Are they willing to let the world burn?

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by bricklayer, Feb 9, 2020.

  1. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,745
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are the eco-doomsayers willing to let the world burn if they cannot compel the few remaining climate denying holdouts to do what they think should be done before they do anything themselves? Must the solution be unanimous? Must the solution be compulsory?

    Aren't the eco-doomsayers the vast majority already? Aren't they like 97% or something?
    Aren't there just a few remaining climate denying hold outs left? I don't get it. Are they really willing to let the whole world burn unless they can get little old me to go along with them?

    In all honesty, I don't believe they're interested in saving the planet. I believe they're interested in minimizing the voluntary and maximizing the compulsory in an effort to keep human beings from multiplying, filling the Earth and subduing it.
     
    Ddyad, jay runner and gfm7175 like this.
  2. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    8,829
    Likes Received:
    4,920
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Most don't care what you think.
     
  3. Idahojunebug77

    Idahojunebug77 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,069
    Likes Received:
    582
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are mostly correct, it is a political issue to get people elected and give governments more control over the people in order to direct money from the working class to the 1 percent.

    The big thinkers at the top of the political chain know there is never ever any hope that the people will accept the societal changes needed to actually stop global climate change. Feel-good measures that accomplish nothing but will make us poorer is all we can expect.
     
  4. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,745
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Me? Who asked about me?
    Are you willing to let the world burn? Are you willing to do nothing voluntarily unless you can compel the few remaining climate deniers to do what you won't do voluntarily?
    Don't most people agree with you? Aren't you in the vast majority? Something like 97%?
     
  5. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,745
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Who cares about how much those with the most have? They're not wealthy because I'm poor anymore than they're fat because I'm skinny. So, who cares.
     
    gfm7175 likes this.
  6. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    2,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There was an interesting experiment, if you put a frog in boiling water, she will jump away in a second. However, if you bring gradually the temperature to 100°, the frog won't move and die.

    I could be defined as an "eco-doomsayer". The problem is that the GDP is directly correlated to the amount of oil we consume.

    Among doomsayer, there is different profiles :
    Some don't want to make any efforts, and so they hope everything on the government. I think there is a lot of people who believe in that illusion that you can pollute less and consumming as much. I don't believe in that green energy bla bla.
    I want to reduce my consumption as I don't think there is any solution than consumming less. But like all people, I'm divided, I would always take the plane, even if I know it's a high source of carbon pollution, if I need to visit my family.
    That's quite alike to trying to stop to smoke, you know it's bad for your health, but you don't manage to stop.
    And even if I managed to divide my consumption by two, I know it would still be a drop of water in an ocean.

    I'm always amused by this expression "saving the planet", the planet is fine, it's just a rock with a fine layer of water and gas, it's not about saving the planet, but our lives or the one of our children.

    I'm quite pessimistic. I think that considering the momentum of our human civilization, nothing can prevent a major disaster.
    Beyond that, none of our cities, none of the human geography is organized in a way to spare energy.

    Let's hope I'm wrong.
     
    bricklayer likes this.
  7. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,745
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I appreciate your thoughtful response. As a denier, I want to ask a thoughtful eco-doomsayer, like yourself, when eco-doomsday is supposed to come to pass? When are we going to see the sea level rise that Al Gore showed us in "An Inconvenient Truth" ? When are Miami Beach, Manhattan and Martha's Vineyard going to be evacuated? When are woke people going to sell beachfront property for pennies on the dollar ahead of sea level rise?

    I hear a lot of talk, but when I look at what those talking actually do …. We should all have the average carbon foot print of the top 100 doomsayers. we should all have Greta's or Al Gore's carbon footprint. When I consider what people do, I don't believe that anyone seriously considers ACGCC to be a threat. And, I don't believe that it's just a coincidence that eco-doomsayers just so happen to be those who, in general, seek to minimize the voluntary and maximize the compulsory.
     
  8. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    2,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    @bricklayer I don't think there is a clear line where we can says "okay, the disaster has begun".

    The climate change cause an increase of violent phenomenons, such as tornados, massive fire.
    Because it's an increase of rate, you can't say that a specific fire is because of climate change. There is already an increase of extreme climatic phenomenon. We could blame for instance australia fires on that even if there is maybe some arsonist (the fire could spread so much only because also of the increase of temperature that make forest dryer, and so more prone to get in fire). Basically, you can't blame a specific event but just a gradual increase of the rate of some phenomenons. That's why you can't say there would be a "dooms day" however, there would be a transition between an era to another, harsher from an ecological point of view. We could compare that to roman decadence, yes we could quote some breaking points, such as the plundering of rome, but the transition from antiquity to middle age happened on centuries.

