3896
3897

Stephen Colbert's thoughts on climate change. (imgur.com)

WalkerFLRanger が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Khadmutra 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (193子コメント)

So what happens/changes if we all accept that Global warming/ climate change is occuring? And What happens if we don't accept?

[–]nuadarstark 46 ポイント47 ポイント  (67子コメント)

Well, we wont spend even more time pointlessly arguing about its occurence. Discusion then moves to "So what do we do about this mess we created?"

Thats pretty big step.

[–]DerJawsh 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

If we cut the entire pollution of all the transport systems in the world, in half, we'd still have more than 90% of our original emissions. Even if we know what to do and we all agreed, we'd have to revolutionize nearly every single industry to an insane extent to have a sizable impact, and with all the developing countries of the world, this becomes even more of an issue.

[–]Tysonzero 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

What industry(s) are the major cause of emissions?

[–]mock-yeaa -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

So why even try right? I'm sure this will be easier to fix ten years from now.

[–]DerJawsh 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Of course we should get a handle on it, but in order to make a sizeable change we'd need to literally change the world.

[–]El_Minadero -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, the truth is there are 2 things you must think about when deciding when & how to act.

*delaying action means we have much more CO2 to deal with in the future

*We're not really sure how much technology can save us. Sure there are lots of promising leads, but is this really a gamble we want to make?

[–]lemonparty -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The degree to which we react, and how much money we spend, to "solve" the problem is directly dependent on the initial analysis of the problem.

Happening/not happening is not the debate. That's just a false narrative. The debate is over the degree to which it's happening, the exact causes, and what's in our power to change it. And most importantly, what are the consequences of doing nothing. There is real debate there. Some of us reject Pascal's Wager and want a real cost/benefit analysis before we commit 5% of global GDP to this problem.

[–]spitfu -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (8子コメント)

You got it completely wrong. My position is still up for debate on its existence. Because there are still dissenting scientists. But I've not made a decision yet. That being said I'm not going to deny or confirm it's happening. I do still see the need to do things cleaner that are economically sound and benefit us collectively and the environment.

Making economic decisions out of fear without complete understanding of what you are doing is so dysfunctional it boggles the mind. I just had a situation happen just recently that exemplifies that. A friend of mine last year got in a car accident and the insurance company totalled his paid off jetta. He got 10k payout. Out of fear and very knee jerk, he went out and bought a brand new 30 thousand dollar jeep and a new payment while he already had a payment. Put himself into a worse financial situation with two car payments. My wife this year got in an accident and we got a 10k payout for totalling a vehicle. She wanted to guy buy a brand new minivan. I was like wth, no we paid cash for a used honda accord and will wait til my car is paid off before evening considering buying a new car.

There has been no discussion about the economic impacts surrounding these solutions to global climate change/warming. Most of those who are against the solutions and changes are opposed to it not because they want to deny it exists even though they may outwardly say it. In truth its because that discussion hasn't taken place and they are very fearful of the economic and social impacts making those changes will incur.

Whats more, there are countless studies done that show how humans have contributed to global climate change. Where are the studies that show how what what will happen environmentally if humans do adopt these solutions.

[–]fer_d 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (6子コメント)

The only dissenting scientists are the ones, coincidentally, getting money from the oil industry. Also, there are a some people who are not Climate scientists speaking on this when they don't have enough knowledge. The term scientist can be used loosely, when you filter only the people who have decent credentials, there is really no dissent on this. 97% is about what you will get on evolution.

I have a PHD and I do research, but that does not mean I feel qualified to answer any "scientific" question, even in my own field.

"Do '31,000 scientists say global warming is not real'? Maybe. But more importantly what is the significance of these signatures? The majority of signatures are engineers (10,102). 3,046 are in medicine. 2,965 are in biology, biochemistry and agriculture. 4,822 in chemistry and chemical engineering." source: http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence

[–]spitfu -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Why are you linking an article that can't backup the claims it's making with any sources. The only source that works is the gallop poll which doesn't make any reference to any scientists questioned or polled.

[–]azgeogirl 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Why are you linking an article that can't backup the claims it's making with any sources.

I think that was the point.

[–]spitfu -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No try reading the article. It is trying to support what he said not refute it.

[–]fer_d 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

What are you talking about? They link to the actual petition and the information on results is right there, one click away.

http://petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

It links to all its sources for the rest of the article as well.

[–]spitfu -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Those results aren't from the petition, they are from other polls. Can you not read?

[–]spitfu -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Here you go. A peer reviewed study that argues it's not man made.

climate science

[–]MuuaadDib 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

http://i.imgur.com/CPIjpWw.gifv

[–]I_W_M_Y 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Science doesn't care if you believe in it or not

[–]ThereIsAManBehindYou 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Maybe in an ideal plane of thought...

But in reality, given that scientific advancements are usually dependent on public or private external funding I would say Science cares a lot about whether the government or important organizations/ foundations believe their theories (and therefore funds then) or not.

[–]soulslawter 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

science does care if you stick the the past versions of theories that have been heavily modified though.

[–]Mordisquitos 58 ポイント59 ポイント  (34子コメント)

If we all accept it is occurring, we can have a reasonable debate on the economic cost-benefit analysis of a number of measures that can be taken to reduce its effects, and anticipate long term trends to better inform future policy.

If we don't, we just don't give a fuck about burning coal for energy because it's so cheap, we continue to allow massive urban sprawl in an ever dryer California, we don't make the slightest effort to improve insulation in British houses which will suffer ever colder winters, and we stop worrying about tropical countries clearing their rainforests.

[–]G-Riz -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (15子コメント)

We're long past the point of a cost-benefit analysis. We should've been doing that 20-30 years ago. The economic costs are irrelevant now. We should be doing everything in our power, even if it means stalling the economy.

This is it. We have 5 or 6 years on the outside to fix our mistakes before we've condemned our planet and any future generations to a bleak future. It is clear that late-stage capitalism is incompatible with environmental concerns.

Edit: Oh look, I rustled some right-libertarians up

[–]Wyllyd 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is today.

[–]RedMikeYawn -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Holy shit you're a psycho

10 years ago the same time frame window was said

20 and 30 years ago as well

When I'm 50 I look forward to your exact same posts

Just because you hate your life doesn't mean you get to legislate it onto me

[–]cashcow1 -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (12子コメント)

This is demonstrably false based on peer-reviewed data published in scientific journals. The rate of climate change alleged by the global warming movement has been shown by satellite data, between 96-100% probability, to be false. We're talking over 2 standard deviations from the expected values.

[–]Herpinderpitee 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (5子コメント)

This is absolute crap.

[–]cashcow1 -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

No, it's literally scientific consensus. There are now dozens of articles being written to EXPLAIN it away.

[–]Herpinderpitee 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I've read a few of your posts in this thread, and it is extremely clear that you have no scientific literacy in this field. Your statement:

satellite data, between 96-100% probability, to be false.

Is actually hilarious, because you don't even realize that statistical tests (excluding Bayesian) CANNOT assay the probability of a type II error, only type I. You just made that up on the spot, thinking that nobody would call you out on your flagrant ignorance.

Truly pathetic.

[–]cashcow1 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yes, how pathetic of me to be so imprecise as to not discuss the difference between type I and type II errors. You're right, I have no scientific or statistical knowledge whatsoever, and I am "flagrantly ignorant", and I hereby award you the crown of "grand poobah of the internet".

I should have said, as the paper does "In conclusion, we reject the null hypothesis that the observed and model mean trends are equal at the 10% level."

Here is another one with higher confidence: "we find that the continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level"

http://www.academia.edu/4210419/Can_climate_models_explain_the_recent_stagnation_in_global_warming

Does the grand poobah have a response to these facts?

[–]fishsticks40 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Let's see what Haas Van Storch has to say about his own article that you linked (which, for what it's worth, has been rejected for publication by Nature).

The main result is that climate models run under realistic scenarios (for the recent past) have some difficulty in simulating the observed trends of the last 15 years, and that are not able to simulate a continuing trend of the observed magnitude for a total of 20 years or more. This main result does not imply that the anthropogenic greenhouse gases have not been the most important cause for the warming observed during the second half of the 20th century. That greenhouse gases have been responsible for, at least, part or even most of the observed warming, is not only based on the results of climate simulations, but can be derived from basic physical principles, and thus it is not really debated. It is important to stress that there is to date no realistic alternative explanation for the warming observed in the last 50 years. The effect of greenhouse gases is not only in the trend in global mean near-surface temperature, but has been also identified in the spatial pattern of the observed warming and in other variables, such as stratospheric temperature, sea-level pressure and others.

