quote:When approached by WAGTV, on behalf of Channel 4, known to me as one of the main UK independent broadcasters, I was led to believe that I would be given an opportunity to explain why I, like some others, find the statements at both extremes of the global change debate distasteful. I am, after all a teacher, and this seemed like a good opportunity to explain why, for example, I thought more attention should be paid to sea level rise, which is ongoing and unstoppable and carries a real threat of acceleration, than to the unsupportable claims that the ocean circulation was undergoing shutdown (Nature, December 2005). ... In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making --- which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many different ways, some unexpected. ... Channel 4 now says they were making a film in a series of "polemics". There is nothing in the communication we had (much of it on the telephone or with the film crew on the day they were in Boston) that suggested they were making a film that was one-sided, anti-educational, and misleading. I took them at face value---clearly a great error. I knew I had no control over the actual content, but it never occurred to me that I was dealing with people who already had a reputation for distortion and exaggeration. [italics added]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Puppy, You better be out of town, dying of consumption or caring for a newborn infant.
If not, you are seriously negligent in giving us a response. Some of us actually put time and effort into responding to you. Its impolite not to at least acknowledge our efforts.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Or eating pie.
'Cause seriously, pie.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's not unusual for people to be on the fora less over a weekend.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Perhaps he is Shomer Shabbos!
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I just liked the juxtaposition of the titles. Plus, I wanted to highlight some of the text from that link.
I'm sure Puppy will respond when he dives back into the online world here.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Puppy, You better be out of town, dying of consumption or caring for a newborn infant.
If not, you are seriously negligent in giving us a response. Some of us actually put time and effort into responding to you. Its impolite not to at least acknowledge our efforts.
Now, wait a second. Some people (and I believe Geoff is one of them) actually spend whole swathes of times (weeks, even months) away from Hatrack.
If he is here and not responding, I agree that would be rude. But if he's busy with life, and has therefore not made it back to Hatrack? Even if the reason he ain't here is somewhat less critical than the reasons you listed?
(Anyway, SOME of us don't let being out of town stop us. But enough about my addictions . . .)
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: If he is here and not responding, I agree that would be rude.
And based on what we know of Geoff, I can't imagine that he would fail to respond were he not here. I'm very curious to see what he has to say, and I also enjoyed the juxtaposition of the thread titles, but I just assumed that his not having posted meant that he hadn't been back since information was given to him in the other thread.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Like a lot of people, he doesn't respond to posts all the time. *shrug*
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
It is possible that things in the off-line world aren't leaving him time for online things.
Just sayin'.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Noem, he did actually post in the thread in question after his response was requested. However, it was a quick post, which I think clearly reflected having only read the last few posts, not all of the thread from his earlier post on. A tendency I completely understand when one is in a hurry, but which is nevertheless rather annoying.
Oh, and I think you forgot an "unless." Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
*bump*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hey guys, I think it's enough with the bumping on this. Either he'll see it or he won't. If he sees it, either he'll respond or he won't. All you're doing now is making such a big production out of it that it would make anyone less likely to respond.
A lot of posts that a lot of effort goes into don't get responded to. Publicly calling someone out on it - repeatedly (even if the repeats are different people) - isn't necessary. His email address is on his main profile.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Dag, wasn't that the first time it had been bumped? In any case, I wasn't bumping this in an effort to call Geoff on it. I was bumping it because I saw that he was on, and was curious to know what he thought about the information that had been posted. There was no "gotcha" or "answer or lose face" motive behind my bump.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, wasn't that the first time it had been bumped?
I was imprecise - I didn't just mean the bumping in the literal sense, but the ongoing discussion and prodding.
quote:In any case, I wasn't bumping this in an effort to call Geoff on it.
I don't think motive is entirely relevant here. I'm speaking about the likely effects, not the morality of the thread.
I know that several people have taken extended breaks from Hatrack because the perceived pressure to respond in certain ways was too much. Even absent that dynamic, there's the big thing phenomenon - now it's been built into a "big thing."
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Holy crap. I have a really busy weekend, and then my role at work changes, I've got a bunch of unfamiliar responsibilities ... and people are freaking out that I'm late answering their message board posts? Calm down and give me a second to catch up.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:I don't think motive is entirely relevant here. I'm speaking about the likely effects, not the morality of the thread.
From Geoff's response it looks like you were right in your prediction of how this thread would be taken, Dag.
Geoff, sorry if it read as though I were upset at your not having responded. I wasn't (in fact, I don't think I even participated in the thread you'd started on the subject), and I don't think that anybody other than Rabbit was either. As I said earlier I just bumped this when I saw that you were on, because I figured that if you were like me you wouldn't go looking much past page 1 after having been gone for a little while.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I think it was Rabbit's reply that I was reacting to, not anything you said I actually do appreciate that people want to hear my opinion, so thanks for calling my attention to this.
Anyway, as far as my opinion goes ...
Some of the responses to the "Swindle" movie were just annoying ad hominem attacks. "This movie was funded by so-and-so, who is a CONSERVATIVE [gasp]!" Etcetera. The stupidest kind of time-wasting argument.
But that was only a subset of the responses. The ones that were actually written by Hatrackers (rather than linked by them) all seemed very well-thought-out. Particularly, the stuff from Rabbit that made it clear that the factors promoted by the film were already being taken very seriously by proponents of the Global Warming model, and according to their work, could not fully account for the recorded warming trends.
Really, that was the bit that sort of re-evened the playing field for me. My opinion ended up reverting to what it was before I watched the film, namely:
1. I have serious doubts about our ability to predict changes in climate with accuracy. If our predictions today turn out to be accurate, it will be the first time in human history that that has ever happened. That doesn't mean they WON'T be accurate. But climate is a complex system, and our current level of understanding is relatively new. I'm not ready to accept the degree of certainty that many proponents of the Global Warming model assert.
2. On the other hand, I don't think anyone is trying to trick me. Well, let me qualify that. I don't think 3500 (or howevermany) scientists are trying to trick me. I think there are idealogues out there, on both sides, who knowingly overstate their case. But I think that the vast majority of scientists working in this field are doing real, serious science, and don't have the typical motivations ascribed to them by their opponents.
3. I also think that changes in climate are inevitable, whether or not we contribute to them. I don't think that it is a realistic approach to try and stabilize the climate of an entire planet. No matter what we do, the temperature will probably be different, in one direction or another, a thousand years from now, and our descendants will need to deal with it.
4. Opinion #3 is bolstered by the sheer direness of the predictions made by proponents of the Global Warming model. It seems to me that, if our understanding of the phenomenon is accurate, it would be impossible to actually halt Global Warming without essentially dismantling most of our industrial society. Not only would that course of action be every bit as disastrous as rising sea levels and shifting ocean currents, but it would also be impossible to persuade most people to accept.
5. So, I accept that Global Warming predictions are likely to be accurate (again, not all doubt has been removed, nor should it, but the predictions are worth taking seriously and planning for), but I don't accept the kneejerk policy recommendations that tend to come along with them. Reducing our use of oil, and other environmental and conservation measures are necessary for their own reasons, but attempting to reach out and control the weather seems hubristic to me.
Cultivating resistance to climate change and resource depletion in our society over the next several decades sounds like a better use of policy than most of the recommendations I see. Before people can realistically halt their addiction to cars, we need to redesign our communities so that they can be navigated without one. We should learn from New Orleans and not just improve our disaster preparedness, but also build our cities like we expect them to need to survive the worst the planet can throw at us. We should diversify our sources of food and fuel, and not put all of our eggs in a few fragiel baskets.
Basically, I'm interested in hearing ideas that promote general survivability in the face of a wide variety of anticipated future challenges, not a lot of ineffective kneejerk responses to one possible disaster.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Geoff, As I understand it, the guy who made the movie has a history of being dishonest and clearly used statements in the movie in a way that the peopel making the statements disagreed with. Are you including statements to these effects in the annoying ad hom attacks? Because it didn't seem like you touched on them otherwise.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I thought people were asking for my opinion of Global Warming in the wake of both the film and the reactions of its opponents. I didn't think that people were specifically asking for my opinion of the film itself.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Holy crap. I have a really busy weekend, and then my role at work changes, I've got a bunch of unfamiliar responsibilities ... and people are freaking out that I'm late answering their message board posts? Calm down and give me a second to catch up.
OK. That response I liked!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm pretty sure people were asking you about both. When you start a thread with "Hey, everyone should look at this." with the assumption that it is something to take seriously, the quality of the source seems to me to be an important part of the discussion.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:When you start a thread with "Hey, everyone should look at this." with the assumption that it is something to take seriously, the quality of the source seems to me to be an important part of the discussion.
You seem to be insinuating that I was promoting the film ... like I thought everyone needed to sit up and pay attention because the film was so awesome and relevant.
On the contrary, I was specifically asking for opposing opinions, because I was uncomfortable accepting the film's assertions at face value.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm sorry. I must have misunderstood you. It did seem to me that you were endorsing the film as a valid source, but, looking back on it, there's no clear reason to believe so.
---
What do you think of the posts about the credibility of the filmaker and his dishonest methods?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
The dishonest methods, naturally, are obnoxious, and I hope the specific expert that was misquoted doesn't suffer any backlash from the way his opinions were presented in the film.
I'm definitely a firm believer in the idea that if you can't make your point honestly, you should reexamine your point.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Hrm. I posted a lot of those links as to the credibility of the movie. Reason I did so is that a large part of my opinion about it is that it was a deliberately dishonest and non-scientific portrayal of the debate, and as such, my opinion is that nothing presented in it should be taken as coming from an honest source.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:4. Opinion #3 is bolstered by the sheer direness of the predictions made by proponents of the Global Warming model. It seems to me that, if our understanding of the phenomenon is accurate, it would be impossible to actually halt Global Warming without essentially dismantling most of our industrial society. Not only would that course of action be every bit as disastrous as rising sea levels and shifting ocean currents, but it would also be impossible to persuade most people to accept.
What is that based on?
Almost every day I read a new news article on how new advancement in technology make cleaner living possible. I won't go into my whole spiel, I'll just direct you to my latest posts in the most recent couple global warming threads, but your statement above isn't true.
Tree replantings and carbon sequestration can make up for a lot of our emissions. Emissions reductions and efficiency increases can make up for a lot of the rest. We don't have to reduce our emissions to zero, just to a sustainable rate. No, I don't know what that rate is, but I know we have current technology to start reducing emissions now. And we have tons of technology in the near future and on the horizon to drastically reduce it in the future, all not only without dismantling modern industry, but while turning a huge profit for ourselves.
My suggestion would be to do what we can do now, accelerate research and testing into what we can do in the near future, and adapt to new technology as quickly as possible. It might be fifty years until we have the ability and the willingness to literally rebuild cities to make them more liveable, but there's a LOT we can do in the mean time, and it won't kill our economy, and we won't have to dismantle our industry.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I think "dismantling our industry" would be overkill at this point, however, I do not agree with the statement that it would be "every bit as disastrous as rising sea levels, etc." We are talking about continued viability of the Earth as a habitat, after all. Dismantling our industry would surely wreak long term economic chaos with all the related hardships, but that pales in comparison to such things as simultaneous flooding of coastal cities around the world, global crop failures, etc.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm nowhere near convinced that's necessary. And I think it's that kind of scare tactic that falsely convinces people that global warming can't be true, because if it's true, and that's the alternative, we're screwed no matter what.
It's just as bad as people accusing global warming believers of using scare tactics like the world is going to end tomorrow. Considering it's entirely possible that the opposite is true, I think this is dishonest to spread around.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
To be clear, I don't think dismantling industry is necessary and I don't think the end of the world is near either. However, I do believe that it's smarter to err on the side of protecting the environment because it's far more difficult to ameliorate the effects of climate disasters than economic ones. Saying the latter is "just as bad" as the former is simply untrue, IMO.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ah. Gotcha.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Lyrhawn, I've been given the impression that our current CO2 levels are high enough that we are already on the road to serious global warming problems, even if the CO2 level remains completely stable — an accomplishment which would be an environmentalist's fondest impossible dream. Have I gotten the wrong idea?
Because what I typically hear is not, "If we don't slow down our greenhouse gas emissions, we might face sea level rises and major climate changes in the future." What I hear instead is, "The world is already warming, that warming will continue unabated as long as CO2 levels remain high, and it will accelerate as CO2 levels increase, which they are already doing at an exponential rate. Unless this trend is completely reversed, we are already facing catastrophic climate change." If the latter is accurate, I do have trouble seeing a scenario in which we are capable of turning it around in the time we have without changes that are more drastic than our economy seems able to bear.
Sure, if new, clean, futuristic technologies suddenly become viable, then awesome ... but relying on that as a solution seems sketchy to me.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:If the latter is accurate, I do have trouble seeing a scenario in which we are capable of turning it around in the time we have without changes that are more drastic than our economy seems able to bear.
And if we can't fix it entirely, we should therefore sit back and fiddle?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not saying it won't be difficult for people for awhile. It's going to require government action, probably a tax hike, and a lot of government spending, but I think much of that can be offset by cuts elsewhere in the budget.
But what we have right now, what we could start doing right now, might be able to stablize our emissions. By the time we have that going, new technologies will be available, and we adapt those, and we keep doing that until the problem is solved.
In the mean time, my solution will start solving our problem while doing good, and no harm, to our economy. It will also have a half dozen other great results for our country.
Burying our heads in the sand won't do a damned thing to save us, it'll just ensure we drown faster. You don't seem to want to do much of anything at all, and if the scientists are right, you're just ensuring that every coastal city in the world becomes different version of Atlantis. And at that point, kiss the economy goodbye, it won't matter much at all by that point.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And if we can't fix it entirely, we should therefore sit back and fiddle?
That's actually not what he said.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Hmm, we could stop waging unjustified and extremely (mind bogglingly, actually) expensive wars and maybe funnel some of that money and energy and american ingenuity into fixing the problems. That might allow us to ameliorate the problems without destroying the economy. Just sayin'
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Rakeesh, it seems to me to be the obvious implication of what he did say. I await clarification. Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Puppy, your assessment about us controlling the environment has already been proven false, if the Global Climate Change models remain as supported by the evidence as they are now. We have affected the global climate (NOT weather, but climate), albeit unknowingly up until the last 40-50 years.
Rakeesh, it's actually ambiguous what Geoff wants, since he has only said what he doesn't want to do, or is at least resistant to do, but not what he's willing to do.
Puppy, there is actually a study/paper by some scientists that show that we can at least level out CO2 and other greeenhouse gas production by implementing at greater scales technologies that already exist today. There were 14 different ways. I'll try and find it.
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Here it is (it was published in August 2004, and as seen in the first link, has been cited numerous times):
Haven't had a chance to read Bok's stuff yet, but I wanted to respond to a few folks real quick before I head to work.
Rivka and Lyrhawn, if you've read any of my posts, you have to know that I'm suggesting that IF Global Warming (and its consequences) are inevitable, then:
quote:Reducing our use of oil, and other environmental and conservation measures are necessary for their own reasons ...
... Cultivating resistance to climate change and resource depletion in our society over the next several decades sounds like a better use of policy than most of the recommendations I see. Before people can realistically halt their addiction to cars, we need to redesign our communities so that they can be navigated without one. We should learn from New Orleans and not just improve our disaster preparedness, but also build our cities like we expect them to need to survive the worst the planet can throw at us. We should diversify our sources of food and fuel, and not put all of our eggs in a few fragile baskets.
Basically, I'm interested in hearing ideas that promote general survivability in the face of a wide variety of anticipated future challenges, not a lot of ineffective kneejerk responses to one possible disaster.
I don't see how anyone could have gotten the impression that I favor inaction. What I favor is smarter action than just:
1. The planet's headed for disaster! 2. It's caused by CO2! 3. Quick, start reducing the CO2!
That is, if that scenario is analogous to:
1. The ship is sinking! 2. It was caused by that iceberg! 3. Quick, start melting the iceberg!
I'm not saying that the kneejerk response I'm describing is your response. But it is a response that I find unpersuasive, and saying so does not automatically mean that I think we should do nothing, especially when I immediately start listing things that I think we can do.
It's like if I had this conversation at work ...
OTHER DESIGNER: All right, I think the answer to our non-fun combat system is to add turtle-blocking, like in this other game I played ...
ME: Actually, we've been explicitly told by the publisher that we couldn't use a system like that. That's why we ...
OTHER DESIGNER: SO YOU THINK WE SHOULD DO NOTHING?! COMBAT ISN'T FUN!!
I may not have the answers yet, but seriously, you're jumping way too fast to the assumption that I'm a giant idiot Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Oh, and a quick response to Bok:
quote:Puppy, your assessment about us controlling the environment has already been proven false, if the Global Climate Change models remain as supported by the evidence as they are now. We have affected the global climate (NOT weather, but climate), albeit unknowingly up until the last 40-50 years.
I submit that AFFECTING the climate and CONTROLLING the climate are two very different things. The fact that you have an impact on a complex system does not automatically mean that you have the ability to predict its behavior in response to new stimuli, and make it do exactly what you want.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:I may not have the answers yet, but seriously, you're jumping way too fast to the assumption that I'm a giant idiot
Not quite. I may be jumping to the conclusion that you are advocating a similar course of action to that of the majority of the most audible public voices which disbelieve global warming is a threat, and I concede that is unfair.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I may not have the answers yet, but seriously, you're jumping way too fast to the assumption that I'm a giant idiot
Well put. There's a very strong undercurrent in this thread that there is the right way to look at this situation, and all other ways are stupid.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Geoff, Where are you getting the idea that all of the proposals to slow, halt, or reverse global climate change can be dismissed as ineffectual kneejerk reactions? That doesn't sound like a fair or an informed perspective to me.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Where are you getting the idea that all of the proposals to slow, halt, or reverse global climate change can be dismissed as ineffectual kneejerk reactions? That doesn't sound like a fair or an informed perspective to me.
Again, I specifically said to rivka and Lyrhawn that the kneejerk response I dislike does not represent ALL possible responses (specifically, I know that Lyrhawn has put considerable thought into his). Why did we make a thread about how badly everyone wants to hear Puppy's opinions, if nobody's going to read Puppy's posts? Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:5. So, I accept that Global Warming predictions are likely to be accurate (again, not all doubt has been removed, nor should it, but the predictions are worth taking seriously and planning for), but I don't accept the kneejerk policy recommendations that tend to come along with them. Reducing our use of oil, and other environmental and conservation measures are necessary for their own reasons, but attempting to reach out and control the weather seems hubristic to me.
I'm not entirely sure how to interpret this then.
This may just be how it seems to me, but you've been sounding, to me, like you don't think there is a point to any sort of anti-GCC stuff.
edit: If, on the other hand, you support consideration of the multiple proposals out there that aren't just kneejerk reactions, I don't think anyone here is going to fault you for that. That just doesn't seem, from my perspective and people's reactions, to be how you are coming off.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think the good thing about the type of plan I suggest, is that if at the end of the day we discover that CO2 really isn't that big of a deal, we're STILL better off for having made the change.
We become a leaner, more secure, healthier, richer nation. We've already started, a little bit, but the government needs to step in to accelerate the hell out of the program.
It's win/win, and I've yet to see an argument that really finds fault with a strong economy and national security.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Puppy, Thanks for responding and I do understand that life is more important than posting at Hatrack. I'm sorry for my own delayed response. I've was out of town all last week and so wasn't following Hatrack.
There is a very important role for politics and public debate regarding climate change. But that role is not to second guess the experts.
There is now and always will be uncertainty in the science. One of the prime efforts within the scientific community at this time is to quantify that uncertainty. In fact the latest IPCC report deals specifically with this issue. Based on the best science available, several scenarios are put forth. There is a big effort toward identifying how different changes in our CO2 emissions will influence future climate scenarios. The public needs to trust the Scientists and the scientific process to do their job and then make policy decisions based on the best science available. Given the best predictions we scientists can make, people should then all contribute to deciding what changes we are willing to make.
