White House issues new dire climate report: Scientists: Extreme weather will worsen if pollutants aren't curbed

[alienlovechild 75]

Denying that global warming is being greatly accelerated by carbon emissions is akin to the flat earth deniers, only this isn't 14th Century and we aren't just emerging out of the Dark Ages. You'd have to believe in some kind of conspiracy among such organizations as the American Meterological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Nice denial on your part. You ignored:

- Man adapts to climate change. Don't believe me? It's already happening by your own admission.

- Inability to have global concerted action. Kyoto Protocols weren't met even if you don't count the U.S.

- Why are people moving to Arizona? Don't they know it's largely a desert without water? If most people believe in global why isn't there a land rush to the North or Canada?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Denying that global warming is being greatly accelerated by carbon emissions is akin to the flat earth deniers, only this isn't 14th Century and we aren't just emerging out of the Dark Ages. You'd have to believe in some kind of conspiracy among such organizations as the American Meterological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Nice denial on your part. You ignored:

- Man adapts to climate change. Don't believe me? It's already happening by your own admission.

- Inability to have global concerted action. Kyoto Protocols weren't met even if you don't count the U.S.

- Why are people moving to Arizona? Don't they know it's largely a desert without water? If most people believe in global why isn't there a land rush to the North or Canada?

Instead of being content with your limited understanding of just what the issue is, I'd encourage you to read what the scientists are saying about.

You can try here for a good start.

[scandal 951]

Denying that global warming is being greatly accelerated by carbon emissions is akin to the flat earth deniers, only this isn't 14th Century and we aren't just emerging out of the Dark Ages. You'd have to believe in some kind of conspiracy among such organizations as the American Meterological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Nice denial on your part. You ignored:

- Man adapts to climate change. Don't believe me? It's already happening by your own admission.

- Inability to have global concerted action. Kyoto Protocols weren't met even if you don't count the U.S.

- Why are people moving to Arizona? Don't they know it's largely a desert without water? If most people believe in global why isn't there a land rush to the North or Canada?

- Man adapts to climate change. Don't believe me? It's already happening by your own admission.

Yes, as a species we will either adapt, or not. But "adapt" doesn't mean it will be happy times. Millions, in fact 10s and 100s of millions, are likely to lose their homes, livelihoods, and lives if they live in coastal areas that are flooded. Crops will fail leading to mass starvations. The fact that humanity won't necessarily go extinct, and some parts of the globe may even become more habitable for humans, doesn't change that untold misery and lost economic output is a very likely result.

- Inability to have global concerted action. Kyoto Protocols weren't met even if you don't count the U.S.

You're right. This is a very serious challenge. It will do no good for the US alone to reduce emissions if emerging economies - particularly China and India - don't join in as well. So we can take two approaches: change our own behavior and do whatever we can to get other nations to do to the same. Or ignore the problem and let our kids pick up the mess we leave behind.

The fact that China & India are not on board doesn't mean the problem has gone away!

- Why are people moving to Arizona? Don't they know it's largely a desert without water? If most people believe in global why isn't there a land rush to the North or Canada?

What individual people do in their behavior is not a harbinger of what's to come. Around the world people are living unsustainable lifestyles, consuming resources - groundwater, arable land, woodlands, fish stocks, at a rate that will end when the resources are gone. Newfoundland's cod fishery used to have an unimaginably vast resource of cod in the Grand Banks, which sustained the entire population's economy. Today that fishery is non-existent. Dead. Gone. Defunct. No fish.

I fail to see what the fact that people move or don't move to Arizona has to do with global warming, frankly.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't understand this bold skepticism towards scientific theories, especially with these questions....'well, then why this?' or 'why not this?'....as if the skeptic has somehow scientifically outsmarted large bodies of scientists who've dedicated their lives to their profession. Maybe these same skeptics also second guess their doctor by trying to outsmart him/her also? It's so bizarre.

[scandal 951]

I don't understand this bold skepticism towards scientific theories, especially with these questions....'well, then why this?' or 'why not this?'....as if the skeptic has somehow scientifically outsmarted large bodies of scientists who've dedicated their lives to their profession. Maybe these same skeptics also second guess their doctor by trying to outsmart him/her also? It's so bizarre.