    The comparison might be strange, but for instance, you can't define alcoholism by saying it's drinking ten drink a days, and saying 9 is perfectly fine, and magic, 10 become a sickness. There is phenomenons like that where it's hard to define from a quantitative point of view when the problem is.

    We live in a very interesting era.

    Climate change is far to be the only problem.
    Even from an ecological point of view, we could speak of the impoverishement of the fertility of soils, which is a problem for future farming, by the way plastic rubbish, decrease of number of fishs, the increase resistance to antibiotics that could make fear us a super epidemic, and so on.
    Where it become truly fascinating, it's the number of crisis which intricate themselves : we could speak for instance of the debt crisis, a global social crisis, the birth rate that is plummeting and a form of disintegration of social links.

    Seeing how much so many crisis, social, morale, financial, ecological, demographic is frightening, but fascinating.

    Even if we would set the ecological problems, there is another problem : or economy is entirely based on the exponantial consumption of fossile fuels and other limited ressources, there is a strong correlation between the amount of fossile fuels used and the height of GDP. Here is the problem : fossile fuels are limited ressource. Each time the price of oil had reached a too high amount, there is an economic crisis : in 73, and in 2008 (the price of oil was around 100 $ in 2005). Green energy won't solve anything. There is something called the accumulation effects, when mankind discovered oil, we didn't stop to use wood or coal, we used both and we added oil. That's why green energy won't solve the problem of the lack of oil.

    What I mean by that ? Well, the increase of extreme climatic events will have economic influence : drought that would affect negatively the number of food available, increasing the price of food, creating damages that would weaken the economy.

    The question is : will we face a slow decline because of the increasing rate of ecological disasters, or would it be a breaking point ?

    I think there would be a breaking point, but from a financial source, however indirectly caused by ecological problems.

    I suppose there would be a financial crisis in the future years, that would be a breaking point, or 410 plundering of Rome. How it would actually degrade the situation, it's hard to says.

    I'm not really a surivalist, but I think the biggest solution right now is to live back in the countryside and learn to be as self-sufficient as possible.

    For Miami, I suppose, you have still a few decades. Greta Thunberg is a naive young woman. She don't have any real plan. She said that she didn't have any thought about the TAFTA, but how can you ask for action and not ask for the relocalizations of economy. She don't have a plan, personnaly, I have one, decreasing our consumption and that a part of the population go back to the countryside and living in a much poorer way. But how many people would actually accept that ? Even among people that support ecology ?
    I'm not naive and know the answer : almost nobody would accept that.

    Sorry for the long text, it's hard to make shorter.
     
    Idahojunebug77 likes this.
  9. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    15,342
    Likes Received:
    10,807
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't see how it makes more sense to try to prevent climate change than to try to prepare for it. We will adapt to it. Its just a matter of how difficult it will be. Seems to me the more we try to prevent it (and no one is willing to guarantee that we even can), the less we are preparing to adapt to it. We should focus on adapting to it.
     
    Idahojunebug77 likes this.
  10. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,745
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, what you're saying is that ACGCC is happening at about the speed of evolution. It's happening so slowly that we will have no problem staying ahead of it.

    Exactly what percentage of climate change is man made?
     
    gfm7175 likes this.
  11. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    2,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry, I don't understand that acronym. No, it happens quicker, on the scale of decades/a century. About breaking point, I suppose it would be in the two next decades, and I suppose even in the next decade but it would be a breaking point not only on climatic issues.

    99 % ? I'm trusting the scientific community on that. I have some basis on science, but it is mostly a matter of trust. I don't trust what politician does with that information, and I would agree that many "ecological" measures made by politician are rarely made to really protect the safety of mankind.
    I noticed there were a change of speech among climate denier, 2 decades ago was : there is no climate change, now it is : climate change isn't man made.

    Climate already changed anyway, we can't go back, and it will continue to change. So yes, anyway, we don't have any choice than adapt.

    However, if there is too much hot days or extreme climatic events, it could destroy a part of the food supply of humanity, possibly leading to the back of starvation, which was until now disappearing.
     
  12. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,745
    Trophy Points:
    113
    99%? WTH? If 99% of climate change is man made, then only 1% is not. That means that, apart from human contributions, this is the closest our climate has ever been to being absolutely stable. That's ridiculous.

    The climate has changed much faster many times before and most of those times were before humans even existed.
    If you're suggesting that 99% of climate change is man made, then only 1% is not. That's absurd. Never, ever, has our climate been that stable. That's ridiculous.
     
