Global Warming Happening on all Planets

[eyeball]

You mean we have to vote on if there actually is global warming?? Will a democraticly decided conclusion tells us without a doubt that global warming is real??

No, all it will tell us is whether a majority believes it is and wants more rigorous action taken.

This mocks science.

Science will just have to suck it up I guess. Maybe it'll give it something new to study.

The science is being manipulated by people in power.

Yes it really sad that science is no more immune to manipulation than religion, economics or worst of all, the democratic process that is supposed to protect us from manipulative people in power.

Why should you know the truth anyways?

That's a really wierdly disturbing question. The implication is that we're better off living in ignorance.

The only thing I want to know right now is what happened to our democracy and how its gotten to the point that its of no utility to us in what could be the most important threat we've ever faced. It seems democracy itself is an even bigger threat.

Carbon Monoxide is a problem.

Nuclear waste is a prolem.

Electronic waste is a problem.

I would say that global warming is not as big as an issue as us changing how and what we treat as garbage. These toxins will bite us in the ass,... already is, way before global warming ever will.

Given your obvious disdain for truth and democracy is it really any wonder why?

Edited December 27, 2008 by eyeball

[Smallc]

No, all it will tell us is whether a majority believes it is and wants more rigorous action taken.

Democracy has nothing to do with this. Determining definitively whether or not the issue is real or not is far more important than finding out what people think.

[eyeball]

Democracy has nothing to do with this. Determining definitively whether or not the issue is real or not is far more important than finding out what people think.

How did you arrive at that definitive determination? Democratically or scientifically? Either way, how many people did you ask and could you please provide a link to the conclusions of the vote/study?

[Smallc]

How did you arrive at that definitive determination? Democratically or scientifically? Either way, how many people did you ask and could you please provide a link to the conclusions of the vote/study?

What would that prove? If global warming is happening and we are the cause, if we are putting ourselves in danger then we should do something about it, no matter what people think. If we aren't causing real problems, then we should do little if anything about it. Sometimes, the people don't know what's best for them. Sometimes its about what's right, and not about what's popular.

[eyeball]

What would that prove?

It would prove or at least provide an explanaition as to why or how democracy suddenly became such a threat to our well being.

Sometimes, the people don't know what's best for them. Sometimes its about what's right, and not about what's popular.

That would make a great signature at the bottom of your posts. Smallc eh? I guess that explains why this sounds like something a big C Conservative would accuse a Liberal of saying.

Its phenomenal just how debauched and desperate GW skeptics have to be to maintain their credibility.

Edited December 27, 2008 by eyeball

[eyeball]

I thought it was justice that was supposed to be blind not democracy.

[Smallc]

It would prove or at least provide an explanaition as to why or how democracy suddenly became such a threat to our well being.

That would make a great signature at the bottom of your posts. Smallc eh? I guess that explains why this sounds like something a big C Conservative would accuse a Liberal of saying.

Its phenomenal just how debauched and desperate GW skeptics have to be to maintain their credibility.

I'm not sure if GW is real or not. I don't want to destroy the economy to do something just because its popular. On the other hand, I don't want to allow the world to be destroyed because something is unpopular.

I am a Liberal, card carrying in fact. On some issues I am conservative, but on most, I'm liberal, so my handle on here was a bad choice. I would gladly put what I said in my signature, because I firmly believe it. Sometimes the people are wrong. Usually, the voters are wise because their sheer numbers weed out anomalies, but there are issues where they are simply wrong.

I'm not taking a side here, I'm simply stating that any response should be based on scientific knowledge rather than what is or isn't popular. I personally am more worried about chemical contamination than global warming, but if it really is a huge threat, we should do something. Before we do though, I want more information, and I want to understand the entire issue.

[Riverwind]

I'm not taking a side here, I'm simply stating that any response should be based on scientific knowledge rather than what is or isn't popular. I personally am more worried about chemical contamination than global warming, but if it really is a huge threat, we should do something. Before we do though, I want more information, and I want to understand the entire issue.

