One of the sites I hang out on is called TreeHugger.com. People who know me in person know that I’m pretty into helping the environment. However, I just don’t find the evidence of humans materially affecting the climate to be persuasive.
Most of the discussions are about things like making your home more energy efficient or how to improve your local environment.
But every now and then, you get a global warming discussion and the militancy of the global warming advocates comes out.
For example, one post entitled “How do we get through to these people?!” discusses the frustration they have in convincing people of the need to pass legislation that drastically reduces our carbon footprints because of the way carbon is affecting climate (in their opinion).
After numerous people responded pointing out how dumb the average person was and that was the reason I came on and wrote:
The reason so many GW advocates get the cold shoulder is because of the sheer arrogance many of them show. The GW issue is one I've followed since before it was remotely mainstream (like many here I presume) and there's nothing more aggravating than having some family member see 'An inconvenient truth" and then have them talk down to me as if they suddenly became climatologists because they watched a movie. I think the best path is simply to try to get people to want to reduce their footprint (Carbon or otherwise) on the earth's resources. But having people who really are often come across as being brain washed insulting people who are skeptical or disagree (I mean really, how infantile is it to call people like me "climate change deniers" as if we're akin to holocaust deniers). Incidentally, during the little ice age, heads of state officially blamed witchcraft as the cause of the earth cooling. Humans have always believed that they had the power to control the weather whether it be from gods or controlling CO2 emissions.
The reason so many GW advocates get the cold shoulder is because of the sheer arrogance many of them show. The GW issue is one I've followed since before it was remotely mainstream (like many here I presume) and there's nothing more aggravating than having some family member see 'An inconvenient truth" and then have them talk down to me as if they suddenly became climatologists because they watched a movie.
I think the best path is simply to try to get people to want to reduce their footprint (Carbon or otherwise) on the earth's resources. But having people who really are often come across as being brain washed insulting people who are skeptical or disagree (I mean really, how infantile is it to call people like me "climate change deniers" as if we're akin to holocaust deniers).
Incidentally, during the little ice age, heads of state officially blamed witchcraft as the cause of the earth cooling. Humans have always believed that they had the power to control the weather whether it be from gods or controlling CO2 emissions.
Another user had then come on and said that the environmental movement needs to combine its efforts to get effective legislation passed:
My proposed solution today is to bring all the fractured factions of the environemntal movement under one umbrella and provide a warm welcome for converts to join in and participate with a grass-roots effort that allows them to buy-in to it. This may be accomplished by clearly demonstrating affordable and viable sustainable energy solutions and other ways to save money at home with energy efficiency in the short run that offer them immediate returns. In essence, such an effort involves buying the hearts and minds of the people, which is a common business ploy many comapnies use today to gain a customer base. Then, with a ground-swell of support in shear numbers that can't be ignored, a meaningful lobbying block may be created to rouse the attention of Congressional leadership. Finally, the entire effort must have a feeling of inclusion and provide the necessary money motives that converts and supporters alike can appreciate. It may be high-time to put aside self-righteous indignation and environmental snobishness that serves no purpose in fulfilling our unified goals.
My proposed solution today is to bring all the fractured factions of the environemntal movement under one umbrella and provide a warm welcome for converts to join in and participate with a grass-roots effort that allows them to buy-in to it. This may be accomplished by clearly demonstrating affordable and viable sustainable energy solutions and other ways to save money at home with energy efficiency in the short run that offer them immediate returns. In essence, such an effort involves buying the hearts and minds of the people, which is a common business ploy many comapnies use today to gain a customer base.
Then, with a ground-swell of support in shear numbers that can't be ignored, a meaningful lobbying block may be created to rouse the attention of Congressional leadership. Finally, the entire effort must have a feeling of inclusion and provide the necessary money motives that converts and supporters alike can appreciate. It may be high-time to put aside self-righteous indignation and environmental snobishness that serves no purpose in fulfilling our unified goals.
