Eventually some bright person will find a cure for death and it could happen within the next 50 years. So, you take your pill only to walk out into the burning desert, underwater city, or glacier (pick you favourite scenario based upon the current theory of the day. Don’t worry if you pick wrong as it will change tomorrow). Who wants to live for long in that sort of world? Battling chuds, zombies and yeti would get boring after a while, I think.
I still don’t get it.
Is your Small British Shop located anywhere near a seacoast or riverbank?
If you are somewhat above average intelligence and you examine the data for yourself you might see that, basically, you shouldn’t really worry about it.
Because here’s what’s going to happen with global warming: Nothing.
I can guarantee you with absolute metaphysical certaintude that ten years from now global warming will be just another item on the environmental disaster scrap pile right along with a new ice age, nuclear waste, acid rain, the ozone hole, the Kuwaiti oil fires, the doomsday asteroid, the Jupiter effect :D, and every other quasi-scientific threat that environmentalists have panicked about.
That’s not to say that those things are complete nonsense (well, the Jupiter effect and another ice age were). The ozone hole is real, but Argentinians aren’t going blind from optical tumors. Acid rain hasn’t destroyed the US & Canadian forests. The Kuwaiti oil fires didn’t cause massive, Earth-wide weather change. And nobody is finding Plutonium in their coffee (and it will be decades if not centuries before we can stop an asteroid).
And none of them ‘destroyed the earth’ or even made a significant dent in it. More importantly, none of them ever came close to even effecting any large groups of people. So eventually the public lost interest and grant money dried up and environmental scientists looked for the next big horror.
And I know for a fact this will happen with gw, because even if it were a proven fact (and it is not) it would be the very definition of ‘long-term’. As in centuries. And nobody’s going to even attempt to plan for that.
So are you saying that the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (along with the analogous organizations in Britain, France, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, China, Brazil, …) are not above average intelligence, have not examined the data, or are purposely deceiving us?
Your list here is a mish-mash of various things. First of all, I don’t recall environmentalists warning us about the Jupiter effect or the doomsday asteroid. Second of all, are you claiming (for example) that a large asteroid hitting the earth would not have a very bad effect? Yes, it is a low probability event (at least over a timescale of order centuries to a few millenia), but certainly one that would have a large impact (no pun intended) were it to occur. Third, much of the reason why acid rain and the ozone hole are not such a big problem is because we did something about them. Because of concerns about acid rain, we adopted much stronger air pollution standards in the U.S., Canada, and many other industrialized countries. Because of concerns about ozone depletion, we adopted the Montreal Protocol and subsequent revisions that are phasing out the manufacture and use of ozone-destroying chemicals like CFCs.
I still don’t get it. 
Hmmm. Ten years? Wanna bet?
Because the examples you give of so-called “quasi-scientific threats” are actually, as jshore says, a mishmash of different issues, few of which are at all comparable to the AGW hypothesis
The so-called “Jupiter Effect”, which as jshore notes was never taken seriously by scientists or environmentalists in general, received some popular attention starting in the mid-1970’s and fizzled after the “Great Conjunction” occurred with none of the predicted ill effects in 1982. It never even made it to the “environmental disaster” agenda, much less the scrap heap.
The “doomsday asteroid” is also not an environmentalist issue, nor is the science involved at all controversial. It’s just a typical media and pop-culture buzz about a low-probability but high-stakes event that might happen someday.
The “new ice age” or “global cooling” scare of the 1970’s never had serious scientific support.
Nuclear waste is still a subject of active concern, as demonstrated by the recent popular resistance to the proposed Yucca Mountain radioactive waste storage facility, so your assignment of it to the “scrap heap” is at least premature.
Acid rain and the ozone hole, as jshore pointed out, receded from popular concern in large part because we actually did something to fix them.
The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, on the other hand, has been around for a lot longer than any of the pseudo-“disasters” you mention, and longer even than the other serious scientific issues such as ozone depletion.
