a non-political climate change thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mossback said:
Asking an American to modify their consumptive lifestyle, or sacrifice in any way is a total non starter. Just trying to get folks to wear a mask provoked such a level of manufactured outrage by the dildo brigade that they threatened civil war over a piece of cloth.
Yeah...

Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
And I'm not even vaccinated! Look we worked covid in
 
Isn't there like a tax we can pay or something? Doesn't that work? Gas is expensive so the climate should be cooling right?
 
On similar threads it is always the same members, obviously threatened by any discussion or acceptance of climate change, who obviously feel the need to post with anger, or derision, or snark, even though nothing forces them to participate except their own compulsion. We don't expect to change their minds, and they won't change ours, so why not just ignore the thread instead of injecting it with the usual b.s, in hopes of blowing the thread up? All we want to do is talk about weather, immediate and future.
 
Flymph said:
Mike: Your summary seems to point to Climate change being cyclical and not human caused. I will assume for the sake of debate that you realize this is one of many unproven theories that have been heavily induced and funded by extraction industries who have an ongoing record of aggrandizing themselves for massive profits at the expense of others.

I will try this once but am extremely apprehensive as to others who will politicize an attempt by the OP to address a crisis the looms over the very future of humanity. While is true that there are natural cycles and variations in global climate, those who insist that current warming is natural have two challenges.

First, they need to identify the mechanism behind this alleged natural cycle. Absent a forcing of some sort, there will be no change in global energy balance. The balance is changing, so natural or otherwise, we need to find this mysterious cause. Second, they need to come up with and explanation for why a 35% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas does not affect the global temperature. Theory predicsttemperature will rise given and enhanced greenhouse effect, so how or why is it not happening?
Click to expand...

I’ll challenge your contention (although unstated) that humans are not part of nature or natural actIvity. The human locus of species have been around for some 6 Million years. As a species (as all species do), humans have basic needs to survive as a species.
1660405454000.jpeg
Throughout the history of the human species (a very innovative one at that) we’ve invented and adapted all manner of things to meet the needs of the species. Birds build nests to breed and raise progeny. Is that natural? Humans build houses for shelter. Is that natural?

I would commend the BBC series Connections to you which documents how humans have invented and adapted technologies through the centuries to meet those basic needs. Seems to me like humans are part and parcel of nature and thus just another element of natural activity on earth.
 
SurfnFish said:
On similar threads it is always the same members, obviously threatened by any discussion or acceptance of climate change, who obviously feel the need to post with anger, or derision, or snark, even though nothing forces them to participate except their own compulsion. We don't expect to change their minds, and they won't change ours, so why not just ignore the thread instead of injecting it with the usual b.s, in hopes of blowing the thread up? All we want to do is talk about weather, immediate and future.
Click to expand...
What's stupid is your 'adults in the room' only discussion, blatantly advertised, inviting discussion of 'only the right ideas' while casting your shade on everyone else under the guise of innocent 'discussion' gimme a break, can you not find anyone on reddit to stroke your echo chamber?
 
Mike Cline said:
I’ll challenge your contention (although unstated) that humans are not part of nature or natural actIvity. The human locus of species have been around for some 6 Million years. As a species (as all species do), humans have basic needs to survive as a species.
View attachment 27327
Throughout the history of the human species (a very innovative one at that) we’ve invented and adapted all manner of things to meet the needs of the species. Birds build nests to breed and raise progeny. Is that natural? Humans build houses for shelter. Is that natural?

I would commend the BBC series Connections to you which documents how humans have invented and adapted technologies through the centuries to meet those basic needs. Seems to me like humans are part and parcel of nature and thus just another element of natural activity on earth.
Click to expand...
You did a nice job of showing how humans are a major cause of climate change. However, you pose a very interesting question, "are humans part of nature"? That question could take several more pages of debate and would do little to quell the Climate Crisis. I will say this, humanity has done more than any other life form to abuse nature and for that humanity has an obligation to reverse this course of destruction. I love not man the less, but Nature more. Lord Byron must have envisioned a distinction between the two.

And now to the second question; they need to come up with and explanation for why a 35% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas does not affect the global temperature.
 
Last edited:
This thread is great explainer for why we have not made any significant progress in preventing worst effects of climate change up to now. While I remain hopeful that humans will eventully act in the our species' long-term self interest, I think it more likely that we will waltz right into devastating impacts like inundation of major coastal cities and extended periods of lethal wet bulb temperatures that will drive migrations of climate refugees unlike anything in history. Worried about caravans of migrants moving north? You ain't seen nothing yet.
 
