On August 08 2013 04:33 Phael wrote: Diseases aren't generally considered "environmental changes". Furthermore, I argue that the existence of diseases at that time in relatively closed environments was very, very beneficial. Imagine if we were less vigilant about communicable plague today. A single outbreak could be spread world-wide in a matter of days, whereas the black plague was mostly confined to single communities and towns when it did occur.
The fact that the current ecosystem is unrecognizable to just a few millions years ago is evidence that we MUST keep the current climate
Humans have adapted to live in essentially every available climate. We've sent people to live underwater, space, the moon, etc. Rather than spend an enormous amount of effort attempting to preserve tiny fractions of the current environment, we should be looking for new ways to adapt to more environments instead of forcing the current environment to remain stable.
Which, by the way, is essentially impossible.
We have not lived under water, in space, or on the moon. Man-made climate change is not up for debate, so everything else you wrote is irrelevant.
The science is settled huh?
Kind of like flies spontaneously generating from rotten pieces of meat?
Yes the science is settled No, not really like w.e bullshit you're refering to lol
It's so good to know that no more scientific discussion or experimentation needs to be done. What we have now is not the hypothesis of man-made climate change, nor even the theory.... no, it is the scientific fact. Enshrined as law. Deserving of a place next to Newton's own laws! All hail the new order!
Yeah, sounds exactly like the bullshit I'm referring to. Actually, it sounds worse. At least the spontaneous generation people were willing to admit it when they were proven wrong. And as far as I know, they weren't foolish enough to call the science settled and then suggest we pass enormous legislative action demanding that meat stop rotting.
No theory can be proven to 100%, and no evidence is enough for you. Why does the government do anything at all? Actually, why has a government? Nothing is settled. Show me proof that having a police/firemen/doctors are beneficial to society, actually don't bother, if you do I'll just tell you we need more evidence, why waste our valuable money on these people, when we have no proof they help at all.
Hah, funny you should mention Newton's "laws", do you think there is absolute evidence for them? What's makes them scientific fact? believe me, jesus did not whisper them to his year, I guess that's what you'd need to believe something,
So "sounds exactly like the bullshit I'm referring to" ---------------> "At least the spontaneous generation people were willing to admit it when they were proven wrong" SEEMS LEGIT
On August 08 2013 04:33 Phael wrote: Diseases aren't generally considered "environmental changes". Furthermore, I argue that the existence of diseases at that time in relatively closed environments was very, very beneficial. Imagine if we were less vigilant about communicable plague today. A single outbreak could be spread world-wide in a matter of days, whereas the black plague was mostly confined to single communities and towns when it did occur.
The fact that the current ecosystem is unrecognizable to just a few millions years ago is evidence that we MUST keep the current climate
Humans have adapted to live in essentially every available climate. We've sent people to live underwater, space, the moon, etc. Rather than spend an enormous amount of effort attempting to preserve tiny fractions of the current environment, we should be looking for new ways to adapt to more environments instead of forcing the current environment to remain stable.
Which, by the way, is essentially impossible.
We have not lived under water, in space, or on the moon. Man-made climate change is not up for debate, so everything else you wrote is irrelevant.
The science is settled huh?
Kind of like flies spontaneously generating from rotten pieces of meat?
Yes the science is settled No, not really like w.e bullshit you're refering to lol
It's so good to know that no more scientific discussion or experimentation needs to be done. What we have now is not the hypothesis of man-made climate change, nor even the theory.... no, it is the scientific fact. Enshrined as law. Deserving of a place next to Newton's own laws! All hail the new order!
Yeah, sounds exactly like the bullshit I'm referring to. Actually, it sounds worse. At least the spontaneous generation people were willing to admit it when they were proven wrong. And as far as I know, they weren't foolish enough to call the science settled and then suggest we pass enormous legislative action demanding that meat stop rotting.
No theory can be proven to 100%, and no evidence is enough for you. Why does the government do anything at all? Actually, why has a government? Nothing is settled. Show me proof that having a police/firemen/doctors are beneficial to society, actually don't bother, if you do I'll just tell you we need more evidence, why waste our valuable money on these people, when we have no proof they help at all.
Do you really think the existence of police/fireman/doctors is dependent upon scientific conclusions and that these professions did not exist before these rigorous studies were done?
Hah, funny you should mention Newton's "laws", do you think there is absolute evidence for them? What's makes them scientific fact?
