Global Warming
- Started
- Last post
- 643 Responses
- numbers-1
Some kind of population control is probably inevitable. The world can't support 15 billion people all living like Americans.
- haha yea. just wondering if it will come from natural event or man. If from man im a bit more scared of what will happen with that. on an evolutionary scaledeathboy
- that on an evolutionary scale. especially looking at what giving food to the hungriest people in africa does to their best in the tribesdeathboy
- lowimpakt0
i see the opposite re. industrialisation. climate change is a massive driver of innovation and open up new frontiers for technology, urban planning, architecture etc.
the people that spread the phrase "climate alarmism" tend to be people and companies that want things to remain the same because they are tied to polluting technologies and they are unwilling or unable to innovate.
- security to keep those things they want is a motivator on both sides. i think control and security is only an illusion.deathboy
- and how is industrialization done through subsuidies and unsustainable real innovation?deathboy
- and if u want to curb the sympton of co2 gases, would u support populations controls?deathboy
- deathboy-1
Im not discounting the negative impact on the environment that people make. Im just speculative to the extents and the level of the effects. Most studies look in the last 100 years or so. Few look at a large timeline scale because its almost impossible to calculate or quantify all the variables. And if they cant provide a result deeming their continued grants necessary theyll be out of a job. So easyier to do small scale and focus on factors that will provide the results your looking for. And those research people are usually funded by corps and gov agencies that are looking for the answers that fit their agendas. Its a business afterall. Scientists arent altruists that are doing it out of a common good. They need to keep their jobs.
And i question the effects climate change alarmists will have on people promoting their research through regulation and policy. If we dont have that much effect, and we slow the industrialization down to a crawl while the populations increase, it could lead to as much suffering as a possible climate change. after all industrialization also correlates with populations, would like to see some growth charts of pops and industrialization to go with the climate models that are trying to drive changes. but than again those will likely be biased in favor too. So ill just shrug. And say fuck it.
But i prefer nature to balance things better than people. The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry
- if your stance is all about the allocation of funding, i think you should be more concerned with the militaryscarabin
- i really don't think spending any amount of time or money on studying the effects of humanity on the planet is misplaced. you say "we just can't know all the variables" but with study hopefully we can come closescarabin
- say "we just can't know all the variables" but with study hopefully we can come closescarabin
- not about funding. i dont care who wants to fund what privately. Its how the data is manipulated through fear to gain controldeathboy
- gain control. I dont think it can be calcualted or quantified. we cant predict the weather a month in advance let alone a weekdeathboy
- week accurately. its just absurd. its about control/money through fear.deathboy
- best way to gain quick control is to destabalize through policy, blame soemone and offer hollow promisesdeathboy
- of course i think its more about cronie capitalism than pwoer mongering right now. but a good angle to work off of if your power hungrydeathboy
- power hungrydeathboy
- if it's about power then, you should consider who would benefit from a misinformation campaign. the wealthy who gain their wealth through carbon-producing practices like oil, or the people who are concerned about their effects?scarabin
- their wealth through carbon-producing practices like oil, or the people who are concerned about their effects?scarabin
- i consider both those gaining it and the leaders pandering to it.deathboy
- scarabin0
what have you guys been arguing about for 200 posts?
whether to care about what we're doing to the planet or not?
shouldn't the answer be yes on both sides?
- care about the planet - yes
but we are arguing about weather man made co2 has any real effect.Hombre_Lobo
- care about the planet - yes
- Fax_Benson0
It doesn't make any difference that the earth's temperature has fluctuated wildly in the past, or whether the current changes are man made or part of a wider pattern. Man made climate change isn't the issue - climate change is the issue. We can try to do something about it, or we can do nothing and just be thankful that we aren't encased in ice like our ancestors.
- You cant control climate change.deathboy
- some people think you can, to an extent.Fax_Benson
- Hombre_Lobo1
^well said.
Bizarrely the temperature rose dramatically up until the start of the 70's, when mass production and fossil fuel burning was become massive. But then it slowed massively and is still not as rapid in increase as it was then.
Showing that their is very little that links man made Co2 and temperature change.
However I dont agree with polluting the air and cutting down masses of trees and over fishing the seas on an unsustainable basis. Over fishing in particular, thems little algae folk produce more oxygen than anything else. (like 70% of all oxygen is algae produce iirc)
- (links them in an immediate sense at least. impossible to tell on a 1000 year scale...until 3000 :D)Hombre_Lobo
- numbers-1
I dunno...I always figured the fact that the Earth has changed temperatures over time is something every kid learns in first grade.
Like no one ever heard of the Ice Age before? Or knew that for most of the world's history, it was much warmer?
I guess I'm just a little confused when I hear people using that as an argument against climate change. Because it doesn't have any bearing on whether humans can change the temperature themselves by pumping loads of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Or indicate that everything will be just fine if the temperature does change drastically. After all the other characteristic of history is that lifeforms died out in large numbers, often corresponding to changes in the environment. So it seems like a strange parallel to draw IMO.
- Hombre_Lobo1
^what are you on about?
its not a 'thought' nor was it a theory, it actually happened. It was very very very very cold.
- numbers-1
I don't get the argument about the Earth changing temperature in the past...
It's like saying people have gotten cancer before the invention of cigarettes, therefore smoking doesn't cause cancer.
- not at all. its simply saying that climate change has happened with man and without industrialization.deathboy
- lowimpakt0
^ we also thought the world was flat but that doesn't mean our understanding of the sphericity of the earth is wrong.
you're using something like Historian's fallacy.
- deathboy-1
- < exactly.
