Statistics don't say anything. It can easily mislead the uniformed (intentionally or not) so one must be careful when drawing conclusions based on any given data set.
they're all on the take. neither side has any moral high ground to stand on. This country is run by industry, for industry. Once in a while happy circumstance crosses over for the common good, and/or good intentions don't get watered down too much by corporate lobby industry.
False equivalency. Nobody is innocent, but don't pretend like one side isn't actively undermining science at this moment. There wasn't a March for Science in over 600 cities in other times, so why now? Guess all those scientists are just mad they're not getting paid? That's garbage.
Actually, that's one of the tragedies of the March for Science, that it was co-opted by climate change rhetoric. The real reason for the March was much more than climate change, that being a potential dramatic decrease in research funding and perhaps a general attitude of dismissal of science.
Being a true believer, you won't appreciate this, but it's true. Science is much more than climate change..
"Climate change rhetoric?"
At the core, it comes down to this: This is going to be a massive problem that can have massive sociopolitical impacts on an international level, never mind the ecological and environmental disasters.
The people that realize this are trying to get people in power to understand this. One political party has made it a point to call into question the science behind climate change, let alone the impacts, and resists efforts to take step to avoid the fate we are facing.
what should be done is rational pollution control. regardless of whether humans are irrevocably harming the planet, we should recognize that we can harm the environment and our ability to live in it.
the rational realization is that it's a fine line where to draw the line. how much dumping raw sewage into the water system is too much? How much is acceptable? In terms of Climate Change, or any sort of pollution, you can find a scientist who can argue a lot of shades. And you can find a lobbyist who will bribe a politician of either side to think a certain way.
where is the 'obvious' line of how much pollution is enough? saying zero pollution is unrealistic. I guarantee that anyone saying there's a definite line is full of shit. Anyone who says Climate change is an open and shut case is full of shit. Doesn't mean Climate Change, or pollution, isn't real. Just that if you think you know, you're probably wrong.
Erring on the side of caution is a wise move, but the reality is that lobbyists will move the line as much as possible in favor of the industry. Lobbyists don't care which side of the aisle the politician sits. all they care about is getting the laws to allow what is most beneficial for industry. Unfortunately, society doesn't have an effective lobby system. We like to think it's democracy, and to a certain extent, the democratic process does protect us. But the business side of the world is more effective at getting politicians to do their bidding. I'm an equal opportunity hater: both sides of the aisle suck donkey balls. both sides want people who are stupid enough to think the other side is worse.
is accept personal responsibility. reduce your own personal carbon footprint.
I'll stack mine up against anyone.
My opinion is that most people would rather bitch about Climate Change than re use a shopping bag.
A variation on that, and it has begun to take hold in the last 15 years, is not to ignore the steps you personally, and corporations and even government are a person with respect to this statement, can take that are profitable. I'll cite 3 examples:
* Westwood, NJ is a typical suburban NYC community with a concentrated business district that has a significant number of restaurants. About 12-13 years ago they began collecting the waste cooking oil, turning it into biodiesel and running a couple of town vehicles with it. No employees added and it was actually PROFITABLE when compared to running on gasoline (not sure that's the case with today's prices). They even had the capacity to convert other towns waste oil, but were limited by some crazy NJ statute. How many towns can replicate this? Yes, it would cover less than 1% of the vehicles on the road. But you convert those vehicles and SAVE MONEY.
* WalMart (Great Satan Inc.), around the same time, began to require the trucks at their distribution centers to turn off their engines while being loaded. Savings were in the millions, either for the drivers under contract or for the company with respect to company vehicles.
A pet peeve of mine relates to the parking authority in the town where my office is located. They just bought a new F-150 to cruise the parking lots and check meters. A hybrid would have been perfect for that.
* Exxon, around 4-5 years ago, retrofitted a landfill near one of their chemical plants in Louisiana to provide methane to power the plant. I'm not sure if there were tax credits involved in the profit-loss calculation but they came out ahead. Now I'm no scientific genius, but it seems to me that converting methane that was headed into the atmosphere regardless into CO2 while powering a plant that would have been powered by fossil fuels is a positive.
For that matter, how about a cost-benefit analysis on retrofitting other older landfills to generate electricity with the methane they produce. Waste Management does that with a lot of their new landfills. Energy prices are currently low enough so it's not a slam dunk at them moment, but it's worth a look.
And then there are the steps that could be taken by individuals, which more squarely hits fkap's point. Timing controls ("Nest") for single family homes could pay for itself quickly. But too many people, on all sides of the issue, simply want to pass the responsibility onto someone or something else.
IMHO, some of the green movement seems to be transfixed by what I call the gospel of wind and solar. Cost benefit be damned, storage be damned, transmission costs be damned. There is certainly a place for both those sources, but the storage issue is not going to be solved for a lot longer than they believe and their fixation could lead to problems in the interim.
what should be done is rational pollution control. regardless of whether humans are irrevocably harming the planet, we should recognize that we can harm the environment and our ability to live in it.
the rational realization is that it's a fine line where to draw the line. how much dumping raw sewage into the water system is too much? How much is acceptable? In terms of Climate Change, or any sort of pollution, you can find a scientist who can argue a lot of shades. And you can find a lobbyist who will bribe a politician of either side to think a certain way.
where is the 'obvious' line of how much pollution is enough? saying zero pollution is unrealistic. I guarantee that anyone saying there's a definite line is full of shit. Anyone who says Climate change is an open and shut case is full of shit. Doesn't mean Climate Change, or pollution, isn't real. Just that if you think you know, you're probably wrong.
Erring on the side of caution is a wise move, but the reality is that lobbyists will move the line as much as possible in favor of the industry. Lobbyists don't care which side of the aisle the politician sits. all they care about is getting the laws to allow what is most beneficial for industry. Unfortunately, society doesn't have an effective lobby system. We like to think it's democracy, and to a certain extent, the democratic process does protect us. But the business side of the world is more effective at getting politicians to do their bidding. I'm an equal opportunity hater: both sides of the aisle suck donkey balls. both sides want people who are stupid enough to think the other side is worse.
With regards to the specific issue of climate change, I'd say the line is where the scientific community has reached a consensus as a point of no return, which was what the Paris accords was meant to lay out.
RE: Someone's identity and the right to be respected and accepted Â
Is vitally important in life. But sometimes I can't help but roll my eyes at some of this stuff. You're free to say you're trans species and that you identify as a cat, sure. I'm also free to think you're a fruit cake.
Agreed, Rud. I don't care what anyone tells me, I'll never not find it weird when people want to be referred to with pronouns like "ze"
RE: RE: Someone's identity and the right to be respected and accepted Â
Is vitally important in life. But sometimes I can't help but roll my eyes at some of this stuff. You're free to say you're trans species and that you identify as a cat, sure. I'm also free to think you're a fruit cake.
Agreed, Rud. I don't care what anyone tells me, I'll never not find it weird when people want to be referred to with pronouns like "ze"
Because it's fucking stupid. Words are a tool to convey thought. Tools are designed to be efficient and creating more words for every single persons individual preference goes against the foundation of language.
To give any words meaning beyond their definition and without any context is fucking stupid.
..."When we do find another energy source, that doesn't mean the end of fossil fuels. They are used in thousands of other processes.
It took us a long time to get where we are in this. About ~10,000 years."
Actually, it took about 260 years. But don't let facts get in the way.
I'm talking about the origin of the species. We didn't pop up from nowhere 260 years ago. People were on this earth waaaay before 260 years ago.
BMac
You join some new cult I should be aware of or on the lookout for? :)
Hey, we're always looking for new members! My 260 years refers to the advent and continuation of the Industrial Revolution, which in my opinion, is the source of the extra heat-insulators that upset the normal carbon balance that worked pretty well for most of the time before it.
The magnification of problems and the consequent acceleration of warming has really come into focus now that the oceans, those great moderators of change, have pretty much exhausted their ability to absorb and hold heat. This is now a primary end-stage actor in the unfolding drama. It's also a problem that simply doesn't lend itself to anything other than very long-term amelioration.