However, climate model projections are not perfect. They are in a constant state of revision and improvement. The comparison between simulations and observations, and the identification of any mismatches between both, is thus a very important, and probably unending, task in climate research. This manuscript should be viewed under this perspective. However, the basic features of man-made climate change have been robustly described by these models in the course of time, even if more detail has been added, and rates of changes have somewhat changed in the course of time.

At present, we cannot disentangle which of the different possible explanations is the best - maybe a combination, but the conclusion is not: GHGs play a minor or no noteworthy role in ongoing and expected future climate change. A conclusion that we draw is that the A1B and RCP4.5 scenarios, which are used in very many impact studies, are suffering from some limitations. [Emphasis added]

I find it ironic that deniers will claim that climate scientists don't look critically at the weaknesses of their own work, and then use the very publications where authors are discussing those weaknesses as evidence. This sort of self-examination is why science works, and why we have reasonable faith in the outputs of climate models. The errors we have seen do point to unanswered questions about energy fluxes in the climate system, but in no way does it undermine the basic science.

To put it more simply - any climatologist could immediately become one of the most famous scientists in the world by doing one simple thing - building a physical climate model that does as good a job or better of simulating the observed climate system as existing models, without including the influence of human emissions. No such model exists. While no scientist would claim that the models are perfect, they are unquestionably the best that we have.

edit: I don't know why reddit's making the bold so big.

[–]cashcow1 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

What are you talking about? No one is a "denier". I was arguing that the models are way off, and that's proven. It's literally scientific consensus now.

[–]G-Riz 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

First of all, no. No it's not.

Second, even if NASA, the ESA, NOAA, and the vast majority of the world's universities are wrong, so what? We still have a duty of stewardship to our home planet, and there is no logical reason to put anything ahead of environmental concerns

[–]cashcow1 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (4子コメント)

  1. Yeah, actually it is, here are the p-values from published research in Nature: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/fig_tab/nclimate1972_F2.html

  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism

[–]G-Riz 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Well, there's a paywall so the context and significance of that graph is absent. Also, the authors were researching under the employ of the Canadian government, yet Environment Canada's stances and predictions are still dire, which tells me this publication is less significant than you seem to think.

And fideism? Really?

[–]cashcow1 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

  1. I apologize, here is a PDF: http://www.stat.washington.edu/peter/statclim/fyfeetal.pdf

  2. Yeah, pretty much. When the data completely demolishes a theory, and yet everyone is saying "nothing has changed at all, we're still sure the earth will explode if we don't stop all carbon emissions!" I'd call that fideism.

[–]fishsticks40 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The data have not "completely demolished the theory". Not even close. The basic theory - CO2 emissions alter the equilibrium energy content of the planet - is extraordinarily robust; to "demolish" it would require demolishing a large amount of basic physics.

What the data tell us is that the models contain some errors in terms of the energy fluxes within the climate system. The paper you cite discusses potential sources for this error. It does not conclude "thus the consensus view on climate change is demolished."

[–]cashcow1 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

  1. Please excuse my imprecision. The theory I was referring to was climate models, and claims of massive, irreversible damage if CO2 emissions are not immediately curtailed. The models are wrong (as shown by the article) which means the claims based on the models are also wrong.

  2. I'm not saying CO2 emissions do not alter the energy equilibrium content of the planet. That is almost certainly true, probably axiomatic. The question is the extent.

  3. The argument that "the energy is somewhere else" is, at best, an explanation of damning evidence, not at all a strongly supported theory. Dozens of theories have been recently refuted. There is currently no plausible explanation that I am aware of.

  4. Yes, that article is precisely stating that the old consensus view of climate change is wrong. It is examining dozens of models, and concludes they are way off of observed values.

[–]AnOnlineHandle 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (19子コメント)

Whether or not we face it and deal with it. Currently a lot of people are able to get into powerful political positions while outright denying the science agreed upon by every national academy of sciences in the world, this shouldn't be the case and if voters could be made to understand the gravity of the problem, they might not reward these people like we don't reward those who make things like the 'in legitimate rape a woman's body can shut down' comment makers, who afaik were removed in landslides.

