Global Warming - Fact or fiction?
- Moohasha
- Gnoll
- Posts: 672
- Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:37 pm
- x 8
Re: Global Warming - Fact or fiction?
Wow, randomly ran across this thread while looking for something else, so I'll throw my $0.02 in.
First, there are brilliant people on both sides of the global warming (oops, I should use the new PC term, "climate change") debate, so let's not point fingers and say one side is uneducated and the other isn't. However, we can deduce from people's remarks how educated individuals are on the matter.
Second, I agree that the global temperature appears to be rising, so I won't argue that. But the causes to that climate change are still only theories. Theories that, like evolution, are being taught and passed around as irrifutable fact. Let's treat theories as theories until they are proven, not fact until they are disproven.
Third, coorelation is not causation. I swear I have never made it through that blasted intersection down the road from work without the light turning red right before I get there. Doesn't mean my approach causes it to turn red (though I have my suspesions). Is it possible that there is some other factor which caused CO2 and temperature to flucuate at the same rate throughout history, rather than one causing the other?
I hear people on both side of the debat make good arguments and bad arguments. I hear arguments made from both sides that I initially think "wow, that's a good point," only to see the same argument destroyed elsewhere with better evidence. So my advice is to:
1) Research for yourselves the data available.
2) Look for data from all sources, ESPECIALLY neutral sources, instead of just listening to your favorite news source which is going to tell you what you want to hear.
2) Consider the source. Ask yourself if this person is neutral on the topic, and what do they have to gain from this argument?
3) Ask yourself if YOU are giving the arguments a fair chance. Someone made a good point about showing that same graph without any labels and asking people if the coorolation continues. Ask if you're reaching the conclusion you reach because the evidence lead you there, or because you had already reached that conclusion and now you're looking for evidence to support it.
This is getting really long, so I'll just close by saying Xavier...I love you man.
First, there are brilliant people on both sides of the global warming (oops, I should use the new PC term, "climate change") debate, so let's not point fingers and say one side is uneducated and the other isn't. However, we can deduce from people's remarks how educated individuals are on the matter.
Second, I agree that the global temperature appears to be rising, so I won't argue that. But the causes to that climate change are still only theories. Theories that, like evolution, are being taught and passed around as irrifutable fact. Let's treat theories as theories until they are proven, not fact until they are disproven.
Third, coorelation is not causation. I swear I have never made it through that blasted intersection down the road from work without the light turning red right before I get there. Doesn't mean my approach causes it to turn red (though I have my suspesions). Is it possible that there is some other factor which caused CO2 and temperature to flucuate at the same rate throughout history, rather than one causing the other?
I hear people on both side of the debat make good arguments and bad arguments. I hear arguments made from both sides that I initially think "wow, that's a good point," only to see the same argument destroyed elsewhere with better evidence. So my advice is to:
1) Research for yourselves the data available.
2) Look for data from all sources, ESPECIALLY neutral sources, instead of just listening to your favorite news source which is going to tell you what you want to hear.
2) Consider the source. Ask yourself if this person is neutral on the topic, and what do they have to gain from this argument?
3) Ask yourself if YOU are giving the arguments a fair chance. Someone made a good point about showing that same graph without any labels and asking people if the coorolation continues. Ask if you're reaching the conclusion you reach because the evidence lead you there, or because you had already reached that conclusion and now you're looking for evidence to support it.
This is getting really long, so I'll just close by saying Xavier...I love you man.
Black holes are where God divided by 0
- wacom
- Gnome
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:07 pm
Re: Global Warming - Fact or fiction?
Just a quick remark: evolution in itself is a fact (proven by fossils). But the mechanics of evolution are subject for theories.Moohasha wrote:Theories that, like evolution, are being taught and passed around as irrifutable fact.
- KungFooMasta
- OGRE Contributor
- Posts: 2087
- Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 7:11 am
- Location: WA, USA
- x 16
- Contact:
Re: Global Warming - Fact or fiction?
The fundamental flaw in Jerky's logic is that he assumes Global Warming to be fiction because it cannot be proven (at this point in time) as fact. You don't know the past 3.5 billion years worth of C02 levels in the atmosphere, yet you somehow think that disproves Global Warming? Why not try to make sense of things from a "this is the data we have, what can we derive from it" point of view, instead of claiming we don't know enough, therefore Global Warming is fiction. Regardless of temperature/C02 correlation, you don't see anything unnatural about the graph in terms of C02? Or maybe you think C02 can be whatever it wants to be and everybody will be happy?
