Kyoto and the EU
 

oops

So much for leading the world into a new and prosperous environmental nirvana. Maybe we should make the US signing of Kyoto conditional on the EU following through. "If you guys demonstrate that you can make the treaty work, we'll jump on board. Also, please stop your bitching."

-sm

Full implementation of Kyoto woul do zero to help mother earth. Gotta run, will defend later. :)

Such a self centered species . . .
 

like we really have any real control over what happens.

Let's see here . . . we have a difficult enough time predicting the weather, especially more than three weeks out. What's makes the human species think they can predict a 10,000 year cycle? We've been keeping track of the weather for what? 2 - 300 years in euope (maybe a couple thousand years in the far east?).

Also, another report I read recently says that the middle ages may well have been hotter than it is now. I don't care if it's true or not . . . it's the point that no one really knows. Especially if we are talking more than a few hundred years ago, no one has a clue . . .

To assume that we can destroy this earth is idiocy, nothing the human species can do can really put a dent in this earth. Can we kill ourselves off? sure. That, comparatively, is easy. Short of the time when we can "control" a singularity will there be a time on this earth that we have the potential of truely wiping every living thing from this planet. Until then, we are just really messy houseguests. Either we will learn to clean up after ourselves, or we will go away . . . in either case, earth will still be around.

edit: I really do spell like a third grader

Most of what you say is true. However, you're also making the assumption that we can't destroy the Earth. Is your assumption any better?

We cannot destroy the earth, but global warming will make life harder for all of us. We can certinaly destroy our civilization, but I do not think we can make a real dent on the earth.

We are just a temporary blip on the screen - but then again so is the earth. In a few billion years, the Sun will expand and scour the earth in plasma - wiping all of human history away.


Should we be concerned about global warming? The overwhelming scientific concensus is: yes. Is global warming anthropogenic? The overwhelming scientific concensus is: yes. Should we make attempts to curb our use of fossile fuels and make a real effort to transition to other energy sources? I think we should.

If we are not effective stewards of the world while we are here, we will be creating problems for our descendants. I think that the transition to compliance to the Kyoto protocols would be expensive in the short term, but the impact of global warming will be felt long after the financial wounds have healed and the possible negative impact of global warming on the finances of the world are much more dire than the impact of the Kyoto Protocol.

Let the attacks begin.

30 years ago the "experts" were predicting another ice age was imminant.
15 years ago the "experts" agreed that global warming was upon us.
Now some of the "experts" are saying no it's ice age time.

EX = past tense = has been
SPERT = drip under pressure

EXPERT = Has been drip under pressure
Who really knows what's going to happen?

/nod Bruce
 

No one knows. And as much as we try and predict it . . . we don't have a clue. I realize this is a much more macro example, but what percentage of the matter in the universe can we *not* account for, given our current cosomological theories? Something around 80% IIRC.

The earth is on cycles. Day, night. High tide, low tide. Winter, spring, summer, fall. And these are just micro examples. I am certain that there are cycles, on this earth, which have durations, that the human mind cannot concieve.

We, as a sentient species, are short sighted (social programming and genetics), arrogant (programming), and self destructive (comes from the short sightedness). Will we kill ourselves off before we can get some of us away from this planet? Who knows. We are already on the clock, it's just that we have somewhere between 7 and 14 billion years to get it done. :D

juju; what technology do we possess that can kill off everything? Ah sure, we can kill ourselves off no problem. maybe even a good portion of the rest of the species; but at this time, we possess nothing that can come close. It's not any weapons we possess today, and if there is anything that is a gradual process, we are a far more fragile species than the earth is a fragile planet, so we will kill ourselves off, and the earth will recover.

So yes, it's an assumption, but one I stand behind.

xoxoxoxoBruce,

There has beena lot of research into this it is not just a bunch of guys in lab coats making off-the-cuff estimates. The problem is, CO2 acts like a switch. Different levels of CO2 cause the climate to behave differently. We are currently in a climatological static equilibrium. If we increase the amount of CO2 to a sufficient degree, we could send the environment into another cooler or warmer equilibrium. Most of the models I've seen consider the warm up to occur in the short-term, followed by an ice age.