[–]cashcow1 -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (18子コメント)

The "science agreed upon by every national academy of sciences in the world" is now being demolished by the data. The predictions of global warming were way off base of the observed data since 1997. There IS a real, scientific question about the cause, effect, and amount of global warming, and pretending it isn't so "because scientists say so" is not science.

[–]AnOnlineHandle 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (17子コメント)

Haha suuuure it is, and evolution is being found to not be true, and vaccines are actually being found to cause autism at an increasing rate.

Leave the science up to the professional scientists kid, modelling is much more complicated than being accepted or rejected in a few trite sentences. Every accomplished scientist in the world is in disagreement with you - could it be that they don't know what they're doing and you're totally clued into this super duper discovery? Or is it more likely that you're the one who doesn't understand things?

[–]cashcow1 -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (16子コメント)

Ok, I'll leave it up to the scientists. And they all agree global warming has stopped or paused. All of them. Every single published article from 2009-2014:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/18/if-97-of-scientists-say-global-warming-is-real-100-say-it-has-nearly-stopped/

[–]AnOnlineHandle 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Way more people who can call themselves 'scientists' reject evolution, omg stop the presses.

Every single organization of accomplished scientists accept climate change science. Every. Single. One. It's as mainstream science as anything else. You're like a creationist insisting that we need to teach 'the controversy' in schools while holding up a list of 'scientists' who reject evolution and saying there's totes a huge disagreement in the scientific community. In both cases, there isn't.

[–]cashcow1 -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (7子コメント)

  1. You are not making a scientific argument. You're making multiple ad hominem arguments.

  2. "Scientific consensus says you're wrong" is not a valid dismissal of evidence.

  3. Do you want to actually respond to data and have a discussion of facts? If not, quit fucking trolling.

[–]AnOnlineHandle 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (6子コメント)

I never made any ad hominems nor said that science is decided by consensus, I showed you groups who make equally 'valid' arguments who I'm sure you know the reasons for outright ignoring, and I don't need to explain them to you. The key was to use substitution logic to understand how unmoving your 'zinger' above is. Really? A list of people who call themselves scientists say they reject what the mainstream scientific community has debated and accepts? Stop the presses, nothing like this has ever happened before. /s

[–]cashcow1 -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

  1. "You're like a creationist" is ad hominem in my book.
  2. You're referral to scientific consensus was intended to brush evidence under the rug. That is fallacious.
  3. You're completely ignoring the point. Scientific consensus now acknowledges global warming has stopped, slowed or paused. It's all trying to explain it away now.

[–]AnOnlineHandle 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

"You're like a creationist" is ad hominem in my book.

No it's a fact to consider, they put forwarded similar (and even bigger) lists like yours, and we reject them, why is that?

You're referral to scientific consensus was intended to brush evidence under the rug. That is fallacious.

Your*, and no, it was to show that your claimed controversy is a fringe opinion, and point out that these exist in literally every damn field with no representation amongst actual accomplished scientists, they're just not normally as politicized and propped up by money. The creationism fringe is magnitudes larger, you should see the lists of 'scientists' that they offer!

[–]Merari01 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Liar.

[–]cashcow1 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Care to elaborate? Or do you just hate peer-reviewed research that shows 100% consensus?

[–]Merari01 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (4子コメント)

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[–]cashcow1 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Stop following me around and posting the same damn link! Jesus that's creepy...

[–]Merari01 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm reading this thread. Your name happens to pop up at many a chain saying blisteringly stupid things.

[–]I_Key_Cars 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

We might leave a cleaner planet for the next generation.

[–]wordsofjizzdom 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

We begin to make the switch over to alternative fuel sources that reduce pollutant emissions, and hope to god that it reverses some of the negative impacts we've already caused (some of them are irreversible).

[–]3DGrunge -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No one denies climate change. AGW is the controversy not climate change. People like to say people that do not believe in AGW are anti-science nutters who do not believe in climate change when that is simply not the case.

In all actuality the people who do not believe in agw have been trying to tell the anti-science agw nutters that climate change is real and been happening for a very long time with or without us.

