wyly Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) Pliny posted in the way, there. Is that a reply to my post two back? yours Edited December 3, 2012 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 yours You misread it. Or you're being obtuse, one or the other. The point is not per capita emissions, it's per species emissions. The original post on this thread linked to an article that said "Policy actions that aim to reduce CO2 emissions are unlikely to influence future climate. Policies need to focus on preparation for, and adaptation to, all dangerous climatic events, however caused" Given the Slate article, do you really think that we are going to reduce emissions to such a point that we will affect the climate? If so, then attitudes like yours, rigid as they are, might well condemn millions to death or ruination while we tilt at the CO2 windmill (pun not intended) instead of preparing for the worst. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 If the UN is suspect, then every government is suspect. One certainly has to keep a vigilant watch on any attempts to centralize power by governments at the national level whether to themselves or in the case of the UN relinquishing its sovereignty to that global body. Ok, well it sounds like conspiracy to me. Bogeymen abound. I don't think there's a basis for discussion about government-led solutions with somebody who doesn't believe in government. There is a basis of discussion for solutions to the challenges we face as nations and as a global community from more than the government viewpoint. Big Government has a tendency to introduce its own unnecessary third party interests besides pointing to the obvious fact that it is inefficient and too often ineffective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 You misread it. Or you're being obtuse, one or the other. The point is not per capita emissions, it's per species emissions. The original post on this thread linked to an article that said "Policy actions that aim to reduce CO2 emissions are unlikely to influence future climate. Policies need to focus on preparation for, and adaptation to, all dangerous climatic events, however caused" first, the letter's conclusions based on the interpretation of data that are either deliberately deceiving or amateurish, any conclusion they may come up with should be regarded in the same...adaptation is a fantasy, the environment will not adapt it will collapse and societies along with it...the environment can only tolerate a limited change, even a minimal increase of two degrees puts enormous stress on it... Given the Slate article, do you really think that we are going to reduce emissions to such a point that we will affect the climate? If so, then attitudes like yours, rigid as they are, might well condemn millions to death or ruination while we tilt at the CO2 windmill (pun not intended) instead of preparing for the worst. ruination? wow that's really important when death is the other option....following your rigid attitude to adaptation it's you who are condemning many more millions maybe billions to to death....do you think we can build portable air con units and strap them to the polar bears, give each fish in the ocean it's own private aquarium, the environment cannot adapt to rapid change, we cannot adapt without the environment that sustains us...are you being deliberately obtuse in not seeing the entire picture? do I think we can affect the climate? yes we changed it to what it is we can change back too...not reducing emissions is not a option, adaptation will fail because it's impossible... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 adaptation is a fantasy, the environment will not adapt it will collapse and societies along with it...the environment can only tolerate a limited change, even a minimal increase of two degrees puts enormous stress on it... Do you have anything to back this up? Are you saying global warming will be on the level of the great extinction 250 million years ago? I've never heard anything like this. I'm guessing you are catastrophizing, which undercuts your argument. The environment will change. Change may be too fast for us to adapt to without disruption to our society. I doubt it will even lead to the extinction of homo sapiens tho. Just might knock us back a bit, which is going to happen, global warming or no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 first, the letter's conclusions based on the interpretation of data that are either deliberately deceiving or amateurish, any conclusion they may come up with should be regarded in the same... adaptation is a fantasy, the environment will not adapt it will collapse and societies along with it...the environment can only tolerate a limited change, even a minimal increase of two degrees puts enormous stress on it... ruination? wow that's really important when death is the other option... .following your rigid attitude to adaptation it's you who are condemning many more millions maybe billions to to death....do you think we can build portable air con units and strap them to the polar bears, give each fish in the ocean it's own private aquarium, the environment cannot adapt to rapid change, we cannot adapt without the environment that sustains us...are you being deliberately obtuse in not seeing the entire picture? do I think we can affect the climate? yes we changed it to what it is we can change back too...not reducing emissions is not a option, adaptation will fail because it's impossible... People who are dead, are dead. People who have lost their homes and way of life are ruined. It's not that hard. Fantasy is the idea that we can affect the climate with the measures we propose while allowing the population to climb to 15 billion before it levels out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 Do you have anything to back this up? Are you saying global warming will be on the level of the great extinction 250 million years ago? I've never heard anything like this. I'm guessing you are catastrophizing, which undercuts your argument. The environment will change. Change may be too fast for us to adapt to without disruption to our society. I doubt it will even lead to the extinction of homo sapiens tho. Just might knock us back a bit, which is going to happen, global warming or no. you'll need to think about as a domino effect, but not a single line of domino's but an expanding pattern, knock one down which takes down two, then four....the smallest changes have repercussions that you wouldn't think possible...eliminate bees and 30% of our food supply is in jeopardy, bee populations are falling nearly everywhere,..a slight rise in ocean temp and the coral reefs die, a huge source of protein...a slight rise in temp and our northern forests are under stress by insect attack...a slight rise in temp and southern forests can die, they can't pick up and migrate...a slight rise in temps and crops fail due to heat stress or drought, move the farms north you say? there is no topsoil in the north...a slight rise in temp and deserts expand....a 2 degree rise is bad, 3-4 degrees is very very bad there will be a mass extinction, the last ice age was only 5 degrees colder than today a few degrees is critical for a healthy ecosystem...one of the problems here is people who are now starting to accept that man can change the atmosphere and cause CC still have no idea what those changes can do... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) People who are dead, are dead. People who have lost their homes and way of life are ruined. It's not that hard. Fantasy is the idea that we can affect the climate with the measures we propose while allowing the population to climb to 15 billion before it levels out. not changing isn't an option...it's your "can't" attitude that is the problem... Edited December 3, 2012 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 Fantasy is the idea that we can affect the climate with the measures we propose while allowing the population to climb to 15 billion before it levels out. Personally I think we've already exceeded our carrying capacity for humans. That doesn't mean the species ill disappear in the great die back. Unless we choose to go the nuclear war route - that would do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 you'll need to think about as a domino effect, but not a single line of domino's but an expanding pattern, knock one down which takes down two, then four....the smallest changes have repercussions that you wouldn't think possible...eliminate bees and 30% of our food supply is in jeopardy, bee populations are falling nearly everywhere,..a slight rise in ocean temp and the coral reefs die, a huge source of protein...a slight rise in temp and our northern forests are under stress by insect attack...a slight rise in temp and southern forests can die, they can't pick up and migrate...a slight rise in temps and crops fail due to heat stress or drought, move the farms north you say? there is no topsoil in the north...a slight rise in temp and deserts expand....a 2 degree rise is bad, 3-4 degrees is very very bad there will be a mass extinction, the last ice age was only 5 degrees colder than today a few degrees is critical for a healthy ecosystem...one of the problems here is people who are now starting to accept that man can change the atmosphere and cause CC still have no idea what those changes can do... The great extinction that killed 95% of all species had temps that were at 100 degrees F average. It was truly a greenhouse effect gone wild. And of course our ancestors were one of the survivors. We're not facing anything on that scale. We'll have dramatic disruptions to the environment. Many people will die, but neither the earth's ecosystem nor humans will be wiped out. The last ice age didn't kill humans or the ecosystem either. You are overplaying the danger, which allows the non-believers to dismiss your claims and by extension the dangers of global warming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 Personally I think we've already exceeded our carrying capacity for humans. That doesn't mean the species ill disappear in the great die back. Unless we choose to go the nuclear war route - that would do it. agreed, I don't know the ideal number but I've read estimates that put the optimal number at 1 billion...you overestimate our ability to survive, the planet has a very delicate temperature balance for us to survive in and we survive only as long as other species do, we are not independent of the environment... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) you'll need to think about as a domino effect, but not a single line of domino's but an expanding pattern, knock one down which takes down two, then four....the smallest changes have repercussions that you wouldn't think possible...eliminate bees and 30% of our food supply is in jeopardy, bee populations are falling nearly everywhere,..a slight rise in ocean temp and the coral reefs die, a huge source of protein...a slight rise in temp and our northern forests are under stress by insect attack...a slight rise in temp and southern forests can die, they can't pick up and migrate...a slight rise in temps and crops fail due to heat stress or drought, move the farms north you say? there is no topsoil in the north...a slight rise in temp and deserts expand....a 2 degree rise is bad, 3-4 degrees is very very bad there will be a mass extinction, the last ice age was only 5 degrees colder than today a few degrees is critical for a healthy ecosystem...one of the problems here is people who are now starting to accept that man can change the atmosphere and cause CC still have no idea what those changes can do... Everything you said there is true. The problem is that we have done that in almost 200 years while increasing our population from <1 billion to 7 billion, with a projected increase to 15 billion before it peaks. You say we have to change. Can you give me some idea of the changes that you think fulfil both of these requirements? a) Likely to actually help b )Likely to actually happen Edited December 3, 2012 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 Everything you said there is true. The problem is that we have done that in almost 200 years while increasing our population from <1 billion to 7 billion, with a projected increase to 15 billion before it peaks. You say we have to change. Can you give me some idea of the changes that you think fulfil both of these requirements? a) Likely to actually help b )Likely to actually happen a-we have to control emissions, that's an absolute...green energy and energy reduction....there are no other optionsb-not happening just isn't an option, it has to happen or there will be a global catastrophe... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 The great extinction that killed 95% of all species had temps that were at 100 degrees F average. It was truly a greenhouse effect gone wild. And of course our ancestors were one of the survivors. We're not facing anything on that scale. We'll have dramatic disruptions to the environment. Many people will die, but neither the earth's ecosystem nor humans will be wiped out. The last ice age didn't kill humans or the ecosystem either. You are overplaying the danger, which allows the non-believers to dismiss your claims and by extension the dangers of global warming. so anything less than a 95% extinction is okay? how about 50% is that okay? how do you think we'll do in that environment?the last ice age was significant to our ancestors, numbers were very low and isolated...70,000yrs ago another geological event nearly wiped out humanity with a rapid short drop in temp...so you think doing nothing to prevent cc is acceptable because a a few thousand humans would probably survive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) a-we have to control emissions, that's an absolute...green energy and energy reduction....there are no other options b-not happening just isn't an option, it has to happen or there will be a global catastrophe... Controlling emissions won't do it. Every new body needs to be kept warm, and fed, clothed and housed. We can't, and by that I also mean won't, control emissions enough to slow, stop or reverse the effect that increased levels of CO2 has had on our climate. I agree there is going to be global catastrophe. Can't be stopped. Can only be adapted to, in my opinion. Nothing in what I say is meant to imply that we should not reduce pollution and protect the environment. It's actually what I do for a living. It's just a separate issue. How would you feel about compulsory sterilization of everyone, combined with a massive switch, worldwide, to nuclear power? Edited December 3, 2012 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleipnir Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 You may feel that climate change is something that you are concerned about - but that is an opinion - it is not an unarguable fact. Yes it is an arguable fact that has overwhelmingly strong support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 Controlling emissions won't do it. Every new body needs to be kept warm, and fed, clothed and housed. We can't, and by that I also mean won't, control emissions enough to slow, stop or reverse the effect that increased levels of CO2 has had on our climate. I agree there is going to be global catastrophe. Can't be stopped. Can only be adapted to, in my opinion. Nothing in what I say is meant to imply that we should not reduce pollution and protect the environment. It's actually what I do for a living. It's just a separate issue. if we don't control emissions then we lose the battle, I don't believe it can't be done the political needs to be there, or priorities need to change and we need to hold governments accountable as it is now we have an anti-science government that puts short term profit ahead of long term survival... everything that I know about the environment and history tells me we cannot adapt... when I hear people say that it tells me we've given up, we've lost... How would you feel about compulsory sterilization of everyone, combine with a massive switch, worldwide, to nuclear power? we don't need sterilization, education reduces birth rates very effectively, western populations grow only because of immigration...nuclear isn't needed, money is better spent on green technology and energy conservation...and the cost be damned the cost of not doing it will be much much greater... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 Yes it is an arguable fact that has overwhelmingly strong support. and for some it's still only an opinion that the world is round... tim is still pondering that as well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted December 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) what still no one refutes my points wyly you don't know "how" to make clear points. Your kid logic and childish mockery usually don't extend much further than linking us crap and then ranting about nothing. Linking a ~600 page IPCC report and then claiming, "Aha! I win the argument!" is a perfect example of how sad your debate skills really are. Common sense would dictate that if you wanted us to believe you read the report (we know you didn't) you'd at least pull specific statements out of the report and quote them. You failed to do this, which is funny but unsurprising. moonbox claims " The IPCC disputes the assertion that we're causing extreme weather".