Politics

[RDU Irish]

I refuse to waste my time getting into a "discussion" about the complexities of Global Climate Change [I've contributed to this site on that issue long ago, and no one changes their position an inch].

But I can't let one thing recently stated here as a fact stand.

Out of over 9000 scientists actually publishing in scientific journals about GCC over the last two years] only ONE denied the human impact negatively on this problem. Do the math. In a larger survey of large numbers of persons who might be called "scientists" of some training or other [whether they were actually competent to state an opinion or not] 86% of those surveyed said that they believed that humans were the cause of the acceleration of climate change, and this was a negative thing. The quoted 63% is the percent of the general American citizenry who believe this.

Actual Climate Scientists: 99.9%.
Scientists of all sorts: 86%.
Citizens of all sorts: 63%.

Hate on the idea and deny it all one wants, but do everyone the honest service of not clouding the issue with errors of fact. Of all the "crimes" in the intellectual world, deliberate obfuscation of what we do know in order to support a subjective desire is the most heinous. IE can at least, one would hope, avoid that.

And what difference does that really make, honey?

 

[RDU Irish]

Maybe we could get all these Yankees to move back north....

 

[T Town Tommy]

Maybe we could get all these Yankees to move back north....

Been sayin that for years....

 

[RDU Irish]

Stop misusing your italics.

 

[enrico514]

.

 

[connor_in]

Here's a little question...if We (meaning just the US) implement the idea of never using coal again and putting in place all of these carbon credit plans, please outline the world of 2020, 2025, 2065, 3000, etc in terms of Earth's climate, sea levels, US economy, global economy, and geopoloitics.

 

[Bluto]

It's not so much we are entitled to a specific weather pattern but dependent upon it. Many economies are tied to the status quo of weather patterns and the large majority of economic engines will be disrupted or destroyed. Particularly our food supply and sources of fresh water. People will adapt. Our way of life will not. It is far to rigid and inflexible.

I think a common misconception is that we should do something to stop the weather change when it is really that we should begin to develop ways to stop us from affecting it in the first place. Which is really occurring.

This is spot on. Also, when an ecosystem crashes it tends to do so in a rather spectacular fashion. Sea level rise is not the only "problem" associated with fossil fuel use. Google ocean acidification if you want to lose some sleep. Humans are also responsible for altering the PH of the plants oceans at an alarming rate and the effects (coral reefs are already dying off in large numbers) are clearly visible and from what I understand accelerating. If you have ever owned a fish tank you can grasp how bad this will be. We are also in a period of mass extinction, mass deforestation and massive desertification. So the climate debate is more than just gee is it gonna get hotter and are oceans going to rise it is also about humans altering the entire ecosystem in ways that are highly destructive to our own species and every other species on the planet. Finally while small groups of humans have proven to be rather resilient, large complex societies have not. Given we are now a globalized society it would be easy to argue that the next large collapse will be global in scale. Picture what happened in Rwanda on a global scale.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

It's a good thing we have superior firepower. My position on military spending has just changed - we need more.

Who is going to protect us against each other!

 

[Cackalacky]

I don't think anyone denies the fact that humas don't influence climate change in some way. The extint of how much is what's actually debateable.

Nope! Not debatable. It's accelerating. Fact. Meaning it's getting worse faster. The only thing in question is how long it will be before nature decides to ruin what we have built during our technological adolescence.

 

[Cackalacky]

Here's a little question...if We (meaning just the US) implement the idea of never using coal again and putting in place all of these carbon credit plans, please outline the world of 2020, 2025, 2065, 3000, etc in terms of Earth's climate, sea levels, US economy, global economy, and geopoloitics.

LMAO.

 

[Wild Bill]

Who is going to protect us against each other!

No difference. Hope I have superior firepower and more ammunition.

 

[RDU Irish]

Here's a little question...if We (meaning just the US) implement the idea of never using coal again and putting in place all of these carbon credit plans, please outline the world of 2020, 2025, 2065, 3000, etc in terms of Earth's climate, sea levels, US economy, global economy, and geopoloitics.

Exactly! Fighting the tide is an exercise in futility.

 

[RDU Irish]

Nope! Not debatable. It's accelerating. Fact. Meaning it's getting worse faster. The only thing in question is how long it will be before nature decides to ruin what we have built during our technological adolescence.

If populations in cold climates are lower than warm climates, doesn't it stand to reason humans prefer warm climates.