While I disagree with Mr @Mike Cline, I appreciate his effort to debate in the Opposite, if you will, and provide some thoughtful responses; the others, with name-calling, just shows they've got nothing. Pretty weak tea.

cheers
 
Zak said:
This thread is great explainer for why we have not made any significant progress in preventing worst effects of climate change up to now. While I remain hopeful that humans will eventully act in the our species' long-term self interest, I think it more likely that we will waltz right into devastating impacts like inundation of major coastal cities and extended periods of lethal wet bulb temperatures that will drive migrations of climate refugees unlike anything in history. Worried about caravans of migrants moving north? You ain't seen nothing yet.
Click to expand...
x2

Canuck from Kansas said:
While I disagree with Mr @Mike Cline, I appreciate his effort to debate in the Opposite, if you will, and provide some thoughtful responses; the others, with name-calling, just shows they've got nothing. Pretty weak tea.

cheers
Click to expand...
x2
 
Mike Cline said:
Rob, in all seriousness, how would that be measured? Climate is far more complex than just CO2 emissions, average global temps, etc. The reality is that the earth’s climate is dynamic and has been for billions of years. It is folly to think that climate is something that humans can control on a global scale? Indeed, mitigating the effects of a changing climate is the rational, human thing to do. We are an innovative species. Unfortunately our time horizon as individuals and generations is so short, that we fail to understand the reality that the earth’s climate has always been changing. There is a very instructive, if not entertaining PBS series entitled: Australia: First Four Billion Years which chronicles the changing landscape, climate and flora and fauna over a 4 billion year timeframe based on geologic and fossil evidence. I would commend it to you if you’ve not seen it before.

But back to my original question. Unless we can agree on some tangible measurements that indeed indicate the climate has stopped changing, all efforts to do so are merely tactics for some to aggrandize themselves at the expense of others.
Click to expand...
Well, we cannot prepare for 1000 years down the road and would struggle to plan for 500 or even 100 years in the future.
I am not one to tell people how to live but it seems to me that the preservation of temperate farmlands will be important, we have subdivided enough of it already.

Desert cities like LA and Phoenix are going to have to change how they get their water their current sources and policies are already failing..

If we are going to do anything saving ecosystem is a failed approach. Not enough people care..

People do care about their families and their money. Is you want to get America on board with climate change solutions there has to be tangible immediate benefits to families and wallets.
5 dollar a gallon gas is a completely losing strategy people will pay it because it's still cheaper than a 90 thousand dollar truck.
 
Talking about climate change is a waste of time, when you have a political system that requires politicians to brainwash their constituents. It's not just that the system encourages it; you cannot get elected, and thus actually exist as a politician, without doing so.
 
It may be coincidental, or not...


www.scientificamerican.com

Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway Public

As early as the 1950s, the groups shared scientists and publicists to downplay dangers of smoking and climate change
www.scientificamerican.com www.scientificamerican.com

Climate change in the courts: Big Oil and Big Tobacco - National Constitution Center

State officials say fossil fuel companies are defrauding the public. But in their zeal to win, are they violating constitutional rights?
www.google.com www.google.com

www.npr.org

Lawsuit alleging oil companies misled public about climate change moves forward

The case brought by Baltimore is one of more than 20 similar lawsuits nationwide that seek to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for their role in climate change.
www.npr.org www.npr.org

readsludge.com

Not Just Exxon: Paul Weiss Defends Many Rogue Corporations

From Big Tobacco to opioid crisis profiteering, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP has made millions from defending some of the most repugnant corporate villains of recent decades
readsludge.com readsludge.com
 
Mike Cline said:
I’ll challenge your contention (although unstated) that humans are not part of nature or natural actIvity. The human locus of species have been around for some 6 Million years. As a species (as all species do), humans have basic needs to survive as a species.
View attachment 27327
Throughout the history of the human species (a very innovative one at that) we’ve invented and adapted all manner of things to meet the needs of the species. Birds build nests to breed and raise progeny. Is that natural? Humans build houses for shelter. Is that natural?

I would commend the BBC series Connections to you which documents how humans have invented and adapted technologies through the centuries to meet those basic needs. Seems to me like humans are part and parcel of nature and thus just another element of natural activity on earth.
Click to expand...
He I'd not far off. The problem with it is that morality is a basic need as important as food and air.. our the current conditions in America prove that beyond any shadow of any doubt.
OUR lack of it causes the breakdown of all the others..
I used all caps for "our" to emphasize the self inclusive pronoun so that everyone would know I am not singling out any person or group in any way shape or form. Well I guess a am singling out Americans :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top