i was skeptical of the climate change caused by anthropogenic factor idea, too. but in light of the evidence, it's becoming harder to doubt. though i never disagreed that humans were altering the atmosphere, what i felt was in dispute was to the extent of our influence. of course, new information is coming to light all the time, but so far based on the accumulated data it's fair to say humanity has contributed quite a bit in the production of greenhouse gases.Originally Posted by sevjenn
I don't see how this fact is supposed to excuse or help humans, particularly if the current extinction event is supposed to be happening at the fattest ever rate...and that is before the effect of any natural impact.
I think seeing things in terms of "cosmic balance" is just complete bullshit.
Based on what evidence I've seen, I believe climate change is a real thing, and that we should be concerned about it. This post from Reddit is a good summation of what is presently known about climate change.
Even if you don't believe in climate change, I still think air/water/land pollution are worldwide public health concerns, and it's in our best interest, and the interest of our progeny, for us to exercise proper stewardship of the earth, and stop making it such a gross place to live.
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
I see the undead walk amongst us.
Unfortunately, you are right.
I'd like to add to my previous post, since it was rather vague. I do not discount the possibility that man climate change could be a dominant factor of global warming as it is a very real possibility. Keep in mind that global warming caused by man is real, but the question is not whether it is real or not, but whether it is a dominant or a very minor factor in global warming change as alternative factors like the Sun or the Earth exist. I also refuse to acknowledge that man made climate change is a dominant factor of global warming based on the grounds that it is well accepted among the scientific community. The scientific community is tainted by politics unfortunately as politicians seek to gain from the idea that global warming is man made induced so to influence the scientific community via coercion or bribery isn't that ridiculous of a notion as it may appear. One must look at the scientific data on their own to draw their own conclusions and be independent instead of becoming dependent on leading scientific authorities telling them what they should believe.
If one truly looks at this issue scientifically, one would have to acknowledge man made induced climate change as merely a theory and not as a fact. I have yet to see it proven without a shadow of a doubt that man made induced climate change is the dominant factor of global warming. Alternative theories such as the Sun emitting higher temperatures and the Earth under going natural climate changes are completely ignored because they are not mentioned among the scientific community. To ignore alternative theories in favor of the most popular well accepted theory is a great disservice to science and is merely going along with the majority instead of actually studying the issue from all angles and gaining a well developed thorough understanding of global warming and what is truly causing it. I prefer to look at global warming with an open mind accepting and simultaneously rejecting all possibilities instead of just accepting the most popular one. I will not draw any conclusions until enough evidence has been gathered to select one of the theories as fact and at this moment, that has not happened as of yet.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
It's not really "cosmic balance". It's a natural balance...evolution (the pollutants now may help us evolve into something less frail), areas that were once wet now dry...whatever. I just can't worry about something I personally can't change and I can't change how other humans behave. There are too damn many of them to influence the mood.Sure I don't use aerosol, I try to do the green thing whenever possible and I respect nature. What else would you have me do?
This is not the first time the Earth warms up nor will it be the last. I know we pollute the air but there are many contributing factors. I am not going to terrorize children into thinking they are all going to die tomorrow. I trust humans will find a solution, eventually, before the earth just implodes on itself, If they don't, well...
My EII sister would love you though because she thinks like you (sometimes the things you write she could have written herself) so I have had this conversation more times than I care to put more energy into. It never leads to anything productive so she and i agree to disagree and discuss more neutral matters.
Last edited by Aylen; 06-15-2014 at 06:22 PM.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
it will probably be dealt with through a geoengineering project around 2034. the question is what will its side effects be.
the side effects will be countered with more geoengineering. this will be fun.
I think Tesla's recent release of their patents is a good step towards having electric take off against fossil fuels. Although I hear our biggest source of greenhouse gasses are farting beef cows. Everyone start eating ostrich burgers.
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
Climate change is a very hostile topic and I'm even accustomed to expect a shit storm when I just simply say that I don't know the science, both sides claim to have a "mountain of evidence". Now I can't even have a normal conversation on a bus stop to talk about the weather without it turning into something political. People also just easily seem to nod that all kind of changes in weather can be attributed to climate change. Politicians nowadays don't call it the global warming anymore because it can apparently make some places colder.