Steve,

I have a very good friend in Canada who is a global warming skeptic. He's very intelligent, well educated, a great software engineer -far better than I am at large scale design. He's politically a moderate, with common sense attitudes to social issues. He's proud of Canada's achievements in health care, international peace keeping and foreign aid. He thinks the war in Iraq was a costly mistake for the US, and is glad that Canada stayed out of that fight, while committing troops to the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. In short- you (and I) would find ourselves agreeing with him on a great number of issues. He's also funny, good humored, not a crank.

However he has made a personal crusade of reading up on global warming skeptic literature similar to what GaryC posts here on VJ. And he's even done his own calculations of ocean currents and other data and convinced himself that global warming does not have a human causation. It's quite interesting, because when I discuss it with him, suddenly he's telling me that I'm a koolaid drinker for buying into the 'hype'.

Ask him about evolution- he'll tell you that creationists and "Intelligent Design" folks are out to lunch, and in denial about the obvious overwhelming science for natural selection and speciation.

Ask him how old the Earth is - 6,000 years? Or 4+ billion? He'll tell you that obviously the geological record is clear that it's 4+ billion years old. A record, mind you, that he accepts because professional geologists have told us so, and as a society we accept their findings.

I don't know what it is about global warming that makes otherwise perfectly sensible people approach it in a way inconsistent with how they approach other complex phenomena of our lives and are willing to accept the overwhelming expert opinion. Something about the topic seems to have a visceral reaction in people.

I note that he's still a great friend and I respect him immensely despite our difference on this subject.

[alienlovechild 75]

Yes, as a species we will either adapt, or not. But "adapt" doesn't mean it will be happy times. Millions, in fact 10s and 100s of millions, are likely to lose their homes, livelihoods, and lives if they live in coastal areas that are flooded. Crops will fail leading to mass starvations. The fact that humanity won't necessarily go extinct, and some parts of the globe may even become more habitable for humans, doesn't change that untold misery and lost economic output is a very likely result.

Lots of places have plenty of disasters but it hasn't stopped population growth. Africa has every problem imaginable but it also has the fastest population growth. Lot of people die but it's out of sight and out of mind. In any case, talking about worst case senarios hasn't changed anything.

So we can take two approaches: change our own behavior and do whatever we can to get other nations to do to the same. Or ignore the problem and let our kids pick up the mess we leave behind.

China and India won't change on the issue mostly because they can't. They won't forego development just because some rich countries want them to. They're have a lot more kids than we do and they'll be making the rules.

Newfoundland's cod fishery used to have an unimaginably vast resource of cod in the Grand Banks, which sustained the entire population's economy. Today that fishery is non-existent. Dead. Gone. Defunct. No fish.

The people didn't die off. They moved or went into different jobs.

I fail to see what the fact that people move or don't move to Arizona has to do with global warming, frankly.

Pretty simple. Most people place the issue way down of their list of priorities after almost 20 years of warnings. If they are living in a an unsustainable but growing area they really don't believe in it. Would you build a house at the base of active volcano?- probably not. It's not a few people but millions headed south and west against what should be common sense.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Just because a proportion of the population doesn't believe that global warming is a legitimate danger to them doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This is like sticking your head in the sand and saying all is well. As to the fisheries in Newfoundland, I think he was referencing the fish disappearing because of conditions, not the population of Newfoundland.

[mRx 16]

Global Warming is one of those sticky situations where a "market failure" is perceived, and it is therefore the subsequent duty of the government to correct the error of our ways.

The problem with Global Warming is not a market failure, but merely that the benefit of not using fossil fuels is less than the cost of alternative technologies. This means that forcing the market to see this perceived failure and adopt these green energies will mean that realistically, our market will be forced to suffer a loss.

Any legislation that would create incentives that don't come about through the intricate web of voluntary and free trading that makes up our economy, would undoubtedly increase the cost of energy in America. These costs are deadweight losses on our economy.

And I assume no one is naive enough to think that the collective world would adopt such damaging legislation with us? Therefore, such legislation drastically weakens our global competiveness as the cost of energy and production that requires energy would now become cheaper offshore.

With our economy on the road to ruin, it baffles me that our superiors think it's a grand idea to just step on the gas.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Matt, what is the failure of the market in emitting Mercury into our environment? Or Lead? Acid Rain?

[mRx 16]

Matt, what is the failure of the market in emitting Mercury into our environment? Or Lead? Acid Rain?

