Global Warming
 

Yeah, i know, it's not really new news, but this subject is slowly turning in to more and more of a serious issue, so I thought i'd raise the question(s):

What would you do in an effort to help prevent global warming? Or do you think we're screwed anyways and it wouldn't do a thing if you didin't drive your truck with a 30 litre hemi in it every day?

Personally, I hardly drive myself to school. I take transit instead. It cuts down on the number of cars on the road, and it saves me the gas money.

I'm interested to hear your opinions.

Global warming has been going on for a while and it is only now that scientists are saying that it is happening because of human activity. We already knew that!

Either way, human greed is going to make global warming very hard to slow down, one way to make a drastic change is if alternative fuels come into play, but the oil companies won't want that to happen because it would mean that no one is buying their oil anymore.

I do what I can for the environment. I can't say that especially go out of my way, but I try not to use too much plastic and styraphome. I don't drive much, but I could take the bus more often...

It is true that there is great uncertainty about the extent and cause of global warming. It is true that the propaganda about global warming simplifies, politicizes and often distorts the science in order to present a clear, but wrong, message about impending catastrophe. It is true that anybody who questions the orthodoxy on global warming risks being labeled a denier, a dangerous pariah.

I fall under the latter. We only have a little over 100 years'-worth of scientific measurements on temperatures globally. Bear in mind that other nations aren't as fervent in keeping accurate readings like the US, nor bothers reading them as many multiple times a day.

To add to this, we are still in a global warming phase since the Ice Age "just ended", as far as geology and meteorology is concerned. Folks are just fear-mongering on the phenomenon now. Remember the talk around Katrina? "This was caused by global warming. Expect this to be the new norm."

Hows about that horrible hurricane season this year, hmm?

I don't think I'll be throwing out any charts or graphs in this thread, because someone will respond with something that shows the exact opposite. Given the internet and its resources, it's possible to find a graph showing the evolutionary stages of wings onto pigs.

Bottom line is that we have trouble estimating the weather in weeks or even days to come. How the hell do you think we can accurately estimate long-term effects? In the 70s, people were politicizing "global cooling". A year or so back, there was a rumbling about "global dimming" (I'm sure some folks here will remember mention of it).

Personally, I find myself chuckling at the mass populace and their panic-attacks over this. Should we do something to reduce emissions? God yes. There's haze over LA and Houston because of it. This stuff eventually causes acid rain increases to boot. I'm a fan of nature preservation, but this is just trying to control folks with fear. Global warming is still far from science fact. I'm a fan of the scatter-plot, personally.

Gechmir - completely false. Between Ice Core Samples, Tree Rings, Packrat Middens, Spores in Bogs, and any other number of indicators, we have a very accurate and fairly complete portrayl of the Earth's Climate for the last forty or fifty thousand years. Also, long-term and short-term trends are very different. It's simple to see and analyze long-term predictions, but day-to-day (and even year-to-year) stuff is more volatile.

Long-term predictions which take place over the course of thousands of years. Like Gechmir said, we only really have records of temperatures from a hundred years ago, not too long after the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. You're saying that despite this very short distance in the breadth of time that we can make accurate predictions based on geological records to conclude that human influence is an overwhelming cause of global warming?

People who don't understand science shouldn't discuss it. We can observe the makeup of the atmosphere and average global temperatures very accurately for thousands of years back. Since the end of the last Ice Age, temperatures have been very steady until a sharp increase began at nearly EXACTLY the same time as the Industrial Revolution. That's a hell of a coincidence.

I suppose this is the part where I'm supposed to let Gechmir make the same points he's made several times in the past in regards to intellectual dishonesty and the lack of real scientific evidence, but I suppose he doesn't really understand science either.

Lordy lordy, what wass I to be thinkin' a talkin bout sciency talks which ah doesn't cain't unnerstanz.

You're right, though, it is one Hell of a coincidence that the Industrial Revolution kicked in just as the planet was coming out of the "Little Ice Age."

(note: eat a dick)

Air Concentrations in Ice Cores, Spores in Bogs and stuff in Pack-Rat Midden indicating what kind of plants grew where in the past, Tree rings showing climate patterns....what more do you WANT, an alien weather probe to be uncovered that's been recording for the last million years?