In other words, keep trying to reduce the heat load causes, but don't buy any green bananas! ;0
That's interesting. My experience is usually something like this:
Average guy; "I am worried about climate change and believe we should do more to address it"
Response; "climate change is a hoax invented by China to dominate us and supported by liberals who want to destroy America. Remember when it snowed during Al Gores
Statistics don't say anything. It can easily mislead the uniformed (intentionally or not) so one must be careful when drawing conclusions based on any given data set.
what should be done is rational pollution control. regardless of whether humans are irrevocably harming the planet, we should recognize that we can harm the environment and our ability to live in it.
the rational realization is that it's a fine line where to draw the line. how much dumping raw sewage into the water system is too much? How much is acceptable? In terms of Climate Change, or any sort of pollution, you can find a scientist who can argue a lot of shades. And you can find a lobbyist who will bribe a politician of either side to think a certain way.
where is the 'obvious' line of how much pollution is enough? saying zero pollution is unrealistic. I guarantee that anyone saying there's a definite line is full of shit. Anyone who says Climate change is an open and shut case is full of shit. Doesn't mean Climate Change, or pollution, isn't real. Just that if you think you know, you're probably wrong.
Erring on the side of caution is a wise move, but the reality is that lobbyists will move the line as much as possible in favor of the industry. Lobbyists don't care which side of the aisle the politician sits. all they care about is getting the laws to allow what is most beneficial for industry. Unfortunately, society doesn't have an effective lobby system. We like to think it's democracy, and to a certain extent, the democratic process does protect us. But the business side of the world is more effective at getting politicians to do their bidding. I'm an equal opportunity hater: both sides of the aisle suck donkey balls. both sides want people who are stupid enough to think the other side is worse.
With regards to the specific issue of climate change, I'd say the line is where the scientific community has reached a consensus as a point of no return, which was what the Paris accords was meant to lay out.
Paris accords have the US paying shitloads of money to other countries. Make agreements about climate change, not economic handouts for starters.
Impose standards, make the applicable to everyone Â
That's interesting. My experience is usually something like this:
Average guy; "I am worried about climate change and believe we should do more to address it"
Response; "climate change is a hoax invented by China to dominate us and supported by liberals who want to destroy America. Remember when it snowed during Al Gores
Then there's the flip side:
Response: "If we're not 100% wind and solar by 2025 it's "Waterworld" by 2035 and the polar bears already occupy Dry Land. And the evil businessmen, who all smoke cigars to accelerate climate change, have already bought up all the boats so the rest of us are up Shit's Creek. If it takes a second Great Depression in 2020 to avoid a second Great Depression in 2030 then so be it. And don't be fooled by natural gas, it's just methadone to block withdrawal symptoms from the heroin of gasoline.
Beyond that, breech the Hoover Dam and return the Colorado to it's natural state. Supply water to the Southwest by using desalination plants powered by oil and pharmaceutical executives peddling bicycle generators. If that's not enough let the executives die of thirst and let the rest of us rely on rainwater."
what should be done is rational pollution control. regardless of whether humans are irrevocably harming the planet, we should recognize that we can harm the environment and our ability to live in it.
the rational realization is that it's a fine line where to draw the line. how much dumping raw sewage into the water system is too much? How much is acceptable? In terms of Climate Change, or any sort of pollution, you can find a scientist who can argue a lot of shades. And you can find a lobbyist who will bribe a politician of either side to think a certain way.
where is the 'obvious' line of how much pollution is enough? saying zero pollution is unrealistic. I guarantee that anyone saying there's a definite line is full of shit. Anyone who says Climate change is an open and shut case is full of shit. Doesn't mean Climate Change, or pollution, isn't real. Just that if you think you know, you're probably wrong.
Erring on the side of caution is a wise move, but the reality is that lobbyists will move the line as much as possible in favor of the industry. Lobbyists don't care which side of the aisle the politician sits. all they care about is getting the laws to allow what is most beneficial for industry. Unfortunately, society doesn't have an effective lobby system. We like to think it's democracy, and to a certain extent, the democratic process does protect us. But the business side of the world is more effective at getting politicians to do their bidding. I'm an equal opportunity hater: both sides of the aisle suck donkey balls. both sides want people who are stupid enough to think the other side is worse.
With regards to the specific issue of climate change, I'd say the line is where the scientific community has reached a consensus as a point of no return, which was what the Paris accords was meant to lay out.
Paris accords have the US paying shitloads of money to other countries. Make agreements about climate change, not economic handouts for starters.
regarding climate change, you show me scientific consensus, I'll show you an agenda. that comment will get me branded a mouth breathing right wing denier of scientific fact, but the reality is that there is no consensus of why change is happening, the cause, the effects, what it would take to reverse it. It's an agenda ploy to allege there is a universal consensus and knock down any one who dares say other wise.
CC is a real thing. beyond that, there's a million shades to the spectrum as to cause, effect, and future of the change. 'consensus' is a belief of people who don't know a bit about the science. It's a straw argument designed to shut down anyone who doesn't want to espouse your view (using 'you' in a metaphorical sense). Forget consensus as a term. it's useless.
regarding climate change, you show me scientific consensus, I'll show you an agenda. that comment will get me branded a mouth breathing right wing denier of scientific fact, but the reality is that there is no consensus of why change is happening, the cause, the effects, what it would take to reverse it. It's an agenda ploy to allege there is a universal consensus and knock down any one who dares say other wise.
CC is a real thing. beyond that, there's a million shades to the spectrum as to cause, effect, and future of the change. 'consensus' is a belief of people who don't know a bit about the science. It's a straw argument designed to shut down anyone who doesn't want to espouse your view (using 'you' in a metaphorical sense). Forget consensus as a term. it's useless.
I cannot possibly disagree with this any more, and as someone who will, god willing/hopefully, be alive decades into the future, it's distressing you are so willing to paint the concerns of climatologists as alarmist and agenda driven.
I don't think theres a million shades to the fact that humans are, at the very least, greatly exacerbating the problem.
I don't think theres a million shades to the environmental ramifications.
Where are you drawing the conclusion that there isn't a widely agreed upon stance regarding climate change amongst scientists?
The more carbon you dump into the atmosphere, the more heat is trapped the warmer things get. The warmer things get, the warmer they can get. Its self fulfilling and exponent than linear.
We dump more CO2 now then ever before. However, I would argue we should be planting trees like crazy too
The more carbon you dump into the atmosphere, the more heat is trapped the warmer things get. The warmer things get, the warmer they can get. Its self fulfilling and exponent than linear.
We dump more CO2 now then ever before. However, I would argue we should be planting trees like crazy too
Not complicated
Who's against planting trees? I don't buy into all their views, but you can make a tax deductible donation to the Nature Conservancy. That's one of their programs.
please note that I am not against taking rational measures to control our pollution level.
that said, I take real exception to the notion of 'consensus'. there is no such thing. I know where the term came from, and why it came about, but it doesn't have any real meaning.
for comparison, there's a consensus that fkap is a moron. no argument. but what kind of moron is he? a loveable buffoon? a derelict not to be trusted around children? the kind of moron who is going to lead to global destruction? What made him a moron? Will he continue to be a moron? (ok, that one's a stupid question). the point is that just like there is no consensus as to the reason, the degree, and the future effect of fkap being a moron, there is no consensus as to the reason, the degree, and the future effect or future amount of climate change. Certainly, no one in their right mind is denying me being a moron or climate change happening. beyond either simple comment, though there's a lot of shades.
the idea of consensus is an invention designed to shut down debate. It's a mass generic notion that people want to cling to, but really is devoid of meaning.
the idea of consensus is an invention designed to shut down debate.
I give you some credit for finding an ingenious way to use bullshit rhetoric stall action. If we can't have consensus about anything so we can't act. Just undermine the idea of consensus completely. Impressive. Especially impressive that you've connected the notion of consensus as an offshoot of an agenda, thus creating the implication that this position is somehow above agenda, giving it a self-congratulatory sheen of ideological purity.
Thumbs up, 10/10 would read this bullshit again.
You can't have an honest discussion with a person who decides to try and drain any meaning and significance from the fact that there is consensus among scientists about the causes and effects of global warming. It's essentially a "rhetorical prevent defense" to undercut any policy recommendations that might be offered to address global warming.
please note that I am not against taking rational measures to control our pollution level.
that said, I take real exception to the notion of 'consensus'. there is no such thing. I know where the term came from, and why it came about, but it doesn't have any real meaning.
for comparison, there's a consensus that fkap is a moron. no argument. but what kind of moron is he? a loveable buffoon? a derelict not to be trusted around children? the kind of moron who is going to lead to global destruction? What made him a moron? Will he continue to be a moron? (ok, that one's a stupid question). the point is that just like there is no consensus as to the reason, the degree, and the future effect of fkap being a moron, there is no consensus as to the reason, the degree, and the future effect or future amount of climate change. Certainly, no one in their right mind is denying me being a moron or climate change happening. beyond either simple comment, though there's a lot of shades.
the idea of consensus is an invention designed to shut down debate. It's a mass generic notion that people want to cling to, but really is devoid of meaning.