  13. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,203
    Likes Received:
    1,418
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Precisely who are the eco-doomsayers, and why do you call them that? Give specific examples, with links, of who these people are, and why you call them eco-doomsayers. Then demonstrate that people here fall into that category. If you're not just engaging in mindless namecalling and propaganda, that shouldn't be a problem for you.

    Why do you keep telling the big lie that the rational and moral people aren't already doing things themselves? You're not fooling anyone with that lie, and it destroys your credibility.

    Demonstrate that "compulsory" is "bad". After all, taxation is compulsory. Does that make it bad? You're reaping the benefits of modern society, so you're expected to help maintain that society. Bragging about your right to freeload is not going to make you friends, because people don't like freeloaders.

    Nope, we'll just keep pointing out the dishonest and self-serving nature of your propaganda. At this stage, you're mainly interesting as a psychological study.

    So, you're a conspiracy theory believer. That's not surprising. The same lack of common sense that causes people to fall for one dumb conspiracy theory, like global warming denial, will also cause them to fall for bunches of other conspiracy theories.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2020
  14. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    2,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm speaking of the current events, not the precedent climate change. To tell apart what's the exact part of man made change and natural of nowodays, the best would to let some experts speak, as I'm not trained in climatology.
    However, I would trust the scientific community when they says that nowodays climate change is mostly of human origin.
     
  15. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    8,829
    Likes Received:
    4,920
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We need not compel you to do anything. You will just be pushed aside in the name of progress. Deny all you wish. We know without resistance there is no progress. Are you going to stop using electricity if it comes from renewables? Quit driving a car if the fuel changes??? I think not.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2020
  16. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    3,116
    Likes Received:
    979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No Argument Presented.
     
  17. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    3,116
    Likes Received:
    979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Define "climate change". Describe precisely how you would go about measuring a supposed "change" of a completely subjective and non-quantifiable thing such as climate.

    The inability to do this (thus rejecting Logic) is at the crux of my three part rebuttal to AGW Theory.

    Weather happens.

    Fires happen. Sometimes poor forest management is to blame. Sometimes arsonists are to blame. Sometimes weather conditions are to blame. Sometimes all of the above are to blame.

    From when to when? (or, compared to when?) Why is that specific time period more significant than any other arbitrarily selected time period? (Why compare it to ____? Why not compare it to ____ instead?)

    You can't say that ANY fire is because of climate change. Climate Change is an undefined/circularly defined buzzword. It is meaningless. See my first request at the top of this response.

    Define "extreme climatic phenomenon".

    You can't blame fires on something that is undefined or vaguely defined at best.

    Yes, there were arsonists. That's part of the reason for the fires there. Poor forest management is another part of the reason. Weather conditions also play a role. Fires are common during the Summer time.

    What "increase of temperature"?

    Poor forest management also makes it much more prone for such fires to build in intensity and to spread elsewhere.

    Phenomenons happen. Fires happen. Arsonists and poor forest management are mostly to blame for the fires there.

    Now we are back to my original request.

    Sure you could. It would be a very clear and precise definition. But I would then ask why 10 is the magic number instead of 9 or 8 or any other number above 0.

    At least in the case of alcoholism we can measure how many drinks a person has. In the case of Climate Change, we cannot (within any usable accuracy) measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have near enough thermometers to do so. This gets into the third part of my three part rebuttal to AGW Theory, which is Mathematics, specifically Statistical Mathematics.

    That we do.

    An undefined/circularly defined buzzword cannot be a problem. CO2 is incapable of heating the Earth's surface. ('Heat' meaning "the flow of thermal energy").

    We definitely could speak about it.

    Yup, Earth (I'd say due to the presence of sin) is no utopia, that's for sure!

    We don't consume fossils. We don't use them for fuel. We use carbon based fuels such as oil, coal, and natural gas. Oil and natural gas are renewable, as they naturally form underground. Oil can even be synthesized.

    There's more to GDP than carbon based fuels. I can't speak for '73, but for the mid to late 2000s, there was a housing bubble that (in part) tanked the GDP and the economy.

    Absolutely correct!

    There is no "lack of oil". It is underground. It is everywhere (if you drill deep enough), but is especially around fault lines. It forms underground naturally. It can also be synthesized.

    Define "extreme climatic events". From when to when? Why is that time period significant as opposed to any other arbitrarily selected time period?

    Don't worry, we're all gonna be just fine. CO2 is incapable of heating the Earth's surface. The second part of my three part rebuttal to AGW Theory (Science) tells us this.

