If we want to get back to the OP about what is going to happen in 20 years, well, not much of anything. The developing countries of the world are not going to stop wanting growth and advancement, and they aren’t going to defer to the countries who already have it all now. The US and Europe may go clean coal but the smaller, hungry, countries are going to explode with growth and it isn’t going to be green, and we can’t dictate that anyway.
Small steps may be agreed to by the first world countries. A little less pollution in some areas. New energy sources, cleaner cars, a few new light bulbs. Nothing drastic enough to forstall the END OF THE WORLD!!! Continued growth in the 3rd world will more than off set any feel good green movement.
20 years will pass in the blink of an eye, and the world, and the environment, will not be substantionally different.
Uncle Goat has been indoctrinated sucessfully with the propaganda of fear.
I just wonder how a thinking, reading, informed person, can believe that all life on the planet is going to be at risk in 20 years. That is just nuts, and completely at odds with any attempt to get real change done.
Panic and fear are counter productive to actually getting any improvement. I personally would like to see it stop. It’s not fooling the thinking public and has reached the point where it is begining to convince people that the whole thing is bullshit.
Oh to a certain extent this has already happened. The curious points to it all is the insurance companies – those liberal organs of freedom and carefree living – certainly believe in global warming and are actively getting themselves out of weather related claims and the Pentagon – another ultra liberal organization – has written more than a couple of reports stating global warming is a more serious threat to the country than terrorism.
Isolationist, know-nothings and Empire America types like George W Bush will question the science of it all, because they are paid to do so. There’s no real thought in the process, it’s just another pay out to them. That we as a nation worship money above all else makes the thought of losing any, by taxes or by added costs to help new technologies is always met with resistance.
The people who want to blow this off for whatever reason aren’t to be worried about. Once the weather starts getting really nasty, they will be nodding their heads saying they saw it coming all along. They are the same people who didn’t want to upset King George, see no way to end slavery in America, can’t imagine why anyone would give up a horse and buggy. Now that we need to give up the car, it’s going to be hard for them to grasp anything beyond their own discomfort.
Finding converts is not the purpose of this thread. Though I find some of them mildly amusing, I’m not out to change anyone’s mind. I’m looking for people who see the problem and have some possible solutions, or at least thoughts on the matter.
I happen to think we need a revolution in our thinking. Drastic, as I say. It is not enough to accept global warming, we must do something about it.
Absolutely. But everything I’ve seen and read has scientists being surprised by how fast and furious the changes caused by global heating have been. The belief that the north pole would be ice free during the summer went from 2100 to possibly by 2012. Glaciers aren’t so much retreating as collapsing. The permafrost has thawed out in several areas, eroding huge areas of Alaska and Russia.
And there isn’t going to be any action from the government. None positive anyway. Which leaves us, as usual, to figure out what’s going on. That alone is worth being alarmed about. Local actions are the most important ones. Unfortunately, large sections of the globe will be written off. We failed to move when we had the time and time is running out for the rest of us as well.
Would it be nice and predictable that I agree with almost everything you say in this post?
Once again, most of the bad effects of a possible 4C rice in temperature are expected by most serious researchers to be evident the closer we get to the end of this century.
AFAIK this is based on the almost catastrophic loss of ice in 2007, it turned that later in 2008 and 2009 the ice returned to a normal level, that is to the “normal” expected loss, (That’s right, many contrarians still tell many that the ice returned to the old levels so scientists are wrong, what contrarians do is that they ignore that the data shows that the ice area in the arctic just returned to the expected “normal” loss) (And contrarians totally ignore the ice mass in their say so’s)
OTOH that 2007 episode was grabbed and never let go by alarmist people like you that ignore the latest research.
I’m already on the record of being pessimistic by assuming that almost nothing will be done in the next 10 years; however, I expect better and more evidence coming in the next 10 years that many governments will not be able to ignore and they will finally act, but not in time to avoid some bad effects in specific areas I’m afraid.
So, you’ve decided to ignore the whole issue of human impacts on the environment and the scientific study of them, because a lot of popular journalism over the last few decades has used overinflated rhetoric and hysteria to lure readers with gripping scare stories that haven’t materialized?
Gee, how, um, astute of you. Or perhaps not.
I know the overinflated rhetoric and the hysteria can get very tedious. But isn’t it our responsibility as informed citizens to try to sort through the fear-mongering rhetoric (and also the self-serving deceptions and smears on the other side) to find reliable sources and sensible conclusions? Isn’t that why we Dopers, in particular, come to this forum in the first place? How can we argue that it isn’t blameworthy just to “tune it all out” and embrace ignorance instead?
