I wonder how this will be spun.....

[foraker]

New climate change data

[mec]

It is a natural cycle that has nothing to do with humans, of course.

[archenemy]

Written by a natural human that has nothing to do with cycles.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

New climate change data

 

"Hansen's team, reporting Thursday in the journal Science, said they also determined that global temperatures will rise 1 degree Fahrenheit this century even if greenhouse gases are capped tomorrow."

[olyclimber]

We don't need no water, let the MFer burn

[archenemy]

I'm always a little chilly anyway.

[foraker]

yes, i'm sure the loss of glacier approaches and ski decents as well as he increase in the amount of bushwacking will be met by huzzahs of joy.

[Dechristo]

yes, i'm sure the loss of glacier approaches and ski decents as well as he increase in the amount of bushwacking will be met by huzzahs of joy.

 

Yes, the mountaineers of 10,000 years ago rued a similar prospect.

 

Of course, at that time it was all those damn Wooly Mammoths and their stinking biogas that fucked the notion of a climatological static norm.

[mec]

huzzahs? what the hell is that?

[Dru]

Looks like it has something to do with furries!!!

[AlpineK]

New climate change data

 

"Hansen's team, reporting Thursday in the journal Science, said they also determined that global temperatures will rise 1 degree Fahrenheit this century even if greenhouse gases are capped tomorrow."

 

Mostly due to the fact we've already pumped a lot of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere already. Perhaps we should think about not making a bad situation worse.

[Bill_Simpkins]

It worries me that some people discard this information as biased liberal propaganda, when in-fact, it's just science. There does not seem to be bias in this science.

It's time for some waking up.

What's it going to take to convince people?

Do their front yards have to be flooded from the ocean?

Do they have to be diagnosed with lung cancer from air pollution?

What's it going to take?

I really think that if the opposition was on the front lines, collecting this data and seeing the results pop on on the screen, their minds may change. Instead, they just read the news and form their own oppinions.

A lot of people when they are young don't believe vthat inegar and baking soda fizz out of control when mixed until they do it themselves.

The problem is that peoples opinions are very defined and it goes as far as effecting what they get involved in.

To dismiss science as liberal bias is cheating yourself and your family from a healthy future, or future all together. It's ok to be a skeptic, that's what makes a good scientist. But there is a difference between being skeptic and being ignorant.

If this world dies because of ignorance, then maybe we are not worthy of living in such a place.

Live Long and Prosper. \V/_

[archenemy]

Oh no! the bias in science thread is baaaaack

[KaskadskyjKozak]

New climate change data

 

"Hansen's team, reporting Thursday in the journal Science, said they also determined that global temperatures will rise 1 degree Fahrenheit this century even if greenhouse gases are capped tomorrow."

 

Mostly due to the fact we've already pumped a lot of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere already. Perhaps we should think about not making a bad situation worse.

 

Emissions will increase - I have never seen a plausible plan for even capping them. Capping them will still increase the temps by 1F.

 

Instead of spouting mantras and feel-good slogans, coupled with useless token gestures and forcing people to make drastics lifestyle changes, we should do some serious number crunching to see what can be effective, its cost, and realistic outcomes.

[AlpineK]

Well your president isn't even trying KK; perhaps if he showed some effort things might start improving.

 

Can you say CAFE standards.

[Winter]

A lot of people when they are young don't believe that vinegar and baking soda fizz out of control when mixed until they do it themselves.

 

What?! No fucking way. Pinko commie liberal freak conspiracy theorist. Leave the science to us moderates budy.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Well your president isn't even trying KK; perhaps if he showed some effort things might start improving.

 

Can you say CAFE standards.

 

"perhaps", "might" blah blah. "feel-good" gestures don't cut it. You have to do a full cost-benefit analysis with an honest report of the choices.

[Dechristo]

It worries me that some people discard this information as biased liberal propaganda...

Some of it is. However, there is, no doubt, a reciprocal number of people who write-off all of the data as "liberal hogwash".

 

...when in-fact, it's just science. There does not seem to be bias in this science.

Wherever people and money are involved, there is bias. The argument is not as much about data as about causes. One study suggested that the greenhouse gases emitted during the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo (sp?) in the Philipines surpassed the entirety of all affects by humans since the Industrial Revolution.

 

What's it going to take to convince people?

Do their front yards have to be flooded from the ocean?

Do they have to be diagnosed with lung cancer from air pollution?

 

Yes.

[rbw1966]

Well your president isn't even trying KK; perhaps if he showed some effort things might start improving.

 

Can you say CAFE standards.

