Global Warming Debate - Friendly

[4FordFamily]

I had this rant earlier on another thread, and thought I might encourage more debate and viewpoints. Please, if you cannot have a constructive debate without getting upset, attacking others, or considering other viewpoints please move along.

Mods please close this thread if it gets out of hand. I am curious how many of us feel about this topic.

I preface by saying that my beliefs on this have "evolved" over the past decade.

Begin rant:
On the topic of agendas:

Notice the narrative has changed from global warming to "climate change" so now nearly any climate occurrence can be blamed on humans to follow an agenda. Perhaps that's a mere coincidence although many of us believe we see a pattern.

The data initially used to predict doomsday at the hands of global warming had 30 years or so of "normalized" (essentially omitted) "outlier" data that showed global cooling. Some experts say we are actually seeing global cooling.

A few things to think about:
1) We have been moving out of an ice age for a very long time (as a general very long term trend -- we were warming before SUV's existed)
2) Those pushing this so heavily are involved with the politicians trying to tax (and therefor generate revenue from) greenhouse gas emissions. Is it really about "saving the earth"?
3) Climate patterns have short term (5-10 year somewhat regular patterns such as La Niña and El Niño) and also sporadic patterns. No computer system on earth is complex enough to understand or accurately predict them - far too many dependent variables. 50 years, 100 years of a pattern is minuscule in the big picture. Analyzing such a small dataset with such a wide variance in statistical outcomes with exponentially more dependent variables than any of us could ever hope to understand and then to infer anything from this is dangerous and fret with potential fallacies and misunderstandings. One thing repeatedly forgotten in practice but taught adamantly regarding statistics and even the scientific method is that correlation does NOT equal causality. This becomes more true with the above constraints and concerns.

Now I am not saying that humans aren't destroying the earth - we ABSOLUTELY are. Deforestation, pollution, severe littering, "overhunting", overfishing, the list goes on and on and on.

My other point is that even if we were a statistically significant contributor TO global warming (I'm not saying that we are or aren't, I see scientists change their mind on this regularly including some of the most word renown on the subject matter I'm not smart enough to conclude either way), the next logical question is this, "Is this really something we should spend resources to try to combat?" If we removed every passenger car off of the roads in the US it would impact greenhouse gases less than if we removed all cows. Is either really a good choice? (I.E. "unit of benefit" vs "total economic loss"?) no, probably not.

Wouldn't our efforts and focus be much better spent on things we can have a marginal impact on? Deforestation, reducing waste/littering, changing people's attitudes about our planet and the creatures that live on it (which could foster an entirely new era of problem solving for both the public and private sector), cleaning our oceans, finding more sustainable ways to obtain natural resources that we can replenish and reharvest?

That's my ultimate point. IMO global warming is shady, the climate change wordsmithing further casts a further shade factor on the ordeal, and the marginal impact we can change with even the most extreme measures is probably statistically irrelevant-- or at least not the best use of our time/focus when we can have a much better net impact on our planet with a plethora of other focus' that generate less money (for individuals and institutions - not for the actual betterment of the planet) and votes than the "climate change" movement.

I do look at the world through an economist's lense, with a heavy dose of psychology. This is only my opinion, I am of course open to many others. Just be careful what data you use when making arguments. Follow the money, notice who funds them. This transcends most debates and debacles - not just this one.

What are your thoughts? I welcome subject matter experts (that I am not) and other viewpoints.

 

[Rjramos]

Global warming, global cooling, climate change, whatever they want to call it, one thing is for sure. The glaciers and polar ice caps are reducing. IMO, this helps cool the oceans as in the North Atlantic Gyre. Like a glass of iced water on a table, when the ice is gone and time passes the water takes on the air temperature surrounding it. The only way to overcome that is to add more ice to the cup, something that in an earthly sense, is not happening.

 

[ReeferBob]

Global warming, global cooling, climate change, whatever they want to call it, one thing is for sure. The glaciers and polar ice caps are reducing. IMO, this helps cool the oceans as in the North Atlantic Gyre. Like a glass of iced water on a table, when the ice is gone and time passes the water takes on the air temperature surrounding it. The only way to overcome that is to add more ice to the cup, something that in an earthly sense, is not happening.

All of the evidence I have seen shows we are at record amounts of ice on the ice caps. Although I am sure Al Gore would disagree!

 

[Birddog]

I can't find the data, but approximately a year ago the total amount of sea ice was the greatest ever since records have been kept (Arctic and Antarctic) . What has driven this is the continued increase year over year for the past three years in the amount of ice in the Antarctic. Pretty hard to find the data when you want it :confused:, but from my perspective this will never hit the main line press. It's about money, politics and power!

 

[Rjramos]

I can't find the data, but approximately a year ago the total amount of sea ice was the greatest ever since records have been kept (Arctic and Antarctic) . What has driven this is the continued increase year over year for the past three years in the amount of ice in the Antarctic. Pretty hard to find the data when you want it :confused:, but from my perspective this will never hit the main line press. It's about money, politics and power!

Is that graph the data you were looking for? Appears a bit sketchy, IMO. It's titled monthly on top yet the increments are 4 years apart. And what happened in 1986 and 2002 to cause such a sharp decline? What happened in 2014 to cause such an abrupt increase?

 

[Birddog]

Is that graph the data you were looking for? Appears a bit sketchy, IMO. It's titled monthly on top yet the increments are 4 years apart. And what happened in 1986 and 2002 to cause such a sharp decline? What happened in 2014 to cause such an abrupt increase?

No it's not what I was looking for. What I wanted was the data that showed the combined total (Arctic and Antarctic) sea ice extent. The graph I pulled was from the first site I found... do a google search, you'll see that from an Antarctic perspective the graph can look "a bit sketchy" as you say, but the facts are the facts (there's a good bit of data to pour through). Please take a moment and enlighten. I'm certainly no expert, but if you do a little research it's pretty interesting. What happened in 2014??... don't know. What happened in 1986 and 2002?? Don't know, but I think you'll find there's a great quantity of data from many different credible sources that reflect my initial post.

 

[DLHDesign]

Notice the narrative has changed from global warming to "climate change" so now nearly any climate occurrence can be blamed on humans to follow an agenda.

The terminology used has evolved as our (read: peer-reviewed scientists) understanding has evolved. It's important to remember that the media (in all it's forms; including online) are the ones who use the labels most and keep them in the public eye. This is most certainly an agenda - but it's the same one that always drives the media outlets - to get viewers, sell ads, etc. This should be expected of a media outlet - it's what they do.
Yes; nearly any climate occurrence can be blamed on humans - but that does not mean that it is. This is where the "agenda" comes into play; totally agree with you there. On the flip-side of that, just because there is an agenda behind a statement, does not make the statement any more or less valid.

The data initially used to predict doomsday at the hands of global warming had 30 years or so of "normalized" (essentially omitted) "outlier" data that showed global cooling. Some experts say we are actually seeing global cooling.
...
1) We have been moving out of an ice age for a very long time (as a general very long term trend -- we were warming before SUV's and republicans existed)

Which experts are you referring to? Sources, please.
Because when I look at current, verifiable, peer-reviewed (eg; scientific) sources, they all agree - our climate is trending to higher temperatures. This is likely a good time to point out that there is a significant difference between "weather" and "climate". In my experience, when people are using the term "global warming", I've noticed that there is a corresponding lack of clarity on this key difference (not pointing fingers; just stating my observances).
In short; the weather can be cooling across the globe (even for a noticeable amount of time), but that does not mean that the climate is also cooling. This is one of those areas on this topic that defies normal logic; it is not uncommon (and entirely understandable) for people to believe that because the weather (which they can observe personally) is a particular way for a long enough time, that it must be an indicator of the climate being a particular way. Yet, because of the complexities of the systems involved, this is not going to be the case - much like a 10gal aquarium will not have the same required maintenance to be successful as a 500gal tank will; even though they are both saltwater tanks.

3) Climate patterns have short term (5-10 year somewhat regular patterns such as La Niña and El Niño) and also sporadic patterns.

This, for example, is part of the puzzle that is this topic. Are those cycles part of climate? Or are they weather? The answer is - both; and neither. It's THAT complex to talk about this stuff... :-|
Anyways; don't want to go on too much about this part - the thrust of your post seems to be about a different area on this topic...

"Is this really something we should spend resources to try to combat?"

Only if you care about future generations. If not; then no - we don't. ;-)
These problems are not solved quickly - climate is not a race car with pin-point handling. Climate is more like the beat-up truck that's hauling the over-sized load with a flat tire. It took a lot of time to get it to change; it will take even more time to change back - or even just to stabilize it where it's at. Even if the scientific consensus is that we only need to slow down a bit, then even that is something that will take generations to achieve.

If we removed every passenger car off of the roads in the US it would impact greenhouse gases less than if we removed all cows.

Cows are (for the majority of the population) food. Food is essential to survival. No; not cows specifically, but they do happen to be one of our (humanities) most established sources.
Cars are not food. They are transportation. And until very recently (relatively speaking), cars were a luxury. In fact; they still are. If all of a sudden all the cars disappeared, people would struggle (and some more than that), but - eventually - we would find a way to fill the gap of needing that transportation to get from A-to-B.
Cars are also imminently more changeable than cows. We can (and have) made enormous strides in just the past decade on making cars more Earth-friendly - all without any significant impact to the availability of the benefit the cars provide (eg; same number of cars; just better in terms of this point). To get the same impact from a reduction of cows would require that we replace what the cows provide (again: what cows provide - food - is essential; any alterations need to be zero-sum to be viable). I have no idea on the numbers or facts here, but let's say that 1 cow would need to be replaced by 3 goats to get the same yield of the critical things cows provide. Given that ratio (or whatever it is), has the potential climate impact even changed? And, if so - for better or worse?

Is either really a good choice? (I.E. "unit of benefit" vs "total economic loss"?) no, probably not.

"Good" is subjective. Some would say that yes - both reducing cows on the planet and emissions from cars are totally worth doing, no matter the monetary and social cost. Some (like yourself) would say no - neither is worth doing. This is an area of the topic I avoid, honestly, as it only leads to opinion-vs-opinion arguments.

2) Those pushing this so heavily are involved with the politicians trying to tax (and therefor generate revenue from) greenhouse gas emissions. Is it really about "saving the earth"?

(My apologies; I had to reorder your post a bit to help keep my thought train as cohesive as possible.)
No - it's not JUST about saving the Earth. Humans are not, as a species, altruistic enough (and we likely would not have survived this long if we were). As a result, the agenda of "Save the Earth (at whatever cost)" gets very little traction in the practical world. Most people will inconvenience themselves to some degree in this endeavor (do you split your garbage and recycling?). Some people will do a bit more than others (do you separate your recycling?). Others will go even further (do you compost?). But in general, most people will settle into a level of planet conservation that is easy and/or frugal for them personally.
Take recycling, for example. When (and where) I was growing up, it was totally optional. Most people didn't have a special trash can for glass or plastic bottles. The city didn't charge more for garbage bins compared to recycling or green bins. As such; not a lot was recycled. Sure; occasionally there would be a recycling can when I was out and about and if I had something that could go in there, I would do so. But I wasn't hunting for those bins - I had better things to do.
Now today. Today, we have three bins for our house. I pay extra for an "oversided" garbage bin (which is still smaller than the recycling and green bins). To repeat: I pay money to throw away stuff that I paid for - and I'm willing to pay a premium to do so. When you say it that simply, it's ludicrous. But it's easier for me to pay that premium than it is for me to do a better job of separating my garbage and/or reducing it. So on the scale of garbage vs. Earth; we fall slightly on the "garbage" side. But we fill up our recycling every week, so we're still not totally off the scale. This is because the city makes it easier to recycle than to not.

Sorry; got on a bit of a garbage ramble there... My point is; getting people to change their behaviors (whether it's needed or not and whether it's good for them or not - two totally different things) is not easy. It takes a lengthy process of slowly altering their behavior, or else a large motivation to do so. Money, unfortunately, is a better motivator for most people than any sort of "feel good" propaganda. As such, most "Save the Earth" agendas have a healthy dose of money in or around them. Either that or they are so dead simple (and cheap) that they can easily be adopted.

