What Climate Wars Did To Science

[carpediem4300]

I think it depends what we think we are trying to save? the Earth or Mankind?

The Earth has been through 5 mass events that caused extinction/climate change, 4 caused by itself and 1 caused by an asteroid,......yet here we are, the Earth continues to spin, and Species continue to evolve.

History teaches us that unless an Asteroid obliterates this rock into pieces or shifts it away from the sun too far,.....or indeed the sun dies/explodes then the Earth will survive regardless, in whatever form it see's fit, the temperatures will rise and fall, the sea's will rise and fall, species will come and go, so on and so forth,

The climate is changing and I believe Human pollution is an attributing factor, and i think we should all try to be less of a throwaway culture, taking care of our environment more, using sustainable and eco friendly resources etc.

But, at the end of the day wether we assist or not, the earth will do what it wants to do, and its climate will change as it wants it to, no matter what we do, nothing will change the end result 

 

[boogielicious]

1 hour ago, carpediem4300 said:

I think it depends what we think we are trying to save? the Earth or Mankind?

The Earth has been through 5 mass events that caused extinction/climate change, 4 caused by itself and 1 caused by an asteroid,......yet here we are, the Earth continues to spin, and Species continue to evolve.

History teaches us that unless an Asteroid obliterates this rock into pieces or shifts it away from the sun too far,.....or indeed the sun dies/explodes then the Earth will survive regardless, in whatever form it see's fit, the temperatures will rise and fall, the sea's will rise and fall, species will come and go, so on and so forth,

The climate is changing and I believe Human pollution is an attributing factor, and i think we should all try to be less of a throwaway culture, taking care of our environment more, using sustainable and eco friendly resources etc.

But, at the end of the day wether we assist or not, the earth will do what it wants to do, and its climate will change as it wants it to, no matter what we do, nothing will change the end result 

 

That is the excuse nay-sayers use. It also seems to me that the majority of the folks that deny humans have contributed also support deregulating industrial standards. The private sector will not regulate itself. They will do what is best for the corporation and shareholders, which is appropriate. Real change has to come from the rest of us. Pollution is bad, we all know this. We all have to do something about. Even China gets it now and their smog is unbelievable. 

[Groucho Valentine]

My friend in Colorado is a scientist, and he thinks the damage human civiliaization has done to the ecosystem in terms of both consumption and pollution is pretty much irreversible. But he believes steps can be taken to mitigate the effects the changing ecosystem has on human life. Most of western civilization will have to move to higher grounds at some point in the next couple hundred years. 

[iacas]

3 hours ago, carpediem4300 said:

I think it depends what we think we are trying to save? the Earth or Mankind?

The Earth has been through 5 mass events that caused extinction/climate change, 4 caused by itself and 1 caused by an asteroid,......yet here we are, the Earth continues to spin, and Species continue to evolve.

History teaches us that unless an Asteroid obliterates this rock into pieces or shifts it away from the sun too far,.....or indeed the sun dies/explodes then the Earth will survive regardless, in whatever form it see's fit, the temperatures will rise and fall, the sea's will rise and fall, species will come and go, so on and so forth,

The climate is changing and I believe Human pollution is an attributing factor, and i think we should all try to be less of a throwaway culture, taking care of our environment more, using sustainable and eco friendly resources etc.

But, at the end of the day wether we assist or not, the earth will do what it wants to do, and its climate will change as it wants it to, no matter what we do, nothing will change the end result 

Please tell me when history can tell us about the pollution, the population, the industrialization, the societies, etc. that we have?

History can teach us about things but history has never seen the situation we have now.

[newtogolf]

What people don't seem to recognize is that along with pollution, populations have increased to record numbers.  To accommodate all the additional people we need to clear more forest area to house them, increase the number of power plants and their capacities, burn more fossil fuel to heat the homes, more cars, more manufacturing plants, more office buildings, etc.

At some point we need to regulate the population as well as pollution or I doubt we'll make much progress in effecting any change.  

[Lihu]

8 hours ago, carpediem4300 said:

But, at the end of the day wether we assist or not, the earth will do what it wants to do, and its climate will change as it wants it to, no matter what we do, nothing will change the end result 

The earth is a giant ball of molten iron and other heavy stuff. It'll do what it wants. We're just dust mites on the surface. . .

