The REAL global warming argument...

[MercutioATC]

We only have data from the last couple of hundred years. That's the blink of an eye in planetary terms. We COULD be living in a warming trend that's part of the natural cycle...we just don't know. However, given that:

1) We do know that certain pollutants have an impact on global warming and,

2) We know that global warming will cause us discomfort,

it would behoove us to combat it however we can.


There are only two possibilities. Either warming is part of the trend and we're only going to delay its effects by reducing emissions or we're having a major effect on the environment and we can reverse the trend.

Either way, our best course of action is to reduce the pollutants that contribute to global warming.

[The Traveler]

1. If we are in a natural warming trend

and adding our own excess green house gases to the mix as well then indeed we are travelling unexplored ground. Who can predict what will happen? Prudence and common sense dictate a conservative approach ... evolve our technology to meet our needs while reducing or eliminating green house gas emissions.

[Red State Blues]

2. Natural Warming Trend My Ass

For me, this issue is beyond comprehension. Any medium sized city has it's own weather pattern. How can anyone dispute this?! There is absolutely no reasonable doubt as to whether man is affecting the environment. The only argument is over how much, check this out for an eye-opener:

<http://lair.xent.com/pipermail/fork/Week-of-Mon-20031215/027512.html>

No disagreement with the earlier posts is intended, I agree that when there is doubt we should err on the side of caution. I just can no longer engage in polite conversation pretending that it is reasonable to have doubt.

[Dogmudgeon]

3. The "cause" is never cut-and-dried

My own take on the subject is that the climate change we're seeing is itself natural, but was triggered by human industrial activity.

There is plenty of evidence for this position -- which is why it's been so intensely polticized. Industry knew it could get about 30 years of "cover" out of muddying the scientific waters, which it did. And they got their 30 years of cover.

But now it's coming to an end, and anthropogenic global warming is impossible to refute. Of course, it makes no difference whether it's refuted or not -- the climate is changing.

I also think that the planet can dynamically sink all that carbon and excess heat -- by means of an ice age. Any day now. And "Any day" means 1-100 years. Which means more "cover" for the same liars who said it wasn't a problem to begin with.

--bkl

[The Traveler]

8. I think you misunderstood me

A natural warming trend is quite possible. BUT there is little room for doubt that human activity is producing the necessary and sufficient conditions for warming, also. If we have both operating, will they simply combine linearly? Probably not ... it is difficult to predict the rate of warming if both effects are in play and playing together. But recent reports have established accelerated warming of the Arctic, well outside the predictions of the models, and that came as something of a surprise. The warming process is going faster than global warming models predicted ... and that tells me that there is still much about the details we don't know.

I find this alarming because a) what you don't know CAN kill you and b) things are already worse than we thought they should be.

It was my intention to point out how illogical the arguments of the right wingers really are ... the presence of a natural warming trend does not obviate the need to control human contributions to global warming. Indeed, the operation of a natural warming trend renders the matter much more imperative.

[bemildred]

4. There is a good deal more than few hundred years available.

One can argue that the quality varies.

The "Don't frob a system you don't understand" argument is the
correct one, IMHO, especially when you depend on the system for
your life and it is known to be a chaotic system prone to sudden
state shifts.

The spreading of doubt is a standard public-relations/propaganda
techique being applied in a standard way as a delaying tactic.
Delay is denial.

[XemaSab]

7. Totally

"it is known to be a chaotic system prone to sudden state shifts"

The real worry isn't a gradual warming or cooling of a few degrees over a long period of time, it's the fact that the latest climate research suggests that the world can flip between a glacial period (ice age) and interglacial (what we're in now) in as little as 10 years.

The Canadian snow pack is going to begin to persist a little longer into the summer.

The fallen snow will reflect the sun's rays back out into space, instead of absorbing and reradiating them as heat. It will get still colder.

Within a few years, it won't all be melted by the end of the summer.... and new snow will fall.

This is the cooling scenario.

Either way around, the compouded concern is not just a change in the sea levels, but a change in the ocean currents, most importantly the gulf stream, which channels heat up to the Arctic Ocean. If that stops flowing, we're hosed.

Good times.

[Buzz Clik]

5. These arguments will not sway those in power.

The American political right wing is absolutely convinced that pursuing money should never be inhibited in any way unless the evidence against it is overwhelming and incredibly obvious. Considering the uncertainties involved in unraveling the impact of human activities on weather patterns and global climate, we have absolutely no hope of making any inroads.

Continuing the education process and never backing off from the argument are critical at this time, but our prospects of success are bleak.

[3rdParty]

6. Since I think winter is too long anyways....

global warming can't get here fast enough for me!!!!

[struggle4progress]

10. The effect will not necessarily be as benign as you imagine.

Suppose, for example, that in certain localities the warming increased the number of warm days before the last hard freeze, without affecting the date or depth of that freeze. Then local plants would begin to bud earlier, and would be hard hit each year, being in bud at the time of the last freeze. This would limit floral productivity, potentially reducing the amount of food available to fauna.

Hurricanes are a mechanism for spreading heat more evenly through the atmosphere. Turning up the heat could turn up the hurricanes.

Try to think of a hundred counterintuitive scenarios like these, and put your differerent scenarios into play in different locales: then maybe you'll start to have a picture of the impact of global warming.

[cprise]

9. No question! The Precautionary Principle rules in matters like this.

When almost everything is at stake, and all of our experience and scientific knowledge predict that greenhouse gas increases that we are dumping into the atmosphere will probably shift the climate, then the actual effects of GHGs don't HAVE to be known for certain.

The precautionary principle, a phrase coined circa 1988, is the ethical principle that if the consequences of an action, especially the use of technology, are unknown but are judged by some scientists to have a high risk of being negative from an ethical point of view, then it is better not to carry out the action rather than risk the uncertain, but possibly very negative, consequences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle