<p>An international crisis of epic proportions is looming in Asia. Literally hundreds of millions of people depend on glaciers for their fresh water supply. Because of rising temperatures many of these glaciers are deminishing in size and if this continues, they will be incapable of supporting the population depending on the glacial melt as their water source.</p>
<p>The issue will then become survival rather than adaptation.</p>
<p>No, it’s still adaptation. When you take the food or water source away from an animal, they adapt by migrating to a different area. There are plenty of people who live in areas, such as the Sahara Desert that have learned to adapt.</p>
<p>But as had been said plenty of times; global warming, greenhouse gases, etc… are not something that most people disagree on. Most agree that it is indeed happening. What is disagreed on is how was it caused and what can be done about it.</p>
<p>Some believe than mankind has caused it, or at least has had a major influence on it. And that we can some how fix it all. The other position is that there have been temperature and climate shifts since the beginning of time. That global warming and global cooling has existed before mankind ever added the first man made contaminents. And that all we can do is to learn to adapt, just as people adapter hundreds of years ago during the mini ice age; and how people adapt every day to their environment.</p>
<p>Of course, there are a lot of compromises that can be made. I.e. looking for renewable and clean energy. (No, not ethanol. That’s as bad in all respects). Things like solar, wind, hydro, etc… The compromise is that fossil fuels are depleating, and over time will need to be replaced anyway. By finding an alternative, it takes care of the energy source requirements while also helping the environment. (Based on some people’s opinions). Also, energy needs to become more efficient so we can use it to more of our advantage. Fossil fuels aren’t the most efficient. Ethanol and bio fuels are a even less efficient. Solar, wind, hydro, are more efficient. Maybe not economical or practical for portable use, but definitely more efficient.</p>
<p>So, we can appease those who believe man is at fault for the environment, but we do it for different motives. We do it for a more efficient energy source that is abundent. </p>
<p>Of course, if some scientists could prove that mankind has caused some of these global warming type problems, then that could help propel the solutions. Unfortunately, science can’t prove man is affecting the environment that well. Currently, man’s contribution to greenhouse gases and global warming is only about 3%. More affect is done by the oceans with water vapor than mankind could ever do. Global warming issues are where they are strictly for political purposes. It’s a topic that the average ignorant human being doesn’t know anything about how it happens. The politicians and those seeking control use this as an emotional bullet to gain more control, power, money, etc… Some of these advocates may truly believe that mankind is a major influence in global warming issues, but they are ignorant. But at least they have the right motives. Current science shows has little mankind has impacted the global temperatures and environment. There are some that will try and prove it’s all man’s fault no matter if their data is skewed or not. But, if real truth from science can show something differently, I’d be willing to contemplate it. But currently, they can’t prove that mankind has had more than a 3% affect.</p>
<p>Some of us also have advanced degrees in other fields</p>
<p>When it comes to policy decision making, the need for advanced degrees is highly over rated by those who have them. That is not to say that specialized training, experience and knowledge is not needed during the discussion and development stage of policy making. Specialized training, experience and knowledge are very important. It is vital to get good advice and information from the technical experts as policy is developed. However it is the very fact that technical experts are so involved with their own areas of expertise that generally makes them poor policy decision makers. They tend to see life from their own narrow point of view. </p>
<p>Of course the main problem we have had with public policy aspects of global warming in the last few years is that Bush Administration has paid no heed to the people with specialized training, experience and knowledge when the government was making public policy. </p>
<p>Telling one third of the people who live in Atlanta they have to move because there is not enough water to sustain the city is not going to work in our society. Just a few of the public policy questions that quickly come to mind. Who is going to decide who has to move? What about the investment those who are forced to move have in the homes, will the government reimburse for the cost of the house. If so where does this money come from? Where do we move the people? Should older people be allowed to stay in the community they have lived in for years, and if so what is the number of years that we should consider when making this decision? Now we move on to the problem of the farmers of Kansas and their crops. Once we have the home owners of Atlanta and the farmers of Kansas taken care of what about the water shortage west of the 100 parallel? </p>
<p>See what I mean by silly, and the fact that a wider view of the problem is needed?</p>
<p>Won’t we know more about the political will of the United States in 2017? </p>
<p>Since some people object to throw data at the performance of the Clinton-Gore “environmental” tandem, let’s see what happens in the next decade. </p>
<p>My take? Another monument to the hypocrisy of politicians, especially the ones who pretend to care for the sole sake of selling books, manage financial scheming organizations, and picking up awards on the way!</p>
<p>xiggi: You already conceding 08? (you can always rely on supreme court)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The continued desertification which is enlarging the Sahara is causing great amounts of strife–the famines there are partially political, but partially caused by the crop losses caused by water loss.</p>
<p>where do you think the hundreds of millions of people who face water loss along with the loss of the glaciers in Asia are going to get up and move to? Would you like to invite them over here?</p>
<p>If you want to go political; we can. If you want to go philosophical; we can. The original statement on this however was that is was a matter of survival and not adaptation. It isn’t. If for whatever reason the water issue wasn’t resolved, these people would have to adapt. Either there or moving. I won’t talk about emotional side of people having to move. That’s not what I was responding to. If a person chooses to stay and DIE instead of adapting. That’s their problem.</p>
