The theory is man made emissions are what is triggering the rapid increase in temperature.
Arguments about the 'cause' are arguments from non-believers.
The reason for that debate and the debate about what should be done is hardly inconsequential though; there are those who would change our entire economic system to address the problem. For some reason some of us think that's a big deal and think that these issues ought to be carefully examined before we do things like that. As soon as you even hint at it though you get shouted down as a "science denier" or something like that.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
I think the non-believers just aren't posting their thoughts as much.
Non-believer? Is this some religion or cult? I don't care to argue with devoted religious people nor cultists because I know it's futile and I expect other non-cultists have simply thrown their hands up in the air and have moved on. I believe that a climate change is due to a culmination of factors to which man only plays a part. Doomsayers are part of human culture and I have no issues with people that are devoted to their cause but I simply see change not doom on the horizon.
Last edited by Erick Estrada; 03-15-2016 at 08:48 AM.
Non-believer? Is this some religion or cult? I don't care to argue with devoted religious people nor cultists because I know it's futile and I expect other non-cultists have simply thrown their hands up in the air and have moved on. I believe that a climate change is due to a culmination of factors to which man only plays a part. Doomsayers are part of human culture and I have no issues with people that are devoted to their cause but I simply see change not doom on the horizon.
What do you call your cult?
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to RougeUnderoos For This Useful Post:
The reason for that debate and the debate about what should be done is hardly inconsequential though; there are those who would change our entire economic system to address the problem. For some reason some of us think that's a big deal and think that these issues ought to be carefully examined before we do things like that. As soon as you even hint at it though you get shouted down as a "science denier" or something like that.
This viewpoint I have no problem with.
Corporatejay thinks climate change is happening as a result of humans but doesn't think it's worth it to impact the economy by making changes. He doesn't call the science into question, he doesn't create hoops to jump through.
It's one thing to call the science into question and it's another thing entirely to say "I don't think X amount of changes is worth it."
I think most of the people who call the science into question do so because it's easier than agreeing it's happening and saying "I don't really care enough to change."
The next HUGE boom for wealth creation is in alternative energy, in tech or innovations that do less damage to our environment and even possibly reverse some of the damage.
That is what frustrates me from those who sit on the fence saying "meh might be too hard to do anything, lets just roll the dice and hope our kids and their kids are ok."
We should embrace the challenge, be aggressive in finding ways to clean our crap up while also leading the way in making a boatload of $$$$ while doing so. It IS the future and this toe dragging so often from the right which is ironic because of the potential massive windfall coming for those who invest, innovate.. would rather just hang on as long as we can with what we have now, fossil fuels while doing nothing to prepare for the next big economy.
Oh and there is also the side benefit of having a cleaner, healthier world that can support life and not force billions in to mass migrations due to worsening droughts, sea level rise and ever decreasing clean water access.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
I agree completely. Unfortunately a lot of what has happened is outsourcing PV and battery production to China where toxic chemicals and their use of dirty energy just make the whole thing all the more depressing.
Someone in my LinkedIn network posted a picture of Trudeau and it said; "Unemployment is at 7.4% - So why is there a carbon tax?".
Besides the fact I hate that LinkedIn is turning into Facebook, but this type of comparison is just so ridiculous and short sighted. It's like saying that house prices are too high, so why put money towards fighting cancer.
Global climate change is a serious issue. I do suspect like EE was saying, that there are a combination of things going on, but the anthropogenic causes still need to be addressed.
For ultra-conservatives, I would also point out that it's probably one of the most underappreciated causes for human migrations that are going on right now as well. Desertification is initiating the largest human migration since Attila the Hun ravaged the Steppes. A migration that collapsed the Roman Empire and sent Europe in the Dark Ages. The socio-economic repercussion of not doing enough to curb climate change will be devastating.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 03-15-2016 at 12:27 PM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
The theory is man made emissions are what is triggering the rapid increase in temperature.
Arguments about the 'cause' are arguments from non-believers.
This is a big part of the problem.
There are no absolutes. This isn't like testing the gravitational pull of a new binary star system and discovering that it matches the predictions from the theories perfectly.
Climate change is a rate of change problem. Its a large collection of theories and predictions.
You can't just say Science! and the conversation is over.
It is possible (and healthy) to have different viewpoints as to effects, timelines, which items are the biggest concerns, how to go about addressing and dealing with these issues, etc.
But quite often, differing viewpoints get aggressively attacked by the most ardent (zealot?) 'believers'.
To some people, anyone who disagrees with any proposal, regardless of how extreme it is, must be an anti-science, non-believer.
Edit: case in point ^. "Guy posts something on LinkedIn that I don't agree with - he must be oblivious to how serious this is"
Last edited by Enoch Root; 03-15-2016 at 08:47 PM.
I think the non-believers just aren't posting their thoughts as much.
I remember a few years ago I hadn't seen more than a couple posts in the last year against gay marriage and gleefully made a thread about it, asking if pretty much everyone had changed their opinions and that CP had gotten as progressive on the issue as it seemed.
