Why is global warming a bad thing?

[Tommy]

Gunner,
I think I understand that you are saying that I shouldn't oppose the spending of my tax dollars on things I don't support because you're tax dollars are being spent on things that benefit me that you don't support. I hope I got that right. If that is your point, I have no problem with the concept that we must all support what our elected government decides to do in our collective interests. But, when our government has not yet decided an issue and we are debating the merits, I believe it is appropriate for each of us to ask how we will benefit from the actions we will be asked to fund. I just can't see that global warming is likely to cost me much, so I'm reluctant to contribute a lot to slowing it down. Until someone can give Americans a reasonable estimate of the cost of global warming based on objective data, I believe they will feel much the same.

Incidentally, I'm not a legal resident of Alabama, so don't expect me to jump to its defense. I'm a resident of one of those states that pays more federal taxes than it receives too.

[Gunner]

Originally Posted by Tommy

Gunner,
I think I understand that you are saying that I shouldn't oppose the spending of my tax dollars on things I don't support because you're tax dollars are being spent on things that benefit me that you don't support.

Not exactly, and I'd prefer not to go down that road - it just leads to politicized wrangling with no real outcome.

My point is that Alabama gets 2/3 more back from the nation than it pays in... because the consensus is that the state needs the support. I don't think you can even categorize it as things you support and things you don't, unless you think the state (any state) could do without schools, hospitals, decent roads, levees, fresh water systems, subsidized power and quite a few other necessities of modern life. My point is that the mindset is that you (no matter which state you're actually from), and me, and all of us, benefit from a system that takes an interest in everyone's problems, whether they are of immediate affect to any one individual or not.

The climate change may not have affected you any more than messing up your gardening schedule. But bigger, essentially permanent change is coming, quite soon, and as someone whose life has benefitted from an "all for all" mindset, you perhaps have less stake in calling the crisis someone else's problem than you might have thought.

[Tommy]

Gunner,
I have no doubt that you sincerely believe our world would be a better place if everyone took an interest in everyone's problems, but I don't believe that is the way the world is. I find it less frustrating and more beneficial to deal with people the way they are rather than as they should be. But I don't expect you to agree with me. To each his own.

[Gunner]

Originally Posted by Tommy

I have no doubt that you sincerely believe our world would be a better place if everyone took an interest in everyone's problems, but I don't believe that is the way the world is.

You've misstated my position but I'll let it slide. If you really want to believe that your life owes nothing to anyone (individual or state) that took a blind interest in solving the problems of various communities you're part of - then I'll just move on. It's not that relevant to this discussion.

I find it less frustrating and more beneficial to deal with people the way they are rather than as they should be. But I don't expect you to agree with me. To each his own.

Um, now you've lost me. What does coping with global climate change have to do with "dealing with people the way they are"?

[4pipes]

Originally Posted by Tommy

Dave,
I take it that preventing the extinction of some animal species is important to you. I personally would not pay an additional $50 per month on my power bill to prevent the extinction of the local snail darter (fish) species. So, why not let those who care about the snail darter pay the price for keeping the species alive? Why should this be looked at as everyone's problem?

Tommy, how about Polar Bears. Would you pay something extra to save them?

[Excaliber]

Let's spread it out, I like the Polar Bears, I'd pay a bit more in taxes to keep them around, if everybody did the same...

Snail darters? Uh, I don't know anything about them. Maybe even the smallest creature has something to add to the planet, maybe not. Deciding which species will survive, which will die is actually a pretty serious decision. I'll leave it to the experts and hope for the best in that regard.

[RAZOR]

Look its much easier to look at history to answer this question,then to say that what might be if this or that happens. We don't know how the next 10 to 20 years will bring in warming or cooling.
We do know that when the earth had a warmer climate 800 hundred years ago, that is warmer then it is now, there were many benefits to Europe, and Greenland. In England they were able to grow vineyards and have bountiful harvests of grain that included the rest of Europe. Then came a cooling of the climate, there was famine, and pestilence which resulted in the Black Plague. Those Vikings that had settled in Greenland also suffered famine, because they were not able to raise crops, and consequently had to leave after many generations had lived there.
So based on history I believe a warming effect that like happened in the middle ages might have some definite benefits. They were more prosperous, and healthy during that time.

[mdmull]

Experts!! Who are they? Give me a list! I for one, will not willingly cede my life decisions and my children's future to the experts.