I responded by saying:
The problem is that there is no homogeneous environmental movement. I consider myself an environmentalist but am extremely skeptical about human induced global warming. And I'm not alone. Most of my colleagues who have a similar technical or scientific background are skeptical as well. That doesn't prove anything other than to say that there's a lot of people who fall into my category of being environmentalists but don't think humans are materially affecting global temperatures. In my opinion, having the government force us to do things "for our own good" is tyranny whether it's in the name of "security" or for "the sake of our planet". Moreover, environmentalists often strongly disagree on solutions or are totally impractical. Wind energy and solar energy, for instance, won't do the trick any time soon. But try to build a nuclear power plant (0 emissions) and suddenly they get creamed by the envirnomental movement (either reducing our carbon foot print is life or death or it's not - clearly it's not to a lot of people in the movement).
The problem is that there is no homogeneous environmental movement. I consider myself an environmentalist but am extremely skeptical about human induced global warming. And I'm not alone. Most of my colleagues who have a similar technical or scientific background are skeptical as well. That doesn't prove anything other than to say that there's a lot of people who fall into my category of being environmentalists but don't think humans are materially affecting global temperatures.
In my opinion, having the government force us to do things "for our own good" is tyranny whether it's in the name of "security" or for "the sake of our planet".
Moreover, environmentalists often strongly disagree on solutions or are totally impractical. Wind energy and solar energy, for instance, won't do the trick any time soon. But try to build a nuclear power plant (0 emissions) and suddenly they get creamed by the envirnomental movement (either reducing our carbon foot print is life or death or it's not - clearly it's not to a lot of people in the movement).
A user responded to this and my other post by saying:
Ultimately it doesn't matter what anyone believes about Global Warming, it's going to happen regardless of what anyone believes about it, and believers and deniers alike will suffer the effects alongside each other. Being a denier simply makes a person appear less intelligent in the meantime.
In other words, because I’m a “denier” I just appear less intelligent. He went on and said:
Well one thing we've learned is that denialists haven't actually looked at the same data. While we look at data put out by NASA, NOAA, USGS, and other scientific research groups, we've noticed that denialists get their data from oil industry lobbyists, and while some of the data is the same, the data they give has been cherry picked to leave out the data which makes it clear that A: rapid climate change is happening, and that B: human activity is a primary factor.
So you see, if you don’t believe in global warming, you're just not intelligent or you’re brainwashed by big oil.
Yea I know. Not disputing anything about that. Direct comparison between technology and cosmic powers like the sun or raw geothermic powers like vulcanos were not what I had intended. But it is undeniable that technology has a noticeable impact on the environment on all different kinds of levels, and it is illogical to argue that because there are so many raw uncontrollable powers in nature that artificial technology pales besides all that by default and to use this as a reason why technology can't have any serious consequences. Even when the cycle theory about climate development is correct - and it does seem to make alot of sense - it does not mean argumentum e contrario that technology can't also have any impact at all. Maybe it is possible that technology (industry etc) might somehow alter or influence that natural cycle? I am not really deadset on one global warming theory or the other, or being skeptical about it - the more research is done the better understanding there is after all. Knowledge is evolving and changing all the time, so it is pretty idiotic to simply refuse to acknowledge new results because they don`t fit in with what you believe.
The fact that raw natural powers are more powerful than most technology does not mean that technology can not also be powerful enough to affect the environment. This argument does not contradict anything you said though.
I personally get tired of all the global warming/climate disaster movies and fightglobalwarming.com ads that are all over the place. There is no proof that anything humans do in any way affects the climate.
And there certainly isn't proof that said warming will kill us, or in any way affect us. Cold winters kill more people than hot summers.
Not to mention that there is no proof that, were disaster en route, that humans could do anything to stop it. I mean, I've seen DVD cases of Mall Cop that claimed to be "eco-friendly." That to me is just silly. Being environmentally conscious doesn't mean you have to save the planet with DVD cases.
Oh, and as for technology being able to affect the environment - the truth is, for anything short of a nuclear bomb, the answer is no.