 

[4FordFamily]

Is that graph the data you were looking for? Appears a bit sketchy, IMO. It's titled monthly on top yet the increments are 4 years apart. And what happened in 1986 and 2002 to cause such a sharp decline? What happened in 2014 to cause such an abrupt increase?

IMO the answer to your question is large variances in the weather, something endemic throughout documented history.

 

[4FordFamily]

The terminology used has evolved as our (read: peer-reviewed scientists) understanding has evolved. It's important to remember that the media (in all it's forms; including online) are the ones who use the labels most and keep them in the public eye. This is most certainly an agenda - but it's the same one that always drives the media outlets - to get viewers, sell ads, etc. This should be expected of a media outlet - it's what they do.
Yes; nearly any climate occurrence can be blamed on humans - but that does not mean that it is. This is where the "agenda" comes into play; totally agree with you there. On the flip-side of that, just because there is an agenda behind a statement, does not make the statement any more or less valid.


Which experts are you referring to? Sources, please.
Because when I look at current, verifiable, peer-reviewed (eg; scientific) sources, they all agree - our climate is trending to higher temperatures. This is likely a good time to point out that there is a significant difference between "weather" and "climate". In my experience, when people are using the term "global warming", I've noticed that there is a corresponding lack of clarity on this key difference (not pointing fingers; just stating my observances).
In short; the weather can be cooling across the globe (even for a noticeable amount of time), but that does not mean that the climate is also cooling. This is one of those areas on this topic that defies normal logic; it is not uncommon (and entirely understandable) for people to believe that because the weather (which they can observe personally) is a particular way for a long enough time, that it must be an indicator of the climate being a particular way. Yet, because of the complexities of the systems involved, this is not going to be the case - much like a 10gal aquarium will not have the same required maintenance to be successful as a 500gal tank will; even though they are both saltwater tanks.


This, for example, is part of the puzzle that is this topic. Are those cycles part of climate? Or are they weather? The answer is - both; and neither. It's THAT complex to talk about this stuff... :-|
Anyways; don't want to go on too much about this part - the thrust of your post seems to be about a different area on this topic...


Only if you care about future generations. If not; then no - we don't. ;-)
These problems are not solved quickly - climate is not a race car with pin-point handling. Climate is more like the beat-up truck that's hauling the over-sized load with a flat tire. It took a lot of time to get it to change; it will take even more time to change back - or even just to stabilize it where it's at. Even if the scientific consensus is that we only need to slow down a bit, then even that is something that will take generations to achieve.


Cows are (for the majority of the population) food. Food is essential to survival. No; not cows specifically, but they do happen to be one of our (humanities) most established sources.
Cars are not food. They are transportation. And until very recently (relatively speaking), cars were a luxury. In fact; they still are. If all of a sudden all the cars disappeared, people would struggle (and some more than that), but - eventually - we would find a way to fill the gap of needing that transportation to get from A-to-B.
Cars are also imminently more changeable than cows. We can (and have) made enormous strides in just the past decade on making cars more Earth-friendly - all without any significant impact to the availability of the benefit the cars provide (eg; same number of cars; just better in terms of this point). To get the same impact from a reduction of cows would require that we replace what the cows provide (again: what cows provide - food - is essential; any alterations need to be zero-sum to be viable). I have no idea on the numbers or facts here, but let's say that 1 cow would need to be replaced by 3 goats to get the same yield of the critical things cows provide. Given that ratio (or whatever it is), has the potential climate impact even changed? And, if so - for better or worse?


"Good" is subjective. Some would say that yes - both reducing cows on the planet and emissions from cars are totally worth doing, no matter the monetary and social cost. Some (like yourself) would say no - neither is worth doing. This is an area of the topic I avoid, honestly, as it only leads to opinion-vs-opinion arguments.


