Monkeysdad wrote: 

Just picking up on this point when I was studying for my geography degree in the late 1980s there were papers out there that had identified the problem of sea level rise so there is at least twenty years provenance for development of the science.

 edieraye wrote:

 
I think it matters to the people living on low lying islands or in coastal regions.  There could be a massive loss of life in those areas if all of the polar water melts & they lose their place to live.

There is also the problem of the glaciers melting all over the earth.  What will happen to all the people in Europe who depend on them to keep their rivers flowing and provide drinking water?

I agree that we need to become better stewards of our earth.  Polluting the oceans, rivers & land hasn't been working out very well for us or all of earth's animals.  Excellent point.

  I know that some Christians have been actively working on behalf of a more sustainable environment.  Its a wonderful example of diverse idealogical groups joining hands for the common good of all.

 steeler wrote: 
That there is a "problem" is what I find so vexing. It only seems like yesterday(1973) to me that I was given a Scholastic Weekly Reader telling us of the coming ice age..."global cooling" if you will, to wind up 36-37 years later in a situation where the sky is falling. In my lifetime I've watched cars go from pure Internal Combustion Engines to having smog pumps, fuel injection, PCV valves, catalytic converters, 9-10 mpg to 20-30 mpg,efficiencies, all spurred on by science that said: "If we don't do this, we're doomed", all these years later we still seem to be doomed, are we to believe that the same science that was supposed to save us then is going to save us now?! A good question I think, because when I look at the staggering cost of what is being proposed I'd like to know that it's really going to do the trick....yet no one can say for sure that all these actions will indeed reverse the warming trend. Aerospace...airliners in particular are currently being vilified as one of the major polluters of the planet, when I do the math for an aircraft flying from L.A. to NYC a 757 dollar-for-dollar is one of the most efficient ways to move a person across the country, but you'd never know that to listen to the "experts"(and I won't go into Nancy Pelosi's carbon footprint) and the public just laps it up without sitting down and doing a couple of simple equations.
I have a hard time keeping it all straight to be quite honest, for every statement from a colleague or media pundit about the perils of climate change I can almost catatgorically give a "yeah, but..." retort. I'm all for the argument that we do as a planet need to clean it up and preserve our resources but this all seems like a knee-jerk response to quasi-substantiated issues from my perspective.

 islander wrote: 
Can I visit with my friend Wilson?

 edieraye wrote: 

If only...

 steeler wrote:
 


I hope my mountain/island has a cave.... just in case.

 edieraye wrote:  

I suspect that the conceptual problem would be the same.  Those saying there is no problem could also state that as, We are being good stewards; nothing needs to be changed.  

Using your parlance to frame the issue:  Are we being good stewards of the earth and its environment?  If not, what do we need to do differently? 

Personally, I do think the degree of the "problem" matters in terms of the urgency in finding a solution. This is true in almost all aspects of our lives.  We priortize based upon which fire needs to be put out first. So, defining a problem also entails estimating the degree of the threat if the problem remains unresolved.    
  

 islander wrote: 

Agreed.

 steeler wrote: 

Does it matter if there is a problem or not?  Okay, so I'm approaching this from my admittedly Christian POV.  God created the Earth.  He gave it to humanity and told us to take care of it.  It is called stewardship.  You don't have to agree with that - somedays I have my doubts - but it leads me to the following position:

We are to handle with respect and care and gratitude all of the people, resources, and opportunities that we encounter.  That means no squandoring, no taking for granted, no abusing.  We are to do the best we are able environmentally, regardless of whether there is a problem or not.  We are to leave the world a better place than we found it.

Personally, I don't care if there isn't a problem - I still think we need to take steps to be better stewards.

 oldviolin wrote: 
Too good OV!  That should be one of the prizes for the

Winner of the Fossil of the Day Award!

12/07/09 opening day of the talks

THIRD PLACE: CANADA

"Canada earns its first Fossil of the COP for environment minister Jim Prentice's proclaiming that his nation "won't be swayed" by Copenhagen "hype"...

And yet, if there's a country on the face of this planet that so desperately needs to be swayed, it is Canada.

 Since announcing its plan in 2006 for reducing emissions by 3% below 1990 levels, the Harper government has consistently refused to adopt any actual regulatory framework to start reducing emissions—from, for example, the rapidly growing tar sands sector.

 Prentice said the target wouldn't change.

 So not only does Canada have perhaps the worst record of all industrialised countries, they're now vowing to stick to it.

 The world is gathering in Copenhagen to negotiate; Canada says its plan is to not negotiate. Adding insult to injury, South Africa now has a more ambitious target than Alberta, one of the richest places on earth... and home of some of the world's highest per capita emissions."

Maybe some RPeeps are upset that they might loose some of their beloved Oil Sand Tars Dollars, so it becomes easier to simply deny that the climate is warming or that sea levels are rising.  Makes me wonder if its not politics, but simply allegiance to Corporate money earnings.

...don't get me wrong, not all corporations or businesses are against environmentally cleaner policy.  Many are concerned about it and are looking for ways to run their businesses in an environmentally sustainable manner that won't destroy life on the planet as we know it.  Hopefully those are the ones that will survive.

1st Place for the Fossil Award goees to:

1st: All industrialised countries, that means the USA is in that Award category

 Beaker wrote: 
Beaker 101, lather, rinse, repeat. 26 posts to go. I'm waiting for the graphs and 4 part harmony.

 steeler wrote: 
Thank you. Exactly.

 islander wrote: 

Exactly.  Those who are saying "not enough" data are just aiming to keep the status quo.  Of course you continue to research and keep an open mind and assess our responses to the data- we may well adjust our approach at some point but we need to get it started.  Horrors above- we may even get it wrong but you have to go with the best information at the time to make a decision not wait for hindsight to make things clear.

 steeler wrote: 
There are some who still claim the earth is flat. Do we wait for them to come around, or do we build ships and sail for new lands? At what point do we stop the study? How much evidence is enough? We could literally study this one to death, but I doubt that's a good approach.

 Monkeysdad wrote: 

I surely do not know.  

My framework in approaching anything, however, is to first identify the problem — if there is one.  There are those denying that there is a problem.  So, we are stuck on that.  Only after a problem has been identified, can we be in position to try to find solutions. How does one find a solution to a problem one does not recognize as a problem?

That's why I find it frustrating to read stuff that assails those who are providing "evidence" of a problem, implying that their motives are nefarious and unpure.  

Now, I think Lazy8 and others are saying that even if there is a solution, which we have not yet determined, it may not be feasible in economic terms.  However, if the problem is the fate of the earth itself — or at least certain species on it, including humans — than can any cost be too great?  

What proof is there that there is no problem, or that if there is a problem, it is not worth trying to find a solution?   

 

 Monkeysdad wrote: 
Well, a significant majority of the peer reviewed science indicates that we are at least accelerating the problem with our carbon emissions. So a reasonable solution would be to limit our carbon emissions. Everyone is free to continue to get a significant majority of the peer reviewed science to change their mind and say that there is no impact, but until then it seems prudent that we do what we can instead of continuing the same behaviors that that appear to be driving the problem.

 BasmntMadman wrote: 

Oh, what the heck...

 steeler wrote: 
I expect we'll be hearing about specifics soon enough.

 steeler wrote: 

But is there a solution?

 Lazy8 wrote: 

What is the vastly expensive and intrusive program?  I have not heard of a specific plan.  

I do not hear a debate about what should be done.  As you say, one side of the spectrum is arguing that nothing should be done. That can only be justified if no problem exists or the problem that exists has no possible solution.