Jump to content

Do You Believe in Man-Made Climate Change?


Guest ProudConservative

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Cannucklehead said:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

Of course deniers won't believe it until it's too late.  It wouldn't matter if we have a culling, the lifestyle we've become accustomed to is toxic.  

So far there has been no culling. Our warmer climate has seen the greatest increase in human population ever. Is the current warming of the planet a disaster, no it is not. The real climate disasters are

  • Ordovician-silurian Extinction: 440 million years ago.
  • Devonian Extinction: 365 million years ago.
  • Permian-triassic Extinction: 250 million years ago.
  • Triassic-jurassic Extinction: 210 million years ago.
  • Cretaceous-tertiary Extinction: 65 Million Years Ago.
These resulted in nuclear winters, the teal climate disasters.
 
We are actually in a very good climate right now. I live in south west B.C. and shoveled a lot of snow growing up, now not so much. Would the world be a better place with less carbon in the atmosphere and if the seas were less acidic? Probably. Of course our best and brightest are working on solutions. Work is being done on a pipeline across the Sahara Desert, bringing water for agriculture and  the planting of millions of trees.  Technology is being developed to capture carbon from smoke stacks, and from the air. One promising area is the machines that optimize algae production.  The algae can then be used to make bio fuels that replace fossil fuels, and plastics that can be stored in building products, furniture, automobile products, appliances and maybe even products to pave our streets.  There are plans to farm seaweed in the oceans shallow waters, taking carbon out, putting oxygen in, and balancing ph levels, and increasing marine populations. our best and brightest are working on solutions, and the Chicken Littles are running around crying "the sky is falling".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, oops said:

So far there has been no culling. Our warmer climate has seen the greatest increase in human population ever. Is the current warming of the planet a disaster, no it is not. The real climate disasters are

  • Ordovician-silurian Extinction: 440 million years ago.
  • Devonian Extinction: 365 million years ago.
  • Permian-triassic Extinction: 250 million years ago.
  • Triassic-jurassic Extinction: 210 million years ago.
  • Cretaceous-tertiary Extinction: 65 Million Years Ago.
These resulted in nuclear winters, the teal climate disasters.
 
We are actually in a very good climate right now. I live in south west B.C. and shoveled a lot of snow growing up, now not so much. Would the world be a better place with less carbon in the atmosphere and if the seas were less acidic? Probably. Of course our best and brightest are working on solutions. Work is being done on a pipeline across the Sahara Desert, bringing water for agriculture and  the planting of millions of trees.  Technology is being developed to capture carbon from smoke stacks, and from the air. One promising area is the machines that optimize algae production.  The algae can then be used to make bio fuels that replace fossil fuels, and plastics that can be stored in building products, furniture, automobile products, appliances and maybe even products to pave our streets.  There are plans to farm seaweed in the oceans shallow waters, taking carbon out, putting oxygen in, and balancing ph levels, and increasing marine populations. our best and brightest are working on solutions, and the Chicken Littles are running around crying "the sky is falling".

I think the one that was 250 million years ago was the worst.  But I could be wrong.

Like you, I lived in South West B.C. for many years.  Unlike you, I understand there are other areas.

There's a lot of "work is being done", "technology is being developed", and "there are plans to", in there.  I even saw a "One promising area is".

I'm sure our best and brightest, (those not working on weapons systems, cyber security or infectious disease mitigation) are working very hard indeed.  They have been for a while now, I think.  It hasn't helped much, as far as I can see.

I suppose the opposite of "the sky is falling" is "everything is just fine". 

The reality falls somewhere in between.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I think the one that was 250 million years ago was the worst.  But I could be wrong.

I think that the worst one is the next one.  

 

58 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I'm sure our best and brightest, (those not working on weapons systems, cyber security or infectious disease mitigation) are working very hard indeed.  They have been for a while now, I think.  It hasn't helped much, as far as I can see.

Of course we have been working on a solution only since there has been a consensus that there is a problem. We have been creating a problem longer that working at solving it. If you think that we are not making progress, I have to disagree. In the mean time. If you are looking for a perfect world you will be disappointed, if you believe that we the grizzly demise or the human race is imminent. I don't see that either, I think that the reality falls somewhere in between.  I have faith in the people who are working on making on making the world a better place, and don't have much time for the doomsayers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Denier" is a hysterical, slur of nonsense. It's like all these new Warmiac labels. It doesn't specify what it's defining. Denying what specifically? 