Creator of QuickGUI!
- _tommo_
- Gnoll
- Posts: 677
- Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:09 pm
- x 5
- Contact:
Re: Global Warming - Fact or fiction?
[OT]wacom wrote:Just a quick remark: evolution in itself is a fact (proven by fossils). But the mechanics of evolution are subject for theories.
Proven by medicines, viruses, dogs, insects, jellyfishes, informatics, finance, marketing, politics, geographic distribution of species, memes, and what else?
Evolution by selection is a fact as it is an observable behaviour both in nature and other systems.
The subject for theories is now how nature does evolve, how living beings change their "shape" from one generation to the other... but that they do it's an irrefutable fact.
I think that negating evolution while knowing that DNA and OGMs exists is just an absurd.
[/OT]
- Moohasha
- Gnoll
- Posts: 672
- Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:37 pm
- x 8
Re: Global Warming - Fact or fiction?
Since it is off topic, I'm not going to get into an argument about evolution, but I just wanted to point out the good laugh I got at your inclusion of finance, marketing, politics, and memes as sources of proof._tommo_ wrote:[OT]wacom wrote:Just a quick remark: evolution in itself is a fact (proven by fossils). But the mechanics of evolution are subject for theories.
Proven by medicines, viruses, dogs, insects, jellyfishes, informatics, finance, marketing, politics, geographic distribution of species, memes, and what else?
Evolution by selection is a fact as it is an observable behaviour both in nature and other systems.
The subject for theories is now how nature does evolve, how living beings change their "shape" from one generation to the other... but that they do it's an irrefutable fact.
I think that negating evolution while knowing that DNA and OGMs exists is just an absurd.
[/OT]
Black holes are where God divided by 0
- _tommo_
- Gnoll
- Posts: 677
- Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:09 pm
- x 5
- Contact:
Re: Global Warming - Fact or fiction?
That's were extreme examples to point out that you can see evolution everyday...
- Jerky
- Orc Shaman
- Posts: 791
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 4:13 am
- Location: Springville, Utah
- Contact:
Re: Global Warming - Fact or fiction?
That's funny. I would contest that there isn't a fundamental flaw in my logic. It is so simple that it can't be flawed. My logic is: the data is incomplete; so why doesn't someone admit it and build from it(the incomplete data), rather than the house of cards that stands there now. I haven't heard or seen anyone so far that can refute that logic.KungFooMasta wrote:The fundamental flaw in Jerky's logic is that he assumes Global Warming to be fiction because it cannot be proven (at this point in time) as fact. You don't know the past 3.5 billion years worth of C02 levels in the atmosphere, yet you somehow think that disproves Global Warming? Why not try to make sense of things from a "this is the data we have, what can we derive from it" point of view, instead of claiming we don't know enough, therefore Global Warming is fiction. Regardless of temperature/C02 correlation, you don't see anything unnatural about the graph in terms of C02? Or maybe you think C02 can be whatever it wants to be and everybody will be happy?
Actually, I don't disagree that most people's take on Global Warming (that it exists). I disagree with the interpretation of the data we have and the way in which the information is shared with the public. That doesn't mean I don't think it exists, or that there isn't relevent data to be (re)interpreted. I completely agree that we *SHOULD* look at it from a "this is the data we gave, what can we derive from it" point of view. That is, in fact, my whole argument. If we quit assuming we have it all figured out, we can admit there is much we don't know, but what we do seems to indicate something. When nobody is looking at it from that perspective, however, I am inclined to shout "BS," because that is what it is. Until someone takes a step backwards and tries to re-analyze the data, based on things we do know and have good data on, I will begin to support it. Until then I reserve my right to be a Jerk(y) .
The scientists, however, are *NOT* doing that when they make asinine blanket statements that somehow make it seem like they have it all figured out. It's the bit of humble pie that is missing. I have yet to hear or read anything along those lines. Instead, I continue hearing everything as if it were strict fact and that we should all worshiping them for saving us all with the weak science they dish out. Rather than come up with new theories based on the actual good data, they just continue building on that shaky foundation. The higher and higher they build, the farther and farther they get away from the real truth of the matter. They need to go back to the beginning and re-analyze the data before they keep coming up with more and more BS, just because they feel the pressure of the world who wants answers.