 

6 hours ago, boogielicious said:

That is the excuse nay-sayers use. It also seems to me that the majority of the folks that deny humans have contributed also support deregulating industrial standards. The private sector will not regulate itself. They will do what is best for the corporation and shareholders, which is appropriate. Real change has to come from the rest of us. Pollution is bad, we all know this. We all have to do something about. Even China gets it now and their smog is unbelievable. 

Unbelievable is an understatement. Last time I went there we had orange sunlight on a "cloudless" day. I've never seen anything that bad even in LA.

 

5 hours ago, Groucho Valentine said:

My friend in Colorado is a scientist, and he thinks the damage human civiliaization has done to the ecosystem in terms of both consumption and pollution is pretty much irreversible. But he believes steps can be taken to mitigate the effects the changing ecosystem has on human life. Most of western civilization will have to move to higher grounds at some point in the next couple hundred years. 

I think there will possibly be more vegetation and fresh water rather than rising oceans. Just looking at the geography, nothing really supports widespread 60m rises in sea level? I could be totally wrong, but so could the deep flood advocates. . .

 

4 hours ago, iacas said:

Please tell me when history can tell us about the pollution, the population, the industrialization, the societies, etc. that we have?

History can teach us about things but history has never seen the situation we have now.

Very true. . .

 

4 hours ago, newtogolf said:

What people don't seem to recognize is that along with pollution, populations have increased to record numbers.  To accommodate all the additional people we need to clear more forest area to house them, increase the number of power plants and their capacities, burn more fossil fuel to heat the homes, more cars, more manufacturing plants, more office buildings, etc.

At some point we need to regulate the population as well as pollution or I doubt we'll make much progress in effecting any change.  

Not sure this is possible through any law or purposeful regulation? There seems to be a coincidental phenomenon that the more educated and wealthy is a civilization, the less prone they are to having lots of children.

Hopefully, it'll happen around the world naturally as they all become prosperous.

[JonMA1]

5 hours ago, boogielicious said:

That is the excuse nay-sayers use. It also seems to me that the majority of the folks that deny humans have contributed also support deregulating industrial standards. The private sector will not regulate itself. They will do what is best for the corporation and shareholders, which is appropriate. Real change has to come from the rest of us. Pollution is bad, we all know this. We all have to do something about. Even China gets it now and their smog is unbelievable. 

I'm not a nay-sayer and don't believe I ever have been. But I've always questioned how much of this is within our control. We're humans after all.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try. Any steps taken in the right direction are better than doing nothing.

It might have been in this topic, but another member (@jamo I think) explained that substantial gains have been made in the way of improved refrigerants. This is the kind of change that's encouraging.

But it doesn't sound like we're even in the ball park of what we need to do.

I remember hearing something years ago and I'll try to paraphrase it to the best of my memory... An official or activist from the US criticized Brazil for cutting down too much of the rainforest. Someone from Brazil replied "when those of you in the US stop running your air conditioning all day long while away from home, we'll listen to what you have to say".

Don't know how true this was, but it's the kind of story that makes me more cynical than hopeful.

Of those on the forum who believe urgent change is the only way to minimize damage, what kind of sacrifices are you making? Are you doing absolutely everything you can? Are you researching the companies you do business with? If they contribute to greenhouse gases, are you boycotting them even if it costs you a lot of money? What about the industry or company you work for? Do you use mass transit even though it sucks and you don't have to, or ride a bike in crappy weather? Have you moved into a smaller house, kept it 10° cooler in the winter and learned to live without A/C in the summer? Have you made all the painful but necessary changes in your lives on the level you ask others to make?

Or like me, have you simply taken convenient measures that make you "feel" better?

[phillyk]

7 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

I'm not a nay-sayer and don't believe I ever have been. But I've always questioned how much of this is within our control. We're humans after all.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try. Any steps taken in the right direction are better than doing nothing.

It might have been in this topic, but another member (@jamo I think) explained that substantial gains have been made in the way of improved refrigerants. This is the kind of change that's encouraging.

But it doesn't sound like we're even in the ball park of what we need to do.

