I choose a little of all 4 options. Being responsible and such is not exactly a bad idea. It could be beneficial in the long run to take the environment into consideration regardless of climate change status. That much seems obvious.
That said, I do think some government/business persons/organizations are set to profit off of scaring people with talk of global warming and they are very much aiming to do so. I say fuck them. It's still cold here. They had to stop calling it "global warming" and now just trumpet the wonderful catch-all of "climate change." To me this just reveals that they don't actually know very much about what's going on. So, yeah. "Global laming."
What they need to do is make a coordinated effort worldwide to research and understand climate (something that's happening) without people (often with no proper experience on the matter) inventing theories about catastrophic events by extrapolating pointlessly on limited data or even misinterpreted data. (Am I the only one who has seen people post warnings of imminent global warming along with links to pictures or charts as evidence that had no relation to global warming or otherwise actually seemed to suggest that everything was just fine or that things were actually cooling?)
On a related note, I find it a bit contradictory how a lot of people who describe themselves as "ecological" and caring for our planet and nature, seem to want to impose their will over the course of the planet's changing climate. Earth's climate is ever-changing, and supposing that we are now facing a new change, who are we to dictate that it should remain the static? I guess this is not much of a problem with people who do not claim to be earth-loving, but worry about "climate change" because they want the best for HUMAN BEINGS and not for THE EARTH as a whole.
I don't really know enough to say either way.... remember, Ryan, when Scott told us what he generally perceives as the meteorological take? "We know that, generally, average temperatures are rising. What we DON'T know is whether or not it is caused by humans. It could just be another cycle." or something like that.
We do know that CO2 is one factor for global warming, the other huge one is the sun itself (and the ozone layer, reflective ice masses, number of trees, Jelly Fish populations, etc). We have no control over the sun and it is getting larger and heating the Earth more. So, the question isn't whether or not people are the sole cause of global warming, but can people do something to help limit the changing of the climate. This goal is completely human-centric, of course. The planet will definitely survive, and non-human life will flourish. But we're trying to preserve our easy, over-populated existence. And on that note we absolutely have to eliminate, and maybe even find a way to reverse, the human contribution to global warming. Of course, if you know you live somewhere that'll be mostly unaffected and you think the world could use some depopulating, then you better start working to counteract any of the new "green" initiatives the world's gov'ts may take.
Also, regardless of whether or not humans contribute to global warming, dumping huge ammounts of NO2, SO2, and other gases causes a lot of health problems in high concentration areas. And since out supplies of fossile fuels won't last forever, the sooner we can make the switch to alternative fuel sources, the less likely we are to run into a crisis in which huge populations could be left with little to no power or means of transportation.
Basically, the greenhouse effect doesn't have that much effect, because most of the CO2 is absorbed by the ocean. Most of the warming is from outgassing, that is, release of heat and gasses from the ocean, which when heated does not carry gasses as well. Therefore, the ocean warms, the gasses are released, THEN the greenhouse effect MIGHT come in to play.
It has recently been found that the ocean is absorbing gasses much more slowly now, in other words its going to release some gasses, and more gasses will remain in the atmosphere without being absorbed. The fact is that a significant portion of the carbon in the oceans HAS been contributed by humans, and the fact is most of our carbon and most natural carbon is not going to be absorbed in the future. Either it was one of these articles (which I didn't fully re-read through) or another one, but it is now guaranteed that we will fail at preventing the global temperature from rising 10 or so degrees in the next few decades.
In other words it's people who don't act because they aren't sure, or don't know, or don't like those who do know, who caused this, because in all honesty we acted around a decade too late, drastic climate change was inevitable quite a while ago, and we were the propagators of the whole thing. This last decade has had more hurricanes on record per year than the rest of recorded history. I don't care how you look at it, when that happens several years in a row it's because something unnatural (though I hate the term) is going on.
A few years ago some environmentalist guy came to our house to talk about global warming and my dad said it would be great because the beach would be so much closer to our house. The guy got mad and left.
I'm thinking people think its bullshit, or not as bad as they say it is:
A. because they don't fully understand the timescale on which things happen, and/or don't understand the scale of the problems which will arise as a result, and
B. because we've acted so slowly/basically not at all that people don't think it that big of a deal.
It's not that it isn't a big deal and therefore no one did anything, its just that no one understood why it was a big deal and then no one did anything.
I think people are coming to the conclusion, illogically mind you, that because not many people acted/are acting, and not much is happening yet, that it must be bull.
And that's not even the direction they were led! Scientists have been warning us for years because we weren't and we still aren't quite at a point where it's noticeable, a point where we might still be able to do something. We shouldn't be debating if its a problem or not, or anything like that, because it is, it's just not quite happened yet.
Seriously, a tsunami is still deadly, and still there, and still almost unstoppable, even when it's 300 miles offshore.
Edit: I honestly CAN'T stress enough that there has been no good reason presented to question the science behind this. Our predictions have been a bit inaccurate, but we know more, a LOT more from it. It is very likely that current predictions are accurate, and it is very likely that what will happen will happen over a timescale of decades to centuries, but it will happen, and in either case the consequences for us and the rest of the ecosystem are dire at best. We know how much water is in the icecaps, we know how fast they melt, we know how fast the temperature has been rising, we know 500 or so parts per million of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gasses is enough to melt basically all of them, and we know that the current level is around 485. We also know that these levels are as abnormal you can get for as many oxygen producing organisms we have. I think that's evidence enough we're in for some big trouble.
Do we really know that temperatures have been rising? I recall reading that they have stopped rising this decade and won't start rising again for some time.
Also, isn't like half of global warming caused by the sun? What can we do about that? Nuke it?
Do we really know that temperatures have been rising? I recall reading that they have stopped rising this decade and won't start rising again for some time.
Also, isn't like half of global warming caused by the sun? What can we do about that? Nuke it?
Even so, that doesn't mean they won't rise again if we don't change our habits. Honestly, I don't see why this is an issue even IF global warming somehow stops completely! The damage done to oceans in terms of acidity from run off and byproducts of the oil, agricultural, transportation, freight, and plastic industries (most plastics are oil based...) should be reason alone to "go green."
It's a question of efficiency. Do the pros of having a less acid ocean outweigh the cons of switching, well, pretty much everything to green technology? Also, how would such a change (from non-green to green) occur? And, ethically speaking, can you really force a person to not use carbon dioxide emitting machines only because YOU (even if that you is composed of several million people) feel that he is affecting your environment?
I would note that "going green" does have other benefits. Such as my computer which contains several parts purchased which are notable for their relative power efficiency compared to similar products. By using less power, they produce less heat and thus are easier to cool with fewer/slower fans. End result? Quieter computer.
Still, things can be messed up if things are rushed too much. For instance, our government wants to try and push people to use electric cars. Something to note about these is that the manufacturing of them still results in significant pollution and when the batteries in them die, they don't magically disappear. They go somewhere and pollute that place. They can actually be worse for the environment than an efficient gasoline powered car in some ways.
Of course the obvious pitfall of going green is cost. Green power is very expensive. We are not exactly swimming in cash right now, so it would seem the environment is going to have to wait whether we like it or not.
Throughout the rest of your lives, if you only remember any single point about politics, economics, finance, or any other area where people interact with each other, remember this:
People respond to incentives.
Without sufficient incentive, people don't do things. Period. Change is notoriously hard to create, and for people to change they have to see a real need to change, and more importantly, real incentive to do so. Incentives are internal; these incentives have to affect THEM in a very real way. For electric cars, you can't force people to use them. But if you make them cheaper than real cars, efficient enough to warrant buying a new one, and convenient enough to be recharged without real difficulty, then people will make the shift naturally.
The problem with the green movement is the distinct lack of incentives. The idea of a better earth isn't an incentive; it's a threat. And it's a poor threat at that, because the damage is too hard to see at the moment by the average person.
I'm not saying the issue is real or not real. The issue is obviously complex enough that there isn't a real consensus as to whether or not the causes of global warming are in fact anthropogenic. The solution is in finding a way to make people naturally want to change by giving them sufficient personal motivation.
Yes, I know and understand that change never comes quickly, and when it does, never smoothly.
I still can't help wishing people would do things more quickly though. I know people respond to incentives, and for once I wish that "because its a long term problem and we don't want everyone else to have to deal with it too" was a valid incentive.
The human race is way too inefficient for my tastes I suppose.
Do we really know that temperatures have been rising? I recall reading that they have stopped rising this decade and won't start rising again for some time.
Also, isn't like half of global warming caused by the sun? What can we do about that? Nuke it?
The very recent trend has been a decline, but the overall trend is still a rapidly increasing rise. The decline is just a tiny dip. Temperatures go up and down, just because we don't consistently break record high temperatures year after year doesn't mean Global Warming is wrong, stopping, or even slowing down. Actually, here: this has a good explanation of some of the current issue.
Comments
That said, I do think some government/business persons/organizations are set to profit off of scaring people with talk of global warming and they are very much aiming to do so. I say fuck them. It's still cold here. They had to stop calling it "global warming" and now just trumpet the wonderful catch-all of "climate change." To me this just reveals that they don't actually know very much about what's going on. So, yeah. "Global laming."
What they need to do is make a coordinated effort worldwide to research and understand climate (something that's happening) without people (often with no proper experience on the matter) inventing theories about catastrophic events by extrapolating pointlessly on limited data or even misinterpreted data. (Am I the only one who has seen people post warnings of imminent global warming along with links to pictures or charts as evidence that had no relation to global warming or otherwise actually seemed to suggest that everything was just fine or that things were actually cooling?)
On a related note, I find it a bit contradictory how a lot of people who describe themselves as "ecological" and caring for our planet and nature, seem to want to impose their will over the course of the planet's changing climate. Earth's climate is ever-changing, and supposing that we are now facing a new change, who are we to dictate that it should remain the static? I guess this is not much of a problem with people who do not claim to be earth-loving, but worry about "climate change" because they want the best for HUMAN BEINGS and not for THE EARTH as a whole.
Basically, the greenhouse effect doesn't have that much effect, because most of the CO2 is absorbed by the ocean. Most of the warming is from outgassing, that is, release of heat and gasses from the ocean, which when heated does not carry gasses as well. Therefore, the ocean warms, the gasses are released, THEN the greenhouse effect MIGHT come in to play.
It has recently been found that the ocean is absorbing gasses much more slowly now, in other words its going to release some gasses, and more gasses will remain in the atmosphere without being absorbed. The fact is that a significant portion of the carbon in the oceans HAS been contributed by humans, and the fact is most of our carbon and most natural carbon is not going to be absorbed in the future. Either it was one of these articles (which I didn't fully re-read through) or another one, but it is now guaranteed that we will fail at preventing the global temperature from rising 10 or so degrees in the next few decades.
In other words it's people who don't act because they aren't sure, or don't know, or don't like those who do know, who caused this, because in all honesty we acted around a decade too late, drastic climate change was inevitable quite a while ago, and we were the propagators of the whole thing. This last decade has had more hurricanes on record per year than the rest of recorded history. I don't care how you look at it, when that happens several years in a row it's because something unnatural (though I hate the term) is going on.
A. because they don't fully understand the timescale on which things happen, and/or don't understand the scale of the problems which will arise as a result, and
B. because we've acted so slowly/basically not at all that people don't think it that big of a deal.
It's not that it isn't a big deal and therefore no one did anything, its just that no one understood why it was a big deal and then no one did anything.
I think people are coming to the conclusion, illogically mind you, that because not many people acted/are acting, and not much is happening yet, that it must be bull.
And that's not even the direction they were led! Scientists have been warning us for years because we weren't and we still aren't quite at a point where it's noticeable, a point where we might still be able to do something. We shouldn't be debating if its a problem or not, or anything like that, because it is, it's just not quite happened yet.
Seriously, a tsunami is still deadly, and still there, and still almost unstoppable, even when it's 300 miles offshore.
Edit: I honestly CAN'T stress enough that there has been no good reason presented to question the science behind this. Our predictions have been a bit inaccurate, but we know more, a LOT more from it. It is very likely that current predictions are accurate, and it is very likely that what will happen will happen over a timescale of decades to centuries, but it will happen, and in either case the consequences for us and the rest of the ecosystem are dire at best. We know how much water is in the icecaps, we know how fast they melt, we know how fast the temperature has been rising, we know 500 or so parts per million of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gasses is enough to melt basically all of them, and we know that the current level is around 485. We also know that these levels are as abnormal you can get for as many oxygen producing organisms we have. I think that's evidence enough we're in for some big trouble.
Also, isn't like half of global warming caused by the sun? What can we do about that? Nuke it?
Even so, that doesn't mean they won't rise again if we don't change our habits. Honestly, I don't see why this is an issue even IF global warming somehow stops completely! The damage done to oceans in terms of acidity from run off and byproducts of the oil, agricultural, transportation, freight, and plastic industries (most plastics are oil based...) should be reason alone to "go green."
Still, things can be messed up if things are rushed too much. For instance, our government wants to try and push people to use electric cars. Something to note about these is that the manufacturing of them still results in significant pollution and when the batteries in them die, they don't magically disappear. They go somewhere and pollute that place. They can actually be worse for the environment than an efficient gasoline powered car in some ways.
Of course the obvious pitfall of going green is cost. Green power is very expensive. We are not exactly swimming in cash right now, so it would seem the environment is going to have to wait whether we like it or not.
People respond to incentives.
Without sufficient incentive, people don't do things. Period. Change is notoriously hard to create, and for people to change they have to see a real need to change, and more importantly, real incentive to do so. Incentives are internal; these incentives have to affect THEM in a very real way. For electric cars, you can't force people to use them. But if you make them cheaper than real cars, efficient enough to warrant buying a new one, and convenient enough to be recharged without real difficulty, then people will make the shift naturally.
The problem with the green movement is the distinct lack of incentives. The idea of a better earth isn't an incentive; it's a threat. And it's a poor threat at that, because the damage is too hard to see at the moment by the average person.
I'm not saying the issue is real or not real. The issue is obviously complex enough that there isn't a real consensus as to whether or not the causes of global warming are in fact anthropogenic. The solution is in finding a way to make people naturally want to change by giving them sufficient personal motivation.
I still can't help wishing people would do things more quickly though. I know people respond to incentives, and for once I wish that "because its a long term problem and we don't want everyone else to have to deal with it too" was a valid incentive.
The human race is way too inefficient for my tastes I suppose.
The very recent trend has been a decline, but the overall trend is still a rapidly increasing rise. The decline is just a tiny dip. Temperatures go up and down, just because we don't consistently break record high temperatures year after year doesn't mean Global Warming is wrong, stopping, or even slowing down. Actually, here: this has a good explanation of some of the current issue.