Global Warming is Bullsh!t!

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cartman

Yay! The US is keeping it real like the other non-ratifiers:

Afghanistan
Andorra
Palestinian Authority
Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
San Marino
Somalia
Taiwan
Vatican City

"attacks against America"? Seriously? A strong disagreement with policy is not an "attack against America".

hehehe, nice list, I love how you were ready for that...and remember to list them all alphabetically.

At any rate, since being in office, he's had a serious 'climate change', if you're looking for softer wording.

[sterlingice]

Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic ?

I had to wiki that one

SI

[cartman]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic ?

I had to wiki that one

SI

Good to know which countries have your back.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic ?

I had to wiki that one

SI

it's essentially the breakaway republic in Western Sahara (IIRC)

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

it's essentially the breakaway republic in Western Sahara (IIRC)

They should send that mean whale there.

[Glengoyne]

Regarding Kyoto and Gore not sending the treaty for ratification...Didn't the senate vote on a resolution declaring that the US should not be a signatory to the Treaty? Something like 95-0 or 97-0 against participating.

[RainMaker]

[mauchow]

So what is the general consensus from everyone on Global Warming? We need to start a poll or something. Anybody want to do that while I'm working?

I live in Appleton, WI and our snow will likely be all gone come Wednesday. There is no forecast for any snow for the next ten days(but as we know in Wisconsin, that can change in a day). The average high for the past month has been about 4 degrees warmer every day.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by mauboy1

So what is the general consensus from everyone on Global Warming? We need to start a poll or something. Anybody want to do that while I'm working?

I live in Appleton, WI and our snow will likely be all gone come Wednesday. There is no forecast for any snow for the next ten days(but as we know in Wisconsin, that can change in a day). The average high for the past month has been about 4 degrees warmer every day.

I hope KC never has another winter like this one. Below average temperatures with ridiculous snowfall totals. It's been miserable. We're just praying that global warming is real. We need some heat!

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I hope KC never has another winter like this one. Below average temperatures with ridiculous snowfall totals. It's been miserable. We're just praying that global warming is real. We need some heat!

*sighs*

actually...since global warming melts the polar ice caps and increases the amount of moisture in circulation, it doesn't always result in a net increase in heat for every spot on the planet - in fact the increased snowfall in a lot of areas that don't typically see this much (if any) snow is entirely consistent with global warming.

i'm sure we've been over that in this thread before though. climactic changes in any individual microclimate are dependent on many factors other than the overall global average temperature (geography, wind, etc).

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I love how it's now called "Climate Change". Is this an attempt to avoid the staistical problems that the name "Warming" is bringing to them?

*sighs* see my post above

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

*sighs*

actually...since global warming melts the polar ice caps and increases the amount of moisture in circulation, it doesn't always result in a net increase in heat for every spot on the planet - in fact the increased snowfall in a lot of areas that don't typically see this much (if any) snow is entirely consistent with global warming.

i'm sure we've been over that in this thread before though. climactic changes in any individual microclimate are dependent on many factors other than the overall global average temperature (geography, wind, etc).

*sighs*

Can't I just bitch about the cold here in KC?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I hope KC never has another winter like this one. Below average temperatures with ridiculous snowfall totals. It's been miserable. We're just praying that global warming is real. We need some heat!

Unfortunately, even if we get catastrophic warming (say, 5 degrees) that drastically alters all life on earth, winter's still winter and it will still be cold. But it will be 5 degrees warmer!

So that day when it was -5 and the wind chills were near -30, it would be a much balmier 0 and -25

SI

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

*sighs*

actually...since global warming melts the polar ice caps and increases the amount of moisture in circulation, it doesn't always result in a net increase in heat for every spot on the planet - in fact the increased snowfall in a lot of areas that don't typically see this much (if any) snow is entirely consistent with global warming.

i'm sure we've been over that in this thread before though. climactic changes in any individual microclimate are dependent on many factors other than the overall global average temperature (geography, wind, etc).

FWIW,

90% of the world's ice is in Antarctica where the temperature's rarely get above freezing, normally the highs are no more than -5 degrees fahrenheit. The ice that melts and breaks off into the ocean is normally ice that is already floating on top of water, so the displacement has already occurred.

A great tactic used by the left is that we must be wary of both polar ice caps melting....since Antarctica never gets above freezing, the other choice for this concern is the Arctic polar cap, which sits atop the Arctic ocean is also, already displaced.

So, the key argument to ocean rises is probably the landmass in Greenland. First of all, if all the ice in Iceland melted away and never returned, it's a good bet it's because we were just struck by a meteor or full-scale nuclear war...not global warming. At least not anytime soon.

Most of these full scale changes that the left warns us about are things that will happen in 100 years (a degree in temperature increase)...one thing they will never research or advertise are the benefits of that to the Earth, which would be much more immediate...more landmass available for cultivation for instance.

The other big argument is that we can alter this...by reducing carbon emmissions...by reducing our dependence on oil....which will run out in the next 100 years anyway....

Is Global Warming real? I see no reason not to believe it is. Is it worth destroying our economic advantage in the world? Not at all. Why? Because if this were a global crisis, nobody would give a shit about developing China or developing India...we'd all be yelling, stop driving cars or using electricity....right now. Until that happens, it's bullshit.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Unfortunately, even if we get catastrophic warming (say, 5 degrees) that drastically alters all life on earth, winter's still winter and it will still be cold. But it will be 5 degrees warmer!

So that day when it was -5 and the wind chills were near -30, it would be a much balmier 0 and -25

SI

May the climate gods bless us with such warmth.

[Warhammer]

Look at the historical record. The Romans were growing grapes in Scotland/England during their run. That would take at least a 1-2 deg. increase in temperature to accomplish that. Guess what? That was considered a good time in human history, same with the Medeval Warm Period.

Those were times when the temperatures were warmer than they are now. I hate to say it though, temperatures are going down, this has been the coldest winter I can remember in Memphis, dating back 25 years. Last year's was pretty cold as well.

The problem that we have with global warming is that there is no way we can predict and model what is happening. There are too many mechanisms that roll into it, plus we have never had a model that has accurately predicted what would happen in five years time. The models from 2004/2005 did not predict what happened this past year. Why should we believe that they will accurately predict 50 years from now?

[Arles]

Again, climate change is always going to be dynamic. But, the idea that man has any substantial impact on that is pretty silly given all the much more powerful variables at play.

The one thing that's amazing to me about the global warming movement is how little accountability there is inside of it. If we put everything in motion they want and significantly hampered the economy, people would just way we are "saving the planet" and any price is worth that. Same goes for a lot of these theories from 1970 until 2000. Unless we did A, B or C, we were going to be in serious trouble in 2010+. Well, we haven't done them and there's no real "Armageddon" so far.

If this was any other science, it would be completely different. Yet, this almost seems like a religion where no matter what the reality is and the results are, global warming is still a major issue to many people. At this point, I don't see much of a difference between hard-line Catholics in regards to religious issues and those who support global warming on climate issues. There will never be an acceptable logical argument those who feel global warming is not a major issue worth impacting our economy can make to those who buy into it.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Arles

If we put everything in motion they want and significantly hampered the economy, people would just way we are "saving the planet" and any price is worth that. Same goes for a lot of these theories from 1970 until 2000. Unless we did A, B or C, we were going to be in serious trouble in 2010+. Well, we haven't done them and there's no real "Armageddon" so far.

For the countries that have signed on to Kyoto, show me how their economies have been irreparably harmed? China is experiencing close to 10% growth.

As for the claim that we've done "nothing" between 1970 and 2000, that just isn't true. There has been a close to 85% reduction in the use of CFCs from 1970 to 2000. And the projected economic hardships that reduction was suppose to produce never materialized.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

FWIW,

90% of the world's ice is in Antarctica where the temperature's rarely get above freezing, normally the highs are no more than -5 degrees fahrenheit. The ice that melts and breaks off into the ocean is normally ice that is already floating on top of water, so the displacement has already occurred.

A great tactic used by the left is that we must be wary of both polar ice caps melting....since Antarctica never gets above freezing, the other choice for this concern is the Arctic polar cap, which sits atop the Arctic ocean is also, already displaced.

So, the key argument to ocean rises is probably the landmass in Greenland. First of all, if all the ice in Iceland melted away and never returned, it's a good bet it's because we were just struck by a meteor or full-scale nuclear war...not global warming. At least not anytime soon.