I remember hearing something years ago and I'll try to paraphrase it to the best of my memory... An official or activist from the US criticized Brazil for cutting down too much of the rainforest. Someone from Brazil replied "when those of you in the US stop running your air conditioning all day long while away from home, we'll listen to what you have to say".

Don't know how true this was, but it's the kind of story that makes me more cynical than hopeful.

Of those on the forum who believe urgent change is the only way to minimize damage, what kind of sacrifices are you making? Are you doing absolutely everything you can? Are you researching the companies you do business with? If they contribute to greenhouse gases, are you boycotting them even if it costs you a lot of money? What about the industry or company you work for? Do you use mass transit even though it sucks and you don't have to, or ride a bike in crappy weather? Have you moved into a smaller house, kept it 10° cooler in the winter and learned to live without A/C in the summer? Have you made all the painful but necessary changes in your lives on the level you ask others to make?

Or like me, have you simply taken convenient measures that make you "feel" better?

It's not painful and I don't have a feeling of sacrifice to live with a smaller footprint.  It's normal for me to conserve water, not waste electricity, and other things around the house (although my wife sometimes needs convincing ).  It does help to live on the coast though in WA.  Homes don't come with AC and you don't need to heat the house too much in winter.

[JonMA1]

23 minutes ago, phillyk said:

It's not painful and I don't have a feeling of sacrifice to live with a smaller footprint.  It's normal for me to conserve water, not waste electricity, and other things around the house (although my wife sometimes needs convincing ).  It does help to live on the coast though in WA.  Homes don't come with AC and you don't need to heat the house too much in winter.

Yeah, I'm in the same boat when it comes to my wife. But she's her own person. We jokingly give each other #@^% about this all the time.

 I'm not saying steps taken in the right direction are not a good thing. Just that it isn't enough if you look at some of the forecasts. Conserving water, electricity, gasoline... those are things I was taught to conserve as a kid because of the cost. So conserving for any other reason isn't that big of a deal.

I'm not going to keep my house at 50° in the winter. So I have no problem with someone not making sacrifices. I have a problem with the hypocrisy of not making sacrifices while criticizing the rest of the world for not doing enough. (Not saying anyone here falls into that group.)

[newtogolf]

4 hours ago, JonMA1 said:

I'm not a nay-sayer and don't believe I ever have been. But I've always questioned how much of this is within our control. We're humans after all.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try. Any steps taken in the right direction are better than doing nothing.

It might have been in this topic, but another member (@jamo I think) explained that substantial gains have been made in the way of improved refrigerants. This is the kind of change that's encouraging.

But it doesn't sound like we're even in the ball park of what we need to do.

I remember hearing something years ago and I'll try to paraphrase it to the best of my memory... An official or activist from the US criticized Brazil for cutting down too much of the rainforest. Someone from Brazil replied "when those of you in the US stop running your air conditioning all day long while away from home, we'll listen to what you have to say".

Don't know how true this was, but it's the kind of story that makes me more cynical than hopeful.

Of those on the forum who believe urgent change is the only way to minimize damage, what kind of sacrifices are you making? Are you doing absolutely everything you can? Are you researching the companies you do business with? If they contribute to greenhouse gases, are you boycotting them even if it costs you a lot of money? What about the industry or company you work for? Do you use mass transit even though it sucks and you don't have to, or ride a bike in crappy weather? Have you moved into a smaller house, kept it 10° cooler in the winter and learned to live without A/C in the summer? Have you made all the painful but necessary changes in your lives on the level you ask others to make?

Or like me, have you simply taken convenient measures that make you "feel" better?

Most people are more motivated by cost compared to altruistic sacrifices to save the planet, which is why the left was pushing for cap and trade and carbon taxes.

I don't like to waste money so running air conditioner or heating systems when I'm not in it is a waste of money as is leaving on lights, computers, tv's etc.  I have a car that gets good gas mileage that we mostly use for long trips because it's more economical than my fun to drive car.  I don't water my lawn excessively or take 1/2 hour showers because it's not financially responsible to do so.  I hardly print anything unless it's absolutely necessary and recycle paper and bottles. If my fiscal responsible behavior benefits the planet it's a win/win.  

That said, I still enjoy my high performance car on weekends.  I won't take mass transit unless it's significantly more convenient than driving.  I have no plans to downsizing my house or desire to be uncomfortable when I'm in it.  