 

[Bluto]

No difference. Hope I have superior firepower and more ammunition.

This teenage Rambo, shoot my way out mentality is pretty ridiculous when you stop and realize what has made our species so successful even when confronted with other species that had "superior fire power". It was our ability to think in the abstract and critically as well as to organize into cooperative groups.

 

[Bluto]

If populations in cold climates are lower than warm climates, doesn't it stand to reason humans prefer warm climates.

You need to take a broader perspective. An ecological system is defined by the sums of the whole and how the different species populations interact and influence each other, not the individual species per see. It's very similar to looking at economies on the macro and micro levels. This also isn't just about what humans prefer but what the species humans rely on have adapted to over millions of years in some cases. And no some humans prefer colder climates because that is what their cultures are adapted to. That is to say if you took a bunch of Inuits and just plopped them into the Amazon they would all die. Also, the population density supported by The Sahara desert is really low as is the population density supported by Australia's climate.

What allowed populations to explode was the domestication of key animal and plant species, none of which are well adapted to arctic climates and the longer growing periods associated with temperate climates where these species were domesticated.

 

[RDU Irish]

If you took a bunch of New Yorkers and put them in the Amazon, or Arctic, or pretty much anyplace without a supermarket, running water and electricity, they would all die too.

Why don't you answer Connor's question while you are at it. You seem to be oblivious to the point that your "solutions" to the "problem" are spitting in the wind at best. It's amazing this delicate planet has made it 5 billion years without being FUBAR before. Oh, wait, there have been FUBAR events in the past too? Mass extinctions? Well shit, in the long run we are all dead anyway.

 

[Wild Bill]

This teenage Rambo, shoot my way out mentality is pretty ridiculous when you stop and realize what has made our species so successful even when confronted with other species that had "superior fire power". It was our ability to think in the abstract and critically as well as to organize into cooperative groups.

The scenario Bogs describes strikes me as improbable and ridiculous. The "shoot my way out" response (it's not a mentality) is limited to the situation he described or something equally chaotic.

 

[Cackalacky]

If populations in cold climates are lower than warm climates, doesn't it stand to reason humans prefer warm climates.

Another problem that the plurality seems not to grasp is that we exist "WITHIN" ( as in a part of) a complex biological life system dependent upon an interactive chemically based physical planet.

It has existed in a balance for millenia. Our recent (relatively) advances with technology have upset this balance. I have addressed this in my other posts and am not going to rehash it. Our current existence is dependent upon being able to grow our food or get meat from grazing animals and the ocean. Our actions in the last 150 years are currently jeopardizing our food production and sources of clean water. Documented and facts. We have created an exponential carrying capacity (basically a ceiling level of production to sustain a population) but altering our environment in doing so means we have to keep growing this capacity exponentially which is unsustainable.

Consider California. I also have produced a lengthy post about the value of Californias agriculture to us and the fact it is based on having to sequester and accumulate freshwater that does not exist in the state. Think about this. The largest producer of agriculture in the US is dependent upon a source of water that it has to get from Nevada and Arizona, engineer resources to pump it and store it so that they can grow our food. Any change or lack of water will crash our largest source of real food and crush a large portion of our real economy. Increasing temperatures and loss of water is already affecting the area that certain foods can be grown and the amounts produced.

So just a a person preferring a warm climate is not even scratching the surface of what all of this means.

 

[Cackalacky]

If you took a bunch of New Yorkers and put them in the Amazon, or Arctic, or pretty much anyplace without a supermarket, running water and electricity, they would all die too.

Why don't you answer Connor's question while you are at it. You seem to be oblivious to the point that your "solutions" to the "problem" are spitting in the wind at best. It's amazing this delicate planet has made it 5 billion years without being FUBAR before. Oh, wait, there have been FUBAR events in the past too? Mass extinctions? Well shit, in the long run we are all dead anyway.

Fuck it. Plow ahead and fughedaboutit. LOL That always works. #success story

 

[RDU Irish]

Another problem that the plurality seems not to grasp is that we exist "WITHIN" ( as in a part of) a complex biological life system dependent upon an interactive chemically based physical planet.

It has existed in a balance for millenia. Our recent (relatively) advances with technology have upset this balance. I have addressed this in my other posts and am not going to rehash it. Our current existence is dependent upon being able to grow our food or get meat from grazing animals and the ocean. Our actions in the last 150 years are currently jeopardizing our food production and sources of clean water. Documented and facts. We have created an exponential carrying capacity (basically a ceiling level of production to sustain a population) but altering our environment in doing so means we have to keep growing this capacity exponentially which is unsustainable.