Most of these full scale changes that the left warns us about are things that will happen in 100 years (a degree in temperature increase)...one thing they will never research or advertise are the benefits of that to the Earth, which would be much more immediate...more landmass available for cultivation for instance.

The other big argument is that we can alter this...by reducing carbon emmissions...by reducing our dependence on oil....which will run out in the next 100 years anyway....

Is Global Warming real? I see no reason not to believe it is. Is it worth destroying our economic advantage in the world? Not at all. Why? Because if this were a global crisis, nobody would give a shit about developing China or developing India...we'd all be yelling, stop driving cars or using electricity....right now. Until that happens, it's bullshit.

Problem is when it gets to that point it'll be too late (if it's not too late already).

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Problem is when it gets to that point it'll be too late (if it's not too late already).

This is classic "the sun revolves around the earth" mentality. Until WW3 nukes fuck everything up, it's just another cycle in earth's history...

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Problem is when it gets to that point it'll be too late (if it's not too late already).

We're all gonna die!!!!!!!

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I hate to say it though, temperatures are going down, this has been the coldest winter I can remember in Memphis, dating back 25 years. Last year's was pretty cold as well.

Climate (a long-term measure) is not the same as weather (a short-term measure).

By the same token, you might as well reference the Cleveland Browns' 2007 season (10-6) as an indicating of their impending greatness, whilst simultaneously ignoring it's their only double-digit winning season of the past 12.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Chubby

This is classic "the sun revolves around the earth" mentality. Until WW3 nukes fuck everything up, it's just another cycle in earth's history...

Exactly. Problem is that the Earth may decide that human beings aren't a necessary component of the next cycle...and we're still too stupid to have removed all of our eggs from this one basket.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by cartman

For the countries that have signed on to Kyoto, show me how their economies have been irreparably harmed? China is experiencing close to 10% growth.

You are serious, here - right? China doesn't have to do a thing with Kyoto. If the US had ratified, they would have had to reduce emissions by 7% 2012. China and India were setup as "developing countries" and we're not obligated to reduce greenhouse gas production. And, that's a good thing for them. China has gone from 4.6 CO2 emissions per capita in 2005 (when the treaty took effect) to 5.8 in 2009. Had they been the US, they would have needed to be at 4.2 emissions by 2012 (when they are at almost 6 now). So, I'm pretty sure they would not have signed on had they had the restrictions everyone wanted the US to have.

The irony in all this is that China wasn't treated as near the emissions threat as the US during 2005. Yet, in the time since, China has actually passed the US in emissions output.

So, yeah, China's economy is doing great given they were allowed to increase their emissions by over 26% in the 4 years since the treaty. Sounds like a pretty strong statement by Kyoto.

As for the claim that we've done "nothing" between 1970 and 2000, that just isn't true. There has been a close to 85% reduction in the use of CFCs from 1970 to 2000. And the projected economic hardships that reduction was suppose to produce never materialized.

What we've done is exactly what most people are in favor of - taking reasonable steps to improve our energy consumption and environmental stewardship. And, I'm favor of continuing that. However, that doesn't involve draconian reductions set forth in Kyoto (that none of the other big hitters have to adhere to), this crap carbon credit theory, ramping up CAFE standards to obscenely higher levels (which could end up making car accidents more fatal) and a host of other initiatives that will hopefully never see the light of day.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

But, the idea that man has any substantial impact on that is pretty silly given all the much more powerful variables at play.

I have a hard time understanding how billions of metric tons of carbon emissions generated per year don't have a substantial impact on the environment.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

I love the responsibility being shown in this thread. Well, Russia and China ain't doing the right thing, do neither should the US!

Actually, it pointed out that the US IS doing the right thing in trying to cut emissions, general pollution, etc. We're just trying to do it in a way that does not knock us back to the stone age.

Although even that won't work, since wood-burning fires are huge sources of emissions as well, and throw all kinds of crap into the air. So no fires at all!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

I love the responsibility being shown in this thread. Well, India and China ain't doing the right thing, so neither should the US!

Which, of course, is not what was said or even implied by anyone in this thread.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I have a hard time understanding how billions of metric tons of carbon emissions generated per year don't have a substantial impact on the environment.