Good Lord, you actually do think man-made global warming is as settled as Newton's laws...
On August 08 2013 04:33 Phael wrote: Diseases aren't generally considered "environmental changes". Furthermore, I argue that the existence of diseases at that time in relatively closed environments was very, very beneficial. Imagine if we were less vigilant about communicable plague today. A single outbreak could be spread world-wide in a matter of days, whereas the black plague was mostly confined to single communities and towns when it did occur.
The fact that the current ecosystem is unrecognizable to just a few millions years ago is evidence that we MUST keep the current climate
Humans have adapted to live in essentially every available climate. We've sent people to live underwater, space, the moon, etc. Rather than spend an enormous amount of effort attempting to preserve tiny fractions of the current environment, we should be looking for new ways to adapt to more environments instead of forcing the current environment to remain stable.
Which, by the way, is essentially impossible.
We have not lived under water, in space, or on the moon. Man-made climate change is not up for debate, so everything else you wrote is irrelevant.
The science is settled huh?
Kind of like flies spontaneously generating from rotten pieces of meat?
Yes the science is settled No, not really like w.e bullshit you're refering to lol
It's so good to know that no more scientific discussion or experimentation needs to be done. What we have now is not the hypothesis of man-made climate change, nor even the theory.... no, it is the scientific fact. Enshrined as law. Deserving of a place next to Newton's own laws! All hail the new order!
Yeah, sounds exactly like the bullshit I'm referring to. Actually, it sounds worse. At least the spontaneous generation people were willing to admit it when they were proven wrong. And as far as I know, they weren't foolish enough to call the science settled and then suggest we pass enormous legislative action demanding that meat stop rotting.
No theory can be proven to 100%, and no evidence is enough for you. Why does the government do anything at all? Actually, why has a government? Nothing is settled. Show me proof that having a police/firemen/doctors are beneficial to society, actually don't bother, if you do I'll just tell you we need more evidence, why waste our valuable money on these people, when we have no proof they help at all.
Do you really think the existence of police/fireman/doctors is dependent upon scientific conclusions and that these professions did not exist before these rigorous studies were done?
On August 08 2013 04:24 Phael wrote: Is there any reason that we simply decided *now* is the best version of earth that has ever been, so therefor we must preserve it?
I guess we see this differently. I feel like the earth in this phase is close to perfect. All we need to do is to seek and discover the possibilities. We only harvest a silly fragment of the energy, that is brought to us by the sun. Why not spend billions of dollars to unviel the possibilities in green science (instead of warfare/missle defense / luxuary wares). In only 30 years windmills/ sun cells/ biofuels has become much more efficient (even though no real investment has been made). To gamble with the climate of the earth is just not needed in my eyes. If I ever won a billion dollar, I wouldn't just place them all on the roulette.
On August 08 2013 04:24 Phael wrote: All of these statements suggest to me that instead of attempting to hold back the tide, as environmentalists are so eager to do, we should instead be concentrating on other, far more important and long reaching matters (such as the dispersion of our species). So no, we shouldn't deliberately trash our planet, but neither should we fear changing it in any way because it's going to change no matter what we do.
I feel a lot of people care close to nothing about environment - it almost seems like they deliberately trash the planet. Why would you ever drive in a fricking 4 ton heavy jeep (or just any american car)? It is not like it will save you a lot of money.
Does it really matter if the climate change is man-made or natural? It's going to happen regardless, why fight to place blame rather than work to adapt around it? It's easier to walk up the beach than to construct a dam to stave off the tide ...
I feel a lot of people care close to nothing about environment - it almost seems like they deliberately trash the planet. Why would you ever drive in a fricking 4 ton heavy jeep (or just any american car)? It is not like it will save you a lot of money.
Yes, as a matter of fact the environment is nothing but a disposable resource for us. I don't give a shit about the environment more than the extent that it aids us and provides resources. Why would you care more about it? I don't understand. I drive a 8V engine because I like my car.
Leave that mouth breather be. Some people are simply too stubborn or dumb to understand/change their mind. Climate models cannot at this point be 100% accurate, there is simply too many variables to input and understand. They support however the increase of catastrophic events (floods, droughts, heat waves, etc.). The models predict an increase in the frequency (in part due to increased atmospheric enthropy) they cannot pinpoint where and when, nor the exact scale. But statistical evidence (historical databases) seems to support what scientists and the models claim. Wether cyclical or purely man-made, changes are happening and accelerating. These extreme events are not life threatening for humanity, but will have a toll on water and food scarcity, infrastructure repair costs, and obviously claim some lives.
