FlyingOrca's Journal: Global warming FUD

A couple of recent Slashdot stories have tied into global warming, and I must say I'm astounded at the prevailing attitude here. I'd sum that attitude up as follows:

1) It's natural.

2) It's inevitable.

3) There's nothing wrong with it.

I have several problems with this attitude, specifically:

1) Some climate change is "natural"; even anthropogenic climate change is as "natural" as beaver dams. So what? Data indicate that we are contributing to it!

2) If natural cycles are inevitable, fine. But if we can reduce the climate forcing WE CAUSE, shouldn't we?

3) There is plenty wrong with global warming. It is likely to disrupt fragile ecosystems (like the Arctic, in which I was raised), displace many millions if not billions of people, have an economic impact to dwarf that of the most ruinous war in history, alter local climates (often for the worse) and weather patterns, alter hugely important currents like the Atlantic Conveyor, and quite possibly trigger extinctions widespread enough to be called "massed".

The term FUD is one that probably needs no explanation to Slashdotters. The prevailing attitude towards global warming seems a kind of anti-FUD: "Nothing to fear, we're certain about that, don't doubt us."

It seems to me (and to most of the scientists I meet, talk to, and read) that a more reasonable attitude is exactly one of FUD: "We should fear this because the possible results are extremely bad for our society, we are somewhat uncertain as to details and very much need to learn more, and it's precisely because there IS some doubt as to human contribution and our ability to respond that we *need* to learn more."

Here's to more global warming FUD. Comments?

I'll bite

[elmegil]

1) Some climate change is "natural"; even anthropogenic climate change is as "natural" as beaver dams. So what? Data indicate that we are contributing to it!

Which data? The ones that show SOME CORRELATION between our emissions and the trend of the last 100 years? I used to be absolutely convinced of global warming myself, but I've spent a lot of time discussing the issue with a conservative friend who also happens to be one of the most rigorous, fact-based troubleshooters I know. He points out things li

Re:I'll bite

[FlyingOrca]

Hi there - thanks for contributing!

I'm just going to address a few things in the order in which you brought them up. First, the idea that we're getting to "the warmest period in history" could be correct, depending on what you mean by "history", but I don't see what it has to do with the subject of discussion: namely, anthropogenic climate forcing. As for "complete and reliable climate data", I'd say there's no such beast. What does "complete" mean in this context? *Reliable* data, on the other hand, exten

Re:I'll bite

[Wolfcub]

>>>To be worried and asking for more RESEARCH is reasonable. That's the position I take. To be demanding we MUST TAKE ACTION and claim WE KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT ACTION IS, PERIOD, as many environmental groups do, is no more reasonable than "we know it's not a problem, go away". And the latter response is generally a reaction to the former.

To ask for more research is certainly reasonable. To wait until more research has been performed (and how much more research?) before taking any action is not reas

Re:I'll bite

[elmegil]

Just for the record, I have not dropped this conversation, I just don't have time right this minute. I'm getting geared up for my brother's wedding next weekend.

The other thing that should be kept in mind is that I'm simply reiterating what I find to be the most compelling arguments of a friend. I may get some of the details wrong, I'm certainly not stating them the way he does, and in a couple of cases I may not even agree entirely. Nonetheless, I think that a dialog (which is what we appear to be havin

Re:I'll bite

[Wolfcub]

Fair enough, I look forward to more discussion when you have time.

Re:I'll bite

[FlyingOrca]

Welcome to the dance, Wolfcub!

Re:I'll bite

[Wolfcub]

Thanks, Orca. ;-)