• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Irreversible climate damage is imminent

#842
Gravedigger Dav said:
The climate changes regardless of our participation. Always has, always will.
When the global warming fanatics realized there has been no warming for over 15 years and the polar ice cap has increased by 1 million square miles, they changed the name to Climate Change.
Their insistance that it is all us and that only a prestince Earth with no dastardly humans is a good thing are:
  1. Part of the liberal movement that uses this as a way to increase government control of our lives.
  2. Is sucked in by those in group 1.
Our planet has been, at various times everything from a molton glob of stuff to an ice ball. Because the current climate suits us, we want to keep it that way. I don't have any problems with that. You might say I support it. But to say that we humans are the sole creator of changes in the climate is arrogant and uninformed. How can we puny humans be any match for the power of the sun?

Now, I am not saying we should not be responsible stewards of Earth. We definitely should. We can certainly make a local mess that causes a multitue of problems, but I don't think without setting off every nuclear device on the planet simultaneously we can destroy life on Earth.
Click to expand...

Simply put, science shows greenhouse gasses increase global warming.

I already made the case that altering the environment could make the planet inhabitable. Your specific statement, "But to say that we humans are the sole creator of changes in the climate is arrogant and uninformed," is half strawman, and half, uh, uninformed. No one is saying we are the sole cause, (that's the strawman half,) and to say all the machines we have mass-produced for well over a century can't be a MAJOR cause to change in the climate, well that's just plain uninformed. They certainly COULD BE, and that's not actually debateable.
 
#843
duff beer said:
I love your logic...because a game show host says is on one side of the debate, everyone who is on the same side now takes advice from a game show host?

I'll use the same logic. Who do you take your scientific advice on climate change from? Daryl Hannah or Leonardo DiCaprio?
Click to expand...

nope... just as likely to get a Darwin Award.
ps... your logic has one melting ice shelf sized hole in it. I never said in my post that everyone who is on that side of the argument must have taken their advice from a guy with a laughable hair piece, only implied that IF you do take your advice from him you are well on your way to extinction by stupidity.

reading into written statements is a great ability, unless you start to read things that arent there. :whistle:
 
#844
eyeballkid said:
nope... just as likely to get a Darwin Award.
ps... your logic has one melting ice shelf sized hole in it. I never said in my post that everyone who is on that side of the argument must have taken their advice from a guy with a laughable hair piece, only implied that IF you do take your advice from him you are well on your way to extinction by stupidity.

reading into written statements is a great ability, unless you start to read things that arent there. :whistle:
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is, I have great hair?
 
#846
Science has pretty clearly shown that human activity has destroyed most life in huge areas of the Gulf of Mexico... in one single act, mind you.. and that 90 square miles of the Chesapeake Bay is a dead zone from human activity. Is it not some kind of priviledged, top of the food chain, species exceptionalism kind of arrogance to think we are blameless in the picture as a whole too?

lets not forget thing like the Niger Delta, the wastelands of what used to be rainforests, and the toxicity of half of China. lots of bad little things EVERYWHERE makes everywhere go bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eric Perry
#847
mellowinman said:
Simply put, science shows greenhouse gasses increase global warming.

I already made the case that altering the environment could make the planet inhabitable. Your specific statement, "But to say that we humans are the sole creator of changes in the climate is arrogant and uninformed," is half strawman, and half, uh, uninformed. No one is saying we are the sole cause, (that's the strawman half,) and to say all the machines we have mass-produced for well over a century can't be a MAJOR cause to change in the climate, well that's just plain uninformed. They certainly COULD BE, and that's not actually debateable.
Click to expand...
We can disagree on this and still be friends, i hope. Sorry, but "not actually debateable" is a red flag in a bulls face. Anything can be debated.
There is no half to my statement. I have heard those who claim that without our input, the planet would be a perfect place. Those are some of the uninformed. Do you really think that all the massed produced machines can be even seen on the same scale necessary to measure the power of the giant hydrogen bomb going off about 93 million miles from us? Not a chance.
I think we really agree more than we disagree. I think we both understand Earth's climate is affected by the sun, the moon, and all things happening on the surface of the planet. And we can agree we humans have a much smaller tolerance for atmospheric conditions then does Earth, so this is really not about Earth, it is about Humans.
I won't say we can't influence our environment, but I don't believe we can destroy the planet by ourselfs. We can make at least parts uninhabitable for humans. The cure for that, oversimplified, is don't dump where you dine.
Even the scientists who are suppossed to be experts in the field can't agree. No, it is not a settled subject. It is only deemed settled by those who are seeing their hold on grants in danger of slipping away.
So it will be debated by everyone until Tralfamadorians arrive with their greeting.
 