I don’t think anybody except the almost-universally-recognized-as-kooky source discussed by the OP is seriously arguing with this statement. No, the next two decades are unlikely to produce a world that is radically different from the present in its overall climate conditions or in the environmental policies of many of its nations.
However, that doesn’t mean that the long-term issues aren’t important or that our policy choices in the next 20 years aren’t going to make any difference further down the pike.
Certainly. But so are denial, deception, indifference and voluntary ignorance. It isn’t an either/or choice between credulously accepting every nutty doomsday scenario that comes along and just shrugging our shoulders because we deliberately choose to regard the whole issue as meaningless bullshit. There’s room in between those two extremes for rational thinking and intelligent decisions.
Apart from the fact the sea ice is thinning at a rapid rate, you are almost correct. Almost. While the ice returned to “normal” levels, it is thinner all over, thus still shrinking.
The great unknown remains what will other governments and people do? Does war break out? Do massive amounts of refugees overwhelm already stressed systems? Do more radical terrorists decide the US is the blame? How many more countries can we bomb? Yeah, global warming isn’t an isolated weather event. It has political impacts as well. I have seen only a few political improvements in my lifetime – none in this country, I’m sorry to say.
I mentioned that also, I did mention that mass is ignored.
There is a cinical thought I had, both India and China are suffering from radical terrorists, I foresee a strange bedfellows alliance to counteract those radicals. As for refugees I still don’t agree that we will see a huge increase of them in the next 2 decades, I still think governments will act before we see massive amounts of refugees.
Well, I will worry, but not as much as you. One should always investigate if sources like Lovelock are reliable before betting on what they say.
I think the big stressor is not immigrant refugees, but *internal *refugees. IOW, what do you do(if anything - perhaps it regulates itself) to counter the stresses placed on services etc when people are moving from, say, the drought-stricken SW and California to the lush wet Cascadian coast, bringing the culture with them? When eco-Portland or hippy-Berkely is literally overwhelmed with ex-Texans or Mormons? You can’t legislate the movements of citizens the way you can immigrants. So how do you deal with the culture clashes, or even just the plain nativist vs newcomer resentment that people are using their water or quadbiking up their nice pristine bicycle trails?
One could look at the history of the Dust Bowl during the 1930s for some clues on how this was met, and “the Grapes of Wrath” by John Steinbeck certainly gets to the hardships the Okies faced trying to get to and rebuild in California.
But, for the most part, the small farmer does not exist in this country anymore.
It’s mostly corporate farming. KING CORN, a fine little documentary on the growing of corn in Iowa underlines the many hardships a farmer faces today. A lot them are the same as the ones faced in 1930s, but now the bank isn’t some local company you can beg and plead with, but part of corporation with a desire to see profits no matter the human costs.
A sure fire way to commit suicide is to be a rancher, sure way to go broke is be a farmer. (If prison is your goal, becoming governor of Illinios is pretty good first step).
Current belief in the warming world is that the country you have to worry about is the one between you and the equator. So Mexico is our concern, and we’re Canada’s. At any rate, we have enough xenophobia already concerning Mexican illegal aliens. Even the phrase “illegal aliens” is charged as negatively as possible, denying their humanity entirely. So a 10% increase in migration North of the Rio Grande would lead to hysteria, leading to the National Guard of the boarder states being called in-- unless the National Guard is still overseas beating the tar out of Afghan goat herders.
This then leads to groups calling themselves “the minutemen” or “concerned citizens for the American Way” to jump into pick up trucks and try to murder as many people as they can get away with. Due to the success of the gun lobby, more and more Mexicans are becoming well armed too. They may think that defending themselves is a good idea. In this scenario, a shooting war between two peoples without any government backing is possible. Both governments will be forced to respond somehow, and judging from past deeds, both will respond poorly.
Which depends on where the refugees are coming from and what they are taking with them. Again, if the Ganges river is seasonal stream by 2030, we would be seeing millions of refugees in India beforehand. It is unlikely that people will sit by idly and die of thrist, but that too does happen.
