Jump to content
Kalbear

What shouldn't be done...about climate change

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

"Nature" isn't a thing in and of itself. It's a word we use to describe a lot of different phenomenon. What does it mean to say a human "takes" from nature? Is this taking different from when a leaf extracts energy from sunlight, or when a sloth eats a leaf?

I fully concede that many aspects of human behaviour, both present and past, are harmful to other organisms, often on a very large scale. But organisms causing harm to other organisms is itself natural. Organisms have caused harm to other organisms in the past on a scale that dwarfs what humans are currently doing. Organisms alter the environement in which they and others live all the time.

My point is not to defend human activity that causes harm by leading to climate change (among other things). I'm just pointing out we're a part of nature, not above it, not separate from it, not an aberration. Our existene does not "oppose the natural environment" by its fundamental nature. Actions cause harm, not the mere fact of existence. And if our actions cause harm, we can choose different actions.

In essence I agree - but would this not suggest there is a balance between the human species and 'nature' and. if there is, would that not suggest that 'nature' has taken the expansion of our species into some for, of account, if not a simplistic action/reaction scenario ? 

Let me spin you a tale - when I traveled Africa, I witnessed our truck stopping near a baby Impala. The mother ran off and an Hyena took the baby. Everyone on the truck then started arguing about how human effect nature. I called BS and said humans are part of nature - perhaps we we here just so that a Hyena pup could survive and nature knew that all along.

Point - to truly understand nature we must detract our own humanity from it. Nature does not care for us as a species, we are but slightly broken gears in a massive cog. Accept that the end of our species may be upon is and move forward from there. Do it without malice and humanism and 'its not fair' ism. It is what is it is. We are tiny cogs in a massive machine which is as beyond our control as it is our comprehension. I know the ethos of the modern age is to think we can understand and control - but that is all total BS - we cannot, it is all random.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ummester said:

 

Axial tilt is the wobble from the Earth's normal rotation about it's axis, it changes, due to gravitational and solar pressure - look it up https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Milankovitch/milankovitch_2.php it likely has more effect on climate than anything Western humans currently do.


I know what axial tilt is, I just want to know where you got the idea that it's dangerous or currently affecting the climate more than anything humans are doing.

 

3 hours ago, ummester said:

The collapse of the global economy will likely occur within 2 years. 

That is a very confident statement, so I'm sure you have lots and lots of very credible evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are people under the impression that the Milankovitch cycles or solar cycles aren't the first thing climatologists looked at when trying to figure out what was causing warming? They are the ones that discovered the effects these things can have on the climate after all. The Milankovitch cycles operate on a minimum scale of 10's of thousand of years. They are not the cause of the warming of the last century.

Especially because for at least axial tilt, we're in about the middle of the cycle, and decreasing tilt. And a decreasing axial tilt causes cooling, not warming.

Also what unmester described is axial precession not axial tilt. Axial tilt is the angle between an objects rotational and orbital axes. Not the wobble. I don't know what effect the precession has on climate off hand, but it's on like a ~20000 year cycle. So it can't be having a large one.

Edited by TrueMetis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Why are people under the impression that the Milankovitch cycles or solar cycles, aren't the first thing climatologists looked at when trying to figure out what was causing warming? They are the ones that discovered the effects these things can have on the climate after all. The Milankovitch cycles operate on a minimum scale of 10's of thousand of years. They are not the cause of the warming of the last century.

Especially because for at least axial tilt, we're in about the middle of the cycle, and decreasing tilt. And a decreasing axial tilt causes cooling, not warming.

Also what unmester described is axial precession not axial tilt. Axial tilt is the angle between an objects rotational and orbital axes. Not the wobble. I don't know what effect the precession has on climate off hand, but it's on like a ~20000 year cycle. So it can't be having a large one.

TM, you are using facts to argue against religion. I applaud the effort. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

That is a very confident statement, so I'm sure you have lots and lots of very credible evidence.

To be fair, there are a lot of serious analyses predicting a major economic crisis in the next couple of years or thereabouts. But there's a huge difference between another economic crisis, as bad as it may be, and a "collapse" of the global economy.

And even a worse-case scenario on the economic front is still somewhat less worrying than making the planet almost uninhabitable by the end of the century... I'm not even certain that a collapse of the global economy would be a bad thing for the environment...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

To be fair, there are a lot of serious analyses predicting a major economic crisis in the next couple of years or thereabouts. But there's a huge difference between another economic crisis, as bad as it may be, and a "collapse" of the global economy. 

And even a worse-case scenario on the economic front is still somewhat less worrying than making the planet almost uninhabitable by the end of the century... I'm not even certain that a collapse of the global economy would be a bad thing for the environment...

 


Yeah, exactly. A recession or what have you is bad news but the idea that something on a scale that would make climate change seem a minor thing is predictable and will happen in two years is ludicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2019 at 8:56 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It isn’t and never was. It is to disrupt the economy to get government to act.

