Arctic sea ice returning to normal

[bailewen]

I understand climate change is a highly contentious issue in N. America, battle lines are being drawn etc.

But I've never understood why people would choose this particular issue to politicize.

Because the steps that we need to take to do anything about it are extremely threatening to most of the largest industries in the entire country. In addition, and more of a political tool really, it will cost money. Trying to fix the problem will require new taxes in some form and that has become the largest most crudely used political instrument of the past 20 years. You have a convergence of big oil....and that's vastly more than just Exon or Shell, that includes Monsanto and GE and all those other mega-corporations that permeate all aspects of our economy, and the sort of mindless rant that "government is bad".

Also, never mind the precautionary principle, (although that argument may be more convincing), there is simply no real scientific debate on the issue at all. It's like creationists. The only debate in the scientific community is over just what degree human presence is effecting the issue and over the details of the mechanisms. The FACT that it is happening is not in dispute. There's just lots of manufactured controversy for political ends.

It's just greedy whiny kids who place their personal living style over the importance of the quality of life of the community at large.

[Chris Fleming]

Wow. I really do wish everyone was required to take a logic class at least once.

Done.

didn't see you there.

You must have not studied well to make those kind of statements.

[Darth Rock&Roll]

Only wealthy nations invest into studying climate change. They're the only one's really who can afford to bother with the idea.

It doesn't change all the pollution that industry causes or the vast energy waste that is directly on the shoulders of industry oh and you know what? That industry employs you so that you can drive a car and make some waste of your own and you know what? Your government whole heartedly supports that industry and even the ones who make the cars that don't meet the kind of energy consumption standards that are needed or the pollution controls that are required to continue moving forward without continually shooting ourselves in the feet.

the book should be titled "Hot, Flat, Crowded and Stupid - The demise of man by his own hand"

[DeusTrismegistus]

I understand climate change is a highly contentious issue in N. America, battle lines are being drawn etc.

But I've never understood why people would choose this particular issue to politicize.

Even if there were only a slight chance that the "pro-climate change" camp is correct (and I don't mean highly politicized groups of pundits, politicians, financial institutions etc. but the various governmental scientific bodies and the raw data they produce), wouldn't it make sense to exercise the precautionary principle, seeing as how climate change models predict that damages to nature would be irreversible and have disastrous consequences for humanity?

It would be something to pay serious attention to. Instead, we've got this weird situation where deniers pounce at any chance to prove the opposition wrong.

Which is why I asked the original question - do people care more about our home, or about being right? Are we perhaps too caught up in the partisan bickering to at least consider the bigger picture? (I'm not saying deniers are flat-out wrong because obviously they have society's best interests in mind).

"Scientific uncertainty" is a common objection, but uncertainty works both ways. If deniers believe the current state of knowledge is inconclusive, they've nevertheless admitted there's a chance for irreversible changes to the environment. Again, the precautionary principle would be the logical course of action until we're all satisfied with the state of knowledge.

Don't forget that climate change mitigation would have ancillary benefits such as decreasing morbidity and mortality from air pollution (a more immediate killer), decreasing our reliance on fossil fuels sourced from unstable or failed states, precipitating the research and development of new technologies etc.

Irreversible is a bad word choice because given enough time nature will change the climate much more than we ever could and probably extinct us all in the process anyways.

Throughout earth's history it has had more CO2 and less CO2 than now and been hotter, and colder, I don't think nature really cares much.

The people who deny anthropogenic global warming do not necessarily deny the possibility of natural global warming, or cooling, or climate change in general. They are also not usually against the reduction of pollution for the simple reason the pollution is bad, we all know this, but really we shouldn't have to make up global disaster BS to get people to clean up our act and make this world a better place for all. The fact that people use such tactics to make money and take advantage of people is a display of how very pathetic people can be, and so is the fact that simply saving lives and polluting less because it is the right thing to do is not good enough reason for most to do so.

This is why I think nature will one day kill us all, or at least enough of us so we can't maintain our current level of technology, and she will laugh.