Consider California. I also have produced a lengthy post about the value of Californias agriculture to us and the fact it is based on having to sequester and accumulate freshwater that does not exist in the state. Think about this. The largest producer of agriculture in the US is dependent upon a source of water that it has to get from Nevada and Arizona, engineer resources to pump it and store it so that they can grow our food. Any change or lack of water will crash our largest source of real food and crush a large portion of our real economy. Increasing temperatures and loss of water is already affecting the area that certain foods can be grown and the amounts produced.

So just a a person preferring a warm climate is not even scratching the surface of what all of this means.

So part of the solution is turning food into fuel (ethanol)? See where the chain of logic loses credibility?

Technology provides higher yielding, drought resistant crops along with more efficient methods to produce them. You know, economic and technological advancement solving problems without government.

But maybe you are right. Life without avocados is not worth living!

 

[Bluto]

If you took a bunch of New Yorkers and put them in the Amazon, or Arctic, or pretty much anyplace without a supermarket, running water and electricity, they would all die too.

Why don't you answer Connor's question while you are at it. You seem to be oblivious to the point that your "solutions" to the "problem" are spitting in the wind at best. It's amazing this delicate planet has made it 5 billion years without being FUBAR before. Oh, wait, there have been FUBAR events in the past too? Mass extinctions? Well shit, in the long run we are all dead anyway.

I agree that the New Yorkers would all die. Actually pretty much anyone from the US would. That's kind of the point.

You are right the planet had been FUBAR many times from the perspective of the species that existed at that time. The big difference is that they were not making conscious decisions to drive it to a state of FUBAR. Humans have many times in the past done the FUBAR thing on a regional level but again given globalization and the scale of the bad decisions being made and policies being implemented the Next human induced FUBAR is likely to be a global scale one. Yep we are all dead eventually but it then becomes a question of legacy. Frankly I would not be able to look my kid in the face and tell him that I ignored the facts and chose to do nothing about it.

Finally, there are clear solutions to this problem that don't amount to "spitting in the wind". People need to acknowledge that their is a huge problem first and foremost and presently most people seem incapable of even that simple step.

 

[Cackalacky]

So part of the solution is turning food into fuel (ethanol)? See where the chain of logic loses credibility?

Technology provides higher yielding, drought resistant crops along with more efficient methods to produce them. You know, economic and technological advancement solving problems without government.

But maybe you are right. Life without avocados is not worth living!

Ethanol is a terrible idea. We should be developing net neutral carbon technologies.

GMO foods are being created but they have this drawback where the things they are designed to repel evolve to eat them anyway. So its an endless cycle of keeping up with the jone's (evolutionaryily speaking). And no matter what level of drought a food can resist, it will need water as that is what makes up a large portion of its nutritional value. A finite source of freshwater will still lead to a finite amount of food (Its a principle called Mass Balance).

I am really surprised by you condescension. I thought you better than this.

 

[RDU Irish]

I agree that the New Yorkers would all die. Actually pretty much anyone from the US would. That's kind of the point.

You are right the planet had been FUBAR many times from the perspective of the species that existed at that time. The big difference is that they were not making conscious decisions to drive it to a state of FUBAR. Humans have many times in the past done the FUBAR thing on a regional level but again given globalization and the scale of the bad decisions being made and policies being implemented the Next human induced FUBAR is likely to be a global scale one. Yep we are all dead eventually but it then becomes a question of legacy. Frankly I would not be able to look my kid in the face and tell him that I ignored the facts and chose to do nothing about it.

Finally, there are clear solutions to this problem that don't amount to "spitting in the wind". People need to acknowledge that their is a huge problem first and foremost and presently most people seem incapable of even that simple step.

I would love to know how you plan to reverse the natural warming trend, preferably without instigating another ice age.

The ultimate irony would be you being completely right and then a huge meteor wipes us out anyway. Or a some disease wipes us out or Yellowstone blows its top or the sun goes dark or the poles reverse again or whatever the doomsday scenario of the day may be.

 

[Cackalacky]

I agree that the New Yorkers would all die. Actually pretty much anyone from the US would. That's kind of the point.

