Al Gore Rumbled

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by rah
And I'm with Berz, until someone comes up with something concrete that I have to fear about a little global warming, I'm not willing to expend an extreme amount of resources to attack the issue.

How about if it reduces the need to give a crap about the ME via investments in alternative energy?

[rah]

I have no problems with investments in alternative energy and believe it should be encouraged. A moderate response is good, but some of the extreme proposals just aren't justified at this point. At least to me.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Why shouldn't those encouragements also be done in conjunction with domestic petroleum source development say like those of Alberta?

[rah]

I'd support that. We have to make progress in that direction eventually, but I don't think we need to substantially reduce the standing of living world wide to accomplish it.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Right of passage into full fledged sentience usually requires comprehension.

I still hold out hope for you.

Well then, what I said wasn't 'Zactly your point!'...

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by rah
I have no problems with investments in alternative energy and believe it should be encouraged. A moderate response is good, but some of the extreme proposals just aren't justified at this point. At least to me.

If everyone adopted the 'moderate response' of 'saving themselves money' by doing such mundane things as properly insulating their houses, getting energy efficient appliances, turning the thermostat down by 1 degree etc - we'd save a significant % of the World's energy consumption!

Frankly it beats me why the naysayers here want to continue to depress their standard of living by wasting their income unnecessarily...

Most anti-global warming people I know think it's their right to waste their money (which it is), but claim at the same time that adopting environmental measures to combat global warming will lower their standard of living!

[rah]

Hmm, I do do all those things. And take the extra time to comute by train, etc. and yes I encourage everyone to do it.

My standard of living comment refers more to silliness like the Kyoto agreement. (besides ignoring developing countries) On it's own I doubt it would have anything more than minimal impact and come at high expense.
To do it right, no one is exempt and the goals would have to be multiplied 10x. That would seriously impact the standard of living for everyone. And it hasn't been proved to me, that it's worth it.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Frankly it beats me why the naysayers here want to continue to depress their standard of living by wasting their income unnecessarily...

In my experience, lower income people have generally been more careful about energy consumption than the rich, because they can't afford to waste it. The affluent can afford to be profligate, and if reductions are to be made, the highest reductions should be made by those consuming the most, not the least.

Going easy on domestic consumption (kettles, lights) is in everyone's interests, but installing expensive technologies that may take years or decades to pay for themselves is not always a feasible option for many people. How long do solar panels take to pay for themselves?

Whilst energy conservation is prudent, it is also important not to make a religion out of it, else the only 'moral' lifestyles will involve sitting in the cold and the dark, wrapped in blankets, with no tv, music, lights, heat, fridges, computers, travel, transport etc. We know what happens when people take religion too far.

I am particularly concerned about the prospects for people in non-industrialised or industrialising countries being told that they must not develop. If there are serious effects from climate change coming, the best way for people to deal with it will be by having a decent level of development.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by rah
And it hasn't been proved to me, that it's worth it.

The evidence that Global Warming is going to cause us increasing problems in the future is there for all to see.

Even if you don't agree with the findings, surely isn't it prudent to adopt the precautionary principle until we know for sure? People argued for decades in the same manner with regards to the connection between CFC's and the Ozone Layer, before it was finally proven - surely the lessons learned from that should be applied here?

The science of Global Warming is still in its infancy, and of course mistakes will be made as we struggle to learn about climate change as quickly as possible - the thing that scares me is that they keep saying things like "things are worse than we thought" etc. The more we seem to understand, the worse the predictions seem to get, and there will come a time when the damage done will be irreversible if we keep ignoring the threat.

We all pay insurance in one way or another. Planning for the probability that global warming is most likely anthropogenic is just another form of insurance.

As an American, you wouldn't dream of going without medical insurance if you could afford to have it, would you?

[rah]

I'll agree that it's happening, I'll agree that it will have impact. How much and how much is it worth to pay for that insurance is the question. "If you can afford to have it" is the operative phrase.

I guess I'm not convinced of total doom and not willing to pay the highest price tag. I'm willing to pay the lower price tag until the science is a bit more sound.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Until these people can tell me why I should fear a warmer world, I'm not too concerned with CO2 or other greenhouse gases. It all sounds like Chicken Little gibberish, dire predictions about weather one would not usually associate with a greenhouse effect.

Thats a very serious issue for discussion, about which there is some scientific division. 1. What are the implications of higher temps and GHG on Ag output? Some suggest that higher CO2 levels would offset higher temps, but IIUC thats not the consensus, though there is disagreement. 2. Some assume ag belts could easily move north - I would suggest massive disruptions and economic costs in that process. Though we should certainly begin to prepare for it, to mitigate costs. 3. Its not just rising temps, but massive changes in weather systems, due to changing oceanic current patterns, though again the impacts of those on rainfall patterns, etc are disputed, IIUC.

However its not easy to have those discussions when folks are busy denying the reality of man made global warming.

[rah]

And there are a lot of older posters here that remember the cries of panic about an impending ice age from the same scientific community. So while I can agree that global warming is happening, I have to maintain a certain skepticism when listening to supposed scientific experts about what we should be doing about it.


I mean OMG, if what we're doing is delaying an ice age, maybe we should speed up global warming.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by rah
And there are a lot of older posters here that remember the cries of panic about an impending ice age from the same scientific community. So while I can agree that global warming is happening, I have to maintain a certain skepticism when listening to supposed scientific experts about what we should be doing about it.


I mean OMG, if what we're doing is delaying an ice age, maybe we should speed up global warming.

except thats one of the sillier arguments against global warming. It was held for only a few years (at most) in the scientific community, and at a time when modeling, and in particular computer power were far less advanced. I mean its striking how people who are proud of the advances of the market economy over the last 30 years, in particular the advances in technology that give us as much computing power on our desks as used to fill an entire room, think that failures of thirty year old models are reasons to discount todays climate models.

[lord of the mark]

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/index.htm

heres a little reading for everyone on impacts.

[rah]

a little reading