt who consider it their duty, since God gave stewardship of the Earth to Man, to use the Earth up to the last tree and blade of grass.. I got it that you have issues with fundies. They are apparently a convenient scapegoat for you with respect to AGW but they are not the problem. 6B people headed toward 9B people with most of them needed Stuff as soon as they can get their hands on it is the problem. Persuading all 6 (soon to be 9) billion that they need to personally sacrifice for the sake of Gaia is what ain’t gonna happen. It’s not James Watt. It’s Al Gore and the Tanzanians. And me. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And ? The Right still controls the great majority of the media and the wealth of this country. And the Democrats are both spineless and not very far to the left of the Republicans. And all the Republicans have to to is stop the Democrats from accomplishing anything, which shouldn’t be too hard even if the Democrats actually try for once. Okaaaay…did I mention your windmills have fallen? Enjoy ranting. I find it unpersuasive and counterproductive, though.. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-tipping-point-why-i-think-were-inevitably-gonna-go-over-it/473079/29 "2008-11-17T16:40:57Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > I suspect that if we were serious about it, we could cut that projection down significantly, and still raise that _average_ standard of living for the world. Of course _our own_ standard of living would drop, and that is why I’m also not extremely confident (like the OP) that we’ll have much success. > > However, if we are smart enough to follow some of the things that **Chronos** pointed out, we may make it. How much energy is wasted shipping crap from china? take the recent melamine contaminated food: we 9in the USA) were shipping wheat to China-to be made into gluten, whcih was added to dog food made in the USA! The Chinese helped by adding melamine to the gluten. So all this energy to ship stuff twice around the world-stupid! ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-tipping-point-why-i-think-were-inevitably-gonna-go-over-it/473079/30 "2008-11-17T16:52:01Z")
In 10 years we’ll still be debating whether or not AWG is real. No one will know for sure, but the people who have already convinced themselves will still be pointing to meaningless, anecdotal data. (Oh, and computer modelling.) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-tipping-point-why-i-think-were-inevitably-gonna-go-over-it/473079/31 "2008-11-17T17:21:37Z")
> [@Jesus\_Harold\_Christ](#): > > Putting aside the issue of putting nuclear material in countries that do not have the most stable governments, current nuclear power technology is at best a short term fix. > > [what's up with the weather: transcript](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/script.html) From your own link: > [@](#): > > ALEXANDRA McPHERSON, Greenpeace: Nuclear energy has no role in this debate. We have no safe way of putting away radioactive waste. There are cleaner alternatives, and Greenpeace firmly disagrees with the use of nuclear power. And… > [@](#): > > MICHAEL B. McELROY, Harvard University: I think that the mistake that we have made is, again, we’ve made an irrational choice. The public has decided that nuclear power is somehow or another dangerous, and more dangerous compared to other forms of energy that we use. They are confused about the differences between generating electricity with nuclear power, as compared to building bombs and killing people with nuclear energy. > > NARRATOR: But even assuming public fears could be erased, could a greatly expanded nuclear program replace fossil fuels? Nuclear reactors use uranium, a naturally occurring metal. How long would current reserves last if they had to run the world at the current rate of 10 trillion watts? > > MARTY HOFFERT, New York University: You only have about 10 years of U235 power from all of the cost-effective uranium reserves. Even if you look at reserves which are more expensive now, by this time, the nuclear power would be getting considerably more expensive. You might have 30 or 40 years at 10 terrawatts. And what if we need 20 or 30 or 40 terrawatts for 100 years? Now you’re done. But… > [@](#): > > Conventional reactors cannot solve the problem. But there is one possibility. Breeder reactors, which turn a more abundant form of uranium into plutonium, can potentially extend nuclear’s lifespan as a fuel source for hundreds of years. But breeders are a very complex technology, and because they produce plutonium, they raise serious issues about nuclear proliferation. So today virtually no research is being done. So – what about breeder reactors? I’m sorry – the Greenpeace folks and their ilk have demonized nuclear power, which is carbon neutral. For all the talk from the global warming crowd about the dangers of man-made carbon emissions, we’ve seen a fair amount of embarrassed throat-clearing when it comes to confronting nuclear power and the role Greenpeace-ish folks have had in scuttling it. Global warming deniers are ridiculed as rejected proven science; when the shoe is on the other foot, far too many folks are willing to do the same for nuclear. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-tipping-point-why-i-think-were-inevitably-gonna-go-over-it/473079/32 "2008-11-17T17:24:56Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Just to clarify, I’m not claiming that anyone actually said those words. Just that many warmists have cited very specific weather events, implicitly in support of their position. And many deniers have cited very specific events to support the position that the Earth is not warming. See **Magivers** post above. The problem with the cites from the deniers like **Magiver** is that they are frequently incorrect. For example, in **Magiver** ’s cite, the Helm Glacier in BC is growing larger. In actual fact, [Research says that Since 1900, the terminus positions of Helm Glacier in southwestern BC and Illecillewaet Glacier in southeastern BC have both receded by more than 1,100 metres.](http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:0iUb1fnObz0J:www.env.gov.bc.ca/air/climate/indicat/pdf/glacier_tdoc.pdf+Helm+Glacier&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=ca&client=firefox-a) **Macgiver** ’s cite also says the Place Glacier is growing. This is also incorrect. [It has lost 20% of its mass since 1984](http://www.nichols.edu/DEPARTMENTS/Glacier/north%20american%20glacier%20mass%20balance.htm) So for the Canadian glaciers in **Magiver** ’s cite, they are quite simply lying. In Alaska, the Hubbard Glacier is indeed advancing, however, > [@](#): > > This atypical behavior is an important example of the calving glacier cycle in which glacier advance and retreat is controlled more by the mechanics of terminus calving than by climate fluctuations. But then what the hell does the [US Geological Survey know?](http://ak.water.usgs.gov/glaciology/hubbard/) I have not checked the other glaciers in Magiver’s cite that other glaciers are growing larger, but I suspect that given the quality of the cite, we should be quite critical of accepting this “evidence” ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-tipping-point-why-i-think-were-inevitably-gonna-go-over-it/473079/33 "2008-11-17T17:41:29Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m sorry – the Greenpeace folks and their ilk have demonized nuclear power, which is carbon neutral. For all the talk from the global warming crowd about the dangers of man-made carbon emissions, we’ve seen a fair amount of embarrassed throat-clearing when it comes to confronting nuclear power and the role Greenpeace-ish folks have had in scuttling it. Global warming deniers are ridiculed as rejected proven science; when the shoe is on the other foot, far too many folks are willing to do the same for nuclear. Would it make you feel any better if I said that Greenpeace are idiots on this point? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-tipping-point-why-i-think-were-inevitably-gonna-go-over-it/473079/34 "2008-11-17T17:54:29Z")
Look, arguing about whether climate change is driven primarily by humans or not is missing the point. The global climate IS changing. Now, what are we going to do about it? Increase inputs that increase global warming? Or reduce inputs that increase global warming? The other thing is, cell phones are not the problem. Expensive cell phones that connect to the internet are not the problem. A cheap cell phone and an expensive cell phone have about the same impact on the atmosphere, near zero. Even when we take into account that those cell phones were shipped across the pacific ocean from China. There’s no reason in the world that today’s third world peasants can’t have iPods and cell phones and computers because these things are not resource intensive goods. The things that make a difference are your transportation, your HVAC, your electrical use. What is the source of the energy you use for these things? Nuclear, hydro, solar good. Coal, not so good. How much energy do these things use? If you just got yourself a clothesline instead of using the dryer you’d prevent more greenhouse emissions in a year than in several lifetimes of foregoing cell phone use. Lastly, talk about a “tipping point” is counterproductive. It’s a scare tactic. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not that at some point the climate will enter a new equilibrium state, the problem is that arguing that it will doesn’t help. The thing to do is appeal to people’s thriftyness. Don’t tell them to insulate their houses because they’re saving the planet, tell them to insulate their houses because they’ll save money. Don’t tell them to use less gasoline because they’re saving the planet, tell how to use less gasoline so they can save money. And so on. Waste costs money. Reducing waste saves money. If your plan for saving the planet requires Americans and Europeans and Japanese to become third world peasants, then your plan is doomed. Nobody wants to be a third world peasant, especially third world peasants. The only solutions that have even a chance of working are those that provide first world amenities that have a smaller impact on the environment. As for the contention that what we really need is population control, and how no one wants to talk about it anymore, the reason no one wants to talk about it anymore is that unlike the 60s and 70s global population growth is leveling off. The demography shows that we’re going to hit 9 billion people given current trends and then start to decline. If you’re really worried about population growth then trying to curb population growth directly is a waste of time. If you really want to prime the pump you should be working to educate women in the third world. Women who can control their own fertility turn out to choose to have a lot fewer children than women who can’t. Gender equality, education, civil rights, political freedom, democracy, capitalism, these are the things that have solved the population problem, so the sooner these things come to the third world the sooner the global population will peak and decline. ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-tipping-point-why-i-think-were-inevitably-gonna-go-over-it/473079/35 "2008-11-17T21:02:52Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Look, arguing about whether climate change is driven primarily by humans or not is missing the point. > > The global climate IS changing. Now, what are we going to do about it? Increase inputs that increase global warming? Or reduce inputs that increase global warming? > > The other thing is, cell phones are not the problem. Expensive cell phones that connect to the internet are not the problem. A cheap cell phone and an expensive cell phone have about the same impact on the atmosphere, near zero. Even when we take into account that those cell phones were shipped across the pacific ocean from China. There’s no reason in the world that today’s third world peasants can’t have iPods and cell phones and computers because these things are not resource intensive goods. > > The things that make a difference are your transportation, your HVAC, your electrical use. What is the source of the energy you use for these things? Nuclear, hydro, solar good. Coal, not so good. How much energy do these things use? If you just got yourself a clothesline instead of using the dryer you’d prevent more greenhouse emissions in a year than in several lifetimes of foregoing cell phone use. > > Lastly, talk about a “tipping point” is counterproductive. It’s a scare tactic. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not that at some point the climate will enter a new equilibrium state, the problem is that arguing that it will doesn’t help. The thing to do is appeal to people’s thriftyness. Don’t tell them to insulate their houses because they’re saving the planet, tell them to insulate their houses because they’ll save money. Don’t tell them to use less gasoline because they’re saving the planet, tell how to use less gasoline so they can save money. And so on. > > Waste costs money. Reducing waste saves money. If your plan for saving the planet requires Americans and Europeans and Japanese to become third world peasants, then your plan is doomed. Nobody wants to be a third world peasant, especially third world peasants. The only solutions that have even a chance of working are those that provide first world amenities that have a smaller impact on the environment. > > As for the contention that what we really need is population control, and how no one wants to talk about it anymore, the reason no one wants to talk about it anymore is that unlike the 60s and 70s global population growth is leveling off. The demography shows that we’re going to hit 9 billion people given current trends and then start to decline. > > If you’re really worried about population growth then trying to curb population growth directly is a waste of time. If you really want to prime the pump you should be working to educate women in the third world. Women who can control their own fertility turn out to choose to have a lot fewer children than women who can’t. Gender equality, education, civil rights, political freedom, democracy, capitalism, these are the things that have solved the population problem, so the sooner these things come to the third world the sooner the global population will peak and decline. And this is why we’ve passed the tipping point. Because enlightened self-interest is bullshit, when people cannot or will not be enlightened. Not **Lemur** , who is perfectly aware of what’s happening. But the people he describes quite accurately as having to be manipulated into doing what’s right for them, because they can’t see the urgent need for the planet and won’t sublimate their own interest to that of the world. And that most certainly includes Americans (including me), who are the worst offenders of all. We consume so much we don’t even realize we’re consuming. Most people here have no idea how luxurious our lives are, because we have no concept of life anywhere but in places very similar to our own. We’ll make incremental changes, but it will never occur to most of us to make big ones unless some life-altering event comes along to make us re-evaluate. And there’s always the [Tragedy of the Commons](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_Commons) effect that will mess us up even in the little things. And, of course, if our businesses make the big changes that are really necessary, their prices will go up and everyone will buy Chinese or Indonesian or whatever products that are cheaper and not subject to the same environmental standards. But we can’t make it illegal to import such things, because that’s Protectionist. And, of course, Too Much Government. And those, of course, are Very Bad Things. There is no escape, I think, because it’s too late for a tech breakthrough to be developed and deployed before the ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica that _An Inconvenient Truth_ talked about melt, and **Lemur** is absolutely right; it cannot be done without making it in people’s best economic interests to do it. So what we’re most likely going to do is that Obama will fund some green initiatives, and maybe, while inspired, people will cut back a little. But I think the waters are going to start rising pretty soon, and oops! there will go New York City and Miami. The big question is, will it be a tsunami or (more likely, IMO) be gradual enough for people to get out in time, or maybe build some retaining walls to save some portions of the cities. If it’s good enough for Amsterdam, it’s good enough for New Amsterdam. Now _there_’s a Public Works project! As for India, Bangladesh, and so many other places that would be wiped out? Those populations will have to migrate, and that is almost certainly going to cause famine. I wish I had a better answer, but I don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-tipping-point-why-i-think-were-inevitably-gonna-go-over-it/473079/36 "2008-11-17T21:40:09Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > And many deniers have cited very specific events to support the position that the Earth is not warming. See **Magivers** post above. > > The problem with the cites from the deniers like **Magiver** is that they are frequently incorrect. For example, in **Magiver** ’s cite, the Helm Glacier in BC is growing larger. In actual fact, [Research says that Since 1900, the terminus positions of Helm Glacier