quote:

Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
What I don't understand is why more conservatives don't embrace climate change. The credo of capitalism is create a need and then fill it.

Climate change is a perfect example of hundreds of millions of people believing there is a problem that needs to be solved. Whether or not you believe in it is irrelevant to a good capitalist. Just come up with part of the solution and make money hand over fist.

quote:

Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
No sensible people deny the existence of climate change, nor do they deny the anthropegenic factor. That has really never been the core argument. The real issues are and always have been:

- to what degree does the anthropogenic component actually influence climate change?

- what practical difference would a reduction in the anthropogenic component, if actually achievable, really make?

- would the real benefit to be derived from such a reduction effort actually be worth the cost and sacrifice?



There are some other overarching considerations as well:

- what is the real goal? Is it to stabilize the current global climate situation and achieve a static climate condition?

- If so, is that really scientifically wise?


but those are issues for another day.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flying online as NORAD_Shinjiro

quote:

Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:

quote:

Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
No sensible people deny the existence of climate change, nor do they deny the anthropegenic factor. That has really never been the core argument. The real issues are and always have been:

- to what degree does the anthropogenic component actually influence climate change?

- what practical difference would a reduction in the anthropogenic component, if actually achievable, really make?

- would the real benefit to be derived from such a reduction effort actually be worth the cost and sacrifice?



There are some other overarching considerations as well:

- what is the real goal? Is it to stabilize the current global climate situation and achieve a static climate condition?

- If so, is that really scientifically wise?


but those are issues for another day.

Best post on the subject I've read!

We're on the same page with what is said above, though we differ on the answers to some of these questions. My thinking is that the anthropogenic factor is enough to possibly push things out of balance. In complex systems margins of error are small, even if we could scientifically prove that humans are only responsible for a 2% increase in the speed of this natural warming cycle, that may still be enough to push this cycle over the edge and spiral out of control, one direction or the other. Conversely if we can only reduce our input to the issue by, say 15-20%, that may still be enough to prevent an out of balance spike in this cycle. I'm of the opinion that the possible negative outcomes require that action be taken now rather than dither around for another few decades and find out we're too late. It's not like what we're trying to do to help is dangerous to us, even if it turns out that we never could push the natural cycle out of balance, humanity will STILL have benefited from the positive environmental changes we will have made. Reducing carbon emissions is accomplished by reducing pollution in general, which we all know is killing us as fast as any potential climate change. The rate of childhood asthma has increased at an astounding rate over the last 50 years, as well as other diseases that can be at least somewhat attributed to a more chemically laden environment. For me it's not about saving the rare spotted blue feathered horny toad or any bull crap like that, screw that toad, his stupid blue feathered butt was dying from natural selection anyway, for me it's about humanity sitting in it's own filth to such an extent it is killing us and we don't even realize it!

quote:

Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

quote:

Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:

quote:

Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
No sensible people deny the existence of climate change, nor do they deny the anthropegenic factor. That has really never been the core argument. The real issues are and always have been:

- to what degree does the anthropogenic component actually influence climate change?

- what practical difference would a reduction in the anthropogenic component, if actually achievable, really make?

- would the real benefit to be derived from such a reduction effort actually be worth the cost and sacrifice?



There are some other overarching considerations as well:

- what is the real goal? Is it to stabilize the current global climate situation and achieve a static climate condition?

- If so, is that really scientifically wise?


but those are issues for another day.

Best post on the subject I've read!

We're on the same page with what is said above, though we differ on the answers to some of these questions. My thinking is that the anthropogenic factor is enough to possibly push things out of balance. In complex systems margins of error are small, even if we could scientifically prove that humans are only responsible for a 2% increase in the speed of this natural warming cycle, that may still be enough to push this cycle over the edge and spiral out of control, one direction or the other. Conversely if we can only reduce our input to the issue by, say 15-20%, that may still be enough to prevent an out of balance spike in this cycle. I'm of the opinion that the possible negative outcomes require that action be taken now rather than dither around for another few decades and find out we're too late. It's not like what we're trying to do to help is dangerous to us, even if it turns out that we never could push the natural cycle out of balance, humanity will STILL have benefited from the positive environmental changes we will have made. Reducing carbon emissions is accomplished by reducing pollution in general, which we all know is killing us as fast as any potential climate change. The rate of childhood asthma has increased at an astounding rate over the last 50 years, as well as other diseases that can be at least somewhat attributed to a more chemically laden environment. For me it's not about saving the rare spotted blue feathered horny toad or any bull crap like that, screw that toad, his stupid blue feathered butt was dying from natural selection anyway, for me it's about humanity sitting in it's own filth to such an extent it is killing us and we don't even realize it!

..... Urufu, thank you for the compliment. In retrospect, perhaps it should have been the first post in this lengthy series of climate debates. It would probably have saved a lot of flaming bandwidth consumption.

BTW, you touch upon another important point. Global technology, since the turn of the 20th century, has unleashed an absolute avalanche of artificial chemicals into human civilization whose true effects upon mankind, fauna and flora remain largely uncertain. I'm especially concerned about the industrialization of our food supply through the use of massive amounts of chemical additives (excellent book here - "The Omnivore's Dilemma"). Evidence suggests that these chemicals may be causing serious unintended side effects - asthma, autism, hormonal imbalances, reduction in male fertility, early onset of female fertility, cancer, immune system problems, etc.

I personally consider this to be a very great deal more perilous than climate issues. Now you know MY pet mightmare.