You've lost me man. This makes no sense to me. The vast majority of people educated in this area agree on something. To me, that's a consensus. You seem to be arguing about the actual meaning of the word, or saying that because you can assign motivation to people, consensus doesn't exist. I'm really not sure about this.
your entire post demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about.
you're taking a position that any disagreement with you is automatic whacko land.
If anyone dares say we don't know all there is to know about CC, we're automatically in denial.
Note that I've never denied that we can do things. I never denied CC is real. I never denied humans may be partially to blame, or even completely to blame (I've never taken a stance on that at all). All I have to do is tell you the science is only partially understood, and I'm put in the kook category. All attempt at dialogue ceases. I'm a buffoon who is on the side of industries that are looking to destroy Earth. That's exactly why I say 'consensus' is simply a tool designed to shut down dialogue. You haven't listened a bit as to what I'm talking about when I talk about consensus. You just heard me say the science isn't finalized and wrote me off as a denier. If you want to believe that everyone is in agreement as to the causes, the effects, and the future of CC, have at it.
most everything changes. You think climate should stay the same ?
???? What does this even mean?
The world is getting warmer which will ruin crops and coastal cities. it will create refugee crises and political unrest, and will impact the entire globe.
If you're making a wordplay on "climate", I'm glad the ramifications are far enough in the future for you to not have to give a shit about it, I guess.
your entire post demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about.
you're taking a position that any disagreement with you is automatic whacko land.
If anyone dares say we don't know all there is to know about CC, we're automatically in denial.
Note that I've never denied that we can do things. I never denied CC is real. I never denied humans may be partially to blame, or even completely to blame (I've never taken a stance on that at all). All I have to do is tell you the science is only partially understood, and I'm put in the kook category. All attempt at dialogue ceases. I'm a buffoon who is on the side of industries that are looking to destroy Earth. That's exactly why I say 'consensus' is simply a tool designed to shut down dialogue. You haven't listened a bit as to what I'm talking about when I talk about consensus. You just heard me say the science isn't finalized and wrote me off as a denier. If you want to believe that everyone is in agreement as to the causes, the effects, and the future of CC, have at it.
I think his post was more a knock on your views on the phrase "consensus".
I don't meant to sound contentious, but really, you're kind of shutting down the conversation by calling into question what "consensus" means when it's quite plainly obvious.
It turns the argument into one of semantics about what a consensus is. What's puzzling is you say that "show me a consensus and I'll show you an agenda" - what if the agenda is acting in the interest of the human race?
These links might delve into what people mean by consensus Â
I'm using quotes not to imply anything is fake, just to tie the terminology to how we've been using within this discussion.
1) This one is from a site called "Skeptical Science". This article outlines a number of academic papers that have spoken directly about the consensus regarding global warming.
2) Here's one "fact checking" the 97% claim (though I kind of take issue with published vs non published, as published academic journals does mean more IMO)...the result was that it wasn't a "consensus" (which is over 90%), but 81%. That's still over 4/5 scientists. Keep in mind, the it was written by someone with deep ties to the oil industry.
Code:
Earl J. Ritchie is a retired energy executive and teaches a course on the oil and gas industry at the University of Houston. He has 35 years’ experience in the industry. He started as a geophysicist with Mobil Oil and subsequently worked in a variety of management and technical positions with several independent exploration and production companies. Ritchie retired as Vice President and General Manager of the offshore division of EOG Resources in 2007. Prior to his experience in the oil industry, he served at the US Air Force Special Weapons Center, providing geologic and geophysical support to nuclear research activities.
If you wanna talk about agendas, it's extremely important to keep that fact in the back of your mind; having said that, at this point, even Exxon is talking about global warming, and this individual's conclusions still land at above 80%, so take that into account.
Here's a NASA link outlining various agencies, intergovernmental bodies, science academies, and American scientific societies that have put out statements, with each statement/study linked. My Father is a physician and I've seen some of his GI society publications from the the appropriate group (I forget the formal name, I think its DDW) lying around the house - I don't think it's fair or applicable to treat them as if they are lobbying groups. They are not and they are part of continuing education for highly educated individuals who need to be kept up to speed on the findings in their area of expertise, and are peer reviewed.
The webpage also has this graphic, which is incredibly alarming,a nd can be tied pretty directly to industrial revolution (I do wonder what caused the dip in the 40s-60s, but I haven't looked into it)
5) This is a wikipedia article on the scientific opinion of climate change. People frown on Wikipedia, but this is an article with extensive works cited and links listed at the bottom (most wikipedia articles on technical subjects have these - it's a better source than many give it credit for.
Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[14] no scientific body of national or international scientists rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[13][15]
(though there is a linked list of scientists opposing mainstream scientific assessment of global warming on the page.
There's a huge difference. I can't think of anyone in government with authority who advocates for the position you stated. The con man in chief has taken the position I stated almost verbatim and is acting on it. SAD!
There's a huge difference. I can't think of anyone in government with authority who advocates for the position you stated. The con man in chief has taken the position I stated almost verbatim and is acting on it. SAD!
I'm 100% on your side (you should see my Twitter responses to our POTUS*) but you know how this site operates, and this thread is gonna get deleted if you wear it on your sleeve like that.
Maybe these policy/issue convos are proxies for full fledged political debate, but at least they focus on policy and follow the rules.
Plus I'd appreciate it if the thread didn't get deleted right away after I took 15 minutes to put that post together, lol.
I am extremely concerned about climate change and I truly feel that the final F-U from the generations above millennials and Gen-x would be the complete abdication of responsibility regarding climate change. Global warming truly has the potential to fundamentally change human civilization as we know it.
I just wish people would imagine how expensive it would be to stop rising ocean levels from putting lower Manhattan under water (most of which is built on garbage landfills - fun fact, Water St is actually where the water originally went up to, everything south of that is built on landfill) -- and then extrapolate that to the entire world, realize what is going to happen when these areas are under water, and extrapolate the global ramifications of what is going to occur if we don't take action now.
I know I've gone off on a tangent, but a lot of times, when it's someone who statistically may not be alive in 40-50 years passionately argues against the need for action against climate change, I can't help but think they are potentially 1) willfully ignorant of the impact this will have on those younger than them, or 2) cognizant but literally do not give a shit because they realize that they will likely not be here to deal with the ramifications.
I don't meant to blame everything on Boomers as Millenials have a tendency to do (some of it deserved, some of it over the top), but there's a clear generation gap in how Millenials vs Boomers view this issue (this graphic only goes to 65+, so I think some Boomers may be left out (only 65+ in this graphic). Also, keep in mind this is for the simple question of "climate change is occurring" - not about dangers or policy surrounding it. The fluctuations also seem kinda crazy for the short time frame.
Haha I get the sentiment, but the fact is that he is though -- saying that doesn't change the spot we're in.
I heard Bill Maher say it well - no matter what anyone wants, he is POTUS. Saying he isn't "ours" for a portion of the populate is an exercise in futility.
Cause while saying he isn't ours might be a way of showing disapproval or disagreement, at it's heart it's a cop out (not saying YOU'RE copping out, just the statement is) -- this is who is in the highest office of the country we both love, and we gotta own that and try to convince others that certain policies are detrimental to our country instead of pushing it off and saying "he ain't mine, I didn't want him, not my problem" (not saying that's what you're doing, but you get the point).
Having said that, if we were talking in a different forum or context, I'd be less diplomatic about it and probably agree with a lot of what you're thinking in your head right now....
"The world is getting warmer which will ruin crops and coastal cities. it will create refugee crises and political unrest, and will impact the entire globe."
So will stopping the flow of oil for a great portion of the globe.
That is the problem.
We don't lose coastal cities. There will always be costal cities. Just not where they were.
Just how is that Chavez country doing right now?
Now extrapolate that across Africa, the middle east and other areas of the globe. 50% of the world's population starving in the streets is not a good outcome.
There are a lot of stakeholder who don't want to die because you don't want to let the water rise.