I agree that chemical pollution is the real environmental threat whether it is heavy metals in our water or phosphates in the oceans. Part of the problem with CO2 is the people who are supposed to be providing the scientific evidence have choosen to become activists that promote specific courses of action. For example, Jim Hansen - one of the most well known climate scientists who runs NASA's GISS - openly sanctions vandalism in order to stop new coal plants from getting built. Such actions are not only morally reprehensible they are also decisions way outside of Hansen's area of expertise. These actions also make one wonder what other morally questionable actions that Hansen is willing to justify in the name of 'promoting the faith' (e.g the temperature dataset provided by GISS has the largest warming bias of all the major datasets - a dataset that depends on myriad of complex processing algorithms choosen by Hansen or people working for him).

Hansen and other scientists would have a lot more credibility if they stuck providing the information rather than insisting on particular solutions. Ultimately, it is up to the people via the elected representatives to make the complicated trade offs between up front cost vs. future costs.

Edited December 27, 2008 by Riverwind

[BC_chick]

I am a Liberal, card carrying in fact. On some issues I am conservative, but on most, I'm liberal, so my handle on here was a bad choice.

With the exception of a Dion leadership, Liberals (capital L) have traditionally been somewhat conservative in their fiscal policies. I don't see the why you think your handle was a bad choice, small c doesn't necessarily mean voting CPC. Especially given Harper spending policies since coming into power.

[Smallc]

With the exception of a Dion leadership, Liberals (capital L) have traditionally been somewhat conservative in their fiscal policies. I don't see the why you think your handle was a bad choice, small c doesn't necessarily mean voting CPC. Especially given Harper spending policies since coming into power.

That is true I suppose. I am somewhat fiscally conservative, but the ways in which I am socially conservative could probably be counted on one hand. I am a fiscal conservative and social liberal. I suppose that's why I liked Paul Martin so much...until his desperate (and stupid) I'm going to get rid of the notwithstanding clause promise.

Edited December 27, 2008 by Smallc

[kuzadd]

eyeball

Its phenomenal just how debauched and desperate GW skeptics have to be to maintain their credibility

.

that is a bit of an unfair criticism.

and I would not say it applies to all skeptics of the man made global warming scenario.

I was not so long ago a man made global warming believer, but...... I don't quite know, oh yes, I heard interview, and looked at a paper written by someone.... the interviewer was from Global Research.

It gave me second thoughts....

Then I did a bunch of reading on my own, and now I describe myself as a fence sitter, not believing implicity, as I had previously done.

The focus on CO2 has pushed all other pollutant issues aside.

This doesn't do us any good at all.

Example look at how polluted our water is?

(full of drugs, and worse)

Why are we not addressing that issue?

Look at the contamination in the food chain?

Why are we not addressing that?

Look at the issue of particulates in the air and other air pollutions?

Why are we not addressing that?

How about nuclear waste?

and on and on and on

[eyeball]

I'm not sure if GW is real or not...I'm not taking a side here

And so you'll be damned if anyone else should ever take a shot at democratically expressing which side of the issue they come down on, is that how it works?

usually the voters are wise because their sheer numbers weed out anomalies.

Yes, and you're the perfect example of what it is we need to weed out the most.

It's sure obvious why people use the frog in the pot as a metaphor for our societies near complete paralysis in the face of this issue.

Edited December 27, 2008 by eyeball

[eyeball]

The focus on CO2 has pushed all other pollutant issues aside.

This doesn't do us any good at all.

Example look at how polluted our water is?

(full of drugs, and worse)

Why are we not addressing that issue?

Look at the contamination in the food chain?

Why are we not addressing that?

Look at the issue of particulates in the air and other air pollutions?

Why are we not addressing that?

How about nuclear waste?

and on and on and on

How can we possibly begin to address these with our broken-down discredited democracy? That said, the answer to your questions should now be obvious.

[bush_cheney2004]

....It's sure obvious why people use the frog in the pot to capture a sense of our societies near complete paralysis in the face of this issue.

It's a grave issue for you....not everybody. One vote to a customer....good luck.

[Smallc]

I'm really not even sure what you're talking about anymore. I want definitive proof in one direction or the other, and you want to have a vote for some reason. I'm talking about doing what we need to do based on what we know. Right now, we don't seem to know a great amount about this issue. I'm willing to accept that we may be warming the Earth, but I'm not yet completely convinced. We need to know more about this before we start trying to act in any meaningful way.