Except the only thing it will get govt to act on is arresting them. If you lose a lot of average Joe public support then the govt is ONLY motivated to get average Joe on their side so they can win the next election.

trying to brow beat people into action simply doesn't work, and it's more likely to be counter-productive.

The way to get govts to act is to get masses of people on your side so that govts actually realise there are votes to be lost (or won) by doing the right thing.

XR is doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, and IMO that means they are more likely to slow down the pace of change rather than speed it up.

And it seems XR has realised this, at least with the tube protest.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, polishgenius said:

 


Yeah, exactly. A recession or what have you is bad news but the idea that something on a scale that would make climate change seem a minor thing is predictable and will happen in two years is ludicrous.

Except that it's reasonably predictable that worst case scenario climate change will cause such a collapse, just not in the next 2 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ummester said:

Prove it - scientifically - with facts and figures and not just fundamentalist humanist bullshit.

I guarantee, whatever you argue, I can find the math to back up how incorrect you are.

Why are you challenging people to prove something you are certain is wrong? Why not be generous with your knowledge and give us the maths so that we can all be educated?

I don't challenge flat Earthers to try to prove to me the Earth is flat when I know for a fact it's not. I offer them the facts that proves the earth is spherical-ish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pro fission watermelons don't exist afaict.  But nuclear is probably the only currently feasible way to give 8 billion plus people a good standard of living w o carbon emissions.  Socialists need things to get worse first which forecludes that I suppose.

Saw today that China has more coal emissions than the rest of the globe combined.  Mayhaps greta should go there next?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at temperature variance maps of the Arctic from the last few weeks with much of the region sitting at up to 32C above average temperatures for this time of year and its been super high for weeks. Not feeling optimistic at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mcbigski said:

Pro fission watermelons don't exist afaict.  But nuclear is probably the only currently feasible way to give 8 billion plus people a good standard of living w o carbon emissions.  Socialists need things to get worse first which forecludes that I suppose.

Saw today that China has more coal emissions than the rest of the globe combined.  Mayhaps greta should go there next?

China also has and is building more nuclear plants than anyone else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bunch of YouTube video creators got together and set up a donation site for planting trees. The actual trees will be planted by the Arbor Day Foundation in a variety of forests. Of course, not all of them will survive and their goal is off by at least 3 orders of magnitude from what it would take to make a noticeable impact, but it's still surprising how much money they've collected in less than half a day. Most Kickstarters and other crowdfunding campaigns which offer rewards don't start off this well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly suprised this hasn't already been posted.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-23/how-to-halt-global-warming-for-300-billion

Add another thing in the column of "shit we should be doing anyway, that will coincidentally help with climate change."

This comic just keeps getting more true.

Edited by TrueMetis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2019 at 5:05 AM, ummester said:

It is entirely true. Human's, by nature of their very existence, oppose the natural environment on this planet. Does not matter if you are a simple hunter gatherer of advanced Western consumer - you take from nature to survive.

This is literally the defining characteristics of all animals. Like, a hunter-gather isn't taking from nature anymore or less than a typical ape lol. 

On 10/24/2019 at 5:30 AM, ummester said:

Look, I don't mind the climate fundamentalists - 

So far you've made clear any person trying address to man-made climate falls In this category of ”climate-fundamentalists”.

Here's the Reality-the species is threatened by climate change. 

We should probably take hard steps to address it right now. 

Here is the Reality-the earth will not care if we die out as a result. It has existed for billions of years, and continue to exist billions of years after Homo-sapient-sapients die out. 

You continuously whining that people are trying to address the problem is not the mature approach. It's just a lazy, ego-centric attitude, and quite frankly gross approach. 

On 10/24/2019 at 5:30 AM, ummester said:

Here is the reality - Western nationalism is gathering to oppose corporate globalism at a time both the economy and planet is fucked.

Here's the reality - Nationalism is on the rise worldwide, and the amount of harm it’ll bring probably will be exacerbated greatly by virtue of tens of millions upon of people from Africa, parts of the middle east, Assia having to flee their homes to come to Europe and the US seeking sanctuary because living in their homes has become impossibl. Here's the reality-the hoard of people fleeing their homes will not be swayed by the totally sympathetic reasoning you’ve touted out which is their deaths may be a good thing for the planet and they should stick with the hand they've been dealt because live isn't fair. You could cry that they're being totes unreasonable, but they'll still fight like hell to migrate somewhere they think they have a chance of not dying and fight like hell to stay there.

On 10/24/2019 at 5:30 AM, ummester said:

Nationalism will lead to global war. Pick your poison. The future is about to get messy and those running around promoting the Paris Accord have no idea.

It's quite amusing to see you act like you’re the mature, realist, regarding this topic when you’re preaching the message of ”do nothing”  because of the  existence or really in this the potential existence of other problems. 

”I have to pay rent, so why worry about getting groceries?”

”I have hiv so why should I care about paying my rent?”

”I have cancer already so why should I try dealing with my Hiv?”

On 10/24/2019 at 4:55 AM, ummester said:

Prove it - scientifically - with facts and figures and not just fundamentalist humanist bullshit.