(My apologies; I had to reorder your post a bit to help keep my thought train as cohesive as possible.)
No - it's not JUST about saving the Earth. Humans are not, as a species, altruistic enough (and we likely would not have survived this long if we were). As a result, the agenda of "Save the Earth (at whatever cost)" gets very little traction in the practical world. Most people will inconvenience themselves to some degree in this endeavor (do you split your garbage and recycling?). Some people will do a bit more than others (do you separate your recycling?). Others will go even further (do you compost?). But in general, most people will settle into a level of planet conservation that is easy and/or frugal for them personally.
Take recycling, for example. When (and where) I was growing up, it was totally optional. Most people didn't have a special trash can for glass or plastic bottles. The city didn't charge more for garbage bins compared to recycling or green bins. As such; not a lot was recycled. Sure; occasionally there would be a recycling can when I was out and about and if I had something that could go in there, I would do so. But I wasn't hunting for those bins - I had better things to do.
Now today. Today, we have three bins for our house. I pay extra for an "oversided" garbage bin (which is still smaller than the recycling and green bins). To repeat: I pay money to throw away stuff that I paid for - and I'm willing to pay a premium to do so. When you say it that simply, it's ludicrous. But it's easier for me to pay that premium than it is for me to do a better job of separating my garbage and/or reducing it. So on the scale of garbage vs. Earth; we fall slightly on the "garbage" side. But we fill up our recycling every week, so we're still not totally off the scale. This is because the city makes it easier to recycle than to not.

Sorry; got on a bit of a garbage ramble there... My point is; getting people to change their behaviors (whether it's needed or not and whether it's good for them or not - two totally different things) is not easy. It takes a lengthy process of slowly altering their behavior, or else a large motivation to do so. Money, unfortunately, is a better motivator for most people than any sort of "feel good" propaganda. As such, most "Save the Earth" agendas have a healthy dose of money in or around them. Either that or they are so dead simple (and cheap) that they can easily be adopted.

Thank you for your perspective, I found it very reasonable and helpful.

I agree on most points that of course things need to be done to protect the earth. I see poverty and psychology as the issues, and see knee jerk reactions that threaten the economy (not saying anything you've proposed does this - just that many solutions would do this such as cap and trade and other expensive reactions) as more dangerous. If the US is broke (say worse than 19 trillion in debt) then people and politicians have a lot less reason to care about "earth problems". It's not intentional but a realty. Your priorities shift with economic and fiscal stability. That's where psychology comes in - one thing my generation benefited from was a plethora of documentaries, shows (like the crocodile hunter), etc that exposed us to the realities of earth and it's beautiful creatures. Growing up, I grew to love animals and care about the planet and preserving it. If global warming is a threat - and IF anything we could do could have a marginal impact on its reduction (not saying either is true or false), then that's something people have to want to fix. If we grow up with an awareness and care for the planet as many are, we are more likely to wish to solve these problems and preserve this planet. Global warming is merely a symptom (again if it's marginally impacted by humans) and the cause is a mindset.

Economically speaking if our country (and world) is more prosperous then people and governments will be more willing to invest time and money to help. So where is money better spent? Machines that filter or clean seawater? Remove trash? Renewable energy (so much of this research thus far has been subpar at best as many are green washed in to thinking their purchases are "green" when in reality the purchase is greener in ONE aspect but due to another it may actually be worse or the same for the environment).

As an example, Hybrid cars and electric cars are nowhere near as green as the marketing hype let's on. Tell the folks of Sudbury Ontario (inco mine) about how green the nickel smelting for these hybrid batteries is, or how the round world trip for each battery on carrier ships from smelting to assembly was green. In fairness, things have gotten better recently but these technologies are nowhere near as green as they're proposed.

There are many things we can do to help the earth that are of very low cost and we should do such as recycling as you describe. There are many more things we can do. But since we don't live in a world devoid of financial limits (despite what has happened for the last 20 years regardless of political party) we can attempt to find things that have the most MARGINAL impact on bettering our planet, that's all that I'm saying.

I'm not sure reducing "global warming" is really the answer. If we removed cars entirely, what impact would that have? I suspect very little. That's not really feasible or reasonable anyway which brings me back to my point.

