Now, now, now, don't lump me in with those other people living on this continent. I resent you saying that as it's indicating you feel I'm conforming to their ways which I'm really not. Most of them feel global warming is bad yet don't know what global warming is. Know why? The media.Originally Posted by Alpha Weapon
I do know that most Australians don't like their sheep quite as much as NZers do, so I think there would be things for both sides to sort out in the event of a possible merger.
Many millions could never have the chance to exist by 2100 if their ancestors aren't helped now. I'm not suggesting the world won't eventually be ****ed. I just think present problems should be a higher priority than future problems, especially when future problems mightn't even be the biggest threat when they do decide to rear their ugly heads in a century or so.People are hurting now, and yes, I try and help them now as well. In fact, I one day hope to work in the UN or Oxfam (etc), hence the signature, that's if I don't go back to studying Geology (which I just quit, while leaving a door open if I change my mind). What you don't seem able to comprehend is that Global Warming will actually exacerbate existing issues in Third World countries. They already have water shortage and water quality issues, that global warming will make worse (I don't care if you don't believe it, I'm just gonna talk about what I KNOW). Helping the so-called Third World sounds good (and there are many moral challenges inherent in aid itself: do they even want to 'develop'? But that's off-topic, slightly). So yeah, helping now is good, but isn't helping ensure a better future even better? Millions are dying today. That's bad. Many more millions could be dying in 2100 due to our collective inaction with regards to CC. Foresight goes a long way, just like 'Larsen and his ice shelf' (made me lol).
I'm not suggesting ALL scientists who think global warming is a real big problem are slag-worthy. Just the ones spreading shit that mightn't be the least bit true via the media. It's like made up cults, a lot of them will have people who actually believe in what the cult stands for.Hmm maybe 99% is too high, I agree there's a bit of greed, however abhorrent I find it. But it almost seems as though you're suggesting that any scientist who doubts climate change is corrupt and supported by someone with an agenda. Well, the entire Geology department at Victoria Uni in Wellington say human-influenced (not wholly human-cuased) CC is happening. And they're not funded by the government (well, a little bit), but mostly by student fees. And how's this: Jim Salinger, cheif scientist of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) in NZ was recently sacked, for, as he and many of NZ say, for his stance on climate change (he beleved it was human-induced). Who's got an agenda now?
As opposed to having my head in the dustclouds?Just. So. Cynical.
Cheers bro.Hmm true, I'll give you that.
Did you know with the aid of fire I can boil water so it starts becoming steam in mere minutes? And the sun is a whole lot hotter than the fire I have access too, oh yeees. And yeah I know 100 years is jack in a geological sense. That's part of why I think what I do based on the graphs I've seen. It gets higher for many years and then lower for many years before repeating. Know what else I know? I know that to a human 100 years is a hell of a lot of time. Most humans won't see 90 years let alone 100.You and your graphs, eh? What is concerning about current CC is the speed it is occuring. Yes, it is natural for the planet to heat up, but not this rapidly. Did you know that in Shakespeare's time, the Thames river froze over EVERY winter. The ice was so thick, that every year a winter market opened up ON the ice of the river. It's been over a hundred years since that last happened (not sure when the last time was, so could be longer.) The industrial revolution, when we started pumping those evil emissions into the sky occurred in Britain in the 1800s. In many Third World countries (i.e 70% of the world), it is just beginning, or has only been happening for a short period of time. Let's say, on average, it has happned in 100 years. Do you know how insignificant 100 years is in a geologic sense? Here's an idea to put it into perspective. The Earth is 4,600,000,000 years old. Do you know it takes longer than 200 years (non-stop, no eating, no sleeping) to count to that number? Human impact on the environment is WAY out of proportion to the length of time we've been changing the atmosphere. That really should alarm you. (Though it won't alarm you unless I draw you a graph, will it?)
Feel free to draw me some graphs as I like graphs quite a bit. Can you do the lines in that silver ink with the sparkly shit? I love the look of that stuff...
Yeah I meant as in things we'll possibly not know until they make their presence well and truly known. There's almost always a fair few unexpected variables when seeing the real deal for the first time. It always made me laugh at school when in science experiments did the opposite of what they were supposed to due to not properly controlling the variables. A few times even the science teacher couldn't figure out what was wrong.Do you know that Milankovitch forcing alone has an apparent 3-$ degree shortfall of what scientists see, and what they expect from oribital changes? So, yes, things are left out. In this case it is emissions. The earth is 3-4 degrees warmer than it should be based on just Milankovitch forcing. So, yeah, you're right things are left out, to bad it's the bad things that no one wants to see.