Of course there is something unnatural about the post-1950 CO2 data. Once again, I have yet to hear anybody describe it that way or provide an alternate theory as to why that is. Also, I am curious as to if today's climate CO2 levels actually translate to the ice. Are those figures perfect? What does the ice at the top say the CO2 levels are at? There has to be a large difference between what the ice is recording and what is actually in the atmosphere. There are three possible scenarios that I would like to see here:
1) The data in the ice is much lower than what our air readings show, which would indicate that that the CO2 levels are X% higher than we figure from the ice readings. This would completely explain the spike since 1950, since the 1950 data onward doesn't come from ice readings, it comes from above-ground instruments.
2) The ice data is accurate. In this scenario, I would want someone to then provide some well-grounded theories as to why the CO2 levels now have broken the correlation. What does it mean that the temperature has not risen to meet the CO2 levels? What other factors could be shown on the graph which might help explain a new correlation (data from 1950 onward) which could explain the CO2 level rise but also explaining the sustaining of the temperatures.
3) The ice data is higher than the actual. This would put me into alarm and I would expect the scientists to be working feverishly to provide us with some alternate explanations as to why the temperature level isn't yet rising with the CO2 readings. At this point, the spike is even higher than expressed in the updated graphs.
Can someone point to me where one of these 3 scenarios has already taken place, if it has? I don't profess to be an expert on global warming, I just am sharing with you my logic and my right to it .
- syd
- Gnome
- Posts: 362
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 1:55 am
- Location: Paris, France
Re: Global Warming - Fact or fiction?
Those data are accurate. There is a consensus on it in the scientist community. Even the NASA trust them. I don't see how we, developers, could question these.
You seem to believe that the correlation 'disappeared'. It's not the case at all.
Look at that chart again, there is delay (not so obvious because of the time scale used)
CO2 fluctuates first, temperatures follow then, the offset is certainly more than a century.
Currently the rise of the temperature is at a rate of 0.2 degrees celcius per decade. This means that in 2060, the global temperature will have increased of one degree from today. This 0.2 trend is certainely not linear, it's only the value observed today. This variable will be in fact exponential-like.
Here you'll find a comparaison of different temperature projections: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/G ... ctions.htm
some of these models are old, they are realizing today that the temperature is rising folowing the upper bounds of these projections...
the point of copenhagen isn't to 'stop' GW, the challenge is to limit the increase of the temperature to 'only' 2 degrees C by the end of the century.
You seem to believe that the correlation 'disappeared'. It's not the case at all.
Look at that chart again, there is delay (not so obvious because of the time scale used)
CO2 fluctuates first, temperatures follow then, the offset is certainly more than a century.
Currently the rise of the temperature is at a rate of 0.2 degrees celcius per decade. This means that in 2060, the global temperature will have increased of one degree from today. This 0.2 trend is certainely not linear, it's only the value observed today. This variable will be in fact exponential-like.
Here you'll find a comparaison of different temperature projections: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/G ... ctions.htm
some of these models are old, they are realizing today that the temperature is rising folowing the upper bounds of these projections...
the point of copenhagen isn't to 'stop' GW, the challenge is to limit the increase of the temperature to 'only' 2 degrees C by the end of the century.
-
- Greenskin
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 7:04 pm
Re: Global Warming - Fact or fiction?
Speaking of Sarah Palin, She weighed in, in the Climate change debate.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=188540473434
I guess we will be bombarded with new version of Obama Climate Death Panel for quite some time now.
On another note, I guess that some people here are going to love this:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200912080002
Here an older video cortesy of another Conservative Think Tank running a video backward to show proof that that CO2 is actually making the polar caps getting bigger.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq_Bj-av ... re=related
That's the kind of "scientific data" these research groups like:
The Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Discovery Institute, the Center for Prosperity, the Competitive Enterprise Institute,
and some others that are so dishonest that there is not point motioning, Generate for airing by Fox News and some local conservative media channels all over the country.
They do not really do anything they just take legitimate work by other researchers, and twisted for the purpose to misinform an audience that want to see what they want to see.
It is all about rating, and in a country where 6 in 10 people believe that Coal and Oil is not a fossil fuel but, like Palin said, a “God given fuel”,
conservative Think Tanks have to produce data to entertain that crowd.
So when people talk about Hoaxes, be careful, because when is comes to Hoaxes, Conservative Republicans know Hoaxes.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=188540473434
I guess we will be bombarded with new version of Obama Climate Death Panel for quite some time now.