We need to help foster an environment for our children and grandchildren that makes them value the planet and it's creatures. That's psychology.

Then more wise people (not politicians) will be on hand willingly to help solve these issues.

Just my .02. Thanks again for your contribution!

 

[DLHDesign]

Thank you for your perspective, I found it very reasonable and helpful.

Cheers. I have a goal in life to make the Internet better than I left it; so I appreciate the opportunity to participate. ;-)

In fairness, things have gotten better recently but these technologies are nowhere near as green as they're proposed.

I believe (anecdotal) that if anyone looks at the overall "carbon footprint" of many efforts today, you likely are more right than wrong. But, IMO, that's not really the goal of what we (or those people and businesses that are part of the "green" marketplace) are after. The technologies being developed today are not the end of the road trip; we are still loading the car.
Case in point; look at what Tesla is doing with their Powerwall. Improved efficiency, lower cost, produced closer to the location where their target market is (eg; reduced shipping footprint). All of that is only possible because of the research and development that went into their cars. Which were only possible because what came before Tesla even existed. And so on.
So I don't disagree - technologies are not as green as a lot of people think they are. But, on the other side of the coin, they are factors times better than they were.

I'm not sure reducing "global warming" is really the answer.

It's not the answer, no. But if it's not at least part of the proof, then it's certain we won't have found the answer.

We need to help foster an environment for our children and grandchildren that makes them value the planet and it's creatures.

This. This is the goal of my life. It's partly why I got the saltwater tank - so that my two girls would grow up knowing the beauty of the ocean; and what it takes to care for it. It's why we have a garden out back - so that they know what fresh food is; and what it takes to grow it. And so on in every way we can manage. And through them; their friends as well.
I think, @4FordFamily, that you and I are of the same generation - one raised on Attenborough, Irwin, BBC, Life, and more. It was these pioneers who showed the world that the World was worth knowing about. That believed that once we knew about it, we would want to protect it. They achieved their goal. In general, people DO want to save the planet. The average person - whether they believe that mankind is causing climate change or not - wants to save something about the environment. That was the goal, I believe, of all those episodes of Nature - and others.

Yet desire and practice are not the same. The naturalists of yesterday showed us that there are things worth protecting. Now it is our turn to contribute. It is our job, I believe, to find viable ways in which things can be saved. This is no small task. It will involve sacrifice - not just for us today, but for the generations ahead of us. Our task is to find those ways - which involves trial and error. We can only get so far in the labs. At some point, we must take the most promising ideas and try them in the wild. They will not all work. Some might be worse than if we did nothing. But our task is not to perfect these methods - our task is to try them. To attempt and fail - then fail, and fail again - is not easy. But like Edison and his light bulb, our task is to persevere.
The next generation will have the task of taking the best of our ideas and making them better. Take the things that we know work, and make them better. And then better again. And again; until the goals which we deem nigh-impossible are common place...

In any case; that's my outlook. I've always been a bit of a dreamer... ;-)

 

[4FordFamily]

Cheers. I have a goal in life to make the Internet better than I left it; so I appreciate the opportunity to participate. ;-)


I believe (anecdotal) that if anyone looks at the overall "carbon footprint" of many efforts today, you likely are more right than wrong. But, IMO, that's not really the goal of what we (or those people and businesses that are part of the "green" marketplace) are after. The technologies being developed today are not the end of the road trip; we are still loading the car.
Case in point; look at what Tesla is doing with their Powerwall. Improved efficiency, lower cost, produced closer to the location where their target market is (eg; reduced shipping footprint). All of that is only possible because of the research and development that went into their cars. Which were only possible because what came before Tesla even existed. And so on.
So I don't disagree - technologies are not as green as a lot of people think they are. But, on the other side of the coin, they are factors times better than they were.


It's not the answer, no. But if it's not at least part of the proof, then it's certain we won't have found the answer.


