Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jsgolfer

What Climate Wars Did To Science

Note: This thread is 1112 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

488 posts / 27727 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

Doeant matter. No issue that couldnt be solved by cutting back and working together as a world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for free today and you won't see this ad spot again!

Doeant matter. No issue that couldnt be solved by cutting back and working together as a world.

We all wish - John Lennon's Imagine playing on the background :-) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

How do you not know?   World population has been increasing at unsustainable level.  People are going to need more cars, more factories, more "stuff" that will spew out pollutants.    Vs the population increase, what are we doing to effectively reduce pollutants?   Not much I am afraid.   So, over time (50 years, 100 years, who really knows), we will eventually get to catastrophic level.  Another point I was making is that many don't care what happens 50, 100, 200 years later.   The current politicians will be all dead by then.   Hence, it's only a minority that's sounding the alarm.   Most others are content to recycle papers, aluminum, buy hybrid but that won't stop the flow or turn the tide.   On this, I am a pessimist.   I give 200 years tops for human race to destroy the env. completely that we won't recognize it if we live that long.

I don't but I don't believe that population is increasing to an unsustainable level.  I guess I'm an optimist, we humans will adapt and figure out ways to combat pretty much anything. I don't see a complete destruction of the environment anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkim291968

How do you not know?   World population has been increasing at unsustainable level.  People are going to need more cars, more factories, more "stuff" that will spew out pollutants.    Vs the population increase, what are we doing to effectively reduce pollutants?   Not much I am afraid.   So, over time (50 years, 100 years, who really knows), we will eventually get to catastrophic level.  Another point I was making is that many don't care what happens 50, 100, 200 years later.   The current politicians will be all dead by then.   Hence, it's only a minority that's sounding the alarm.   Most others are content to recycle papers, aluminum, buy hybrid but that won't stop the flow or turn the tide.   On this, I am a pessimist.   I give 200 years tops for human race to destroy the env. completely that we won't recognize it if we live that long.

I don't but I don't believe that population is increasing to an unsustainable level.  I guess I'm an optimist, we humans will adapt and figure out ways to combat pretty much anything. I don't see a complete destruction of the environment anywhere.

You are a better person than me on that.   I don't have faith in human race to do the right thing at the expense of short term profit, political ambition, etc..

The population growth issue is real and probably deserves its own thread.   One google result - http://blog.dssresearch.com/?p=229

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Its pretty obvious that the plant is warming.  Just look at shrinking glaciers and ice sheets in the arctic and antarctic and melting permafrost in Alaska and Greenland.  Not to mention warming and rising ocean levels.  Its not even a debate.

I always have to kind of laugh when people scoff at the idea of global warming when the weather has been cooler where they live.  Thats weather, not climate.  What makes it even worse is that its become a political issue, with sources like Fox News selling lies and pseudo science, claiming things like volcanic eruptions cause much more greenhouse gas pollution than man does.  Not true and, infact, downright stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are a better person than me on that.   I don't have faith in human race to do the right thing at the expense of short term profit, political ambition, etc..

The population growth issue is real and probably deserves its own thread.   One google result - http://blog.dssresearch.com/?p=229

Agree 100%.  Mankind is going to have a simple choice: grow up, wake up and take better care of our world or face the end of civilization as we know it and possible extinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are a better person than me on that.   I don't have faith in human race to do the right thing at the expense of short term profit, political ambition, etc..  The population growth issue is real and probably deserves its own thread.   One google result - [URL=http://blog.dssresearch.com/?p=229]http://blog.dssresearch.com/?p=229[/URL]

Maybe it does.. So, what do you suggest? Limit one child per family for example?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Its pretty obvious that the plant is warming.  Just look at shrinking glaciers and ice sheets in the arctic and antarctic and melting permafrost in Alaska and Greenland.  Not to mention warming and rising ocean levels.  Its not even a debate. I always have to kind of laugh when people scoff at the idea of global warming when the weather has been cooler where they live.  Thats weather, not climate.  What makes it even worse is that its become a political issue, with sources like Fox News selling lies and pseudo science, claiming things like volcanic eruptions cause much more greenhouse gas pollution than man does.  Not true and, infact, downright stupid.

Only about 10% of glaciers are recorded and while many are melting many are growing larger and colder. And sea levels are. rising at a very very small amount, nothing to ve concerned about. They have been rising for thousands of years since the last mini ice ageb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkim291968

You are a better person than me on that.   I don't have faith in human race to do the right thing at the expense of short term profit, political ambition, etc..