Most of Lovelock’s detractors attack him for his support of nuclear power, and not for his statements on global heating. And besides, this whole thread begins with the word “IF”. I have taken Lovelock’s and other people’s warnings and projected the starkest, most alarming aspects of it. That many of the projections keep becoming more likely is certainly cause for alarm. That our politics is still so closely ruled by oil and coal companies is certainly cause for alarm too. That we, as a nation, seem to have embraced war and torture as the only foreign policy is also a bad sign. No one with any authority anywhere seems to be doing anything at all about global heating.
Okay, Germany seems to be working hard on it, but then again they don’t have any oil to begin with and finding alternate sources of power has been a long time goal.
So our most vocal person on global heating is Al Gore, an utterly failed politician who lacked the backbone to stand up to supreme court and that many people find a joke. That’s not good news either.
There are certainly a lot more alarming signs than ones of comfort. At least we had MAD as policy to prevent us from going to war with the Soviet Union. Now we can’t even make cars as emission effecient as China can. Not removing a mountain top would be “too expensive” than destroying it. yeah, this a spooky time.
Remember when I said that you don’t know me? I support nuclear power and none of the citations I posted say anything about his support for nuclear power so your statement here is moving into fallacy territory.
Perhaps when people see someone referring to war and torture to criticize the people for their global warming policy then people will not take that critic seriously, I’m just saying.
Not sure what you are trying to get here, new hybrids and even zero emission cars are coming to market from American automakers.
Nope, I missed the moment. Sorry. So… would knowing you make that much of a difference? Are you never wrong? Good for you! I make mistakes all the time, it keeps things interesting.
Which is a distoration of what I was saying, but fair enough, let me clarify: The fact that we are preoccupied with bullshit – murderous, terrible bullshit, in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and now Yemen* – makes more serious threats imposed by global heating harder to talk about. The fact that we need to think not about tomorrow, but 20 years down the road, makes this very tough in a society that has trained itself to not think beyond the next quarter. The fact that we have a news system almost entirely devoid of news is another problem.
Greed wins out. And the planet dies. Oops!
*no, not starting another thread. This one is enough.
When California tried to get tougher emission standards passed, the automakers howled foul, that such a thing was impossible to do in the short term. China was already making cars that had tougher emission standards than the ones California was asking for.
The hybrids and zero emission cars are still too strongly tied to oil. Has anyone, other than a race car driver driven as fast as the car says it can go? In my younger years, I found most cars start to shake themselves apart around 90. Of course, I was driving beaters, so maybe that’s a false assumption.
But why is that engine so powerful to pull lighter and lighter cars? So we can have AC and play DVDs? Roll down the window and look, for pete’s sakes.
But we have changed our evil ways. Acid rain has been greatly reduced. The ozone hole is slowly being repaired. Numerous Clean Air and Clean Water acts have reduced smog and polluted water ways. Despite some concerns like AGW the environment in the US is much better than it was in 1970 and we have largely benefited from it.
What GIGO is trying to tell you is that he is one of the more outspoken (and knowledgeable) pro-AGW posters on this board, so, at least nominally, he’s on your ‘side’. And the subtext is: perhaps you should listen to what he’s trying to tell you. FYI, Jshore is another of the more outspoken and informed pro-AGW posters on this board as well, so you might do the same for what he’s posting as well. Up to you though.
California has one of the toughest emissions standards in the world, AFAIK. And do you have a cite for China MAKING cars that pass a tougher emissions standard? I wouldn’t be surprised if they have tougher standards on the books, but the Chinese are odd about actually enforcing their standards.
I ask for this cite purely for my own benefit…I don’t know the answer, you are asserting it, so fight my ignorance.
Leaving aside the anecdotes, if you want people to buy cars that will replace their current vehicles with something cleaner then the vehicle in question is going to have to have similar performance capabilities…or you aren’t going to sell them. So…hybrids are the best bet at this time, unless you intend passing some kind of draconian standards and forcing people to buy what you want them too. Good luck getting that passed…especially since EV cars don’t come close to having said performance characteristics.
The thing is, YOUR (personal) driving tastes may be a bit different than others, and you need to keep it real if you actually want to save the world. You also need to realize that it will vary from country to country in wrt individual requirements for vehicles…so, what is needed in China (or Europe) may be very different than what is needed in the US, from a consumers standpoint.
The engines aren’t, afaik, more powerful today than they were in the past. Less so I imagine, since V8’s were pretty standard in this country in days gone by…though, granted, I’m no car expert. My knowledge of cars is on par with my knowledge of, say, American Football/Baseball/Basketball/etc…which is to say it’s minimal at best.