Scientists have been studying the AGW hypothesis for over a hundred years. Environmentalists and the popular press started paying attention to it around the 1970’s. International entities and scientific organizations started putting together research and policy groups to examine it around midcentury. What is currently the primary such group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was created in 1988, and started issuing its periodic Reports in 1990.
So for the past several decades, the issue of anthropogenic global warming has been attracting significant and INCREASING attention from scientists, environmentalists, and now policymakers. Vast amounts of scientific evidence have continued to support the AGW hypothesis, vast amounts of published peer-reviewed research have agreed with it, and the vast majority of climate scientists today accept it as the most plausible hypothesis explaining observed climate data.
And you, Hail Ants, are offering to “guarantee” with “absolute metaphysical certaintude [sic]” that ten years from now, this issue will be regarded as no more significant than something like the Jupiter Effect? You’re simply whistling in the dark, my friend.
Still, my compassion for your ignorance will not prevent me from taking your money, if you’re fool enough to bet on your ignorant assertion. You claim to be willing to “guarantee” your assertion, but will you back it up?
Let’s see you put your money where your mouth is and wager against me (let’s pick a number and say anything up to two hundred dollars US) in support of the following proposition: * By 12 July 2017, the issue of global warming will no longer be a matter of any more scientific and environmental concern than the so-called “Jupiter Effect” now is.* Winnings to be donated to the non-profit (501©3 organization) of the victor’s choice at the time of settlement.
Believe me, if I thought there was the slightest chance that you might be right about this, I’d be happy at the prospect of losing my money. I’d consider a couple of yards an extremely cheap price to pay for our planet and our society to be spared the rigors of adjusting to massive climate change. But since AFAICT there isn’t any realistic chance that you might be right about this, I’m perfectly willing to make a little money in the cause of fighting ignorance.
Do you have a cite that any city will be underwater in our lifetime? Say, 40 years or so?
Now, I still care about Global warming as I don’t want my A/C bill to be hundreds of dollars a month when I am on Social Security, and for the sake of future generations.
Frankly, of all of those, global warming is the only one we can fix. Short of conquering most of the world and imposing benevolent government, there’s a very hard line at which further aid is going to end up being more of a hindrance than a blessing, since the local thugs have more reason to steal, and thus more ability to strengthen their position. Global warming is the only world-wide issue that we can actually fix, or at least mitigate.
I’m not sure that I’m convinced that we couldn’t deal with the other problems. However, to the extent we can, the problems are political and/or due to a lack of will, not really a lack of money. It’s telling that Lomborg always compares the costs of doing the good stuff like feeding the world’s hungry with estimates of the cost of combatting global warming. Why not compare to the very real costs of, say, fighting the war in Iraq or of giving tax cuts to the top 1% of the U.S. income earners?
Nope. We can’t fix global warming. It’s a natural recurring trend that has been going on forever. Could we somehow be contributing to it? Perhaps? But even if we are the amount is trivial. And besides, fossil fuels will essentially be gone within most of our lifetimes. There’s about 100 other things more important than global warming to worry about.
Cite?? If by “recurring trend” you mean that our planet has long-term cycles of warming and cooling based ultimately on periodic variations in our orbit around the sun, that’s certainly true.
But there is no known physical mechanism that has been credibly proposed or accepted by scientists that would account for the amount of recent warming only, or even mostly, on the basis of these periodic climate variations. Those variations take place on very large time-scales: hundreds of thousands and millions of years. There is no known theory that explains why these long-scale variations would suddenly cause the recent warming at this particular point in our orbital cycles.
A lot of “climate skeptics” try to use very sloppy reasoning along the lines of “Hey, the earth periodically goes through natural warming and cooling cycles, so if we’re seeing a warming trend then it must just be part of the natural cycle! So never mind! Forget about greenhouse gases!”
