Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
The Coming Paradigm Shift on Climate
Collapse
X
-
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostPossibly misunderstanding the goal? I don't know that it's reversible. We can keep from exacerbating it, though. I think that would answer both questions presented.
...
Actually, barring war, no, we can't. China is not going to meekly drop back into Third World status (okay, more into) and neither are any of the other developing nations. You can waste a lot of effort and carbon getting pretty signatures on paper that isn't worth the pulp used to make it but you're not going to get sufficient compliance. Politically and diplomatically, this is a non-starter and always has been."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Um, does anyone know offhand if there has EVER been full compliance with Kyoto? Last I looked (which has been a while) none of the signatories were actually in compliance."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Interesting how different this looks depending on which source we decide strokes our preconceptions and political leaning. For those of a different orientation, there's this:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/30/world/...tml?hpt=hp_bn2
The idea that carbon emissions are changing the Earth's climate is politically controversial, but generally accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of scientists. And as emissions continue to rise, driving up CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, the impacts will be more severe, more likely and possibly irreversible, Monday's report states.
The summary of the full document -- which is more than 1,000 pages -- will be the premiere guide for lawmakers. It breaks down the expected impacts by continent and by categories such as marine life, agriculture and flood risks. And by diving into the specifics of the report, policymakers will be able to see what risks their specific locations face, as well as what adaptation and mitigation techniques could prove fruitful.
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostWait... some people still deny that tobacco is harmful? Seriously? I thought Thank You For Smoking was a satire by now.
Comment
-
I guess if you wanted to kill the whole population of people, you could stop human impact on nature. Which coincidentally appears to be the goal of quite a number of the extremists. (Euthanasia, Suicide legality, abortion on demand etc.) Realistically being a "good steward" of the things we are supposed to take care of, doesn't mean we have to advocate population reduction in order to "save the world" I guess you could say that's why I be a really hard cynic of climate change pushers. Because they also push the idea of wanting to kill people too. obviously I'm not a fan.
Also I have to point out that computers aren't exactly 100 percent here, but that is what is generating all the data for 10-100 years from now. Yeah I'm skeptical. Now if someone were to come up and say: "Humans have an impact on climate, we don't know to what extent, but we think the best way to fix it is to look for more efficient energy, reduce mass farming and encourage/teach self sustaining ability like growing gardens etc." Then you'd have my attention. But until that comes around I probably won't be listening.A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
George Bernard Shaw
Comment
-
Originally posted by Catholicity View PostI guess if you wanted to kill the whole population of people, you could stop human impact on nature. Which coincidentally appears to be the goal of quite a number of the extremists. (Euthanasia, Suicide legality, abortion on demand etc.) Realistically being a "good steward" of the things we are supposed to take care of, doesn't mean we have to advocate population reduction in order to "save the world" I guess you could say that's why I be a really hard cynic of climate change pushers. Because they also push the idea of wanting to kill people too. obviously I'm not a fan.
Also I have to point out that computers aren't exactly 100 percent here, but that is what is generating all the data for 10-100 years from now. Yeah I'm skeptical. Now if someone were to come up and say: "Humans have an impact on climate, we don't know to what extent, but we think the best way to fix it is to look for more efficient energy, reduce mass farming and encourage/teach self sustaining ability like growing gardens etc." Then you'd have my attention. But until that comes around I probably won't be listening.I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.
Comment
-
Yeah, More Drano down the well."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Even if technically classified as well poisoning, I find it a useful heuristic to note if people have histories promoting information that is easily falsifiable."I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
Comment
-
Originally posted by Catholicity View PostI guess if you wanted to kill the whole population of people, you could stop human impact on nature. Which coincidentally appears to be the goal of quite a number of the extremists. (Euthanasia, Suicide legality, abortion on demand etc.) Realistically being a "good steward" of the things we are supposed to take care of, doesn't mean we have to advocate population reduction in order to "save the world" I guess you could say that's why I be a really hard cynic of climate change pushers. Because they also push the idea of wanting to kill people too. obviously I'm not a fan.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Catholicity View PostI guess if you wanted to kill the whole population of people, you could stop human impact on nature. Which coincidentally appears to be the goal of quite a number of the extremists. (Euthanasia, Suicide legality, abortion on demand etc.) Realistically being a "good steward" of the things we are supposed to take care of, doesn't mean we have to advocate population reduction in order to "save the world" I guess you could say that's why I be a really hard cynic of climate change pushers. Because they also push the idea of wanting to kill people too. obviously I'm not a fan.