We're not talking about going from Billions to zero. We're talking about a 3-5% reduction as a "best case" for all these initiatives. Everything has an impact on the environment, but one volcanic eruption or natural change in climate will have significant orders of magnitude differences in impact than if the US did everything the world is asking and then some.

If you go under the premise that the US will need to use some sort of energy and have a functioning economy, there's very little you can do to change man's impact.

Now, if you propose going back to the stone age and reducing the human impact in the world by 75-80%, you might see an impact over time (well past all of our lifetimes). But, there's no evidence that suggests keeping our same path on energy use we've had since the 1970s will be any worse from an impact stance for the foreseeable future.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

ramping up CAFE standards to obscenely higher levels (which could end up making car accidents more fatal)

Overall mass is of decreasing value as an indicator of potential fatalities in automobiles, losing out to the implementation of better safety technology, the presence of drivers' aids, and the ability of one to drive a car.

Your statement only makes sense if you assume that carmakers' reaction to higher CAFE standards would lead them to make cars with fewer safety features as well as less mass.

Even in 2002 we could see that more mass doesn't necessarily mean a safer car.

If you want to talk about obscene, let's discuss this seeming requirement that the average family sedan goes from 0-60 mph in 8 seconds or so. Who actually uses that level of acceleration on a regular basis? And don't tell me it's merging on the highway: that's not 0-60.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

We're not talking about going from Billions to zero. We're talking about a 3-5% reduction as a "best case" for all these initiatives. Everything has an impact on the environment, but one volcanic eruption or natural change in climate will have significant orders of magnitude differences in impact than if the US did everything the world is asking and then some.

That's fine, but that's not what you said:

Originally Posted by Arles

Again, climate change is always going to be dynamic. But, the idea that man has any substantial impact on that is pretty silly given all the much more powerful variables at play.

So what is it? Does man (through man-made pollution) have a substantial impact or not?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Arles

We're not talking about going from Billions to zero. We're talking about a 3-5% reduction as a "best case" for all these initiatives. Everything has an impact on the environment, but one volcanic eruption or natural change in climate will have significant orders of magnitude differences in impact than if the US did everything the world is asking and then some.

If you go under the premise that the US will need to use some sort of energy and have a functioning economy, there's very little you can do to change man's impact.

Now, if you propose going back to the stone age and reducing the human impact in the world by 75-80%, you might see an impact over time (well past all of our lifetimes). But, there's no evidence that suggests keeping our same path on energy use we've had since the 1970s will be any worse from an impact stance for the foreseeable future.

So we need to ban volcanoes as well?!?! This is getting very confusing.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

I love the responsibility being shown in this thread. Well, India and China ain't doing the right thing, so neither should the US!

Also, it's ignoring the fact that many countries outside of China & India did pass Kyoto and are actually following the standards. In addition, many cities and states have agreed to follow Kyoto standards.

The US has taken steps to curb the increase in CO2 emmissions and I don't think we've increased at all since 2000. China is completely out of control and laughing their asses off on their way to the CO2 bank while Europe is busy shoving their royal fingers in America's face.

India is doing better, but only because their growth is stalling...if they get back on track, it will be the #2 exporter of CO2 into the atmosphere pretty quickly.

And what does Kyoto say about that? Puff away you developing nations who had nothing to do with the Industrial Age. Whatever.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

Now, if you propose going back to the stone age and reducing the human impact in the world by 75-80%, you might see an impact over time (well past all of our lifetimes). But, there's no evidence that suggests keeping our same path on energy use we've had since the 1970s will be any worse from an impact stance for the foreseeable future.

So if it's already broken why bother to fix it?

Can we apply the same logic to the U.S. budget deficit?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Arles

What we've done is exactly what most people are in favor of - taking reasonable steps to improve our energy consumption and environmental stewardship. And, I'm favor of continuing that. However, that doesn't involve draconian reductions set forth in Kyoto (that none of the other big hitters have to adhere to), this crap carbon credit theory, ramping up CAFE standards to obscenely higher levels (which could end up making car accidents more fatal) and a host of other initiatives that will hopefully never see the light of day.

Ok, so we know what you don't like. And you've now used this term twice: "stewards of the environment" or "environmental stewardship", talking about us being better stewards and that we're taking steps to help thing. And, just like last page, it was that in one breath you talked about us being good stewards and the next it was decrying, well, steps that would be what most could consider good environmental stewardship steps.