There were also programs in the 80's warning about another ice age!!!! :OHombre_Lobo
- < exactly.
- lowimpakt0
also, the "it's all about tax" argument is baseless.Tax is not the best policy instrument to use but when there is market failure (look that up) it is often a position of last resort.
The very idea of taxing carbon is to create a behaviour/market shift away from carbon intensive processes. i.e. If you don't pollute you don't pay the tax. The people least happy about it are the incumbents and old regime businesses e.g. oil companies.
These oil companies spent plenty of their money on lies and BS and these lies get spread by mostly harmless but massively naive and un-scientific suckers via blogs and tabloids.
- detritus0
In sum I believe that Humanity's at its greatest test - we either take the future by the balls and really make this planet our own, now and forever, or we pass into history as another failed experiment.
Of course there's been change before - what we're talking about here is nullifying change that can see an end to our own existence.
Gaia is a cruel bitch, but a clever one.
- Gaia schmia, nature doesn't work like that. What works, stays, that's the only rule. There's no unseen oversight.mikotondria3
- I don't think Gaia actually sits in a cocoon at the centre of the planet, you know..detritus
- I invoke Gaia to feel more comfortable about conscious geo-engineering.. it's a loaded tem otherwise...detritus
- haha, to each their own sir.
It just irks me to hear it - it's a sign that people have been educated by books in smokeshops, not science.mikotondria3 - ..shops that sell incense, not by scientists.mikotondria3
- I'm slightly horrified that, after all this time, you'd lump me in that category! Lovelock is a scientist, remember :)detritus
- lol @ mikotondria3lowimpakt
- lowimpakt0
also, Hombre. that documentary has been shown to have misrepresented the science and the scientists in it.
- really? have you got any evidence of this.Hombre_Lobo
- yes, http://www.realclima…lowimpakt
- detritus0
You're incredibly obtuse Georges, but I don't really care - I don't bother engaging with you here (my post was for hombre_) as you're neck deep in your political paranoia.
Get back to me when you've read a little more on the carbon cycle and what 'greenhouse effect' actually means and when you've learnt to look at the world through slightly less polarised classes, k?
Saying 'is the fuckn shiny hot ball' just confirms where you're coming from, and I really can't be bothered.
- wow, you're so witty,
yet you can't comprehend figures of speech, i'll clean my classes so I can see the world as yougeorgesIII
- wow, you're so witty,
- lowimpakt0
george - what caused those previous "fluctuations" and did they happen at the same rate/scale?
- they are all theories so far, solar cycles, volcanoes, meteor, nobody knows for suregeorgesIII
- is the greenhouse effect a theory?lowimpakt
- http://lmgtfy.com/?q…georgesIII
- let me show you the science - http://bit.ly/ug1UlB…lowimpakt
- georgesIII-1
don't worry detritus,
once you get what you want, you'll learn to enjoy freezing to death in the winter times, people can't even afford to heat their home in the 1st world, yet you want to tax them even more,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/busine…btw, nobody is saying that the earth isn't warming, but we have to keep on repeating ad nauseum that the main cause of it, is the fuckn shiny hot ball in the sky which is called the sun,
don't they teach in school that in the billions of years since it's creation, earth went through phases of warmth and cold numerous times, without the help of humans.
- They did teach that in my school, but that was 25 years ago.mikotondria3
- detritus0
My position on climate change has slightly evolved over the past few years, but I still don't think we can be flippant (/hubristic) enough to be un/sure of the science enough to NOT do anything about it.
*IF* we can pull smart nuclear out of the bag (focus on Thorium) AND we can deploy it in earnest worldwide, to every nation regardless of political leaning, and IF we can deliver a [really] huge amount of desalination plants, we can effectively engineer out our dry spots (Google 'dustbowlification') and at the same time capitalise on the extra land we'll gain nearer the poles.
We're amidst the greatest gamble any species on our planet has ever entered, and IF it pays off, we can spin global warming into a truly positive thing = more available landmass.
The flipside, however, if we continue to pretend that it cannot possibly be a concern, is that we don't evolve beyond a carbon-as-fuel economy, we don't 'geoengineer' the failpoints (deserts etc) whilst we do run out of easy energy, we do run out of food and migration and resource challenges bring down all the major economies... though if it goes that way, there are still plenty of nukes around, so maybe we'll just blow the shit out of each other instead.
- detritus0
A shame then, that the new consensus is that current global warming is of anthopological origin...
- er.. sorry. a) it's anthropomorphic, and b) this study doesn't state that at all. My bad. It is REAL though.detritus
- BEST does heavily imply anthropomorphic climate change though; It just can't 'scientifically' state itdetritus
- that link is pretty pointless. we know the temp is rising. its natural.Hombre_Lobo
- Hombre_Lobo1
^also for anyone who suspects that documentary is just shite, it has some world renowned people talking.
the ex-editor of newscientist magazine, a couple of scientists who have received awards (some of which from NASA), some scientists who have worked with nasa,
Also has Piers Corben - English solar physicist who created a radical way to predict the weather in the 1980's, by looking at the sun, measuring sunspots and solar winds. Far more accurate than just looking at atmospheric earth changes.
One nice snippet fact about natural climate fluctuation - Vine street in london was so called vine street because it use to be covered in vines and lush greenery, this was due to the high temperatures found many years ago.
Also in the 1400's the thames river use to freeze over completely, and there was ice fairs, markets and events held on it. It doesn't freeze over today though.
- come on lobo, you're wasting your time, WE ARE AT FAULT, US HUMANS AND WE SHOULD BE PUNISHED /sgeorgesIII
- LOL georgeHombre_Lobo
- GET US!!!moldero