[SirCastor]

This thread is not about whether or not global warming is happening/ who or what is causing it.
I am curious though, is there any reason to not take action regarding it? Some of the solutions for stopping global warming are:

- Burn less Fossil Fuels (Aka, use clean, renewable energy sources)
- Plant more trees
- Limit factory pollution output
- Develop air cleaning technologies
- Use more energy efficient solutions

And that kind of stuff. Is there any reason to not be doing these things either way? I can only think of a couple:
- We're lazy
- It's expensive

So there's my question to everyone. What are the reasons to not make these changes?

[Jawbone54]

For many people, it would be #2 - it's expensive.

I, for one, think that some of the things you listed are not only reasonable, but beneficial as a whole. However, the global warming camp proposes far less reasonable solutions that go way beyond what you just listed.

The things you listed make sense. I don't think many people would disagree with you. It's some of the other stuff that gets people riled up.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

For many people, it would be #2 - it's expensive.

I, for one, think that some of the things you listed are not only reasonable, but beneficial as a whole. However, the global warming camp proposes far less reasonable solutions that go way beyond what you just listed.

The things you listed make sense. I don't think many people would disagree with you. It's some of the other stuff that gets people riled up.

Like what? Are they asking us to give up driving all together, or something like that?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

This thread is not about whether or not global warming is happening/ who or what is causing it.
I am curious though, is there any reason to not take action regarding it? Some of the solutions for stopping global warming are:

- Burn less Fossil Fuels (Aka, use clean, renewable energy sources)
- Plant more trees
- Limit factory pollution output
- Develop air cleaning technologies
- Use more energy efficient solutions

And that kind of stuff. Is there any reason to not be doing these things either way? I can only think of a couple:
- We're lazy
- It's expensive

So there's my question to everyone. What are the reasons to not make these changes?

Well, there's two reasons. 1, those things (all but one) involve continuing to pump out greenhouse gases. In other words, we have too much CO2, but your proposed "solution" is to keep putting out even more, indefinitely. The 2nd thing is that people are targeting an 80% reduction in CO2 (which even if achieved still suffers from the weakness I just described). I don't think your idea of those solutions includes reducing them by 80%. Somehow I think you had more in mind a number like 30%.

Those "solutions" are just strong enough to piss people off, and not strong enough to make any difference in the problem. It's the worst of both worlds.

[BRussell]

Well I know you don't want to talk about this, but it seems to me that the people who are opposed to taking action are exactly the same people who claim that global warming is all a big hoax perpetrated by a conspiracy of liberals and scientists and liberal scientists.

[Big Mac]

The big global warming report that came out a month ago claimed that even if we were to stop burning all fossil fuels right now, it would have no effect on supposed global warming for around a century. Why should we punish ourselves economically when no gain is to be had from it?

[tie]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I, for one, think that some of the things you listed are not only reasonable, but beneficial as a whole. However, the global warming camp proposes far less reasonable solutions that go way beyond what you just listed.

The things you listed make sense. I don't think many people would disagree with you. It's some of the other stuff that gets people riled up.

A lot of people would disagree on these points. Certainly, things like "Limit factory pollution output" get people very riled up.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The big global warming report that came out a month ago claimed that even if we were to stop burning all fossil fuels right now, it would have no effect on supposed global warming for around a century. Why should we punish ourselves economically when no gain is to be had from it?

Citation? I looked at the report and saw several quotes which seem to directly contradict this. (The quotes I saw were all of the sort, "if we capped emissions at year 2000 levels, then global warming would slow to 0.1 degrees C per decade instead of 0.2 C".) I'd like to see what you are referring to.

[Doofy]

Right then. When this proggie hits YouTube, you all need to watch it:

The Great Global Warming Swindle from Channel4.com

Let's see... ...we've got the founder of Greenpeace telling us it's all a load of crap. We've got climate scientists with their names on the IPCC report telling us that they had to use legal action to get their names off the report because they didn't agree with any of the science used. We've got climate experts telling us that CO2 follows temp, and that the Sun is causing it. We've got political observers telling us that this actually is fuelled by a bunch of libs acting against capitalism. We've got scientists telling us they won't get funding unless they link their studies with global warming.

Basically, everything I've been saying for years has now been backed up by experts. Yes, it feels good.

[spacefreak]

Just continue to focus on clean air, clean water, the limiting of pollution, and recycling. Those are the important things. Calls to destroy our economy and way of life due to moderate climate shifts are asinine.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Basically, everything I've been saying for years has now been backed up by experts. Yes, it feels good.

