Evidence and Decision making

[Dawson 1st MRB]

I'm looking for some answers.

What I see is a complete disbelief with global warming and I don't understand why global warming has had such a difficult time being understood by the mainstream population as ideas were of such a similar nature were 15-20 years ago. I'm speaking of acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer.

In 1995 America came together on this issue and added to the clean air act in such a way that both of these problems were significantly reduced, although I do need to mention that another hole has appeared in the ozone layer and acidity of rain was reduced by 50%, but I digress. The nation came together, republican and democrat, conservative and liberal, and placed business interests aside. The people said this is how this shit works from now on.

I don't see that today. There is, perhaps, more empirical evidence of global warming than acid rain, and yet acid rain was accepted by all, GW is only accepted by some. Regardless of what you believe on the issue, what changed? What is so different between global warming and acid rain?

TL; DR;

Don't write a fucking paper guys.

[Holland 1st MRB]

The ozone layer and global warming are two entirely separate issues all together.

The hole in the ozone layer will result in increased radiation from the suns rays here on the surface of Earth, resulting in an increase in things like skin cancer.

It will not, however, result in the issues we are faced with global warming.

Global warming is entirely the problem of excess CO2 emissions being released into the atmosphere. This is preventing a portion of the suns energy that would normally radiate back into space, and instead is reflecting it back to the surface of Earth. One of the biggest threats of this is the polar ice caps melting, resulting in the ocean levels of the world rising dramatically. This will result in all coastal land being flooded, permanently. And we are not talking a small amount of land. Tens of thousands of kilometers would be lost, forcing entire cities to relocate inland. This would escalate into problems with population densities, food supplies, etc. Situations like this are how wars begin.

For a more in-depth image, think of living in China or Japan, but with similar supply quality and quantity to the moderately developed areas of Africa. The Western way of life simply could not exist under these circumstances. At least, not comfortably and without constant conflict.

These are things you study if you go in to ecology, if you are interested further.

As of why nobody can seem to get our shit together, seems rather simple to me. Who wants to cooperate anyways?

It is simple human instinct to think of ones self as an exception to all the rules in which bind others.

Therefore, global warming is going to affect all of is, yet nobody thinks it will effect them. It is the same principle of the "but it won't happen to me" mentality.

What most people don't understand, is that the effects of pollution in North America, is not just effecting North America. The exact same is to be said about every nation around the world. Global warming, though is the excess of CO2 emissions, the excess itself is caused by many, many different things that move far beyond simply driving your car, and heavy industry. People want a quick, easy, cheap solution, which sadly just does not exist. The problem can only be solved by devoting an extreme amount of time, effort, and money not to make electric cars, or reconstruct our infrastructure, but rather to improve our current ways of life to be more efficient. It would mean setting aside things like greed, wealth, personal advancement, self-expansion, etc. for the better of everyone, and I simply do not see that happening any time soon.

[S. Richards]

I threw that bag out of the car.

[Bryant 1st MRB]

What changed is that it was this HUGE deal for 5 years and the media molested it and

all the scientist are even saying its natural and we are just tired of it. I think that that is what

Happened

[Holland 1st MRB]

What changed is that it was this HUGE deal for 5 years and the media molested it and

all the scientist are even saying its natural and we are just tired of it. I think that that is what

Happened

The hole in the ozone layer was anything but natural.

However, global warming has a natural effect to it. The Earth does have natural warming and cooling periods (What do people think the ice ages were). However, the changes in the warming periods are being brought about by increased CO2 levels.

Please correct me if I am wrong, I think the title of the documentary is "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore. Despite potential personal thoughts on the man, the documentary is spot on with current ecological theories.

I strongly recommend giving it a watch if this kind of thing interests you.

[S. Richards]

[Bickford]

[Dawson 1st MRB]

What changed is that it was this HUGE deal for 5 years and the media molested it and

all the scientist are even saying its natural and we are just tired of it. I think that that is what

Happened

That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.

more on that

[Dawson 1st MRB]

What changed is that it was this HUGE deal for 5 years and the media molested it and

all the scientist are even saying its natural and we are just tired of it. I think that that is what

Happened

It's natural...

