steeler wrote: 
There are some who still claim the earth is flat. Do we wait for them to come around, or do we build ships and sail for new lands? At what point do we stop the study? How much evidence is enough? We could literally study this one to death, but I doubt that's a good approach.

 Monkeysdad wrote: 

I surely do not know.  

My framework in approaching anything, however, is to first identify the problem — if there is one.  There are those denying that there is a problem.  So, we are stuck on that.  Only after a problem has been identified, can we be in position to try to find solutions. How does one find a solution to a problem one does not recognize as a problem?

That's why I find it frustrating to read stuff that assails those who are providing "evidence" of a problem, implying that their motives are nefarious and unpure.  

Now, I think Lazy8 and others are saying that even if there is a solution, which we have not yet determined, it may not be feasible in economic terms.  However, if the problem is the fate of the earth itself — or at least certain species on it, including humans — than can any cost be too great?  

What proof is there that there is no problem, or that if there is a problem, it is not worth trying to find a solution?   

 

 Monkeysdad wrote: 
Well, a significant majority of the peer reviewed science indicates that we are at least accelerating the problem with our carbon emissions. So a reasonable solution would be to limit our carbon emissions. Everyone is free to continue to get a significant majority of the peer reviewed science to change their mind and say that there is no impact, but until then it seems prudent that we do what we can instead of continuing the same behaviors that that appear to be driving the problem.

 BasmntMadman wrote: 

Oh, what the heck...

 steeler wrote: 
I expect we'll be hearing about specifics soon enough.

 steeler wrote: 

But is there a solution?

 Lazy8 wrote: 

What is the vastly expensive and intrusive program?  I have not heard of a specific plan.  

I do not hear a debate about what should be done.  As you say, one side of the spectrum is arguing that nothing should be done. That can only be justified if no problem exists or the problem that exists has no possible solution.  

 islander wrote: 
Uh-oh.  He's got records on you, pal.  Expect some....Links!!...gasp....

first smartass who posts a pic of sausages gets a wedgie, or deserves one, anyway

 Lazy8 wrote: 

 

Typo/fixed.

 Lazy8 wrote: 

Why can't I say it like that? I must be lost in my own BS or something. I've tried to say this very thing, only to fall between the cracks in my
philosophy...

 islander wrote: 

The oil example is a good one.  We should be able to agree that oil is a finite resource that has been seriously depleted, and that there is a need to develop alternative energy sources.  Yet, we do not agree on that. Instead, we get sidetracked into convoluted, labyrinthinian arguments about who is trying to manipulate whom and for what reasons (usually unspecified).  Once the discussions focus more on motivations than upon substances, the rabbit hole opens ever wider, eventually swallowing reason.

I think you frame this issue fairly well.  I would frame it as follows:  We agree there is climate change, but we disagree as to its causes. Primarily, this boils down to those who say that climate change occurs naturally and inevitably, so we should not do anything to interefere. In sum: don't worry about it. On the other side are those who believe that the writing is on the wall, and that human consumption has contributed immensely to the current state. 

I say, even if human consumption has not knocked the whole natural order of things out of whack, we still have to know that something is happening that can be and likely will be threatening to human and animal life.  Yesterday I cited the Ice Age as an example of something that occurred and wiped out species.  The earth survived, sure, but a lot of species did not. That, alone, seems to me to provide ample reason for concern.  So, why we should be looking for answers, we're bogged down on whether there, in fact, is a problem.  Wonder if the dinosaurs had the same conversations?                    

 Beaker wrote: 
Yes argumentative. That is what you do here. You would take a contrary position to just about anything on the other side of your agenda/ideology and prepare a 27 post dissertation w/ the graphs, supporting blogs, commentary, 4 part harmony, and a reserve of any likely opponents posting history to throw back at them on a moments notice. Hyper-partisan hackery is your tagline.

Climate denialism links to tobacco denialism: George Monbiot, from The Guardian (UK).

 steeler wrote:
Not such a surprise, really. One side pitches a vastly expensive and intrusive program of government involvement in every aspect of our lives, the other pitches business as usual. If the solutions to the problems had been framed differently it could have turned out very differently, but neither side wants to solve the problem unless it means vanquishing the other side in the process.

This issue is being used to push other agendas. Suspicion of those other agendas is driving resistance to an honest assessment of the problem and a rational discussion of solutions. Both sides have their hammers and see the issue as a nail.

 hobiejoe wrote: 
The day Mrs.Islander tires of me.

 islander wrote: 
Will you marry me?  love MrsHJ.

 Beaker wrote: 
how very argumentative of you. What if he's right (as the majority of valid scientific opinion indicates), and we really should be doing something to minimize our impact on climate change?  Doesn't matter, it would be much better if you got to win the argument and got to sing the "nah, nah, nah, nah" song while doing your victory dance.

 islander wrote: 

Thank you, P.

 dionysius wrote: 
Not at all. I'm very much on the side of Climate change is pretty much settled (as settled as any scientific endeavor ever is). The "not caused by people" side will jump all over the ambiguity there, but that is the scientific method - always open for review, but it doesn't mean that we don't make decisions and take actions based on our current findings.

My point on the politics is that on any issue, people simply dig in based on ideology. They refuse to even hear the there evidence, they have decided.  I believe climate change to be settled at this point and think we need to be taking actions based on our current assessment. This doesn't meant that I'm not willing to look at alternative views, or entertain the possibility that there is another cause, just show me that evidence. In the mean time, let's go fix the looming problem.

Unfortunately this same problem exists on economics, regulation, religion, health care, education..... you name it. Anything that comes up we trench in and go for the win. All the time we spend fighting takes away from time we could be fixing/progressing. Climate change is a grand example. The oil dependent, pollution creating base has been a know problem for decades. Only in the last few years are we really talking about it, and we have trenched in along party lines and the only agreements we have reached are meaningless to the growing problem.

I'm just getting pissed off at what are clearly concerted attempts to derail Copenhagen. Grrrrrrrrrrr.  Decision time folks.  This is the point to opt in as citizens of the world.