The problem with such situations is that first, such aggressions need to be localized. If an action is deemed an aggression on another's person or property, then we must have an agressor(s) and agressee(s). Once isolated, the responsibility of restitution lies with the concerned parties. If Corporation X is dumping toxic waste into your backyard, then a private arbitrage can determine the value of your loss to be restituted by Corporation X. If multiple parties are involved, the fundamentals remain the same, and the arbitrage would become more akin to class-action rather than single aggressee compensation.

Markets are not perfect, nor do I argue such. Pollution (of any sort) is a form of waste. Waste is therefore a loss, and not profitable. Just as John Rockefeller can attribute his success in part to the fact that, unlike his competitors who were dumping petrol by-products into oceans, lakes, and rivers, he sold such byproducts as parrafin, Vaseline, and other useful products. Pollution is not rewarded in a market-economy.

Regardless of the politicized semi-scientific debate that rages on, I don't think anyone can right-mindedly argue in favor of cost-increasing legislation at a time like this.

[GaryC 7]

Agreed.

Gary, yesterday you took Steven to task for supposedly being a hypocrite and far worse. You used very extreme language in repeated postings.

Now, you're not compelled to post anything. You can post, or not post. You can post your views, or you can quote articles. It's really up to you.

But I would say this - I attempted to present a reasonable case based on a logical analogy (Iranian armament) to challenge the theory your earlier article suggested that it's pointless to invest efforts in a theory that is only "very likely" (human caused global warming). I did not personally attack you. I did not call you names. I did not use all caps or even smileys.

You chose not to respond to my argument - fair enough. You don't owe me or anyone a response.

But you did choose to offer yet another article from yet another non-consensus author (non-consensus meaning not part of the established scientific expert community). Without a word from yourself on why you think the article is relevant or ties into the previous discussion. Apparently you believe the article speaks for itself, and refutes all challenges to your view. And that article was a mass of information, intended to obliterate opposition. It doesn't argue with my position, since the author of your article is unaware of my posting. You post that article in an attempt to merely stifle discussion, to steamroll it with a wall of text. It really is just like using ALL CAPS SHOUTING.

There is room for expert references and citations, I'm a big believer in that. If you write and express your views, and cite articles that you believe buttress them, with links and relevant excerpts, I will gladly read and pay attention and consider. But if you post-by-intimidation, I will just move on and not bother.

Write what you want. Say what you want. Think what you want. If the purpose of debate is to sway opinions by reasoned arguments, I fail to see that you are doing that here. Certainly not with me.

I don't get what your trying to say. I obviously don't believe that climate change is because of man made CO2. I take strong issue with the idea that there is an overwhelming "consensus". I can post multiple opinions from respected scientists that dispute that consensus. I posted a story in its entirety so people can read it and maybe make up their own mind rather than following the political pressure of the man made GW advocates. I am not trying to stifle any discussion, rather I am trying to start a discussion with well reasoned opinions of scientists that have an opposing view. I don't take my views on GW out of politics but rather out of an extensive number of hours of my own readings. But notice that when I post an opinion by a credible scientist all I get is disdain and ridicule. The other side does not want opposing views, they just want obedience to their way of thinking.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I really dont get why you guys debate with Steve. He is a cold fart on a windy day! Let him post his ####### it will disappear like Al Gore!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Everybody knows hippies cause global warming:

However, there is a solution:

[nowhereman 1]

This isn't a political issue at all, its a common sense issue. The earth can't handle an infinite amount of pollution... you can certainly debate what the threshold is but if you think that we can abuse our environment indefinitely with no consequences you are beyond ignorant. With that being said doesn't it make sense to emphasize taking care of our environment, to include conservation & finding cleaner energy solutions? Here's a news flash: If the environment is screwed up that affects everyone... left, right, middle, fat, skinny, short, tall... everyone. To have a pissing contest over this issue is past ridiculous.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

This isn't a political issue at all, its a common sense issue. The earth can't handle an infinite amount of pollution... you can certainly debate what the threshold is but if you think that we can abuse our environment indefinitely with no consequences you are beyond ignorant. With that being said doesn't it make sense to emphasize taking care of our environment, to include conservation & finding cleaner energy solutions? Here's a news flash: If the environment is screwed up that affects everyone... left, right, middle, fat, skinny, short, tall... everyone. To have a pissing contest over this issue is past ridiculous.

Have some beans.