#848
Bulls aren't drawn to red more than any colour, it's the movement that attracts them (Mythbusters yo!).

Yes, the sun has the greatest impact, however, it isn't changing too much on timescales that are feasible to us. The localised environment on earth, our atmosphere, dictates how that heat is controlled.

The majority of environmental scientists not agreeing on the extent of that damage - doesn't mean they don't think it's actually happening.

Why would the people who claimed it settled be worried about grant money? If their point is settled then why would they ask for more money for that topic . . .

But it's hard to debate with someone who thinks the opposing view thinks it's either a case of living in trees or scorched earth.
 
#849
mellowinman said:
Simply put, science shows greenhouse gasses increase global warming.

I already made the case that altering the environment could make the planet inhabitable. Your specific statement, "But to say that we humans are the sole creator of changes in the climate is arrogant and uninformed," is half strawman, and half, uh, uninformed. No one is saying we are the sole cause, (that's the strawman half,) and to say all the machines we have mass-produced for well over a century can't be a MAJOR cause to change in the climate, well that's just plain uninformed. They certainly COULD BE, and that's not actually debateable.
Click to expand...

I agree. When you dig, pump, and burn billions of tons of carbon that was formerly locked away beneath the ground and send it into the atmosphere, there has to be an effect from that. We've sent many billions of tons of carbon from the geosphere into the atmosphere over the last 150 years. I can't see how that couldn't have a serious effect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eyeballkid
#850
i_got_a_mohawk said:
Why would the people who claimed it settled be worried about grant money? If their point is settled then why would they ask for more money for that topic .
Click to expand...
Because the money continues to flow. The UN wants $100 billion to support their climate change agenda...not to study it, because they have already made up their mind. They don't want debate...they simply want money:

"The U.N.'s climate chief Christiana Figueres said the initial funding should be at least $10 billion and called on governments to put forward a pipeline of international joint projects that the fund could finance."

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
 
#851
duff beer said:
Because the money continues to flow. The UN wants $100 billion to support their climate change agenda...not to study it, because they have already made up their mind. They don't want debate...they simply want money:

"The U.N.'s climate chief Christiana Figueres said the initial funding should be at least $10 billion and called on governments to put forward a pipeline of international joint projects that the fund could finance."

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Click to expand...
The time for debate was before science came to a conclusion. Why continue debating something that's been established? We can debate gravity too, but it's kinda pointless.
 
#852
Well thats because the U.N. is already seeing the effects around the world and want to get the ball rolling on doing something to address it before it causes mass social instability in areas that could cause the whole world BIG problems.


Ps...not a U.N. fan...just understand the causality here.
 
#855
Unrepresented said:
The time for debate was before science came to a conclusion. Why continue debating something that's been established? We can debate gravity too, but it's kinda pointless.
Click to expand...
But it hasn't been established. The planet hasn't warmed up in 16 years and no one who believes in uncontrolled warming can explain it. Every single climate model has been wrong. The IPCC predicted in 2009 that the Arctic ice would be gone by 2014 or 2015, but there is more ice than before.

How many times does the IPCC or do the climate models have to be wrong before some people question them? 1 more time? 20 more times?
 
#856
I imagine it will be a variation on a Malthusian catastrophe. A massive de-population until the earth is able to deal with the situation.

It's going to get ugly. All those sci-fi dis-utopian horror stories like John Brunner used to write? I'll bet it will be much worse when it's real and people start to do what they have to survive.
 
#857
eyeballkid said:
Well thats because the U.N. is already seeing the effects around the world and want to get the ball rolling on doing something to address it before it causes mass social instability in areas that could cause the whole world BIG problems.


Ps...not a U.N. fan...just understand the causality here.
Click to expand...
Have you ever considered that maybe they just want more money??

Ottmar Edenhofer of the IPCC recently said this:

"One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."

Follow the money. It's not about climate...it never has been.
 
#858
duff beer said:
But it hasn't been established. The planet hasn't warmed up in 16 years and no one who believes in uncontrolled warming can explain it. Every single climate model has been wrong. The IPCC predicted in 2009 that the Arctic ice would be gone by 2014 or 2015, but there is more ice than before.

How many times does the IPCC or do the climate models have to be wrong before some people question them? 1 more time? 20 more times?
Click to expand...
It's funny that the scientists seem to be unphased by their apparent 16 years of wrongness and still overwhelmingly support their shared conclusions.
 
#859
Well yeah, Duff... thats always true.. I kinda always have that as an unstated "given" in anything... but... I think they really hope to try to do something un some places...as misguided as it will usually be.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back