chess online
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Climate Change<<So, are you convinced the Earth is in a period of man-made global warming?>> Personally, yes I am. There is far more evidence in favour than evidence against. I will admit there may be some evidence against, climate scientists don't have everything figured out, but you don't throw out an entire model just because a few small things don't fit. If those things become large enough and a new model explains them better then by all means throw out the old one but at the moment it doesn't make any sense to do that. <<do we know enough yet?>> Well, we know the earth is warming, we know CO2 and CH4 are increasing in concentration in our atmosphere, and we know they trap heat. Correlation is not causation of course, putting these things together it seems like a difficult connection to ignore. <<is this just a periodic cyclic event and everything evens out naturally, over time?>> Periodic cyclical effects do and have occurred throughout earth's history, and they seem to be driven by CO2, but they have never happened anything like this fast. Over thirty years we have had warming that would normally take many centuries, and no periodic event (ie sunspot cycles etc...) can explain this as far as I can see. I am not dogmatic, show me good evidence against and a better theory that explains it and I will come over to the other side, but quite often what claims to be this evidence ends up upon further investigation as exaggeration, fabrication or distortion. This is what happens when a scientific issue becomes politicised, and both sides are guilty of it, just over different things. <<Is there something we (mankind) should be doing about it?>> This is a difficult question, I don't see it as should or should not, both action and inaction have consequences, it's just about which consequences you would rather. I don't believe global warming is the Armageddon that some would have us believe, and that humans can and will adapt to changes we cause. At the same time there is a remote chance we affect our surroundings beyond repair. The question then becomes one of risk/reward, is it worth the small risk of an ecological holocaust for the possibly vast economic impact. I can't answer that, I think as a species we will find the balance. One thing I do feel is important though is to get the science right as best we can so we have all the information when it comes to making these decisions, the inaction camp should not further their opinion by distorting the evidence, that does no one any good. << Is there anything we can do about it?>> From what I read we are not yet to the point of no return, though again there is a wide range of expert opinion on the subject. I'm not sure to be honest, but maybe it is better to act and have it not make any difference than to not act and later find we should have. |
||
|
So Itchy, this is the reason it doesn't matter what someone believes either way to me. There is very little I can do different in my life anyway so I don't worry about it much. |
||
|
stinky i do not suggest you 'worry' about it. that does no good. but actions do have consequences. in order to, as itchy says, 'find a balance,' it is incumbent upon all of us to consider the consequences of our actions and behave accordingly. in a democracy, "There is very little I can do different in my life anyway so I don't worry about it much" is the kiss of death. |
||
|
itchy |
||
|
stinky I see the point about the powerlessness of the individual, but it matters what people believe if people who believe the same way band together, and if they try to convince others to believe in the same thing, and then vote for people to lead them who believe the same thing. When that happens, it could matter a great deal if what they believe is not true. I should add a small addendum to the part of my post you quoted, it is not just the inaction camp who distort the evidence. There are many in the action camp I would rally against too, including Al Gore and his misleading scaremongering film. I do not wish for either side to distort the evidence to further their own agenda. |
||
|
z ... |
||
|
itchy whether we should do something about it depends on risk analysis. a cost benefit analysis. when one considers the dire costs of allowing unchecked climate change, i feel prudence is a better course of action than wait and see. in particular, i feel this because while we will pay the price of action, future (innocent) generations will pay the price of inaction. inaction is like a parent saying they do not buy life insurance because it will not help them as they will be dead. |
||
|
z ... |
Log in 