It's also not a simple question of whether it's true or not. It's more important to focus on how big is the effect actually. And, hell, if it's mostly warming, it could have positive effects on making growth seasons longer.
Yes.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
Yeah, okay, try reading next time.
Fuck it, you're a looney.
@sevjenn the word you were searching for is weaken.
This thread to me is a funny reminder how people are passionate about such different issues (I'm somehow always the most agressive about the topics that other people couldn't care less about, so I'm basically fighting with myself
I totally understand that our Earth's well being is a very cruical issue, but for some reason I can't really get riled up. So I'm scared shitless when people try to publicly get into a debate about global warming.
I try to be responsible where I can but otherwise I'm not going to spend too much time worrying about it. And I'm too lazy to read up on all the scientific facts from both sides, because at the end I probably still won't be sure - I mean, these facts can be probably modified in one million directions.
But yeah, if the Earth is warming up or not, it's pretty evident we humans are toxic for the environment, so we should take all the precautions to reduce all the gases and wastes and I would never support politics that is irresponsible about these issues.
Science is subjective, nothing is objective, some things are more objective than others.
Didn't expect ignorance of this level from you. You claim to "not know the science", yet stat that the "question of whether it's true or not" isn't simple and suggested particular effects it could have. You're usually very critical of politicians and see great potential for corruption behind their opinions. What happened to that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/c...isoned/c45ciej
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
A sample of the hostility I mentioned. Calling my stance ignorance is like calling agnosticism spiritual ignorance.
What? I am very critical of politicians forcing how people should operate since I don't know whether they know jackshit about how to adequately deal with something of which existence I'm uncertain of. Even if it does exist, it's up to the individual to do something.
At the moment Finnish government has promised to drop the emissions to 20% that was in the 1990 by the year 2050. I'll happily make a huge bet on it's failure with bad ratios for my side. We can even tie it to inflation since by then the fiat currencies have lost at least 70% of their value.
Political attacks on nuclear energy are celebrated in the competing coal energy sector. IIRC, USA has regulated to put some biological matter to their oil.. which doesn't make it more efficient. The biofuel subsidizing might destroy nature and cause starvation. It is obvious that politics is still far from rational policies.
Green ideologies are really dangerous in the political (and the consumer) field and my libertarianism is basically saying "No, I don't know how you should live your life".
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
there are a lot of scientific or technological phenomenon that i don't have the time/energy/interest to understand on the same level and with the same depth as hundreds or thousands of scientists and so i take their word for it. global warming/climate change is one of those things. i believe them when they explain why rain happens or how televisions work, too.
If there is nothing objective, then how the hell "some things are more objective"?
LEL.
The16types.info logiks fail.
The Y2K problem is going to get you all, unbelievers. KEK. Better prepare yourself for worst and kill SLE. Thus Spoke Absurd.
British Columbia Mountain Pine Beetle
Oh Wacey, they're going to kill them as if they're SLE with pesticides, prolly something arsenic based, but I can be wrong, thus getting some in drinking water sources maybe and killing more people. Eveything is under control.
Pesticides cannot be spread on 18 million hectares of coniferous forests, because of the sheer size and speed of this outbreak of parasites, and also because pesticides are totally ineffective on coniferous trees that have thick barks.
Put it this way, Great Briton is approx 24 million hectares large. The area of forests affected to date by the MPB is 16 million. Meaning an area over half as large as Briton has already been decimated by an insect pest that has never in the history of this mostly pine forest, stretching back hundreds of thousands of years in age, occurred. Climate change, such as warmer winters and spring times, is the ONE AND ONLY factor in the spread of this beetle. Environmentally this is a disaster. Economically this is a disaster. Why? because the number one industry in this part of the world is soft wood lumber.
ONLY 15 years ago, these forests were once green. Briefly they turn red as the pine needles dry out and die. Now millions of hectares of land are dead forests, grave yards, grey deserts.