You've pegged me wrong. I'm so optimistic I DO get out of my chair. Several times a day in fact. And even though sadly my getting out of chairs hasn't inspired people I still keep a nice smile on my face most of the time. I'm just a realist. The world is ****ed and thankfully I won't see the true depths of the ****age. Neither will you, awesome, no? Certainly puts a smile on my face.And how do individuals come together? By first being individuals. Rosa Parks wouldn't get out of her chair, and inspired millions of people to lobby for change. You're the most pessimestic person I've ever encountered. I like you though, you stand by your convictions. Gives me a challenge to beat them down
You mentioned a fictional book and two men. Now for every two men who make history like them, how many great men aren't snapped up in the pages of history books? Seriously, many great individuals do die out without achieving renown even if they did do a lot more than those we know.Hmm, so I did go into some detail.. fail.
Yeah I wore a t-shirt, thongs (the footwear) and boardshorts on my first trip to the snow. I didn't get frostbite or nothing neither. Yay for not rugging up?In all seriousness, the Larsen B and C Ice Shelves had been there for the last 10,000 years. Somethings up. The renowned glaciologist Mercerer (first name escapes me), called the Larsen Ice Shelves the 'canary in the coal mine'. BTW, Mercerer was a nudist. Yes, he was naked in Antarctica (not all the time, but I did see one photo. What a human.)
Geography in general does change though. Shit under the crust's moving around, mountains and ridges form every here and there due to the movement, some molten material comes up every so often including underwater where it can influence temperatures and the surrounding area in general through influencing the temperature...
Hell I'm just describing the symptoms of one factor here and there are MANY factors constantly changing the face of the Earth. It's normal stuff.
Yes, in the same way that lawnmowers can claim your fingers, but won't. (Unless you're a dumbass and stick your hands in there or someone really hates you/wants to see what a lawnmower can do to your fingers).And that somehow diminishes it's importance?
You're very welcome. No sweat off myGee, thanks!ballsback
No, you BELIEVE my opinion is invalid as in your subjective reality people are capable of anything including saving a possibly already ****ed world. My subjective reality leads me to believe something else and unless we both live past 120, neither of us will likely see whose views are closer to the objective reality.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I KNOW your opinion is invalid (though I'll defend your right to say it), so I'm laughing. One day, when your in Heaven or Purgatory or whatever, and you see Australia with even worse droughts, maybe you'll realise. Your great-grandchildren may even starve. But hey, you don't care, do you?
And just like we don't know shit about global warming, neither of us knows if I'll ever have great-grandchildren. Unless you're psychic or something.
victoria aut mors
I never said I wasn't part of the problem.
I eat steak, which apparently uses liters of (drinkable!) water during production.
And I never said I did ALL I can do for this planet.
If everyone would want to do what's best for this planet, they'd stop making children and let the human race die out.
Haven't got much time, I'll be brief.
What fictional book?
Firstly, thongs = jandals.Yeah I wore a t-shirt, thongs (the footwear) and boardshorts on my first trip to the snow. I didn't get frostbite or nothing neither. Yay for not rugging up?
Geography in general does change though. Shit under the crust's moving around, mountains and ridges form every here and there due to the movement, some molten material comes up every so often including underwater where it can influence temperatures and the surrounding area in general through influencing the temperature...
Hell I'm just describing the symptoms of one factor here and there are MANY factors constantly changing the face of the Earth. It's normal stuff.
Secondly, you're talking about plate tectonics, which takes millions of years. NZ and Aussie (thankfully) broke apart 82-84 million years ago. However climate cycles have been shown to be operating on 14,000 24,000 and 100,000 year cyclicities (I think I had the details in a much earlier post), but modern global warming is much more rapid than the changes we've seen so many times in the past (I've seen many a graph that shows this, and I might post a link to one tonight).
No, it's like a lawnmower that hasn't chopped your finger off yet, but WILL eventually. Even if it waits so long that it will have to chop your children's fingers off when they inherit it.Yes, in the same way that lawnmowers can claim your fingers, but won't. (Unless you're a dumbass and stick your hands in there or someone really hates you/wants to see what a lawnmower can do to your fingers).
