Comments on: Bush vs. Bears http://www.attackofthemonkey.com/blog/2006/07/31/bush-vs-bears/ Science News ... Monkey Spin Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:14:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.3 By: greengun http://www.attackofthemonkey.com/blog/2006/07/31/bush-vs-bears/#comment-39 greengun Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:55:28 +0000 http://www.attackofthemonkey.com/blog/2006/07/31/bush-vs-bears/#comment-39 I think alot of the global warming denial comes from people who don't want to change their lifestyles. Because once you start looking at what we'd have to change in order for CO2 levels to significantly go down, alot of people don't want to do it. Plus, they point out countries like China & India, and how they aren't bothering to tackle the problem, so they say, "why should we bother changing if they aren't? They're going to be a bigger problem!" It's all ridiculous, but I hear it. Amongst the scientists that I work with, there is actually some debate on the Global Warming issue. The atmospheric chemists here are adament that global warming is human induced and will cause problems. The astronomy guy we have doesn't think that we'll be able to wreck the atmosphere any worse than the planet can handle. Then we have two conservative PhD students who think that, "Yes, we cause global warming, but more CO2 isn't all that bad for the environment, and the planet probably has built in mechanisms to counter problems." I think alot of the global warming denial comes from people who don’t want to change their lifestyles. Because once you start looking at what we’d have to change in order for CO2 levels to significantly go down, alot of people don’t want to do it. Plus, they point out countries like China & India, and how they aren’t bothering to tackle the problem, so they say, “why should we bother changing if they aren’t? They’re going to be a bigger problem!”

It’s all ridiculous, but I hear it. Amongst the scientists that I work with, there is actually some debate on the Global Warming issue. The atmospheric chemists here are adament that global warming is human induced and will cause problems. The astronomy guy we have doesn’t think that we’ll be able to wreck the atmosphere any worse than the planet can handle. Then we have two conservative PhD students who think that, “Yes, we cause global warming, but more CO2 isn’t all that bad for the environment, and the planet probably has built in mechanisms to counter problems.”

]]> By: monkey http://www.attackofthemonkey.com/blog/2006/07/31/bush-vs-bears/#comment-40 monkey Mon, 31 Jul 2006 18:28:38 +0000 http://www.attackofthemonkey.com/blog/2006/07/31/bush-vs-bears/#comment-40 I agree - most people are unwilling to make changes for our the sake of our planet if it's inconvenient to them. That is our current reality. That's why I think that a major problem is poor leadership. If we had leaders who were willing to see decades into the future, then they might actually make changes now to mitigate the problem. As you mention, the <a href="http://www.grida.se/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/" rel="nofollow">scientific uncertainty behind global warming</a> is not that the planet is warming, it is: 1) how much the planet is warming, 2) how much of the warming is human induced, and 3) how bad the effects will be. The argument that I made earlier, is that, according to the "Cheney doctrine", if there is a 1% chance that there is a threat, then we should take action. I think that even the conservative PhD students that you refer to would not be willing to say that they are more than 99% certain that there will not be problems with excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I agree - most people are unwilling to make changes for our the sake of our planet if it’s inconvenient to them. That is our current reality. That’s why I think that a major problem is poor leadership. If we had leaders who were willing to see decades into the future, then they might actually make changes now to mitigate the problem.

As you mention, the scientific uncertainty behind global warming is not that the planet is warming, it is: 1) how much the planet is warming, 2) how much of the warming is human induced, and 3) how bad the effects will be.

The argument that I made earlier, is that, according to the “Cheney doctrine”, if there is a 1% chance that there is a threat, then we should take action. I think that even the conservative PhD students that you refer to would not be willing to say that they are more than 99% certain that there will not be problems with excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

]]>