Where is the 'common ground' in discussing global climate change?

Question

Why does the discourse have to be so fractious?

We all live on the same planet. There are no marked exits. We share whatever the future holds with each other and the other species that live here and help to sustain us. Isn't a rational discussion in order, and a careful examination of all of the facts in play a sensible course?

No judgments here please, i.e. the thumbs should be neutral since I've asked for opinion. All opinions should be respected even if they disagree with your own views.

Answer 1

energy costs

Answer 2

dont blame me  I'm not from around here. but if this planet gets much colder I'm going back home soon.

Answer 3

One point of common ground is that no matter what factors are contributing to climate change, be they CO2, soot, or ocean currents such as the meridional overturning circulation (MOC), while China and India build 775 new coal plants from 2004-2012, all attempts to reduce global CO2 emissions will fail.

India alone, with 213 coal plant in planning, wipes out Kyoto savings.  China's contribution to the CO2 increase will be about 4X larger than projected Kyoto savings.  There's a bar graph showing the increases vs. decreases here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s0...

Even the coal power plant projects planned in other nations (not even included in the bar graph totals) will easily wipe out Kyoto savings:

"58 other nations have 340 new coal-fired plants in various stages of development. They are expected to go online in a decade or so. Malaysia, Japan, Indonesia, Thailand, and Turkey are all planning significant new coal-fired power additions."

Since global CO2 reductions are impossible while worldwide nations grow their coal-generated electricity, automobile use, and general consumption of manufactured goods, we need to unite to fight the shameless attempt to use global warming as an irrational excuse to implement massive new taxes.

Using Gross Domestic Product growth as an indicator of consumption and emission growth, while China grows at 9% per year they would wipe out a 100% U.S. reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in 10 years.

So by 2018 China's growth is guaranteed to wipe out U.S savings and India and other nations will build 553 power plants to grow emissions at a rate 2.5X larger than the total of all global Kyoto reductions.   Global greenhouse gas emissions are on track be significantly higher than today in 10 years, no matter what the U.S. does, no matter what all developed nations do.  

Exactly who is suppolsedly going to reduce global emissions 80%, and when will those people start talking about reductions, let alone start implementing them?

Clearly the people who reject theories of anthropogenic mechanisms for global warming have no monopoly on willful denial.  People who want to do something about the problem, but believe, irrationally, that response by developed nations alone will have any measurable effect on the problem, are seriously deluded, ignoring the simple math of population and economic growth in developing nations.

We should unite to educate people and stamp out that ignorance.

Only when developing nations clearly see the tragic results that their suicidal/homocidal growth strategy will bring will the world be able to tackle this problem in an effective manner.  Until then, economic investments should focus on developing the technologies needed to replace carbon-emitting sources, and we need to build capital reserves to pay for it.  That can't be done while massive new taxes suck an additional 5% of an average family's income out of their hands (most of their disposible income after living expenses), plus trigger significant price hikes in all goods and services as businesses attempt to mitigate the financial damage to the economy as personal consumption plummets.

It would be the worst kind of hypocrisy to claim that you stand for something, only to accept the first, totally ineffective, proposal that comes your way.  For the moment the only fight that has the potential to save the planet is the fight to get all nations involved, and the fight to amass the financial resources to fund the fight and to deploy the technological solutions once global populations stand united to fight it.  While working toward that necessary prerequisite of global unity we can focus on mitigating the damage (develop drought-resistant corn, ban development on coastal land to be flooded, etc).

The whole argument about what's causing global warming is pointless.  Let's not let that false drama distract us away from careful and critical analysis of the proposed "solutions", which currently seem to only dramatically reduce our capability to effectively respond in the future.

Answer 4

I don't believe ruse or propaganda will solve this type of disclosure. Many questions ask are nothing more then splitting hairs."(Hence)",my sarcastic overtones on certain poser's. The outcome is still going to be the same, necessity seems to dictate behavior not the inverse. Then you always have the infringement issues. Whether they are economics, judicial, bureaucratic, or environmental. This has always been a dilemma for mankind, personal freedom-vs-the overall well being of a collective. My views and way of life are mine, and I usually make the right decisions unless goaded or forced.

Answer 5

I think it's an scientific issue not a political one.  Let's not soak up every piece of propaganda the corrupt politicians feed us.  

Many scientists disagree with the theories presented by Al Gore.  And since Al Gore isn't a scientist himself.. I need more information from credible sources!  Many scientists believe the global warming is caused by the sun.  They say that the ocean and volcano creates much more CO2 gasses than human beings.  Let's open our minds and listen to all sides of this debate.

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.ph...

http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/great_g...

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."

Albert Einstein

Answer 6

There is no discussion as it is a lie propagated by Gore.

Answer 7

Its reflective of the environment we live in.

Answer 8

Environmental problems are in no way silly.

Claiming CO2 is a pollutant is very silly.

Using that piece of mis-information to shut down industry is maddening.

"They" want to tell ME that I can't burn fossil fuels.  I have a big problem with that.

Answer 9

The common ground in the discussion of the climatic cycle _should_ be REAL science, not movies or 'consensus'.

1.  Science is not a consensus activity

2.  _All_ scientists do NOT agree

3.  Even the socialistic EU "scientists" are

backpedalling on their GW stance

4.  Global warming, like global cooling is part of the

natural climatic cycle.  

5.  There have been many such cycles in Earth's

history.

6.  Earth is presently in the last stages of an ice

age and was considerably warmer for most of its

history.

7.  Floating ice occupies the same volume as would the

liquid water that comprises it.

8.  Even if the ocean levels rise the alarmist 28

feet, just move away from the beach.

9.  Warmer climate means more crop growing area.

10.  Water is not going anywhere. Except for what we

have shot into space with rockets, there is the same

amount as there always was.

Thermohaline cycle

Warm water is less dense than cold water. One of the ocean currents runs North up the east coast of the U.S.

When this warm ocean water reaches the arctic ocean, it is cooled which makes it become more dense.  The now dense salt water drops to the sea floor and begins its return to the southern loop of its cycle.

Fresh water from meltoff of the northern ice pack dilutes this sea water which makes it less dense.

The diluted, less dense water drops to the sea floor more slowly which slows the entire cycle.

If diluted enough, this circulation stops entirely.

When the circulation stops, then the planet will begin to cool and enter an ice age which will stop the meltoff.

As the salinity in the north Atlantic increases, the water will once again begin to sink to the sea floor and the cycle will restart and our planet will emerge from its ice age and enter another warm period.

That is happening now.  

It will change.

Humans did not cause it.

Humans cannot stop it.

Answer 10

There should be a common ground, because we would all benefit from reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.  Oil is a finite resource, if we haven't reached peak production already we will soon, it's mainly concentrated in unstable political regions, and it has adverse emissions besides GHG.

The problem lies in the magnitude of global warming.  In order to avoid catastrophic climate change, scientists have said that we need to reduce our emissions by 80% by the year 2050.  I think most 'skeptics' are fine with very slow and gradual emissions reductions, but not with the scale and speed required.  For example, some global warming 'skeptics' consider massive 20 mpg SUV hybrids to be 'green':

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

While I think these cars should be eliminated entirely precisely because they're inefficient and wasteful.