Nice review of the current global warming debate at Uncommon Descent, which I’ve broken down into an outline by inserting bullets. You should also read through the comments at the link above – very instructive:
- A great many scientists have claimed that global warming is a fact (it is) and
- while conceding it is cyclical to some degree (it is)
- they say that human activity is accelerating it (it is).
- The problem is there’s no consensus on what we need to do to stop it (or even if we can stop it at all), what it will cost to stop it, who will bear the economic cost of stopping it, and what it would cost if we did nothing and just dealt with the consequences as they arose.
- We don’t have enough information to make an informed economic decision.
- Scientists might think it’s okay to run off half cocked like Chicken Little saying the sky is falling and throwing any money they can beg, borrow, or steal at the problem but businessmen don’t think it’s okay to do that. They need to know the cost of action, the cost of inaction, and who pays those costs. President Bush in his great wisdom has said as much. We need better information to make an informed decision about what to do.
Always a fair debate when businessmen – who haven't the slightest passing interest in science – are treated as being fair, and Bush is described as having "great wisdom" which is so stupid that it defies belief. You're always sure to get a fair assessment of facts when one side is being aggressively fellated.
Actually, despite many mistakes, gwb has made a few good stands on issues, including this one, as well as on immigration.
And the argument is merely this – we are willing to trash our economy (and then raise taxes) over speculative solutions, while we fail to spend enough money on helping the victims of war, starvation, and AIDS. The author is merely arguing that until we know more, all we are doing is throwing money at the problem hoping it will work, but really knowing. And we fail to acknowledge the economic side is foolishness, because like it or not, we MUST come up with a plan that is more than a stick approach – we need carrots too.
Two words…
tipping point
Even the tipping point theory requires that you understand the factors involved. The argument here is that we do not.
…and as corporations and G.W. pick their noses and quibble with scientists over the details, we pass the tipping point. The human acticvity that is causing warming is burning fossil fuels. It's good to know these people are willing to risk the fate of humanity for self interest. How noble.
The human acticvity that is causing warming is burning fossil fuels. It's good to know these people are willing to risk the fate of humanity for self interest. How noble.
If the proponents of global warming weren't so pigheadedly ignorant of political and economic factors, and weren't so willing to make unsubstantiated claims (because they are not willing to wait for real science), people would be more willing to listen. They are like the boy who cried wolf. Who is going to listen to chicken little until it is too late? How many false alarms do you expect people to follow, and then listen to you in the case that you might be right?
If you can't make a convincing argument with a wholistic and sensical approach that people can buy into, why do you blame them for not buying in? It's your own fault for making a poor argument.
It's your own fault for making a poor argument.
What other argument can scientists make other than report their data? If you believe something needs to be done Seeker, if you believe a better argument can be made, then make it. I think the only argument that will move the fat rich conservatives currently in power is money lost and people dead. They are that self interested.
As this article suggested, the science of what to do is sketchy, and the proponents of making changes are pretending like the effects on the economy don’t matter. While the cataclysm that they predict would be horrible, it is not a sure thing, while the economic damage they intend to inflict is.
We need to come up with a plan that takes world economies, and the people that it might hurt, into consideration.
We need to come up with a plan that takes world economies, and the people that it might hurt, into consideration.
Yes, we need to. I know what I would suggest. To address this need, what would you suggest we do? What are some of the actions nations can take today to stop global warming?