So, I'll ask again, since it was left unanswered last page: what does this even mean? What have we done over the last 10 years to be better "stewards to the environment", particularly on the emissions part of the equation and, the more important part: statistically, what has the impact been?

For instance, a coal plant can implement aluminum can recycling, plant a row of trees at the entrance to the complex, and replace their "fleet" of three Tauruses with Priuses. They can then claim they have done many green initiatives and even claim said initiatives show they are "good environmental stewards" and thus don't need to get a carbon scrubber for the coal plant. But when weighed in total, one big change far outweighs the three little ones.

So, in short, are there a decent number of initiatives with concrete results and substantial emission reductions or just a lot of movement for the sake of looking like something is being done?

SI

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I have a hard time understanding how billions of metric tons of carbon emissions generated per year don't have a substantial impact on the environment.

That is exactly the problem. We think that billions of tons of something is a huge impact, in the grand scheme of things on a global scale it is nothing.

Let's not get into the particulars of how CO2 absorbs on certain wavelengths and how once those are saturated, you can add more and more CO2 and get less and less of an effect (essentially the laws of diminishing returns).

Not picking on you here, its a completely reasonable assumption that really doesn't hold up if you look at the info out there.

[Warhammer]

Actually, if we want to be good stewards, we should force everyone to produce goods here. Since we are the most productive nation, that would have the best positive influence on global emissions. That and we need to supress developing nations and force them to stay unindustrialized.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

What we've done is exactly what most people are in favor of - taking reasonable steps to improve our energy consumption and environmental stewardship. And, I'm favor of continuing that. However, that doesn't involve draconian reductions set forth in the Clean Air Act, this crap CFC theory, mandating CAFE standards(which could end up making car accidents more fatal) and a host of other initiatives that will hopefully never see the light of day.

Arles in 1970.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So what is it? Does man (through man-made pollution) have a substantial impact or not?

No,hem in the middle of the front seat. Now, do each of these actions slightly improve the chances that you don't get robbed? Maybe, but the reality is that if someone wants to rob you - they will do so in either situation.

Now, if you wanted to close half the windows, close the front door and partially close the back door (ie, man reducing energy consumption by 75%), it would have more of an impact. But, the fact would remain that the house would still be pretty attractive to robbers even with those changes.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So if it's already broken why bother to fix it?
Can we apply the same logic to the U.S. budget deficit?

No, but you could use a parallel to 5% unemployment. There's a significant cost in getting unemployment from 5 to 0%. Now, 0% is better, but is it worth the cost?

The same logic holds for the environmental movement. There's a significant cost in making even a meaningful reduction in human carbon emissions - is it worth it? That question never seems to get asked.

[JediKooter]

The problem here is, it's always the freakazoids from both ends of the spectrum on this debate that get all the attention. Yes, the earth goes through cyclical changes in its climate as evidenced by the many different ice ages that the earth has gone through, for example. But, and there's always a but, there have also been external factors that have either sped up or retarded these cyclical changes, be it mass volcanism to a foreign object from outer space hitting the earth, continental drift or the earths precession. Some have had more of an impact depending on where in the cycle it occurred. This time, it's not volcanism or an impact event, but, mostly (not all) by people. Not saying people are the evil earth killers. A lot of it started in the late 1800s and through the late 1900s and that's just the way things were. Things have changed now. We know that CFCs deplete the ozone layer. We know that certain pesticides poison the water table. We know that certain emissions can accumulate in the atmosphere and cause things such as acid rain and contribute to the absorption of heat and that is no longer being reflected into space. To deny that any of that is going on is pretty much playing ostrich.

The problem is, you have so many cultures and governments that contribute to it, that it will be impossible to get a 100% consensus on how to change. That's where I feel crap like carbon credits and the apparent grab for dollars, do nothing more than contribute to the problem, because it just devolves into a "they have more than us" argument. Phasing things out and replacing them with better, but, not cost prohibitive alternatives is a better route in my opinion. That's the trick though, how often does a new technology come out that isn't so expensive, it just gets shunned or the public just roles their eyes at it? Look at solar panels. They've been out for a long time and are still expensive as hell. You want more people on board, then you need to lower the cost. You want more people aboard, then don't sound like some tree hugging, granola eating hippy. You want more people aboard, quit with the doomsday talk. People naturally push back against change. Scare tactics and 'you gotta love the earth man!' is not going to work.