The thread brought out dozens of posters proclaiming that they were still against gay marriage but just decided to shut up when the majority of CP had become progressive on the issue.
Which is still a huge step up from the mid 2000's when IIRC there were more posters against gay marriage than for it.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
The reason for that debate and the debate about what should be done is hardly inconsequential though; there are those who would change our entire economic system to address the problem. For some reason some of us think that's a big deal and think that these issues ought to be carefully examined before we do things like that. As soon as you even hint at it though you get shouted down as a "science denier" or something like that.
I have no problem with this argument in theory. However so many non-believers and people who have no ideas on how to fix the problem simply use this as a smoke screen. The argument goes round and round in circles and nothing gets solved.
It's a common tactic used by those in power that don't want to see changes to their industry. It happened with tobacco, it's happening with fossil fuels and global warming now. First deny the science as long as you can. Then slowly agree with tiny point after tiny point after you can no longer deny. Then take as much time as you can to come up with a solution. Propose doom and gloom scenarios (in this case to the economy) to drag it out as long as you can.
Prolong the debate. Prolong the debate. Prolong the debate. All the while to protect industry conditions as long as you possibly can.
The thing with is, with this problem, it's only getting worse every single year we debate.
The first big papers on global warming where written in the early 70's. Permeation into popular culture was there in the late 80's. A desire to do something about it from the public was there in the early 90's.
That was over 25 years ago!
We've had time to change industry and adapt the economy. We've had time for fossil fuel companies to get on board and transition slowly. We've had time to fix this problem with less damage to our systems while also fixing it earlier reducing the amount we'd actually have to change our economies.
We haven't because fossil fuel companies didn't want to do that earlier than they had to. Now the problem is bigger and the change will have to be more rapid. Period.
If you truly mean your argument as written with nothing behind it then yes. It is correct. However, I am so sick of that argument because it constantly comes from the wrong places and wrong people and it's just made things worse.
To finish, we need to start changing now. No matter what the damage to the economy. The simple truth is, the economy (oh, and the world) will be hurt far worse if we do nothing. Massive loss of urban areas, destruction of arable land, mass migration, poverty, war. You think these things are going to harm the economy less than fixing the energy economy to be more green?
And as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread. There are options right now that aren't nearly as doom and gloom as some believe. There are countries on the right track and there are success stories. And most of all, there is PROFIT to be made by early adopters. There is money in a new sector of the economy that is ready to boom.
And if we should have some hiccups along the way. Fine. That's normal. That's happens even when your not trying to change a sector of the economy, never mind when you are. The important thing is to move forward and stop the pointless arduous debate.
Don't anyone fool themselves. There is nothing noble in prolonging this debate anymore. It's protectionism pure and simple.
Last edited by Daradon; 03-16-2016 at 02:04 PM.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Daradon For This Useful Post:
To finish, we need to start changing now. No matter what the damage to the economy. The simple truth is, the economy (oh, and the world) will be hurt far worse if we do nothing. Massive loss of urban areas, destruction of arable land, mass migration, poverty, war. You think these things are going to harm the economy less than fixing the energy economy to be more green?
I recognize your passion for this issue. I can be equally ardent when I see an issue clearly, yet "others" refuse to agree with me. But by putting forth an argument in this manner you are widening the gap. To say "no matter what the damage to the economy" is extreme, and opens you up to being attacked as a one-sided zealot. Economy, production, standard of living...it matters A LOT, and you'll have to face the fact that your "simple truth" is not the least bit simple at all. There is a balancing act to be done, and unfortunately some people are urged to go to the opposite extreme in order to balance extreme statements like yours above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daradon
And as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread. There are options right now that aren't nearly as doom and gloom as some believe. There are countries on the right track and there are success stories. And most of all, there is PROFIT to be made by early adopters. There is money in a new sector of the economy that is ready to boom.
I do not deny that there is profit to be made in "green energy." But it needs to be pointed out that "profit" in this case refers only to wealth re-distribution, not wealth creation. Energy is the "lever" we use to take basic human productivity (wealth creation) and make it industrial (MORE wealth creation). Hydrocarbons are a dense source of energy, and relatively cheap to obtain. The difference between the energy needed to extract the oil and the energy we can obtain from the oil is available to magnify our productive efforts and actually produce wealth.
"Green" energy does the same thing, as long as it costs less to harvest than it provides. But if the difference between production energy and usable energy is less favourable than for hydrocarbons, then the choice to pursue these sources will be negative in terms of wealth. Sure...some people will profit, but humanity as a whole will produce less.
That is...util the "green" energy balance legitimately exceeds that of oil...without the artificial impacts of subsidies, carbon taxes, etc.
To tack on one more thought... the climate-change activist method of making this a "moral" issue further widens the gap I mentioned above. Their attempts to make me feel ashamed about my lifestyle (especially when it's hypocrites like Suzuki) also provokes an over-reaction. Consider two approaches:
"Pacific atoll is at risk of drowning...would you be willing to pay an extra $0.10/litre to help prevent this from happening?"