Climate science is intensely objective. Yes, sometimes objective reality can present two opposing situations. Yes, as the post-modernist Michel Foucault said; "Truth is not an objective reality, but a political tool. There is not one truth, but many possible truths." But at the same time, MOST scientists who study this believe in human-induced CC. If we assume that equal proportions of scientists from both sides of the fence are corrupt, then the evidence tends to suggest that human-induced (amplified natural rythms) CC is occurring. It's like probability. If 1/3 of scientists say no, but 2/3 say yes, who would you side with. Yes, either could be wrong, but one is more likely to be correct.No, you BELIEVE my opinion is invalid as in your subjective reality people are capable of anything including saving a possibly already ****ed world. My subjective reality leads me to believe something else and unless we both live past 120, neither of us will likely see whose views are closer to the objective reality.
Many things are yet to be explained, but action is still better than inaction, just in case.And just like we don't know shit about global warming, neither of us knows if I'll ever have great-grandchildren. Unless you're psychic or something.
The Power of One.
ALways be thongs to a thong nong like myself I'm afraid.Firstly, thongs = jandals.
Yeah that was just ONE example of natural occurences that change the planet in a ton of ways. I could bring up others if you wanted. Ain't the Earth changing over thousands if not millions of years due to global warming? We see small bits of change now, but I bet plate tectonics are the same. I'm not a big fan of intense heat, so I'll get you to go down there and take a look for me, aye?Secondly, you're talking about plate tectonics, which takes millions of years. NZ and Aussie (thankfully) broke apart 82-84 million years ago. However climate cycles have been shown to be operating on 14,000 24,000 and 100,000 year cyclicities (I think I had the details in a much earlier post), but modern global warming is much more rapid than the changes we've seen so many times in the past (I've seen many a graph that shows this, and I might post a link to one tonight).
No it's like one that mightn't. I highly doubt global warming will kill me.No, it's like a lawnmower that hasn't chopped your finger off yet, but WILL eventually. Even if it waits so long that it will have to chop your children's fingers off when they inherit it.
The way I see it is truth is the objective reality. Trouble is, people don't see the objective reality and merely project their own subjective reality over the top. As for that second bit, look at history. The majority COULD be total dumbasses and if you disagreed with those with the power you tended to suffer. Just now it's your character that suffers, once upon a time you would have been tortured, eaten by animals, stoned or something.Climate science is intensely objective. Yes, sometimes objective reality can present two opposing situations. Yes, as the post-modernist Michel Foucault said; "Truth is not an objective reality, but a political tool. There is not one truth, but many possible truths." But at the same time, MOST scientists who study this believe in human-induced CC. If we assume that equal proportions of scientists from both sides of the fence are corrupt, then the evidence tends to suggest that human-induced (amplified natural rythms) CC is occurring. It's like probability. If 1/3 of scientists say no, but 2/3 say yes, who would you side with. Yes, either could be wrong, but one is more likely to be correct.
Except when there are more immediate problems that have been properly identified.Many things are yet to be explained, but action is still better than inaction, just in case.
victoria aut mors
Ahh, of course, I thought you meant a book that didn't exist at all
All good points, and there's no point arguing, because this argument can beat all other arguments. You could be wrong, I could be wrong. You could be right, I could be right. Tom-aye-to tom-aah-toThe way I see it is truth is the objective reality. Trouble is, people don't see the objective reality and merely project their own subjective reality over the top. As for that second bit, look at history. The majority COULD be total dumbasses and if you disagreed with those with the power you tended to suffer. Just now it's your character that suffers, once upon a time you would have been tortured, eaten by animals, stoned or something.
Action on climate change isn't mutually exclusive with action on other issues. For example, the New Zealand Green Party has successfully spearheaded a campaign to insulate NZ homes with Pink Batts. People can apply for a government grant for this. The idea is if our homes are warmer, then we will use less electricity, meaning we can burn less fossil fuels. At the same time, this creates work for builders, including my friens, who was made redundant about two months ago, but has since been re-hired and is flat out working. It's possibly the major reason NZ has half the unemployment of the US or the EU.Except when there are more immediate problems that have been properly identified.
And that's not what you're doing?
You refuse to believe the majority of scientists and claim to base your beliefs on reason, while what you're actually doing is refusing to believe a truth that would make you feel guilty.
You wouldn't have any problem with the facts about our planet if you wouldn't have to give up some things because of those facts. Don't deny that.
Crao Porr Cock8: Getting it while the getting's good
It's exactly what I'm doing! For I said it was what people do and I'm pretty sure I have a lifetime membership to the people group.