[–]Giraffricana -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Honestly, I didn't accept AGW until last year or so. The more I read into it, the more I realize there's not shit we can do. We've blown by so many tipping points that basically the earth will have to go to some kind of extreme before it can level off at this point. By that time I would expect 99% of species to be extinct on the planet. We've pumped so much carbon into the air we could very well blow the atmosphere off our planet entirely. Our only hope is to sequester massive amounts of carbon which is super energy intensive.

[–]fishsticks40 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

The more I read into it, the more I realize there's not shit we can do. We've blown by so many tipping points that basically the earth will have to go to some kind of extreme before it can level off at this point.

We've certainly passed the point where we can stop it entirely, but we can still mitigate the impacts significantly.

By that time I would expect 99% of species to be extinct on the planet.

We're already in the midst of a mass extinction event, caused not so much by climatic change but by habitat loss. We won't lose 99% of species, certainly, but we may impact the environment in a way that makes our current way of life untenable.

We've pumped so much carbon into the air we could very well blow the atmosphere off our planet entirely.

I'm not aware of any mechanism where this could happen.

Our only hope is to sequester massive amounts of carbon which is super energy intensive.

Carbon sequestration isn't too terribly energy intensive; Carbon Capture and Storage does have an energy cost, but even with the additional energy required to do it is a net reduction in carbon (which is the point, of course) at a fairly reasonable cost. Biosequestration is another strategy that has minimal energy cost, but comes with other costs (namely taking land out of production).

We've created a rough situation for sure, but fatalism won't make it better.

[–]Giraffricana 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I don't see any sources for any of your counter arguments.

I'm not aware of any mechanism where this could happen.

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

James Hansen says specifically in his book that if we see things like WAIS collapse and clathrate release in the Arctic ocean, we could very well be on our way to blowing the atmosphere off our planet. Both of these scenarios are underway currently. Furthermore, these tipping points have happened way faster than he anticipated. He expected both WAIS and clathrate collapse to happen 100 years from now!

Carbon sequestration isn't too terribly energy intensive

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/531531/carbon-sequestration-too-little-too-late/

Carbon sequestration happening at the point of release in a coal fired plant takes somewhere between 20-30% of all of the energy produced. Carbon scrubbing of gases already released into atmosphere must be unimaginable. It would take hundreds of thousands of coal fired plants working non stop using currently known processes.

Biosequestration is another strategy

Please enlighten me as to how you intend to sequester the 500 million years worth of organic carbon we have released into the atmosphere using plants, since, you know, it took them 500 million years to do it.

[–]fishsticks40 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect[1]

James Hansen says specifically in his book that if we see things like WAIS collapse and clathrate release in the Arctic ocean, we could very well be on our way to blowing the atmosphere off our planet. Both of these scenarios are underway currently. Furthermore, these tipping points have happened way faster than he anticipated. He expected both WAIS and clathrate collapse to happen 100 years from now!

From the article you cite:

On the Earth, the IPCC states that "a 'runaway greenhouse effect'—analogous to Venus—appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities."

A re-evaluation in 2013 of the effect of water vapour in the climate models showed that James Hansen's outcome might be possible, but requires ten times the amount of CO2 we could release from burning all the oil, coal, and natural gas in Earth's crust.

Furthermore, a runaway greenhouse effect requires an atmosphere, by definition. I'm not saying we couldn't render the Earth a far less hospitable place for life (at least the complex life that supports our existence), but nothing you quote suggests that we could "blow the atmosphere off our planet".

Carbon sequestration happening at the point of release in a coal fired plant takes somewhere between 20-30% of all of the energy produced. Carbon scrubbing of gases already released into atmosphere must be unimaginable. It would take hundreds of thousands of coal fired plants working non stop using currently known processes.

CCS is essentially impossible except at the source; we can't use mechanical scrubbers to remove carbon that's already been released. But to implement CCS in new plants is possible, and while it would require burning more coal, that's ok, if we're mitigating the impacts of that burning. A 20-30% decrease in efficiency would be a reasonable price to pay to sequester that carbon.

Please enlighten me as to how you intend to sequester the 500 million years worth of organic carbon we have released into the atmosphere using plants, since, you know, it took them 500 million years to do it.