That's the real problem with climate change. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
I didn't read anything after I signed off last night. Just the last couple of posts.
Your graphs don't prove anything that isn't general knowledge. Which stakeholders are you willing to let perish?
Please let us know. How will your plan make everyone n the planet whole?
So I can't answer in full but I think saying "cities will be there just not where they were" is a gross underestimation of the depth of what is facing my generation.
I mean no Ill will but please take it more seriously and don't say things like that which ignore the realities of even a half a mile being eroded of coastal cities...for the sake of my generation. Please.
What I am trying to say is pretending this osere cost benefit when underestimating the true ramifications will make the world a hell hole when I am your age. I shudder to think what my kids will grow up in.
This is the biggest problem facing the human species.
If "my"graphs didn't show anything, look closer. this is a disaster waiting to happen. Will respond in fill tmrw when sober and not out
want to destroy to save your kids generations from now?
There is a whole world of stake holders out there.
Why I said earlier in this thread, we will adapt or perish. It's just that simple.
There will be a scalable energy source invented/discovered. There will be scalable storage capacity increased for when direct energy isn't available so the infrastructure can continue for however necessary.
Who is going to tell sovereign countries that they can't use natural resources anymore to feed their people?
Just my view. A complicated problem with a lot of stakeholders that have different paths that will affect you and them differently but want the same outcome as you do.
want to destroy to save your kids generations from now?
There is a whole world of stake holders out there.
Why I said earlier in this thread, we will adapt or perish. It's just that simple.
There will be a scalable energy source invented/discovered. There will be scalable storage capacity increased for when direct energy isn't available so the infrastructure can continue for however necessary.
Who is going to tell sovereign countries that they can't use natural resources anymore to feed their people?
Just my view. A complicated problem with a lot of stakeholders that have different paths that will affect you and them differently but want the same outcome as you do.
You're painting it extremely black and white. First of all, fuck the "stakeholders", this is about responsibility for our planet. And it's not future generations - it's MY generation.
I think that comment puts a lot of insight into the problem here - some people basically say "who cares about future generations, we need to live for now, I won't be here to see the ramifications, so I don't want to do anything to stop it".
This isn't about tree-hugging. This is about a global disaster that will cause famine, war, and potentially the fall of a global, interconnected civilization.
As for telling sovereign nations who can't feed them - that's not at all what I was getting at. We have a President who wants to pull out of the Paris Accords, and thinks global warming is a hoax. You're setting the bar all the way on the other side, when I'm talking about obvious, sensible policy.
Cut emissions.
Don't attempt (and inevitably fail) to spur more usage of coal.
Stay a leader in the international community with regards to climate change.
R&D more on renewable and clean energy.
Continue to push car companies to get more MPG, encourage use of hybrid.
Sorry if the "stakeholders" might feel a bite, but this is about the planet and civilization, not their wallets.
This is proof the $1 billion​a year spent lobbying, etc Â
want to destroy to save your kids generations from now?
There is a whole world of stake holders out there.
Why I said earlier in this thread, we will adapt or perish. It's just that simple.
There will be a scalable energy source invented/discovered. There will be scalable storage capacity increased for when direct energy isn't available so the infrastructure can continue for however necessary.
Who is going to tell sovereign countries that they can't use natural resources anymore to feed their people?
Just my view. A complicated problem with a lot of stakeholders that have different paths that will affect you and them differently but want the same outcome as you do.
You're painting it extremely black and white. First of all, fuck the "stakeholders", this is about responsibility for our planet. And it's not future generations - it's MY generation.
I think that comment puts a lot of insight into the problem here - some people basically say "who cares about future generations, we need to live for now, I won't be here to see the ramifications, so I don't want to do anything to stop it".
This isn't about tree-hugging. This is about a global disaster that will cause famine, war, and potentially the fall of a global, interconnected civilization.
As for telling sovereign nations who can't feed them - that's not at all what I was getting at. We have a President who wants to pull out of the Paris Accords, and thinks global warming is a hoax. You're setting the bar all the way on the other side, when I'm talking about obvious, sensible policy.
Cut emissions.
Don't attempt (and inevitably fail) to spur more usage of coal.
Stay a leader in the international community with regards to climate change.
R&D more on renewable and clean energy.
Continue to push car companies to get more MPG, encourage use of hybrid.
Sorry if the "stakeholders" might feel a bite, but this is about the planet and civilization, not their wallets.
You do realize that you are a stakeholder opening your opinion with that statement.
"As for telling sovereign nations who can't feed them - that's not at all what I was getting at"
That is exactly what you are getting at. Look to Chavez grand plan. The Saudis drop the price of oil to stop US production flooding the market by making it too costly for us to pump and there is rioting in the streets as they are running out of other people's "wallets" to feed and provide services to their citizens.
Now you know what the problem is.
How much are you willing to hurt your wallet? 50% of your take home pay?
No more heat or AC in schools? Look how much that is contributing. No more school bus service? No more air travel? No more ups or fedex? No more mail service?
Your kids not going to college?
What is your solution worth to you because you (and the rest of us) are where the wallet is coming from.
How many people are you willing to let starve to death? You don't think Countries around the globe aren't going to be looking out for their citizens best interests? People are not going to die without a fight.
Telling them to go F themselves as you want is not a viable solution. Especially when they are armed with nuclear weapons.
You are a stakeholder talking about everyone else.
You think the middle east/Africa will be happy going back to being nomads and goat herders?
It's been said on here by many way above my paygrade that potable water will be the next great problem.
There is a real big picture out there that encompasses a whole lot of future problems.
What happens when the world population starts growing exponentially.
I'm just a lot more confident that we will adjust and survive than you are.
There's a huge difference. I can't think of anyone in government with authority who advocates for the position you stated. The con man in chief has taken the position I stated almost verbatim and is acting on it. SAD!
Well we did have a CNN anchor ask Bill Nye, of all people, if an asteroid's close pass by earth was due to global warming. BRAINWASHED
want to destroy to save your kids generations from now?
There is a whole world of stake holders out there.
Why I said earlier in this thread, we will adapt or perish. It's just that simple.
There will be a scalable energy source invented/discovered. There will be scalable storage capacity increased for when direct energy isn't available so the infrastructure can continue for however necessary.
Who is going to tell sovereign countries that they can't use natural resources anymore to feed their people?
Just my view. A complicated problem with a lot of stakeholders that have different paths that will affect you and them differently but want the same outcome as you do.
You're painting it extremely black and white. First of all, fuck the "stakeholders", this is about responsibility for our planet. And it's not future generations - it's MY generation.
I think that comment puts a lot of insight into the problem here - some people basically say "who cares about future generations, we need to live for now, I won't be here to see the ramifications, so I don't want to do anything to stop it".
This isn't about tree-hugging. This is about a global disaster that will cause famine, war, and potentially the fall of a global, interconnected civilization.
As for telling sovereign nations who can't feed them - that's not at all what I was getting at. We have a President who wants to pull out of the Paris Accords, and thinks global warming is a hoax. You're setting the bar all the way on the other side, when I'm talking about obvious, sensible policy.
Cut emissions.
Don't attempt (and inevitably fail) to spur more usage of coal.
Stay a leader in the international community with regards to climate change.
R&D more on renewable and clean energy.
Continue to push car companies to get more MPG, encourage use of hybrid.
Sorry if the "stakeholders" might feel a bite, but this is about the planet and civilization, not their wallets.
You do realize that you are a stakeholder opening your opinion with that statement.
"As for telling sovereign nations who can't feed them - that's not at all what I was getting at"
That is exactly what you are getting at. Look to Chavez grand plan. The Saudis drop the price of oil to stop US production flooding the market by making it too costly for us to pump and there is rioting in the streets as they are running out of other people's "wallets" to feed and provide services to their citizens.
Now you know what the problem is.
How much are you willing to hurt your wallet? 50% of your take home pay?
No more heat or AC in schools? Look how much that is contributing. No more school bus service? No more air travel? No more ups or fedex? No more mail service?
Your kids not going to college?
What is your solution worth to you because you (and the rest of us) are where the wallet is coming from.
How many people are you willing to let starve to death? You don't think Countries around the globe aren't going to be looking out for their citizens best interests? People are not going to die without a fight.
Telling them to go F themselves as you want is not a viable solution. Especially when they are armed with nuclear weapons.
You are a stakeholder talking about everyone else.