Attachment 3785Attachment 3786
People in the cities have no f*cking comprehension of how mankind is destroying nature. YES, the tons upon tons upon tons of C02 being pumped out into our air is now changing the temperature of the sky and the oceans. And even IF somehow we haven''t been the major contributing factor to climate change, the hundreds of other things we do to nature, such as deforestation, mining, pollution, habitat destruction, fishing, transportation, agriculture ect.. IS destroying the natural heritage of this planet. We are causing the extinction of many species of DNA that took an epoch to form.
It's sad really, it used to affect me deeply as a young man. Some old ponderosa pines were my friends. Now they are barren hulks, skeletons on the bluff.
Nothing can be done though, rather, nothing WON'T be done, until its too late. We will squeeze the earth dry for sure in a mad search for every last resource.
Last edited by wacey; 07-07-2014 at 06:20 PM.
Oh I see, your species decimated the forests, polluted the environment and so on, and now fears the use of pesticides on beetles not wanting to destroy the environment. Okay.
In Socionics terms, your Quadra did it.We will squeeze the earth dry for sure in a mad search for every last resource.
you are a looser.
At least I am not gay.
This thread.
"[Scapegrace,] I don't know how anyone can stand such a sinister and mean individual as you." - Maritsa Darmandzhyan
Brought to you by socionix.com
Look, pesticides cannot be sprayed on an area the size of Briton, it maybe difficult for you to comprehend the scale of this problem. It's not like some local park has a problem with an insect and pesticides should be sprayed. Besides, the only effective pesticide, Strychnine, must be put directly on the trunk of the tree and it must be distributed several times in the summer season in large quantities. This feat can only be achieved by a tractor and a liquid dispensing unit on the ground, not an aerial strike that has been traditionally used to spread a pesticide. I know this because I have worked at a research forest and orchard several times and amoung my duties was a visual inspection for MPB infestations. Trees found with MPB must be dug out and burned. It cannot be controlled by any known technology of mankind, These insect pests are out of control and spreading east across the continent. This is why it is called a natural disaster. As the boreal forest is the largest collection of biomass on the planet, and as it is a forest the size of a continent that has no evolved defences against this beetle, I think this is cause for concern. The link between this beetle and global warming is direct. I have seen before my very eyes a changing world.
And the point was not to argue about MPB, the point was to demonstrate evidence that global warming is occurring. I used this instance because it has had a direct, visceral, economical and emotional impact on my life that has shaped the person I am today. Anyone who states global warming is not cause by the activities of mankind is behaving ignorantly. Is it depressing? Absolutely. What is happening is a tragedy. I don't even think I could begin to describe this hurt, if you have not felt it yourself.
You wouldn't be able to understand the loss I feel when I stand underneath the canopy of a favourite tree that has stood against storms and fires for hundreds of years and watch it die in a single summer because of an insect no larger than a grain of rice. And the anguish to know that our kind was responsible. So I feel strongly about this? You bet I do.
Well, when it comes to tech, it's really obvious that whatever those who manufactured it taught they knew, it worked.
If we could sample planets and have a control group of other planets, I'd buy their claims really easily.
But, yeah, I like to make the assumption that the majority of experts are right and act upon it, though I might lack certainty enough to call it anything near knowledge or even a real belief. It's obvious that CO2 emissions are harmful to organisms and that is already enough for me to alter my lifestyle dramatically.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
The average scientific expert has at least one more PHD than every random dumbass on the internet.
I have reasons to believe that outsourcing the emissions of manufacturing to China while restricting the domestic market nearby and then shipping the products to yourself overseas is a shittier deal than trying to buy local from sources that have a higher output-input ratio (which is a side effect of more developed economies).
