Global Warming a fake?

[lemit]

In a way--that is, completely--I was asking a rhetorical question.

 

The question I was leading up to is, do the environmental fixes themselves threaten the environment? Do they pose a potential danger as great as or greater than the potential danger posed by human-influenced climate change?

 

If the potential solutions pose no danger, why not institute them immediately. That way, the alarmists can show how well the problem has been solved, while the denialists can claim there never was a problem in the first place. The argument can continue, possibly longer than it could have otherwise.

 

Everybody can be happy and smug for generations to come. Isn't that what we all want?

 

--lemit

[InfiniteNow]

It's rather simple, really. Stop burning fuels in the way we do and stop adding CO₂ to the atmosphere. The problem, of course, is pretty much everything we do relies on those fuels, hence the delay and deliberation.

 

Also, since when are people who understand the science and recognize what it's telling us "alarmists?" Seems pretty derogatory, and for no good reason, if you ask me.

[lemit]

It's rather simple, really. Stop burning fuels in the way we do and stop adding CO₂ to the atmosphere. The problem, of course, is pretty much everything we do relies on those fuels, hence the delay and deliberation.

 

Also, since when are people who understand the science and recognize what it's telling us "alarmists?" Seems pretty derogatory, and for no good reason, if you ask me.

 

I borrowed those terms from a friend of mine who posts about global climate change on another site. I guess borrowing terms is like borrowing cars. You'd better check their history. (For all I know, those terms might have been stolen and the rightful owner may have a process server heading toward my house right now.)

 

--lemit

[InfiniteNow]

I think it's obvious that the term is derogatory, regardless of the path it took to find it's way into your post.

 

 

I ask again... What is "alarmist" about understanding the science and recognizing what it's telling us? It's like you're saying that people are being "alarmist" by telling you that you will fall to a painful death due to gravity if you jump off of a building. The likelihood you'd describe THAT statement as "alarmist" is rather low, so why the double standard with climate science?

[lemit]

I think it's obvious that the term is derogatory, regardless of the path it took to find it's way into your post.

 

 

I ask again... What is "alarmist" about understanding the science and recognizing what it's telling us? It's like you're saying that people are being "alarmist" by telling you that you will fall to a painful death due to gravity if you jump off of a building. The likelihood you'd describe THAT statement as "alarmist" is rather low, so why the double standard with climate science?

 

Sorry. The term in no way reflects my thinking. I definitely didn't mean to cause offense. I'm on your side. I don't know exactly how to prove it, except that if you look at the other words in my post, I'm trying to make the solutions to climate change acceptable to the other side, not advocating for that other side.

 

We all need to be careful about how we use words around here. Sorry for "shooting from the hip." I'll try to do better in the future.

 

--lemit

[InfiniteNow]

No worries. No offense taken.

 

Now, can you answer the question? What is "alarmist" about understanding the science and recognizing what it's telling us?

[HydrogenBond]

I look at manmade global warming, as analogous to one of the gold rushes of the past. There is some gold in them there hills, leading to the imagination going wild. It will motivate many dreams, but not all dreams will work out, because the amount of imagination is higher than the amount of gold.

 

But like the gold rushes of the past, the dreams will mobilize a migration of manpower, which history shows, will lead to something good, but not exactly the way everyone dreams. One positive thing, it will help create a new wing to the economy, which means new technology and jobs for the future. Without the lure of gold, this result may not occur on the same scale, in the same amount of time. We need the population to mobilize first, even against hardship of the dusty trail, using dreams as fuel.

 

Whether the ends justifies the means, only history will decide. But I am of the opinion, it will lead to something better. Once the gold mine dries up, cities of change will have been built. These will be rooted and the economy will be better off.

 

I like this vision of the future, even without the lure of gold. But for practical reasons we need to first overcome human inertia, with a stick of fear and a carrot of gold. We have painted the imagination with floods and doom to push us forward with a stick of fear. We also have paint windmills and green field of CO2 absorbing plants, to lure us on. It is very poetic and usually works.

 

The space race used the fear of the Soviets and the lure of the golden cosmos. With this stick and gold carrot, humans on both sides did great things in record time. Once you lose either the carrot or the stick, things slow down. The stick was removed from the space race. The gold carrot of space was not enough, slowing down progress.

 

Global warming has learned this lesson from history, and has found a huge stick, which is good for the gold rush. The gold carrot of alternate energy was never enough to mobilize the herd. Now it has the huge stick of fear to push the herd forward into the future, until they can see the gold carrot.

 

There were some other social test balloons. The asteroid doom scenario never really caught on, even though this was a good fear stick. What it lacked was a good golden carrot. The carrot would have been better missiles and nukes to shoot it down, which is more silver than gold to most people. If we could shoot asteroid down with flowers, it may have worked, helping to create a new wing to the agricultural industry.

[Michaelangelica]

 

The question I was leading up to is, do the environmental fixes themselves threaten the environment? Do they pose a potential danger as great as or greater than the potential danger posed by human-influenced climate change?

 

If the potential solutions pose no danger, why not institute them immediately.

--lemit

Did you read the thread?

Most involve slight change in our behaviour

"Be the change you want to see in the world"- Ghandi

Many have made these changes as they are basically just being thrifty and thoughtful about our effect and affects on the planet.

 

The main chance for reducing global warming is the VERY large scale adoption of Pyrolosis Biochar sequestration (see TP sub forum).

