Isn't GW/CC a shoot first ask questions later scenario?

Question

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Fluxnet/

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ameriflux/science-meetings/about-strat_plan.shtml

These are long term studies about the biosphere and terrestrial carbon exchange. It's also one reason some questions can't be simply answered, most scientist know this. I've read many ecological answers, on this site, that has lumped ecology into a neat little ball. We aren't there yet, so why the pretense?

Answer 1

A reasonable question, but no.

The scientific data is now overwhelming.  As is the undeniable fact that the later we start to go after it, the harder and more expensive and more disruptive it will be to do so.

The fact that taking action will also reduce outr dependence on expensive and unstable foreign oil, makes it pretty much of a no brainer.

Note that the websites you cite are pretty old, and even they don't advocate waiting around.  10 years ago it was a minority of the scientific community who wanted immediate action.  5 years ago it was a majority, with a significant number opposed.  These days, it's the overwhelming majority.

The data and the science have both improved significantly in that time period.

EDIT - Bottom line:  Could we know more about the details, so that we can make more specific predictions?  Sure.  Do we know enough to know it would be best to start to take serious action right now?  BEYOND A DOUBT.

Answer 2

It is propagated by Gore and the Left. They are afraid we will run out of oil. Nature and plants has recycled for millions of years ,and that is where our present supply came from. Knowing that one could understand that nature ,and plants are continuing to recycle .

Answer 3

ALL of which are Kak-Jew Socialist ways of spending people's Hard Earned Money!  The answers are far easier to answer than the Kakk-Jew Socialists and other manipulators would want you to KNOW!

All is explained in The Anointed, The Elect, and The Damned!

"Socialism needs two legs on which to stand; a right and a left.

While appearing to be in complete opposition to one another,

they both march in the same direction."

Answer 4

More like shoot first and forget about asking questions.

Answer 5

This is essentially a creationist argument. Just because we don't know everything, that does not imply that the things we do know are false.

CO2 causes climate change. We're responsible for the CO2. And we have to stop. Biological solutions are some of many possibilities, but not the most efficient.

Answer 6

Isn't dumping gigatonnes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere every year REALLY a shoot first ask questions later scenario? Shouldn't we wait to know every consequence of our actions before doing that.?

Come on, you must be able to come up with a better argument than that!

EDIT: But my point is, you want to wait until all questions are answered, fine, but shouldn't the same thing apply to dumping the CO2 in the first place?  Look, no one can say exactly what's going to happen, I agree with that statement, but we do see what's happening now, and physical and computer models suggest that what may happen in the future could be much worse. What if there's really a "point of no return?" We could just wait 100 years and if the Earth is all screwed up then say "Yes, those scientists were right, we should have done something 100 years ago," but that would be pretty stupid, wouldn't it? You may think moving away from fossil fuels is a huge hardship, and I won't disagree, but they're running out anyway, so we will still have to move away from them eventually.

Answer 7

No. We've been asking the questions--and there's more than enough answers to make it clear that we have to stop global warming.

The fact that you haven't been paying attention while scientists were asking those questions for the last 30 years and getting answers doesn't mean they aren't there--it jsut means you were out to lunch.

Besides--leave out the environmental issue. Give me one good reason why consumers should have to keep crawling to the oil companies?  Just dollars and cents--forget ecology.  We don't need oil or coal--they are technologies from the 1800s.  WHY shoudld consumers have to keep paying for obsolete and overpriced  technology when there are modern technologies available--from solar and wind to nuclear--and cost-efficient electric car technology, mass transit as an alternative in dense urban areas, etc.

Why should  we keep getting ripped off just so some stockholders in the oil companies can keep whining "but we don't know everything" just so they can keep stuffing OUR money intheir offshore bank accounts?

Answer 8

Not at all.  We've been asking (and answering) questions regarding global warming and climate change for over a century.

As Keith pointed out, just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we don't know anything.  What we know is that CO2 is causing rapid warming and it will have catastrophic results if we don't stop.

What more do you suggest we need to know before we start to take action?

Answer 9

Yes.

And no.

Yes in the sense that if you wait for all the data gaps to be filled in, all the i's to be dotted, all the t's crossed, we may be well past the "point of no return" where we can do anything substantive to mitigate global climate change.

No in the sense that we have more than enough incontrovertible information available to know what we need to do, and that action must be taken soon.  This is one reason why so many politicians have come aboard recently.  Community after community is implementing an action plan, as the cost of inaction, a lack of awareness on the process, on mitigation options, on adaptation, is simply intolerable.

No pretense.  No need for pretense.  It is what it is, and it is bad, but it can get worse, much worse.  Our choice.  There's no room on the fence anymore, Heretic.  There is no fence.  You believe that global climate change is upon us and can and must be dealt with, or you come up with a world view that allows you to dismiss it.

I'll include a few links.  You should know that I've done my homework on this and then some.  But then you don't know me, you only know what you see here, and if I've somehow failed to impress you with the situation, that is apparently my fault. I apologize.

Answer 10

The answer is the that  most enviromentalists are watermelons.

They're green on the outside but red inside. GW/CC is an excuse to control and impose their will on others using environmental blackmail.

Even in the face of peak temperatures in the 1930's and declines in temperature since 1998. They still  seek to control.

Governments are complicit because Kyoto exempts China and  allowing China to crank out products using cheap labour lets the population require less income to live. Guess where the extra income goes? Taxes to pay for bigger government.

Answer 11

It's the steal first (land, food, and money) ask questions later.

Answer 12

Actually, the CO2 seems to be getting higher AFTER the earth's temperature goes up, not before.  Also, I seem to remember that some years ago we had a similar situation with a hole in the ozone layer.  All of a sudden we have a bunch of laws put in place and the hole in the ozone started to close.  While we were still petting ourselves on the back, it turns out that the hole in the ozone was actually helping control the greenhouse gasses.  Imagine that, we were wrong again.  And as always, can't forget the global cooling and the coming of the next Ice Age we heard about in the seventies