The effort to stop global warming is a diversion from the truth

[Johnny Morales]

I say that based on an article on something I figured for a while, but up to now had not seen an article discussing this published in a reputable journal until now.
<>>
The American Association for the Advancement of Science, "Triple A-S" (AAAS) is a premiere scientific publication. Getting their research published here is one of the main ways scientists from a variety of fields make their reputation.

Now before I'm condemned as some kind of wingnut, let me be clear I am NOT a global warming skeptic in any way..

Everything the scientific community has warned us all in regards to Global Warming is factually true, with no exaggeration or fudging in evidence except in the paranoid minds of conspiracy types.

What makes me decide worrying about global warming is a waste of time is summed up pretty well in this summary article in the magazine Science published by the AAAS.

Check it out...

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/04/un-goal-of-limiting-global-warmi.html?etoc

If you're too busy - the bottom line of this research article is IT'S TOO DAMN LATE to stop it. Yet very few of the people trying to stop it, realize the battle they are fighting is fruitless, because humanity at large already lost the war.

There is nothing short of stopping the release of all, 100% of greenhouse gases tomorrow that will forestall an eventual rise of 2C.

I don't even think the most ardent environmentalist thinks that is possible or likely to occur.

That means we or the world and future generations WILL SEE a rise in climate of at least 2 degrees Celsius in the average world temperature, along with the global havoc such a rapid rise causes on the landmasses of the world.

That is IF we were able to stop all greenhouse gas production TOMORROW, just shut it down. We can't though.

In fact leaders of the West see only a DROP after years of rising from today's level in a decade or two.

So what does that mean?

THE TRUTH IS we cannot do a thing to stop the world from suffering an minimum of a 2C rise by next century, and we will continue to produce greenhouse gases in greater quantities for a few decades.

THE TRUTH IS for our descendents a rise in temperatures of say 5 or 6C by mid-next century IS SET IN STONE!

Neither our nor any interceding generation can do a thing to stop it.

The bright side is everyone alive today will be too dead by decades to see the result of our collective handy work.

It's our great grand children's children that will feel the brunt of it.

I think all the promotions to "do something" are distractions from what we should be focused on doing- that is if we really care about future generations and the fate of the world in general.

Wouldn't it be far better setting out finding ways for future generations to live better in the world that WILL COME rather than foolishly trying to stop it from happening when it's too late by a century or so?

Given a century lead time is probably exactly what we need to find a way to move our cities inland, help organize migrations to the new lands up north in a peaceful way rather than the ways of human history - invasions, war and genocide.

If the collective genius of humanity now focused on stopping the unstoppable - literally - instead put their mind to finding solutions how to live in a world with more people and far less resources, it is quite possible they could devise a system that would survive us all to be taken up by their children and their children's children Etc. and enable them to meet the hotter and drier world and thrive in it, not just survive.

I know it's nonsense to many, who want to believe we can stop it, but to believe is not the same as "know".

Sadly when it comes to global warming, the handiwork of our generation and all the generations from the beginning of the industrial age have already written future climate history for the next 100-150 years.

The bright side is we actually know for certain what awaits our descendents. We KNOW the future.

That means IF WE want to make it better for those who will live in the future, focusing on stopping global warming is not one of them. It is going to happen, because we are unable to do the things that might slow it down, forget about stopping it.

I'm sure 150 years on if future generations were asked to look back, they'd be far happier to see years of mankind trying to prepare them for what they will inherit, rather than fretting away precious decades trying to stop the inevitable.

Given this lead humanity could do it.

If not the future generations will just deal with it as they always have through brutal warfare.

It's just something to think about.

[99th_Monkey]

1. Global Warming is so yesterday. NOW we have HAARP, so bugger off.

We can do ANY fucking thing we want to with the weather.

