Is the debate on global warming a faux debate?

Question

It appears the skeptics have already lost - governments and corporations have begun taking steps - both political parties in the US are now firmly on board and acting on it. Even the Bush administration has signed pro-active legislation. It appears that the debate is over in the real world and only continues within the fantasy world of the internet and political hate radio.

Answer 1

the debate should not be over until every single last scientist is convinced by the evidence, this does not mean we should not act now, but we should always keep looking at the evidence, and not assume the thoery is correct

Answer 2

Bob - I'd agree with you about Lindzen.  His iris theory is interesting, but it definitely didn't convince other climate scientists when scrutinized.  A part of me does hold out a hope that some unimagined process will limit the heating we're inducing, but thus far that process hasn't been identified.  So it's prudent to start acting, oh let's say, about 5 - 10 years ago.  It's stupid to not start acting now.

There does appear to be a resurgence of the public (not within the scientific community) debate about AGW and I suspect it's kind of a death twitch by a few (Inhofe comes to mind) that refuse to admit they were wrong.  Fortunately, as inept as many politicians are, most do have the public good in mind and are starting to act.

Answer 3

the climate is changing, no doubt about. opening debate on the issue, is very healthy for mankind!

Answer 4

Mostly, but not entirely.

There still are some legitimate controversies about feedback mechanisms and so how fast this will happen, and how bad it will be.  Clearly  the probabilities of something really bad are sufficient to drive action, as you say.

Richard Lindzen is an example of a reasonable "skeptic".  I think he's wrong, but I can't say he's either malicious or foolish.  To bet the world's well being on him being right would be foolish (and I suspect he'd agree about that).

The ridiculous arguments seen on right wing blogs are phony "debate".  It's volcanoes, warming has stopped, it's the Sun, the temperature record is no good, etc.  They're most all handled here:

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

Lindzen would laugh at those.

Answer 5

It is a faux debate, because despite all the treaties and promises and meetings, carbon emissions are increasing worldwide.

No country, especially China, is trashing their economy by reducing carbon emissions.

So maybe if you took a step back, and focused on something other than beating down the infidels, you might see that nothing substantive has happened or is likely to happen to reduce carbon emissions.

However, don't be surprised if nuclear power is the proposed solution.  It is the only feasible off-the-shelf solution available now that is CO2 emission free.  Both political parties, business, the military, etc. would be thrilled to cut dependence on mideast oil.  And they have environmentalists backed into a corner over this.

If environmentalists don't back nuclear, then maybe CO2 really wasn't quite the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it.

And please spare me the alternative fuels / conservation rhetoric.  The only way to drastically cut CO2 emissions, and it has to be drastic to save the world, is nuclear.

Answer 6

For the most part, yes.  Deniers are in the vast minority even in the US, where they're more prevalent than in most other countries due to our extreme political partisanship and extreme dependence on oil.  That the Republican Party has finally started to catch up in AGW acceptance is very revealing.

Deniers like to pretend there's still a debate going on, but climate scientists have learned that accepting their "challenges" is a losing proposition.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

The existence of AGW at this point is unquestionable.  The only question is how bad will the consequences be, and how much will we do to avoid/mitigate them.

Answer 7

yes it is

Answer 8

Correct. Infact, the "debate" on whether global warming was real and if it was human in origin has been over for years. The Bush administration was never even a prt of it, in fact. In the "real world"--as you put it, that's purely a scientific qusestion and was answered by scientists. Neither the politicians nor the "skeptics" ever had a say in the matter.

The debate ofver policy is jsut starting, however--it was delayed bfor years by the faux debate carried on by the skeptics and the censorship of the Bush regime. Now--when it comes to policy, there is--and should be--lively debate. Policy decisions always involve trade-offs, and the best mix of strategies isn't jsut about science--its about competing interests and trying to be as fair as possible to everyone concerned--and that involves value judgements that can't be quantified as science.

Fortunately, the biggest policy changes in this cas e--like shifting to high-fuel efficiency cars, mass transit, alternative enrgy--are all things that will either reduce consumer costs, promote economic and job growth, or both.  About the only economic losers will be the fossil fuel industry--who are the ones who have been funding the campaign of false infrmation the "skeptics" call a debate.

Answer 9

If the debate were truly over, you guys wouldn't have to come in here every day to convince each other it is.

Answer 10

They are on board with words only.  What is a serious piece of legislation that has been passed to address this issue.

Actions speak louder than words.

Answer 11

To me, there is no debate...Global Warming is happening whether it is man made or a natural occurrence...

Answer 12

The only debate between the two US parties should now be about the approach to take.

This being said now that there is a relative certainty that the US will comitt itself to clear emission reduction targets, China is on its to accept a firm emission cap too.  So finally the end of the "blame game" is in sight.

---------------------

Oracle2w: it is interesting to see that on energy policies you put the conclusion before studies and debates. I do not think it is the way to proceed rationally.

And you are speaking about "reduction of carbon emissions"... but compared to what? absolute reductions? compared to business as usual?

Let me just explain you that before driving a car in the back gear, you first have to stop accelerating, start decelerating, stabilize and then you can put the back gear in. The same applies for the CO2 emissions.

BTW: What thou you say when wind generated power on several sites has a lower cost than nuclear? still go for the nuclear?