This. This is the goal of my life. It's partly why I got the saltwater tank - so that my two girls would grow up knowing the beauty of the ocean; and what it takes to care for it. It's why we have a garden out back - so that they know what fresh food is; and what it takes to grow it. And so on in every way we can manage. And through them; their friends as well.
I think, @4FordFamily, that you and I are of the same generation - one raised on Attenborough, Irwin, BBC, Life, and more. It was these pioneers who showed the world that the World was worth knowing about. That believed that once we knew about it, we would want to protect it. They achieved their goal. In general, people DO want to save the planet. The average person - whether they believe that mankind is causing climate change or not - wants to save something about the environment. That was the goal, I believe, of all those episodes of Nature - and others.

Yet desire and practice are not the same. The naturalists of yesterday showed us that there are things worth protecting. Now it is our turn to contribute. It is our job, I believe, to find viable ways in which things can be saved. This is no small task. It will involve sacrifice - not just for us today, but for the generations ahead of us. Our task is to find those ways - which involves trial and error. We can only get so far in the labs. At some point, we must take the most promising ideas and try them in the wild. They will not all work. Some might be worse than if we did nothing. But our task is not to perfect these methods - our task is to try them. To attempt and fail - then fail, and fail again - is not easy. But like Edison and his light bulb, our task is to persevere.
The next generation will have the task of taking the best of our ideas and making them better. Take the things that we know work, and make them better. And then better again. And again; until the goals which we deem nigh-impossible are common place...

In any case; that's my outlook. I've always been a bit of a dreamer... ;-)

The world needs to be comprised of different types of people. Without dreamers little would be accomplished. I dream big and tend to achieve big more because of my OCD than anything else. I've found ways to channel it haha. But big time dreamers are critical in all walks of life. I certainly agree with you. My kids will grow up with reef tanks although my initial motivation was more selfish.

We are making great strides towards bettering our earth and what you describe about ups and downs is the natural progression of anything of value; at work, at hobbies, personal growth, etc.

Thanks again for your contribution. This has been pleasant thus far. What a great community we have here.

 

[NeptuneGarden]

Some real science on climate change from PBS Space Time. The video ends with a brief talk about human induced climate change and he rightly admits that they have no accurate way to model current greenhouse gas levels and how it could effect the glacial ice age cycle. Which means "climate scientist" have been cherry picking the data they want when preaching about the doom of climate change, and that is not what "science" is supposed to be.




And as always Mr Carlin puts human arrogance on the issue in perfect context

 

[Lionfish Lair]

I don't get too much into the particulars because it's just a diluted messy debate now-a-days that can go on forever like a monopoly game. I figure, if we believe them and implement all these environmental/green policies and it turns out they were wrong, what's the result? We've cleaned things up and certainly no harm done. If we do nothing and they are right, will the harm be reversible? Do we really need proof of anything to stop some of the practices that are going on. We're not doing well with the numbers we have now, just wait until the numbers climb.

 

[NeptuneGarden]

I figure, if we believe them and implement all these environmental/green policies and it turns out they were wrong, what's the result? We've cleaned things up and certainly no harm done. If we do nothing and they are right, will the harm be reversible? Do we really need proof of anything to stop some of the practices that are going on. We're not doing well with the numbers we have now, just wait until the numbers climb.

You're making assumptions that the current actions have not done any harm. I would counter that the practices have done harm to society, the economy, and the environment ..... and that yes we really do need proof before they do even more harm.

The current green policies cause massive economic harm, brain washed an entire generation with faulty science, the carbon credit system is a giant wealth transfer mechanism, and the experimental science being carried in Carbon Sequestration is highly dubious and packed full of possible harmful unintended consequences...... not to mention the massive amounts of resources, skill, knowledge, and money being wasted that could have been put to more productive endeavours.

 

[Lionfish Lair]

Saying another point of view is brain washed isn't exactly a friendly debate tactic. I should have known better. Enjoy your point of view.

 

[Mark Gray]

The Climate will change it always has. Are we the cause I am not so sure. But saying that I guess I better go to the South Pacific and see how the reefs look in Thailand wish me luck

 

[NeptuneGarden]

Saying another point of view is brain washed isn't exactly a friendly debate tactic. I should have known better. Enjoy your point of view.