[carpediem4300]

14 hours ago, boogielicious said:

That is the excuse nay-sayers use. It also seems to me that the majority of the folks that deny humans have contributed also support deregulating industrial standards. The private sector will not regulate itself. They will do what is best for the corporation and shareholders, which is appropriate. Real change has to come from the rest of us. Pollution is bad, we all know this. We all have to do something about. Even China gets it now and their smog is unbelievable. 

I think you've kind of missed the context of my post, im not a nay-sayer, i believe it is happening, with or without human intervention,......the message we are given though is what I object to, people think we can reverse climate change, people think if we dillute our pollution we can stop what is happening,.....but we cant, the inevitable will happen eventually wether it's a catastrophic climate change, the sun dies etc etc, at some point wether it is a thousand or a million years, mankind will either die out or adapt as our planet changes, no amount of recycling is going to reverse it,......all we can do is slow the effect, if we take out the human pollution aspect we can add hundreds of thousands of years to our potential life cycle,.....and I agree with doing everything we can to help,........................its like the whole god thing, im a massive believer of there being a power or controlling aspect way bigger than us mere mortals, but i dislike the story of virgin births, miracles and all that, doesnt mean im a naysayer, i just get to the conclusion a different way?

13 hours ago, iacas said:

Please tell me when history can tell us about the pollution, the population, the industrialization, the societies, etc. that we have?

History can teach us about things but history has never seen the situation we have now.

Not sure what your getting at? not in an arsey way,.......the earth has had 5 major climate changes that caused mass extinctions, and yet there is still life here, so history teaches us that whatever is happening with out climate now and no matter how bad it gets, its not the end of the world, it may be the end of certain species, geography may change, but we will still be here most likely as we have the technology to adapt,. history cant tell you anything about manmade pollution or population etc, but we are talking about climate change,....it doesnt matter what causes that climate change, the earth has seen it all before

[boogielicious]

 

3 hours ago, carpediem4300 said:

I think you've kind of missed the context of my post, im not a nay-sayer, i believe it is happening, with or without human intervention,.....

 

I wasn't directing it you. Sorry if it seemed that way.

12 hours ago, Lihu said:

Not sure this is possible through any law or purposeful regulation? There seems to be a coincidental phenomenon that the more educated and wealthy is a civilization, the less prone they are to having lots of children.

Hopefully, it'll happen around the world naturally as they all become prosperous.

Maybe not 60 meters, but it won't take more than 5 or 6 to wreak havoc. This site was found in the Med about 12 meters down.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-asia/9000-year-old-underground-megalithic-settlement-atlit-yam-001579

[iacas]

4 hours ago, carpediem4300 said:

Not sure what your getting at? not in an arsey way,.......the earth has had 5 major climate changes that caused mass extinctions, and yet there is still life here, so history teaches us that whatever is happening with out climate now and no matter how bad it gets, its not the end of the world, it may be the end of certain species, geography may change, but we will still be here most likely as we have the technology to adapt,. history cant tell you anything about manmade pollution or population etc, but we are talking about climate change,....it doesnt matter what causes that climate change, the earth has seen it all before

The earth has not seen it all before. That's what's wrong about your theory.

Things continue to exist until they don't anymore.

[carpediem4300]

2 hours ago, boogielicious said:

 

I wasn't directing it you. Sorry if it seemed that way.

Maybe not 60 meters, but it won't take more than 5 or 6 to wreak havoc. This site was found in the Med about 12 meters down.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-asia/9000-year-old-underground-megalithic-settlement-atlit-yam-001579

ah no worries sorry :)

1 hour ago, iacas said:

The earth has not seen it all before. That's what's wrong about your theory.

Things continue to exist until they don't anymore.