[eyeball]

I'm really not even sure what you're talking about anymore. I want definitive proof in one direction or the other, and you want to have a vote for some reason. I'm talking about doing what we need to do based on what we know. Right now, we don't seem to know a great amount about this issue. I'm willing to accept that we may be warming the Earth, but I'm not yet completely convinced. We need to know more about this before we start trying to act in any meaningful way.

I'm talking about the way our inability to trust our scientists has led to our inability to trust our democratic system. Riverwind and I came to the conclusion that no scientist could be trusted and so a vote amongst scientists on the issue of AGW consensus and what to do about it would be untrustworthy too.

I said okay, we should let the people decide, working from the same premise you did - that democracy usually allows the best solution to our problems to emerge.

The skepticisim for this premise is now apparently just as strong as that expressed for AGW, by the very same people no less. Considering how many of these same sorts of people usually invest a lot of energy in their defence of democracy...I repeat, its phenomenal just how debauched and desperate GW skeptics have to be to maintain their credibility.

Edited December 27, 2008 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

....I said okay, we should let the people decide, working from the same premise you did - that democracy usually allows the best solution to our problems to emerge.

The standard retort is that Hitler was also democratically elected. That's why we invented constitutions.

[eyeball]

Hey, you guy's have convinced me - democracy is highly over-rated.

Its sure a mystery to me why anyone would waste their time never mind their life fighting for it.

[Riverwind]

I'm talking about the way our inability to trust our scientists has led to our inability to trust our democratic system. Riverwind and I came to the conclusion that no scientist could be trusted and so a vote amongst scientists on the issue of AGW consensus and what to do about it would be untrustworthy too.

I think there is a difference between listening to their advice while being aware of the advisor's biases and ignoring the advice altogether. Scientists with different views do have a place in the public discussion of what to do about the hypothetical and, where possible, science should be used to evaluate different options. The trouble with the current discussion is three fold:

1) Some scientists have chosen to exaggerate the certainty of the science. Unfortunately, this led to a situation where science and the scientific method is attacked in order to ensure that other legitimate scientific viewpoints are heard.

2) Science cannot provide answers to many critical questions such as "what are the consequences of a warmer planet?"

3) Scientists do not understand that they are not qualified to determine or make the various economic/social trades offs. It is easy for someone like Hansen who will be retiring shortly with a generous US gov't pension to demand that others give up coal power. It is not so easy for those who are barely making ends meet.

That is why I agree that these decisions must be ultimately made by our democratic institutions but that does not imply that it should be decided by a single vote and/or public opinion poll. Our relationship with the environment should be a constant ongoing discussion where past decisions are a constantly revisited as new information becomes available.

Edited December 28, 2008 by Riverwind

[Keepitsimple]

To emphasize how distorted the media coverage is wioth regards to "Global Warming" or Climate Change, one only has to look at the poster child for the movement - the Polar Bear. You've all seen the alarmist propaganda - the disappearing Polar Bear - the lonely bear on the small little iceberg. We now know - although the propaganda continues unabated - that the Polar Bear population is stable, if not increasing. The scary part is that the alarmists just keep up the same rhetoric - and people keep swallowing it with the help of naive or agenda-driven journalists.

The latest government survey of polar bears roaming the vast Arctic expanses of northern Quebec, Labrador and southern Baffin Island show the population of polar bears has jumped to 2,100 animals from around 800 in the mid-1980s.

As recently as three years ago, a less official count placed the number at 1,400.

The Inuit have always insisted the bears' demise was greatly exaggerated by scientists doing projections based on fly-over counts, but their input was usually dismissed as the ramblings of self-interested hunters.

As Nunavut government biologist Mitch Taylor observed in a front-page story in the Nunatsiaq News last month, "the Inuit were right. There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears."

Their widely portrayed lurch toward extinction on a steadily melting ice cap is not supported by bear counts in other Arctic regions either.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.htm...39-b71a9e5df868

[bush_cheney2004]

To emphasize how distorted the media coverage is wioth regards to "Global Warming" or Climate Change, one only has to look at the poster child for the movement - the Polar Bear. You've all seen the alarmist propaganda - the disappearing Polar Bear - the lonely bear on the small little iceberg....

