We need to have a conversation regarding global warming and accepting that it's real

[WindRavenX]

I'm posting this because I feel very, very strongly about this issue. In my experience, there is a large segment of the population that just doesn't take global warming seriously, or even understand what is is and why it is occurring. For the most part, most DUers seem to get that global warming is 1) real and 2) there is a complete lack of evidence and scientific support for hypothesizes contrary to this fact; for example, that we are actually going through "just" a warm period or that the earth is possibly cooling due to pollution.

However, there have been several threads the past week on the issue of global warming and in each thread, there are some who question the impact and very real danger of global warming or who question the near monopoly of consensus in the scientific community about global warming.

This bothers me because there seems to be a misunderstanding on just how strong the evidence for global warming is. There is evidence in almost every discipline in the scientific world that things are changing and things are changing in a way that is going to dramatically change our lifestyle, our way of life, and life on earth on a large, probably unthinkable scale. The oceans are changing. The weather patterns are changing. The world we know now isn't going to stay this way for much longer.

There is literally no legitimate scientific evidence that supports things are going to be fine left on their own. The only real discussion right now regarding global warming is how much impact human activities--namely CO2 production-- are having on global warming. That's it. Global warming is real, and even if we're not causing it, it's still going to change people.

The cool thing about science is that it takes a lot of imagination. If you think there is another possibility, you have the opportunity to go out and try to gather evidence to support your line of thinking. But saying that global warming might be overblown, non-existent, not a problem, is downright ugly and ignorant thinking. Pulling up RW hacks like Michael Chricton and scientists hired by Exxon Mobile is not evidence that the massive, massive evidence compiled over the past decades is wrong. As one of my favorite scientists Bryan Sykes said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Many scientists have gone against the grain and claimed unorthodox things--like proteins weren't the genetic transmission vehicle (we all now know DNA is), that mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) can be used to accurately map out a person's genetic lineage. But you know what? They all had evidence. Lots of it. They needed to. You just can't say "well, today's scientists might be wrong!" Coz you know what? We might. There's always uncertainty in science. But you can't just leave it at that. You need to prove your claims.

And quite frankly, I, nor any of my various scientist colleagues, have seen any evidence for the contrary. All we get is political squawking "teh liberal scientists suck!!!11111111"

Global warming needs to be taken seriously. Otherwise, it's going to be too late to do anything.

[porphyrian]

1. Absolutely. I encourage everyone who hasn't to see "An Inconvenient Truth."

Buy it, rent it, borrow it, steal it, but watch it. Well, maybe don't steal it. It contains real science, explained in a way that anyone can understand, with lots of visual aids. Once you've seen it, show it to everyone you know.

[WindRavenX]

2. Absolutely.

I think that it's actually online, available to view for free!

I understand that many people may think there is a mob mentality going on regarding global warming, but I think it's stemming from a lot of anxiety: when I deal with people who don't believe in global warming (like my SO's father), it's very frustrating and alarming. And a little scary.

[WiseButAngrySara]

3. Good advise (lol; except the stealing part...maybe) ....n/t

[mike_c]

4. let me second your post....

I'm a member of the scientific community you cited and I can assure other DUers that WindRavenX is right.

One thing that people don't seem to understand is that there will NEVER be unanimity among scientists about the process of climate change because that is simply not the way science works. However, that doesn't mean that there is broad disagreement about the reality of anthropogenic climate change or about the likely severity of its consequences. The biosphere is a massive heat engine-- really massive, so that an average temperature rise of just a few degrees C represents a HUGE amount of energy being stored within the system, and used within the atmosphere and the oceans. If all that energy were released at once it would scour the surface of the planet with the force of thousands of nuclear weapons-- think of it this way, how many megatons of nuclear explosive would you need to detonate to raise the temperature of the entire atmosphere and the oceans by five or ten degrees? That's what we're talking about. It will not be pretty.

[brokensymmetry]

5. First off...I agree with you. That said -

I despair of any corrective action before we cross
the tipping point. I believe some say we've already
passed it.

I do know that in Texas, per a study by the ETS (educational
testing service, the SAT people), we have a 40% functional
illiteracy rate among the adult population. How does one
persuade such people that they must change, in a great many
painful and inconvenient ways, because of connections and
linkages they don't understand. And, that they do not wish
to understand.

Add in a bit of political demagoguery, and you face a
challenge that may be impossible. You must persuade the
mass of people to reduce greenhouse emissions a lot. This
is the very antithesis of the national (global?) mindset
over the past 60+ years since WWII.

I fear that some day in the future, the last climate
scientist will croak out the words "I told you so" to
the howling, lifeless dessert.