Consensus on what specifically? Somebody said "problems." What problems and what specific evidence do you have on what specific problems. I've seen good arguments on what the politically driven web designers at NASA are calling evidence above. I'll give you an example. The graph they lead with doesn't tell you a lot of things. For example it forgets to tell you the earth is a lot older than 800,000 years.

65_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev.jpg

The graph also forgets to tell you the earth was going through a period of Carbon dioxide deprivation during the period of that graph. Levels have been as much 4 to 5 times high as recent as the era of the dinosaurs.

CO2 is necessary for the existence of life on earth. If you fall below 180 you start to head towards an extinction event never seen before. You'll notice the earth was briefly heading there according to NASA's graph. The pic is meant to scare you but maybe you're being scared for the wrong reasons. There's nothing scary about the 440 ppm they're requiring you to freak out about.

And speaking of warped terms with adaptable definitions depending who you're trying to scare. What precisely is meant by the term "Climate Change" anyway. It isn't just that climate changes. That's the big lie.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But let's say NASA's estimates on their web page mean something. Let's say there are risks.

Earlier we were discussing Adaptation versus Mitigation. A new one came out on that.

Press release: adaptation much more profitable than mitigation

Quote

The world should focus much more on climate adaptation and much less on mitigation. This is the conclusion of the global Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL) following the international climate summit that took place in the Netherlands over the past two days. Adaptation has already amply proven its value, while mitigation turns out to be inefficient and expensive. A ‘green recovery’ (Build Back Better) from the corona crisis with a strong emphasis on mitigation – which was constantly advocated during the climate summit – is therefore a misleading message.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, cliimate changes. Yes, man can have some effect on that.

CO2 almost doubled. The scientific method tells us temperature can rise about a degree in a closed system from that.

Temperatures rose about a degree from the 50s. Tell me why you think that's a problem we can't adapt to.

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Yes, cliimate changes. Yes, man can have some effect on that.

CO2 almost doubled. The scientific method tells us temperature can rise about a degree in a closed system from that.

Temperatures rose about a degree from the 50s. Tell me why you think that's a problem we can't adapt to.

If we keep going how long before its two degrees?  Three?  

https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/14/18265833/new-york-city-climate-change-sea-level-rise-bill-de-blasio-development

 

Sure, most people can learn to swim if they haven't already.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

If we keep going how long before its two degrees?  Three?  

That's a question there's no real hard science answer for using the scientific method.

There are estimates (guesses.)

This one from Scafetta et al., 2017 shows how estimates (guesses) have been declining.

Scafetta_ECS.jpg

Or wait...did you mean if CO2 continues rising at the current rate that appeared to cause a 1 degree per doubling?

You'd have to consider the complexities discussed here:

An estimate of Climate Sensitivity

He comes to the conclusion:

Quote

This simple maths and the fact that the warming effect of CO2 is close to being saturated shows that any level future of atmospheric CO2 increased by Man-kind’s burning of fossil fuels can never cause Catastrophic Global Warming.

Nevertheless if the Socialist mayor of New York wants to build dykes like your link says it wouldn't bother me, personally. He's proposed stupider wastes of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, oops said:

I think that the worst one is the next one.  

 

Of course we have been working on a solution only since there has been a consensus that there is a problem. We have been creating a problem longer that working at solving it. If you think that we are not making progress, I have to disagree. In the mean time. If you are looking for a perfect world you will be disappointed, if you believe that we the grizzly demise or the human race is imminent. I don't see that either, I think that the reality falls somewhere in between.  I have faith in the people who are working on making on making the world a better place, and don't have much time for the doomsayers.

It's not that we are not making progress.  It's that we are not making enough progress.  We say that stopping using coal is paramount, but then we give China until 2030 to stop.  They are building new coal fired power plants as we speak.  So are a few other countries to whom we gave a break in Paris.  Or at least, they are getting the Chinese to build them for them.  Even countries that purport to take the whole thing seriously appear not to.  Alberta just okayed a new coal mine.  BC continues to operate the biggest coal exporting facility in North America.  Joe Biden makes noises that upset people because he just took over and he has to, but banning fracking on public lands is not banning fracking.  Killing the Keystone pipeline will not do a damned thing except give him good optics in the eyes of people whose votes for him were never in doubt anyway.