I guarantee, whatever you argue, I can find the math to back up how incorrect you are.

They are the one animal, among all others on this planet,that shapes its environment rather than existsin it.

This is simply wrong.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_species

I don't really care about what pseudo-philosophical argument  you think sounds insightful or deep, or whatever, you have  in your head for why you aren't wrong.  You're still Wrong here.

If our existence is the cause, then surely our depopulation will add to the solution?

This is fundamental misunderstanding of the problem.

Killing off the entirety of people of the US and Europe would do more to combat climate change than killing off the entirety of Africa. 

A grim, unsympathetic, statement, I know but no more horrid than your nonchalant proposal of depopulation-which effectively in this instance  means tens of millions, if not billions, to die out. 

And actually based in some degree of evidence. 

”Africa's fossil-fuel CO2 emissions are low in both absolute and per capita terms. Total emissions for Africa have increased twelve-fold since 1950 reaching 311 million metric tons of carbon in 2008, still less than the emissions for some single nations including Mainland China, the U.S., India, Russia, and Japan”

https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/emis/tre_afr.html

It is not a matter of just population. 16% of the entirety of humanity could die right this second-one of the groups of people who will likely suffer the most from climate change-and it wouldn't make a damn difference. 

So no, just loads of humanity dying off(or perhaps killed will not automatically add more to any solution. 

Certian societies need to change their structure, how their average citizen is allowed to live, must change, projects that will cost a lot of money will need to be funded. 

”whilst a lesser number of humans is better for it.”

No. It isn't. The earth doesn't care if one species that will be dead before the son blows up, dies out right this second. Climate-change is bad for humanity. That's it. There is no grand goal the earth is trying to reach being railroaded by humanity with climate-change.

You speak of humanity’s insignificance. Fine. Be consistent at least and understand humanity’s presence means nothing to earth. It was not a good or bad thing for the earth when 80% of life was wiped out by the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. 

 Responding to the bolded: I'm getting you don't actually know what humanism is given the entire Philosophy empathize's people relying on rationalism, and empiricism to go about their life in contrast  to relying on superstitious none-sense, or take the idea that that posits humans are special just because some divinity(which will/can never be proven) supposedly said so(the weakest and quite frankly idiotic argument for human exceptionalism given it's reliance wishful thinking). Honestly, the ”Humans are special because of some divine entity, and we should only look to our holy books(using a literalist approach) to try solve issues for our problems” is a type of thinking humanists have tried to push back against is a bigger contributor to the problem of climate-change. 

23 hours ago, maarsen said:

China also has and is building more nuclear plants than anyone else. 

That really doesn't matter. People who say ”What about China” in response to criticism to how their society/community/country is contributing to climate-change don't actually care what China does or doesn't do.  It's mere deflection-meant only to avoid any discussion of them having to do something. 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2019 at 9:26 AM, TrueMetis said:

Why are people under the impression that the Milankovitch cycles or solar cycles aren't the first thing climatologists looked at when trying to figure out what was causing warming? They are the ones that discovered the effects these things can have on the climate after all. The Milankovitch cycles operate on a minimum scale of 10's of thousand of years. They are not the cause of the warming of the last century.

Especially because for at least axial tilt, we're in about the middle of the cycle, and decreasing tilt. And a decreasing axial tilt causes cooling, not warming.

Also what unmester described is axial precession not axial tilt. Axial tilt is the angle between an objects rotational and orbital axes. Not the wobble. I don't know what effect the precession has on climate off hand, but it's on like a ~20000 year cycle. So it can't be having a large one.

Because it allows them(really deniers) an easy out. It's just nature-so its not ”our” Fault, and not something that could be changed anyway. It's complete hogwash, of course. But that doesn't matter. It feels good to them 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds kind of not great.

 

 

Quote

 

The senior US government officials who wrote the report are from several key agencies including the Army, Defense Intelligence Agency, and NASA. The study called on the Pentagon to urgently prepare for the possibility that domestic power, water, and food systems might collapse due to the impacts of climate change as we near mid-century.

 

The report was commissioned by General Mark Milley, Trump's new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, making him the highest-ranking military officer in the country (the report also puts him at odds with Trump, who does not take climate change seriously.)

The report, titled Implications of Climate Change for the U.S. Army, was launched by the U.S. Army War College in partnership with NASA in May at the Wilson Center in Washington DC. The report was commissioned by Gen. Milley during his previous role as the Army’s Chief of Staff. It was made publicly available in August via the Center for Climate and Security, but didn't get a lot of attention at the time.

The two most prominent scenarios in the report focus on the risk of a collapse of the power grid within “the next 20 years,” and the danger of disease epidemics. Both could be triggered by climate change in the near-term, it notes.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Triskele said:

doesn't the monkey dwell in a state that is currently experiencing major power outages and being incinerated right down to the bedrock partially as result of climate change?

Edited by ThinkerX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

doesn't the monkey dwell in a state that is currently experiencing major power outages and being incinerated right down to the bedrock partially as result of climate change?

Indeed.  Scary times.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×