I don't think you're getting it, Arainach. When the Industrial Age kicked in (in fact when it started), the planet was already in "The Little Ice Age," a minor cooling period. (relatively) Well into the mid-1800s the planet began shifting back into a warming trend, coming out of the Little Ice Age. Did the planet begin warming because of the relatively minor emissions comparable to today being put into the atmosphere? It's impossible to say. The warming period following the Little Ice Age coinciding with the Industrial Revolution is exactly that, a coincidence.

There's no amount of real science that can establish emissions as the most influential factor in global warming, only hearsay, guesswork, and "scientific consensus."

Even assuming that the popular opinion is correct and that human emissions really are causing a tremendous amount of warming, the scientific community is still nonetheless lying to everybody. The evidence has never clearly shown that human influence is to blame, it's only ever shown that we're in a warming period.

If you haven't seen such evidence you haven't looked. The scientific community's been testing the global warming hypothesis for more than 30 years now and the results are quite conclusive. The few vocal deniers are nearly exclusively Americans and with only rare exceptions all have strong ties to big business.

I'll just let it be known again that my claims to expertise are along Gechmir's lines, in that I am also a geocience major, although I am not as well read in the literature as he is, but I'd rather take extremely broad viewpoints.

Personally, I've accepted the idea that Earth experiences shifts in climate because that is a natural assumption in the general state of things. The Earth is a dynamic system prone to changes from multiple sources. I'm also open to the idea that humanity can harbor and effect on the Earth. Since there is plain proof of how we can effect things in a small scale, it shouldn't be too hard to envision that we can effect change in a large scale.

However, where I depart from the mainstream in terms of the issue of global warming is the manner in which the issue is carried out. Frankly, the way it is treated in media and governmental policy is highly unscientific and I have seen evidence (can't procure it immediately yet) that some in the science community have deliberately wanted to exaggerate the threat that global warming presents.

I've already said this in the last incarnation of this topic on PP, but I can still say it again since I've been talking with a friend every other day about this subject. The way I see it, our vision is misguided. Global warming is the least of our problems. The reason why it was chosen is because it has the most emotional impact amongst a susceptible audience. And I am no fan of employing pathos in the name of science, which should not have any underlying sentiment at its core. Global warming and environmentalism in general have this underlying sentiment that I find distasteful and smug.

To be honest, I don't think humanity has that great an impact on the climate in terms of temperature change. I'm of the belief that Earth and the very essence of nature is a cruel tyrant and we, the humans as well as other living things, are at its mercy. Those of the sort who think the environment is a gentle and motherly kind are deluded and not worth existing.

The Sun has far more influence of our weather system. The Maunder Minimum were responsible for what we call the "Little Ice Age" and this was well before humanity had the capacity to put so much into the air, so we can see to what degree the Sun is capable of doing.

In my opinion, I would prefer that our problem be stated in a more economic and human-centric manner. Instead of looking at some unsure predictions on global temperature, why not set our eyes on measurable levels of emissions and usage of fossil fuels? I think those are far better reasons to free ourselves from carbon energy than guessing how high the oceans will rise by the end of the century. I would think people would be more convinced if they are presented that the alternative would mean cleaner air and more energy independence. Instead we get slapped with scare-mongering propaganda that proclaims the support of (a very warped) science.

I could go on in various tangents on the sort of things that are tied in with this issue, but I would rather not get carried away with myself. I think I set up a useful idea to dwell on.

Ice drilling on the poles.
Yes, we do have temperature levels and atmosphere make up (including CO2 levels) for the last 650 thousand years.

I was talking about instrumental data, which is the only accurate method of declaring the temperatures for a certain date.

Other methods can only ever provide guess work based on relative factors. Multiple studies attempting to determine the temperatures for the same date won't corroborate exactly, but over the course of tens to hundreds to thousands of years they become indicative of trends.

If you really think direct observation is the only way to get accurate data then all of your science teachers ever should be fired.

Well this is an interesting debate. But to respond to the original question posted in the thread. As to what you are doing to help reduce your impact on the enviroment. Appart from the mandatory garbage sorting and recycling I have changed from Oil heat over to Natural gas, even though it is still poluting source of heat, it is by far less poluting than Oil. I have also converted from standard incandecent light bulbs to the florencent bulbs these have cut my power bill by around $20.00 / month. I have also been considering Solar & Wind power to help reduce my power bill as well. So its not a lot but it all counts. Even if the human race isn't the cause of global warming, it never hurts to help lower the emitions you create directly or inderectly.

http://www.workingforchange.com/webg.../TMW022807.jpg

Seemed fitting.