You think the middle east/Africa will be happy going back to being nomads and goat herders?
It's been said on here by many way above my paygrade that potable water will be the next great problem.
There is a real big picture out there that encompasses a whole lot of future problems.
What happens when the world population starts growing exponentially.
I'm just a lot more confident that we will adjust and survive than you are.
sorry but this whole comment is a strawman. Unless you can find where anyone said anything about forgoing 50% of a paycheck.
You're more confident bc you won't have to deal with the reprecussions the way I will.
I am laughing at so many comments in this thread.. Â
first of all, Bill Nye is not a scientist. He has a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering. He is a self proclaimed scientist who wears a bow tie to help convince you that he is a science nerd. He has absolutely no more credibility than anyone else on BBI to speak about global warming or genetics/whether he is a she.
I also agree with the notion that people are brainwashed. Not in the sense that the climate is not getting warmer, because it is. BUT.. to think we are doomed and others thinking that there could be a catastrophe in the near future is just laughable.
The earth has endured far worse than what we are dishing out today. We have had much warmer climates and times in earth's history where it heated up faster than what the graphs in this thread show. Of course, we can cherry pick any snapshot in time to prove our theories.
The true root of the increase in temperatures is our population. Every human is not only a furnace that generates carbon, but we also create waste and use water... all of us. Even if you cut fossil fuel use in half, the exponential growth in our population will offset any carbon savings created by the reduction in fossil fuels in less than a generation.
Want to get serious about the problem? Want to also help with famine in the world? Then we need to control the population.
RE: I am laughing at so many comments in this thread.. Â
first of all, Bill Nye is not a scientist. He has a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering. He is a self proclaimed scientist who wears a bow tie to help convince you that he is a science nerd. He has absolutely no more credibility than anyone else on BBI to speak about global warming or genetics/whether he is a she.
I also agree with the notion that people are brainwashed. Not in the sense that the climate is not getting warmer, because it is. BUT.. to think we are doomed and others thinking that there could be a catastrophe in the near future is just laughable.
The earth has endured far worse than what we are dishing out today. We have had much warmer climates and times in earth's history where it heated up faster than what the graphs in this thread show. Of course, we can cherry pick any snapshot in time to prove our theories.
The true root of the increase in temperatures is our population. Every human is not only a furnace that generates carbon, but we also create waste and use water... all of us. Even if you cut fossil fuel use in half, the exponential growth in our population will offset any carbon savings created by the reduction in fossil fuels in less than a generation.
Want to get serious about the problem? Want to also help with famine in the world? Then we need to control the population.
Mr. Valentine?
With all that said, I'd still trust a mechanical engineer Â
Anyone know what NK's clean air and clean water acts are like?
Quote:
In comment 13445101 fkap said:
Quote:
they're all on the take. neither side has any moral high ground to stand on. This country is run by industry, for industry. Once in a while happy circumstance crosses over for the common good, and/or good intentions don't get watered down too much by corporate lobby industry.
False equivalency. Nobody is innocent, but don't pretend like one side isn't actively undermining science at this moment. There wasn't a March for Science in over 600 cities in other times, so why now? Guess all those scientists are just mad they're not getting paid? That's garbage.
Actually, that's one of the tragedies of the March for Science, that it was co-opted by climate change rhetoric. The real reason for the March was much more than climate change, that being a potential dramatic decrease in research funding and perhaps a general attitude of dismissal of science.
Being a true believer, you won't appreciate this, but it's true. Science is much more than climate change..
At the core, it comes down to this: This is going to be a massive problem that can have massive sociopolitical impacts on an international level, never mind the ecological and environmental disasters.
The people that realize this are trying to get people in power to understand this. One political party has made it a point to call into question the science behind climate change, let alone the impacts, and resists efforts to take step to avoid the fate we are facing.
the rational realization is that it's a fine line where to draw the line. how much dumping raw sewage into the water system is too much? How much is acceptable? In terms of Climate Change, or any sort of pollution, you can find a scientist who can argue a lot of shades. And you can find a lobbyist who will bribe a politician of either side to think a certain way.
where is the 'obvious' line of how much pollution is enough? saying zero pollution is unrealistic. I guarantee that anyone saying there's a definite line is full of shit. Anyone who says Climate change is an open and shut case is full of shit. Doesn't mean Climate Change, or pollution, isn't real. Just that if you think you know, you're probably wrong.
Erring on the side of caution is a wise move, but the reality is that lobbyists will move the line as much as possible in favor of the industry. Lobbyists don't care which side of the aisle the politician sits. all they care about is getting the laws to allow what is most beneficial for industry. Unfortunately, society doesn't have an effective lobby system. We like to think it's democracy, and to a certain extent, the democratic process does protect us. But the business side of the world is more effective at getting politicians to do their bidding. I'm an equal opportunity hater: both sides of the aisle suck donkey balls. both sides want people who are stupid enough to think the other side is worse.
I'll stack mine up against anyone.
My opinion is that most people would rather bitch about Climate Change than re use a shopping bag.
I'll stack mine up against anyone.
My opinion is that most people would rather bitch about Climate Change than re use a shopping bag.
A variation on that, and it has begun to take hold in the last 15 years, is not to ignore the steps you personally, and corporations and even government are a person with respect to this statement, can take that are profitable. I'll cite 3 examples:
* Westwood, NJ is a typical suburban NYC community with a concentrated business district that has a significant number of restaurants. About 12-13 years ago they began collecting the waste cooking oil, turning it into biodiesel and running a couple of town vehicles with it. No employees added and it was actually PROFITABLE when compared to running on gasoline (not sure that's the case with today's prices). They even had the capacity to convert other towns waste oil, but were limited by some crazy NJ statute. How many towns can replicate this? Yes, it would cover less than 1% of the vehicles on the road. But you convert those vehicles and SAVE MONEY.
* WalMart (Great Satan Inc.), around the same time, began to require the trucks at their distribution centers to turn off their engines while being loaded. Savings were in the millions, either for the drivers under contract or for the company with respect to company vehicles.
A pet peeve of mine relates to the parking authority in the town where my office is located. They just bought a new F-150 to cruise the parking lots and check meters. A hybrid would have been perfect for that.
* Exxon, around 4-5 years ago, retrofitted a landfill near one of their chemical plants in Louisiana to provide methane to power the plant. I'm not sure if there were tax credits involved in the profit-loss calculation but they came out ahead. Now I'm no scientific genius, but it seems to me that converting methane that was headed into the atmosphere regardless into CO2 while powering a plant that would have been powered by fossil fuels is a positive.
For that matter, how about a cost-benefit analysis on retrofitting other older landfills to generate electricity with the methane they produce. Waste Management does that with a lot of their new landfills. Energy prices are currently low enough so it's not a slam dunk at them moment, but it's worth a look.
And then there are the steps that could be taken by individuals, which more squarely hits fkap's point. Timing controls ("Nest") for single family homes could pay for itself quickly. But too many people, on all sides of the issue, simply want to pass the responsibility onto someone or something else.
the rational realization is that it's a fine line where to draw the line. how much dumping raw sewage into the water system is too much? How much is acceptable? In terms of Climate Change, or any sort of pollution, you can find a scientist who can argue a lot of shades. And you can find a lobbyist who will bribe a politician of either side to think a certain way.
where is the 'obvious' line of how much pollution is enough? saying zero pollution is unrealistic. I guarantee that anyone saying there's a definite line is full of shit. Anyone who says Climate change is an open and shut case is full of shit. Doesn't mean Climate Change, or pollution, isn't real. Just that if you think you know, you're probably wrong.
Erring on the side of caution is a wise move, but the reality is that lobbyists will move the line as much as possible in favor of the industry. Lobbyists don't care which side of the aisle the politician sits. all they care about is getting the laws to allow what is most beneficial for industry. Unfortunately, society doesn't have an effective lobby system. We like to think it's democracy, and to a certain extent, the democratic process does protect us. But the business side of the world is more effective at getting politicians to do their bidding. I'm an equal opportunity hater: both sides of the aisle suck donkey balls. both sides want people who are stupid enough to think the other side is worse.
Agreed, Rud. I don't care what anyone tells me, I'll never not find it weird when people want to be referred to with pronouns like "ze"
Quote:
Is vitally important in life. But sometimes I can't help but roll my eyes at some of this stuff. You're free to say you're trans species and that you identify as a cat, sure. I'm also free to think you're a fruit cake.
