Opinion"Risk is only intolerable when it comes to terrorism. When it comes to climate change, we require certainty." (http://slashdot.org/~timeOday)
      – BorgClown, 2010-01-10 at 22:35:22   (20 comments)

On 2010-01-10 at 22:38:17, BorgClown wrote...
It seems like the risk's value is inversely proportional to the number of lives it could affected. WTF?
On 2010-01-10 at 23:33:40, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I can only disagree from my own perspective. I'm smart enough to know that statistically terrorism is no threat at all. I also know that if climate change reaches a tipping point then it will be irreversible and that's a worth not worth taking no matter what the certainty may be. For the general population the opposite is true. They listen to the media-fuel scare stories and governments take advantage of disinformation to 'fight terrorism' with wars that have nothing to do with terrorism. Climate change is seen as a minor, long-term issue that can be ignored for now even though by the time its effects are blatantly obvious it will simply be too late.
On 2010-01-11 at 16:43:43, DigitalBoss wrote...
The media is spreading false scare stories about anthropogenic global warming. No one has ever died from AGW, and no one ever will. Terrorism may be a small threat statistically, allowed to go unchecked, it could be much higher. I think that is the goal, to get to the people that propagate, finance, train, and support the terrorists so that their effectiveness is kept to a minimum. AGW or ACG has not even been proven to exist yet.
On 2010-01-11 at 21:45:36, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: How are you so sure that AGW doesn't exist? What are your sources? Carbon dioxide is a good greenhouse gas, and we have been steadily raising its atmospheric concentration since the industrial revolution. Also, if the land ice melts a little, the opaque dirt can trap even more heat. It is not a "look, there it is" thing, but a gradual process. It might balance out with something, or it might even not be that great of a deal, but it certainly can be fatal for millions of people.
On 2010-01-11 at 21:48:06, BorgClown wrote...
OTOH, I think USA has lost more to the terrorists than the inverse. Less freedoms, more demagogy and more profit for arm dealers. All you got back were a few scares and fear mongering.
On 2010-01-12 at 03:48:46, DigitalBoss wrote...
"Might" and "can be". ACG is just another elitist strategy to increase the size, scope, and power of government. It is a communist plot. The debate is over.
On 2010-01-12 at 03:50:43, DigitalBoss wrote...
"All you got back were a few scares and fear mongering"...and a bunch of dead raghead motherfuckers. OooohRah!
On 2010-01-13 at 07:11:53, BorgClown wrote...
...
On 2010-02-04 at 09:37:53, Thelevellers wrote...
@DigitalBoss: Well, not really 'might' and 'can be', as CO2 is definitely a warming gas (the atmosphere of Venus is 97% CO2, and has a surface temperature high enough to melt lead, for one piece of evidence), so it's only a matter of time really. TBH though, I'm not sure I can be bothered with arguing, as if humans as a majority are really stupid enough to waste time and money on killing each other rather than fixing the mess we're making (or even if it's not anthropogenic - do you not think we could do some super sweet sciencey coolness to avert the changes if we funded such things?) then good riddance. Hmm, my cynicism is unusually high today...
On 2010-02-04 at 11:22:33, Lee J Haywood wrote...
It's pretty much too late for us to avert significant climate change anyway - any reductions were only intended to mitigate the worst effects of it, not prevent it altogether. A warmer planet simply provides more energy for more severe weather, which is still chaotic and not obviously linked to the warming to an extent that will convince everyone even when they're boiling or freezing.
On 2010-02-04 at 15:47:31, DigitalBoss wrote...
@level: ...and our CO2 is 0.03%. 97% vs 0.03%, I would say there is no comparison. So what is your point? Oh, and the fact the Venus is millions of miles closer to the Sun has nothing to do with it I suppose.
On 2010-02-04 at 15:53:15, DigitalBoss wrote...
I think most humans are pretty smart. What is pitiful about humans is that many of them expect their government to wipe their asses for them.
On 2010-02-05 at 02:44:04, BorgClown wrote...
Unless forced by the environment, things take the path of least resistance. I think entropy is what makes humans dumb and apathetic.
On 2010-02-05 at 21:03:20, Thelevellers wrote...
@DigitalBoss: Actually the fact that Venus is millions of miles closer to the sun doesn't really matter - it is still far enough away that without the high rate of CO2 in the atmosphere it would be a frozen lump of rock. The point is that CO2 definitely causes warming, and while the amount in out atmosphere is FAR lower, you also find that lead is a solid in most place on the surface... the CO2 effect is a run away process - Venus hasn't always been that hot, I would link the relevant article, but it was my colleague that found it and I only read it over his shoulder... (Is it obvious I've been given 'global warming' as a discussion point for a debate as part of my [oh so hated] keyskills?! :P )
On 2010-02-05 at 21:04:19, Thelevellers wrote...
Oh, and I meant to say before: I can;t agree or disagree with the topic because I don't know if you're asking about MY opinion, or that of the general populace? I disagree, but it seems like most people would agree...
On 2010-02-06 at 15:36:01, Lee J Haywood wrote...
It isn't that Venus gets more solar radiation, given that it's also far more reflective - the problem is that what heat it does receive is trapped and amplified by the abundance of CO₂. From Wikipedia, regarding the Earth... "Since the Earth's surface reflects about 28% of incoming sunlight, the planet's mean temperature would be far lower - about -18 or -19 °C - in the absence of the effect. Because of the effect, it is instead much higher at about 14 °C." No only is our CO₂ vital for life, it and other greenhouse gases are capable of raising the temperature much higher beyond what we can cope with. @Thelevellers: Your opinion is the only one that really matters, since otherwise there's not much for you to debate.
On 2010-02-08 at 21:16:20, BorgClown wrote...
It doesn't help much to the cause that some global warming supporters have become faith driven, even if some skeptics are too. The end doesn't justify the means, GW should be a purely scientific debate.
On 2010-02-08 at 22:40:38, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@BorgClown: As I've said before, the reality of climate change exists whether you believe in it or not. However, I was thinking earlier today that it depends entirely on what your own definition of climate change is. If you think that a few degrees of warming is acceptable, then you don't think of it as 'bad climate change' (and the cause is mostly irrelevant). If you're concerned about runaway warming and accept that global warming is nothing like the same as local warming, then those exact same few degrees of warming are pretty scary. So perhaps the 'two sides' of climate change aren't actually about the evidence but rather what change means to each individual? If that's true, then there cannot be reconciliation unless someone can be convinced that change can be fast, dramatic and undesirable (or vice versa).
On 2010-02-09 at 11:46:05, Thelevellers wrote...
That's a good point Lee, there is always a voice somewhere saying "but don't you want to be able to fish from your balcony in a Mediterranean climate?", at least in this country. Sometimes this is in jest, of course, but some people seem to take that view seriously, and seem to forget that if you are some WITH land, everyone WITHOUT land will be knocking on your door in a less than polite manner to get a piece. Not sure the best method of convincing people of the downsides is, maybe I'll find out on Thursday when the long threatened debate on Global Warming for key skills is meant to happen...
On 2010-02-09 at 14:12:38, Lee J Haywood wrote...
The downsides are numerous, and I've listed them previously (see Wikipedia) but it's the runaway change that's the only real concern. The idea that what is currently controllable could get beyond our control and we'll become at the mercy of the elements much as our ancestors were.