On another note, I guess that some people here are going to love this:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200912080002
Here an older video cortesy of another Conservative Think Tank running a video backward to show proof that that CO2 is actually making the polar caps getting bigger.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq_Bj-av ... re=related
That's the kind of "scientific data" these research groups like:
The Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Discovery Institute, the Center for Prosperity, the Competitive Enterprise Institute,
and some others that are so dishonest that there is not point motioning, Generate for airing by Fox News and some local conservative media channels all over the country.
They do not really do anything they just take legitimate work by other researchers, and twisted for the purpose to misinform an audience that want to see what they want to see.
It is all about rating, and in a country where 6 in 10 people believe that Coal and Oil is not a fossil fuel but, like Palin said, a “God given fuel”,
conservative Think Tanks have to produce data to entertain that crowd.
So when people talk about Hoaxes, be careful, because when is comes to Hoaxes, Conservative Republicans know Hoaxes.
- jheld
- Halfling
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:32 am
Re: Global Warming - Fact or fiction?
Hi Syd,
You need to take another look at the link you sent us. Look at the models used and the actual temperatures recorded. IPCC is *way* incorrect in their estimate. The value is not exponential. Scientists are people. They make mistakes, and the ones that work at NASA are no different....trust me on that one. I know a LOT of NASA folk.
The thing is, those of you who remember the late 1970's and early 1980s might remember getting these global warming talks. Our generation was raised to believe that florida would be swallowed by the seas in 2010. That's what the models showed, so we all believed it. So it's okay, man. I understand your stress. Just remember that while the data doesn't lie, people do. Especially people with money on the line.
Jason
You need to take another look at the link you sent us. Look at the models used and the actual temperatures recorded. IPCC is *way* incorrect in their estimate. The value is not exponential. Scientists are people. They make mistakes, and the ones that work at NASA are no different....trust me on that one. I know a LOT of NASA folk.
The thing is, those of you who remember the late 1970's and early 1980s might remember getting these global warming talks. Our generation was raised to believe that florida would be swallowed by the seas in 2010. That's what the models showed, so we all believed it. So it's okay, man. I understand your stress. Just remember that while the data doesn't lie, people do. Especially people with money on the line.
Jason
- xavier
- OGRE Retired Moderator
- Posts: 9481
- Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 2:03 am
- Location: Dublin, CA, US
- x 22
Re: Global Warming - Fact or fiction?
Anyone who listens to a word that clown utters deserves everything they get. I wish she would figure out that her 15 minutes were up long ago...VictorMoran wrote:Speaking of Sarah Palin, She weighed in, in the Climate change debate.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=188540473434
-
- Greenskin
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 7:04 pm
Re: Global Warming - Fact or fiction?
Wow, did I read that right?
Alleluia, I had been delivered. It took a lot of perseverance but I never lost my hope that one day Xavier and I will agree on something.
This is like Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders agreeing on Heathcare reform, upps that happens last night too.
Now If I can only get Xavier off listening to Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, maybe he can even believe Global Warming is a fact.
What do you said Xavier, want to give it a crack?
Alleluia, I had been delivered. It took a lot of perseverance but I never lost my hope that one day Xavier and I will agree on something.
This is like Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders agreeing on Heathcare reform, upps that happens last night too.
Now If I can only get Xavier off listening to Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, maybe he can even believe Global Warming is a fact.
What do you said Xavier, want to give it a crack?
- xavier
- OGRE Retired Moderator
- Posts: 9481
- Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 2:03 am
- Location: Dublin, CA, US
- x 22
Re: Global Warming - Fact or fiction?
The problem with your theory is, (a) I don't have a clue who this Mark Levin person is, and (b) I don't think I've ever actually listened to Rush Limbaugh. I mean, I know what he sounds like -- Ronn Reagan plays enough Rush soundbites for some reason -- but that's about it.VictorMoran wrote:
Now If I can only get Xavier off listening to Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, maybe he can even believe Global Warming is a fact.
What do you said Xavier, want to give it a crack?
-
- Gnoll
- Posts: 674
- Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:56 am
- Location: USA
Re: Global Warming - Fact or fiction?
http://www.businessandmedia.org/special ... andice.aspVictorMoran wrote:Wow, did I read that right?
Alleluia, I had been delivered. It took a lot of perseverance but I never lost my hope that one day Xavier and I will agree on something.
This is like Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders agreeing on Heathcare reform, upps that happens last night too.