    Greta is a young woman that is being used and abused by her parents, media, and etc... She realizes that her childhood is being stolen from her, but she is blaming the wrong people for doing that to her. She should be blaming her parents and the media and etc for pumping her full of irrational fear, not "climate deniers".
     
  18. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    3,116
    Likes Received:
    979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How do you "prepare" or "adapt" for/to something which you cannot even define with any logical validity??

    As for weather, we adapt to weather all the time. Here in Wisconsin, I adapt to nearly (and even more than) 100degF temperature swings roughly every six months. I've survived to tell the tale.
     
  19. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    15,342
    Likes Received:
    10,807
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Thats pretty much what I mean. By prepare, I mostly mean stock up on food and resources to get by while society transitions to growing different crops in different regions, for example. Or invest in hydroponics and greenhouse growing.
     
  20. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    3,116
    Likes Received:
    979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Made up number. Random numbers are not data.

    The "scientific community" is not science. Science is not a community of any sort. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

    Sure seems like it to me! That's why you are being duped into believing the religious dogma that is being spouted by the Church of Global Warming.

    Depends on who you ask. As for me, my stance is that we don't know whether the Earth is warming, cooling, or staying the same temperature, and that proposed AGW Theory violates logic, science, and mathematics.

    Describe precisely how "Climate" has "changed". Climate holds no quantitative value, so how can it "change"?

    We're fine. CO2 is incapable of heating Earth's surface.
     
  21. VotreAltesse

    VotreAltesse Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    2,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    @gfm7175 In that case, it's about the increase of the average temperature. But, it's an average, I red that more extreme temperature (very high and very low) could appear. The average would be warmer, but with some days, lower temperature that we could know.
    Climate is far to be that subjective, everywhere in the world we don't have exactly the same seasons. Climate is made of a lot of things, temperature, rain level and their seasonnal cycles are part of the climate. For instance, even we could kept summers at the same temperature, if there were more rain, it would be a different climate.
    The average temperatures have largely changed around the world, that's largely enough to qualify a change.

    By the way, a specific tornado, forest fire, tempest (no idea how meterologist define a tempest however) isn't enough to says there is problem, an increase rate is the problem.

    Saying that we don't have enough thermoter, is not, at my sense, a good argument.
    First, because there is dozen of thousands of place on the world where temperatures are recorded, not and registerered. All those records are a sample large enough to record temperatures around the globe and estimate there is a difference.
    Furthermore, there is not only thermometers, I don't know the exact process, but light doesn't refract exactly the same way according to the temperature, so it's possible to record temperature from sattelites.
    We could speak also of trees. When you cut a tree, you get circles, and those circles tell you how the tree grew, those circles are determined by the climatic conditions, that pattern of circles are unique for every year and can enable to date when the tree grew. It's used a lot in archeology.

    If oil and gas form "naturally", they do it on hundred of thousand, millions of years and billions. Considering the rate we consume it, and the scale of a human life, they don't. At the scale of billion years yes, they're renewable.
    Considering the ability to synthetize them, yes we can do, with food, that we won't eat, and even by cutting every trees on that earth, we won't have enough to put in our motors. So synthetized oil is no solution.
     
  22. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,745
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We WILL see.
     
  23. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,718
    Likes Received:
    2,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Stage 6 achieved! Well done.
     
    politicalcenter likes this.
  24. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    3,116
    Likes Received:
    979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is not possible to measure an average global temperature with any usable accuracy. Temperature variance is too high, and we don't have enough thermometers.

    You are describing different weather, not different climate. How does a subjectively defined thing with no quantitative value "change", exactly?

    See both responses above.

    ... from when to when? Why is that time period more significant than any other time period?

    Yes it is. The argument is based on statistical mathematics. Mathematics doesn't lie.

    Dozens of thousands is not nearly enough. You need upwards of 200 million, at the very least.

    Math errors. Failure to eliminate location and time bias, failure to normalize by paired randR, failure to declare and justify variance, failure to calculate margin of error.

    No it's not. We cannot convert light measurements into temperature since we do not know the emissivity of Earth. So, even magickal satellites aren't the answer.

    Nope. Proxies are not used in science. Your appeal to proxy data is summarily discarded.

    They do, and they do faster than that.

    Even on the scale that we use them, they are quite renewable.

    There is LOTS of oil and natural gas underground. We are not going to run out of either of them anytime soon. And all the while, they keep forming underground naturally.
     
  25. jay runner

    jay runner Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    16,319
    Likes Received:
    10,016
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When you cold, or a green weenie is cold, they gonna burn baby burn. Combustion alleviates suffering. Combustion is good.

    And the ones pushing it are going to keep flying in their private jets --- like Bernie.
     

Share This Page