Edit: You do realize that thousands if not millions of disease cases (cancer and others) are mostly due to water, atmospheric and soil pollution, dont you...?
On August 08 2013 03:11 Phael wrote: In any reasonable estimation, we have at least a few million years left, upwards to a few billion. Unless we blast ourselves back into the stone ages every few thousand years, there's no realistic way that our lifeboats won't be ready before the planet is dead.
If the climate turns so rough that we can't grow crops and thus feed our population we don't have a few million years left. There are plenty of realistic scenarios in which our lifeboats won't be ready.
More heat and more carbon is good for plant-growth, not bad...
Yep, lots of droughts. Very good for plant growth and for people who rely on their annual harvest.
Can you tell me one famous era in Earth's history where there was much more heat and much more carbon in the atmosphere?
I'll give you a hint, it was when the largest creatures that ever roamed the Earth... roamed the Earth.
(The irony of calling them "greenhouse gasses" and implying that they will be bad for plant growth is not lost on me.)
I believe you're mistaking CO2 for O2 there big boy.
On August 08 2013 04:33 Phael wrote: Diseases aren't generally considered "environmental changes". Furthermore, I argue that the existence of diseases at that time in relatively closed environments was very, very beneficial. Imagine if we were less vigilant about communicable plague today. A single outbreak could be spread world-wide in a matter of days, whereas the black plague was mostly confined to single communities and towns when it did occur.
The fact that the current ecosystem is unrecognizable to just a few millions years ago is evidence that we MUST keep the current climate
Humans have adapted to live in essentially every available climate. We've sent people to live underwater, space, the moon, etc. Rather than spend an enormous amount of effort attempting to preserve tiny fractions of the current environment, we should be looking for new ways to adapt to more environments instead of forcing the current environment to remain stable.
Which, by the way, is essentially impossible.
We have not lived under water, in space, or on the moon. Man-made climate change is not up for debate, so everything else you wrote is irrelevant.
The science is settled huh?
Kind of like flies spontaneously generating from rotten pieces of meat?
Yes the science is settled No, not really like w.e bullshit you're refering to lol
It's so good to know that no more scientific discussion or experimentation needs to be done. What we have now is not the hypothesis of man-made climate change, nor even the theory.... no, it is the scientific fact. Enshrined as law. Deserving of a place next to Newton's own laws! All hail the new order!
Yeah, sounds exactly like the bullshit I'm referring to. Actually, it sounds worse. At least the spontaneous generation people were willing to admit it when they were proven wrong. And as far as I know, they weren't foolish enough to call the science settled and then suggest we pass enormous legislative action demanding that meat stop rotting.
No theory can be proven to 100%, and no evidence is enough for you. Why does the government do anything at all? Actually, why has a government? Nothing is settled. Show me proof that having a police/firemen/doctors are beneficial to society, actually don't bother, if you do I'll just tell you we need more evidence, why waste our valuable money on these people, when we have no proof they help at all.
Do you really think the existence of police/fireman/doctors is dependent upon scientific conclusions and that these professions did not exist before these rigorous studies were done?
Hah, funny you should mention Newton's "laws", do you think there is absolute evidence for them? What's makes them scientific fact?
Good Lord, you actually do think man-made global warming is as settled as Newton's laws...
When did I say that LOL, I was asking what you think is necessarily for something to constitute scientific fact
A hell of a lot more than a bunch of politicians who have no scientific training or experience whatsoever saying it's settled and then pushing for massive legislative action that could very well drive our already faltering economy into the ground.
Oh good lord, you actually do think flies are spontaneously generated by rotting meat....
Am i doin it right?
Point taken, but then again, my point still stands: any time someone says that "the science is settled" you need to start becoming wary, because they are mostly likely trying to sell you something. I can probably count on one hand the amount of things "science" has settled, and global warming doesn't come close to being one of them.
On August 08 2013 05:26 Phael wrote: Does it really matter if the climate change is man-made or natural? It's going to happen regardless, why fight to place blame rather than work to adapt around it? It's easier to walk up the beach than to construct a dam to stave off the tide ...
I dont think it is that simple. Im personally not afraid of the water rising some meters (even though it would suck for the netherlands and Denmark). I'm more afraid of some sort of collapse of all ecosystems. There are a lot of positive feedback effects that we are not fully aware of. And I'm not sure it would be cheaper to "just walk up the beach". It is not like green technology is completely useless. We need it anyway as fossil fuel is running out.
