Cyril 

I really see the shadow of Thomas Kuhn cast upon this discussion.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...and perhaps a bit of Paul Feyerabend.

Corben

Well Andy, I hope you're happy for opening up this big can of worms. WTG!
-Ace.

TransitBiker

Hey, as long as people are using facts and citable/linkable sources & not personal attacks, i'd say it is not a can of worms. I would call it a lively debate where brain cells are being utilized. And as long as it's all contained here and not to other threads, i really don't see the harm.

Someone mentioned superior morality or something a few pages back. I think i have to invoke ghostbusters here.... If we are wrong, then we end up with an improved more efficient civilization with far more robust understanding of things and each other. But if we are right, and we can stop this thing........ we will save millions of lives and save people from suffering they would have otherwise endured.

I have not spoken up about this till now, but i volunteered after sandy. I went to new dorp beach in staten island. I handed out masks so people didnt get sick from the salt water sewage residue on everything and mold in and on everything with an enclosed structure. I handed out bags to put contaminated stuff into, cleaning supplies so the residents could return to their homes for more than 20 minutes at a time. I handed out first aid kits, gloves, hand sanitizer and alcohol wipes.... donations from literally all over the country and all over the world. If anything i do in my life now prevents a storm like that 300 years from now happening again, it will all have been worth it. If you've never been to a natural disaster area like that, you will not understand..... just endless homes with occupancy restrictions from the storm surge getting into the first floor up over the garage, buildings pushed off their foundations, walls punched in, belongings strewn in yards and scattered all over. National guard and army reserve patrolling the decimated streets absolutely encrusted with salt and sewage up to 6 feet in some places. Baseball diamonds piled 50 feet high, 60 feet wide and 300 feet long with debris from homes, cars marked up and left by the owners also encrusted. It was a nightmare come to life. If anything i can do or any way i can live that can lower the odds that type of thing happening again..... i'd consider it if it was practical. I've found activism and volunteering on top of living car free to be how i do that best.

A few days later a few family members and myself went to nutley NJ to sort a massive donation of clothing and baby supplies one church in the south had collected and send north to the nearest place it could fit. Stuff piled 10 foot high up the 16 foot ceilings in boxes and bags. The noreaster that hit after sandy was that day. We were carrying these things from one building to another for final sorting from the initial rough sorting off the big pile in the blowing dumping snow probably about 200 round trips and we barely put a dent in the big pile. Some people lost everything and needed any of the clothing, but as it was 40 degrees out we focused on warm clothing, as that was being dropped off that afternoon to a final distribution pickup center where the familes would take possession of the donations. The big thing that struck me is the power being off in entire twns, empty of any life or activity for as far as we could see from the staten island bridge aproaches which we used to make a U turn we were alone there.... it was creepy. If i can save this from happening again or worse......

We were lucky here, our power was off only 42 hours and the dunkin donuts which we used for all 3 meals for 3 days had power. It was also 24 hour.

So, when you talk to me about superior morality, please realize that this isnt some concept happening in some far off hard to pronounce place... it was here, in new york and nj. places i've been before. It was in trenton where people i know work, it was in newark where people i know live. An ex of mine had to evacuate (she lives in bayonne) to a shelter and still report to work at newark international on overtime. Why would i risk living a carbon intense life if it meant some other storm would happen and be worse? It's the ethical choice i made years ago, way before al gore. I know this land where i live, it's changing, things are screwed up. I don't need a chart to tell me the climate is warming. When my mom was a kid she lived around here, and the changes she can verify are even more striking than mine.... why risk it? Why not take the path that helps in the long run? That's my view on it anyway.

- Andy

noglider 

You're a good man, Andy. Sandy scared the cr*p out of me, and our house sustained the most minor damage. (We lived in Maplewood, NJ at the time.) We only lost a few shingles off the roof. But the destruction around us shook us up. Plus being without power for eight days was no picnic.

cobrabyte

Exactly this.

If there is any 'conspiracy' to suppress information, I'm sure it's from the giant mega conglomerate corporations doing harm to our environment, not the scientists and activists trying to save it.

alan s 

My efforts on the ride home last night produced tons of greenhouse gases (CO2 and methane), which I'm sure contributed to the beautiful warm day we are having today! (Sorry about the odor, folks, but you have to take the good with the bad). It's nice knowing I'm making a real difference.

cobrabyte

so, alan, you've gone from being an uninformed contrarian to being repugnant? Enjoy that nice weather of yours, bud.

delcrossv

Big Science is more like Big Corporations than you think. My ex girlfriend switched from stellar physics to climatology as a smart career move. There's a running joke in the plasma physics/ fusion community that we'll have fusion 2 years after the last research grant runs out.

People are people.

