Talk:Politics of global warming
In response to a suggestion from TK, I think we should re-organize the global warming articles.
- Politics of global warming - advocacy on both sides of the question: how much are people causing it, and what should we do to prevent it (or adapt to it)?
- Science of global warming - how have global air temperatures risen and fallen in the past, what do scientists think caused this (especially before the modern era), and how much do "greenhouse gas" emissions like carbon dioxide add to warming?
We'll need to divide the politics part into separate articles:
- Kyoto Protocol - a treaty to "reduce" emissions or "buy" carbon credits
- Emissions trading - a "scheme" to allow "polluters" to pay a penalty in lieu of reducing emissions. (Who collects the payments, and where does the money go?)
The science is much more complicated:
- solar variation - the "solar constant" isn't constant!
- cosmic rays - affected by solar variation
- cloud formation - affected by cosmic rays
- El Nino - a natural temperature variation in the Pacific Ocean
- the so-called "Greenhouse effect" - various gas particles help keep heat from "radiating" out into space
- infrared radiation - the rays that keep french fries warm at McDonald's (similar to microwaves).
This is not a complete list, but the issue is, frankly, too complex for me! I cannot single-handedly fight against a two billion dollar industry, even if I devoted all my waking hours to it. --Ed Poor Talk 09:14, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
- Ed, your seemingly never-ending supply of creative and intelligent ideas make you an invaluable member of the CP team, if I do say so myself, and I do, speaking for myself and not you this time. ;-) --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 14:33, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
- Can I make a quick point, in reference to the first line of the article, which implies that taking action against global warming is a bad thing? Even if global warming is largely down to natural causes, there is no plausible argument for not trying to prevent it. It doesn't make sense that taking no action could be better than taking any action at all.--Metatron 10:13, 29 December 2007 (EST)
- And where does this assertion come from, that the politics is "dominated" by the pro-AGW side? How is that measured? Not to mention the idea that they're "anti-American". This part needs an edit.--Frey 16:10, 8 March 2008 (EST)
- I'm aware that there's controversy over the causes of global warming on different sides of the political debate. As I understand it, liberals generally think global warming is either directly caused by, or enhanced by human activity. And conservatives feel that global warming, if it exists, is probably not caused by human activity. Is that a fair summation of both sides of the debate as you see it?
- Anyway, assuming I'm not incorrectly summarising the positions, I have a few questions. Do conservatives believe ANY global warming, or global warming of any significance is happening? If so, do conservatives believe it would be a good thing to modify our behaviour with regards to doing what we can to 'lighten our load' on the home God gave us? Even if you believe no global warming is happening, do you think it is a good idea to live as frugally as possible? Do conservatives believe there is any point in recycling, or reducing our use of fossil fuels, or reduce our carbon load on the planet?
- It seems to me that even if you don't believe global warming is caused by human activity,that frugal living, parsimony and minimal use of the limited stock of materials God has given us is a good and proper lifestyle. It is our planet, and God would want us to husband it well. CescF 14:36, 21 May 2008 (EDT)