<p>But, if you truly think that mankind is the reason that the glaciers, ice shelf, etc… are melting; and that somehow we can fix this right now with certain actions; then we can’t discuss it because I don’t believe that we have that much power over mother nature. Warming and cooling has happened back and forth for millions of years. Even as recently as the last couple hundred years. If georgia (Atlanta) is having water issues, then maybe they should learn to adapt. They’re on the ocean. Do what Saudi Arabia does and put in a desalination plant and process the sea water. Then you can also help the cause of all those people who are afraid that the ocean levels are going to kill us all by rising to high.</p>
<p>Many global warming debunkers cite the Oregon Petition Project which has thousands of signatories from academics around the world. About a year ago I received the OPP report and a request to add my name to the petition. I refused because, while I hold a PhD in engineering I know little about the science of global warming or climatology in general.</p>
<p>No doubt that there are qualified climatologists who reject the theory of man made global warming. And they may be correct. However for an issue that has the potential for horrendous global consequences, shouldnt we assume the worst case scenario and error on the side of safety?</p>
<p>Not at the price it would be. Money being used for ethanol subsidies, epa isuues, politics, etc… should all be channeled towards REAL alternative and renuable energies such as solar, wind, water, nuclear, etc… Then, you take care of enery issue for now and the future, and you also reduce/eliminate the potential man made influences that some claim global warming is caused by. But instead of using funds for R&D, they use them political and special interest purposes.</p>
<p>If the money was used to facilitate a good solar/wind/hydro/nuclear source; then many would go along with it because it would reduce our energy costs. If a side effect happens to be that the environment is better, then that’s a plus. But putting money into ethanol and bio fuels doesn’t help the environment and it’s all for political gain with farmers, big industries like Archer Daniels Midland (Big time ethanol producer), voters who think politicians care, etc…</p>
<p>“However for an issue that has the potential for horrendous global consequences, shouldnt we assume the worst case scenario and error on the side of safety?”</p>
<p>Well said…like an insurance policy. Funny thing is in every day life, we want to assume worst case scenerios - health, accident, retirement,old age, we expect manufacturer to design products with worst case scenerios, we re-call millions of toys/product because few bad cases have happened. Even in college admissions we have a back up plans - ‘safety’ school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not so fast, grasshopper! There is not a universal march from the “denier” camp to the alarmist camp. There have been many former believers in global warming who have now backed off on their original views:</p>
<p>
<a href=“U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works”>U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works;
<p>To divert huge capital resources “just in case” global warming turns out to be a problem is hardly a logical thing to do in the face of so much that we don’t yet know and in particular when scientists such as those above are switching sides on this after doing additional research.</p>
<p>Even the IPCC doesn’t agree with Al Gore in terms of the calamity that he is predicting.</p>
<p>
Actually, this is not founded on logic nor is it what we do in everyday life. If we truly wanted to assume worst case scenarios in our lives and then try protect against them, we would all equip our cars with the safety precautions of a NASCAR car and drive with helmets and flame-retardant suits.</p>
<p>“Actually, this is not founded on logic”</p>
<p>Better logic than invasion of Iraq.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the hypocrisy transcend the party line. It’s only more galling when the higher expectations placed on the left-wingers amount to … not much at all. </p>
<p>And as far as conceding, there are times when we need to drop even lower in the abyss to realize it can get much worse. This time around, an insular and spineless policy of laissez-faire won’t work, there won’t be a place for a nauseous person to comment on the fair price for the death of 500,000 Iraqi children, and there won’t be a illusory dot.com boom to hide inept economical policies. </p>
<p>As I said, let’s talk in 2017. :)</p>
<p>“Better logic than invasion of Iraq.”</p>
<p>Actually, the logic is very similar. Iraq presented a worst case scenario far worse for the United States than global warming does. Based on this worst case scenario (as well as some potential significant upsides), it was decided to act.</p>
<p>If only the allied powers of the 1930’s had acted to thwart the growth of fascim, 50-60 million people would have been spared.</p>
<p>
So, let them build a reservoir instead. A glacier is nothing other than a natural reservoir - like a lake. If the area of the glacier is in a warming cycle there’ll be more water available from it until it’s virtually gone - the opposite for a cooling cycle. The earth is always in one or the other. </p>
<p>People will, and always have done, either move to where the required natural resources are or figure out how to bring those resources to them through technology. Places that are deserts now used to be lush and vice versa. You can head out to the desert east of here and find all kinds of seashells. The earth changes - always has and always will. Why do people think that this particular moment in time is the natural ideal for the earth and anything else is a catastrophe? It’s guaranteed that the earth’s climate is changing regardless of the reasons.</p>
<p>Tell that to the polar bears…</p>
<p>Hey, guys, you big fierce specialized mammals! Yes, you over there.</p>
<p>Go build a reservoir instead!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There may be ROOM, but there isn’t TIME.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you wear your seatbelt, ‘just in case?’ Do you have car insurance, health insurance, ‘just in case?’</p>
<p>Is there any insurance to cover the whole planet? Oops, planet, sorry. Oops, extinct animals, sorry. Oh, and OOPS, grandchildren, SO sorry that we messed up your planet. We just couldn’t agree so we decided to take the risk.</p>
<p>“Do you wear your seatbelt, ‘just in case?’ Do you have car insurance, health insurance, ‘just in case?’”</p>
<p>Yes, and if addressing global warming was on the same magnitude in terms of expense as a seatbelt in the car, there would be no controversy. The problem is that the expenses to deal with global warming - depending upon which subset of “experts” you want to put your stock in could be more alarming than the problem of global warming. A proper analogy would be to pay $10,000 for your car insurance policy which also has a special rider which says that your chances of losing your job to an offshore location would be tripled. At some point, the cost of the “protection” outweighs the risk of a problem.</p>