Moreover, the polar bear is a relatively recent adaptation of the brown bear, only made possible by climate change drivers completely unrelated to human activity. A poster child indeed.

[eyeball]

I think there is a difference between listening to their advice while being aware of the advisor's biases and ignoring the advice altogether. Scientists with different views do have a place in the public discussion of what to do about the hypothetical and, where possible, science should be used to evaluate different options. The trouble with the current discussion is three fold:

1) Some scientists have chosen to exaggerate the certainty of the science. Unfortunately, this led to a situation where science and the scientific method is attacked in order to ensure that other legitimate scientific viewpoints are heard.

This first problem is the most damaging of all, people can't tell which scientists and economists are exagerating from the one's who aren't. Without some sort of reliable central registry to go by the public and the government doesn't have a clue who to believe. Even worse is how we even begin basing an honest decision in such a mistrustful...climate.

2) Science cannot provide answers to many critical questions such as "what are the consequences of a warmer planet?"

That's just an opinion but perhaps your third point provides a reason why.

3) Scientists do not understand that they are not qualified to determine or make the various economic/social trades offs. It is easy for someone like Hansen who will be retiring shortly with a generous US gov't pension to demand that others give up coal power. It is not so easy for those who are barely making ends meet.

Perhaps scientists with different views really don't have a place in the public discussion of what to do about the hypothetical after all.

That is why I agree that these decisions must be ultimately made by our democratic institutions but that does not imply that it should be decided by a single vote and/or public opinion poll.

I agree, a series of votes and public opinion polls should be used instead. We should be holding constituent assemblies across the country to determine what these need to resolve and answer. Of course scientists should have the same right to participate in these as any other constituent. The fact they're scientists shouldn't provide anymore weight to their right per se than anyone else however.

Our relationship with the environment should be a constant ongoing discussion where past decisions are a constantly revisited as new information becomes available.

I agree and you've provided an excellent prescription for something that's just as important for the same reason - our relationship with our democratic institutions should be a constant ongoing discussion where past decisions are constantly revisited as new information becomes available.

[WIP]

Last week, when temperatures were bone-chilling cold across the country, there was a post crowing about the record cold temperatures and asking -rhetorically - where was global warming. This week, even here in southern Ontario, we reached 14 C; so that begs the question: what's with the crazy weather during the last few years if everything's normal and we're not forcing climate change. Even during the summers, temperatures don't stay consistently hot or mild, they just swing back and forth.....this was not the normal pattern 20, 30 or 40 years ago. I'm not sure how much the weather has changed, but I've never seen it like this before!

[Riverwind]

what's with the crazy weather during the last few years if everything's normal and we're not forcing climate change.

Weather is always crazy from the perspective of people living through it (studies have been done that show people have selective memory when it comes to weather). That said, even if you could come up with some way to measure 'craziness' and demonstrate that recent trends are unusual you still do not have ANY evidence that the weather was a result of humans.

The last point is most important. You see, no one really disputes the claim that the planet is warmer than it was 100 years ago. And some people do claim that crazy weather is a consequence of higher temperatures. So if the latter claim is actually true it would be true even if a significant part of the warming is the result of the sun/oceans/whatever.

IOW - 'crazy' weather is evidence of nothing.

Edited December 28, 2008 by Riverwind

[kuzadd]

How can we possibly begin to address these with our broken-down discredited democracy? That said, the answer to your questions should now be obvious.

eyeball: change begins with me and you.

that is what I believe.

You want change, live it.

this is how we address the issues that need addressing.

example: I rode my bike this year over 2400 hundred kilometers, and yet, I am a fence sitter when it comes to man made global warming.

but even without co2, there are enough pollutants spewed from cars that is beneficial to drive less.

I grow an organic garden

why? because I reduce my exposure to endless toxic pesticides and herbicides

I shop my local farmers market.

why?

the food is better/fresher, I am into supporting my neighbours, and when this foolish global economy falls to pieces, as it will, because by design it is stupidity, there will be someone around growing food that ain't in china.

These are but a few of the things I chose to do

why?

because a government has mandated them?

no.

because, I feel these choices are beneficial to me, my family and to the society around me.