Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post - Really interesting report on why global warming is affecting sunlight levels

Lucern · 01-14-2005, 06:20 PM

There is a lot to be pessimistic about in terms of ecological/environmental sciences, and little grounds for optimism that we'll 'adapt' in relatively short time imo. Really, every macrobiology class I've had is quite depressing. Still there is some optimism. If there wasn't then nobody would bother trying to figure out how to restore a blackland prairie or how to take wood from a rainforest in a way that'll grow back.

I do, however, like the idea that we'd get our acts together and not treat everyone who says that something might be wrong with our environment as an alarmist. Yes, sometimes they are alarmist (and amplified in reporting), and we've only had the wherewithal to study the environment relatively recently, but there are serious problems that can only point to human activity. It helps to read the actual research rather than the report on the research. At some point the critical eye, mine at least, turns on the sources and kinds of resistance to such ideas. What's it going to take to convince some that we can change our environment for the worse?* I see an unnecessarily politicized version of science that gets bantered around past the actual research. Pick a less politicized topic like mass extinction for a clearer assessment of an environmental problem. I would like to see us take steps towards avoiding rather than dealing with large scale problems when it's too late to 'fix' them.

The first follow-up study to this one should be to see if there is a discernable change in autotrophic life (anything that produces its own energy, including algae) by the change in sunlight. There should be, assuming the validity of these studies, but the more important question is how they might have changed. It would give us a clue about how to deal with what has changed thus far and in the event of further change.

*Not directed at anyone here, but I've encountered people who believe this. Members of my family believe it. Check out Rush Limbaugh's "See, I told you so." for a short dismissive discussion on the matter. One aspect of the scientific debate seems to be about whether the glass is half empty or half full, but the very politicized version seems to be about whether problems actually exist at all. Scientific skepticism is primary to what science is, but we should remain skeptical of the agendas of advocates and skeptics.

01-14-2005, 06:20 PM	#5
Lucern Quintesson Join Date: August 28, 2004 Location: the middle of Michigan Age: 43 Posts: 1,011	There is a lot to be pessimistic about in terms of ecological/environmental sciences, and little grounds for optimism that we'll 'adapt' in relatively short time imo. Really, every macrobiology class I've had is quite depressing. Still there is some optimism. If there wasn't then nobody would bother trying to figure out how to restore a blackland prairie or how to take wood from a rainforest in a way that'll grow back. I do, however, like the idea that we'd get our acts together and not treat everyone who says that something might be wrong with our environment as an alarmist. Yes, sometimes they are alarmist (and amplified in reporting), and we've only had the wherewithal to study the environment relatively recently, but there are serious problems that can only point to human activity. It helps to read the actual research rather than the report on the research. At some point the critical eye, mine at least, turns on the sources and kinds of resistance to such ideas. What's it going to take to convince some that we can change our environment for the worse?* I see an unnecessarily politicized version of science that gets bantered around past the actual research. Pick a less politicized topic like mass extinction for a clearer assessment of an environmental problem. I would like to see us take steps towards avoiding rather than dealing with large scale problems when it's too late to 'fix' them. The first follow-up study to this one should be to see if there is a discernable change in autotrophic life (anything that produces its own energy, including algae) by the change in sunlight. There should be, assuming the validity of these studies, but the more important question is how they might have changed. It would give us a clue about how to deal with what has changed thus far and in the event of further change. *Not directed at anyone here, but I've encountered people who believe this. Members of my family believe it. Check out Rush Limbaugh's "See, I told you so." for a short dismissive discussion on the matter. One aspect of the scientific debate seems to be about whether the glass is half empty or half full, but the very politicized version seems to be about whether problems actually exist at all. Scientific skepticism is primary to what science is, but we should remain skeptical of the agendas of advocates and skeptics.