Global Climate Change (Natural or Man Made)

Moen,

It shouldn't be a matter of "belief." Before asking a significant number of people to alter their lifestyle, or imposing the change by force, which is really the issue, better science is required than to observe a set of circumstances, project it to continue in a straight line into the future, claim that the problem is people, and claim that the solution is government. I think the collectivist mentality is taking the easy way out. Transfer power and control to a group of elites "just in case" individuals and businesses are making the wrong choice. How convenient. I'm all for conservation, and recycling in the US is far ahead of most countries in the world and constantly improving. The government isn't serious about the issue anyway. If they were, they wouldn't have given and continued to renew the exemption from passenger car environmental requirements for SUVs. If they can't manage the things they can control, why give them more?

 

A coincidence, this was in today's news.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm

 

I can't imagine a government less interested in this issue. But by government do you mean the current administratoin, the last administration, the congress, anyone with a government job, the EPA? There are certainly elements of the government that are doing little if anything to address the problem (assuming of course there is one) and there are opponents of these voices that are trying to raise the alarm and addressing the problem (assuming again it even exists).

You could say without much loss of credibility that the Republicans specifically are the ones that are against the idea of the existence of man-made global warming effects. So much so that it was a complete jaw-dropper to hear George Bush mention the problem of global warming in his recent state of the union address for the first time. You could also say with equal confidence that the Democrats are the ones that are driving the issue of global warming into the public arena. I don't think too many people could argue those two points unless they are completely out of touch with the entire issue. I know that those folks do exist.

Now the best science on the planet says in fact that this warming of the earth is the result of human activity and the fact that there are those that choose for one reason or another not to believe them says a great deal more about the unbelievers than about the science in question. What you label as collective mentality could easily be seen as environmental awareness. For some reason you see this issue as threatening to individuals and businesses alike. You see it as an assault on their power and control. Have you ever considered the power I or someone else has to live on a planet with clean drinking water, fresh air to breath, and control over the pollutants that endanger all of our wellbeings? What about the power to control whether our planet overheats if it is possible to avoid by installing anti-pollution devices? Shouldn't we leave this planet better than we found it for the next generation?



I guess I'm not as caught up in who controls what or who has the power to do this or that as you are. I just want to live an environmentally safe lifestyle that will keep people safe from massive flooding, dirty air and water, and protect the planet as well as possible. If some individual or business irresponsibly threatens the only environment that we have in order to line their own pockets, I really have very little pity for how much they may suffer due to some government imposed solution. A governments number one job is to protect it's people. Corporations and individuals that harm the citizens for personal profit are simply way down the list of protectees as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunately, our government has grown drunk with power and protects business interests above it's citizens interests. I understand their motivations are generally money but understanding average citizens motivations to protect either government money takers or those that shovel it over, that still eludes me.

 

I was speaking of government generically, not any particular level or party. In my state [New Jersey], you practically can't fill in a hole or turn over a shovel of dirt without permission from Trenton and the state EPA, and the concept of private property is quickly eroding.

Some of the best science on the planet is coming out of the University of Colorado [going from memory], and they don't see the warming as a product of human activity. It falls well within the historically expected range. People committed to the global warming cause won't entertain dissenting evidence.

The idea that installing anti-pollution devices will control the temperature to that extent is not a reasonable expectation. Nature completely overwhelms the activity of man.

The number one job of government was stated in the Declaration of Independence, to paraphrase, to secure the individual rights of people. There is no number two job.

 

Caused by nature and man. Should have vote option of both.

 

All I can say is...

Exxon Mobil Posts Record Annual Profit

 

This is why I wanted to treat this as a issue of logic rather than find one group or another who are adamant about a yes or no answer. A quick search will find hundered of points to support each view. What we can agree on is:

The climate is warmer now than has been during our existence in measuring it. The warmest years known have occurred within the last ten years. All highly visible affects of increased temperatures are obvious to everyone by now (glacial retreat, alteration of long established weather patterns, etc).

Did we cause that? We will only be certain within some time frame, maybe 5 years, maybe 50, never?. My point is that it doesn't matter when we know for sure.

In any engineering project a safety factor is utilized to assure that the construction has a minimal chance of structural failure. A safefy factor of 1 would be just meeting acceptable limits for safety. But because we cannot know the certainty of all the variables in the equation, and because there are always 'unknowns', designs do not shoot for 1 but for a much higher value.