Agreed, Rud. I don't care what anyone tells me, I'll never not find it weird when people want to be referred to with pronouns like "ze"
Because it's fucking stupid. Words are a tool to convey thought. Tools are designed to be efficient and creating more words for every single persons individual preference goes against the foundation of language.
To give any words meaning beyond their definition and without any context is fucking stupid.
Quote:
..."When we do find another energy source, that doesn't mean the end of fossil fuels. They are used in thousands of other processes.
It took us a long time to get where we are in this. About ~10,000 years."
Actually, it took about 260 years. But don't let facts get in the way.
I'm talking about the origin of the species. We didn't pop up from nowhere 260 years ago. People were on this earth waaaay before 260 years ago.
BMac
You join some new cult I should be aware of or on the lookout for? :)
Hey, we're always looking for new members! My 260 years refers to the advent and continuation of the Industrial Revolution, which in my opinion, is the source of the extra heat-insulators that upset the normal carbon balance that worked pretty well for most of the time before it.
The magnification of problems and the consequent acceleration of warming has really come into focus now that the oceans, those great moderators of change, have pretty much exhausted their ability to absorb and hold heat. This is now a primary end-stage actor in the unfolding drama. It's also a problem that simply doesn't lend itself to anything other than very long-term amelioration.
In other words, keep trying to reduce the heat load causes, but don't buy any green bananas! ;0
Average guy; "I am worried about climate change and believe we should do more to address it"
Response; "climate change is a hoax invented by China to dominate us and supported by liberals who want to destroy America. Remember when it snowed during Al Gores
Right. They lead you to questions.
Quote:
what should be done is rational pollution control. regardless of whether humans are irrevocably harming the planet, we should recognize that we can harm the environment and our ability to live in it.
the rational realization is that it's a fine line where to draw the line. how much dumping raw sewage into the water system is too much? How much is acceptable? In terms of Climate Change, or any sort of pollution, you can find a scientist who can argue a lot of shades. And you can find a lobbyist who will bribe a politician of either side to think a certain way.
where is the 'obvious' line of how much pollution is enough? saying zero pollution is unrealistic. I guarantee that anyone saying there's a definite line is full of shit. Anyone who says Climate change is an open and shut case is full of shit. Doesn't mean Climate Change, or pollution, isn't real. Just that if you think you know, you're probably wrong.
Erring on the side of caution is a wise move, but the reality is that lobbyists will move the line as much as possible in favor of the industry. Lobbyists don't care which side of the aisle the politician sits. all they care about is getting the laws to allow what is most beneficial for industry. Unfortunately, society doesn't have an effective lobby system. We like to think it's democracy, and to a certain extent, the democratic process does protect us. But the business side of the world is more effective at getting politicians to do their bidding. I'm an equal opportunity hater: both sides of the aisle suck donkey balls. both sides want people who are stupid enough to think the other side is worse.
With regards to the specific issue of climate change, I'd say the line is where the scientific community has reached a consensus as a point of no return, which was what the Paris accords was meant to lay out.
Average guy; "I am worried about climate change and believe we should do more to address it"
Response; "climate change is a hoax invented by China to dominate us and supported by liberals who want to destroy America. Remember when it snowed during Al Gores
Then there's the flip side:
Response: "If we're not 100% wind and solar by 2025 it's "Waterworld" by 2035 and the polar bears already occupy Dry Land. And the evil businessmen, who all smoke cigars to accelerate climate change, have already bought up all the boats so the rest of us are up Shit's Creek. If it takes a second Great Depression in 2020 to avoid a second Great Depression in 2030 then so be it. And don't be fooled by natural gas, it's just methadone to block withdrawal symptoms from the heroin of gasoline.
Beyond that, breech the Hoover Dam and return the Colorado to it's natural state. Supply water to the Southwest by using desalination plants powered by oil and pharmaceutical executives peddling bicycle generators. If that's not enough let the executives die of thirst and let the rest of us rely on rainwater."
Quote:
In comment 13448589 fkap said:
Quote:
what should be done is rational pollution control. regardless of whether humans are irrevocably harming the planet, we should recognize that we can harm the environment and our ability to live in it.
the rational realization is that it's a fine line where to draw the line. how much dumping raw sewage into the water system is too much? How much is acceptable? In terms of Climate Change, or any sort of pollution, you can find a scientist who can argue a lot of shades. And you can find a lobbyist who will bribe a politician of either side to think a certain way.
where is the 'obvious' line of how much pollution is enough? saying zero pollution is unrealistic. I guarantee that anyone saying there's a definite line is full of shit. Anyone who says Climate change is an open and shut case is full of shit. Doesn't mean Climate Change, or pollution, isn't real. Just that if you think you know, you're probably wrong.
Erring on the side of caution is a wise move, but the reality is that lobbyists will move the line as much as possible in favor of the industry. Lobbyists don't care which side of the aisle the politician sits. all they care about is getting the laws to allow what is most beneficial for industry. Unfortunately, society doesn't have an effective lobby system. We like to think it's democracy, and to a certain extent, the democratic process does protect us. But the business side of the world is more effective at getting politicians to do their bidding. I'm an equal opportunity hater: both sides of the aisle suck donkey balls. both sides want people who are stupid enough to think the other side is worse.
With regards to the specific issue of climate change, I'd say the line is where the scientific community has reached a consensus as a point of no return, which was what the Paris accords was meant to lay out.
Paris accords have the US paying shitloads of money to other countries. Make agreements about climate change, not economic handouts for starters.
This is grossly overstated, IMO
CC is a real thing. beyond that, there's a million shades to the spectrum as to cause, effect, and future of the change. 'consensus' is a belief of people who don't know a bit about the science. It's a straw argument designed to shut down anyone who doesn't want to espouse your view (using 'you' in a metaphorical sense). Forget consensus as a term. it's useless.
CC is a real thing. beyond that, there's a million shades to the spectrum as to cause, effect, and future of the change. 'consensus' is a belief of people who don't know a bit about the science. It's a straw argument designed to shut down anyone who doesn't want to espouse your view (using 'you' in a metaphorical sense). Forget consensus as a term. it's useless.
I don't think theres a million shades to the fact that humans are, at the very least, greatly exacerbating the problem.
I don't think theres a million shades to the environmental ramifications.
Where are you drawing the conclusion that there isn't a widely agreed upon stance regarding climate change amongst scientists?
We dump more CO2 now then ever before. However, I would argue we should be planting trees like crazy too
Not complicated
We dump more CO2 now then ever before. However, I would argue we should be planting trees like crazy too
Not complicated
Who's against planting trees? I don't buy into all their views, but you can make a tax deductible donation to the Nature Conservancy. That's one of their programs.
that said, I take real exception to the notion of 'consensus'. there is no such thing. I know where the term came from, and why it came about, but it doesn't have any real meaning.
for comparison, there's a consensus that fkap is a moron. no argument. but what kind of moron is he? a loveable buffoon? a derelict not to be trusted around children? the kind of moron who is going to lead to global destruction? What made him a moron? Will he continue to be a moron? (ok, that one's a stupid question). the point is that just like there is no consensus as to the reason, the degree, and the future effect of fkap being a moron, there is no consensus as to the reason, the degree, and the future effect or future amount of climate change. Certainly, no one in their right mind is denying me being a moron or climate change happening. beyond either simple comment, though there's a lot of shades.
the idea of consensus is an invention designed to shut down debate. It's a mass generic notion that people want to cling to, but really is devoid of meaning.
I give you some credit for finding an ingenious way to use bullshit rhetoric stall action. If we can't have consensus about anything so we can't act. Just undermine the idea of consensus completely. Impressive. Especially impressive that you've connected the notion of consensus as an offshoot of an agenda, thus creating the implication that this position is somehow above agenda, giving it a self-congratulatory sheen of ideological purity.
Thumbs up, 10/10 would read this bullshit again.