Anthropogenic carbon emissions are a little less than 10% of what is naturally fixed by plants through net primary production (NPP). On an annualized basis, NPP fixes ~100 GT of carbon, while terrestrial processes release ~100 GT. Human activites (fossil fuel production and concrete, largely) release ~10 GT. So a relatively modest increase in NPP, combined with a reduction in human emissions, could absolutely have a dramatic effect - it is, in fact, one of the primary mitigation strategies. How I plan to do it? Afforestation, reforestation, biochar, agricultural practices that increase soil carbon - there are lots of strategies.

[–]Giraffricana 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well I definitely agree with your last few points. But, I don't really take the IPCC seriously anymore. There's too much political weight being thrown around. I basically take James Hansen's word as gospel, and if he says we're threatening the planet with runaway greenhouse, I'm inclined to believe. This carbon pulse we've released into the atmosphere is unprecedented. I simply do not believe we can recover from it.

[–]dearastronomer 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

It took about 150 years to get to this point. Probably will take twice that long, if not longer to fix it.

The reality is, that far out, people couldn't care less. If we knew for absolute certainty that in 200 years we'd get smacked by a planet killer asteroid, folks would wring their hands for a couple days, then go back to mass consuming at the mall.

[–]Giraffricana 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well technically there's no way to fix it. All life on this planet adapts to gradual change, there's not one "Magic setting" for species to thrive. I usually compare our climate to a top. The top is spinning along, maybe subtly moving a bit around its axis, but the extremes are negligible. What we have done with fossil fuels, is akin to taking a finger and poking the top. It's now completely out of the range of anything that it has experienced before since it began spinning. Also, what happens when you poke a spinning top? At first it continues to spin, albeit erratically while moving about the surface its on. Soon it starts to wobble wildly until it ultimately falls flat. I believe we have just entered the wobble phase in this "Carbon poke" analogy. Good luck poking a spinning top back into the same spot it started in once it has started wobbling!

[–]aynrandomness 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

All life on this planet adapts to gradual change

What about instant change? Like when the dinosaurs died. And they weren't even sentinent.

[–]sebnukem 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You have to have more faith in the human race. Not everyone is a republican.

[–]Ringer1315 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

This is how i look at it.

If we accept that it is occurring it basically gives the government more power over the private sector and manufacturing/industrial businesses. Its part of the governments agenda to further regulate businesses. This will cause a price increase for the average consumer on several things since it will be more difficult for these private businesses to operate efficiently.

If we don't accept it, chances are nothing will happen and we can just accept the fact that the climate changes. We will save money and most likely create more jobs since those businesses can use the money to expand instead of spending it on meeting regulatory standards.

[–]TheOneFreeEngineer 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Except that even if we agree to not except it, the science says it's almost guaranteed that some thing will happen, not nothing. Including increased super strings along population heavy areas causing billions of dollars on damages, the destruction of millions of acres of farm land driving good prices and making tonal exports of food, ie the USA into net importers because the change in climate moved the viable farmland further north into Canada. And see levels would raise causing large flooding in the lowland coastal zones which also happen to generally be the highest populated areas and cause billions of dollars in damage, wreck the economies of the world.

Climate change happens even if you don't agree that it exists so the chances aren't that nothing will happen.

[–]missionbeach -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

If we act on climate change, and we are wrong about the issue -- nothing happens, except we have cleaner air as a byproduct of our actions. If we assume climate change is fiction, do nothing, and and wrong.....

[–]macweirdo42 -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not a whole lot, really... It doesn't matter whether we accept it or not, it's pretty friggin' clear no one's actually going to do anything about it. At this point it's really only a matter of scientific curiosity, an intellectual exercise with no real-world consequences.

I mean, if everyone woke up tomorrow and said, "Hey, global warming is real AND it's man-made," do you think any real changes would come about as a result of that? No, we'd still have endless arguing over what to do about it, and by the time anyone made any headway on that front, it'd be too late and wouldn't matter anyway.

Mind you, I don't think global warming is gonna be the death of mankind or anything - I think it'll suck, and I'd rather we not have to deal with that crap, but I think we'll survive it... I'm just completely pessimistic about the ability of our species to work together on anything.