A natural cycle requires a forcing, and no known forcing exists that fits the fingerprints of observed warming - except anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

More on that

[Yamagata 1st MRB]

I think the biggest issue is like Holland mentioned. It just seems more of an inconvenience than a serious issue to people, "Oh man it's hot this summer, I need to invest in Air Conditioning..." And it's not something that truly affects them. Not to mention the increased price of "going green" these days in a not-so-healthy economy.

[Dawson 1st MRB]

The ozone layer and global warming are two entirely separate issues all together.

The hole in the ozone layer will result in increased radiation from the suns rays here on the surface of Earth, resulting in an increase in things like skin cancer.

It will not, however, result in the issues we are faced with global warming.

True, they are different issues with different outcomes, but what caused the perception of such an important issue to change?

Global warming is entirely the problem of excess CO2 emissions being released into the atmosphere. This is preventing a portion of the suns energy that would normally radiate back into space, and instead is reflecting it back to the surface of Earth. One of the biggest threats of this is the polar ice caps melting, resulting in the ocean levels of the world rising dramatically. This will result in all coastal land being flooded, permanently. And we are not talking a small amount of land. Tens of thousands of kilometers would be lost, forcing entire cities to relocate inland. This would escalate into problems with population densities, food supplies, etc. Situations like this are how wars begin.

For a more in-depth image, think of living in China or Japan, but with similar supply quality and quantity to the moderately developed areas of Africa. The Western way of life simply could not exist under these circumstances. At least, not comfortably and without constant conflict.

These are things you study if you go in to ecology, if you are interested further.

stay on topic, no one needs convincing, yet.

As of why nobody can seem to get our shit together, seems rather simple to me. Who wants to cooperate anyways?

But we did cooperate with acid rain and the hole in the ozon layer.

It is simple human instinct to think of ones self as an exception to all the rules in which bind others.

Actually there is a great deal of research in this area, it is, perhaps, more accurate to say that when given a choice, a typical person will choose that which benefits him/her-self as well as the group as a whole. Rarely are decisions 2 sided.

Therefore, global warming is going to affect all of is, yet nobody thinks it will effect them. It is the same principle of the "but it won't happen to me" mentality.

I'm not so concerned with how they rationalize, but why. Your conclusion seems anecdotal rather than based on empirical evidence

What most people don't understand, is that the effects of pollution in North America, is not just effecting North America. The exact same is to be said about every nation around the world. Global warming, though is the excess of CO2 emissions, the excess itself is caused by many, many different things that move far beyond simply driving your car, and heavy industry. People want a quick, easy, cheap solution, which sadly just does not exist. The problem can only be solved by devoting an extreme amount of time, effort, and money not to make electric cars, or reconstruct our infrastructure, but rather to improve our current ways of life to be more efficient. It would mean setting aside things like greed, wealth, personal advancement, self-expansion, etc. for the better of everyone, and I simply do not see that happening any time soon.

[Dawson 1st MRB]

this is a good point richards. I think that belief is at the heart of this matter. When so much evidence exists, why use deductive reasoning when you have inductive reasons?

[Dawson 1st MRB]

I think the biggest issue is like Holland mentioned. It just seems more of an inconvenience than a serious issue to people, "Oh man it's hot this summer, I need to invest in Air Conditioning..." And it's not something that truly affects them. Not to mention the increased price of "going green" these days in a not-so-healthy economy.

Claim: Renewable energy investment kills jobs

http://www.skepticalscience.com/renewable-...-kills-jobs.htm

[Yamagata 1st MRB]

I don't think I mentioned the job market, but I can see the concern.

[Dawson 1st MRB]

I don't think I mentioned the job market, but I can see the concern.

True. It depends on how you measure the economy. Here is one more based upon GDP.

The economic impacts of carbon pricing

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-economy.htm

I also read the previous one a little bit more and found it a little lacking. It focuses on one study where looking at metadata would be more helpful.

[S. Richards]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequenc...esearch_Program

I'm not crazy!

[Dawson 1st MRB]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequenc...esearch_Program

I'm not crazy!

I've got my aluminium helmet on, do you?