Right.
Because our determination of the earth's curvature is dependent upon indirect observation through data which could have a variety of different causes.

Sarcasm aside, these data samples which you delight in referring to are still sparser than the wealth of measuring devices we have planted throughout the world today. When you compare the average temperature for an entire planet using two different sample sets of vastly different size and origin, the reliability of these compared averages is dubious at best.

Also
Science is rooted in the idea of direct observation as the most reliable and most accurate method of obtaining data. This is, of course, not to say that indirect observation is entirely unreliable. However, errors and complications compound the uncertainty of the conclusions. Thus, direct observation is preferred, and is more accurate and precise.
The conveyance of scientific data secondhand is not to be likened to making observations through extrapolations. This is just a weak analogy.

Now this is the problem in the first place. Arainach and Bradylama are fighting so much over their opinions that the real problems are coming out. Humans may be causing this global threat but when you think and see what scientist and sceptics are all arguing about is who's right and who's wrong. Therein lies the problem.

Your opinion may be important to you, but how important is it to someone in oh lets say, Norway. Someone there probably doesn't care what you think and that your a crack pot. Everyone has differing opinions, like me for example. I don't really know what is the cause of this trend. It could be us or it could be normal, I don't know.

Though there is one thing I do know and it's that STOP BICKERING AND GET OFF YOUR ASSES AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

You can't stop climate change. The climate is always changing. Thats life here on planet earth, and its life on Mars as well, where, guess what, the planet is warming.

You have slight variations in planet orbits, you have variations in solar output. Run your SUV all night while you sleep if you want to, it will make no difference at all, there is nothing you can do that will offset variations in solar output.

I suggest you learn not to go into panic mode every time the Demwit press does. When they tell you that all the smart people in the world think they should run the government, and all the smart people in the world think they should be in charge of every aspect of your life because, well, they're smarter than you... put your hand on your wallet and move quickly away.

Consider the source. Gore is as dumb as a stick. The press think he is an intellectual giant, which tells you they are even dumber than he is. When they tell you that all the scientific experts agree that the government should run the economy, that should tell you what the real agenda is. Notice that the scientists who agree with them are not climatologists.

The people panicing about climate change are not the climatologists. The climatologists will tell you the same thing I'm telling you. The climate varies over time. Deal with it. Get a bigger air conditioner.

In ancient america, somehow they got the idea that you had to slay someone on the altar to make sure the sun would come up in the morning. They would slay people constantly, and sure enough, the sun always came up in the morning. The people didn't dare rebel because, gee, who knew what might happen if the sun didn't come up.

I count Gore in that camp. The world will end very soon if you don't put him in charge of everything. You can't blame a guy for trying it. You can blame the people dumb enough to fall for it.:rolleyes:

Like what? You think we're accomplishing something here? I'm already inclined to believe that human impact on global warming is negligible. On the other hand, I limit the amount of power I use because one of my primary concerns is energy sustainability, not some shit ugly frogs in the rainforest or the Dutch.

Kind of a bad example to throw in there, if you ask me. If you're trying to calm people down and reassure them that everything will be okay, comparing Earth to Mars is kind of a no-go.

Also, I don't particularly believe the hype myself, but I don't have much evidence to back that up. It's just sort of one of those impulse feelings you don't have much reason for. I guess that was pretty much trash, eh?

Either way, I'd say just relax at this point. We're not Mars quite yet. ;)

You mean ever since Global Cooling ceased? :tpg:

I actually read a pretty lol study a while back about how this one town always seemed to have higher temperature readings than all the surrounding areas. It was causing a bit of problems for modeling and stuff, so the censor itself was investigated. Turns out it was located right next to a bus depot, so it had hot exhaust being blown into it all day every day (as you can imagine, this was also causing fun times with their CO2 sensors).

Edit: Also, are people allowed to believe in climate change without thinking it's caused by humans, or are those two always grouped together by people like abiogenesis and evolution?

Without a doubt. There were some theories about a "solar max". A few years ago, it was believed that the sun was more unstable than usual, causing it to spew more surface flares, therefore heating the earth more. However, I can hardly believe that a few extra flare activities on the sun could cause such drastic changes on the Earth.

