We *Need* to stop climate change

[micha]

Unfortunately, if you insist there is actual antropogenic global warming, these plants would also generate more heat.

Sure, but the lid they add on top of the heat is MUCH smaller than continuing to burn fossil fuels. Heat itself isn't so much the issue, insulation is.

It's a sad fact that we had developed and deployed the technology to prevent this happening in the 60's (controlled nuclear fission(*)), but ironically the greenies "save the earth - no to nukes" movement has now doomed us to large-scale environmental changes.

(*)Not saying this technology is the bee's knees, there are definite issues, but overall it's the best and cleanest that we have Right Now for large-scale industrial power generation.

[GoSlash27]

The greenhouse effect has then caused enough warming to start melting tundra areas that contained a lot of methane in the form of permafrost. There are similar effects at play with melting glaciers interfering with warm and cold ocean currents. These are called positive feedback loops and explain why the whole climate is getting out of control. Some of those effects are indeed natural, and much stronger than any man made direct influence, but they were triggered by human activity.

This.

The natural sources of greenhouse gases are now much larger than the man- made sources, and so it is impossible for changes in human behavior to have any effect on it (positive or negative). It's incorrect to claim that we can reduce it's impact, which is why I liken it to "driving off a cliff".

Best,

-Slashy

[m4v]

This.

The natural sources of greenhouse gases are now much larger than the man- made sources, and so it is impossible for changes in human behavior to have any effect on it (positive or negative). It's incorrect to claim that we can reduce it's impact

[CitationNeeded]

you're like the people that years ago said that we shouldn't do anything because climate change is natural and not anthropogenic, and now say we shouldn't do anything because there's nothing we can do and the situation is hopeless.

[Nibb31]

This.

The natural sources of greenhouse gases are now much larger than the man- made sources, and so it is impossible for changes in human behavior to have any effect on it (positive or negative). It's incorrect to claim that we can reduce it's impact, which is why I liken it to "driving off a cliff".

Best,

-Slashy

Even if you're driving off a cliff, it's still worth hitting the brakes. It might give you a bit more time to brace for the impact...

[EdFred]

[CitationNeeded]

you're like the people that years ago said that we shouldn't do anything because climate change is natural and not anthropogenic, and now say we shouldn't do anything because there's nothing we can do and the situation is hopeless.

It is natural. Or were the ice ages imagined?

[GoSlash27]

[CitationNeeded]

you're like the people that years ago said that we shouldn't do anything because climate change is natural and not anthropogenic, and now say we shouldn't do anything because there's nothing we can do and the situation is hopeless.

If I am like any of them, it doesn't extend to the notion that we "shouldn't do anything". This strawman is just one more example of fallacious reasoning exhibited by the folks who are *supposed* to be the rational ones in the discussion.

Best,

-Slashy

Nibb,

Even if you're driving off a cliff, it's still worth hitting the brakes. It might give you a bit more time to brace for the impact...

Bad analogy, as reducing greenhouse gas emissions as far as humanly possible doesn't "give you a bit more time". I do hear a lot of people claiming it "might" as an argument tactic, but the data doesn't support that as anything more than wishful thinking.

Apologies,

-Slashy

[m4v]

If I am like any of them, it doesn't extend to the notion that we "shouldn't do anything".

I read that implicitly, so I assumed.

This strawman is just one more example of fallacious reasoning exhibited by the folks who are *supposed* to be the rational ones in the discussion.

you could be right in calling out a strawman if you hadn't gone for an ad-hominem jab at me.

[EdFred]

I read that implicitly, so I assumed.

you could be right in calling out a strawman if you hadn't gone for an ad-hominem jab at me.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[RainDreamer]

How about we talk about science instead of arguing in circle about non-science things?

Like, speculation of terraforming technology to stabilize climate? Or how may we create a sustainable micro-ecosystem that we can use to create bio domes to survive earth once it is hostile to us, and possibly can be apply to create generation ships that let us explore new planets and stars?

[Vanamonde]

And how about we talk about the science rather than accusing each other's personality flaws?

[GoSlash27]

I read that implicitly, so I assumed.

you could be right in calling out a strawman if you hadn't gone for an ad-hominem jab at me.