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
I'm really scared by it, since all the reports make it sound like we are in serious shit and things are going to get very noticeable very soon. Rising temperatures, coastal flooding, etc- supposedly within our generation some of our cities and homes are going to look markedly different from what they look like now. And we might need new skills/specializations to adapt, both to the changing urban infrastructure and also possibly because different jobs will open and close down because of it (??) I dunno, I just made that last sentence up. In sum: I worry about global warming but know next to nothing in actuality about it. Wish there could be a guide of "how to prepare"
also, have no idea how to incentivize change or the scale it would entail which apparently is huge (says me while running my window ac)
Sorry, my bad. I read wrong and thought you said something along the lines of "I don't know the science.. but the question whether climate change is true or not isn't simple." which would've been pretty much the same as somebody saying they "have no knowledge of the topics whatsoever, but the question whether evolution or creationism is true isn't simple".
But yeah, if you have any interest at all in the topic, would be cool if you looked into the science a bit. I'd love to hear how you think a minarchist/anarcho capitalist society would/could handle this problem, and whether you think a state of some kind could actually be more effective at it. I believe this is a textbook example of the tragedy of the commons, and one which wouldn't be abolished in abolition of the state. Most ancaps etc I've tried to ask about this have just squirmed and tried to change the topic or attacked me personally.
Ever since "gluten free" became a health fad here in America, many companies voluntarily opted to mark their products as being gluten free. Even for products that have always been gluten free (Lay's brand potato chips, for instance). There's one example of market action without government intervention.I believe this is a textbook example of the tragedy of the commons, and one which wouldn't be abolished in abolition of the state. Most ancaps etc I've tried to ask about this have just squirmed and tried to change the topic or attacked me personally.
But more to the point, Elon Musk has also released all Tesla electric vehicle related patents. This allows any and all car manufacturers to copy their technology and use it in the production of their own electric vehicles, in the hopes that auto manufacturers will follow suit and that vehicles powered by electricity can become an industry standard within the decade. The competition, along with new innovations and refinement of the technology, will eventually bring about an electric vehicle market that's affordable to the majority of automobile consumers.
I find that environmentalists have a real lack of understanding that 'the natural world' they are fighting to protect always has been a world which is continually re-engineered by circumstance and agency which leaves it in flux.
As a consequence they fail to accept engineered solutions which would be environmentally beneficial because *agency is bad'.
Some good examples of this are:
1) Reefing oil rigs: Fish, particularly many protected species fucking love oil rigs and flock around them, the heat and rust makes for a great plancton breeding ground. The cheapest way to dispose of them is by stripping the topsides equipment and cutting the top 25-30 metres, this costs only 200k and is hugely beneficial to the environment. Instead the environmental lobies force governments and companies to strip everything out and to cut it down at scrap yards costing 1 million, generating huge amounts of CO2 and leaving the environment worse than while the rig was in place.
2) Some guys from Microsoft worked out how to pump very little SO2 into the troposhere for less than 100 million a year, working like a volcano eruption this could mitigate all global warming, but like a tap it can be turned off if required and the environment would reset. According to their projections could save hundreds of thousands of lives but obviously a no go because it is an engineered solution.
In essence if environmentalists argued with pragmatism they could make huge strides, but their ideological rigidity makes them fail to reach their potential.
The idealogical rigidity also opens them to outright failure by cherry picking data and often just blatant fibbing as was the case in the UK 2 or 3 years ago.
Good environmental pragmatism for example was the banning of CFCs, sure the alternative wasn't amazing but it was much better for the environment at very little real cost.
Last edited by InvisibleJim; 06-17-2014 at 01:54 PM. Reason: de blackberry phonified
.
Last edited by Skepsis; 09-05-2015 at 03:25 AM.
Because at the very least, it whacks ecological systems out of balance, which will affect us, too. Among many other things...
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
It's true that this will affect us, but I'm unsure as to what extent. I think we will still survive and life on this planet will adapt. It will be different for sure, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's imperative that we don't make this planet inhospitable for life, but I think there is much more room for error than environmentalists admit to. Of course, I'm talking about the extreme end of environmentalism and not all environmentalists.
I advocate responsible stewardship of the planet, but this may mean something different to different people.
Did you even read what I wrote about sea ice and land ice? Even if he was wrong about the timing, he is not wrong about land ice melting.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
If you are referring to Climategate, the scientists were exonerated.
Reply With Quote