It was also thought that the methane emissions from cows was a major contributor to global warming, but that may be pushing it a bit. I'm sure the greenhouse gases from vehicles are far more prominent that cow flatulance.

Vehicles are not the number 1 offender. That is held by manufacturing plants. Thats why it is more damaging to throw out an old fridge for an energy efficient one. The pollution not caused by the saving of energy is greatly outweighed by the pollution caused to make a new fridge. In fact you have to keep a refrigerator for at least 10 years for it to be environmentally more efficient than you previous one.

Yes, manufacturing plant do produce more greenhouse gases than vehicles, but I was comparing them to cows instead.

And we've had our fridge for a good 10 years, and it's still going strong. It's nice to know that i'm helping the environment a little. :)

Actually you're completely wrong. Livestock produce far more greenhouse gases then all the cars combined. You would be better off driving a hummer and being a vegetarian then driving a small toyota and eating lots of meat. Learn the facts first before you try to argue with common sense.

But these are different chemicals. Where methane only clouds the sky, CO2 and CO3 cloud and rip apart the ozone. So driving a Hummer, although my produce less mass of gases, actually does more damage.

CO2 does not rip apart ozone, and I personally have never heard of carbonate gas.

Ozone is ripped apart by radicals, such as CFC's, nost often

Methane does NOT only cloud the sky. It is a greenhouse gas that is over 20 times more effective than CO2. So... Those who believe in CO2 causing temperature climbs wet themselves over Methane. It only has a life of 10 years or so in the atmosphere, but it was present near several temperature climbs. If methane caused a haze or clouded up the sky, then farms and wetlands would look worse than LA.

Peruse this thread for a spell.

CO2 is never a worry. CO3 is the killer. Cows do not produce CO3, only the burning of fossil fuels. Politicians don't talk about CO3, because it would mean their downfall. CO3 is an unstable molecule and the extra oxygen rips apart other stable molecules. It has the same effect as ozone (O3) except ozone wont rip apart other ozones. CO3 does rip apart ozones. It rips the extra O of an O3 and puts it on a CO2, making another CO3 and an Oxygen. This is what is responsible for the damage to the ozone and this alone.

But really, it's not what does the worst damage that counts, it's that nobody is doing anything useful about any of them.

Any sort of linkage to back up that claim? I can't manage to find anything that says CO3 can even exist as a gas. Not to mention I'm not quite sure when CO3 molecules will form in a combustion engine.

Also, oh god, read this page I got on Yahoo Answers while looking for stuff on CO3: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...1070335AAG4EK6

I agree...in that I've never heard of carbonate gas!

It disobeys valence rules, that's for sure

Actually it's weather that changes. Climate is the average of the weather in an area over a long period of time.

I do believe that humans have a significant effect on their environment, especially the United States which consumes more than its fair share of resources on this planet. I mean we could all do well with probably one car, take the bus and train now and again. Spend money on solar power which pays back after a certain amount of time.

But what gets me is that people are arguing whether it's humanity's fault or not. Umm....who cares? I don't like playing the Blame Game. But when OUR existence is in jeopardy, whether it's imagined or real, I would rather err on the side of caution than commit Type 1 errors by not doing something. If global warming is occurring, then using alcohol fuels instead of oil will help with the CO2 emissions. If global warming is not happening, then using alcohol fuels will clear up all this shit in the air that's getting into our lungs. Win- win anyone?

If it were that simple then there wouldn't be an argument.

Except that despite what the leftists would have you believe, there is no real conclusive evidence that Global Warming is man-made or as catastrophic as they claim it to be.

When you tell people to drastically alter the way they live their lives, you had better goddamn well prove the case. Thus far, that hasn't happened.

First of all, the Scientific Community has been looking into this for a LONG time. The only deniers are extremist neocons, not scientists.

Second, let's look at the options: One, global warming is fake and we try and prevent it. So we wasted a few billion bucks. Oh well, that's just another week of the war effort. Two, global warming is real and we ignore it. The world ends.

I don't know about you, but I'll pick erring on the safe side.

You don't know the world would end...this isn't nuclear winter we're talking about. The earth tends to be quite good at balancing itself, as per the entire science of chemistry.

By the way, I'm somewhat of a denier and well on the road to becoming a scientist.

