Where to start? I don't have the energy for an actual response to these lame ass BS threads these days. I think it was just about a year ago that we were "debating" the legitimacy of the claim that the global climate was even changing. Now suddenly everyone is willing to accept that temps are, indeed, on the rise and that human activity is part of the cause?
Over the past 10 years my views have swayed with the tides of reasonable, logical arguments (some of them here, believe it or not) but one constant has remained; deniers continue to discredit the data with false arguments until they have exhausted that route, and then they step back and change the argument, and attempt to discredit the data opposing their newly adopted view.
The science is settled:
-Global climate systems are rapidly changing
-Human activities have significantly contributed to these changes
-The implications of continued changes at current and projected rates are dire
The science is not yet settled:
-We don't know enough about all of the mechanisms involved to accurately predict exactly how and when populations will be affected
-Even if we knew enough about the mechanisms, modeling resolution is likely far too inaccurate to predict exact impacts at an exact location
-We don't know how much we can limit our impact, if at all, at this point
We have (been squandering) a fantastic opportunity to change our course for the better. Greener energy policy, industrial practices, and lifestyles can benefit us as individuals and the economy as a whole if they are wisely implemented, and will position us to continue to be world leaders as petroleum-based economies eventually go to the grave. This is regardless and independent of global climate change. Instead we sit around like the politicians and pundits, arguing endlessly about points of opinion and dogmatic belief rather than fact. The fact that China is investing heavily in green technologies, while the US is not, should strike us as very troubling. Our "leaders" can't even get the science right. I'm sure most have seen the clip of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology "vs" John Holdren by now (if not...you really should consider it...but hide the razor blades if you're already feeling depressed about the political system and state of scientific debate in america). John Stewart's inadequate description of sea-level rise aside, the hearing is incredibly disturbing.
Really? Warm temps are better for us? Those types of statements are obviously not well-founded in science. Warming periods *may* spark an increase in species proliferation, historically (I don't know); that just means there is an increase in competition between species. We are already seeing migration and proliferation of invasives at incredible rates, in the midst of one of, if not the largest extinction event in the history of the earth. Ease of intercontinental travel is a prime culprit in introducing non-native species, but in many cases, climate changes are allowing them to flourish in otherwise inhospitable places. Meanwhile, natives are being outcompeted by introduced species, or stripped of their habitat altogether. A big fear in this region is the loss of hemlock stands to the wooley adelgid...resulting in raising stream temps and loss of trout habitat (this is a fly fishing board, after all). Historical agricultural crops in some areas are already becoming unstable, and the future does not bode well. There are too many interconnected loops for there to be a net benefit to humans, a pinnacle species with a huge footprint, from rapid global climate change. So please, refrain from believing and repeating this type of nonsense.
So what's the solution? Global revolutionary paradigm shift would be great, but I hear that rarely works out well. The only option I see is to break the gridlock and rhetoric to draft a true domestic energy policy that can transition the economy to the next step...as a start. Fossil fuels aren't going anywhere anytime soon, but if we are not prepared, it will hurt. And not doing anything about global climate change because "the science is not settled" to the level of precision that you demand is quite sure to prove to be cultural suicide. All this crap about international agreements is meaningless; we need to take care of ourselves first because, (1) in the end, that is what is best for us, and (2) that gives us standing and leverage over UN legislation and individual countries.
Not a lot of people enjoy change. Frankly, I hate it, only because I am immensely lazy. It's understandable to resist that our lifestyle is killing us. It's reassuring to blame the messenger, or their backer, or declare conspiracy rather than face the music. All the time I hear that this country is going down the wrong road, losing the initiative, becoming weak. I personally don't give a shit about that attitude, but if that's your thing, you should be championing the US to lead the fight for change. It's easy to enjoy the status quo. Until it all comes raining down.
If you bothered to read that whole thing, my sympathies. I don't think there is any hope for my viewpoints coming to fruition on the national stage. I'm sure Mac and Toby and Nazi will try to roast me on this. Like I said, I don't have the energy to debate this here, so enjoy the free punches. I'm bowing back out after this.
uking-smiley:
