Quote from: Kyle AaronWhich obviously worked, because now people like Werekoala think that greenies invented the term.

Do greenies use the term or not? Then it doesn't matter who coined the term.

Quote from: WerekoalaWhat is optimal climate for the planet?
When has climate been static?

These aren't relevant to the problem. The problem isn't that the climate is changing, though this does create some problems. The problem is that the climate appears to be changing in response to factors that have a positive feedback loop -- that is, the changes don't appear to be mitigated by the planets usual cyclical mechanisms. This in turn implies the possibility that, past a certain point, the change in climate will be a change in stable state that could be dramatically different from where our climate has ever been in the past.

Currently our climate wobbles around a stable mean that allows for ice ages and melt-offs. Dramatic differences over many thousands of years. But if that stable mean changes to a different attractor because of changes that are not normally part of our planet's functioning climate system (say, abnormally high greenhouse gases that have no mechanism for reabsorption at any useful rate) then we may get a new climate that oscillates around a temperature too high to sustain life. That would suck.

The real issue then is, how long will it take use to figure out if this is the case, and when will we reach a point (if it is the case) where it doesn't matter what we do? I haven't read anything conclusive regarding this, but the evidence is mounting. Certainly CO2 levels are escalating at a rapid rate and we haven't got any really reliable way to know how fast a rate of change the existing system can manage.

Some have decided to err on the side of caution. The idea that the planet has always worked and therefore always will no matter what we throw at it seems naive to me, but in this specific case the data's not in. The worst case scenario is pretty bad though, and exacerbated by delay.

Avoiding the shitslinging that has started between members with this post.  It isn't worth the typing to get involved.

I do what I viably can to protect the environment.  I recycle aluminum and some paper products (what the place will take) nothing else has a recycling center anywhere near me.  I car pool to work as well.  When I go out to run errands I try to do as many in one trip as possible, even think out the route so I can usually get them all in one loop.  I turn off lights when I walk out of the room, at night there are no lights on except for the nightlight in my kids room.  Most of my appliances are on surge protectors so I can turn them completely off at night and don't lose anything to 'phantom watage' or whatever they call it.  I don't litter.

Better safe than sorry, no?

Very firmly in the pro-nucular "prosperity before baby seals" camp. Prosperity, beyond a certain level, raises the demand for a comfortable environment, including baby seals. And gloves made out of the cuddly things.

Quote from: HalfjackSome have decided to err on the side of caution. The idea that the planet has always worked and therefore always will no matter what we throw at it seems naive to me, but in this specific case the data's not in. The worst case scenario is pretty bad though, and exacerbated by delay.

I understand. I've read the last UN report (the summary at least) and it seems not to be quite as certain and adamant about causes and solutions as the press and environmentalists and politicians would have you believe. Still, I admit climate is changing (those of course the warming stopped 10 years ago, turns out) but I do not believe we're a large enough factor to matter compared to other sources such as, oh, the sun for example. And it would have to get damn hot to make the world unlivable.

I am perfectly willing to support alternative energies and such (nuclear!), electric cars, whatever - but I do not accept the premise that we HAVE to do so in order to Save the Planet. Or even the people. As I said, clean air, clean water, don't throw crap out of your car, nuclear energy. Good enough for me.

Quote from: WerekoalaI understand. I've read the last UN report (the summary at least) and it seems not to be quite as certain and adamant about causes and solutions as the press and environmentalists and politicians would have you believe.

Hence the problem with politicising the issue: it makes people take sides on something that doesn't have sides. It's true or false regardless of what we want or believe.

QuoteStill, I admit climate is changing (those of course the warming stopped 10 years ago, turns out) but I do not believe we're a large enough factor to matter compared to other sources such as, oh, the sun for example. And it would have to get damn hot to make the world unlivable.

The truth doesn't care what you believe. Science is often counter-intuitive and surprising.

Quote from: HalfjackHence the problem with politicising the issue: it makes people take sides on something that doesn't have sides. It's true or false regardless of what we want or believe.

The truth doesn't care what you believe. Science is often counter-intuitive and surprising.