You are right the planet had been FUBAR many times from the perspective of the species that existed at that time. The big difference is that they were not making conscious decisions to drive it to a state of FUBAR. Humans have many times in the past done the FUBAR thing on a regional level but again given globalization and the scale of the bad decisions being made and policies being implemented the Next human induced FUBAR is likely to be a global scale one. Yep we are all dead eventually but it then becomes a question of legacy. Frankly I would not be able to look my kid in the face and tell him that I ignored the facts and chose to do nothing about it.

Finally, there are clear solutions to this problem that don't amount to "spitting in the wind". People need to acknowledge that their is a huge problem first and foremost and presently most people seem incapable of even that simple step.

good points. We are behaving like we can continue to extend the capacity the earth has to produce for us and tolerate us. That is not the case. I do not understand why this is not understood. Particularly from people so skilled in the analysis of resources and their values.

 

[Cackalacky]

I would love to know how you plan to reverse the natural warming trend, preferably without instigating another ice age.

The ultimate irony would be you being completely right and then a huge meteor wipes us out anyway. Or a some disease wipes us out or Yellowstone blows its top or the sun goes dark or the poles reverse again or whatever the doomsday scenario of the day may be.

NET NEUTRAL CARBON USE TECHNOLOGIES.

LOL.

 

[Bluto]

So part of the solution is turning food into fuel (ethanol)? See where the chain of logic loses credibility?

Technology provides higher yielding, drought resistant crops along with more efficient methods to produce them. You know, economic and technological advancement solving problems without government.

But maybe you are right. Life without avocados is not worth living!

This is a good post because at least you're talking about solutions and moving beyond debating whether or not there is a problem. Lol.

 

[RDU Irish]

Ethanol is a terrible idea. We should be developing net neutral carbon technologies.

GMO foods are being created but they have this drawback where the things they are designed to repel evolve to eat them anyway. So its an endless cycle of keeping up with the jone's (evolutionaryily speaking). And no matter what level of drought a food can resist, it will need water as that is what makes up a large portion of its nutritional value. A finite source of freshwater will still lead to a finite amount of food (Its a principle called Mass Balance).

I am really surprised by you condescension. I thought you better than this.

It takes a lot of condescension to counterbalance that of global warming alarmists.

For the record, H2O is kind of abundant. I like to think those with technology and money can use desalination processes to fend for themselves. It costs 5 - 10 times more than drawing from traditional sources and half what it did 15 years ago. So again, I would rather have economic means to solve future problems than bankrupt myself trying to avoid a possibility.

 

[Bluto]

It takes a lot of condescension to counterbalance that of global warming alarmists.

For the record, H2O is kind of abundant. I like to think those with technology and money can use desalination processes to fend for themselves. It costs 5 - 10 times more than drawing from traditional sources and half what it did 15 years ago. So again, I would rather have economic means to solve future problems than bankrupt myself trying to avoid a possibility.

Look at it as like investing in a 401k. You know, hope for the best plan for the worst based on an analysis of all the data at hand. If the US spent what it did on blowing up Iraq on moving towards a carbon neutral economy we would already be there. Priorities I guess.

 

[Cackalacky]

It takes a lot of condescension to counterbalance that of global warming alarmists.

For the record, H2O is kind of abundant. I like to think those with technology and money can use desalination processes to fend for themselves. It costs 5 - 10 times more than drawing from traditional sources and half what it did 15 years ago. So again, I would rather have economic means to solve future problems than bankrupt myself trying to avoid a possibility.

Nature does not give one shit about economic policies of humans. Facts are still facts. Would you be alarmed at a prediction that your balance sheet is gonna be in the red next quarter. The quarter after that? How about a forseable trend of red quarters with no end in sight? Nature does not file bankrupcy. It will end you.

Water is abundant. Freshwater is not. Extraction and desalination requires energy and also produces wastes. You are missing the biggest point. We do not live within the boundaries of nature. This does not end well and no economic solution will suffice unless said solution generates neutral effects. Purifying water does not do this.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Nope! Not debatable. It's accelerating. Fact. Meaning it's getting worse faster. The only thing in question is how long it will be before nature decides to ruin what we have built during our technological adolescence.

So when do we get the other countries of the world to sign up for environmental regulations? The whole issue with global warming to me comes down to the this: it seems there are few countries that will regulate themselves while the US makes themselves much less competitive in the global economy with harsher and harsher regulations. Not to mention the economic impact of lost jobs, wages, and higher prices for goods that we all face.

I think we all have an obligation to protect the environment, but when the China's and Russia's of the world could care less, does it really matter?