Then there are those who would have us believe they really, really take it seriously!!  Except when we want to use carbon capture or nuclear power to help.  Then not so much, after all.

Then there's the rest of the stuff that may or may not be related to AGW, but is a problem.  Methane hydrates release. Plastic pollution.  Fish stock depletion.  Soil nutrient depletion and outright desertification. 

You mentioned some stuff that is happening on the plus side, that is very encouraging, but not nearly enough, and not nearly in time.  You have faith they are making the world a better place.  Perhaps for a few.  Eventually.  The opposite of that is not the grizzly demise of the human race, rather, an inexorable slide into further misery for most of them.  And war.  Eventually.  If people can fight for oil, they can fight for water.

If you regard all that as doomsaying, that's your prerogative.  I just see it as inevitable.

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Even countries that purport to take the whole thing seriously appear not to. 

Of course if you expect the governments to solve this problem you will be disappointed. The problem will be solved when it becomes profitable to do so. Carbon credits are one way that the government can actually help. It could  make algae carbon  capture profitable. The technology is improving, products are being produced, and carbon credits could make it viable.

It will probably dawn on someone that fresh water pipelines could turn the Australian outback  into productive farmland and make many people a lot of money.  The same could be true of large parts of the U.S. southwest. Farming seaweed, and turning it into fertilizer could help the oceans, and improve our agricultural soil. Is it commercially viable? With carbon credits it might be. In the mean time if the globe warms by a degree or two, the human race will probably survive that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, oops said:

Of course if you expect the governments to solve this problem you will be disappointed. The problem will be solved when it becomes profitable to do so. Carbon credits are one way that the government can actually help. It could  make algae carbon  capture profitable. The technology is improving, products are being produced, and carbon credits could make it viable.

It will probably dawn on someone that fresh water pipelines could turn the Australian outback  into productive farmland and make many people a lot of money.  The same could be true of large parts of the U.S. southwest. Farming seaweed, and turning it into fertilizer could help the oceans, and improve our agricultural soil. Is it commercially viable? With carbon credits it might be. In the mean time if the globe warms by a degree or two, the human race will probably survive that.

I didn't expect governments to solve this problem.  In fact, I have been quite vocal making the point I expected them not to have a clue.

I'm sure the human race will survive. It would survive an even warmer climate.  Like I said, it's not one or the other.  It's just going to get nastier for a lot of people for whom it's already pretty bad and they are going to want to move.  All the other points I brought up, plus more, I'm sure, will continue to get worse, not better.  Even if we started mass producing cold fusion reactors today, the lag in the system means the effects will continue to get worse for ten to twenty years, before stabilizing.  Reversing would take a lot longer.

Your right about the profit motive, of course.  The problem is, right now, it's more profitable to keep producing hydrocarbons. People keep using them. 

And they keep reproducing.  Depending on which models one believes (models? pfft!) we could add another 2 or 3 billion before we realize we can't feed them all.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

And they keep reproducing.  Depending on which models one believes (models? pfft!) we could add another 2 or 3 billion before we realize we can't feed them all.

Rapid population growth is  a result of the last hundred yeas being the most favorable century climate wise in the last 125,000 years. We will be within a couple of degrees of that for a long time to come. That is a long ways from bring a disaster, and is in fact very favorable place to be. If we had a thermostat, we might like to turn it back one or two degrees, and there are people working on that. You don't see enough progress, but I see momentum, and we are picking up speed. Despair if you like, I see a bright future. Of course I am  wrong a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, oops said:

Rapid population growth is  a result of the last hundred yeas being the most favorable century climate wise in the last 125,000 years. We will be within a couple of degrees of that for a long time to come. That is a long ways from bring a disaster, and is in fact very favorable place to be. If we had a thermostat, we might like to turn it back one or two degrees, and there are people working on that. You don't see enough progress, but I see momentum, and we are picking up speed. Despair if you like, I see a bright future. Of course I am  wrong a lot.

Me too, but of the two of us, I think you are more wrong at the moment.  Rapid population growth is a result of improved medical technology, advances in agriculture and overly zealous religious nutjobs.  I'm sure climate played its part though.