And I'm not an extremist neo-con.

No one is gonna sit here and tell you that the Earth isn't warmer, but it's a single degree warmer over the last century.

It's the motherfuckas that sit here and tell us that the events of the movie The Day After Tomorrow are going to occur in short order that are full of shit. You don't have to be a neo-conservative to believe that, it's goddamn common sense.

I love how folks blow into the whole neo-con name-calling spiel if you don't buy into Global Warming being caused by man. Just goes to show their maturity on this matter...

This whole thing is science that has been politicized, bottom line. What I see on TV and with some folks around here falls into the "sheeples" category.

Global Warming and Cows.... link for those who haven't see this before, here

There are a bunch of websites that have this information, a simple Google search brought up 415,000 hits.

Does this mean that because I like Mexican food and it gives me loads of gas that I am responsible for global warming?!?

CO3?!? WTF... where do people get these "ideas", geez.

Neo-conz lol.

Also how is "global warming" going to cause the world to end? Is the planet going to metal away because it got too warm? Is it going to catch on fire because the animals were too fart happy?

I believe the official statistic is 18 trillion to prevent global warming. (do a google search if you don't believe me) Thats 45% of the worlds GDP. I'd rather not gamble that.

I doubt the world will end, but who the fuck cares? We'll all be dead regardless anyways.

Another possibility: the increase in the earth's temperature is naturally caused. That leaves us with a number of sub-possibilities:
1) We spend money on abating CO2 emissions only to get our asses flooded out anyway.
2) We don't spend money abating CO2 emissions and get flooded.
3) We spend money on technologies to cope with a naturally warming earth and hopefully make a difference
4) We don't spend money on technologies to cope with a naturally warming earth and get our asses flooded.
5) We spend money on technologies to cope with a naturally warming earth, it turns out it was caused by CO2, and we're alright anyway because we're ready for the warming earth.

"One, global warming is fake and we try and prevent it. So we wasted a few billion bucks."

As xen0phobia alluded, you clearly need to read legitimate proposed budgets for such activities. Obviously, not everything on said budgets would need to be enacted, but anything truly substantial would cripple quite a few nations.

You've probably never read God Emperor of Dune by Frank Herbert then. It's not about people dying, it's about the rest of humanity surviving. I don't care if a few countries completely go bankrupt. But if people really don't care, even if there is a slight possiblity, then we deserve to be wiped out. And to the people who are saying that the earth will be wiped out, no it won't. The earth will still be here, we probably won't.

I fail to see how a few degrees change over 100s of years would equate to human apocalypse.

See, that's what always confused me. What about those minor "warming" periods or "cooling" periods that we tend to get, or experienced in the past. For all we know, it could just be nature's way, and before we know it, we could be blaming car emissions for causing global cooling.

We're definitely not helping the cause, but a few degrees here and there is probably not much to fret about in the long term.

Because of the few degrees in increase of the oceans, moist air is condensing over the oceans instead of the rainforests which desperately need them. The amazon right now is experiencing it's lowest levels and desertification is occurring. Unless you also have another reason for the increase of frequency and intensity of the storms that have been going on, the damage alone of Hurricane Katrina was worth at an estimate of 81 billion dollars.

Whatever people may believe, we are a host organism of our planet. We evolved with our planet and our bodies are designed for a narrow range of environmental factors. A drop in O2 levels from deforestation, an increase of CO2 emissions. THAT kind of rings of alarm bells in my head.

I don't think you understand what global warming would realistically cause if it continued like this... The tropics would widen. A healthy amount of the northern and southern hemispheres would turn into rainforest-type regions. If polar ice caps melt, then you would have drastically increased precipitation worldwide.

As the ice caps melt, the gulf stream will shut down, as the current flows due to differences in water temperature and salinity. A rush of fresh water from the poles will drastically change lots of these mechanisms, but such things have happened many times before.

Increased intensity of storms? Howsabout that horrid hurricane season we had this year? Oh, wait. We didn't have one. In regards to Katrina & Rita, those simply occurred in a bad year -- such things aren't unheard of. Plus, hurricanes are caused by temperature anomalies. The gulf stream is ideal for such formations. If the glaciers melted, and the stream shut down, we would have less clashings of different temperatures. As a result, you have less storm formations and much less accumulation of hurricanes.