"Well, maybe. But I want to see that money carefully accounted for, and invested in Canada to work on technological development, not sent to some banana-republic slush fund."
vs.
"Pacific atoll is at risk of drowning because of your lavish lifestyle. Since you have no conscience, we're going to tax your gas, ban your air conditioner, and pay $100B to Tonga so they can cope with what we've done to them."
"Eff you and eff them. Let them drown..."
If these people would start treating this as a practical problem, rather than some quasi-religious moral imperative, there could be less extremism both ways.
Well we are talking about the future of our planet, our existence, its hard not to be passionate about it.
Sure the doom and gloom can be annoying, but lets be clear, there is a lot of scientists in many varying fields sounding alarm bells that we are on a trajectory towards doing massive harm to our planet, our species and our ecosystem. The costs of which in dollars will be beyond immense.
I spend way too much of my own time watching science docs, and these soft spoken scientists who don't communicate with the public much but rather among-st their peers are telling us we need to act, and the urgency and fear they have about what is coming is quite terrifying, much more so than most people on this planet are aware of.
How should we act when we know with quite a bit of certainty that we are already no matter what going to face devastating affects in the next 100 years, let alone what is coming our way in the next 500 years, by just the damage we have done up to this year.
Emissions are going up, by a lot every year because of China, India's massive growth and the papers are coming out constantly about new and worrisome issues popping up.
The scariest things that have been a hot topic are the methane release happening in the Northern tundras of our planet, a greenhouse gas that is x10 worse than co2 and this has in the past been a signal that a speeding up of warming is coming as it acts as a multiplier to warming. They had predicted the tundra releasing methane wouldn't happen for another 50 years or more, but its starting now which is scary because of the possibility of what we call runaway warming which will happen at a tipping point as has happened in the past.
The point where we reach devastation is when the frozen methane in the bottom of the oceans starts to go is when we will start to see massive damage to our planet, and the eventual destruction of the ocean ecosystem and massive species die off; all while above land we will see massive droughts, extreme weather, more volcanic activity which is another huge kick in the nuts as the glaciers covering so many of the volcanoes in the northern tundra will no longer have the massive pressure on top of them to keep them in check.
The planet will not become Venus, but it will destroy a large portion of life on earth, it will if it goes to ancient past history eventually turn into a ice age as the ocean will lose the key engine in the northern Atlantic (just under Iceland) which will start to bring in colder air over the north and bring glaciers down again likely starting an ice age. Its the way the planet has recovered in the past, but life will be devastated during this process.
AND the ice age would rapidly come on if this happens, 200-500 years, which would mean no one could prepare or handle this kind of devastation for those still alive.
Now we could tell people to not use scare tactics, to sugar coat this, but why? If you accept the science and understand what is at stake here then we need to speak truth to the masses.
I think the generations 100 years from now will look back at this time with utter disgust at how we ignored all the signs, ignored those most trusted to warn us and did it out of greed, apathy, feelings of helplessness, and an unwillingness to change our ways because of how we are accustomed to low gas prices, and allowed the massive fossil fuel industry to obfuscate the issue like big tobacco did to delay us doing anything.
For the scientists that work with this stuff day to day, they are at a loss for what to do, all the consensus and honest analysis and prediction of what is to come is no small matter, its the survival of our species and nothing less.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
Last edited by Thor; 03-17-2016 at 04:12 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
By the way more on the thermohaline circulation, so you can visually see what I'm talking about:
There is a project call project Thor which has been studying this closely for some time, the melting of the Greenland ice sheet is a key indicator and precursor for stalling this engine because of all the fresh water entering this key area which is very bad news. http://www.eu-thor.eu/index.php?id=609
A great read on why this would bring on an abrupt and rapid ice age, highly recommended read!
To tack on one more thought... the climate-change activist method of making this a "moral" issue further widens the gap I mentioned above. Their attempts to make me feel ashamed about my lifestyle (especially when it's hypocrites like Suzuki) also provokes an over-reaction. Consider two approaches:
"Pacific atoll is at risk of drowning...would you be willing to pay an extra $0.10/litre to help prevent this from happening?"
"Well, maybe. But I want to see that money carefully accounted for, and invested in Canada to work on technological development, not sent to some banana-republic slush fund."
vs.
"Pacific atoll is at risk of drowning because of your lavish lifestyle. Since you have no conscience, we're going to tax your gas, ban your air conditioner, and pay $100B to Tonga so they can cope with what we've done to them."
"Eff you and eff them. Let them drown..."
If these people would start treating this as a practical problem, rather than some quasi-religious moral imperative, there could be less extremism both ways.
Always a classic line of argument on climate change.
"The reason I don't support acting on climate change is because the people who want to see us act haven't done a good enough job of convincing me."
Or,
"I don't think we should act on climate change (the most important threats to our civilization) because I don't like David Suzuki."
