Global warming: the chilling effect on free speech

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I would hate for us to expend all our resources to fix global warming, and then to discover that that wasn't the major factor...

JM

Yes, but better that then doing nothing and we could have stopped it. The question for you, oh Captain of the Titanic is there an iceberg in front of us or not?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
One shouldn't discover whether or not there is a cliff ahead by driving 60mph towards it. If human agency is the cause, and we wait until there's 100% proof that satisifies the skeptics beyond even an unreasonble doubt, it will be too late, people will die. If the skepitics are correct and we ramp back the activities that we think are causing or accelerating GW, then we haven't lost anything except some jobs.

People dying > people losing jobs unnecessarily

I agree, but that isn't the situation. It is that there are a theory that says that humans are the only blame and anyone that contradicts this is evil. Even research that may result in such a contradition is considered evil. That is pretty catastrophic because it will unavoidably result in waste of resources that could have been used better.

I don't deny that humans may be the cause of current climatic changes, but it's plain stupid that reseach in the opposite is considered at same level as "intelligent design".

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Yes, but better that then doing nothing and we could have stopped it. The question for you, oh Captain of the Titanic is there an iceberg in front of us or not?

An iceberg caused by Global Warming? I don't think so.

I think a far greater cause of problems is the way we use our water. I think that spending our effort fixing global warming isn't the most efficient use of our effort, and in the end won't save us.

JM

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by BlackCat
I don't deny that humans may be the cause of current climatic changes, but it's plain stupid that reseach in the opposite is considered at same level as "intelligent design".

It's the result of an historic debate where those on one side denied for decades that anything was occurring at all, using derrogatory terms to describe those warning of the effects of GW, and maintaining a policy position that has continued to do harm to the environment and us. The evidence that they were wrong is overwhelming, and now that it can no longer denied, they have switched to saying, well, okay, maybe you were right all along, but you can't prove that humans are responsible. Nyah.

I don't find it an intellectually honest position, and instead an attempt to delay taking the steps that need to be taken in order for those who's wealth would be hurt to keep raking in that wealth at the public's expense. If they don't want to be associated with the "intelligent design" crowd, too bad. They should watch the company they keep, shouldn't have been derisive in the past, and shouldn't be the whores of big energy today.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
An iceberg caused by Global Warming?

I think a far greater cause of problems is the way we use our water. I think that spending our effort fixing global warming isn't the most efficient use of our effort, and in the end won't save us.

JM

Water use isn't melting glaciers, causing the permafrost to melt, and causing the sea level to rise. In any event, it's not an either or proposition. It's not as if there's only sop much human energy that can go into solving environmental problems, and that if we focus on one, we cannot focus on the other. The problem is, the same folks who are interested in pumping CO2 into the atmosphere are the same group of people interested in abusing water resources. They need to be defeated politically, so that we can fix all of the problems, instead of begging them to all ow us to fix one problem or the other.

[Jon Miller]

Um, can't you see I was using your figurative language? I was refering to the alegory of the Titanic. I will make it simpler for you.

The 'iceberg is' what doomed the titanic. I do think we are heading for an 'iceberg' (where the world is the 'titanic'). However, I don't think that 'iceberg' is global warming. I think that 'iceberg' is our water use practices..

Jon Miller
edit: I am not going to play edit games with you.. this is a response to what you first posted

[Jon Miller]

Water use is making deserts, which have a profound effect on global climate and could be causing meltings and the like (Which really aren't that big of a deal.. we have had a whole lot smaller icecaps in the past, and it didn't harm the earth any).

Non-Toxic water, which we as well as all (Basically) other life on this planet need, is a much greater problem, and isn't nearly as survivable. I mean, a limited number of humans can have water treatment plants to survive.. but the vast majority of the other life on this planet would die.. (especially more complicated life).

JM

[Jon Miller]

And ignoring even the toxicity arguments.. when we pull all the water out of a region ro support our citiesagricultural/etc we make the rest of the region moer and more desert like. This profoundly affects the climate also.

JM

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
The 'iceberg is' what doomed the titanic.

No, the iceberg is not what doomed the Titanic What doomed the ship was the captain's insitence on going full speed ahead in calm waters where icebergs had been reported, thus rendering the ship unable to make a course correction should an iceberg appear in front of them. All because the goal of fastest maiden voyage was economically important.

It is an extremely apt allagory. We refuse to slow down today because we'll lose money. By the time we know for certain whether or not humans are the pricinipal cuase of GW, it will be too late to do anything one way or another. The results of which will be devestating for humanity. Of course we'll surivive, but millions more won't, maybe even billions. That's too high a price to pay so that some people can continue raking in the big bucks.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


There are three possibilities:
A) it is driven by variations in solar output (i.e., the sun's getting warmer)
B) it is driven by the massive release of previously sequestered CO₂
C) or some combination of the two.

That isn't actually true - there are other ways :

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Exploding_Stars_Influence_Climate_Of_Earth_999.html

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Water use. . .

again, not an either or argument, so all you're doing now is obfuscating.

[Jon Miller]

That isn't a good analogy. We have to expend effort to shift what we are currently doing. Baring a revolution, people have to be convinced to expend some of their effort to change what they are doing.

Where that effort is expended is important. It can be expended on Global Warming.. which has nebulous effects and causes but has been hyped to high heaven by environmentalists. Or it can be expended on fixing our water use problems, which are well understood, with results that can be easily seen.

You are thinking in too simple of world, you need to expand your mind to other possibilities. This problem of extreme focus is the problem I have with global warming advocates.

Jon Miller

[chequita guevara]

Extreme focus is not one of my problems.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


again, not an either or argument, so all you're doing now is obfuscating.

No.. it takes a certain ammount of convincing to have people switch course..

This isn't like the titanic, rather this is like a spacecraft in an asteroid field. Changing vectors but not speed doesn't neccesarily help us. Changing the speed down is difficult also (And might not help us either, although it does allow us to change vector to meet approaching problems easier).

I don't think that Global Warming is that big of problem. I think that the focus on CO2 and other emissions as being the cause of Global Warming is even more blind. It is an over simplification of the problem.

I think we are quickly approaching the 'asteroid' caused by poor water use.. while the 'asteroid' of global warming is farther out. I would prefer we use our 'boosters' to adjust for the coming water catastrophe then to adjust for more nebulous global warming catastrophe.

Jon Miller

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


It's the result of an historic debate where those on one side denied for decades that anything was occurring at all, using derrogatory terms to describe those warning of the effects of GW, and maintaining a policy position that has continued to do harm to the environment and us. The evidence that they were wrong is overwhelming, and now that it can no longer denied, they have switched to saying, well, okay, maybe you were right all along, but you can't prove that humans are responsible. Nyah.

I don't find it an intellectually honest position, and instead an attempt to delay taking the steps that need to be taken in order for those who's wealth would be hurt to keep raking in that wealth at the public's expense. If they don't want to be associated with the "intelligent design" crowd, too bad. They should watch the company they keep, shouldn't have been derisive in the past, and shouldn't be the whores of big energy today.

Hate to disagree , but that simply isn't true. I won't argue that there has been deniers that claimed that industry wasn't to blame for environmental disasters, but such idiots have been weeded out long ago.

You have actually pointed out what the real problem is. Current "human-are-toblame-of-all" scientists uses this excuse to deny whatever any decent scientist may find that contradicts their claim of eternal truth. It has become an obscenity to find evidence that humans may not be the only subject to blame.