I believe you mean that we are parasites on our planet. Any good parasite adapts. Our ancestors lasted through horribly cold temperatures in the ice age (100,000+ years before present if you just prefer homo sapiens) as well as hot climbs within the past few thousand years.

In regards to the rain forest, deforestation should be the main blame at present...

There isn't a drop in O2 going on at present. CO2 has been in the atmosphere in much, MUCH larger amounts than it is now, yet we've experienced some of our colder temperatures during such times. Nitrogen takes up 74% of the atmosphere, Oxygen taking up 25%, and CO2 taking up 0.03%. I'd hardly say we're flooded with CO2 or lacking in Oxygen. The rainforest may be a diverse collection of plants & animals, but it's hardly our main source of oxygen. You can't label something as copious as oxygen as having any one main source in one spot. It forms from photosynthesizers all around the world as well as from acid rain accumulation upon exposed oxides.

We have humans living in the coldest reaches of Russia & Canada to the hottest, most desolate regions of the deserts of the world. I'd hardly label mankind as "designed for a narrow range".

Even if I concede that maybe global warming does not exist etal we've only been on this planet for a very short time. The effect we have from our actions are not yet known, and that's what makes me very anxious, because instead of being cautious and at least minimizing what we are doing until we know a little bit more of why the events are happening the way they are, we're still going full blast and avoiding any sort of warning signs.

Experiment to test global warming theory:

Scientist 1: Ok, we need to test global warming. What are our variables?
Scientist 2: Oh, that would be everything on the entire earth and everyone on the entire earth and everything that happens every second of every day on the entire earth. So, basically, the entire earth. Over a time period of, oh let's say 20,000 years ago to the present.
Scientist 1: So... firing up my copy of "The Sims" and leaving the stove on in their house probably won't get the job done eh?

Do we really have computer models that can basically account for the variable "everything and everyone on the face of the earth every second for the last 20,000+ years"?? Or, is it just "there are more humans now than before, the earth is warmer now than before, therefore humans are making the earth warm?" I'm open to the "theory" of "global warming" and don't doubt objective climate data, but remain skeptical that scientists can point to John Smith SUV owner and say, "This guy is producing .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of greenhouse gases and needs to get 5mpg more from his SUV or else the world's temperature will go up by .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000001 degrees. :rolleyes:

I heard about an interesting text on this subject the other day. I don't know if it's good but I like cover. :D http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...juniorbooks-20

Lets throw out my own personal thoughts....Pheonix and Gechmir summed up the rational points nicely...no need to repeat them.

Ahh global warming.....an irrational fear created by modern Druidic idiots...now used as popular propoganda garbage that spreads because "caring sells".

Ultimatly, i ask you...so *****ing what? So what if the earth gets warmer? So what if the oceans rise a few feet making some realestate worthless? It isnt going to happen overnight (dont you dare point to storms/hurricanes and say they are the "result of global warming").

"Many" are displaced (very very gradually) by slowly rising ocean tides and are forced to live else where? Who cares? Thats happened before...its happening now...and it will happen again and again in the future.

So what if some crops/plants find a new slightly warmer climate more agreeable while others find it less so? Some niches retract and shrink while others thrive and grow?

So what if over hundreds of years we get minor compositional changes in earths atmosphere.

Change over time is not a problem. Gives you alot of time to adapt and experiment. Catastrophic change/rapid destruction of productive landscape through negligence (chem spills, carelessly releasing what is judged to be harmful amounts of hazerdous substances, etc) is a problem...and should be punished. Through punishment, you can prevent it from happening again on the scale it once did.

We will endure, we will adapt, and we will thrive....no matter what ecological diversity we face resulting from minor increases in the Earths overall temperature.

Meanwhile, feel free to continue living in fear of the supernatural terrors created by those seeking power and enforced by those seeking profit. Continue to judge (openly or privatly) the habits and vices of your fellow citizens and force "what you know is best" on them through collectivism. Continue to point out the "ecological injustice" of their actions, and try to instill the "Fear of God"\Mother Earth\Supernatural terror you have constructed in your mind. Do this while you silently mock their irrational belief in an imaginary God too for good measure. After all, they're fools for believing in something SOOO silly.


What "you people" fear is laughable.


