|
|
Post by toomanyirons on May 15, 2018 9:09:14 GMT -5
This article almost exactly reflects my opinions on the subject and why the whole discussion has become utterly meaningless to me, being that the "science" has been completely corrupted by ideologies, agendas, and money. I am sure the professor mentioned in this summary article will be threatened, viciously attacked verbally if not physically, and branded a heretic for speaking his mind and speaking truth. That is how things work these days - threaten the agenda, become a target. A couple weeks ago I was told that "people like me" should be exterminated for simply questioning the "science" behind the anthropogenic global warming/climate change THEORY. I was instantly labeled a "denier" (a heretic) by another intolerant basement dwelling fossil fuel consuming enviro-hypocrite just for wanting clear, unassailable, non-agenda driven facts and data on the subject. Sure sounds like a religion to me... Posted for the enlightenment of the masses, I will not participate in discussion nor will I respond to any comments pro or con.
|
|
|
|
Post by rowan on May 15, 2018 14:26:09 GMT -5
The science on global warming is not in dispute, except by this think tank whos focus is on economics and the cost of implementing change. Much of the stuff they have come out with over the years has proven to be wrong. Even in the very small chance that they are right that global warming will cause less damage than predicted, isn't it better to be safe than sorry and implement change even if it does have some costs involved?
Anyway, the predictions are showing more or less on schedule which already shows that the model of this think tank is possibly wrong. None of their scientists have had peer reviewed studies that show what their thinking is correct - from the links and studies I have read so far. I don't trust these people at all, they get paid by governments for their thoughts with puts in doubt their claim that they are non-political - well perhaps they are non-partisan, they will sell out to any parties or ideologies.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxbowfarm on May 15, 2018 14:39:16 GMT -5
toomanyirons Question. Do you dismiss the data suggesting the global climate is warming? Or do you disagree that human technology/resource usage driving up CO2 and Methane are the cause of the warming? Those are two distinct positions.
|
|
|
|
Post by steev on May 15, 2018 19:52:00 GMT -5
I am reminded of a housemate who thinks I'm irresponsible for grilling with charcoal made from oak grown in our lifetimes (not that crap made from coal-dust and old tires); he prefers propane (fossil fuel), so much more environmentally aware, I'm sure.
No doubt that think tank is just exercising it's right to "alternative facts".
|
|
|
|
Post by rowan on May 20, 2018 14:56:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rowan on May 20, 2018 15:14:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by prairiegardens on May 20, 2018 15:24:38 GMT -5
It's not just climate change, it's virtually any field which involves money and multinationals along with a complete disinterest in or inability of scientific groups to police themselves which has thrown "science" into distrust and disrepute. On virtually any major topic you can find totally contradictory results supposedly all based on rigid scientific protocols. This of course leads the average person either to say " a pox on all your houses" or else grab a position arbitrarily and defend it fanatically against all comers. Imo, we have developed into a species largely unable to cope with uncertainty, with more and more uncertainty washing over us every day. From climate change to what food is safe to eat or if children should have identity chips implanted we live in an ecology of apprehension, mistrust, and inadequacy nurtured by governments and big business everywhere. I'd guess that scientists now enjoy the level of public trust that politicians do and for the same reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxbowfarm on May 22, 2018 7:50:07 GMT -5
Probably this thread is a waste of time anyway. It boils down to an argument with neither side willing to agree on the same facts, as far as I can tell.