If there was a surefire way to change the temperature of the planet even slightly, I'm sure magazines like Popular Science would have jumped all over it by now. Think about it - the IPCC says that we've only seen a planetary temperature increase of about 2° F over the last century. If a countermeasure lowered the temperature even a tenth of a degree, people would be ecstatic.
But they aren't. Instead, Popular Science runs a few dozen articles on hypothetical technologies, such as harnessing sea waves for electricity, and a few other articles on what we need to do in the future. The most recent issue is a prime example of this.
And we all panic and buy eco-friendly DVD cases because a computer model (read: very inaccurate) took some basic trend graphs and concluded we are all going to die. Except that 1) the computer model cannot account for solar activity, 2) the computer model cannot forsee a change in the trend, like the Little Ice Age we once had, and 3) the computer model cannot analyze every bit of data necessary to predict the climate. Wikipedia provides a nice example of point 3 in its article on global warming.
Just look at your local meteorologists. Maybe they're better where you live, but in Indiana, they're dead wrong 50% of the time, and their temperature measurements should come with a ±5° warning at least. They can't predict what will happen in the next 24 hours, yet people believe what they say will happen in the next decade, the next century, etc.
i got popular science after years of abstaining and i was disgusted as the level of bull. its like it was taken over by braindead eco fear mongerers and others out of touch with reality, also their scientific analysis of items is now severely lacking.
Well, since I don't know how many nuclear warheads have already been detonated - 2 ended WW2 and I don't know how many tests in Nevada, the pacific ocean and Kasachstan and other places I can't think of right now, by your statement the environment has already been affected and altered permanently by technology.
My argument about technology affecting the environment is not limited to possible effects on global climate but applies to all aspects of the environment. If you think about it, the development of new hightech is faster than the knowledge of all possible sideeffects can be researched. That is the crux of it - the unpredectability and unforseen consequences that can happen due to that lack of knowledge.
Just think about genetic engineering of new resistant crops - on the surface a great goal, but it also leads to all sorts of new problems and issues that nobody really thought about beforehand. If you alter the basic food groups, what sort of effects could that have? Not just for us humansm but also for the animals and other plants around? Maybe certain insects can only eat this one type of crop and if you alter it permanently, they go extinct. Their disappearance could in turn have effects on others and so forth. You can't really say for sure where the chainreaction might stop. That is also hightech.
of course people have thought of it before hand, not only have you thought of it, many others did too. in fact many scientists who work in the field think about it every day, and they are a lot smarter and more educated than you.
What's with all the insults hmm? Are you incapable of maintaining a civilized way of communicating? That example was not to show my smartmess but to highlight the impact of technology in many different fields, because IQofSpam was pretty clear that human technology could not influence anything. If you did not understand that, well then maybe you should go back to school.
mmm, i didn't even realize i was insulting you. I was just being reasonable here:
fact: you seem ignorant of genetic engineering > conclusion: you are not sufficiently educated about biology, you don't need to be a genetic engineer, just some basic biology knowledge.
fact: to be a genetic engineer someone has to be among the smartest people on earth. conclusion: the majority of the smartest people on earth are probably smarter than a random luddite who makes dumb arguments.
fact: you make sweeping statements about a field you are obviously ignorant about. Conclusion: you think you know everything without a need to learn.
But when I think about it, I can see how it would offend you since you seem convinced that you are the smartest person in the world and know everything without ever needing to be educated about the issue.
Ok, so you argue that you have to have a phd to form general conclusions like genetic engineering can have sideeffects that were unknown beforehand. It is your prerogative to appear like an idiot.
I never said I was a genetical enginner, but why don't you point out exactly what was wrong in my example or what was so dumb in that line of reasoning? You just make statements without backing them up most of the time.
Uh, no... to quote myself:
You dont make any sense, lol. That does not disqualify my statement about the connection between hightech bio engineering and its possible effect, if anything you underline it when basic biology is enough to grasp that principle.