Now If I can only get Xavier off listening to Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, maybe he can even believe Global Warming is a fact.
What do you said Xavier, want to give it a crack?
-
- Ogre Magi
- Posts: 1120
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 7:41 pm
- Location: Finland
- x 5
Re: Global Warming - Fact or fiction?
Sarah Palin!
- xavier
- OGRE Retired Moderator
- Posts: 9481
- Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 2:03 am
- Location: Dublin, CA, US
- x 22
Re: Global Warming - Fact or fiction?
Hate to stir this one up again, but if syd needs help understanding why the CO2 levels and temperature do not correlate, maybe the Global High Priest at the Church of Climate Change can help explain it:
Now, I don't have a clue who runs The Register, so I don't know if they have a particular axe to grind, but in general with journalism, you can't actually attribute something in quotes to someone unless they actually said it, so I have to assume that Hansen did actually utter these words, presumably on the topic mentioned.
Of course, if The Register is complete rubbish, then take it at face value. That said, they do link to a NASA press release on the topic:
It's nice to see Hansen "thinking out of the box" he built for himself, though...
BTW syd, I've come up with a theory on your CO2 spike -- we've (Brazil, anyway) have spent the last N decades clear-cutting one of the largest global CO2 sinks on the planet; think that might have anything to do with your CO2 chart?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/15 ... page2.htmlJames Hansen, NASA Goddard wrote: "Black soot is probably responsible for as much as half of the glacial melt," he says.
Now, I don't have a clue who runs The Register, so I don't know if they have a particular axe to grind, but in general with journalism, you can't actually attribute something in quotes to someone unless they actually said it, so I have to assume that Hansen did actually utter these words, presumably on the topic mentioned.
Of course, if The Register is complete rubbish, then take it at face value. That said, they do link to a NASA press release on the topic:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... rming.htmlThe new research, by NASA’s William Lau and collaborators, reinforces with detailed numerical analysis what earlier studies suggest: that soot and dust contribute as much (or more) to atmospheric warming in the Himalayas as greenhouse gases.
It's nice to see Hansen "thinking out of the box" he built for himself, though...
BTW syd, I've come up with a theory on your CO2 spike -- we've (Brazil, anyway) have spent the last N decades clear-cutting one of the largest global CO2 sinks on the planet; think that might have anything to do with your CO2 chart?
-
- Gnoblar
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:37 pm
Re: Global Warming - Fact or fiction?
Does it really matter if it is fact or fiction?, lets consider a Pascal decision matrix
A: The price we have to pay, in life and property lost, is so overwhelming that it boggles the mind, (Equivalent to Pascals "God exists", "I do not believe in god")
B: Acting doesn't really hurt you, as it in the long run will boost the economies around the world, creating new technologies, sparking economic growth etc.
C: Not acting is foolish beyond measure.
D: Same a B
so, there is hardly any harm done in acting as if global warming was true, regardless of whether it is scientifically provable, scientifically probable etc.
Code: Select all
| Fact | Fiction |
-------------+-------+---------+
Do Nothing | A | B |
-------------+-------+---------+
Act | C | D |
-------------+-------+---------+
B: Acting doesn't really hurt you, as it in the long run will boost the economies around the world, creating new technologies, sparking economic growth etc.
C: Not acting is foolish beyond measure.
D: Same a B
so, there is hardly any harm done in acting as if global warming was true, regardless of whether it is scientifically provable, scientifically probable etc.
-
- Gnoblar
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:37 pm
Re: Global Warming - Fact or fiction?
If we knew 500 years ago that the earth was flat, why did Columbus travel west in the search of India?xavier wrote: "1500 years ago we *knew* the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago we *knew* the earth was flat....Imagine what you'll *know* tomorrow".
There has never been any real doubt at any times that the world was round.
-
- Gnoll
- Posts: 674
- Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:56 am
- Location: USA
Re: Global Warming - Fact or fiction?
antonl wrote:Does it really matter if it is fact or fiction?, lets consider a Pascal decision matrix
A: The price we have to pay, in life and property lost, is so overwhelming that it boggles the mind, (Equivalent to Pascals "God exists", "I do not believe in god")Code: Select all
| Fact | Fiction | -------------+-------+---------+ Do Nothing | A | B | -------------+-------+---------+ Act | C | D | -------------+-------+---------+
B: Acting doesn't really hurt you, as it in the long run will boost the economies around the world, creating new technologies, sparking economic growth etc.
