Climate Change

[Bekki]

I'm currently writing a play about climate change. It's a verbatim play - so I am interviewing people and arranging what they have said to form a piece of drama.

At the moment, I have lots of very similar views on climate change, so I thought I'd open it up to people from all sorts of backgrounds - namely you lovely people!

So - if you would like to be involved, just post your feelings on climate change! Arguments and heated discussion are welcome!

Note: By posting, you are giving permission for your words to be used in a play (anonymously, of course)

[Col.Foley]

I'm currently writing a play about climate change. It's a verbatim play - so I am interviewing people and arranging what they have said to form a piece of drama.

At the moment, I have lots of very similar views on climate change, so I thought I'd open it up to people from all sorts of backgrounds - namely you lovely people!

So - if you would like to be involved, just post your feelings on climate change! Arguments and heated discussion are welcome!

Is this gonna be parody?

[shipper hannah]

ok, erm, well on the science aspect i'm not sure whether we are causing climate change, there are valid arguments on both parts. it doesn't really matter though. if there's a chance that we are causing it then we damn well start doing something about it.
i'd say something more but i probably should have been in bed an hour ago.

[Crazy Tom]

ok, erm, well on the science aspect i'm not sure whether we are causing climate change, there are valid arguments on both parts. it doesn't really matter though. if there's a chance that we are causing it then we damn well start doing something about it.
i'd say something more but i probably should have been in bed an hour ago.

You have been misinformed. A lot of those argumetns are coming out of so called "scientists" who run off oil companie's money. Yes climate change has happend in the past, but there is no debate as to wether were responsible for accelerating this one far beyond natural limits.

[LoneStar1836]

You have been misinformed. A lot of those argumetns are coming out of so called "scientists" who run off oil companie's money. Yes climate change has happend in the past, but there is no debate as to wether were responsible for accelerating this one far beyond natural limits.

Could that be because one side is trying to suppress any and all debate about climate change?

[Lt. Col. Mcoy]

You have been misinformed. A lot of those argumetns are coming out of so called "scientists" who run off oil companie's money. Yes climate change has happend in the past, but there is no debate as to wether were responsible for accelerating this one far beyond natural limits.

You're darn right about there being no debate. The environmental extremists (that's right, I said it: extremists) stuff everyone else in the 'earth-hater' box.


Seriously, in terms of climate change, we only account for less than 10% (read it and weep) of greenhouse gases, weather men can't predict next week's weather...and here's the big hitter: less than a century ago the same environmental extremists were calling for a global ice age.

That's right. Look it up. Listen in your science classes (unless you're unlucky enough to have an extremist professor), and read the (real) data!

[Col.Foley]

You're darn right about there being no debate. The environmental extremists (that's right, I said it: extremists) stuff everyone else in the 'earth-hater' box.


Seriously, in terms of climate change, we only account for less than 10% (read it and weep) of greenhouse gases, weather men can't predict next week's weather...and here's the big hitter: less than a century ago the same environmental extremists were calling for a global ice age.

That's right. Look it up. Listen in your science classes (unless you're unlucky enough to have an extremist professor), and read the (real) data!

Agreed all debate is shelved and ignored.......and I am unlucky enough to have an extremist teacher.........*cries bitterly*

[shipper hannah]

i just think if there's a chance that it is us, we better cut our losses just in case!

[jenks]

Could that be because one side is trying to suppress any and all debate about climate change?

No, it's because just like the evolution/creationism debate, there's no controversy within the scientific community, it's just that sensationalist segments of the media like to act like there is.

[Col.Foley]

i just think if there's a chance that it is us, we better cut our losses just in case!

Yes.....and even without 'man made climate change' we need to ween ourselves off fossil fuels anyway.

No, it's because just like the evolution/creationism debate, there's no controversy within the scientific community, it's just that sensationalist segments of the media like to act like there is.

Please......there is alot of debate, from real scientists, and not those Al Gore mush eaters a word?

[1138]

I'll put it this way: Whether climate change is caused by humans or not is irrelevant. Burning fossil fuels is simply unsustainable - if not climate change, then peak oil will destroy our way of life.

Putting effort into switching over to more sustainable lifestyles is more like buying insurance for your house or your car. You don't know if your house is going to burn down or your car is going to get stolen but you pay anyway to guard against that risk. Likewise, even if the risks caused by burning fossil fuels is not actually as bad as they say, it makes sense to buy some insurance against it.

Remember - we could lose our entire way of life if we do nothing. On the other hand, mitigation requires changes to our life style but does not require giving up modern civilization. In many ways, less emphasis on cars and waste will make everyone healthier. There will certainly be less smog and obesity problems. Politically, the world would be more stable if we didn't depend on oil which is produced by the most conflicted regions on Earth.

The free market does not do a good job mitigating longterm risks or risks that depend on more advanced science than that available. And it certainly does not incorporate the costs of things that are measured in anything but monetary terms. For example, CFCs caused an ozone hole but the free market does not penalize businesses that emit CFCs. Pollution results in demonstrable harm to humans and yet the free market does not penalize the polluters. It always takes regulation to do it.

In the end, none of it matters. There is a risk of continuing our practices and we need to buy insurance against that. The earlier we do it, the lower the costs. If we don't and the risky thing happens, then we stand to lose everything. Buying the insurance certainly does not cost us as much as that.

The only reason anybody would be against environmental policies is if they lacked a fundamental ability to consider and prepare for risks and have an inability to think rationally. In other words, poor leaders. We shouldn't follow them.

Only fools would boast about driving their SUVs and complain of price gouging and environmentalists disallowing drilling into the natural reserves. They fail to understand the risk of their own behaviour. It's a reckless action.

Simple example of this risk thing I'm talking about:

A dumbass who drives blindfolded on the highway could survive on luck. And yet, none of us would think that the dumbass is actually doing the right thing. But at the same time, the dumbass could make fun of us for being pansies, just like the SUV driving hyperconsumerist. Driving blindfolded is risky - but it's not a guaranteed death. Most of us wouldn't take the chance. So why take a chance with our environment? In business or engineering, risks are evaluated like this:

V = P*S

V is a score for a risk - basically how serious it is. P is the probability of it happening; S is how severe the outcome of the risk is (just use a number from 0 to 1, with 1 being dire consequences). So how serious a risk is depends on how likely it is and how severe the outcome is. Driving blindfolded might be

S = 0.9*0.9 = 0.81

Continuing business as usual without caring for the environment:

V = 0.1*1 = 0.1

OK, so it's lower than driving blindfolded. But look at what happens if we look at stuff you buy insurance for:

Your house burning down:

V = 0.1*0.5 = 0.05

Less than 1 in 10 houses burn down (just do a survey of 10 friends and see if you know anyone who's house burned down). It's pretty severe, but not as severe as dying in a car accident or millions of houses flooded by sea level rise. The score is 0.05. Less than that for ignoring climate change. You might quibble with the probability I assigned to climate change but remember, the probability of a house burning down is much lower than 0.1. And the severity of millions of homes flooded is much higher than just a single house burning down. One can play with these numbers all day, but the point is, if you assign a reasonable probability and severity to climate change, it is pretty high on the scale of risks we should buy insurance for.

and here's the big hitter: less than a century ago the same environmental extremists were calling for a global ice age.

That's not an argument against what they think now. The process of science ensures that what we know now is more accurate than what we knew in the past. We have much better analysis tools at our disposal now than we did even 30 years ago. I can map sea ice in real-time today but I couldn't do it 30 years ago. We also have much more sophisticated computer models.

The point is, as far as our science can tell us today, climate change is happening and it is in part caused by all the CO2 that's been released by burning fossil fuels. You can't use "they've been wrong before" to discredit the scientific evidence. It just doesn't work that way.

Let's give an easier example of why your reasoning is fallacious:

1) Economists have been predicting that the economy is going to go into recession every time there's a big boom.
2) People dismiss it and say "That's what they always say"
3) The boom continues and people think the economists were wrong and will continue to be wrong every time they warn of a recession.

But fast forward to 2007. Someone predicts the economy is going into recession because of the subprime crisis. He's dismissed (there were several articles predicting this and they were brushed off). If you've been keeping up with the news, everyone agrees now that there is likely going to be a recession. The original person who made the prediction was correct in predicting the outcome, and - more importantly - pinpointed the correct reason for that outcome. And no one can rebut the original person using "They've been wrong before" since he's been proven right. Step 3 above is a cognitive bias that's not conducive to rational thinking.

[Lt. Col. Mcoy]

1. There is no recession.

2. The (very small) ozone hole is only over Antarctica, because only conditions there allow it to form. CFCs can't form any size of hole anywhere else.

[jenks]

Please......there is alot of debate, from real scientists, and not those Al Gore mush eaters a word?

I've no idea what that means. Anyway, do you really think governments would be spending billions to combat climate change if there was a reasonable doubt that the science wasn't sound?

[Crazy Tom]

No, it's because just like the evolution/creationism debate, there's no controversy within the scientific community, it's just that sensationalist segments of the media like to act like there is.

That's what i meant, sorry for any confusion.

1. There is no recession.

2. The (very small) ozone hole is only over Antarctica, because only conditions there allow it to form. CFCs can't form any size of hole anywhere else.

That hole's been geting smaller. it was a certain chemical that were cuting back on now that was causing it.

[jesserella]

i believe we are responsible, wether partly or completely, like people have been saying the price of not doing anything means that it doesn't matter who's right or wrong, we need to stop poluting, stop destroying rainforests and recycle, i don't care if people call me an environmental extremeist at least i'm not walking around blind to whats going on. If it doesn't get worse so be it, at least i wouldn't have sent too much crap to landfills and saved some money on gas and electricity, but if it does get worse all those people out there too lazy to make a few simple sacrifices and changes to their lifestyle are gunna feel pretty stupid.