That's just how I see it, take it for what ever you'd like.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I have a hard time understanding how billions of metric tons of carbon emissions generated per year don't have a substantial impact on the environment.

The world is a very big place.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

No,hem in the middle of the front seat. Now, do each of these actions slightly improve the chances that you don't get robbed? Maybe, but the reality is that if someone wants to rob you - they will do so in either situation.

Now, if you wanted to close half the windows, close the front door and partially close the back door (ie, man reducing energy consumption by 75%), it would have more of an impact. But, the fact would remain that the house would still be pretty attractive to robbers even with those changes.

This is quite possibly the most tortured analogy ever.

Originally Posted by Arles

No, but you could use a parallel to 5% unemployment. There's a significant cost in getting unemployment from 5 to 0%. Now, 0% is better, but is it worth the cost?

This one isn't much better. I'd say the direct threats to humans through pollution alone, not even considering climate change (i.e. the immediately deleterious effects on air, water & food) represent a bigger problem than 5% unemployment does/would.

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

The world is a very big place.

OK, so if you're so very certain that billions of metric tons of carbon emissions per year don't affect the planet, certainly that surety must be based on a general idea of what amount would have an effect on the planet. So what's that number? Trillions of metrics tons?

There's got to be a number, otherwise you're just speculating.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

OK, so if you're so very certain that billions of metric tons of carbon emissions per year don't affect the planet, certainly that surety must be based on a general idea of what amount would have an effect on the planet. So what's that number? Trillions of metrics tons?

There's got to be a number, otherwise you're just speculating.

The correct number is 4,500,000,000,000 metric tons.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

The correct number is 4,500,000,000,000 metric tons.

Let's remember this post the next time you accuse someone of pulling numbers out of their ass.

[Arles]

Sorry, the post monster ate about half my post above.

The main point is that if the disastrous end game that the environmental group ever materializes, it will involve a set of events completely independent of whether we reduced emissions by 5% over the past 12 years.

Even if you believe that man's activities pose a significant threat to the health of the environment, a 5, 10 or even 15% reduction is pretty much immaterial. There are so many larger variables at work and to reach the scope of impacting the future of our environment, a 5-10% reduction is almost immaterial.

So, I would say that a 5% reduction in our emissions is much less valuable than a 5% reduction in unemployment. Atleast that reduction in unemployment can have a positive impact. Reducing emissions by 5% is like taking a shovel of sands off the beach and saying you reduced the overall beach sand total. While it may be true, it serves little purpose to the larger goals.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

Sorry, the post monster ate about half my post above.

The main point is that if the disastrous end game that the environmental group ever materializes, it will involve a set of events completely independent of whether we reduced emissions by 5% over the past 12 years.

Even if you believe that man's activities pose a significant threat to the health of the environment, a 5, 10 or even 15% reduction is pretty much immaterial. There are so many larger variables at work and to reach the scope of impacting the future of our environment, a 5-10% reduction is almost immaterial.

So, I would say that a 5% reduction in our emissions is much less valuable than a 5% reduction in unemployment. Atleast that reduction in unemployment can have a positive impact. Reducing emissions by 5% is like taking a shovel of sands off the beach and saying you reduced the overall beach sand total. While it may be true, it serves little purpose to the larger goals.

Wouldn't it be more like removing 5% of the sand?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Wouldn't it be more like removing 5% of the sand?

Sure, which doesn't change the point.

[flere-imsaho]

This argument went metaphysical fast.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

This argument went metaphysical fast.

It's always been metaphysical. When the rationale is some kind of unprovable "environmental Armageddon", science and reality take a bit of a back seat from the start.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Arles

It's always been metaphysical. When the rationale is some kind of unprovable "environmental Armageddon", science and reality take a bit of a back seat from the start.

As is the rational of an unprovable "economic Armageddon".

[Arles]

And, when dealing with two unprovable (and unlikely) disasters, it's usually best to stand pat instead of taking a ton of actions to minimize one from occurring.

To have a bit of a reset on this argument, my question to the people worried about environmental issues is "What would you have us do that we are not doing now?"

Maybe if these ideas become the focus (instead of the "The World is Doomed" idea), we might have a better discussion.