On August 08 2013 03:11 Phael wrote: In any reasonable estimation, we have at least a few million years left, upwards to a few billion. Unless we blast ourselves back into the stone ages every few thousand years, there's no realistic way that our lifeboats won't be ready before the planet is dead.
If the climate turns so rough that we can't grow crops and thus feed our population we don't have a few million years left. There are plenty of realistic scenarios in which our lifeboats won't be ready.
More heat and more carbon is good for plant-growth, not bad...
Yep, lots of droughts. Very good for plant growth and for people who rely on their annual harvest.
Can you tell me one famous era in Earth's history where there was much more heat and much more carbon in the atmosphere?
I'll give you a hint, it was when the largest creatures that ever roamed the Earth... roamed the Earth.
(The irony of calling them "greenhouse gasses" and implying that they will be bad for plant growth is not lost on me.)
I believe you're mistaking CO2 for O2 there big boy.
The Cretacious period had much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere than today. (and O2, but let's be clear here... more CO2 is not bad for plants... lol)
Decherd studies the ecology of the Cretaceous period, some 160 million years ago, when Earth’s atmosphere contained more oxygen and more carbon dioxide and was, in her words, “a hothouse.” She believes, and is working to demonstrate, that this richer atmosphere helped plants grow bigger and faster. With lots of food, herbivorous dinosaurs thrived -- and became lumbering prey for their carnivorous cousins.
Both plant-eaters and meat-eaters grew fearsome, in effect, because food was plentiful.
Decherd’s research doesn’t focus on the dinosaurs, though, but on the role of Earth’s atmosphere on plant life. She’s using one of the most ancient plants, the Ginko biloba tree, to test her hypothesis.
“Research has shown that elevated carbon dioxide levels result in higher productivity, faster photosynthetic and growth rates, and greater rates of carbohydrate synthesis,” she says. “My work involves measuring how modern ginko trees react to Cretaceous-like atmospheres, and how the higher levels of oxygen and carbon dioxide affect the leaves’ nutritive value and digestibility. We’re also comparing these experimental ginko leaves with fossilized ginko leaves from the Cretaceous period to help verify our work.”
Ecosystems collapse all the time. They are literally constantly collapsing as we type, and they will continue to do so regardless of the level of water, temperature, global weather, etc. Why is the possibility that a few more will collapse any harder to bear?
No, "walking up the beach" is probably not as simple as it sounds of course, but ... let me put it this way: we can't even accurately predict the weather for the next month. How the hell do you think we can implement the right changes to keep the climate stable for any amount of time? Weather alone on earth generate/consume many thousands more times energy than homo sampiens can produce. Do we have the expertise and ability to keep climate stable? Not a chance in hell. So adapting to climate change is difficult, yes, but attempting to stop climate change is essentially impossible at our current technological development. If every human on this earth simply died out this very minute and stopped making any environmental changes ... the environment will still chug on, adapting, evolving, and changing with or without our help. We need to stop fearing change, it's going to happen whatever we do.
Fossil fuels may or may not be running out, who knows. I've heard experts come out and say they're running out in XX amount of years! and so far, seems like it's still pumping out just fine. Honestly I don't really care if fossil fuels run out or not, if they do, we'll figure out something else. Technology generally greatly improves during a crisis so more of them is good for us.
Also had methane but I fail to see your point. Dinosaurs certainly did'nt have trillions worth of infrastructures vulnerable to a change of shoreline. Dinosaurs certainly did'nt react to hurricanes, more floods, more droughts. What are you even trying to point out...I fail to understand...
Yes plants do intake CO2, yes more CO2 can actually be beneficial to plant growth (up to a point). Average temperature during cretacious/jurassic era w/e was also much higher that what we have now. Coral reefs are already dissapearing due to increases in water temps. Species that could provide cures or food sources are also dissapearing.
Please remind us what your point is for trying to sabotage this thread with your extremely poorly thought out arguments.
You cannot look at CO2 levels in isolation without considering other aspects of the atmospheric composition.
sc2superfan, regarding scientific theory, the issue is that it doesn't MATTER what you think or what the vast majority of people think. It matters what the scientific consensus is amongst those within the field of study. The fact that many people are familiar with Newton's theories doesn't make them any more valid than obscure theories that provide equally predictive models.