Also I have to point out that computers aren't exactly 100 percent here, but that is what is generating all the data for 10-100 years from now. Yeah I'm skeptical. Now if someone were to come up and say: "Humans have an impact on climate, we don't know to what extent, but we think the best way to fix it is to look for more efficient energy, reduce mass farming and encourage/teach self sustaining ability like growing gardens etc." Then you'd have my attention. But until that comes around I probably won't be listening.
Banning DDT killed multiple millions of people within a few short years (and counting). If I were a conspiracy theorist - and I'm not - I'd wonder how much of an 'unintended consequence' that really was.
I don't really think Rachel Carson wanted millions of people dead from malaria - I just think it's the natural conclusion to valuing the environment over people. It should be both/and (with people first) and not either/or."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostEven if technically classified as well poisoning, I find it a useful heuristic to note if people have histories promoting information that is easily falsifiable.
This is why well poisoning is so stupid - it gets us no closer to the truth and in fact, is usually a means of diverting from any unpleasantly contrarian facts."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View Post*emphasis mine
Actually, barring war, no, we can't. China is not going to meekly drop back into Third World status (okay, more into) and neither are any of the other developing nations. You can waste a lot of effort and carbon getting pretty signatures on paper that isn't worth the pulp used to make it but you're not going to get sufficient compliance. Politically and diplomatically, this is a non-starter and always has been.
Achieving 'sufficient' compliance is separate from some compliance. The latter can be achieved even if the first is not.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Catholicity View PostI guess if you wanted to kill the whole population of people, you could stop human impact on nature. Which coincidentally appears to be the goal of quite a number of the extremists. (Euthanasia, Suicide legality, abortion on demand etc.) Realistically being a "good steward" of the things we are supposed to take care of, doesn't mean we have to advocate population reduction in order to "save the world" I guess you could say that's why I be a really hard cynic of climate change pushers. Because they also push the idea of wanting to kill people too. obviously I'm not a fan.
Also I have to point out that computers aren't exactly 100 percent here, but that is what is generating all the data for 10-100 years from now. Yeah I'm skeptical. Now if someone were to come up and say: "Humans have an impact on climate, we don't know to what extent, but we think the best way to fix it is to look for more efficient energy, reduce mass farming and encourage/teach self sustaining ability like growing gardens etc." Then you'd have my attention. But until that comes around I probably won't be listening.
For instance, 'stopping human impact on nature' might be the ultimate goal of some, but it's unrealistic (especially since humans are part of nature). It's quite a separate thing from minimizing our (negative) impacts. Euthanasia, legal suicide (who cares if it's illegal anyway?) and abortions are completely separate issues from human impact. The numbers involved are trivial at best, and the arguments have nothing to do with stopping human impact on nature. To link this to climate change pushers seems to focus on the (plausibly existent but unknown to me) extremists. That's always a poor tactic, and it continues to be so here.
Computers being 100 percent accurate is also wrong. The issue is not with computers, nor has it ever been. Even if granted that there are pervasive calculation errors in every simulation due to computer failings, you still still fall well within standard deviations. Perhaps what you mean to decry are problems with the models, but those issues are both known and accounted for (and seldom if ever as damning as implied).
Finally, there are lots of people stating that we have an impact on climate and that there are plausible ways of fixing it, including those you mentioned. It sounds like you ignore (or are unaware of) that majority, instead focusing on a extreme minority.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostEven if technically classified as well poisoning, I find it a useful heuristic to note if people have histories promoting information that is easily falsifiable.
Which is pretty much everyone about pretty much every topic.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
151 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Today, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
399 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Today, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Today, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
372 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Today, 11:08 AM
|
Comment