C: Not acting is foolish beyond measure.
D: Same a B
so, there is hardly any harm done in acting as if global warming was true, regardless of whether it is scientifically provable, scientifically probable etc.
If there was no harm in acting, this wouldn't be such hot topic and you wouldn't have so many countries opposing it.
- syd
- Gnome
- Posts: 362
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 1:55 am
- Location: Paris, France
Re: Global Warming - Fact or fiction?
these article refers to a phenomenon called global dimmingxavier wrote:Hate to stir this one up again, but if syd needs help understanding why the CO2 levels and temperature do not correlate, maybe the Global High Priest at the Church of Climate Change can help explain it:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/15 ... page2.htmlJames Hansen, NASA Goddard wrote: "Black soot is probably responsible for as much as half of the glacial melt," he says.
Of course, if The Register is complete rubbish, then take it at face value. That said, they do link to a NASA press release on the topic:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... rming.htmlThe new research, by NASA’s William Lau and collaborators, reinforces with detailed numerical analysis what earlier studies suggest: that soot and dust contribute as much (or more) to atmospheric warming in the Himalayas as greenhouse gases.
there's a documentary on it, a bit sensationalist to me, but still interesting.
however, co2 stills plays a role in it...
since trees respire Co2, cutting them surely contribute to the lack of absorption...xavier wrote:
It's nice to see Hansen "thinking out of the box" he built for himself, though...
BTW syd, I've come up with a theory on your CO2 spike -- we've (Brazil, anyway) have spent the last N decades clear-cutting one of the largest global CO2 sinks on the planet; think that might have anything to do with your CO2 chart?
what you point out are surely parts of the jigsaw.
I appreciate you seem to agree now it all comes from human activity
-
- Gnoblar
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:37 pm
Re: Global Warming - Fact or fiction?
It seems to me that regardless of everything, new methods of producing, transporting and storing energy is high on the list of changes coming in the near future, and you can either choose to try to seize the opportunity or lag behind, and we all know what happens to laggards right?warmi wrote: If there was no harm in acting, this wouldn't be such hot topic and you wouldn't have so many countries opposing it.
So acting is less harmful than not acting.
-
- Gnoll
- Posts: 674
- Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:56 am
- Location: USA
Re: Global Warming - Fact or fiction?
antonl wrote:It seems to me that regardless of everything, new methods of producing, transporting and storing energy is high on the list of changes coming in the near future, and you can either choose to try to seize the opportunity or lag behind, and we all know what happens to laggards right?warmi wrote: If there was no harm in acting, this wouldn't be such hot topic and you wouldn't have so many countries opposing it.
So acting is less harmful than not acting.
As a rule progress is hardly ever facilitated by a committee or any sort of "master to-do list" ... there will be new forms of energy and so on but it won't come from any UN/EU meeting or high level decree of any sort.
Once there is a true demand for it and current energy sources become too expensive, people will invest in new stuff - they always have and always will ..
-
- Ogre Magi
- Posts: 1120
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 7:41 pm
- Location: Finland
- x 5
Re: Global Warming - Fact or fiction?
It's too complicated a discussion and even the smartest scientists get all tangled up in it and don't seem to know how to present their ideas well. And look at it in a too small a time frame.
I propose that the discussion of "climate change" should be presented to the great public in the following manner:
Question: Do you want to inhale harmful smoke?
Now the citizens go and answer the question.
An overwhelming majority of all the people in the World will answer a clear 'no' to that question.
The next step is to continue directly and quickly from that be telling them "OK you don't want to inhale harmful smoke - so this is what we have to do, then..."
Do not talk about temperature having risen 1 or 2 degrees per such and such time. That's not getting us anywhere. You need to present the problem in a much simpler and practical way - like do you want to inhale this harmful smoke, yes or no accepted as an answer.
Show them the example of how a man or a woman killed themselves in a garage having the doors and windows all shut and the engine of a car running inside the garage. Tell them the world is just a big garage with all doors and windows shut and engines are running. And so on. Use clear examples like that one to present the problem and the improvements we can quickly do.
It will be much easier to convince the majority that it is a good idea to stop driving gas-guzzlers if this method is used instead of speaking of some mysterious CO2 or about how some temperature has changed 1 or 2 degrees - that seems to be very difficult for even the best scientists to understand and to talk about in a clear and sensible way so why do they expect ordinary people to understand it.