But this is completely useless as a scientific explanation. It’s sort of like suddenly seeing your skin start to peel off, and saying “Hey, all bodies have their skin peel off at some point during the post-mortem decomposition stage, so this must just be part of a natural process! No need to go see a doctor!”
If you’re going to argue—in direct contradiction to the vast majority of published climate-science research—that recent climate trends are just (or even primarily) due to the earth’s own natural periodic climate variations, you must have a plausible scientific hypothesis that consistently explains HOW the alleged cause is producing the alleged effect. Just waving your hands and saying “blah blah blah natural recurring trend blah blah blah!” does not cut it.
Come on. The Earth has certainly been a lot warmer than it is currently, and it has certainly been a lot cooler. I’m talking trends over thousands of years, not 365 days. Look it up for yourself.
Yes, I know. When I speak of “orbital cycles” and “periodic variations in our orbit”, I’m not talking about just our simple annual cycle of winter and summer, I’m talking about long-term periodic variations.
And I repeat: although it is true that during these long-scale cycles, there have been points in the past where the earth was warmer than it is now and points where it was cooler, there is no known physical explanation based on those cycles that would adequately account for our CURRENTLY observed warming trend at this point in time. This is simply a non-starter as a valid scientific explanation for recent global warming.
And if you say different, then let’s see your cites. Just saying “Eh, the earth’s temperature varies over time, go look it up for yourself” is not a valid scientific hypothesis for explaining specific observed climate phenomena. Not even close.
Respectfully, the problem is that there are lot and lots of cites. I could provide one, but what’s the point? You may as well ask me to provide a cite indicating who, after John, Paul, and George, the next Beatle was. There are lots of valid counter-arguments available to combat the AGW principle. You don’t believe them, and I don’t believe that the current panic over global warming is worth worrying about. You won’t change my mind, and I won’t change yours.
:dubious: In other words, you don’t have a cite that you’re confident will stand up against criticism on scientific grounds. That’s pretty much what I figured.
Well, of course, you are entitled to your opinion, but when it is completely at odds with the opinions of most of the world’s climate scientists and reputable scientific bodies like (to focus here just on the U.S.) the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the American Association of the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society, why do you expect anyone else to find your opinion very compelling?
Look the point of the OP is why should we care about global warming. My point is, we shouldn’t. Does it exist? Yes. Are we responsible? Perhaps. But even if we are it’s by an insignificant amount. The Earth’s climate has always been in flux.
Should we try to reduce emissions? Of course, if it’s cost-effective and if it’s the right thing to do. But we should not be adversely affecting the economies of our countries to do so. India and China will more than make up for any reductions we try to force upon businesses over here.
I’m fed up with the Chicken Little posturing of any groups, businesses and individuals who think we can save the planet by dismantling our economies.
Well, it is true that over geologic timescales, the earth’s climate has always been in flux, and for that matter, sea levels have risen and fallen by hundreds of feet, continents have moved around, and mountain ranges have grown and eroded. However, human civilization has grown up just in the last several thousand years during which the climate and sea level was quite stable.
The projections for the amount of warming we are likely to cause over the next century is not insignificant and the timescale over which this warming will occur means the rate of warming is about an order of magnitude or more faster than the average rate of warming out of the last ice age.
Speaking of chicken little, noone is saying that we have to dismantle our economies. However, there seems to be some people who think that anything that has any sort of negative impact on, say, the coal industry bottom line amounts to economic devastation.
As for India and China, they are not the ones who are responsible for most of the elevation of greenhouse gas levels above the pre-industrial baseline (i.e., the cumulative emissions so far). They are certainly going to have to be part of the solution but they are unlikely to take any real actions before we do…and who can blame them? They are also depending on us to come up with the technologies that will make it possible for them to continue to industrialize in a less carbon-intensive manner (or by sequestering the CO2 that they do produce).
But there’s only a finite amount of fossil fuels available, right. Isn’t worrying about this akin to worrying about whether or not I should shovel the snow from my front porch on the last week of March?