But it has because your being too specific on the situation,.......has the earth seen its climate change drastically to a point where it has affected species/evolution/weather etc? well the answer is yes, 5 times before,..........it does not matter how it got there, it does not matter wether the temperature went up, or the temperature went down, it does not matter is it was ash pollution from volcanoes or if it will be smog pollution from humans,or a massive asteroid hit........the temperature will rise or fall, and this is what the earth has seen before, the rise in temperature is nothing new to this planet,...........agreed humans causing the increase it has not seen before, but the earth is either hotter or colder, i imagine it does not care or know how it got there

[saevel25]

14 minutes ago, carpediem4300 said:

ah no worries sorry :)

But it has because your being too specific on the situation,.......has the earth seen its climate change drastically to a point where it has affected species/evolution/weather etc? well the answer is yes, 5 times before,..........it does not matter how it got there, it does not matter wether the temperature went up, or the temperature went down, it does not matter is it was ash pollution from volcanoes or if it will be smog pollution from humans,or a massive asteroid hit........the temperature will rise or fall, and this is what the earth has seen before, the rise in temperature is nothing new to this planet,...........agreed humans causing the increase it has not seen before, but the earth is either hotter or colder, i imagine it does not care or know how it got there

Yet those changes were not caused by the species on the planet. If the pollution we cause is the primary driver of this then we have control over it. The species of the earth before had no control. That is the big difference. Claiming, "oh the earth has had big changes before" doesn't cut it when it's not an apples to apples comparison. 

[phillyk]

16 minutes ago, carpediem4300 said:

ah no worries sorry :)

But it has because your being too specific on the situation,.......has the earth seen its climate change drastically to a point where it has affected species/evolution/weather etc? well the answer is yes, 5 times before,..........it does not matter how it got there, it does not matter wether the temperature went up, or the temperature went down, it does not matter is it was ash pollution from volcanoes or if it will be smog pollution from humans,or a massive asteroid hit........the temperature will rise or fall, and this is what the earth has seen before, the rise in temperature is nothing new to this planet,...........agreed humans causing the increase it has not seen before, but the earth is either hotter or colder, i imagine it does not care or know how it got there

To add onto what @saevel25 said and as we said before, it's the RATE at which these numbers are changing.  It's happening 100 times faster.  Yes its been this hot with this CO2 concentration in the past, but it took thousands of years to get there, not 200.

[iacas]

43 minutes ago, carpediem4300 said:

But it has because your being too specific on the situation

You're being too general. This isn't analogous to the other "changes" the Earth has seen.

43 minutes ago, carpediem4300 said:

it does not matter how it got there, it does not matter wether the temperature went up, or the temperature went down, it does not matter is it was ash pollution from volcanoes or if it will be smog pollution from humans,or a massive asteroid hit

Yes, it does.

That's like saying it doesn't matter that bodies have gotten holes in them before, they heal up and the person lives when the holes previously made were by surgeons and the hole we're looking at is caused by a bullet to the chest.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/28/asia/great-barrier-reef-coral-death/index.html

[carpediem4300]

25 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Yet those changes were not caused by the species on the planet. If the pollution we cause is the primary driver of this then we have control over it. The species of the earth before had no control. That is the big difference. Claiming, "oh the earth has had big changes before" doesn't cut it when it's not an apples to apples comparison. 

 

19 minutes ago, phillyk said:

To add onto what @saevel25 said and as we said before, it's the RATE at which these numbers are changing.  It's happening 100 times faster.  Yes its been this hot with this CO2 concentration in the past, but it took thousands of years to get there, not 200.

Again its kind of specifics you two are quoting,.......if a car crashes into a wall at 200mph the effect will be exactly the same wether that car was slowly taken up through the gears to 200mph over a period of time, or it was red lined hard up to 200mph in a quicker time, the end result is still a vehicle doing 200mph and hitting a wall,

The same logic applies to the earth, if the average temperature goes from 10 degree's to 20 degree's, it does not particularly matter from the earth's perspective wether that happens over thousands of years or hundreds of years, the net result will be an earth that is 10 degree's hotter and it will react accordingly

Yes we do have a certain control over the rate at which it happens, but it is not a determining factor in the net result, wether we slow the rate or not, it will end up where it ends up,......as I said i am a supporter of doing things to help, to slow it and change it, and i fully accept that humans are the driving factor, but im also realistic to know that it will happen eventually wether its our fault or not, thats the point, you cannot stop climate change and you cannot "control or reverse" it, you can influence it, slow it, but that is not controlling it per se

@phillyk I hear your point, but when the asteroid hit it changed the earth irreversibly in a matter of days not hundreds of years, so the earth has seen both extremes, but again its a non-argument because what will happen will happen