[Warren DeMontague]

2. No, what we should put our focus on is finding clean renewable ways to power our shit.

Because that 2C may be inevitable, but after that, are the cars, planes, buses, and coal-fired power plants going to go away? The effects we're looking at are predicated upon current emissions levels. But the carbon is going to keep going into the atmosphere. Our children's children will still need to run their civilization, or at least run the bulldozers to build the giant fucking sea walls.

Also, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can deal with the problem as best we can, and also prepare for the impacts.

Unfortunately, your idea echoes one of the 3 stock responses of the petroleum industry/anti-global warming crowd, which are:

1) it's not happening
2) it's happening but it's not because of people
3) it's happening, it's because of people, but there's nothing we can do about it.

They pretty much cycle between these 3 points. When one is answered, they switch back to another one. Rinse. Repeat.



Stall.

[Festivito]

3. LOL. We can do nothing to stop it, so, instead, let Kochs pollute and study how to live with it. ...

Nice try think-tank attack!

Not buying today.

The assumption that we can do no reversing that will be effective ... Not buying it.

Also, however, reducing polluter's pollution makes our air cleaner, sooner. And, that is good.

If the Koch brothers have to loose a few billions, I'm not worried that they'll starve with only a couple billions of dollars each to live on.

[tkmorris]

4. You have a very black/white view on this

Yes Climate Change is going to occur (and it will be warming overall, I don't understand those who militantly insist we not use that word). Yes, it is too late to prevent it.

HOWEVER. We can affect how bad it will be by altering our behavior right now. Should people be prepared for the changes to occur? Absolutely. That does not mean that we should just not bother to try to stop the damage we are doing. Such would be simplistic in the extreme. You seem to labor under the impression that we cannot both cut our emissions of greenhouse gases AND prepare for the climatic changes we have already caused. I have no idea why you believe this to be the case.

One more item. You may not be aware of the medical research being done on this topic but I am fairly certain that on this planet right now are people who will live to see their 200th birthday. That is actually a rather conservative estimate; I believe 500 years or more is not terribly far off, certainly close enough that those who manage another century may well see advancements that enable that half a millennium. Some of us will indeed live to see the results of our energy indulgence.

[greymattermom]

5. not likely

because the National Institute on Aging has almost no money and can only fund the top 3% of grants. Most aging researchers, me included, are changing fields. Unless you think the solution is a Chinese herb, advances in aging research are over.

[tkmorris]

8. I don't believe the most cutting edge research is being publicly funded

I'm sure you are aware there is privately funded research being done in this field.

[Hannah Bell]

6. doubtful; increased poverty = reduced lifespan.

[tkmorris]

7. Of course

But the research I am referring to will not be dependent on average incomes. Those at the top are richer than ever as I am certain you are aware. I am not talking about average lifespan after all, I am talking about those on the very fringe of longevity, those who can take advantage of the latest and best research.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Your own link contradicts you; 5 or 6C is not 'set in stone'

2C may be unavoidable; but action now stops it turning into 5 or 6C. It ends:

“We can’t give up” on emissions cuts, says Denman, although it’s “probably already too late” to limit warming to 2˚C. “But maybe we’ll have to live with 3 or 4 degrees of warming.”

And doing things like moving whole cities inland, or organising mass migration, is incredibly difficult and expensive, and highly controversial - people don't like being told where to live by governments, or having their land taken from them to allow someone else to live there.

[jpak]

10. FAIL this is the fossil fuel industry's meme "we can't stop it - so no CO2 emissions controls"

what horseshit

yup

[theophilus]

11. I believe you are wrong. Very wrong. We need to fight with all of our

strength to get off of fossil fuel based energy creation. It is poison. Peak oil is going to make the life we know impossible anyway. The earth, I believe,is much more resilient than many think IF WE GIVE IT A CHANCE! We MUST turn to clean energy whether CCC (catastrophic climate change) is stoppable or not. If we keep going as we are going this is going to be a dead planet. You have a very bad position on this and "I give up" is just not a good life strategy.