Let's hope I'm wrong on all counts.

K&R.

[WindRavenX]

6. illiteracy is the biggest issue I think

With an educated voting population comes a more (hopefully) enlightened Congress with basic scientific literacy. It seems like when people understand that their lives are going to be impacted, people listen. A big problem is American culture tends to be very hostile towards ideas like that just because you have the freedom to buy a 8 mpg Hummer doesn't mean you should.

[pitohui]

9. are you going to wait until everyone is educated?

because that day will never come, even everybody in germany or japan is not educated -- and you can't help but being impressed at the high level of education in those nations

a significant portion of people are stupid and will always be stupid

i think we have to figure out a way where the stupid people get less hearing and the intelligent people get more hearing in the media

right now in america almost everything is catering to the lowest element, the people who think they are using their brains when they listen to limbaugh or o-reilly

[WindRavenX]

13. oh, we can't. But the more literate people the sooner, the better

IMO

[Magical]

7. Hate to say it, but...

I am convinced after much study...
We are going to be witnessing many events of 'biblical' proportion within the next 5 years...
One can only hope they are prepared spiritually for the difficulties ahead.

Clearly capitalism, industrialization, etc can now be filed in the 'failed paradigm' folder.
Any system dependent on constant growth (which results in an exponential function BTW) in a finite world cannot continue indefinitely.
Chief Seattle knew this as soon as he saw white man's ways...

When you start to examine what is truly sustainable...you come to only one conclusion...
We are in serious population overshoot based on the one-time availability of fossil fuels and one way or another the population will be reduced to a sustainable level. Some think that may be around 500 million folks.

But more than that...if human kind wants to be able to claim any kind of progress, there will have to be a world-wide spiritual transformation...clearly wars in the age of WMDs are self defeating...Would it be possible to return to a world of cooperation and mutual-respect, with values based on conservation/ecology instead of accumulation/exploitation/destruction/violence ? Current conditions would say no...but perhaps with enlightened leadership ?

Perhaps not before another dark age...bandaids won't work.

[pitohui]

8. if it inconveniences them people suddenly forget about it

even people who say they believe in global warming don't believe in global warming when it comes to their personal life and decisions

example -- we have some very low areas of new orleans, among them the lower ninth ward, some parts of lakeview, and new orleans east that are swamp now and will be swamp again and will be quite uninhabitable if the water level rises permanently

therefore we should be rebuilding on higher ground such as higher parts of the city (quarter, uptown, or northshore)

nonetheless there are several people on DU, where global warming should be well accepted, who actually think we should encourage the rebuilding of such places as the lower 9, which were never safe (which is why poor people were relegated there to begin with) and which will be repeatedly flooded, again and again, if global climate change continues on its current path

but for some reason it is not "PC" to point this out and we are supposed to be supportive of efforts to rebuild slums in the worst and lowest part of the city, in defiance of all common sense and science, because of...well...because of sentimental refusal to look at what's happening

we need a port here, obviously, we need the heavy industry, certainly we need a city here and we need workers here but we need people to be living on the higher ground and not the lower ground of the city

if we can't even agree on this much...what can we agree on?

i conclude that everyone is happy to agree that global warming exists as long as all they have to do is ride a bike and swap out some light bulbs but no one is willing to make politically unpopular decisions about where people will live

today yet again another report is released saying that NO neighborhood will be refused the right to rebuild

so fine, just set people up to be killed and financially screwed over again

i despair of the human race

[Odin2005]

10. The problem is that the denialists are good at using fancy philosophical rhetoric to fool people.

Even very educated people, such is the dangerously pervasive influence of postmodernist BS in acedamia. Every time we try to silence the denialists they will start thier usual anti-science sophistry over the "groupthink-infested scientific establishment" and related BS based on a Postmodernist "interpretation" of the philosopher of science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn">Thomas Kuhn. The Creationists pull the same crap.

[Auggie]

11. What gets me, is that even with debate shouldn't we be erring on the side of caution?

It's our only biosphere, after all.

[BeHereNow]

12. How's this for a conversation starter?

Chapter 3 in particular...
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm

I agree with you completely.

BHN

[Telly Savalas]

14. The right-leaning free market promoting Economist magazine

has had a number of pieces over the last few months suggesting more be done to address global warming.

The CEO of BP says governments need to impose regulations in response.

Even Bush's good buddy, the Conservative Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper, acknowledges it's a problem.

This isn't a left versus right issue. It's more like the willfully ignorant versus those who have a clue issue.

This is why I'd like to see Al Gore run. Even if he doesn't take the campaigning seriously, he'd get free primetime TV play to promote the issue during the primary debates.