Ryan Holton wrote:
and the flip side to the "We have to do something" coin
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/18/news/tires.phpQuote:
A well-intentioned attempt in 1972 to create what was touted as the world's largest artificial reef made of tires has become an ecological disaster.
It never ceases to amaze me that some folks can't understand why some folks are skeptical about what "scientists" say will happen in the future.
That's an excellent example of a failed intervention, Ryan- I hadn't heard about that, and it really shows that, especially when it comes to Earth sciences, there's an awful lot we don't know. So I totally believe that skepticism is warranted, as well as continued study, especially on a huge question like this one. Studies
are obviously ongoing, and new results are streaming in all the time. The vast majority (admittedly not all) support the claim that the global climate is trending warmer. Will anyone ever prove it? We can't. We can only make observations about what's happening and report them. But I don't believe scientists are "piling on" just to look like they're smart. A dissenting result is more valuable scientifically than a concurring one, if it is found to be supported by the evidence and can be reproduced by others.
Ryan Holton wrote:
Carl Fisher wrote:
So you don't believe the global climate is changing?
ABSOLUTELY!!! It has changed and will continue to change. I don't think there is a person with half a brain cell that would say its NOT changing.
However, I do not believe the CO2 is the cause of the change.
OK, so my read on this is that you agree that the global climate is changing, and (I think?) you're agreeing that the change is for the warmer.
Now my question is, what do you think we should do about it? Are you still skeptical? In the quote at the top of this post you imply that you still are; in the quote immediately above you sound like you're not. Do you think we should
try to do something, should we leave this in God's hands, or something else?
In any event, Ryan, I think you and I are probably 100% in agreement that ideas like space mirrors and fertilizing the ocean to produce plankton blooms and other such global interventions are very dangerous ideas because we really don't know how the whole system works. On the other hand, since we've been able to measure a large spike in atmospheric CO2 levels in the last 100 years, and since there seems to be pretty strong support for the idea that CO2 is a cause (perhaps not the
only cause), it seems like trying to at least
reduce output of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is a pretty safe step to take. It's not even an "intervention", because we'd still be continuing to add more CO2 to the atmosphere, just at a slower rate.
But still there's a big hue and cry about even that relatively modest step, and even outright belligerence, as we've already seen. Why? For companies I can understand the resistance- these changes cost money that they don't want (and can't afford) to spend in a globally competitive marketplace. But they are starting to make these changes anyway, because their customers are demanding it, and because there's PR value in it. Fair enough. But why are some individuals so resistant to even the
idea of
other people reducing CO2? What are they afraid of? A scary future? Rejection of their personal beliefs? Changes to a status quo that they'd come to enjoy, including inconveniences such as lifestyle modification, higher prices, and perhaps even someday social stigma against our favored pastime of auto sports? I'm not sure, but I expect I'll hear some answers.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