As soon as the truth presents itself, that'll be fine. Until then, consensus does not make science - especially when there IS no consensus. Trends, perhaps, but no truth. Because in this game, there is no "final" answer - things will always be in a state of flux, and until all the factors are completely understood, nobody can really say what will be the outcome of any of it. But since a certain faction is unwilling to admit that nothing can be known for certain, and stops trying to shape society into some mold it *thinks* will solve the "problem" (and really, they don't even know it will) then I'll be just as adamant about my "belief", if you will.

Quote from: WerekoalaAs soon as the truth presents itself, that'll be fine. Until then, consensus does not make science - especially when there IS no consensus. Trends, perhaps, but no truth. Because in this game, there is no "final" answer - things will always be in a state of flux, and until all the factors are completely understood, nobody can really say what will be the outcome of any of it. But since a certain faction is unwilling to admit that nothing can be known for certain, and stops trying to shape society into some mold it *thinks* will solve the "problem" (and really, they don't even know it will) then I'll be just as adamant about my "belief", if you will.

Well, I think in a case where the evidence has been politicised as it has here, and where indeed the truth is never going to present it self in any concrete fashion (unless it's to boil the ocean away; that'd be pretty concrete I guess), then the best course of action is to decode motivations. In this case it's enlightening to do the most basic motivational analysis: follow the money.

That still doesn't get you to Fact but it does at least pinpoint where a substantial motivator for distortion lies.

Quote from: HalfjackWell, I think in a case where the evidence has been politicised as it has here, and where indeed the truth is never going to present it self in any concrete fashion (unless it's to boil the ocean away; that'd be pretty concrete I guess), then the best course of action is to decode motivations. In this case it's enlightening to do the most basic motivational analysis: follow the money.

That still doesn't get you to Fact but it does at least pinpoint where a substantial motivator for distortion lies.

I agree 100%, you are totally correct. But there is motivation on both sides, and not all of it is pure and clean - some folks find that hard to believe for some reason.

Quote from: Kyle AaronSo if we establish forest reserves and plant more, if we refrain from using up all of some particular resource, if we set up fine educational, health and public transport institutions, well our kids will be glad of those things.

See, I think part of the problem is that _we_, meaning everyone in this discussion, are in no position to do any of these things.  So we have to be content with some forms of slacktivism where we turn off our lights when not in use to save energy, don't litter, use less water, etc.  Does it make us feel better to do these things?  Yes.  Does it have any real effect on global warming/climate change?  I doubt it.  Not when you've got millions of people driving around in SUVs, millionaires with mansions who consume more energy in a month than you do in a year, and governments who have no vested interest in conservation other than as a political tool (U.S., China, India, etc.).

Pete

Quote from: pspahnNot when you've got millions of people driving around in SUVs, millionaires with mansions who consume more energy in a month than you do in a year

Agreed.  But those people are the ones who have to change their ways and some of those people are us.  And you can go beyond slacktivism.  You can vote.  You can vote by choosing what products you buy.  You can be vocal.  And you can change your habits beyond just not littering, that do have some cumulative impact.  If everybody composted, we'd cut way down on waste.  If everybody who could ride their bike to work did, that would make a huge impact on urban pollution (and increase health).  Cut down the amount of meat you consume.  Make your own stuff or buy used stuff.  Sit down with your friends and play a tabletop roleplaying game instead of going snowmobiling.  There is a lot of change still to be done in our wealthy, comfortable society.

Quote from: darcop to being full of shit.

Ah, you got me.  I'm lying so the chicks think I'm 'edgy' and uncompromising.

walkerp, would you really flush it all and have the ignorance rule supreme?

Would you really kill your best friends children?

Do you really have this giddy wet dream of horrific mas murder?

If you were true to your words I'd think you would at least further the 'ironic' end of man kind by his own means.

Do you really think so little of every candle lit in the dark staving off the ignorance that you would destroy it all?

I'm not convinced you do. That is why I'm calling bull.

Quote from: walkerpAh, you got me.  I'm lying so the chicks think I'm 'edgy' and uncompromising.

It's a good strategy. Ime, it also helps if you avoid sourkraut.