I'm perfectly confidant that i could survive (and thrive) in any of the "post-global warming" scenarios the "experts" throw out. Hell...in most of them when you get down to it things arn't really any different from the way they are now.
The potential difficulties created by a the earths magnetic field weaking (leading to potential for magnetic switching/rapid reorientation) seem more challenging...and that is something we will eventually have to face...Will it be annoying? Yes...but its not doomsday "Day After Tomorrow" stuff.



There are plenty of forces in this world that you should fear...forces intent on disrupting/destroying the essential economic foundations of the civilization that spawned you.
When that happens, will you be ready? Are you capable of surviving a long term breakdown in the social contract (at worst), or a major economic depression that makes the 1930s look good (at best)?

Are you prepared? Are your children/loved ones prepared? Do you have a plan? Have you thought about things like this at all? Things like the political, economic, and literal fallout resulting from the nuclear destruction of a major city. These are the things you should fear (in my personal opinion) and should actively seek to prevent...and plan for...these are the things that will shape your future and your childrens future.

You may die instantly due to pesky bad luck (thems the breaks...pray its over quick)...or your plan may be runied by something you failed to account for...but chances are swift and decisive planned action will leave you better off when it comes to competiting with someone who wastes alot of time standing around dazed and confused.

Killeraoc: The changes are much more substantial than that. First, the cost of relocating all the people who live at coastal communities (which is a huge chunk of them) would be astronomical. Second, it would effect every industry across the board. Already, here in Michigan, the Cherry Industry is seriously hurt because Grand Traverse Bay no longer freezes over to create a growing environment. Skiing establishments across the nation have been having poorer seasons than average lately as well. As time passes on, the effect on agriculture and industry will be even more profound.

And "minor" changes - do you have any idea how much energy it takes to raise the Earth's atmosphere by a degree? It's no small number.

Poorly thought out response...fails to address or take into account things stated in my post.

Oh, so these are the "substantial" changes that result from global warming?

This is what you fear?

Thats pathetic. Pathetic.

Look at what you just wrote....LOOK AT IT!!!! You fear that? You think we should spend trillions of dollars and give up economic choice to a central authority to make sure your precious cherry trees always grow under optimal conditions? Truely humanity is doomed in this bleak future of yours.

"Astronomical" eh? So are you implying that this "mass relocation of all costal communities" (nice big IF assumption right there) is going to be done all at once at the governments will/disgression and on its dime? Not in my country. Thats not an America I will be a part of. In reality, if any relocation occured...it would resemble something like...say the relocation that would occur if the entire Michigan cherry industry went belly up (and for some unfathomable reason wasnt instantly replaced with some new crop)

"Effect every industry across the board" - you list 2 examples cherry trees and ski industries...to which i respond grow something else if your not happy with your cherry output. Grow something a little less...delicate...or make a new hybrid tree (done all the time) thats capable of facing ecological diversity.

Skiing industries - Invest in snowmaking. (back that snowfall data up with some actual facts...and i mean hard facts not inflated/deflated base numbers that resorts post). I am an avid skiier...you have good seasons and you have bad seasons....sometimes you get lucky and those storms coming up from the gulf dump 2 feet on ya...sometimes they pass you by alltogether....rocky mountain weather is extremely unpredictable.

You also seem to make the assumption that it would negatively effect all industries...i myself see a world of new opportunities springing up (especially if that "relocation" you described actually happened...possibilities are boundless there).

Effects on agriculture even more profound - I stated it in my post - Some plants would LOVE a warmer climate...they would thrive....some not so much...they dont do as well in tradition areas...new hybrids are made to solve the problem...overall impact = moot. Ultimatly, one degree average difference isnt going to make or break a crop. Every crop grown faces a large spectrum of temperatures from year to year (unusually cold/hot). Its not like you would see large scale agricultural failure (something you might see if the earths average temperature suddenly dropped 6 degrees C for the next 10 years...most plants take warming with ease...frost is the real killer).

So thats the post-apocatlyptic "Day After Tomorrow" future of global warming....you can expect MUCH worse then that 15-20 years down the road.

Show me some real stats here cause otherwise you're just spoutin' off. Last season was fucking awesome.

I think we should do a bit more homework about this before jumping to a trillion dollar conclusion. I think people are attracted to the idea of global warming because of the romanticism associated with dying in a global national disaster. Personally, I'd rather be at ground zero under a 50 mega-ton warhead.