The most amazing thing about this entire debacle is how quickly the loons dismiss the notion that increased heat from the sun warms planets.

[tie]

Spacefreak, I responded in a previous thread to the exact same point. The scientist promoting the warming sun's impact on global warming was still only suggesting that the sun accounted for 20-40% of the warming. Most of the articles I have seen have pegged the number at a bit below 20%. Have you seen many articles where it suggests that the sun accounts for even the majority of the warming? Have you looked through the IPCC report to see what it says on this?

[Big Mac]

Isn't it a bit of a clue to that even on a left-leaning forum most of the posters doubt or dispute the catastrophic global warming hypothesis?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Spacefreak, I responded in a previous thread to the exact same point. The scientist promoting the warming sun's impact on global warming was still only suggesting that the sun accounted for 20-40% of the warming. Most of the articles I have seen have pegged the number at a bit below 20%. Have you seen many articles where it suggests that the sun accounts for even the majority of the warming? Have you looked through the IPCC report to see what it says on this?

Go email the cosmological department at Harvard - see what they think.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Isn't it a bit of a clue to that even on a left-leaning forum most of the posters doubt or dispute the catastrophic global warming hypothesis?

I don't even know what the catastrophic global warming hypothesis is! If that isn't hard, scientific proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then I don't know what would be.

Doofy, I read the links you posted in the other thread -- remember, the ones you didn't bother to read -- and they supported my position. Have any other links? (Maybe read them first this time to save us all a little trouble.)

[Buckaroo]

If you want to reduce your oil/energy consumption, do it to reduce our dependance on the Middle East and other wacko countries.

Any reduction of oil/energy will have NO affect on global warming.

I am in favor of conservation for the right reason, not the BS reason.

I've been using those florecent lights for sevarl years. I do everything I can to save energy. But I do it for economic and anti wacko reasons, not the BS Y3K ones.

Y3K=Global Warming

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Doofy, I read the links you posted in the other thread -- remember, the ones you didn't bother to read

How many times have I got to tell you that I did read them? This selective filtering process going on between page, eye and brain is probably what's causing you to miss other things, no? Other things like the big ol' fat Sun sitting there in the sky, warming us all up.

I'll post a vid link to tonight's programme when one shows up. In the meantime, go email Harvard.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

This thread is not about whether or not global warming is happening/ who or what is causing it.
I am curious though, is there any reason to not take action regarding it? Some of the solutions for stopping global warming are:

- Burn less Fossil Fuels (Aka, use clean, renewable energy sources)
- Plant more trees
- Limit factory pollution output
- Develop air cleaning technologies
- Use more energy efficient solutions

And that kind of stuff. Is there any reason to not be doing these things either way? I can only think of a couple:
- We're lazy
- It's expensive

So there's my question to everyone. What are the reasons to not make these changes?

Assuming what you're saying is true, the biggest reason these changes won't be widely adopted is because it would make snazzy consumer goods much more expensive or nearly impossible to get. For example, I can't imagine some people giving up purchasing a new mac every year to save the environment, yet macs are made in China -- one of the worst polluters in the world. So are those flashy LCD TV's everyone's getting. The factories that make these items crank out smoke all day and night. Are you gonna stop buying new stuff? I think not.

BTW, I'm only using Apple as an example because many people on these boards own them and I'm trying to make a point. I know Dell is worse and so are other companies.

I'm a pessimist when it comes to these issues. I honestly think that humankind's desire for resources and comfort will always trump any concern for the future as a whole. Global warming/pollution will abate when we run out of crap to buy and burn.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

How many times have I got to tell you that I did read them?

Sorry, I meant to say that you hadn't read the articles before you posted them. I'm glad you've gone back and read them now. That is, the proof is in the pudding.

Anyway, I sent myself an email and now I'm just waiting for my response.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

I'm a pessimist when it comes to these issues. I honestly think that humankind's desire for resources and comfort will always trump any concern for the future as a whole. Global warming/pollution will abate when we run out of crap to buy and burn.

Definitely the US needs to take the lead. We can't expect China to try to clean up if we don't even start.

I am not that pessimistic. For example, I think that nuclear power can take up a lot of slack, but obviously not all environmentalists agree with me (and while nuclear power might lessen our reliance on oil, it also creates its own security issues).