Global Warming -- How to Talk to a Skeptic

[8]

Honest question: Why is it vital to keep the climate the same? Is it natural for Earth's climate to remain static indefinitely?

Okay, not entirely honest. I understand that melting polar caps could raise the sea level. I understand that land currently used for farming may become unsuitable for the purpose. I understand that cities on the coasts (most of our human population) could be disrupted by rising sea levels. I understand that weather patterns could change.

What if I were to shrug my shoulder's at all that. Is there something more severe that I'm missing?

It will lead to destruction of ecosystems and species extinction as well, but you've hit the nail on the head. No one can be certain of the severity or nature of the long-term effects, which is why many don't make controlling emissions a higher priority. It's nearly a blind investment.

 

[LogGrad98]

It might lead to destruction of ecosystems and species extinction as well, but you've hit the nail on the head. No one can be certain of the severity or nature of the long-term effects, which is why many don't make controlling emissions a higher priority. It's nearly a blind investment.

Fixed.

 

[One Brow]

But why would the companies have any other interest? If they do not listen to stockholders they will be out of their jobs. Seems to me that the common people hold the trump card, but the group is simply too large and diverse to organize a counter-strike.

I did not suggest the companies would have any other interest, in our culture. Hence the need for protection against them.

The government often operates the same way as a major corporation. Politicians catering to votes and advancing their personal re-election interests, not sure that their interest is the general welfare either.

I agree that people often fote against their interests.

Also, the long term-effects of progressive government policy may be much worse than the long-term effects of global warming.

The supposed long-term negative effects of the former are ephemeral and not measurable, the long-term effects of the latter are physical and measured.

 

[One Brow]

Honest question: Why is it vital to keep the climate the same? Is it natural for Earth's climate to remain static indefinitely?

It natural for species to die out, as 99.9% of all populations in the earth's history have no descendants living today. However, I prefer humans to not die out as a species, even though this is unnatural.

I agree that we can't can't keep climate static indefinitely, but slowing down the rate of change to what it was in the pre-industrial era would give better chances for our survival. CO2 levels have never risen this high, and never risen this quickly before.

What if I were to shrug my shoulder's at all that. Is there something more severe that I'm missing?

Nothing is more severe than that natural. That's why we have created a society of artificial safeguards.

 

[One Brow]

I'm sure you think that graph said something, but outside of showing the general increase in temperatures in that ten-year period could be masked by wide variation over small periods of time I'm not sure what the point was.

 

[8]

The supposed long-term negative effects of the former are ephemeral and not measurable, the long-term effects of the latter are physical and measured.

Yes, they can measure how much ice melts, the volume of ozone-depleting substances in the atmosphere, the rise of the global temperature. But what does this mean? These numbers could get larger and have no effect on my life, or they could lead to world-ending disaster. The long-term effects cannot be seen, while the long-term effects of government policy can be seen.

 

[One Brow]

Fixed.

There's no "might" about it. Species extinction from climate change is already being witnessed, a species that once depended on each other waking at the same time are now waking at different times, often because one is cued by temperature and the other by sun position or daylight level. Historically, climate change of the level we are started to experience is associated with mass extinctions.

 

[One Brow]

Yes, they can measure how much ice melts, the volume of ozone-depleting substances in the atmosphere, the rise of the global temperature. But what does this mean? These numbers could get larger and have no effect on my life, or they could lead to world-ending disaster. The long-term effects cannot be seen, while the long-term effects of government policy can be seen.

I agree that there will probably be not much effect on most of your life, which will probably be over in 100 years. However, it's not like we don't have a record of mass extinctions being associated with these temperature changes.

https://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/whats-wrong-with-warm-weather/

 

[Harambe]

I blame it on ElRoach's beef farm and the fat, poor American customers of his. It's all on him.

Tanklin has a good point. Perhaps the methane and burp gas produced from the beef farm is just too much for the fragile atmosphere to handle.

 

[UGLI baby]

Been getting colder and colder the last couple of months tbh.


dat jazzfanz.com mobile app doe

 

[colton]

I'll just start with a page of links, and we'll see where it goes.

https://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how-to-talk-to-a-sceptic/

I read through a few of the links at the site. They seem to be well written.

I researched this fairly thoroughly a number of years ago (6?). The evidence for global climate change was overwhelming, and the evidence has only increased since then.* The evidence that the climate change had human origins was also substantial, although not quite overwhelming. That's my one critique of the site--he should do more to discuss the anthropogenic nature of the climate change.

It is sad to me that so many people view this as a political question rather than a scientific one--as if somehow you have to choose to "believe" or "not believe" in this based on faith in your chosen political party.


* with the exception of the famous "hockey stick" graph, which has been shown to be wrong, possibly due to falsified data. But even without that graph the evidence is still overwhelming.

 

[8]

It is sad to me that so many people view this as a political question rather than a scientific one--as if somehow you have to choose to "believe" or "not believe" in this based on faith in your chosen political party.

I agree.

I think all can agree that 'stuff' is happening. Humans have accelerated the natural rates of measured effects. But is it a big deal? That is the debate