I propose that the discussion of "climate change" should be presented to the great public in the following manner:
Question: Do you want to inhale harmful smoke?
Now the citizens go and answer the question.
An overwhelming majority of all the people in the World will answer a clear 'no' to that question.
The next step is to continue directly and quickly from that be telling them "OK you don't want to inhale harmful smoke - so this is what we have to do, then..."
Do not talk about temperature having risen 1 or 2 degrees per such and such time. That's not getting us anywhere. You need to present the problem in a much simpler and practical way - like do you want to inhale this harmful smoke, yes or no accepted as an answer.
Show them the example of how a man or a woman killed themselves in a garage having the doors and windows all shut and the engine of a car running inside the garage. Tell them the world is just a big garage with all doors and windows shut and engines are running. And so on. Use clear examples like that one to present the problem and the improvements we can quickly do.
It will be much easier to convince the majority that it is a good idea to stop driving gas-guzzlers if this method is used instead of speaking of some mysterious CO2 or about how some temperature has changed 1 or 2 degrees - that seems to be very difficult for even the best scientists to understand and to talk about in a clear and sensible way so why do they expect ordinary people to understand it.
- Jerky
- Orc Shaman
- Posts: 791
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 4:13 am
- Location: Springville, Utah
- Contact:
Re: Global Warming - Fact or fiction?
Unfortunately this is a very poor suggestion. Not only does a large portion of the world (over 1.1 billion in 2001) enjoy inhaling harmful smoke, they pay billions to Phillip Morris et al. yearly for the ability to do so. That smoke is more harmful in a measurable form, so why would people be willing to change for something that cannot be proved as clearly (yet)? Answer that question and you can solve all the problems in the world.reptor wrote:I propose that the discussion of "climate change" should be presented to the great public in the following manner:
Question: Do you want to inhale harmful smoke?
Now the citizens go and answer the question.
An overwhelming majority of all the people in the World will answer a clear 'no' to that question.
The next step is to continue directly and quickly from that be telling them "OK you don't want to inhale harmful smoke - so this is what we have to do, then..."
-
- Ogre Magi
- Posts: 1120
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 7:41 pm
- Location: Finland
- x 5
Re: Global Warming - Fact or fiction?
I don't agree.
Ask them to inhale automobile exhaust gas.
Yeah, they will not want to do it. That's the point - an overwhelming majority will refuse to inhale it, if you ask them to do so.
Of course they are doing it even now, any ways, and get cancer etc. fatal illnesses because of it, without realizing. They can't really stop breathing exhaust gas even if they wanted to, because there are so many automobiles around creating it.
But this sort of examples should be used to drive the point home to them that it could be worthwhile to reduce the amount of exhaust gases created. Instead of saying "temperature went up 2 degrees since the 1970s" or something similar. Use the most practical example you can find and that is extremely easy to understand - that will work the best with the majority of the people.
I think most sane people will agree that it is very bad to inhale automobile exhaust gases. Of course many of those people are smokers - but that won't stop them understanding that inhaling automobile exhaust gases is a very bad thing to do.
Just put them in that garage with closed doors and windows and ask them to start the engine of a car which is in the garage - will they do it? Most people will likely not do it because they understand it would kill them. Why would they behave differently outside that small garage? Because they have a bigger garage outside so they can afford to put more smoke up in the air until it kills them - but it still kills them.
Ask them to inhale automobile exhaust gas.
Yeah, they will not want to do it. That's the point - an overwhelming majority will refuse to inhale it, if you ask them to do so.
Of course they are doing it even now, any ways, and get cancer etc. fatal illnesses because of it, without realizing. They can't really stop breathing exhaust gas even if they wanted to, because there are so many automobiles around creating it.
But this sort of examples should be used to drive the point home to them that it could be worthwhile to reduce the amount of exhaust gases created. Instead of saying "temperature went up 2 degrees since the 1970s" or something similar. Use the most practical example you can find and that is extremely easy to understand - that will work the best with the majority of the people.
I think most sane people will agree that it is very bad to inhale automobile exhaust gases. Of course many of those people are smokers - but that won't stop them understanding that inhaling automobile exhaust gases is a very bad thing to do.
Just put them in that garage with closed doors and windows and ask them to start the engine of a car which is in the garage - will they do it? Most people will likely not do it because they understand it would kill them. Why would they behave differently outside that small garage? Because they have a bigger garage outside so they can afford to put more smoke up in the air until it kills them - but it still kills them.