You speak about my point as replacing thinking with 'belief', but I'm saying something different, in fact, that I don't 'believe' anything, but must treat evidence with caution. And that we, as a species, need to consider a safety factor for the future that incorporates as many variables as possible.

So I reiterate my point as well that I don't see why I CAN'T afford to be concerned about where climate change is heading. The decision is entirely voluntary, an act of conscience, 'my individual right' as such. And as such I have every right to bother my elected official about it.

If I modify my own lifestyle according to my concerns, who 'loses', besides me? I would call it a zero or positive result for those around me. But if I go out and buy an SUV (even though I don't absolutely need one), I would call that a zero or negative effect for those around me. You are arguing that it is all zero in any case, no need to go further with the issue.

This might qualify as 'belief'.

One of which is the right to ask for a clean future for my offspring and theirs. There are plenty of people in the US who are extremely worried (or have been told to be worried) about a global concern of a much different sort, which the present administration has exhausted itself attempting to appease. Is my concern not nearly as valid? If it is, it won't matter whether I'm capitalist or fundamentalist, because everyone will be goin' down.

The US holds a place in the top ten lists of both the richest nations and most populous nations on the planet. Very few other countries, perhaps none, make both lists for 2006. I would call that an ideal position from which to play it safe without sending us back to the dreaded Dark Ages.

 

Acanthite - I can't relate to your worldview. That's okay because there are always two sides to every issue, and you can live whatever lifestyle makes you happy. But nobody has the "right" to ask for a "clean future" and expect others to conform to this belief system or to insist the government impose it. If an individual doesn't have the right to do something, then the power to implement that particular idea cannot be delegated to the government if you believe that governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. There is an amendment process to the Constitution and if you and others sincerely believe you want the government to exercise this power, that is the correct avenue to pursue in a free society.

Moen - That's great news! This will attract additional capital to the energy production industry, and provide Exxon-Mobil with additional capital to reinvest in energy projects. Congress never seems to understand that one of the primary sources of funding for new energy project is retained earnings. The availability of energy at a reasonable price is one of the major building blocks of civilization. To repress the use of the number one source of affordable energy on the planet is a very dangerous decision.

 

Unless you consider that it also the number one pullutant on the planet and the decision seems much less dangerous and almost a moral imperative.

 

This assumes that in the future we have the option to not impose it, and that our manner and rate of consumption is in principle impervious to modification. Therein perhaps lies the implacable discrepancy in worldview.

 

I've seen estimates that approximately 60% of hydrocarbon usage is related in some way to the production and distribution of food world-wide. I can't think of anything more dangerous or irresponsible than to disrupt this process.

 

You are correct. I believe there are always options. But your assumption that energy consumption is impervious to change is incorrect in my opinion and your assumption that the only way to achieve change and or progress is by force is also incorrect in my opinion. You see, I believe that the principles underlying the American system are sound, and best. But many other folks believe in the sort of top-down "soft dictatorship" as a superior form of government in the 21st century. I just want all of the people supporting that position to realize exactly what is behind it and where it is likely to lead before jumping on the bandwagon.

 

The declaration listed three things:
1) LIFE (the right to continue living, should one so desire.)
2) LIBERTY (freedom of thought and action in accordance with ones own conscience.)
3) PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS (Which, oddly enough, the courts have traditionally held as the right to own property. Go figure.)

Without 1) (life) there are no others as you cease to be.

There are restrictions on 2) (liberty) Because of 1) (life). If I felt in good conscience that it was the morally right thing to do to kill all Catholics -- to pull a group out of the hat -- then it would be alienating them (Catholics) from their life (and subsequently their liberty and pursuit of happiness, as well.)

Thus LIBERTY is job number two.

There are restrictions on 3) (pursuit of happiness) Due to 1) (life) and 2) (liberty). Even with the courts bizarre belief that happiness (modern translation = contentment) rests on ownership of property (and thus wealth, money -- (money buys happiness?!?)) You cannot boobytrap the property because it will likely alienate someone from their life, and you cannot do just any ol' thing you like because it is most likely to alienate them from their liberty. I do not consent (goes to liberty) to ingest/inhale chemicals used in the manufacure of methamphetamenes.(also goes to life. -- have you seen a list of what goes into that [expletive deleted??])