You can't have an honest discussion with a person who decides to try and drain any meaning and significance from the fact that there is consensus among scientists about the causes and effects of global warming. It's essentially a "rhetorical prevent defense" to undercut any policy recommendations that might be offered to address global warming.
that said, I take real exception to the notion of 'consensus'. there is no such thing. I know where the term came from, and why it came about, but it doesn't have any real meaning.
for comparison, there's a consensus that fkap is a moron. no argument. but what kind of moron is he? a loveable buffoon? a derelict not to be trusted around children? the kind of moron who is going to lead to global destruction? What made him a moron? Will he continue to be a moron? (ok, that one's a stupid question). the point is that just like there is no consensus as to the reason, the degree, and the future effect of fkap being a moron, there is no consensus as to the reason, the degree, and the future effect or future amount of climate change. Certainly, no one in their right mind is denying me being a moron or climate change happening. beyond either simple comment, though there's a lot of shades.
the idea of consensus is an invention designed to shut down debate. It's a mass generic notion that people want to cling to, but really is devoid of meaning.
you're taking a position that any disagreement with you is automatic whacko land.
If anyone dares say we don't know all there is to know about CC, we're automatically in denial.
Note that I've never denied that we can do things. I never denied CC is real. I never denied humans may be partially to blame, or even completely to blame (I've never taken a stance on that at all). All I have to do is tell you the science is only partially understood, and I'm put in the kook category. All attempt at dialogue ceases. I'm a buffoon who is on the side of industries that are looking to destroy Earth. That's exactly why I say 'consensus' is simply a tool designed to shut down dialogue. You haven't listened a bit as to what I'm talking about when I talk about consensus. You just heard me say the science isn't finalized and wrote me off as a denier. If you want to believe that everyone is in agreement as to the causes, the effects, and the future of CC, have at it.
The world is getting warmer which will ruin crops and coastal cities. it will create refugee crises and political unrest, and will impact the entire globe.
If you're making a wordplay on "climate", I'm glad the ramifications are far enough in the future for you to not have to give a shit about it, I guess.
you're taking a position that any disagreement with you is automatic whacko land.
If anyone dares say we don't know all there is to know about CC, we're automatically in denial.
Note that I've never denied that we can do things. I never denied CC is real. I never denied humans may be partially to blame, or even completely to blame (I've never taken a stance on that at all). All I have to do is tell you the science is only partially understood, and I'm put in the kook category. All attempt at dialogue ceases. I'm a buffoon who is on the side of industries that are looking to destroy Earth. That's exactly why I say 'consensus' is simply a tool designed to shut down dialogue. You haven't listened a bit as to what I'm talking about when I talk about consensus. You just heard me say the science isn't finalized and wrote me off as a denier. If you want to believe that everyone is in agreement as to the causes, the effects, and the future of CC, have at it.
I don't meant to sound contentious, but really, you're kind of shutting down the conversation by calling into question what "consensus" means when it's quite plainly obvious.
It turns the argument into one of semantics about what a consensus is. What's puzzling is you say that "show me a consensus and I'll show you an agenda" - what if the agenda is acting in the interest of the human race?
I'm using quotes not to imply anything is fake, just to tie the terminology to how we've been using within this discussion.
1) This one is from a site called "Skeptical Science". This article outlines a number of academic papers that have spoken directly about the consensus regarding global warming.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
2) Here's one "fact checking" the 97% claim (though I kind of take issue with published vs non published, as published academic journals does mean more IMO)...the result was that it wasn't a "consensus" (which is over 90%), but 81%. That's still over 4/5 scientists. Keep in mind, the it was written by someone with deep ties to the oil industry.
If you wanna talk about agendas, it's extremely important to keep that fact in the back of your mind; having said that, at this point, even Exxon is talking about global warming, and this individual's conclusions still land at above 80%, so take that into account.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#2c8523831157
3) Here's a link to the first highly cited 'consensus' academic articles. This article is included in some of the overviews above:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
Here's a NASA link outlining various agencies, intergovernmental bodies, science academies, and American scientific societies that have put out statements, with each statement/study linked. My Father is a physician and I've seen some of his GI society publications from the the appropriate group (I forget the formal name, I think its DDW) lying around the house - I don't think it's fair or applicable to treat them as if they are lobbying groups. They are not and they are part of continuing education for highly educated individuals who need to be kept up to speed on the findings in their area of expertise, and are peer reviewed.
4) https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
The webpage also has this graphic, which is incredibly alarming,a nd can be tied pretty directly to industrial revolution (I do wonder what caused the dip in the 40s-60s, but I haven't looked into it)
5) This is a wikipedia article on the scientific opinion of climate change. People frown on Wikipedia, but this is an article with extensive works cited and links listed at the bottom (most wikipedia articles on technical subjects have these - it's a better source than many give it credit for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
It contains this statement:
It also has a couple elucidating graphics
And this one, which I find incredibly alarming.
Maybe these policy/issue convos are proxies for full fledged political debate, but at least they focus on policy and follow the rules.
Plus I'd appreciate it if the thread didn't get deleted right away after I took 15 minutes to put that post together, lol.
I am extremely concerned about climate change and I truly feel that the final F-U from the generations above millennials and Gen-x would be the complete abdication of responsibility regarding climate change. Global warming truly has the potential to fundamentally change human civilization as we know it.
I just wish people would imagine how expensive it would be to stop rising ocean levels from putting lower Manhattan under water (most of which is built on garbage landfills - fun fact, Water St is actually where the water originally went up to, everything south of that is built on landfill) -- and then extrapolate that to the entire world, realize what is going to happen when these areas are under water, and extrapolate the global ramifications of what is going to occur if we don't take action now.
I know I've gone off on a tangent, but a lot of times, when it's someone who statistically may not be alive in 40-50 years passionately argues against the need for action against climate change, I can't help but think they are potentially 1) willfully ignorant of the impact this will have on those younger than them, or 2) cognizant but literally do not give a shit because they realize that they will likely not be here to deal with the ramifications.
I don't meant to blame everything on Boomers as Millenials have a tendency to do (some of it deserved, some of it over the top), but there's a clear generation gap in how Millenials vs Boomers view this issue (this graphic only goes to 65+, so I think some Boomers may be left out (only 65+ in this graphic). Also, keep in mind this is for the simple question of "climate change is occurring" - not about dangers or policy surrounding it. The fluctuations also seem kinda crazy for the short time frame.
https://news.utexas.edu/2016/10/27/millennials-views-on-climate-change-could-impact-election
(lol, "swing election results" my ass)
I heard Bill Maher say it well - no matter what anyone wants, he is POTUS. Saying he isn't "ours" for a portion of the populate is an exercise in futility.
Cause while saying he isn't ours might be a way of showing disapproval or disagreement, at it's heart it's a cop out (not saying YOU'RE copping out, just the statement is) -- this is who is in the highest office of the country we both love, and we gotta own that and try to convince others that certain policies are detrimental to our country instead of pushing it off and saying "he ain't mine, I didn't want him, not my problem" (not saying that's what you're doing, but you get the point).
Having said that, if we were talking in a different forum or context, I'd be less diplomatic about it and probably agree with a lot of what you're thinking in your head right now....
So will stopping the flow of oil for a great portion of the globe.
That is the problem.
We don't lose coastal cities. There will always be costal cities. Just not where they were.
Just how is that Chavez country doing right now?
Now extrapolate that across Africa, the middle east and other areas of the globe. 50% of the world's population starving in the streets is not a good outcome.
There are a lot of stakeholder who don't want to die because you don't want to let the water rise.
That's the real problem with climate change. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
I didn't read anything after I signed off last night. Just the last couple of posts.
Your graphs don't prove anything that isn't general knowledge. Which stakeholders are you willing to let perish?
Please let us know. How will your plan make everyone n the planet whole?
I mean no Ill will but please take it more seriously and don't say things like that which ignore the realities of even a half a mile being eroded of coastal cities...for the sake of my generation. Please.
This is the biggest problem facing the human species.
If "my"graphs didn't show anything, look closer. this is a disaster waiting to happen. Will respond in fill tmrw when sober and not out
There is a whole world of stake holders out there.
Why I said earlier in this thread, we will adapt or perish. It's just that simple.
There will be a scalable energy source invented/discovered. There will be scalable storage capacity increased for when direct energy isn't available so the infrastructure can continue for however necessary.
Who is going to tell sovereign countries that they can't use natural resources anymore to feed their people?
Just my view. A complicated problem with a lot of stakeholders that have different paths that will affect you and them differently but want the same outcome as you do.
There is a whole world of stake holders out there.
Why I said earlier in this thread, we will adapt or perish. It's just that simple.
There will be a scalable energy source invented/discovered. There will be scalable storage capacity increased for when direct energy isn't available so the infrastructure can continue for however necessary.
Who is going to tell sovereign countries that they can't use natural resources anymore to feed their people?
