[Guest]

Over the past little bit, we discovered that some climate change scientists were hiding their data from the world and dodging the Freedom of Information Act. As a result we have many people wondering what that means about Global warming itself. We have conservative talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh using this information to claim that science and academia are the tools if the radical left wing, and, (not joking) two of the four corners of the universe of deceit, as compared to his universe of reality and truth. What's your scoop on this issue that may be as controversial as the existence of God?

[unreality]

to be honest it doesn't matter whether global climate change is a fact. What matters is that we need to get off our @sses and start saving the ONLY PLANET we KNOW OF that supports LIFE! The disrespect some people have for our Earth astounds me. If you ask "why help the earth if we're unsure about global warming?" i ask "WHY NOT???"

[Guest]

to be honest it doesn't matter whether global climate change is a fact. What matters is that we need to get off our @sses and start saving the ONLY PLANET we KNOW OF that supports LIFE! The disrespect some people have for our Earth astounds me. If you ask "why help the earth if we're unsure about global warming?" i ask "WHY NOT???"

Yeah, that's definitely part of my attitude toward the argument. While I do think that there is compelling evidence that greenhouse gasses we release are contributing to the problem, I think that there is even ample economic incentive to "Go Green." Whether we reach peak oil now or in fifty years, eventually we are going to peak and then we are going to need another abundant supply or the world economy will completely crumble. It may not be economically easy and profitable in the short-term, but we need to think of things in the long-term (unfortunately, a problem when corporate interests only care about their bottom-line for the next quarter ). When (and preferably long before) we reach peak oil/coal, we need another source that won't be such a burden on the environment and that is renewable so that we can rely on it continually regardless of what happened in the past or will happen in the future. If we aren't going to start investing in alternatives before we peak, things are going to get very dicey when we're struggling afterward.

That's a utilitarian/economic reason for supporting climate change legislation, but I would hope that people could be moved by ones more along unreality's argument. But if nothing else works, that's always one to fall back on. Would we rather that Exxon-Mobil makes $X billions in profits now and the entire global economy crashes and burns when it's primary revenue source disappears later, or maybe we could afford for Exxon-Mobil to make $(X-Y) billions in profits now and be ready to switch over to new forms of energy that don't burden the environment so much when fossil fuels cease to be plentiful, where Y < X (though I wouldn't be against Y >= X ).

I haven't heard about the scientists in question, so I can't comment specifically, but it does seem a little boneheaded, considering that such efforts to hide data (no matter who is doing it) tend to find themselves leaked in some fashion sooner or later (and usually sooner). (Leaks are one reason I'm hesitant to believe most "vast global conspiracy" theories; someone would leak it to the press. Incompetence is almost always a more likely culprit. )

But in all seriousness, there are an abundance of reasons why we should work to curtail climate change. Regardless of whether we are having an effect on climate, if there is a chance we are, we should try to reduce any such effect. Like unreality said, this is the only planet we have so we can't just say, "We don't think we're damaging it, so we probably shouldn't do anything until we're 110% sure." This isn't a scientific hypothesis that we can test in a laboratory and say "Well, we wrong, I guess climate change was our fault after all. Time to throw that out and start over with our new model." Either we sustain our planet or we don't. There's no room for maybes when you only have one test case you can use. We need to err on the side of caution and caution would dictate that we assume climate change is something that we can affect until someone proves otherwise. That's the safest (and sanest) approach to the problem.

[EDM]

....i would just like to say that instead of bothering about getting more information from the scientists, we should be more bothered about doing something about the environment.......start your own campaigns, work to save the earth in any way you can.......

*and another thing......why is it that the governments don't do much to help earth or nature, but spend millions of dollars just to manufacture weapons and other nonsense that we would never need even in our darkest days (which, ironically would be caused by those weapons and nonsense)....???

Edited December 1, 2009 by EDM

[Guest]

I agree with taking care of the Earth for different reasons. However, I have to take issue with this application of Pascal's wager to climate change.

First, the problem with the "green movement" is that it has been co-opted by a diverse group of special interests. Thus its direction is controlled not by reason or truth but by the personal or collective goals of people who are inept, devious, or apathetic. Said groups create, engender, or perpetuate a religious fervour surrounding global climate change they then use to accomplish their designs.