What I DO know is that if one wants to drive in my neck of the woods (where temperatures regularly exceed 110 degrees F), you best have AC. The DvD is, of course, optional…I don’t have one. I seriously doubt that the DvD player is having any kind of serious impact on mileage or emissions though.
Oh…and, at least according to Mythbusters, it’s actually more fuel efficient to drive with the AC on than with the windows open, if you are going faster than 20 or so MPH. Something to consider in your bid to save the world from the evil Humans/Americans…
Fair enough, but that’s enlightened self-interest, and in keeping with the principles of conservation going back to Teddy Roosevelt. Protecting the environment one lives in, so that it affords more enjoyment and liveability, is hardly a new idea.
But “evil ways” have nothing to do with it, and I don’t think you’re using the term anything but rhetorically. There are people who do think so in literal terms, though. They pretend there’s a direct correlation between Man’s base attitudes and bourgesoie concerns on the one hand, and the reaction of the natural environment on the other: that we deserve punishment for not having the correct attitudes and practices in life, and Mother Earth will be the agency of that punishment. Those are the clowns I’m talking about. And even the ones who aren’t out and out fruitcakes, worshipping Gaia or whatever, still have this implication in their arguments.
Sure, there are some people who believe that but they are a very small minority. If I understand you correctly you believe this small minority is a valid reason for “tuning it all out”. It seems that you are implying (perhaps I’m wrong) that since there’s always someone crying “DOOM!” that we should minimize all of it.
The guy mentioned in the OP seems to be a loon and the prominent AGW proponents (jshore and GIGObuster) have pointed this out. He should have little impact on rational discourse.
Not exactly; but given this experience I’m very skeptical at this point of (1) the motivations of anyone who comes along proclaiming a new DOOM is coming, and (2) the hysterical self-flagellating reaction of the public & media that makes heresy of such skepticism.
I was delighted to discover the usually very intelligent Straight Dope forum recently … and so disappointed to open this thread and see that America’s peculiar anti-science bent has made its way here. If I don’t participate much in this thread it’s because reading some of the posts raises my blood pressure.
An interesting factoid is that when I saw this thread in the threadlist is was adjacent to another named “Why is so much political debate in the US seemingly based on pure BS?”
The famous frog in the heating water doesn’t notice much “change” either.
Climate-modeling scientists try to be conservative and thus ignore possible positive-feedback catastrophes, like release of methane from ice. Several potential positive (warming) feedback mechanisms have been noted; don’t recall many negative (cooling) feedbacks proposed.
I was disappointed to hear Lovelock disparaged in this thread (and surprised some had never heard of him). He’s the brilliant man who first noticed ozone hole diminishment, if I recall correctly, and did much other brilliant work.
Whether one accepts Lovelock’s quasi-teleology or not, the idea that humanity needs to “tame Gaia” is too misguided for words.
Earth’s climate history is fascinating; anyone saying “CO2 was high in the past … duh” needs to do some reading … perhaps one of Lovelock’s books!
“population bomb … comprehensively wrong”??? “Earth didn’t blow up with 3 billion so 30 billion must be OK”?? … No wonder some think Cheney might get elected in 2012!! :smack:
One interesting point often overlooked is that man has simple technologies to cool the Earth, i.e. injecting aerosols into atmosphere. Scientists don’t mention this because such solutions come with their own problems (e.g. doesn’t affect CO2-related ocean acidity which is an increasing problem). Anti-AGW screeders don’t mention it because it defies their contention that mankind is too puny to affect climate. In the not-so-distant future, such a cooling project will become big news and the anti-science hypocrites will be jumping up and down saying “See! We can burn all the oil we want after all!”
By the way, Lovelock was a latecomer to climate change alarm. What made him change sides was the realization that Gaia itself (defined as the totality of life forms) was coming under attack. Projections are for important loci of biomass (e.g. Amazon basin) to become much less fertile.
Koxinga, would it be rude to ask which Lovelock books you’ve actually read?
Slinging the work “crackpot” is popular among the anti-science folk. Quite popular is the syllogism:
They called Galileo a crackpot, but he was right.
They call me a crackpot.
Therefore I am right! :smack:
Mods: I’d like to start a new thread: “What do anti-AGW skeptics really believe, if anything?” Frankly, they remind me of the news story mentioned in another recent thread: “Stephen Hawking would be dead if he were British!” … Facts? Irrelevant.
:smack: