A lot of you are too young to remember that decades before the greenies became obsessed with global warming they were obsessed with nuclear winter. (One reason why some older people may not be as convinced of global warming is that we've heard climate warnings before. I'm not saying that's me, but I'm sure that for a lot of older people it's like the constant fads plaguing the health obsessed segment of society. Many of whom have been touting one miracle substance after another over the years. Ever heard of laetrile? DMSO? Herbal "cures" for cancer, heart disease, diabetes? Mega-dosing of vitamins and/or minerals?)

I wonder if global warming could be managed by a carefully managed program of nuclear detonations? Sure, there'd be some details to work out (we wouldn't want to poison the atmosphere with radiation), but if we could deal with that, we could just manage global warming (assuming global warming is real, of course).

Views: 348

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hmmm... It appears I was mistaken. I was under the impression that we had mostly phased out production of CFCs and HCFCs, which I knew were potent green house gases, but I didn't realize that the HFCs that have been replacing them also have a similar potency. While currently they are to be phased out by 2020 in developed countries under the Montreal Protocol, there isn't a set regulation for HFCs in the treaty. Nor did I realize that there were so many CFCs waiting to be disposed of. That poses quite a problem.

Also, I was wrong about the Ozone Hole repairing itself. It's pretty much been stagnant. Fortunately it's not growing larger, but it's not really getting smaller either.

We could start with Ohio! Oh, that's right, that's where you live, isn't it Unseen? Works for me --

Not just yet. It's been rather unpleasantly hot lately as it is.

Possibly Mr. Crichton might benefit from reading this:

Climate landmark as Arctic ice melts to record low
http://news.yahoo.com/arctic-ice-melts-record-low-us-researchers-17...

I have no doubt that there is consensus on the matter of climate change, but using consensus to establish truth is induction not deduction. Deduction is certain, induction is tentative and results in theories rather than firm conclusions.

But induction and deduction aside, the experts have yet to show the public the evidence in layman terms. Laymen understand functional relationships almost instinctively: if you turn off the heat under a pot of boiling water, it will stop boiling; if you stop walking toward your destination, you won't get there. Of course, if there is a functional relationship, such as years of less or more greenhouse gas and carbon emission production with corresponding changes in glacial or polar ice, that's easily understood. That sort of data hasn't been offered yet.

Instead, it's all "trust us. We're right." And the reticence to even show their data to outsiders is a cause for suspicion not just in the public realm but within the academic world as well. The "climategate" emails, which revealed a lot of academic backbiting, sandbagging and stonewalling, as well as strong implications of fudging the data to fit their hypotheses sure didn't help.

And while there are many nut jobs and people with the proverbial "dog in the fight" who deny the human causes of climate change, they are not all yahoos, and while characterized as plain old head-in-the sand deniers, their views are frequently for more complicated and nuanced than that.

Some, like Kimino Itoh, believe that human factors, especially our carbon dioxide emissions, are just part of a far more complex scenario.

Others, like Bjorn Lomborg, accept the role of humans in climate change, but say that the need for change is far less urgent than depicted and that the funds the greenie world would have us divert into fighting climate change will inevitably come away from fighting disease and poverty and fighting oppression worldwide. He thinks we can fight climate change, but needn't throw the poor, disenfranchized, and ill under the bus in doing so. He says we should undertake the necessary changes, but not at the expense of other important priorities.

And what doesn't help is that, especially for people who have lived as long as I have, the greenies have a long history of crying that the sky is falling about threats that never happened or turned out to be far less dire a problem than they claimed. They misidentified the cause of the dying off of amphibians and, more recently, the decline in bee population, for example.

So, when will the public be presented with the science in a way they can understand? "Trust us" isn't flying so it's time for climate change proponents to make their case, not to other scientists or political leaders, but to Joe Blow.

RE: "if you stop walking toward your destination, you won't get there." - unless your destination is also moving toward you.

RE: "while characterized as plain old head-in-the sand deniers, their views are frequently for more complicated and nuanced than that."

What percentage of these would you say are proponents of Big Business, that will lose profits if they cease activities that others say contribute to global warming?

RE: "if you stop walking toward your destination, you won't get there." - unless your destination is also moving toward you.

I'm not sure what your point is, that is just a little bit more complicated functional relationship. Are you saying something just to see yourself say it?

RE: "while characterized as plain old head-in-the sand deniers, their views are frequently for more complicated and nuanced than that."

What percentage of these would you say are proponents of Big Business, that will lose profits if they cease activities that others say contribute to global warming?

Perhaps most, but not all. There are still independent voices. What is perhaps most distressing is the intolerance in the climatological community to dissenting voices. It has forced many who have doubts to simply shut up for fear of being ostracized or never receiving another research grant, so the profit motive can work both ways.

This is why much of the criticism has come from allied sciences, such as meteorology and economics.

That, and to point out the fallacy in your ill-conceived analogy.

Applause!

Thank yah, thank yah verah much!

There are several obstacles:

1) 7 Billion people all over earth

2) Much larger number of other living organisms

3) Then we have to decide where should this be carried out

4) There will always be protesters for such things; thus possibility of sabotage is undeniable

5) And then what if this goes wrong, wont this be worse than global warming

But then that's the point of being a free thinking human, without any biased views. We think, discuss, and if needed change our opinions

:)

Why not pray it away! Theists seem to show a signal in their prayer attempts, surely even with a signal down to 1:1x10^16 would have some effect that would be noticable over a 100 year period. This would keep them busy, keep them out of politics for a few hours a day, and give them something useful to do that could make the world a better place. We could even sell it by appealing to their desire for the 'good old days'.

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Forum

Things you hate.

Started by Devlin Cuite in Small Talk. Last reply by Unseen 1 hour ago. 182 Replies

Blog Posts

Zella Mae Jarrett

Posted by Philip Jarrett on April 19, 2014 at 11:35pm 2 Comments

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service