We can just assume that our climatologists are as ignorant now as they were 50 years ago - even though our sampling, analysis, and modeling capabilty has grown at a geometric rate over the past couple of decades. Or we can take advantage of our intelligence and devise a plan that will help to stave off climate change as long as possible.

As a people, the choice is ours, but we will not face the outcome. We are creating the world for our great-grandchildren. DO you want to leave them with a mess, or would you like to do your best to make sure their world is not a deathtrap - so to speak.

I don't have any great grandchildren and probably won't since I don't have any grandchildren and probably won't since I don't have any children and don't intend to.
If you love someone have them spayed or neutered. I did.
Anyway, I'm not going to get all in a lather every time some chicken little thinks the sky is falling. I've seen too damn many of them and all the chicken littles can't even agree among themselves.
As for your great grandchildren, I care as much about them as your great grandfather cared about me.
With all the taxes I'm paying to educate the little bastards they ought to be able to take care of things themselves.

*crack* and a long drive, the outfielder fades back, it could be it could be it IS! It's a home run! And the crowd goes wild.

I love it when people that don't know the science or the argument assume that this is a chicken little story. I guess if the issue can;t be explained in a sound bite, it does not matter.

I feel that as sentient beings, we have an obligation to try to take care of the ecosystem of our only planet. We have no where else to go. If we fuck up this planet, we might not have future generations to remember us.

But who cares - Survivor is on.

I love it when someone who can't convince someone else assumes that person doesn't know the subject matter.
Know science? Nobody knows science. Even Einstein only knew a part of science. That's why we spend so much on research.
The problem is when certain scientists(what happened to i before e except after c) make dire predictions, when even their peers can't agree, about the future.
Hell, they can't even predict the weather. There's just too many variables many of which are unknown. Also the best scientists don't necessarily get the most press. After all, sensationalism sells newspapers.

You are right, Bruce. It was wrong of me to make such an assumption - I just get a little touchy when rabid creationsists rail me for believing that global warming is anthropogenic. I know that you are not like that, but I still go on the offensive out of my own pig-headedness.

Predicting the day to day weather is nearly impossible because we cannot have a sampling grid that is large enough to provide an adequate amount of data to make predictions to a high degree of accuracy. But meteorologists can tell you the general picture - and they are right most of the time.

There are a lot of variables in the equation, you are right. But we have a massive histoircal record of the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere for the past few thousand years, and we can combine that data with Redwood and sequoia growth rates, pollen type counts inside of ice cores, historical records, sediment acretion rates, etc to come up with a general history of our climate for the past few thousand years. The vast majority of the competant, peer reviewed scientists in the fields of geology, meteorology, and physics believe that the climate is warming up and that the warming is anthropogenic.

Then you can come up with the cost/benefit analysis. If the climate does change a great deal over the course of the next hundred years because of our use of fossile fuels, the change will almost certainly be to the detriment of human civilization. If it does not change, then we have expended a few extra dollars (far less than the amount of money in Bush's tax cut) and we have increased fuel efficiency - thereby conserving our remaining oil resources a little longer.

If you can only see the short term cost, then I guess the Kyoto Protocal is horribly bad.

You were doing OK up to there. That sounds like a carrot and not the point you were trying to make. Besides Wolf solved that problem in another thread.
They have all this data for thousands of years and make their best computer models of the future. This only means that things will change. Things have always changed but to predict the end of mankind (assuming that's a bad thing) is going too far.
Considering all the things that MIGHT happen, like a virus that makes SARS look like a zit. Remember the plague or even the flu that killed millions during WWI was before todays mobility.
But back to the point. I'm still not convinced "they" can predict the future with any certainty.

you are right. That was a carrot. Quite and astutue observation.