It's not an insult to properly label an activity. I'm not directing an insult at you or anyone else.

Lets take a look at the definition of "brainwashed"
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/brainwashing

1. a method for systematically changing attitudes or altering beliefs,
2. any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, especially one based on repetition or confusion:
3. an instance of subjecting or being subjected to such techniques:

I would argue that this is exactly what is being carried out by persons with a "climate change" agenda. Whether it be right or wrong, it is what is being carried out on a grand scale, and the general public lacks any kind of serious critical thinking with which to counter it.

Calling the science faulty is also not insulting you or anyone else either.

 

[4FordFamily]

I don't get too much into the particulars because it's just a diluted messy debate now-a-days that can go on forever like a monopoly game. I figure, if we believe them and implement all these environmental/green policies and it turns out they were wrong, what's the result? We've cleaned things up and certainly no harm done. If we do nothing and they are right, will the harm be reversible? Do we really need proof of anything to stop some of the practices that are going on. We're not doing well with the numbers we have now, just wait until the numbers climb.

I agree with a fiscal limitation. I can put a lot of things on my credit card but at some point if I can't pay it back I am in trouble. Right now we have a financial problem as a country and both parties have created it.

Like anything I do in business, I'll want some ROI (in this case, the most improvement possible for each unit of cost --which may or may not be cash equivalent).

Just my .02. My .02 and a dollar may get you a cup of coffee.

 

[DLHDesign]

It's not an insult to properly label an activity.

If I were in a pool, moving about on the surface by waving my arms and legs about and then yelled out, "Look at me; I'm running!" then no; it would not be an insult to say, "I'm sorry, but you appear to be swimming to me?".
Note that there are a few differences between my (contrived) example and the actual one that occurred;
First, my example included an apology. This is not critical to preventing insult, but it sets up the statement that follows as one that is trying not to be antagonistic in nature. Intent goes a long way, and sometimes we have to make special effort to convey intent over the impersonal medium of the Internet.
And second, the example allows for a margin of error (note the question mark at the end). This is where the "not an insult" comes out, because it allows room for the other person (me) to be correct despite your alternative point of view. No matter how right you may think you are about something, to not allow that someone else might also be right can, most certainly, be perceived as an insult. The insult flavor being something along the lines of, "You can't know this, but I can." At best; that's an unintentionally presumptive approach to a conversation. At worst; it's intentionally arrogant. Somewhere in the middle, it ends up on the "insulting" spectrum to some degree.

Lets take a look at the definition of "brainwashed"

In the spirit of keeping things civil moving forward, I wanted to let you know that this came across as patronizing; not helpful or clarifying. That (being patronizing) is also insulting to some people - especially to those who have demonstrated enough of a grasp of the English language to participate in not only this thread, but this site at-large.

...and the general public lacks any kind of serious critical thinking with which to counter it

I'm sorry, but this crosses into the realm of insulting again. You are making the claim that anyone who buys into the "climate change agenda" (of which several of your audience are clearly constituents, else this topic would not have gone like it has) lacks not just the ability to understand the climate change topic (which, admittedly, is VERY complex), but that they also lack any kind of "serious critical thinking" ability at all. Can you see how that might be perceived as an insult?

Calling the science faulty is also not insulting you or anyone else either.

Except to, you know; the scientists who did the research. Or those whom have read the research and did not find it lacking in the same way that you so clearly did.

Enjoy your point of view.

Indeed.

I truly hope that all of us - together and despite the details - can find ways to make this world a better place. Whether it's doing fine on it's own or we're tearing it apart, we should all look for ways to make it better every day. Good luck to us all.

 

[TheEngineer]

I'm just going to let @DLHDesign do all the talking for me. We're in almost complete agreement. :)

The way I look at it is fairy simple. If I can do something that seems impactful I'll do it. I don't like claims about how things need to be fiscally right for them to be important. This is the only planet we have. We lose it and what are those dollars in the bank going to be good for?

I don't have number handy but I'd be willing to wager that the impact of making a solar panel is less than the benefit it generates over its lifetime. I'd wager the same for electric vehicles, esp in light of recent improvements.