|
grastog1313 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
bcfp - Athough the consequences of unmitigated warming are more certain in terms of floods and droughts, the recent data, including the papers by Kerry Emanuel, indicate a probable increase in the frequency of the most intense hurricanes as well. Even at current intensities, hurricane lethality has been exacerbated by higher sea levels from which hurricane storm surges have started.
grastog1313 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Whenever someone makes a claim I find contradicted by data, I find it useful to refer readers to the data rather than asking them to referee a YouTube argument. Anyone wondering whether the Earth is warming or cooling should visit climate trend sites - HadCRUT3, NCDC, GISS, UAH, RSS. I judge them to confirm both recent warming and long term CO2-driven warming trends, but readers should draw their own conclusions. HadCRUT details are at cru. uea. ac. uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcru t3gl. txt.
nbn444 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
There isn't any significant Global Warming. The thing that's going to get us, is the Global Freezing.
So I say, let the small degree of "warming" continue, which will only delay the GREATER Catastrophe of the next global Ice Age.
Focus on slowing down the Global Polluting instead.
andrewh23 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I'm glad the space hamster issue has finally gone public. There is still time to save us.
bcfp090 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Another very important factor is the actual extent of future changes to the environment (i.e. the disasters in the bottom right). I think it's safe to say that the absolute worst case scenario is the one that has been presented to us. This includes some which are very likely false like more intense hurricanes.
Your approach is neat but overly simplistic. It is very difficult to do a proper risk assessment with so many variables and unknowns in climate science.
bcfp090 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
You need another row. This row would be that global warming is T, but not caused by man. In column A of this row, you would have all of the economic disasters of acting PLUS the environmental disasters. Column B would be the environmental disasters, although in this case, unavoidable.
There are two other fairly significant questions. What if the earth is actually cooling now? and What if our "actions" are not effective or very expensive but minimally effective relative to the costs?
seether160796 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
The ecenomic world is falling and will..but whats the worst if we spend so much money on this? We will have prepared and this could help us for the near future and any problems that may occur in the future. Id rather give my money up and live in an enviroment that can be stable. Global warming is something that probably isnt human made and may happen every 1000000 or so years, but we Do add to it. We need to STOP, THINK, OPEN OUR EYES and see what willhappen and do the right thing..nothing else
grastog1313 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
As someone familiar with the science literature, which almost universally concludes that anthropogenic warming is a potentially disastrous threat, I tend to agree with jhhwild that environmental groups (unlike scientists themselves) have sometimes exaggerated dangers in order to promote their cause. In this case, though, it's the evidence in the journals rather than public statements by Greenpeace or others that documents an urgent need to curtail CO2 emissions in time to avert substantial harm.
DarkfireKabuto (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Ah ha! I have found a hole in your argument, Mr. wonderingmind42! You have completely disregarded one strikingly large group of humans: Solipsists!
What say you, sir? :O
jhhwild (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I was just thinking about that. Why is it "green" why not some other color. I mean brown is a color that is very prevalent in nature. I guess they didn't choose that color because it doesn't sound right to "go brown", lol. |