The population growth issue is real and probably deserves its own thread.   One google result - http://blog.dssresearch.com/?p=229

Maybe it does.. So, what do you suggest? Limit one child per family for example?

I have a lot of suggestions but they don't mean crap.  I.e, no need to share in the forum full of liberals and conservatives ;-) .    Speaking of child per family limit, China recently loosened up theirs so that couples can have more than one.

@ryan772 , where are you getting the above data?    Is it from legit source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

A big part of this gloom and doom is being used to set up a new tax category based on corporate and individual carbon footprints.  Obama hinted at this in his first term and the democrats are rallying behind the global warming cause so they can add a new tax to our already overtaxed society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

A big part of this gloom and doom is being used to set up a new tax category based on corporate and individual carbon footprints.  Obama hinted at this in his first term and the democrats are rallying behind the global warming cause so they can add a new tax to our already overtaxed society.

I think this touches on why so many of us are skeptical of the government-science nexus here. We are all for pure science and unbiased data/information.... but it sure seems like there's a chance for collusion, because lo and behold: the goals of the government align exactly with the climate alarmists.

For those of you in support of drastic action to save the planet, you'll need to prove convincingly that not only is the climate changing because of man, but that the severity on a fairly near-term future is catastrophic.  Many of us can see the change, can see a human component, but then the severity part seems vague.

But when the government steps on the gas pedal and pushes for immediate action now and tries to shut down debate, it all seems a bit rushed and unproven. Call me a cynic but it does not seem beyond the pale that politicians would abuse their power and use any excuse to do it (i.e., science).

So prove the catastrophic consequences are without question, and the world is likely with you. As it stands now, I don't think China or India is onboard for taking much action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

[QUOTE name="newtogolf" url="/t/83264/what-climate-wars-did-to-science/30_30#post_1170339"]   A big part of this gloom and doom is being used to set up a new tax category based on corporate and individual carbon footprints.  Obama hinted at this in his first term and the democrats are rallying behind the global warming cause so they can add a new tax to our already overtaxed society. [/QUOTE] I think this touches on why so many of us are skeptical of the government-science nexus here. We are all for pure science and unbiased data/information.... but it sure seems like there's a chance for collusion, because lo and behold: the goals of the government align exactly with the climate alarmists.  For those of you in support of drastic action to save the planet, you'll need to prove convincingly that not only is the climate changing because of man, but that the severity on a fairly near-term future is catastrophic.  Many of us can see the change, can see a human component, but then the severity part seems vague. But when the government steps on the gas pedal and pushes for immediate action now and tries to shut down debate, it all seems a bit rushed and unproven. Call me a cynic but it does not seem beyond the pale that politicians would abuse their power and use any excuse to do it (i.e., science). So prove the catastrophic consequences are without question, and the world is likely with you. As it stands now, I don't think China or India is onboard for taking much action.

I hadn't really looked at it from this perspective. Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I'm just a curious blue collar guy with a simple question. Anyone ever hear a recommendation on what the perfect climate should be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just a curious blue collar guy with a simple question. Anyone ever hear a recommendation on what the perfect climate should be?

I hear San Diego is quite nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandallT

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

A big part of this gloom and doom is being used to set up a new tax category based on corporate and individual carbon footprints.  Obama hinted at this in his first term and the democrats are rallying behind the global warming cause so they can add a new tax to our already overtaxed society.

I think this touches on why so many of us are skeptical of the government-science nexus here. We are all for pure science and unbiased data/information.... but it sure seems like there's a chance for collusion, because lo and behold: the goals of the government align exactly with the climate alarmists.

For those of you in support of drastic action to save the planet, you'll need to prove convincingly that not only is the climate changing because of man, but that the severity on a fairly near-term future is catastrophic.  Many of us can see the change, can see a human component, but then the severity part seems vague.

But when the government steps on the gas pedal and pushes for immediate action now and tries to shut down debate, it all seems a bit rushed and unproven. Call me a cynic but it does not seem beyond the pale that politicians would abuse their power and use any excuse to do it (i.e., science).

So prove the catastrophic consequences are without question, and the world is likely with you. As it stands now, I don't think China or India is onboard for taking much action.

I hadn't really looked at it from this perspective. Interesting.

Ridley made the same point in the OP link, but it was much more verbose :-P . It was also a tad more partisan-sounding. (I do like Ridley)

I also meant to say (but got "submit" happy) that I hear the argument a lot that since we are not sure if we are destroying the planet, we might as well do everything we can, right? Better safe than sorry and let's give the government the power to make sure we control emissions- no harm, no foul.