Follow the money.

alan s 

I've always been both, and intend to stay that way. Hey, at least it's keeping the Polar Vortex away, which I'm sure everyone appreciates.

lostarchitect 

And you know the oil companies have a lot more of that money, right? Be real, man.

delcrossv

Almost as much as the federal government.

kickstart

That's a good analogy, I'm not suggesting there's no room for improvement in what we do. Its the panic and fear mentality some are propagating by saying there's no question that climate change will manifest itself as a global catastrophe and its all our fault that I question.

Planning for retirement by selling everything off, building a bunker in the wilderness, and stocking it with gats and food because of economic uncertainty?

noglider 

Your complaint is about a fringe element that doesn't have much influence. Focus on the important stuff, OK?

The biggest source of greenhouse gases worldwide is cows. I don't advocate anything like a vegetarian diet, but we would do well if we just ate less meat, especially beef. Such high scale beef production wouldn't be possible without gigantic government subsidies which are well intended but very misguided. In the western US, cows graze on federal land, rent-free.

ColnagoC40

I don't care, this is what I do 70% of the time, winter and summer.

CycleOps - CycleOps

tjspiel

It is already a catastrophe for some people living in island nations. While we argue over what the cause is, many people are being displaced from their homes and businesses by rising sea levels. How catastrophic will it be for me sitting here in Minnesota? That's a harder question to answer.

The whole argument really comes down to money. Few people in the coal industry are going to support a switch to renewables and/or nuclear. Doing so has a very predictable and bad impact on them. Those on the left would be better served if they understood that and offered a way to soften the blow to the people who earn a living in that industry. You can't expect an opposing group to care about your concerns when you don't care about theirs.

Mr. Hairy Legs

I see it as a very slow motion train wreck. Panic is inappropriate, but that doesn't mean we should ignore it completely.

Certainly the "Manhattan will be underwater in 10 years" kind of talk has never helped anything. People don't like BS.

tjspiel

+1

It just feeds in to the doubts that some people already have about this issue and gives more ammunition to those who profit from fossil fuel use.

alan s 

So if you knew in a million years an asteroid would hit the earth and destroy all human life, would you advocate spending huge amounts of money to address the problem now, or make note of it, study the problem, and kick the can down the road for future generations to solve? I'd vote for kicking the can.

Same goes for fixing or controlling the climate. Except that we don't actually know what, if anything, is happening to the climate, what the cause is, and what, if anything, can be done about it. It takes a long time to determine what is happening and for any problem to manifest itself. Go ahead and study it, debate it and think up plans to address it, but don't waste money going overboard, and don't chastise others for questioning the alleged science behind the outlandish claims of devastation. We all know it's a ploy for more government funding.

no motor?

That's kind of the way I look at it too, if my riding my bicycle and walking instead of driving doesn't do anything more than make me healthier than things could be a whole lot worse.

I've lived through 3 floods in the past 6 years, and 1 was bad enough to make the national news but none of them were anywhere near as bad as Sandy. Cleaning up after them was a major project, and we had power for 2 of them and professional crew helping with all three. You're help there was appreciated.

lostarchitect 

A million years? Sure, wait for tech to catch up.

Climate change is happening now, however. It is not a "ploy for more government funding." The science is real and not "alleged." If you are worried about government waste, there are many, many more expensive programs that you could look into--but most people who deny climate change are not interested in, say, cutting the military. They reject climate change because the propaganda tells them to, not because they are scientifically literate enough to understand anything about it.

alan s 

Really? What is "climate change," over what period of time is it measured and how is it measured? Assuming you have the answers, who says your answers are correct? You? It's junk science, at best.

kickstart

Its ironic you used that as an example.
A few weeks ago at a bike shop, I overhead another customer saying he wanted to trade or sell his Brooks saddle because he recently became a vegan due to concerns over the environment and no longer felt comfortable using a leather saddle.
Now clearly the lowest impact solution is to continue using what's already in hand rather than consume more, but acting on an ideology was more important than actual substance.

This isn't a thought process I view as being productive, but its pervasive in those pushing for major changes in a fever of "we must act now".

lostarchitect 

That is the current consensus amongst the majority of the scientific community, as you know. Given that you think "97% of scientists" once thought the earth was flat, I don't know where to start with you and scientific literacy. If you think human caused climate change doesn't exist and that the overwhelming volumes of research supporting it are "junk science," I invite you to show compelling evidence disproving it. No one has done this so far. Legitimate scientists ARE working continually on proving or disproving this, that is how science works. The poorly supported opinions of one or two scientists are not enough to counteract the huge amount of evidence compiled thus far. If you can do it you will be something of a cause celebre, and I would love to see what you have.

tjspiel

What constitutes "real" science vs "junk" science?

Is it the fact that some people are probably exaggerating the immediacy and the severity of consequences? Does that mean all warnings regarding global warming should be ignored?

Given that you can always find people who are willing to hold a contrary view to any position one might take, how much consensus is required before people are willing to take serious steps towards solving a problem?

We can debate this stuff forever.

alan s 

Thought you would have the answers at your fingertips. Never mind, it's not that important.