Among these you have: businesses who have "repented" of their "sins against the environment" and now want you to increase their bottom line; businesses created specifically to capitalize on the movement; politicians seeking to obtain, increase, or consolidate power or position; anti-capitalists trying to destroy industries and economies; etc. They have only an incidental interest in the environment.

Second, climate change is a matter empiricism (foundational or coherentist doesn't matter). Any dismissal of evidence that doesn't fit a model undermines the scientific method. Their duty was to present the data and explain it using their model, explain why the data is invalid, modify the model, or come up with a model that accounts for it. To propose Pascal's wager as a response to the OP seems a little silly. I don't agree with his idea that reason cannot be trusted, but at least Pascal covered his bases by asserting that God is incomprehensible and unknowable.

[Guest]

Personally, I don't think that humans are warming the Earth through CO₂ emissions, but I agree with UR and EDM in that we should save the Earth anyway.

[akaslickster]

Personally, I don't think that humans are warming the Earth through CO₂ emissions, but I agree with UR and EDM in that we should save the Earth anyway.

For the sake of the future children, saving the earth should be a top priority, as long as it's possible.

[Guest]

i agree with saving the earth, and what slick said made me think. I don't know how old you guys are but, i am only 14 and i don't feel like paying a few trillion dollars of debt to other countries.

[Izzy]

With regards to money... saving the earth should be freaking free. When it gets to the point where Earth won't support life any longer without immediate interference, people are going to rapidly change their priorities and all resources will be used in an attempt to save the planet. No one will care about a few dollars because hopefully we can all agree that our lives are more important. ..So why not just do that now? There are people out there that have way more money than they can ever possibly use, and at this rate, the heirs of that money won't be around long enough to use it up. I think the people that can help, should. This isn't solely their responsibility, but it wouldn't kill them to put in a little more because they're able to.

All we need to do it is energy. Energy is free - there just happens to be people who charge you for it. So stop charging. Workers, instead of working for money, work for the state of the planet. Sounds good to me. (Yeah, problems will arise, good economy, but it will ultimately salvage our home.)

[akaslickster]

i agree with saving the earth, and what slick said made me think. I don't know how old you guys are but, i am only 14 and i don't feel like paying a few trillion dollars of debt to other countries.

Well P4p, I don't think it will hurt to check this out:

www.myspace.com/greendaynrdc

Edited December 21, 2009 by akaslickster

[Izzy]

Oh em gee, Green Day.

NRDC? I couldn't find a reference to what it stood for..

[akaslickster]

Oh em gee, Green Day.

NRDC? I couldn't find a reference to what it stood for..

That would be "National Resources Defense Counsel". Wouldn't it be great if enough people even cared about major issues, involving global warming and keeping the planet from being trashed?

I think it takes more cooperation than just money alone. In big numbers there is strength.

[hugemonkey]

to be honest it doesn't matter whether global climate change is a fact. What matters is that we need to get off our @sses and start saving the ONLY PLANET we KNOW OF that supports LIFE! The disrespect some people have for our Earth astounds me. If you ask "why help the earth if we're unsure about global warming?" i ask "WHY NOT???"

Exactly, Whether anybody believes it or not something is happening with the climate. If there is a chance that we have something to do with it then we should try to address that. Yes, it is true that humans evolved significantly over a period of climactic flux; other creatures and plants including things that we eat are not as adaptable.

The US invaded Iraq at the cost of what will be $1 trillion dollars on the chance that there was WMD's.

There is a far greater threat from global warming whatever its cause (although the scientific evidence is still convincing that is is real and human caused, even with this latest controversy). I haven't heard investing anywhere near this amount in the global warming problem. Why gamble? If we are wrong we risk ruining our one planet forever. The only downside that I have ever heard is that by limiting our carbon emissions we might damage our economy (read as some people won't make as much money). That is also debatable as we can make money on green technology, too, but it might not be the same people who are making money now. We should all realize by now how fleeting financial gains can be.

[EDM]

well.....since I reside in the middle east.......here's a nice website where some people have come up with affordable and excellent energy saving bulbs......reduce carbon emissions..... .....I was lucky enough to buy them...

Make the Switch - UAE

global warming is becoming a pain in the neck.....and if you've watched 2012, then it's time to do something....and FAST!!!....

SAVE THE EARTH......

Edited December 22, 2009 by EDM