 

Last time CAFE standards were improved was April 2003. Source

 

While I am anything BUT an apologist for Bush, I will give him props for butting heads with Congress:

 

"Bush supports drilling in Alaska, which the House approved last night, as well as incentives and tax breaks aimed at promoting cleaner-burning coal, nuclear energy, liquefied natural gas, ethanol and other renewable fuels. He does not support the amount of tax breaks for oil and gas exploration proposed by House Republicans." Source

 

I do not support the drilling of ANWR. I do support alternative fuel research and increased CAFE standards.

[foraker]

I'd accept a decent cost-benefit analysis of options based on good science. The only problem is that the science isn't getting funded. My contacts at NCAR are complaining about further budget cuts.....every year since Bush took office. How can you make good decisions if you don't have good science? Easy, just say that's what you want and then just let your friends at Exxon write your energy plans and then say 'well, we're just waiting for some good science'

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I'd accept a decent cost-benefit analysis of options based on good science. The only problem is that the science isn't getting funded. My contacts at NCAR are complaining about further budget cuts.....every year since Bush took office. How can you make good decisions if you don't have good science? Easy, just say that's what you want and then just let your friends at Exxon write your energy plans and then say 'well, we're just waiting for some good science'

 

I find it hard to below that the science is not getting funded, nor that it is that expensive to do. Software projections based on different rates of CO2 concentrations would be one component, as would cost projections on their economic impact. This could be compared with the cost (economic, quality of life) of building more efficient cars, rationing gasoline, or whatever else is proposed.

[foraker]

Well, it's not cheap but science tends to be a pretty small component of everything else compared to the federal budget. Basically, they've had to let a lot of people go and they find it really difficult to get the money for the computational resources that they need. This excludes all of the field work that is necessary for the climate models. I think it's possible to do some serious risk reduction without seriously impacting the economy. People complain about, say, having to have more fuel efficient vehicles but we never used to be driving around such huge gas-sucking SUVs and some of these ridiculous pickups that look like they have jet engine intakes and the economy was percolating along just fine. Having more fuel efficient vehicles would be something we could do that wouldn't really kill the economy and would have a huge and immediate impact on released CO2. Much more so than waiting for hybrids or hoping for some other future solution. Besides, it would also help extend the available oil supply in case we have trouble finding future alternatives. That is, assuming people actually *do* care about future generations and not just what they can cram into their truck today. If that's true...well....then we're truly fucked. ;-)

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Well, it's not cheap but science tends to be a pretty small component of everything else compared to the federal budget.

 

I agree with that. But I'd adjust a lot about the budget if I could wave a magic wand.

 

People complain about, say, having to have more fuel efficient vehicles but we never used to be driving around such huge gas-sucking SUVs

 

We didn't? What about the gas guzzlers of the 70's?

 

and some of these ridiculous pickups that look like they have jet engine intakes

 

What about RVs? Ban them too? What about people who drive thousands of miles every year to climb friggin' glaciers and rock crags? "Was this trip really necessary?" Maybe we should just ration gas, give everyone an allowance and a national card. Ordnung muB sein. Arbeit macht Frei.

 

something we could do that wouldn't really kill the economy and would have a huge and immediate impact on released CO2.

 

and the rest of the world will just happily join us - even if it means limiting their economic growth and prosperity? Or perhaps we'll just give them some nice opportunities upon which to capitalize.

[AlpineK]

As far as standards go fleet milage has gone down over the last 10 years. GW has offered a few carrots, but you need both a carrot and a stick.

 

Who's to say that using less carbon is going to be a drag on the economy. Somebody's got to develope and market the emisions reducing technology; and you can bet they'll be making money.

 

The more we sit on our hands the more the Japanese and europeans will have us at a technological disadvantage. Look at hybrids; Ford had to buy the technology from Toyota.

[foraker]

Dude, I'm not saying I have the best solution. However, I think there isn't going to be a solution without some pain.

That's just my guess. There are a lot of other things that could be done that can have a significant impact, but some pain, I think, is still going to be felt. There are a lot of clever solutions out there if we are willing to break away from the status quo and not just suck at the teat of big oil like it's heroin. I think we can either suffer some smaller economic impacts now, over a longer term, rather than wait for a seriously bad economic impact later when (if) everything goes to hell. Right now, I'd just like to see people get past the "you can't take my precious gas sucking truck away from me so you can just all go to hell" phase and into a region where we are willing to consider alternatives and we don't let people with serious vested monetary/ideological interests simply tell us what to do. i'm actually fairly libertarian in a lot of things but i see a lot of climate change data in my job and well it ain't good.