Thus job 1 is LIFE.
Job 2 is LIBERTY.
Job 3 is PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

. . . Kindly clarify that nonsense above so that I may take you more seriously.

 

Wow!
When I started that last post there were only 2 pages in this thread.

 

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are listed as examples of individual rights, not the three jobs of government. The function of government is to secure individual rights by exercising the powers delegated to it by the people, which is somewhat different. For example, it is not the government's function to make sure you are happy or give you property. Their function through law and the judicial system is to protect your right to purchase and own property, work at whatever trade you desire, etc. The statement is actually taken from the writings of Locke, who used the term "life, liberty and estates [what we would call property]" in describing the rights of man. Jefferson took the liberty of expanding on Locke since at the time the right to private property was so well established that it didn't seem worth repeating. I guess he couldn't anticipate that such a basic right would come under attack at some point in the future. Keeping in mind that the Declaration of Independence is not "law," the court's interpretation that you consider "odd" and "bizzare" actually has a historical basis. The important point is that the American system is one of limited government, with the limits set out in the Constitution. Whatever isn't in there isn't a legitimate function of government. But there is an amendment process to delegate additional powers to the government if society decides to do so. The problem arises when various special interest groups press for government action that goes beyond their delegated powers without bothering with that inconvenient amendment process - which is in their to force a national debate on such important topics. Naturally, each special interest supposes that their particular cause is too important to become bogged down in this manner, and this becomes a source of creeping totalitarianism if permitted to continue. In earlier times, when people were more educated about the limits of government, they took the time to pass an amendment granting to government the power to ban alcoholic beverages, then to revoke that power. But now, the government pursues a "war on drugs" without bothering with following the process laid out in the Constituion. To head off the inevitable counterattack by someone, let me state for the record that I do not favor legalizing drug use; but I'm also a bit concerned that a power never delegated by "we the people" is assumed to exist. It's a slippery slope once you head down that road.

I don't really care if you take me seriously, but perhaps the above will prove useful to someone who is still trying to make up their mind on this and other issues that involve the determination of where government authority begins and ends.

 

I guess this debate was settled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report today. With scientists from 113 countries agreeing both on the cause and the future consequences. I guess you can still choose not to believe all those scientists but this point you'd just look silly. CASE CLOSED! :whistle:

 

Or you can believe the poll results. Just how many (sock puppets) have you created to vote, LOL...

 

"Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report." Isn't this a bit like believing the scientific studies funded by the tobacco industry which conclusively demonstrated that smoking was not a health risk? It's interesting how people who are biased toward one view or the other see whatever they want to see prior to examining the methodology, which has not been released yet. My understanding is that most of the research was performed by specialists employed by the various governments. I also read that the final report submitted by the scientists was "edited" by some group at the UN prior to release. Is anyone really surprised that they obtained an outcome favorable to their cause? But I'll reserve judgment until I see an explanation of the cause and effect study between human activity and warming, and what was used as the control when the hypothesis was tested. Otherwise, it appears that conclusions were based on a line of thought similar to belief that the sun rises because the rooster crows since one event consistently follows the other.

 

Here are my final comments on this issue....Hopefully. Your argument about bias certainly works in either direction. Saying that the outcome is favorable to their cause is exactly what I've been saying about those commercial entities all along. If they dispute that they are part of the problem long enough, they never have to take any action or clean up their act. So it too can be said about either side of the debate. Lastly, your sun and rooster analogy is nowhere near an apt comparison. We didn't always have global warming on the present scale nor was there ever a harbinger that always preceded the event. Hey, you tried.

Finally, If you are unwilling to believe scientists from a 113 different countries that are 90% positive that we are contributing to the warming of the planet, what chance do any of us have. At some point it becomes pointless to bother trying to convince the unconvincibles. All I can say is that you must have some very powerful reasons for believing what you believe in the face of all the evidence to the contrary and If you were able to put yourself on the other side you might actually tease out your personal motivations long enough to examine them.

 

Must read which will clear this whole controversy up. The climate's been changing since there's been water on the plant. Sometimes it's warm, sometimes it cold. Natural cycles...