I view the problem as evolutionary, human beings are capable of reason, but we respond primarily using our tribal ape brains. It is easier to believe a myth that appeals to our tribe instead of the truth, if the truth is an uncomfortable one. Tribal thinking was adaptive behavior when we were naked apes living in bands, now we are a massive technological society living in cities primarily, but we still think like chimps. Perhaps it will require a massive die-off due to war/climate catastrophe to weed out the atavistic tribalists and their old thought patterns and instincts. I cringe at the suffering that would require, but thats how species evolve I guess, most species don't get the "privilege" of observing their own mass selection.
|
|
|
|
Post by steev on May 22, 2018 12:09:59 GMT -5
Lucky us, to be so "privileged".
|
|
|
|
Post by mskrieger on May 31, 2018 10:53:33 GMT -5
Well...I used to work in the energy sector. Nobody in the energy sector questions the science behind climate change. We 'd seen the data. Hell, we'd collected a lot of the data. We all knew we were dirty. We made money from extracting fossil fuels and encouraging folks to burn them. We assuaged our guilt by telling ourselves that this is just the way our society operates, folks want their easy energy and have short term outlooks, somebody else is just gonna find and sell that oil if we don't. And that brings us to the second point about energy and climate change, one that I think is key. There's a difference between the science, and the policy. The science can tell what is happening, and predict what will happen in the future if we keep doing what we are doing (burning fossil fuels like there's no tomorrow). But it can't tell us what is the proper policy to follow to mitigate that. Folks who rightly argue that sea level is rising and the entire southeast coast will be underwater by the end of the 21st century ( it's already happening in Miami) scream at folks who rightly argue that most people have to drive to get to work. There's a lot of common ground we could find if we all just tried to reach it. And that common ground might be a good ways above sea level. But our political process doesn't seem to be navigating common ground all that well these days.... |
|
|
|
Post by jocelyn on Jun 1, 2018 5:42:59 GMT -5
Well, we are still here, as a species  Mind you, our DNA carries imprints of past population bottlenecks. We tend to deny there is a problem, then, well, it's not all that bad.... Finally, we develope solutions, some better than others. Solutions get implemented in a spotty fashion, and it takes while....but we are still here. |
|
|
|
Post by prairiegardens on Jun 1, 2018 16:43:25 GMT -5
Got a link sent to me today screaming that we are over the hump and rapidly going downhill from here, I didn't read it. What exactly is there to do anyway now? With government policy firmly entrenched in a Scarlet O'Hara attitude of I'll think about it tomorrow (or next year, or next decade) there seems little point. I recycle, grow a garden, save seeds etc., and just hope for the best, obviously just because we are here now is no promise about next year or even next week. Sometimes solutions are left too late. Eat, drink and be merry I guess! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2018 19:43:39 GMT -5
Back to the post you (original poster) religiously believe if you give a plant nitrogen it get green, but don't believe if you take something out of the earth and give it to the air, that there will be reactions? Or that the reaction of our massive species will be minuscule? I,lol agree with you that future ice ages maybe a problem and warming the earth a bit maybe isn't so bad, but slowly so things can adapt, using all the earths fuel as quick as possible isn't resourceful, it is greedy and we are good at that. Climate mitigation is easy, make ppl poor like they where in old days, and get rid of most of population, but ppl don't want real mitigation and nor does any leader of state.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2018 19:55:59 GMT -5
* I do understand not wanting to be told to die, or maybe it's that I want to die to often, either or, but being told to doesn't help.
|
|
|
|
Post by jocelyn on Jun 2, 2018 6:06:20 GMT -5
When I was still a girl, there were about 2.7 billion of us, and about 30 percent of us lived in cities.
Now, there are about 7.6 billion of us, and worldwide, about 50 percent of us live in cities. In Canada, 82 percent of us
live in cities.
I suspect some of our troubles are stress related, crowding stress, economic stress, time stress, the whole works.
The birth rate, in most of the developed world, is below the replacement rate, yet in places where war or drought is common, that last 'hail Mary'
effect is to have as many kids as you can.
Stress does funny things, lowering population is one of them, mostly by lowered birth rates.
We become less tollerant too, with ever smaller social groups, with those not of our views seen as dangerous, or just plain nuts.
Our urge to defend territory goes up too, and we become protectionist, in trade matters and in the numbers of immigrants we allow into our territories and how we expect people to behave.
Since the rate of world population growth is majorly slowing, I think it may solve itself due to feedback loops.
It might not be pleasant in the mean time though.
|
|