That said, your future might be bright.  Mine doesn't look that bad at all.  It's the others I worry about.

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Me too, but of the two of us, I think you are more wrong at the moment.  Rapid population growth is a result of improved medical technology, advances in agriculture and overly zealous religious nutjobs.  I'm sure climate played its part though.

That said, your future might be bright.  Mine doesn't look that bad at all.  It's the others I worry about.

Sadly we have become a nation that no longer has hope for the future, but looks to it with despair. We are no longer nation builders, but are shutting our economies down.  We don't have a plan for making our world better, because we are convinced by  others that all we are doing is destructive and wrong. It is time that we had a vision of where we want to get to, and start moving in that direction. Not all nutjobs are religious, many of them are running around crying "the sky is falling" and trying to interfere with those that are working to make things better. It is time to stop being so negative, diminishing our world and making it smaller, and start making it bigger, better place. It is time that living life became more important than hiding from it, time to value hope over fear, time to work for what we want instead of hiding from what we don't want. You may think that this is wrong, and there are many that would agree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Rapid population growth is a result of improved medical technology, advances in agriculture and overly zealous religious nutjobs.  I'm sure climate played its part though.

Improved medical technology and advances in agriculture are of course the result of 14,000 years of global warming. This is why you are sitting in a warm home, with a fridge full of food in front of our computer, instead of chasing some game animal through the snow, hoping you don't freeze or starve before the days get long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, oops said:

Sadly we have become a nation that no longer has hope for the future, but looks to it with despair. We are no longer nation builders, but are shutting our economies down.  We don't have a plan for making our world better, because we are convinced by  others that all we are doing is destructive and wrong. It is time that we had a vision of where we want to get to, and start moving in that direction. Not all nutjobs are religious, many of them are running around crying "the sky is falling" and trying to interfere with those that are working to make things better. It is time to stop being so negative, diminishing our world and making it smaller, and start making it bigger, better place. It is time that living life became more important than hiding from it, time to value hope over fear, time to work for what we want instead of hiding from what we don't want. You may think that this is wrong, and there are many that would agree with you.

It's not that I think it's wrong, rather, I think it's just meaningless.  Mindless optimism based on what might happen if we get lucky.  You are the polar opposite of the sky is falling crowd.  And just as helpful.

No offense meant.

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, oops said:

Improved medical technology and advances in agriculture are of course the result of 14,000 years of global warming. This is why you are sitting in a warm home, with a fridge full of food in front of our computer, instead of chasing some game animal through the snow, hoping you don't freeze or starve before the days get long.

Yeah, I guess that's why we live here and not on Mars...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Since this topic has somewhat died out...

I once again ask the question, "What is GREEN?"

And does it pose a real threat to our freedoms here in Canada?

I read this today in the Guardian...

German Green MP calls for ban on new urban single-family houses | Germany | The Guardian

How long before we see polices like this here in Canada?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2020 at 2:04 PM, ProudConservative said:

I'm starting to doubt that climate change is a hoax. We have had an usually warm winter in Kitchener, where many day's are above freezing. Although, I enjoy being able to walk outside without shivering, this is the dead of winter, and 75% of the time, it should be below freezing. I would like to contrast to the January averages from previous years

I use to build snowmans as a kid, and every winter we would get 10 to 15 days in a row, that were below freezing. Now, were lucky to have more than 4 days below freezing.

Source

https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/canada/kitchener/historic

Kitchener

 

January 2010

High & Low Weather Summary for January 2010

  Temperature Humidity Pressure
High 5 °C (Jan 25, 12:04 am) 100% (Jan 10, 7:00 am) 103.04 kPa (Jan 10, 7:00 am)
Low -21 °C (Jan 30, 7:00 am) 45% (Jan 30, 2:00 pm) 98.58 kPa (Jan 25, 9:05 am)
Average -6 °C 82% 101.59 kPa


January 2011

High & Low Weather Summary for January 2011

  Temperature Humidity Pressure
High 11 °C (Jan 1, 2:58 pm) 100% (Jan 1, 10:08 am) 103.61 kPa (Jan 1, 10:08 am)
Low -24 °C (Jan 24, 6:00 am) 43% (Jan 31, 12:00 pm) 99.31 kPa (Jan 6, 10:57 pm)
Average -8 °C 84% 101.51 kPa

 

January 2020

High & Low Weather Summary for January 2020

  Temperature Humidity Pressure
High 11 °C (Jan 11, 7:06 am) 100% (Jan 4, 5:21 am) 104.56 kPa (Jan 4, 5:21 am)
Low -18 °C (Jan 20, 4:02 am) 56% (Jan 23, 4:00 pm) 99.89 kPa (Jan 18, 6:24 pm)
Average -2 °C 85% 101.82 kPa

 

What are you thoughts? Do you remember having colder winters as a child?