in southwestern BC and Illecillewaet Glacier in southeastern BC have both receded by more than 1,100 metres.](http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:0iUb1fnObz0J:www.env.gov.bc.ca/air/climate/indicat/pdf/glacier_tdoc.pdf+Helm+Glacier&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=ca&client=firefox-a) That’s intellectual nonsense. The premise that modern industrialization is rapidly destroying the planet does not jive with CURRENT events. If we’re going down in flames then the glaciers should be melting on an accelerated rate. > [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > **Macgiver** ’s cite also says the Place Glacier is growing. This is also incorrect. [It has lost 20% of its mass since 1984](http://www.nichols.edu/DEPARTMENTS/Glacier/north%20american%20glacier%20mass%20balance.htm). Again, CURRENT events show it growing. You’re picking dates out of the air to show it shrinking when in fact, the site you listed currently shows it growing. If the problem is getting worse then CURRENT events should reflect that. > [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > In Alaska, the Hubbard Glacier is indeed advancing, however, But then what the hell does the [US Geological Survey know?](http://ak.water.usgs.gov/glaciology/hubbard/) > > I have not checked the other glaciers in Magiver’s cite that other glaciers are growing larger, but I suspect that given the quality of the cite, we should be quite critical of accepting this “evidence” Al Gore and his Polar-Bear-on-an-ice-cube road show doesn’t jive with current events. If we’re going to hell due to climate change it should be noted that hell is currently frozen over. The Idea that global warming is a runaway monster that can only be cured by a zero CO2 foot print is complete bullshit. There is no attempt to address the cost effectiveness of the solution. In fact, there are no other solutions on the table. If the temperature of the planet is slowly rising then we will have to address real solutions regarding solar activity and global weather patterns. To say that we are doomed in the future unless we stop burning fossil fuels defies the logic that we won’t be driving gasoline-powered vehicles 100 years from now. Look at the technological trends of the last 100 years. We went from powered flight to landing on the moon in 63 years. Nuclear fission was discovered during the steam era. In the last 100 years we have advanced data storage from a heavy phonograph record that stored less than an hour of music to a memory chip that stores weeks of music and weighs less than the label on the old records. Technology is accelerating exponentially. Many of the people on this board have no idea what it was like to drive a carburated car in the winter. The engines would stutter and die if the choke wasn’t precisely set. Now cars adjust the fuel mixture many times a second to deliver the optimum air/fuel ratio based on the density of air, ambient temperature, and engine temperature. We already have the technology to produce fuel from algae that uses CO2 scrubbed from power plants. As fuel prices align and stabilize that technology will become more prevalent and the result will be a market-force reduction in CO2. And long before that technology has peaked we will have perfected more efficient forms of energy storage. Beyond that, we have the technology to scrub CO2 on a large scale if necessary. It’s not rocket science. If that is needed as part of the process of changing weather on the planet then we will certainly incorporate it into any solutions that are needed when called for. But all the media hype about this is giving people the impression that we’re doomed and it’s too late. What is more important in this date in history is a stable economy to provide the funding for future technology. If we fail in this regard then an economy in decline will use MORE fossil fuel on an individual basis as people switch to wood burning stoves and generators to survive technological failures. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-tipping-point-why-i-think-were-inevitably-gonna-go-over-it/473079/37 "2008-11-17T21:52:52Z")
> [@](#): > > Again, CURRENT events show it growing. That’s because it’s CURRENTLY November. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-tipping-point-why-i-think-were-inevitably-gonna-go-over-it/473079/38 "2008-11-17T22:18:13Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > That’s because it’s CURRENTLY November. The site posted for rebutal was multi year. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-tipping-point-why-i-think-were-inevitably-gonna-go-over-it/473079/39 "2008-11-17T22:32:56Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > There is no attempt to address the cost effectiveness of the solution. Bjørn Lomborg has tried to argue that we should look at the cost/effectiveness of various solutions and prioritise our actions. Last with the [Copenhagen Consensus](http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com). But for some reason some people get very upset at the mere suggestion that we can’t do all things at the same time. ---
**Author:** ![Baldwin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baldwin/32/7264_2.png) [@Baldwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baldwin)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-tipping-point-why-i-think-were-inevitably-gonna-go-over-it/473079/40 "2008-11-17T23:03:28Z")
The root cause of all the elements of our ongoing environmental catastrophe is the population explosion. When was the last time any politician (in the U.S., at least) talked about that? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-tipping-point-why-i-think-were-inevitably-gonna-go-over-it/473079.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-tipping-point-why-i-think-were-inevitably-gonna-go-over-it/473079.md?page=3)