What Climate Wars Did To Science

[newtogolf]

16 minutes ago, carpediem4300 said:

 

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

 

Overall I understand your position but it's a very passive one.  We all know that eventually we will die, whether we die from a plane crash, clogged arteries or old age, the inevitable conclusion is we die.  Knowing that death is inevitable doesn't mean I'm going to play chicken with tractor trailers or act in other irresponsible ways to accelerate the timeline of when I may die.  

As for climate change, the focus is on carbon dioxide but it's like saying people are dying from heart disease and focusing on fast food.  There are a lot of factors that are causing climate change, just as there are a lot of factors that cause heart disease.  I think we tackle carbon dioxide and fast food because they are easy targets to address but that does not in any way ensure we eliminate the problem.

 

[carpediem4300]

15 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Overall I understand your position but it's a very passive one.  We all know that eventually we will die, whether we die from a plane crash, clogged arteries or old age, the inevitable conclusion is we die.  Knowing that death is inevitable doesn't mean I'm going to play chicken with tractor trailers or act in other irresponsible ways to accelerate the timeline of when I may die.  

As for climate change, the focus is on carbon dioxide but it's like saying people are dying from heart disease and focusing on fast food.  There are a lot of factors that are causing climate change, just as there are a lot of factors that cause heart disease.  I think we tackle carbon dioxide and fast food because they are easy targets to address but that does not in any way ensure we eliminate the problem.

 

Fully agree, I understand my position on the situation has clearly confused some people, on one hand im saying "it will happen anyway but the earth will survive" which it will but on the other im saying that I do my bit to help and support things that can help

Which kind of answers your point on death/climate change, yes both are inevitable, but that also doesnt mean i play chicken with traffic or burn fossil fuels for fun, I look after myself well and im conservative with the environment

 

 

[iacas]

59 minutes ago, carpediem4300 said:

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

No, the same logic does not apply. Change over a few thousand years is very, very different than change over 50 to 100 years.

Your analogy falls apart because you're looking at the end result.

A better analogy would be a car being crushed an identical amount in two ways: one as a result of a 200 MPH crash, and the other as a result of a slow crushing machine that takes a full day to crush the car. In the latter case, there are a lot of things that can be done, and in the former, the occupants die.

They're not the same. Biology, life, ecosystems, etc. don't work that way.

59 minutes ago, carpediem4300 said:

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

The process matters.

59 minutes ago, carpediem4300 said:

wether we slow the rate or not, it will end up where it ends up

Not true.

59 minutes ago, carpediem4300 said:

but im also realistic to know that it will happen eventually wether its our fault or not

Yeah… that makes no sense. It's not a predetermined outcome. We aren't talking about shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic here.

[saevel25]

1 hour ago, carpediem4300 said:

 

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.

That doesn't fly. If I'm driving a car, I have a hell of a lot better chance of stopping the car before it reaches 200 mph if it happens over 10 minutes versus 1 second. 

Species have a heck of a lot better chance of adapting if changes happen over time versus suddenly. 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

That doesn't fly. If I'm driving a car, I have a hell of a lot better chance of stopping the car before it reaches 200 mph if it happens over 10 minutes versus 1 second. 

Species have a heck of a lot better chance of adapting if changes happen over time versus suddenly. 

That's a better way of saying what I was trying to say.

[Lihu]

6 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

6 meters over  something like 60 to 200 years does not sound like anything humankind can't handle. Of course, we'll probably need to re-title all the land both above and below water. . .http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/

Speculate on some properties at 8m above sea level.

In any case, I think it's not possible to reverse the process. I'm in the camp of people who think that our effect on the environment was only a minor catalyst along with other coincidental geological activity. We're forgetting that the crust of the earth is constantly changing, and it might be simply making a quirky and larger than usual cycle in the 50k year span?

By publishing papers and trying to convince the world that we can reverse the effect based upon pure speculation, is somewhat irresponsible especially when peoples livelihoods depend upon energy transfer and consumption.

Making policies based upon speculation is not a compromise, that's just playing politics with people's lives.

[newtogolf]

6 minutes ago, Lihu said:

6 meters over  something like 60 to 200 years does not sound like anything humankind can't handle. Of course, we'll probably need to re-title all the land both above and below water. . .http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/

Speculate on some properties at 8m above sea level.

In any case, I think it's not possible to reverse the process. I'm in the camp of people who think that our effect on the environment was only a minor catalyst along with other coincidental geological activity. We're forgetting that the crust of the earth is constantly changing, and it might be simply making a quirky and larger than usual cycle in the 50k year span?

