Climate Change Still Denied?

Neither and both...

 

So, to clarify..... my post made sense and yours didn't.

In fact, ALL THE STUFF I say makes sense. On this thread anyway.

 

Bullmanship...

 

Which is probably not even a word. I googled it and found no definition.

 

Why would Google know that word?

 

If your using words that aren't even on Google... and I'm quoting geology textbooks, then I think you should probably listen to me on this one.

 

The things I say make sense. You use words that aren't even in the dictionary.

 

So

 

This is a great example of how I can be right.... and still people won't agree with me....

Just like the thread about the child molester.... but nobody listens to me still.

 

The argumentative refuge of a scoundrel.

You know exactly which pictures I'm talking about.

 

The Frog

As someone has pointed out in the end we are all dead, the sun goes out the universe ends – but I ask is the reaction to that to say oh well let’s do nothing about it, might as well just fuck up the planet for our kids since hell they are going to die one day anyway so why should I care if they lives are shorter and tougher than my own and hell as to my grandchildren well they are just truly fucked.

In individual terms your view seems to be like someone waking up one day going - I’m going to die one day - and so deciding to take up smoking 80 cigarettes and 4 bottles of whiskey a day, while eating only potato crisps and doing absolutely no exercise. The chances of them dying a lot sooner just went up.

An alternative to that could be someone thinking the same thing but then deciding to contribute in trying to make things better for others and future generations

*

The consensus in the scientific community is that it’s happening and that humans are driving the change.

It seems to me that in the short term the problem is that it is not a matter of knowing what will happen or not happen, things are going to happen but what the outcome will be is unsure BUT we do know that any outcome will be for the worse for the vast majority of the human race.

What we are likely to get is weather weirding as systems change but what the long term consequences of those changes might be I don’t think is that clear.

The reaction needed to be holistic but the logical first step would seem to be to try and stop humans driving this change.

 

The orbit of the first 4 planets will decay and make life on earth inhabitable long before the sun dies, by around 2 1/2 billion years. The earths dipole field may fail well before that, as early as 4000 AD supposedly

The theres life itself

Everything past the right most dotted line is guess work, but the total biomass of the earth has been in decline since the inception of complex life, that is, if plants and animals hadnt evolved, the earth would be a lot warmer than it is now. Its in the architechture of evolution that everything gets more complex but at the same time less efficient. A city block full of humans doesnt generate anywhere near the amount of heat and C02 the same area of rainforest does. That is, it was decided in the beginning from a roll of the dice, we would be exactly where we are now

It is unlikely we would be able to collonise other planets as we wouldnt be able to adapt fast enough.

We were fucked from the start, even if that dipole thus magnetic field doesnt fail, 200,000 years ago we were monkeys, half that time from now, 100,000 years we will be 4 times more complex, more complex doesnt necessarily even mean sentient, just whatever that initial roll of the dice determined exactly where we would be in 100,000 years

 

If you don't understand how global warming and the threat of another ice age are intrinsically linked, you are ignorant concerning the science surrounding this and full of shit about your own credentials.

 

Well I do eat healthy and exercise and I don't smoke.

But I just think that there is absolutely no way that we are going to not burn every last fossil fuel we have. I think global warming in an inevitability.

If they think they can stop it, let them try. I'm all for reducing carbon emissions.

I could eat all the healthy food I want, but it won't extend my life to the age 200.

 

But it very well may extend your life to near 100.

Nobody said your life would be extended to 200, or that global warming could necessarially be stopped. Again, that doesn't mean you don't do your best.

But there is absolutely stuff we could be working on to help earth absorb fossil fuels. If we can cycle it out of the atmosphere, having more of it released at once (though maybe not ideal) is not the end of the world.

 

Yea. Hopefully it doesn't cause a catastrophe. Do you guys know about all the methane hydrate in the ocean?

Some say that once a certain threshold is reached, that it will be released and then just go faster and faster, like a feedback....

But even in worst case scenario, I think we would see it coming in a matter of decades. Plenty of time for people to go to high ground.

 

The Frog

[SIZE=12pt]We are seeing it and very little is being done, and some can’t see it or don’t want to see it. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]As I’ve said there seems to be two basic arguments against action being taken to limit the human element driving climate change – one is to deny it even exists – the other is to say it’s inevitable and so there is no point in doing anything – your argument seems to fall into the second category. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]And as I’ve also said it unsure what the outcomes of inaction might be – you say build dams and move the cities to inland higher ground – but what if the water doesn’t rise through melting but freezes because of changed weather patterns? It means people have just wasted billions if not trillions of dollars. So what if you take measures to tackle a new ice age and instead the water rises and the floods come instead, again trillions of dollars wasted. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Yes once things are clearer maybe what needs to be done will become clearer (or maybe not) but hey I have this wild idea why not try and slow down the rate of change or even stop it? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]I don’t know if you have kids, I do and it has a way of focusing the mind. [/SIZE]

 

Which would make your carbon footprint bigger than mine, even though you are in the "we should do something about it" category and I not

If humans are mostly responsible for climate change and we want to reverse that, go back to emissions before the industrial revolution, say 1700, when there were roughly 600 million people on the planet outputing under 0.1 tonnes per person per annum, a total of 60 million tonnes a year, and thats just on CO2

vs from the EPA website, somewhere in the order of 35 billion tonnes a year nowadays,

Thats 580 times the output of 1700


To get back to 1700 levels, that can be achieved in two ways

1. Getting rid of 6.4 billion people

2. Keeping everyone, but have that 7 billion on average cut their footprint by 99.998%

Then theres that average, the first world countries output around 10-30 tonnes a year per person, whereas some of the poorest third world countries output around 1700 AD levels, under 0.1 tonnes a year per person

So thats what we are really talking about, either starting the zombie apocalypse, or everyone getting together, agreeing and having a group hug, then voluntarily all throwing themselves back to the renaissance


The argument is so mind numbingly ridiculous it hurts my brain

 

Vanilla

Can you explain why and how do you know?

I know nothing of your lift, how do you know about mine?

Your stance seems just like another example of the lets do nothing argument.

 

How would I know what?

That your kids exist?