[GeorgeEckland]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I also think that there are much worse issues facing us environmentally then global warming. Many people seem to think that if we can fix that, we will be 'saved'.

JM If we CAN'T solve global warming, then we've little hope as a species. Developing the economics of sustainability which make it possible to fix global warming will serve civilization greatly.

To put it simply - we're using a crummy economic system which is far too short-sighted and ignores all sorts of "externalities", the air pollution problem is much the same as the GHG problem, it's a result of the economic system being short sighted and ignoring externalities. The solution to both is much the same - being more far-sighted and accounting for externalities.

[emingeRek]

Um, that's not what unsustainable means.

[yarita]

Because that doesn't sound like the sky is falling. Its all about ratings JM.

[Ilaubuas]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


Easy.

Water pollution and misuse.

JM Water quality in the US has been improving for decades, we keep setting the bar higher. As far as health or economic impacts, let alone impacts on species, etc, I think its dwarfed by Global warming. Note, I said here in developed countries.

[estheticianI]

Originally posted by Slade Wilson


They reveal the lunatic streak in GWers New blood



anyway, GW is a fact, problem is that the reason isn't established.

[cabonuserollyo]

Originally posted by BlackCat


What equilibrium ? Climate has never been in some kind of equilibrium - it has changed and killed of species and at the same time given place for others. The only worrying thing for me is rapid climate change. WE can probably cope with quite significant change over a period of centuries. BUt the same change over periods of years or even a couple of decades could be more disruptive.

THis worry would occurr even if all the change were naturally occurring

[Flieteewell]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


How much data do we have that establishing that putting massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere is a GOOD idea? Should we have NOT started the industrial revolution till more data was in. You go with the best data you have. Right now the best data and modeling says that the current rate we are putting GHG into the atmosphere will lead to the range of temp changes i quoted above. Ogie thinks thats still a wide range. Call it what you will. I think its a wide enough range to consider action. LOTM

1. I have never advocated ignoring the issue since perfect data is unavailable. I actually believe that we should be reducing pollution of all types. In the past 50 years there have been dozens of substances that now face much more stringent regulation due to the discovery of negative impacts from their emission. I would imagine in the next 50 years we will find dozens of more substances that cause harm.

2. All that peeves me off is the stuff that some people cite as proof. IT seems every sunny day, or rainy day or windy day is the sign of the apocalypse. I remember the ice off Iceland thread where people went nuts about the phenomenon etc etc

I do accept the following

a) The earth has been both colder and warmer than it is right now
b) The earth is currently warming
c) Increases of certain gases in the atmosphere can cause warming
d) Quantification of the temperature increases caused by increased gas emission is relatively uncertain (this is actually more worrying than if we had quantified it)

[Green_Monkey23]

Originally posted by Doddler
This is what it's all about. Left-wing economics failed so they've had to hijack an arts discipline in order to subvert our successful economic system. I wonder if I should answer or let the nonsense speak for itself...