If people really aren't willing to drive economy cars rather than SUVs even if it means the death of 1 billion people, that's one thing. But if people are deceived into believing that driving an SUV rather than an economy car won't hurt anything that's another.
Its time to move beyond debating the validity of Climate Science and begin to seriously assess what we are willing to do about it. Clearly the radical approach of dismantling all of our industrial society would cause alot of human suffering but there things we can do. There are alternatives to fossil fuels like wind, solar and nuclear. There are conservation alternatives, There is CO2 sequestration. There are urban planning issues and globalization issues. And there are scientists and engineers working to find new technologies and improve on old ones. There are no easy simple solutions and it will take sacrifices and even with those sacrifices we may fail. But that can't be used as an excuse to continue business as usual when we are highly confident that business as usual will lead to massive human suffering. We must move beyond the bipolar approach of denying that Global Climate Change is real or despairing that nothing can be done to stop it. It is past time to move on toward deciding how hard we are willing to work and how much we are willing to sacrifice for the future of our planet.
I don't know about you Puppy, but I'd be willing to take a cut in my standard of living to save the lives of millions. I think most Americans would.
[ March 26, 2007, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't know about you Puppy, but I'd be willing to take a cut in my standard of living to save the lives of millions. I think most Americans would.
Once they were well and thoroughly convinced, I agree. I'm not sure if we're there yet, or if we ever will be, though.
The only real test of that persuasion will come with resistance to or acceptance of measures that would cut our standard of living in a sharp, noticeable-in-the-short-term way...and that hasn't happened yet, certainly not for measures designed strictly to address global warming.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I don't know about you Puppy, but I'd be willing to take a cut in my standard of living to save the lives of millions. I think most Americans would.
Sadly, I'm not sure I agree. First off, I think it'll be, and is currently, very hard to convince people of that level of danger. They have preconceived notions of what they think is happening. And deep down, they really don't want to take a hit to their standard of living, which opens the door to willful ignorance. It'd take an act of Congress to force them out of their ways.
I think the best way to do it has to be to hit the people who will suffer IN the United States, and once you convince them that they are in danger, the whole thing will hopefully domino effect. Really, everyone would suffer. If the entire coastal US were to be moved a mile inland even, it would effect almost everyone else for a lot of reasons. I think if people continue to believe that the US is protected by a magical bubble of whatever, they'll fail to act.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Rakeesh and Lyrhawn, I think that you are seeing this as an all or nothing prospect. We all make choices in the face of uncertainty every day. For example, we buy home owners insurance, sacrificing our current resources to reduce future risk.
Given the risk of Global Warming, even if its not a 100% certainty, shouldn't we be willing to spend at least some of our resources to reduce that risk?
I also notice that you are not answering for yourself but answering for the public at large. So now I ask you to answer only for yourself.
Given your currently level of conviction on Global Climate Change, what personal changes would you be willing to make?
Would you be willing to make more changes if you were confident (perhaps because of government programs) that a majority of Americans would be making similar changes?
What additional scientific evidence would you need to convince you to make a bigger change?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I was speaking strictly to the statement you made about what most Americans would be willing to give up, Rabbit. I was not saying what you think I said, about actually treating this as an all or nothing prospect.
Perhaps the confusion came from the way I said, "We're not there yet." I was not talking about what I believe the science indicates in terms of how 'there' we are, I was talking about the...ummm, difficult to label...status of persuasion?...of the American people.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't need any convincing. I drive a compact car, I'd love for my next purchase to be even more fuel efficient, I buy CF lightbulbs, I wish all my energy came from solar heating and photovoltaic cells. And I think the government should be much more aggressively promoting renewable energies in the country.
And as I've said probably in this thread, and in many others, I think we should start doing what we can currently do now, and adapt new tech as it comes online.
I think Rakeesh is actually saying much closer to what I meant to say. It's the convincing that will be the hard part.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)