Just my view. A complicated problem with a lot of stakeholders that have different paths that will affect you and them differently but want the same outcome as you do.
You're painting it extremely black and white. First of all, fuck the "stakeholders", this is about responsibility for our planet. And it's not future generations - it's MY generation.
I think that comment puts a lot of insight into the problem here - some people basically say "who cares about future generations, we need to live for now, I won't be here to see the ramifications, so I don't want to do anything to stop it".
This isn't about tree-hugging. This is about a global disaster that will cause famine, war, and potentially the fall of a global, interconnected civilization.
As for telling sovereign nations who can't feed them - that's not at all what I was getting at. We have a President who wants to pull out of the Paris Accords, and thinks global warming is a hoax. You're setting the bar all the way on the other side, when I'm talking about obvious, sensible policy.
Cut emissions.
Don't attempt (and inevitably fail) to spur more usage of coal.
Stay a leader in the international community with regards to climate change.
R&D more on renewable and clean energy.
Continue to push car companies to get more MPG, encourage use of hybrid.
Sorry if the "stakeholders" might feel a bite, but this is about the planet and civilization, not their wallets.
Quote:
want to destroy to save your kids generations from now?
There is a whole world of stake holders out there.
Why I said earlier in this thread, we will adapt or perish. It's just that simple.
There will be a scalable energy source invented/discovered. There will be scalable storage capacity increased for when direct energy isn't available so the infrastructure can continue for however necessary.
Who is going to tell sovereign countries that they can't use natural resources anymore to feed their people?
Just my view. A complicated problem with a lot of stakeholders that have different paths that will affect you and them differently but want the same outcome as you do.
You're painting it extremely black and white. First of all, fuck the "stakeholders", this is about responsibility for our planet. And it's not future generations - it's MY generation.
I think that comment puts a lot of insight into the problem here - some people basically say "who cares about future generations, we need to live for now, I won't be here to see the ramifications, so I don't want to do anything to stop it".
This isn't about tree-hugging. This is about a global disaster that will cause famine, war, and potentially the fall of a global, interconnected civilization.
As for telling sovereign nations who can't feed them - that's not at all what I was getting at. We have a President who wants to pull out of the Paris Accords, and thinks global warming is a hoax. You're setting the bar all the way on the other side, when I'm talking about obvious, sensible policy.
Cut emissions.
Don't attempt (and inevitably fail) to spur more usage of coal.
Stay a leader in the international community with regards to climate change.
R&D more on renewable and clean energy.
Continue to push car companies to get more MPG, encourage use of hybrid.
Sorry if the "stakeholders" might feel a bite, but this is about the planet and civilization, not their wallets.
You do realize that you are a stakeholder opening your opinion with that statement.
"As for telling sovereign nations who can't feed them - that's not at all what I was getting at"
That is exactly what you are getting at. Look to Chavez grand plan. The Saudis drop the price of oil to stop US production flooding the market by making it too costly for us to pump and there is rioting in the streets as they are running out of other people's "wallets" to feed and provide services to their citizens.
Now you know what the problem is.
How much are you willing to hurt your wallet? 50% of your take home pay?
No more heat or AC in schools? Look how much that is contributing. No more school bus service? No more air travel? No more ups or fedex? No more mail service?
Your kids not going to college?
What is your solution worth to you because you (and the rest of us) are where the wallet is coming from.
How many people are you willing to let starve to death? You don't think Countries around the globe aren't going to be looking out for their citizens best interests? People are not going to die without a fight.
Telling them to go F themselves as you want is not a viable solution. Especially when they are armed with nuclear weapons.
You are a stakeholder talking about everyone else.
You think the middle east/Africa will be happy going back to being nomads and goat herders?
It's been said on here by many way above my paygrade that potable water will be the next great problem.
There is a real big picture out there that encompasses a whole lot of future problems.
What happens when the world population starts growing exponentially.
I'm just a lot more confident that we will adjust and survive than you are.
Well we did have a CNN anchor ask Bill Nye, of all people, if an asteroid's close pass by earth was due to global warming. BRAINWASHED
Quote:
In comment 13450918 ctc in ftmyers said:
Quote:
want to destroy to save your kids generations from now?
There is a whole world of stake holders out there.
Why I said earlier in this thread, we will adapt or perish. It's just that simple.
There will be a scalable energy source invented/discovered. There will be scalable storage capacity increased for when direct energy isn't available so the infrastructure can continue for however necessary.
Who is going to tell sovereign countries that they can't use natural resources anymore to feed their people?
Just my view. A complicated problem with a lot of stakeholders that have different paths that will affect you and them differently but want the same outcome as you do.
You're painting it extremely black and white. First of all, fuck the "stakeholders", this is about responsibility for our planet. And it's not future generations - it's MY generation.
I think that comment puts a lot of insight into the problem here - some people basically say "who cares about future generations, we need to live for now, I won't be here to see the ramifications, so I don't want to do anything to stop it".
This isn't about tree-hugging. This is about a global disaster that will cause famine, war, and potentially the fall of a global, interconnected civilization.
As for telling sovereign nations who can't feed them - that's not at all what I was getting at. We have a President who wants to pull out of the Paris Accords, and thinks global warming is a hoax. You're setting the bar all the way on the other side, when I'm talking about obvious, sensible policy.
Cut emissions.
Don't attempt (and inevitably fail) to spur more usage of coal.
Stay a leader in the international community with regards to climate change.
R&D more on renewable and clean energy.
Continue to push car companies to get more MPG, encourage use of hybrid.
Sorry if the "stakeholders" might feel a bite, but this is about the planet and civilization, not their wallets.
You do realize that you are a stakeholder opening your opinion with that statement.
"As for telling sovereign nations who can't feed them - that's not at all what I was getting at"
That is exactly what you are getting at. Look to Chavez grand plan. The Saudis drop the price of oil to stop US production flooding the market by making it too costly for us to pump and there is rioting in the streets as they are running out of other people's "wallets" to feed and provide services to their citizens.
Now you know what the problem is.
How much are you willing to hurt your wallet? 50% of your take home pay?
No more heat or AC in schools? Look how much that is contributing. No more school bus service? No more air travel? No more ups or fedex? No more mail service?
Your kids not going to college?
What is your solution worth to you because you (and the rest of us) are where the wallet is coming from.
How many people are you willing to let starve to death? You don't think Countries around the globe aren't going to be looking out for their citizens best interests? People are not going to die without a fight.
Telling them to go F themselves as you want is not a viable solution. Especially when they are armed with nuclear weapons.
You are a stakeholder talking about everyone else.
You think the middle east/Africa will be happy going back to being nomads and goat herders?
It's been said on here by many way above my paygrade that potable water will be the next great problem.
There is a real big picture out there that encompasses a whole lot of future problems.
What happens when the world population starts growing exponentially.
I'm just a lot more confident that we will adjust and survive than you are.
You're more confident bc you won't have to deal with the reprecussions the way I will.
I also agree with the notion that people are brainwashed. Not in the sense that the climate is not getting warmer, because it is. BUT.. to think we are doomed and others thinking that there could be a catastrophe in the near future is just laughable.
The earth has endured far worse than what we are dishing out today. We have had much warmer climates and times in earth's history where it heated up faster than what the graphs in this thread show. Of course, we can cherry pick any snapshot in time to prove our theories.
The true root of the increase in temperatures is our population. Every human is not only a furnace that generates carbon, but we also create waste and use water... all of us. Even if you cut fossil fuel use in half, the exponential growth in our population will offset any carbon savings created by the reduction in fossil fuels in less than a generation.
Want to get serious about the problem? Want to also help with famine in the world? Then we need to control the population.
I also agree with the notion that people are brainwashed. Not in the sense that the climate is not getting warmer, because it is. BUT.. to think we are doomed and others thinking that there could be a catastrophe in the near future is just laughable.
The earth has endured far worse than what we are dishing out today. We have had much warmer climates and times in earth's history where it heated up faster than what the graphs in this thread show. Of course, we can cherry pick any snapshot in time to prove our theories.
The true root of the increase in temperatures is our population. Every human is not only a furnace that generates carbon, but we also create waste and use water... all of us. Even if you cut fossil fuel use in half, the exponential growth in our population will offset any carbon savings created by the reduction in fossil fuels in less than a generation.
Want to get serious about the problem? Want to also help with famine in the world? Then we need to control the population.
Mr. Valentine?