3 ms·

> I dunno about you, but I'm currently living in the climate, and intend to remain here. There is no credible scientific analysis that indicates we are likely

by ErrantX 16y ago

> I dunno about you, but I'm currently living in the climate, and intend to remain here. There is no credible scientific analysis that indicates we are likely to suffer the effects of irreversible climate change within our lifetime. >The general public's knowledge of climate change is the same as it was 20 years ago? Seriously? It's probably worse; because it is full of misinformation. Their awareness is certainly higher; don't confuse the two! > Look at household recycling as an example of public-opinion-driven change - how long did it take to go from the fringe to where it is now? and how feeble it still is compared to where it could be? How many people actually bother, compared to how many people understand? etc. Actually a prime example of my point; that was all political point scoring as well. The main problem with recycling now is that the waste is simply not processed well with much of it still going to landfill. You also may be forgetting the horror stories of the late 80's of mounting piles of rubbish we would face in "the near future". Obviously, shock tactics had an effect there... ;) > and that we have barely enough time left to make any impact at all This is not what the current scientific work is saying. We have plenty of time, assuming of coure proper action is taken in the next 10-15 years. Of course; it is not yet known if we are able to stop climate change entirely or whether nature will simply force it upon us etc. Still more work has to be undertaken in these areas. We simply do not have enough information to predict where things will end up. Action now has to come from the assumption changes will have to be made - and taking appropriate, rational steps.

getonit 16y ago
> This is not what the current scientific work is saying. We have plenty of time, assuming of coure proper action is taken in the next 10-15 years. This is the nub of my argument - who says we have plenty of time? based on what? based on "simply do not have enough information to predict"? The permafrost specifically is an unknown. We know that it can happen, we know that it will happen if left unchecked, but we don't know if we can stop it, or how much it will take to stop. It's starting to happen already - it's melting and venting now - and it's a positive feedback system. And again, even if I agreed with you about how long we've got, 10-15 years is an eternity in politics and doubly-so if any action is going to come from public pressure. You saw the pressure for and lack of result of Copenhagen, didn't you? The bungling of every other irreversible issue such as managing fish stocks, biodiversity, etc.

by ErrantX 16y ago

getonit 16y ago

> This is not what the current scientific work is saying. We have plenty of time, assuming of coure proper action is taken in the next 10-15 years. This is the nub of my argument - who says we have plenty of time? based on what? based on "simply do not have enough information to predict"? The permafrost specifically is an unknown. We know that it can happen, we know that it will happen if left unchecked, but we don't know if we can stop it, or how much it will take to stop. It's starting to happen already - it's melting and venting now - and it's a positive feedback system. And again, even if I agreed with you about how long we've got, 10-15 years is an eternity in politics and doubly-so if any action is going to come from public pressure. You saw the pressure for and lack of result of Copenhagen, didn't you? The bungling of every other irreversible issue such as managing fish stocks, biodiversity, etc.