By publishing papers and trying to convince the world that we can reverse the effect based upon pure speculation, is somewhat irresponsible especially when peoples livelihoods depend upon energy transfer and consumption.

Making policies based upon speculation is not a compromise, that's just playing politics with people's lives.

China and Bermuda have been dredging the ocean and creating islands and adding land to their countries land for quite some time so while some land may be lost to water, we're also actively expanding our land masses with the use of technology.  

[carpediem4300]

@iacas @saevel25

i tried multi quoting again but my iphone appears to be playing up, but i can see your missing the point somewhat

the car being crushed versus being crashed analogy doesnt work because there are two different causes but two different outcomes, the car that is crushed is done slowly and methodically and ends up in a cube, the car crashed at 200mph is obliterated in pieces and a mangled mess, the analogy is different and wrong, wether humans cause climate change or it occurs naturally the net outcome from both scenarios is a changed climate,

 

the slowing the car down theory doesnt stack up against climate change either because it insinuates that we can stop climate change from ever reaching a certain point, we cant stop that, we can slow it, but we cant stop it reaching whatever temperature it is set to reach, just like the car crash, steady or redlines it will reach 200mph and the resultant crash will be the outcome

 

at the end of the day i try my best to be frugal with things and i have little wastage, but i understand that in the end it wont make an iota of difference, temps are going up, earth is doomed

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, carpediem4300 said:

 

i tried multi quoting again but my iphone appears to be playing up, but i can see your missing the point somewhat

I don't think we are.

7 minutes ago, carpediem4300 said:

the car being crushed versus being crashed analogy doesnt work because there are two different causes but two different outcomes, the car that is crushed is done slowly and methodically and ends up in a cube, the car crashed at 200mph is obliterated in pieces and a mangled mess, the analogy is different and wrong, wether humans cause climate change or it occurs naturally the net outcome from both scenarios is a changed climate,

It turns out you missed the point: the time scale and cause of the change matters greatly.

7 minutes ago, carpediem4300 said:

the slowing the car down theory doesnt stack up against climate change either because it insinuates that we can stop climate change from ever reaching a certain point, we cant stop that, we can slow it, but we cant stop it reaching whatever temperature it is set to reach, just like the car crash, steady or redlines it will reach 200mph and the resultant crash will be the outcome

You're saying things without any evidence whatsoever. You seem to view this temperature change as pre-determined, pre-destined, unstoppable. Where is your evidence to support that?

And even if it was pre-destined, the time scale and cause of the change matters. There's more to this than "temperature change."

7 minutes ago, carpediem4300 said:

at the end of the day i try my best to be frugal with things and i have little wastage, but i understand that in the end it wont make an iota of difference, temps are going up, earth is doomed

Since this is a golf forum, I'm done discussing this with you.

[carpediem4300]

12 hours ago, iacas said:

I don't think we are.

It turns out you missed the point: the time scale and cause of the change matters greatly.

You're saying things without any evidence whatsoever. You seem to view this temperature change as pre-determined, pre-destined, unstoppable. Where is your evidence to support that?

And even if it was pre-destined, the time scale and cause of the change matters. There's more to this than "temperature change."

Since this is a golf forum, I'm done discussing this with you.

you seem to be taking my post as me saying "these are the facts" the thing is they are merely an "opinion", I have no evidence that it is pre-determined, its just my opinion,....................the same as you believe the outcome will be different if we get there slowly versus quick, you have no evidence to prove that, just an opinion on what you have perceived based on history, the reality is neither of us are right and neither of us are wrong because until something does or doesnt happen nobody actually knows.

With all the data in the world a forecasted outcome will and always has been a finger in the air guess, 

[iacas]

6 hours ago, carpediem4300 said:

With all the data in the world a forecasted outcome will and always has been a finger in the air guess, 

No, and perhaps that's where we most disagree. I'm not saying it's 100% (nor would any scientist), but it's well beyond a "finger in the air guess."

[carpediem4300]

17 hours ago, iacas said:

No, and perhaps that's where we most disagree. I'm not saying it's 100% (nor would any scientist), but it's well beyond a "finger in the air guess."

Most likely, as I say its only my opinion, nothing for me is a certainty, but hey, I wont be around long enough to be too concerned

[iacas]

3 hours ago, carpediem4300 said:

Most likely, as I say its only my opinion, nothing for me is a certainty, but hey, I wont be around long enough to be too concerned

That's kind of a selfish attitude. I care about the earth after I'm done using it. My kid will still be here.