[Excaliber]

OK mdmull, we'll let you decide which species to keep and which to let die. Perhaps you are the expert the planet needs? I'm certainly not. If I had to make these decisions I'd do what any good leader does. Consult with a various experts, ask for reports, weigh the information, count the cost and make a decision that is guarenteed to piss off some and please others! Such is the nature of leadership, one man takes the fall, or reaps the glory.

OK, times up. Which species live and which ones die? Your call.

[Tommy]

As we begin our second day of discussion, let me congratulate everyone for staying on topic and keeping it civil. I didn't expect we'd change anyone's position on these matters, but I do enjoy learning how others think about things.

My thoughts on the extinction of species coincides with my philosophy on conservation in general. I look at the Earth as a dynamic world that has been constantly changing for the last 4 billion years. Many scientists believe there have been four or five mass extinctions during that time. After every mass extinction, new species arose and repopulated the Earth. Many believe that humans would never have arisen if a mass extinction event about 65 million years ago had not wiped out most of the dinosaurs and given mammals a chance to move up. So, seeing a species go extinct is not a new or unusual phenomenon on Earth. It sometimes happens.

The question now is whether the extinction of a particular species is good or bad for me. I would argue that erradicating the small pox virus was a good thing for me and most humans. Killing off the polar bears or mountain gorillas wouldn't affect my daily life at all, but it would pose a hardship for some people. Killing off the bees that pollenate our crops would be devastating for me. So, I am for the extinction of some species, against the extinction of others, and indifferent to many. That seems a rational point of view to me.

My view on conservation is similarly pragmatic. For example, I don't think every wetland and forest is worthy of extraordinary efforts to save it. In my opinion, some environments should be maintained and some should be bulldozed, but most I don't care about one way or the other. If a clear majority of citizens favor spending our collective tax funds to protect and conserve a particular environment or species, I'll go along. But I wouldn't support a vocal minority lobbying to use my taxes to protect countless species and environments just because they currently exist. Until someone can make a compelling argument as to how my life would be made better by saving the snail darter, I'm content to let Mother Earth do to the snail darter what it did to the tyrannosaurus rex.

[fastd]

To answer your original (philosophical) question: Global climate change is not a good or bad thing. Just like dying - it is not a good or bad thing - it just is what it is; everyone has to do it. Climate change is a reality; always has been. However, the fact is that rapid climate change will cause some serious disruptions.

I think the question that should be asked is: is the economic cost of attempting to stop man-induced climate change too great? (Unfortunately, I don't think that question really gets addressed directly; the question gets mired in finger-pointing politics). We can stop much of man-induced climate change by producing less and consuming less, but is that a better outcome than producing more and consuming more. Do we really want to give up jobs, technological advances, etc. to reduce carbon emissions? IMO, if we do give that up, we are less likely to find the solution to our energy problems through R&D, new technologies, etc. You can't reasonably have this discussion by looking at just one side of the argument IMO.

[Tommy]

I agree. .

[Bobcat]

Guys , hope this isn`t considered hijacking the thread .... but the whole case of global warming/cooling appears to be based on greenhouse gas emissions , i.e. carbon dioxide . I remember hearing/reading somewhere in the past several years that man made CO2 is approximately 6% of the total . If so , aren`t we getting ready to spend an awful lot to accomplishment a little ?
To repeat what someone else said .... globalwarming/cooling is what it is and good or bad , we may be able to affect it only a little . As with all change , there will be both good and bad ( some gain and some lose ) . However , it seems to me that the changes will be slow enough that we can adapt ... which will be a good thing .

[mdmull]

OK, I'll let the "experts" decide which species get saved. I just wanted to know who are the experts? Are they the same experts that can't forecast the weather next week? Have they recieved some special powers that enable them to look back on the past 30 years with pretty good accuracy, the past 100 years with some accuracy, and the past hundreds/thousands/ millions years with little or no accuracy, then accurately predict what the next 100 years will bring? I am humbled by the overarching breadth of the grand understanding of the future that the climate nazis and their minions possess, and will meekly submit to whatever they tell me I have to do. What in the he** ever made me think that I could make my own decisions.
I'd still like to know who the experts are so I don't stupidly follow the wrong ones.

[Excaliber]

It's a valid question, WHO are these experts that bend the Presidents ear and set policy for a species decisions on life and death? Got me. Some of them could be compared to the radical climatizers, bleeding heart unicorn chasing liberals. On the other hand, there are equally radical groups of big foot chasing, kill 'em all we'll sort 'em out later conservatives who could care less which species lives or dies.

