Global Warming

[sajeev50]

Is it real, or not?

I personally believe that it's happening. The statistics prove it. And after watching an Inconvinient Truth, my worries grew.

But even though I believe it's happening, I'm one of those people who doesn't seem to do anything about it. [smiley5]

Discuss plz.

[WillPhanto1]

I don't believe it's happening. Heck, this year was a pretty cool year. Is Al Gore any kind of researcher in Atmospheric sciences? No, he's a politician. And before it was P.C. to believe in Global Warming, alot of scientist disagreed with the theory. Not to mention, animals and people as a whole make far more CO2 then our cars and factories do, any organic matter that burns will release CO2. And even if it is real, the problem wouldn't be what we put in the air, but the volume of it. Even if everyone on earth cut back as low as possible, our population is growing by the millions, so the volume will still increase. The real solution would be for people to take more responsibility about having children, then buying over-priced hybrids.

(P.S. Hybrids make nickel pollution from the wasted power cells they use, which is poisonous.)

[Tatterdemalion]

I think it's ridiculous that you even need to ask the question. As far as I'm concerned, the debate over "does global warming exist" is in the same category as the "Evolution vs. Creation" argument, as a nonsensical discussion, based over the appeal of the conflict that arises over the idea that the subject is something that's debatable, as well as a general lack of understanding about the subject itself.

It's amazing this attitude that people have toward science...people seem to take the position that if something in which science plays a critical role enters into the political spectrum, that it is therefore the sort of thing that can be the subject of a sort of barstool diplomacy, the way political issues are treated...sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

See, the issue is that not everyone is a scientist. In fact, most people aren't scientists, and even people ho are scientists aren't scientists in the same field. So, what is really necessary is that people are scientifically literate, and find some good popular science resources to stay informed...and that's exactly what people don't do, instead, for the most part, turning to a few mass media outlets, getting the poorly told, incomplete, skewed version of the story, then going online, and calling talk radio shows to "debate" the issue. And I'm not saying this applies to all people, but it applies to far too many people in the general public.

Look, the fact of the matter is that the overall scientific consensus is that yes, global climate change is a very real phenomenon, and while there are ongoing discussions as to the scope and severity of the issue, it's nothing as simple as "does global warming exist."

What I'd really like is to find a resource to direct people to...I'm pretty sure NOVA did a good global warming documentary, but I can't find it on the PBS website (it might not be archived)...which sucks, really.

And with no disrespect intended to WillPhanto1, the "the weather where I live isn't that hot, so therefore global warming doesn't exist" argument is probably the silliest argument you could make. I mean, Aristotle came up with more reasonable conclusions than that.

And also, for the record, consensus on global warming has been around long before Al Gore, and long before hybrid cars came around. All Al Gore did wat turn the research into a power point presentation, and a movie...and while I don't think the movie is that great, because it does a lot of self-glorifying for Gore, and a lot of talking down to the audience, but the science isn't inaccurate. It's not as though Gore made it up, or got his information from Wikipedia, he just made it into something people would watch.

And as far as the idea that industry and the release of fossil fuels has an insignificant impact of CO2 levels in the atmosphere as compared to human respiration, and other natural processes...while there are factors other than fossil fuels that contributing to global warming, the notion that human activity has a minimal effect is just untrue.

[WillPhanto1]

I wasn't quite awake when I wrote that, so it didn’t really came out like I wanted. And with no disrespect intended to WillPhanto1, the "the weather where I live isn't that hot, so therefore global warming doesn't exist" argument is probably the silliest argument you could make. I mean, Aristotle came up with more reasonable conclusions than that. It seems cooler all over the planet this year, not just where live. And also, for the record, consensus on global warming has been around long before Al Gore, and long before hybrid cars came around. All Al Gore did wat turn the research into a power point presentation, and a movie...and while I don't think the movie is that great, because it does a lot of self-glorifying for Gore, and a lot of talking down to the audience, but the science isn't inaccurate. It's not as though Gore made it up, or got his information from Wikipedia, he just made it into something people would watch.
Yes, but there were a good number of scientist who disagreed with it. And my point was with Gore was that most people pushing global warming aren’t scientist, and seem to be pushing an political agenda then having real concern with the planet. And as far as the idea that industry and the release of fossil fuels has an insignificant impact of CO2 levels in the atmosphere as compared to human respiration, and other natural processes...while there are factors other than fossil fuels that contributing to global warming, the notion that human activity has a minimal effect is just untrue.
I’m not saying it’s minimal, I’m saying compared to all other natural Greenhouse gas producing phenomena, such as volcanos, wild-fires, the various gases animal life expel, etc. it not really that much extra. And I said, the problem would be there being too many of us, then what we’re doing. Scientist said in the 80's or something, that the earth could only handle five billion people, and still keep it’s systems working smoothly, We’re almost at seven billion now.