Thank you so much for finally agreeing
So, let me get this straight. You believe that technology is advancing at a pace at which we may be able to reduce the planet's temperature in the near (or distant) future, but that this same technology may have unintended side-effects?
While I personally would place the technology in the very, very, very distant future, if at all, I agree that technologies can have unintended side-effects. However, genetically altered crops aren't an issue. At this point, scientists are not completely changing the crops, but simply making them more resistant to things like pesticides, insects, and various plant diseases.
And at any rate, in order to completely change a crop, we would have to perfectly understand how its genetic information is coded, which geonomes did what. At this point our genetics knowledge is sketchy at best. What information we have is based on trial-and-error experimentation, not actual knowledge of funtionality, so even creating a new plant is completely beyond our capabilities. I think this is what Taltamir was attempting to say before.
yes - technology is advancing at a fast pace
No - did not mention anything specific about what technology can do in regard to climate change
yes - technology can have unknown sideeffects
The example with the crops was just one randomly picked by me for the sole purpose that genetic engineering as it were has nothing to do with the atmosphere
yes - making crops resistant is all that I mentioned, did I say anything about changing them completely? I mentioned the possible resistance against certain insects and the unintended and unforseeable reactions that could create, not what consequences there might be for newly invented species. That is science fiction as of now - unless you count crossbreeding of plants and creating hybrids into that category.
I have no knowledge about how far along scientists are in decoding the genomes of plants and or creating new plants - that was not even mentioned by me.
Well whether you believe in global warming or not, supporters of the presidents cap and trade policy are halfway closer to celebrating (the bill passed in the house). This way when those nasty polluters, like many of the coal fired power plants, can pay dearly for their mess. When I say pay, I mean pass those costs onto you, the consumer. What a great scam to force a hidden tax on something nobody has a clue about it's effects. Way to go Obama...change you can believe in.
You end up having to get used to it around here I'm afraid.
I groan whenever I hear someone justify a view of burying our heads in the sand re global warming based on there not being any 100% irrefutable proof of human activities having a significant impact on it. You shouldn't need proof to take action against global warming, you just need a chance. If there is a chance that human activities will play a significant role in causing a highly detramental state of affairs, and that those activities can be changed to avoid or greatly reduce such negative effects, then it should definitely be looked at. The pragmatic approach is to evaluate the cost of reducing the activities in question against the expected benefit this would have in terms of reducing the likelihood and/or impact of global warming (i.e. weighted by the estimated probability of the events occuring). It won't be possible to get exact figures, but if you can take several actions now at a fairly low cost which would be expected to greatly reduce the harmful effects later on, then it would be the most sensible course to undertake such actions now rather than ignoring the problem until irrefutable proof happens to appear (by which point it would probably be too late)/hoping you get lucky/the estimates were wrong. The future of the planet is too significant to gamble on like that.
Well, as I said before, the IPCC has stated a worldwide average temperature increase of about 2 degrees Farenheit per century (I believe the actual number is something like 1.3). At that rate, I think it's safe to say that it is hardly an immediate problem, unlike what doomsayers would have you believe. And it certainly doesn't justify eco-friendly DVD cases.
People are tricked. I constantly see organic /eco friendly food in the grocery store that is imported from New Zealand, South Africa, South America etc to Germany. That is just a scam, how can it be ecofriendly if it has been transported half around the globe?
As for the eco-friendly DVD cases, that could also be due to the issue of scarce non-renewable resources.
Yes, assuming the temperature rise is caused by humans. If it is not caused by humans, the trend could easily reverse.
I guess that is the whole debate - are we the ones doing the warming? I personally think that it would make more sense to blame the sun, as it does provide virtually every ounce of heat we have.
If you look at all of my post pertaining to this subject you'll see that I've been stating that. The sun affects all the planets in ways that we are just beginning to understand and in ways we don't yet.
There are several fallacies that one could pull from this above quote. Appeal to consequences is the reason why we have air bags in all of our cars and why we DON'T irradiate our food. A decision should not be made solely based out of fear. We can take a look at the black plague back in the middle ages. The black plague killed a lot of people, but also people killed a lot of people due to the fear that that group of people were the cause. Fear clouds our judgement.
If we are going to do something about our environment out of fear we should take care of North Korea and Iran because North Korea is unstable (once Kim Jong dies man who knows what will happen then) and if Iran gets nukes that'll cause a nuke race in the middle east.
My quote is comparable to the other quote.
Gotta be careful not to mix everything together. Using technology and worrying or being fearful of the effects it can have on the environment is not the same as being worried about personas like Kim Jong Il. For one, we simply need the environment to survive, so being worried that pollution could actually endanger our own survival is sensible.
What the people in the middle ages lacked is knowledge, they believed the black plague in the 14th century was sent by god as a punishment and did not understand why it did not hit everybody equally. That lack of knowledge caused fear, which in turn made those look suspicious that did not get sick. Some sinners (in the context of mideaval society) stayed healthy and others that never sinned got sick and died. That inspired some to look for other reasons as to why the plague was spreading - modern medicine in Europe was born (or at least the scientific aproach to research sicknesses). The Rennaissance and its great minds like Leonardo Da Vinci are testament to that shift of mentality. I glossed over alot here, but the main gist is true enough.
Increasing our knowledge and using that knowledge and acting on it sensibly is the way to go, and fear is a great motivator, but it should not be the only reason why action is taken.
Such as?
So make rational and cool-headed decisions, such as looking at how to reduce our activities that are harmful on the environment, as opposed to opposing any and all such changes because of the fear that they may be a waste of money.
To put it this way, you're offered the opportunity of buying a special ticket. There's a 50% chance that holding that ticket will be worthless, and a 50% chance it'll be worth $100. You can buy it for $30. Would you say yes? What if you could buy it for $80? Now assuming your risk aversion/fondness isn't massive, you'd say yes to the first one, and no to the second. It would be foolish to say no to buying the ticket regardless of the price though (the same as it would be to say yes regardless of the price). Similarly it is foolish to say no to any actions to reduce emissions/the effect of human activities on the environment, just as it would be to say yes to completely eliminating any such activities.
And current studies have determined it is highly likely that a significant amount of it is due to human activity - IIRC an IPCC had around half of the temperature increase thought to be due to human activity. There's still a chance it's not, but that shouldn't mean you ignore the issue.
You stated what my point was THE NEED FOR MORE knowledge. I posted previously articles stating that global warming is not AGW and most likely there are multiple causes like the earth core heating up and the sun. My example stands true and you gave it even more validity with your very own statement. There is no need to rush to conclusions about a topic that only has come in the fore front in the last 10 to 15 years.
As for KJ II I think if he shot one or two nukes that the aftermath of this would have a greater consequence then the current facade of AGW. If Iran gets the Nuclear weapons I GUARANTEE that the surrounding countries will get them as well.
Appeal to consequences, which I stated in my previous post. If one is not enough then: appeal to force, post hoc. Need I say more?
You're statement again isn't logical. You're assuming that there is a chance so we need to act now! Its like that car salesman and his pressure sale I sale you it at 10000 you need to buy now buy now!
This would be like if I thought I discovered a cure for a new deadly highly contagious flu strain. Instead of putting it through any trial testing we should just administer it to as many people as possible and hope for the best. If it kills a bunch of people I had good intentions and there was no time to stop and test.
There is time to do research and figure out A BETTER PLAN and to narrow down what is AND isn't causing it. There is no need to make any hasty conclusions. One final example would be the fact that we know that there are plenty of huge astreroids that may come in the Earth's path. We can do all the mathematical formuals to show that some of these asteroids will come really really close to hitting earth. What we need to do is start building a missle defense system capable of blowing all those rocks before they hit. I am not saying we shouldn't have a plan but at least we now are looking and now that there are some rocks that are on a possible collision course for Earth BUT THERE IS NO NEED TO PANIC.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