A good leader will be able to throw out BOTH radical sides of the argument and come to a more reasonable middle ground.

[Gunner]

There are enough threads with political, conspiracy and skeptical content - let's let this one continue with the discussion of the OP's questions and keep the opinionizing out of it. Hmmm?

[computerworks]

Mod Note...did a quicky purge of the political posts...let's keep it on science as Tommy asked.

[Ron61]

Tommy,

I wonder about just what we can accomplish with all we are going to spend and give up. We can't stop the climate changes as the Earth has a long history of them. Some take thousands of years and others in the hundreds of years, so what we put in the air probably is speeding up a normal warming cycle by some years, but no one knows how many, and it may even slow down the cooling cycle that will follow. I watch and read all I can about it and they were showing rocks in Manhattan that were gouged by the last ice age that covered there and it wasn't that long ago in the time frame of the universe. I would like to see some of the junk out of the air for health reasons more than the climate change as I doubt if even I will be around in another 70 to 150 years when they say it will reach the warmest point. It would be interesting and as one of you mentined a rapid warming would really devastate some of the coastal areas. Some scientists want to focus on getting people away from what will be covered in water and making arrangements for a new way of farming and raising food because much of the land now used will be under water. To me that makes more sense than trying to stop what is going to happen.

Ron

[Tommy]

There's a pretty good and concise article on global warming on Wikipedia (click here to see it). It makes a good case for those who believe atmospheric warming is occuring and it correlates with increases in human population and industrial activity. But it is very uncertain regarding the effects of future warming on people who don't live near a glacier, the sea shore or very arid lands. Lots of people have presented their predictions, but I didn't see that there was a consensus of agreement within the scientific community.

The article mentions that there are three broad approaches that could be taken to deal with global warming: mitigation, adaptation and geoengineering. Mitigation includes actions to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases (e.g., taxing gasoline an extra $2 a gallon to discourage burning of fossil fuels). Adaptation includes actions to minimize the negative effects of warming on people (e.g., moving people who live in low lying areas near the sea). Geoengineering includes actions to keep greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere (e.g., storing carbon dioxide from power plants in underground chambers). Of these three approaches, my intuition tells me that adaptation is both the least expensive and the approach most likely to be required regardless of our efforts at mitigation and geoengineering.

Fortunately, homo sapiens is a very adaptable species. In fact, the ability of an infant human to adapt to whatever environment it is born is one of our greatest strengths. Raise a baby in an igloo above the arctic circle, in a rain forest near the equator, or in inner city Chicago and it will quickly adapt to its surroundings. I believe many of the people who will have to change their lives to cope with global warming will find it a traumatic experience. But their children will grow up thinking that is the way it has always been. I believe the effort to significantly change the pattern of global warming will diminish as soon as the real world cost of fighting it becomes more apparent. And 10,000 years from now when the next ice age is underway, no one will remember these lively discussions.

[Jamo]

Y'all seem real concerned about whether beachfront properties or polar bears will be lost, but nobody seems to spend much time thinking about agriculture.

Farmers deal with the climate changes (short and long term) every day...deciding what crop to plant next season, or whether to plant trees or vines that will produce for decades. The first effects of climate change happen in ag first, whether natural or man-made.

The Aral Sea in Central Asia is a perfect example. The Soviets cut off the inflow by building canals to carry all the water elsewhere. As the Sea retreated, it changed the climate of Central Asia, making it hotter and dryer and killing off important graineries within a few decades. The essential fishery was killed off in less time than that. An area visited by Alexander and conquered later by the Khan's offspring...gone within the era of a failed political experiment.

In California, we deal with the effects of El Nino on a periodic basis, most recently with a drought in important growing areas. Flat crop production is moving to Mexico. So you say, California's loss is Mexico's gain...it all evens out. Sure, unless you consider what else is at stake, such as food safety. If you don't mind your lettuce, broccoli or tomatoes grown with sewage water and sprayed with chemicals y'all thought were bad when they got banned here, well...eat up.

One thing we lost when we stopped hunting and gathering and laid down roots to grow things or pipes to build things is that we lost our unique ability to pick up and move easily...it's no longer a matter of folding up the teepee.

We should be planning on how to cope with climate change rather than being hoodwinked into thinking we can stop it.

Just my opinion, but this global warming fad has created it's own socio-economic fiascos...corn grown for fuel is but one assample.