 

Climate change is just another Covid like hoax. There is no real proof that this so called climate change is really happening due to people. People may be contributing somewhat to climate change but I do not think that we will make that much of a difference. 

Apparently, those climate change doom and gloom elites like Leo Decrapio tries to get we the sheeple to stop trying to contribute to climate change by cutting back on our lifestyles while the likes of Decrapio Gore and other buffoons like them keep flying around in their private pollution creating jets. The earth changes all the time and has been doing so for centuries and we are all still here. Stop listening to these elite buffoons. They get rich while you go poor. You have a brain, use it. Just saying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/17/2021 at 3:03 PM, taxme said:

Climate change is just another Covid like hoax. There is no real proof that this so called climate change is really happening due to people. People may be contributing somewhat to climate change but I do not think that we will make that much of a difference. 

Apparently, those climate change doom and gloom elites like Leo Decrapio tries to get we the sheeple to stop trying to contribute to climate change by cutting back on our lifestyles while the likes of Decrapio Gore and other buffoons like them keep flying around in their private pollution creating jets. The earth changes all the time and has been doing so for centuries and we are all still here. Stop listening to these elite buffoons. They get rich while you go poor. You have a brain, use it. Just saying. 

It is very interesting that you make a link between climate change and Covid-19.

There is a link, but it is with the global GREEN movement and not the science of climate change. You call people sheeple, and that is an accurate description of some.

But what will happen when other people refuse to go along with all the societal changes that those in the GREEN movement and those politicians willing to go along with their ideas demand? There is now a blue print and a set of policies that can now be followed here in our Western world due to covid-19 and its many variants.

In understanding GREEN and their plans, one must be both forward thinking and historical in perspective. And if you are forward thinking, it is now possible to see the tools they will use to control the population. Just a few examples; you don't pay your carbon tax, you will be fined; you don't limit your carbon foot print, your business can be shut down, and various products in stores can also be rationed to lower our carbon emissions

As I have stated before in another post...

I do not see the Global GREEN Movement as a force for doing good in the world.

Edited by The Messenger
spelling mistake
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/30/2021 at 1:18 PM, bcsapper said:

I think the one that was 250 million years ago was the worst.  But I could be wrong.

Like you, I lived in South West B.C. for many years.  Unlike you, I understand there are other areas.

There's a lot of "work is being done", "technology is being developed", and "there are plans to", in there.  I even saw a "One promising area is".

I'm sure our best and brightest, (those not working on weapons systems, cyber security or infectious disease mitigation) are working very hard indeed.  They have been for a while now, I think.  It hasn't helped much, as far as I can see.

I suppose the opposite of "the sky is falling" is "everything is just fine". 

The reality falls somewhere in between.

Yes, a number of paleontologists who studied the Permian-Triassic Extinction are sure that it was the worst extinction even in the history of our planet. There is geologic evidence for prior extinctions not listed, starting in a time about 2.4 billion years ago, when the Earth's oxygen levels suddenly increased rapidly, and removed most of the methane from the atmosphere by combining with carbon to produce less heat-trapping CO2 gas. In the early, primordial period of the planet when there was very little oxygen, most life was microbial of one form of cyanobacteria or other. After the great oxygenation events 2 billion years ago, the diversity of life greatly increased, but it also started a number of extinctions, when the reduced greenhouse effects of having oxygen led to the mass glaciation events with ice sheets extending to the equator. 

As for asteroid/comet hits causing massive long-lasting dust clouds cooling the planet, this is only a known feature of the K-T Extinction, that eliminated the dinosaur species. But, even the KT also coincided with the Indian Continent crashing into Asia about 63 million years ago, that created the Himalayan Mountain Range and the Deccan Trapps to its south...which were a volcanic flood basalt plain of continuous volcanism at the time, and raised carbon dioxide levels and also caused a long warming event. So, it got real cold for a short time, and there was no food available till the dust cleared, and then the climate started getting too hot!  