[carpediem4300]

30 minutes ago, iacas said:

That's kind of a selfish attitude. I care about the earth after I'm done using it. My kid will still be here.

its a 50/50 conflict in my mind, on one hand i think, im here for 1 life, why should i care about other people, animals, nature etc? I have one chance to live my life to the full I should take it, but on the other hand im quite a nice person and i care about people's feelings, and i like animals and nature so i also think I should help out and stuff, and one day i'll have my own kids and i'll share your exact sentiment i imagine

somewhere there is a fine balance of taking full advantage of my one shot at life and enjoying it but also being sympathetic of other people/things

 

[newtogolf]

1 hour ago, carpediem4300 said:

its a 50/50 conflict in my mind, on one hand i think, im here for 1 life, why should i care about other people, animals, nature etc? I have one chance to live my life to the full I should take it, but on the other hand im quite a nice person and i care about people's feelings, and i like animals and nature so i also think I should help out and stuff, and one day i'll have my own kids and i'll share your exact sentiment i imagine

somewhere there is a fine balance of taking full advantage of my one shot at life and enjoying it but also being sympathetic of other people/things

 

There shouldn't be a conflict between living life to the full and being a conscientious person.  No one expects you to sell your car and walk or ride a bike everywhere.  You don't have to go to bed cold, not use electricity, heat, air conditioning or water.  

It's simpler things, don't be lazy and pollute, hold your garbage until you can throw it in a trash can.  Recycle bottles, cans, papers rather than throw them into land fills.  Don't pour things down your sink or into lakes that could be harmful.  Conserve when practical.  

If everyone did some very basic things that don't impact the quality of their life much if at all it would be a healthier planet.  

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

It's simpler things, don't be lazy and pollute, hold your garbage until you can throw it in a trash can.  Recycle bottles, cans, papers rather than throw them into land fills.  Don't pour things down your sink or into lakes that could be harmful.  Conserve when practical.

Yes. And don't dismiss the idea that we can slow down and/or change the future, and that it's not pre-determined.

[carpediem4300]

47 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

There shouldn't be a conflict between living life to the full and being a conscientious person.  No one expects you to sell your car and walk or ride a bike everywhere.  You don't have to go to bed cold, not use electricity, heat, air conditioning or water.  

It's simpler things, don't be lazy and pollute, hold your garbage until you can throw it in a trash can.  Recycle bottles, cans, papers rather than throw them into land fills.  Don't pour things down your sink or into lakes that could be harmful.  Conserve when practical.  

If everyone did some very basic things that don't impact the quality of their life much if at all it would be a healthier planet.  

Thats the middle ground i tread the most, but i mean the conflict to stray away from this and be the person that doesnt care less, or the person that will go to bed cold or not use electricity etc. 

My village shop is a 3 minute walk away, but sometimes i'll go out the door and think, screw it im driving because im lazy and selfish, its a small thing, but if everybody did it all these small things would add up to big things

It's kind of like one of those questions like "does life have a deeper meaning" or "does god exist", it can be as perplexing as it can be simple to come to ones own conclusions

[JonMA1]

On 12/1/2016 at 9:11 AM, newtogolf said:

There shouldn't be a conflict between living life to the full and being a conscientious person.  No one expects you to sell your car and walk or ride a bike everywhere.  You don't have to go to bed cold, not use electricity, heat, air conditioning or water.  

It's simpler things, don't be lazy and pollute, hold your garbage until you can throw it in a trash can.  Recycle bottles, cans, papers rather than throw them into land fills.  Don't pour things down your sink or into lakes that could be harmful.  Conserve when practical.  

If everyone did some very basic things that don't impact the quality of their life much if at all it would be a healthier planet.  

I wish everyone would look at it this way, Joe. While there are varying degrees of effort people consider acceptable, I'd like to think the majority are already living this way.

I've seen extremes on either side of the issue, however.

I once saw a co-worker absolutely freak-out because someone threw an empty soup can away instead of putting it in the recycle bin (I'm not sure which is worse, a tin can in the landfill or the half gallon of water used to rinse it). And I know someone else who preferred to burn used motor oil rather than take it in to be recycled (Walmart makes that pretty easy, btw). 

Those steps you mentioned and many more take very little effort.

The thing is, most of this is nothing new.

Edited December 3, 2016 by JonMA1