There IS a scientific consensus on climate change. The debate in the media, on forums such as this one, and amongst non-experts in general is not representative of the state of the field.
On August 08 2013 05:45 AeroGear wrote: Also had methane but I fail to see your point. Dinosaurs certainly did'nt have trillions worth of infrastructures vulnerable to a change of shoreline. Dinosaurs certainly did'nt react to hurricanes, more floods, more droughts. What are you even trying to point out...I fail to understand...
The problem here would then be the trillions of dollars of infrastructure put on untenable locations. That is, of course, assuming that the sea levels are actually rising to such a degree that it puts at risk those locations. Hurricanes and floods are natural events, and also serve important environmental roles. Droughts are again, natural events. They occur. We can react to them, but stopping them or preventing them is not only impossible, it would be foolish given the environmental role they play and the unforeseen consequences of actually succeeding.
Yes plants do intake CO2, yes more CO2 can actually be beneficial to plant growth (up to a point). Average temperature during cretacious/jurassic era w/e was also much higher that what we have now. Coral reefs are already dissapearing due to increases in water temps. Species that could provide cures or food sources are also dissapearing.
Species that COULD provide food sources and/or cures are disappearing regardless, as they always have. Enacting enormous pieces of legislation that severely limit the cheap development of third-world/second-world countries, and severely limit the industries in first-world countries is not a very tenable solution to that problem.
Please remind us what your point is for trying to sabotage this thread with your extremely poorly thought out arguments.
My point is:
1) Rising CO2 and temperatures will not cause mass starvation. 2) The Earth's temperature and CO2 levels have been much higher in the past as the result of natural changes in the environment/atmosphere. 3) The Earth's climate has gone through far more drastic and widespread changes in the past as a result of natural changes in the environment/atmosphere 4) It is impossible for humans to have any real effect upon the general climate of the Earth 5) The solutions most often offered to the "problem" of global warming are conveniently political and conveniently fall in line with one specific political/economic position (socialism). 5A) This is strong evidence that global warming is less science and more rabble-rousing over a (incorrectly) perceived threat in an effort to effect a specific political/economic goal.
On August 08 2013 05:45 Phael wrote: Ecosystems collapse all the time. They are literally constantly collapsing as we type, and they will continue to do so regardless of the level of water, temperature, global weather, etc. Why is the possibility that a few more will collapse any harder to bear?
Ecosystems surely collapse all the time. But it is not really an argument. You could use the same logic about nuclear waste. Why would mass nuclear bombing be a problem, when nature evolve anyway? My point is that global warming could potentially lead to unseen disasters. I'm not talking about a 2% decrease in the mosquito population ^^.
On August 08 2013 05:45 Phael wrote: How the hell do you think we can implement the right changes to keep the climate stable for any amount of time? Weather alone on earth generate/consume many thousands more times energy than homo sampiens can produce. Do we have the expertise and ability to keep climate stable? Not a chance in hell.
I'm not very extreme about "keeping the climate stable". Everybody knows that climate change all the time, and a natural ice age is probably going to be a problem within the next thousands of years. I just do not see any reason to provoke the ecosystems badly by multiplying the CO2-lvls, when it is not really needed, and easily can be avoided in some extent.
On August 08 2013 05:45 Phael wrote: Fossil fuels may or may not be running out, who knows.
Well you dont belive that the sun has unlimeted energy, but you believe fossil fuel has?? Of course it will run out. If it is 50 years or 200 years is very difficult to tell. Those who said it will run out in 2020 was obviously not doing their science work very well. But nevertheless, it will run out before or later.
On August 08 2013 05:45 Phael wrote: Technology generally greatly improves during a crisis so more of them is good for us.
I like to avoid unneccesary disasters. We got all the information. We could invest in improving the technology right now. But you prefer to wait after a crisis.... Why not just fricking do that technology leap now, instead of gambling with the human race. oh I forgot.. you like 8V car.
That is somewhat disturbing. inb4 The Day After Tomorrow becomes reality (except in reverse with everything becoming a desert as opposed to the global cooling in that movie)!
Science isn't strictly democratic - but any capable scientist will review the work done in their field, critically evaluate it, and put it in place with the rest of the knowledge comprising what is known of the field. When 99% of scientists in a field have rationally evaluated the peer-reviewed evidence for and against a particular theory, and come to the same conclusion, that generally speaks in favour of the validity of that theory's predictive abilities.
EPT