This not only involves convincing people that GW is a problem but Biochar is a safe and viable option. That is just starting to happen.

People and societies are slow to change.

To get planetary agreement for action is difficult if not, perhaps, impossible.

 

This may be our downfall in the end. First there will be "The Very Big Meteorite Is Coming" denialists; then the Christians, and other crazy fundamentalists, that say "It is God's will"; then all those that favor solutions # 1 to #1,001; & those that say the solutions will make the problem worse.

[lemit]

No worries. No offense taken.

 

Now, can you answer the question? What is "alarmist" about understanding the science and recognizing what it's telling us?

 

Absolutely nothing. Sorry my previous apologies didn't emphasize that enough.

 

You are completely right. I used an incorrect term. I will try to remember not to use it again.

 

--lemit

[InfiniteNow]

Like I said. No apology needed. No worries. I appreciate the clarification.

 

Let me clarify my point, though. This is about more than usage of an "incorrect term." It's about implicating individuals who understand the science and share what it means. It's about painting people who are doing well by society, and using real data to do so, as silly. It's about mockery where none is due.

 

Now, don't get me wrong. I sometimes enjoy mockery. It would be hypocritical of me to suggest I do not. However, on this particular topic, it tends to come from those who are misguided and misinformed.

[lemit]

Like I said. No apology needed. No worries. I appreciate the clarification.

 

Let me clarify my point, though. This is about more than usage of an "incorrect term." It's about implicating individuals who understand the science and share what it means. It's about painting people who are doing well by society, and using real data to do so, as silly. It's about mockery where none is due.

 

Now, don't get me wrong. I sometimes enjoy mockery. It would be hypocritical of me to suggest I do not. However, on this particular topic, it tends to come from those who are misguided and misinformed.

 

I'm the only one here. I strongly believe humans affect climate. I don't even use the term "Global Warming" because I think it's limited and doesn't adequately describe the real potential of human-affected climate change.

 

Like I said, I'm the only one here. I'd put my record on the environment up against anybody else who's an amateur with a degree in English. I've reviewed the Vostok and the Greenland data, read dozens of papers and books, participated in community groups, worked with legislators, and written more than I'd usually read on environmental subjects just in the last year. I am proud to use the "A" word about myself. I think people should be a---med about the potential for reaching a tipping point before we have a chance to try biochar or terra preta or CO2 emissions reduction or all the other ways we have of working on climate change. It's all, frankly, pretty a---ming.

 

So what are you, Infinite? Does your concern reach beyond usage? Can usage solve the climate problem? Is usage a good substitute for emissions reduction or carbon sequestration? When you can show me how using only words that don't hurt your delicate sensibilities directly helps the environment, I'll be impressed and I'll change my ways.

 

A Proud Alarmist,

 

--lemit

[InfiniteNow]

When you can show me how using only words that don't hurt your delicate sensibilities directly helps the environment, I'll be impressed and I'll change my ways.

 

I have neither need nor desire to impress you. My approach is to correct you when you are wrong, and to question you when you are making points that don't make sense. This is my approach with pretty much anyone on this site, and on pretty much any subject, so please don't think this is personal, as it's not (well, at least not until you made that marvelously personal post above toward me). :lol:

[lemit]

Just trying to figure out how to satisfy your particular linguistic needs. I didn't mean to offend anybody.

 

I'd much rather discuss the subject. Let's get back to that. Okay?

 

Thanks.

 

--lemit

[InfiniteNow]

Why are you alarmist, then? Is that an accurate label? Would it not be more accurate to say that you understand the data, what it implies, and that you are concerned about those implications? The term "alarmist" implies that people are freaking out for no reason... being unreasonable... being silly and out of line. At least, that's what it implies to me.

 

I can tell you are aware of the issues facing global climate, and that you are concerned about those issues. So am I. However, what is it about the term "alarmist" that makes you think it is more applicable to you here?

[Larv]

I don't see anything wrong with labeling the global-warming pundits "alarmists." Yes, we may be seeing a warming, but science has not yet clearly differentiated natural climate change from anthropogenic climate change. I can see concerns about atmospheric pollution and ozone depletion as entirely valid. But we’re living in an interglacial period, and, for all we know, this warming trend may be just a blip on our way to the next glaciation.

 

Besides, I think lemit’s question is a good one: Just what can we do about it anyway? I tend to agree with James Lovelock (although I’m not as spiritual about Gaia) that if global warming is real then there’s nothing we can do about it. Personally, I think our attempts to combat global warming are futile, like moving deck chairs around on the Titanic.

[InfiniteNow]

Yes, we may be seeing a warming, but science has not yet clearly differentiated natural climate change from anthropogenic climate change.

Both your comment and its implication are false.

 

 

 

 

 

if global warming is real then there’s nothing we can do about it.

Again, false. Since our actions are causing most of the change, our actions can stop most of the change. It's rather simple, really (although, we cannot undo what's already been done, we CAN, in fact, prevent it from getting worse than it already is).

[Larv]

IN, you’re looking at the problem too microscopically. Please put your data on a larger scale that comprises the last four or five glaciations instead of just the years running from 1900 to 2000. Then we’ll see if global warming is the macroscopic result of microscopic humans.

 

btw; I don’t see any representation in your data for volcanoes, forest fires, and changes in solar radiation. They must count for something.