Oh, rest assured I'm not taking any jabs at you personally. I'm merely pointing out that the people who are *supposed* to be the voice of reason in this discussion are the ones I usually see resorting to irrational arguments and behavior in this debate.

We're all rational, science- minded folks here. I would think that sort of thing wouldn't be necessary.

Your strawman, for example, isn't something I've seen only from you; it's pretty widespread and several examples of it can be found in this thread from quite a few different posters.

Moreover, it's just one example of many:

"You think we shouldn't do anything" <-- strawman, false choice

"You're just like everyone else who says..." <-- ad hom

"You're a denialist" <-- ad hom

All of these are tactics to attack the poster rather than the argument. Not only are they unnecessarily hostile and distracting, but I think they're counterproductive as far as furthering the discussion.

So my apologies if you took that personally; it wasn't intended that way.

Best,

-Slashy

[RainDreamer]

So to direct the conversation else where, I just saw this ted talk:

http://www.ted.com/talks/topher_white_what_can_save_the_rainforest_your_used_cell_phone/transcript?language=en

Someone figured out a cheap but efficient way to recycle your used cell phones to turn them into anti-illegal logging device that picks up the sounds of chainsaws. I guess it doesn't stop loggers that use good old axes and saws, but at least that means they are less efficient now and the rainforests would probably be protected for a little while longer.

[GoSlash27]

So to direct the conversation else where, I just saw this ted talk:

http://www.ted.com/talks/topher_white_what_can_save_the_rainforest_your_used_cell_phone/transcript?language=en

Someone figured out a cheap but efficient way to recycle your used cell phones to turn them into anti-illegal logging device that picks up the sounds of chainsaws. I guess it doesn't stop loggers that use good old axes and saws, but at least that means they are less efficient now and the rainforests would probably be protected for a little while longer.

A novel and useful approach!

Like any action, it has a few uncomfortable wrinkles that need ironed out.

The illegal rainforest logging is primarily carried out by the poorest of the poor. Half of the timber cut down is used for fuel, and for the people who are doing it it is their only possible source of income.

This means that stopping the activity will likely create a major humanitarian crisis unless it's replaced with something else.

Certainly not condoning chopping down rainforests for fun 'n' profit, mind you. Just pointing out that the problem is thornier than it appears at first glance.

Best,

-Slashy

[John FX]

Recently I read that a spurt of rainforest growth using up CO2 was responsible for the mini ice age. It was on the order of something like 6% (or 6 ppm) reduction.

My view is that if we were *that* close to an ice age, mini or otherwise, then it is just sensible to have a little more CO2 than that (like 50-100 ppm) to act as a buffer so we as a planet are not quite so close to having a 400 year winter, which is a lot worse than a 400 year period where temperatures are a degree or two higher than an arbitrary baseline.

If you look at geological timescales then we have regular periods of the planet trying to kill all the life crawling about on it using the mechanism of ice. We are overdue for one.

Unlike some I don't see that as a desirable situation.

On another note :

I forget which report it was but a report from the IPCC about arable land and food production that I read stated that the overall capacity of the planet to produce food would not change (with increased temperatures in the range predicted by the IPCC) but the places that were best to grow food would move.

In the report it also said that if we keep our ability to move food around the planet at the current rate then there would be no food crisis of any sort except one due to a Malthusian catastrophe...

Even if you're driving off a cliff, it's still worth hitting the brakes. It might give you a bit more time to brace for the impact...

To extend the 'climate change is a cliff' analogy, what would be the point of applying the brakes if the cliff is instead collapsing from above onto your car (due to someone else using some dynamite for example) and you have no hope of escape?

To me the analogy of all of us being in a car that is driving off a cliff works best if you imagine discussions like this one are where we are the kids arguing in the back of the car about who hit who first or who is taking up more seat and none of us have any chance of altering the actions of the driver...

In case anyone asks, I don't do autographs, encores, or citations.

EDIT :

you could be right in calling out a strawman if you hadn't gone for an ad-hominem jab at me.

The 'correctness' of calling out a strawman is not dependent on whether a person goes for an ad hominem jab.

That particular logical fallacy is called tu quoque...

Edited March 14, 2015 by John FX