In my mind, that's backwards. If we are going to let the government get even more control over us, we better be sure it's for a good reason. You think we'll EVER pry that power back from the government? Not a chance. Just for a "maybe," we shouldn't be willing to give up precious freedoms, and allow the government to have even more regulatory power, impose higher taxes and intrude on more aspects of our lives- never to see those freedoms again, most likely.

Freedom is essential to the human spirit, and many of us will not go down that path lightly. If you think it's crazy to hold that view when facing annihilation of the planet, that's because we don't see the case proven that the planet will be annihilated any time soon. We believe that free people are more likely to solve this through ingenious solutions and inventions, because we have the inspiration and motivation to do that- not because the government is dictating things.

I'm just a curious blue collar guy with a simple question. Anyone ever hear a recommendation on what the perfect climate should be?

Whatever the EPA and NASA says it should be, of course!

I was reading a book on the Magna Carta a while ago, and they were discussing the culture at the beginning. When they discussed the agriculture, they casually mentioned that the temperatures in England then were substantially higher then than now, and they knew that because the crops that were grown during that period could not be grown there today. They mentioned that later in the 1200s, regional temps dropped, rain patterns changed, and huge storms and floods were frequent. By the 1300s, famine was rampant due to harsh winters and poor harvests. Cold weather sucks. Then of course, Black Death in the mid 1300s.  Just made me think that change is constant. Anecdotal of course, but temps have been known to go up and down on a scale of a century or two, on a scale that societies must adapt.

Earth does this crap, so it'll be tricky to know if we are in a some runaway condition until it's nearly too late. Sucks, I know. But at least I know the planet withstood higher temps around the time of Magna Carta and society seemed to be ok then. We must have some time left on the clock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

A big part of this gloom and doom is being used to set up a new tax category based on corporate and individual carbon footprints.  Obama hinted at this in his first term and the democrats are rallying behind the global warming cause so they can add a new tax to our already overtaxed society.

I think this touches on why so many of us are skeptical of the government-science nexus here. We are all for pure science and unbiased data/information.... but it sure seems like there's a chance for collusion, because lo and behold: the goals of the government align exactly with the climate alarmists.

For those of you in support of drastic action to save the planet, you'll need to prove convincingly that not only is the climate changing because of man, but that the severity on a fairly near-term future is catastrophic.  Many of us can see the change, can see a human component, but then the severity part seems vague.

But when the government steps on the gas pedal and pushes for immediate action now and tries to shut down debate, it all seems a bit rushed and unproven. Call me a cynic but it does not seem beyond the pale that politicians would abuse their power and use any excuse to do it (i.e., science).

So prove the catastrophic consequences are without question, and the world is likely with you. As it stands now, I don't think China or India is onboard for taking much action.

The key word in "global warming" is "global."   There is no way the world is going to come together on this.  Too many nations don't have the resource, don't care, or both. China is suffering from env. issues and they have resource to fix them.  I am a bit hopeful that they will do their part to improve their cities' air quality but not much beyond.  India?  I don't think so.  Russia?  Nyet! I don't think any impoverished countries in Africa, Asia, South America are gonna care about pollution much.    Alarmists are fighting a losing battle.  Global warming is here to stay and the world isn't going to do much about it in our life time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I think this touches on why so many of us are skeptical of the government-science nexus here. We are all for pure science and unbiased data/information.... but it sure seems like there's a chance for collusion, because lo and behold: the goals of the government align exactly with the climate alarmists.

For those of you in support of drastic action to save the planet, you'll need to prove convincingly that not only is the climate changing because of man, but that the severity on a fairly near-term future is catastrophic.  Many of us can see the change, can see a human component, but then the severity part seems vague.

But when the government steps on the gas pedal and pushes for immediate action now and tries to shut down debate, it all seems a bit rushed and unproven. Call me a cynic but it does not seem beyond the pale that politicians would abuse their power and use any excuse to do it (i.e., science).

So prove the catastrophic consequences are without question, and the world is likely with you. As it stands now, I don't think China or India is onboard for taking much action.

Sounds like you would enjoy living in Canada where there is a long standing issue of the Conservative government refusing to publish scientific studies that don't align with their "oil sand" policies. At least the USA is pushing to put money into energy alternatives whereas the Canadian government seems pretty happy to push the development of more oil.

India has a lot of thorium (usually it's a byproduct of mining) and I'm personally hoping that they develop some viable thorium reactors.

Anybody who uses the terms "Climate War" and "Climate Alarmists" makes me shake my head.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: This thread is 1112 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...