When are we going to talk about coping with Global Warming?

by phil on Friday May 29, 2009 1:28 PM
mainfeed, third way thinking

We mature intellectually when we contemplate unthinkable scenarios.

I like the way this one article from boston.com starts:

Human civilization will heat up the planet.
The rest of the paragraph ultimately talks about ways to prevent warming. But without the context, that sentence just seems like a blunt fact, and one that I believe.

I'm sensing that global warming skepticism has finally gone passe. Maybe it's because Bush isn't in charge. Either way, I don't hear the voices of skepticism in power anymore.

Having said that, when will we start talking about what to do in the event that Global Warming takes place? Are we prepared for it? Do we have disaster prepardness funds in place for an accelerating pace of Katrina's? Should we be creating a Noah's Ark to respond to the mass extinction we're causing?

While the "inconvenient truth" of global warming is finally sinking in to the hold-outs, when will the environmentalists contemplate the inconvenient truth that we don't have enough collectivist willpower to adequately prevent global warming?


What Would Al Gore Do? said on May 30, 2009 9:48 PM:

"I'm sensing that global warming skepticism has finally gone passe."

Think again. Current polls show that concern over "Global Warming" is down considerably since 2007. And even fewer people place it a high priority for government action.

The saddest thing about "Global Warming" is that there hasn't been a serious debate about it. Those who question it are demonized. Remember: it's dangerous to fall in love with your conceptual models.

Philip Dhingra said on June 2, 2009 9:30 PM:

The thing is, this is about as good as it gets as far as beliefs: "Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Philip Dhingra said on June 3, 2009 1:12 AM:

I think this idea also has potential implications for the GOP. If the Democrats are truly serious about the global warming threat, they would be talking about prevention AND coping. If you challenge the Dems to spend money on coping and they won't, then you can speculate, "well, then you don't take it as seriously as you claim you do."

dbp said on June 5, 2009 11:55 AM:

The kind of confidence expressed in predictions of global warming is I think much higher than it should be. Setting all of that aside, let's assume the earth will warm by a few degrees in the next century: I have yet to see (or even envision how one would go about) a model which shows that has a net bad outcome.

That is to say, some places will suffer drought, but others will gain needed moisture. Some places will flood while farming spreads North in Canada and Russia...etc.

Philip said on June 5, 2009 12:15 PM:

Yeah, there was a big clamor when Russia sent a submarine to plant a flag at the bottom of the North Pole. The US, Canada, and Russia are eying that trading zone with deep interest.

What Would Al Gore Do? said on June 6, 2009 11:08 PM:

First snow in June in North Dakota in 60 years: read all about it!


Creative Commons License