- oops http://www.ipcc-wg2....X-All_FINAL.pdf ? I reference the IPCC's SREX report from March which indicated: "There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change," writes the IPCC in its new Special Report on Extremes (SREX) published today." "The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados," the authors conclude, adding for good measure that "absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses"." http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/ Which goes directly back to the "open letter" that very openly exposes the UN Secretary General's bogus claims and what can be considered ignorance/incompetence and/or an obvious political agenda. Even IPCC authors try to distance themselves from people saying these sorts of thing. a simple graph, grade school stuff and no one here wants to step up and show me where I'm wrong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png these 125+ charlatans trying to claim long term trends by deliberately using short term data , but a simple extension of the data shows a clear increase of temp.... and again we have a "here's a graph - this proves it" sort of argument. Sure, your graph shows several decades of warming. Show us the previous 30 years before that, however, and you'd see the opposite happening, suggesting that there's a strong cyclical influence as well. Your hypocrisy is pretty funny, considering you've been calling people out here on cherry-picking the data sets, when you did the exact same thing. Edited December 3, 2012 by Moonbox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 I find it funny that in 1880, thermometers were accurate to +/- 1.5 degrees. Now they are accurate to +/-0.05 degrees.. When taking this into account... the lines really dont look as "steep".... Al Gore would not like you to understand that however... apparently we ALWAYS had accurate methods of measuring temperatures!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) if we don't control emissions then we lose the battle, I don't believe it can't be done the political needs to be there, or priorities need to change and we need to hold governments accountable as it is now we have an anti-science government that puts short term profit ahead of long term survival... everything that I know about the environment and history tells me we cannot adapt... when I hear people say that it tells me we've given up, we've lost... we don't need sterilization, education reduces birth rates very effectively, western populations grow only because of immigration... nuclear isn't needed, money is better spent on green technology and energy conservation...and the cost be damned the cost of not doing it will be much much greater... The Earth's population is predicted to peak at 15 billion. I think that's by 2100, but I don't know that for sure. The rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere can be slowed by green technology and energy conservation, but that effect will be offset to some degree by the increase in population. And that's just the slowing of the rate of increase. Not the actual concentration. Edited December 3, 2012 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 And a petition to the UN by 125 + Scientists from the scientific community means case closed, no debate, nothing? Be objective and the attempt to quash debate becomes obvious. You do believe there are too many people on the planet, don't you? Isn't that the big problem in your view? Scientists don't post their findings in petitions to the UN. You also don't go to plumber to frame your house, even though they both work on houses. You figure it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 The Earth's population is predicted to peak at 15 billion. I think that's by 2100, but I don't know that for sure. The rate of CO2 increase in the atmposphere can be slowed by green technology and energy conservation, but that effect will be offset to some degree by the increase in population. And that's just the slowing of the rate of increase. Not the actual concentration. So then we don't have to do anything about it because it will be offset by the population increase? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 so anything less than a 95% extinction is okay? how about 50% is that okay? how do you think we'll do in that environment? the last ice age was significant to our ancestors, numbers were very low and isolated...70,000yrs ago another geological event nearly wiped out humanity with a rapid short drop in temp...so you think doing nothing to prevent cc is acceptable because a a few thousand humans would probably survive? I don't think a 4 degree increase (which is on the high end) will cause extinction of 50% of the species. I wish you would link to some reliable sources for what you are talking about here, it sounds way overblown to me. I'm not blase about it, but I'm with bcsapper that it seems inevitable. We already have too many people on the planet, all of whom want to live as we do in the West. Even if not another child was born after today, greenhouse gases would continue to rise for some time. I think more like a billion or two humans will survive - maybe more since this isn't an overnight event. We will adapt. We might lose enough crop productivity that some people will starve, and some will die of disease or natural disasters. But many will also keep on living. The biggest danger to the planet is if we have a full nuclear war for the shrinking resource base. As I said, I'm not blase about people dying, I'm just not hopeful in humanity's ability to avert this either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) yes moon is back pretending to understand the science...here's the temp graph he claims I cherry picked the data didn't post back on page 2 "several decades of warming" http://globalwarming...-warming-trend/ not enough I'm cherry picking am I? here's the temps over the last 200yrs http://scitechstory....sy-is-ended…/ you have to wonder about people's thought processes when they still stand by their discredited sources when it obvious even to them they're wrong... the "open letter to the UN"-charlatans and frauds basic grade school science, graphing and logic and some people just don't get it... Edited December 3, 2012 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.