Also, the earth has been going through cycles of hot and cold, how hot is it suppose to get during the warm period anyway?

[Tatterdemalion]

It seems cooler all over the planet this year, not just where live.
Again, the weather is not the same as surface temperature. The fact that it may "seem cooler" to you this year all over the world (although I doubt you actually live all over the world) really has absolutely nothing to do with it.Yes, but there were a good number of scientist who disagreed with it. And my point was with Gore was that most people pushing global warming aren’t scientist, and seem to be pushing an political agenda then having real concern with the planet.
First off, that's not true, because there are a great deal of researchers and lecturers who have been speaking about global climate change for quite some time now, so no, it's not just politicians. The only reason it may seem as though it's mostly politicians who are discussing it is because it does tie into politics, and policy, so it's going to be discussed in the political spectrum, and this end of the discussion is what the media is going to cover. The media, for the most part, does not cover scientific developments, so of course the average person isn't going to know about it.

Global climate change on its own is entirely a scientific discussion...the problem is that in America, most people don't actually care about scientific discussions on their own, and unless an issue enters politics and the media, generally remain oblivious, no matter how much attention the issue receives within the scientific community.

And this idea that it's somehow a "political issue" and that people are trying to push a "political agenda"...without even touching on the fact that the science speaks for itself, why would anyone in their right mind want to make up a global crisis to promote a political policy that would benefit absolutely no one unless there actually was a crisis? Again, the political policies and such that are being discussed are a response to global warming. If global warming was indeed a complete fabrication (which, by the way, it's not) what would any of the political figures trying to raise awareness have to benefit? (and don't say hybrid cars, keeping in mind that not only did hybrid cars not come to mass availability until very recently, but also, the politicians we're talking about don't actually have any ties to the automotive industry)I’m not saying it’s minimal, I’m saying compared to all other natural Greenhouse gas producing phenomena, such as volcanos, wild-fires, the various gases animal life expel, etc. it not really that much extra.
Yeah, but you're misrepresenting the information here, because while it's true that ll of these processes account for much of the release of carbon dioxide, this carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere by natural carbon dioxide sinks, creating something of an equillibrium, whereas the excess carbon dioxide released into the environment due to the burning of fossil fuels does not have a means of being naturally removed from the atmosphere. So while fossil fuel emissions may not be the major source of all coarbon dioxide that is released, because these emissions are not naturally removed, they significantly upset the balance of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere.

[Emmy]

People have a lot of false information on this subject. The worst two are:
1) "Humans make only a tiny amount of the CO2 emissions"
It only takes a tiny difference really to cause problems. If the Earth's temperature was to raise by 6 Kelvins (which are degrees Celcius), most life on the planet, including people, would die out. Even 2 Kelvins would cause massive problems and deaths.
2) "But the weather is worse/colder/rainier than ever!"
Global warming doesn't mean deserts->hell, warm places->deserts, cold places->warm places. Not necessarily. It means floods, changes in weather patterns and natural disasters. Not Ohio/Washington/Ireland will be the new Mediterranean/Jamaica. Here in Ireland we've had the worst two summers in living memory this year and last year, half my own town is flooded out of it. That's climate change.

People have to wake up. Anyway, what have we to lose. If there was no climate change, investing in sustainable energy, recycling, planting forests... these are all good things in their own right. Since there is climate change, ignoring it will end in death for millions.

[killshot]

People have to wake up.
I don't believe this is the real problem. Even if a substantial effort was made to educate the masses on the subject of global warming, I doubt there would be an decrease in emissions or even a slight increase in recycling. The problem stems from a general feeling of apathy towards the issue. Even if global climate change is inevitable, it is unlikely to occur during our lifetime. The opinion of the majority seems to be, "if it doesn't affect me then who cares?"

The only way I can see a major drop in carbon emissions happening is if there was some incentive for the public to switch to cleaner forms energy. The increase in gas prices is certainly helping pave the way for energy efficient cars, but it is not enough. A reward is a much better incentive for switching to clean energy than just the penalty of costly gasoline. I would recommend giving tax breaks to those citizens who purchase and operate an electric or hybrid car. Similar tax benefits could be given to corporations who minimize their production of greenhouse gases.