But during the million year long P-T Extinction, caused by the breakup of the super-continent - Pangea, the formation of the Siberian Traps (the largest in the world) elevated CO2 levels and heated the planet to a point that more than 90% of species on earth died out, making it the worst extinction event of all. And that's what a lot of clueless idiots seem to be pushing for today, as we dump more carbon into the atmosphere faster than at any other time in the planet's history.

Personally, I don't see tech as the solution to a changing climate, especially when it's the use of other technologies that have caused the problem to begin with. The continual increase in CO2 levels since the mid-1850's is a clear indicator that we reached a point where carbon sequestration by natural forces could no longer handle increasing amounts of carbon being dumped into the atmosphere. So, ever since then it keeps going up and up, and where is it going to stop?

It seems the forces that govern nature and maintain the carbon cycle have a budget to work with, and if we keep exceeding the planet's ability to absorb carbon, then we will all end up cooked! 

So, instead of inventing gadgets and devices to try to pull more and more carbon out of the air, why not invent new ways of living that eliminate the need for constant growth and put us back in harmony within the limits all life have to live with?  There's nothing more ludicrous than expecting exponential growth while living on a finite planet with finite resources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Right To Left said:

Yes, a number of paleontologists who studied the Permian-Triassic Extinction are sure that it was the worst extinction even in the history of our planet. There is geologic evidence for prior extinctions not listed, starting in a time about 2.4 billion years ago, when the Earth's oxygen levels suddenly increased rapidly, and removed most of the methane from the atmosphere by combining with carbon to produce less heat-trapping CO2 gas. In the early, primordial period of the planet when there was very little oxygen, most life was microbial of one form of cyanobacteria or other. After the great oxygenation events 2 billion years ago, the diversity of life greatly increased, but it also started a number of extinctions, when the reduced greenhouse effects of having oxygen led to the mass glaciation events with ice sheets extending to the equator. 

As for asteroid/comet hits causing massive long-lasting dust clouds cooling the planet, this is only a known feature of the K-T Extinction, that eliminated the dinosaur species. But, even the KT also coincided with the Indian Continent crashing into Asia about 63 million years ago, that created the Himalayan Mountain Range and the Deccan Trapps to its south...which were a volcanic flood basalt plain of continuous volcanism at the time, and raised carbon dioxide levels and also caused a long warming event. So, it got real cold for a short time, and there was no food available till the dust cleared, and then the climate started getting too hot!  

But during the million year long P-T Extinction, caused by the breakup of the super-continent - Pangea, the formation of the Siberian Traps (the largest in the world) elevated CO2 levels and heated the planet to a point that more than 90% of species on earth died out, making it the worst extinction event of all. And that's what a lot of clueless idiots seem to be pushing for today, as we dump more carbon into the atmosphere faster than at any other time in the planet's history.

Personally, I don't see tech as the solution to a changing climate, especially when it's the use of other technologies that have caused the problem to begin with. The continual increase in CO2 levels since the mid-1850's is a clear indicator that we reached a point where carbon sequestration by natural forces could no longer handle increasing amounts of carbon being dumped into the atmosphere. So, ever since then it keeps going up and up, and where is it going to stop?

It seems the forces that govern nature and maintain the carbon cycle have a budget to work with, and if we keep exceeding the planet's ability to absorb carbon, then we will all end up cooked! 

So, instead of inventing gadgets and devices to try to pull more and more carbon out of the air, why not invent new ways of living that eliminate the need for constant growth and put us back in harmony within the limits all life have to live with?  There's nothing more ludicrous than expecting exponential growth while living on a finite planet with finite resources.

If we keep exceeding the planet's ability to absorb carbon one way we can try to deal with it is to pull more and more carbon out of the air.  If people make money doing that, more power to them.

There is always the inventing new ways of living that eliminate the need for constant growth and put us back in harmony within the limits all life have to live with that you mention there, but until someone comes up with that, I'm happy to settle for something less ambitious.

Agreed on the growth.  I always figured only a program of forced sterilization, along with a massive push towards nuclear power generation, could save the planet. Nobody agreed with me though, and look where we are now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,765
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    CouchPotato
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...