I think more people are aware of global warming than the lack of progress on the issue would have you believe. The problem is that we need to make people start caring about the damage we are doing to our environment. Apathy is much stronger than ignorance, but the survival of our species depends on our ability to conquer both.

[Tatterdemalion]

First off, there is a great deal of misinformation going on around in America about global warming (statistically speaking, far too many Americans are stupid (and I'd phrase that more tactfully, but I think I get the point across just fine)).

Now, having established that:Even if global climate change is inevitable, it is unlikely to occur during our lifetime.
I'm afraid that's wishful thinking. Well, I don't know how old you are, and if you're in your 50's then you may be right, but if you're not, keep in mind that global warming isn't something that's going to start influencing the world a hundred years from now, and if patterns continue as they are now at a steady rate, then it's not unlikely that we will indeed experience its effects in our lifetime. (Also, global climate change isn't something that's predicted to happen, it's something that's already happening, and that's been happening for a while now. The issue is how much worse it's going to get)

More on this later, but a quick summary: Hybrid cars = not a solution alone, Americans = drive too much, tax incentive = already exists, Bicycles = overlooked, New York = good

[Emmy]

Yes, we should definitely get with the bicycles.

Okay, I've got one for you. The problem we have with global warming is due to democracy! <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley7.png'>
Really, though, if everyone with real power in the western world is over fifty and going to lose their power in a maximum of seven or eight years, why would they bother with long-term investment in green schemes and carbon negative technology? They want popularity now. What we need are sane and selfless despots. They want to be popular until they die, and they want their sons to be popular, and no one can argue with them anyway, so they can invest in the long-term stuff and raise taxes now if necessary.

(I am, for the record, opposed to tyranny, I'm even a member of Amnesty International.)

[killshot]

Bicycles = overlooked
Bicycles are all well and good, but the reality is that most people need to travel farther than a bike will allow them to go. I live in a rural, mountainous area where places of interest are scattered several miles from each other. It would be a daunting task for me to even pedal to the grocery store, let alone carry more than a few items home. Perhaps if you live in a more compact area bicycles would be a practical idea, but they certainly aren't the magical solution we have been looking for.

Something we need more of in America is a better form of mass transit. Outside of major cities, available forms of public transportation are laughable at best and otherwise non-existent. Americans drive too much because there is no other alternative at the moment.

I'm not sure what you mean by New York = good. Do you mean they are handling the transportation/energy problem well, or is it just a nice place to live?

[Tatterdemalion]

Well, surely if you have to travel very long distances then no, bicycles aren't always going to be the most practical, but as far as urban transportation, bicycles are probably the most ideal form of commuitng there is. Generally, if you don't have to travel 30 miles to get somewhere, bicycles work. And if you do have to travel very far, a bycicle combined with a form of mass transit is also a good idea (take your bike from your village to the train station, take the train wherever it is you're going, then use your bike to get around once you get there). It's not as though it works for absolutely everyine, but in a great deal of cases it's a much more reasonable alternative to relying on an automobile to get everywhere. And keep in mind, other countries are way ahead of America on the whole bicycle thing, in places such as Asia, parts of Europe...and such.

The real problem is with the automobile itself. There's this idea that people seem to have in America that somehow a car is an essential tool for day to day life in the eveloped world, when in reality it's not even close. I blame Robert Moses, really. But what it all amounts to is that the automobile is very much characteristic of suburban sprawl, and wasteful, inefficient, poorly-concieved land-use planning (or lack thereof). The fact that the way a great deal of American communities are designed makes automobiles a near-necessity for the people living in them isn't an argument in favor of automobiles so much as it is an argument against the way things are currently structured. Overall, urban sprawl is a major source of a myriad of environmental and economic problems, which will only escalate if it continues unchecked. And yes, public transportation is definitely a very, very good idea, and something we need a lot more of, but it is not a solution in and of itself. The way to eliminate the need for automobiles is to...eliminate the need for automobiles.I'm not sure what you mean by New York = good. Do you mean they are handling the transportation/energy problem well, or is it just a nice place to live?
It's both.

[Emmy]

Anyway, as more and more people live in cities these days, bicycles make more and more sense. Even if everyone who tries to drive through a city switched to biking, that'd be a good step forward.