Why would I feel guilty about something my individual impact wouldn't be a drop in the ocean towards? I just despise things that are overhyped AND realise that there are scientists who believe otherwise AND even if all scientists did think this would end badly any time soon, it mightn't as we haven't seem this happen before and the best science could manage at this point is an educated guess with a bad margin of error.You refuse to believe the majority of scientists and claim to base your beliefs on reason, while what you're actually doing is refusing to believe a truth that would make you feel guilty.
I wouldn't have any problem with your facts if they were a definete, likely to effect me type thing and not shown in the media so much over more immediate problems. Personally I despise hearing about theories that might very well amount to either nothing or jack so much, especially when they take up pages from the real news and induce further stupidity in the general public.You wouldn't have any problem with the facts about our planet if you wouldn't have to give up some things because of those facts. Don't deny that.
victoria aut mors
You react to something you see as overhyped by underhyping it? How about adopting a moderate approach?
What's more moderate than not doing anything about an 'issue' you don't feel is relevant? The real issue to me is the over exposure of it in the media, particularly in the local media which I really feel to be quite sad.
Besides, humanity being as it is, we're already inevitably gonna extinguish ourselves sooner or later. If it ain't Global Warming it'll be something else and once again know I couldn't care simply as I don't think it'll effect me too much. And if I do die due to global warming or anything else for that matter, so what? Dead people don't give a damn now, do they?
victoria aut mors
So we've come full circle by the sounds of it. I like this though:
Inaction and action are at the opposite ends of the spectrum in this regard. A moderate approach would be to pay lip service to global warming, maybe do a few things to help out, but don't take it too far.
And this is a keeper:
That's a unique perception: humanity is doomed, but you don't care. You are part of humanity, you do know that? The way I see it is that we all have some responsibility to shoulder, and the more you fob it off to others, the more we have to carry personally. Real nice.Besides, humanity being as it is, we're already inevitably gonna extinguish ourselves sooner or later. If it ain't Global Warming it'll be something else and once again know I couldn't care simply as I don't think it'll effect me too much.
I might give this thread a rest now, it's a little thrashed. Unless someone tackles my main arguments convincingly, or if I think of something to add, adios; it's been a good little
And yet you've still avoided my question of what actually motivates you to give a damn. This isn't one of those things where it's cool to pretend to care is it? Seriously, it's not gonna effect me or anyone else around I know today in any real way.
As I see it, one end of the spectrum is absolutely encouraging global warming through purposely releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide or something else (something I'm tempted to do out of spite) and the other end is to go somewhat feral and forget technology.Inaction and action are at the opposite ends of the spectrum in this regard. A moderate approach would be to pay lip service to global warming, maybe do a few things to help out, but don't take it too far.
I sit in the middle or just below (as people bitching about anything that doesn't matter annoys me). I don't actively seek out ways to destroy the world faster just as I don't give enough of a damn to regress back into a monkey man.
No shit Sherlock. I do pick my words with good meaning.That's a unique perception: humanity is doomed, but you don't care. You are part of humanity, you do know that?
You don't have to carry anything, unless you want to be a matyr of some kind or something. None of us need to have any responsibility. It's the world goes in a hundred years, or the world goes in a few hundred years. Either way it's a drop in the ocean when you look at the Earth's history. Maybe one day a new species perfectly adapated for a new harsher Earth will find our remains and think of us what we did of those creatures who came before us.The way I see it is that we all have some responsibility to shoulder, and the more you fob it off to others, the more we have to carry personally. Real nice.
What main arguments?I might give this thread a rest now, it's a little thrashed. Unless someone tackles my main arguments convincingly, or if I think of something to add, adios; it's been a good little
All I got was people are gonna die after we're all dead, something about the Power of One, Gandhi and Martin Luther King and that the camp of scientists supporting global warming killing us sooner rather than later being right but not why.
victoria aut mors
You're being kind of a hypocrite.
You're using the argument "it doesn't affect me". But you DO want to support people living in areas with lots of war, famine, poverty and whatnot.
Those things don't affect you in any way either...
And if you're going to tell us that you feel responsible and almost obliged to support your fellow human being, we can apply that argument to the health of our environment.
Because war, famine, poverty, etc. actually exist, and can actually be changed. They're not used as ammunition against Capitalism, like "global warming" is.
The difference is that the "health of the environment" may or may not be changed in the slightest way by any human actions, and it may or may not be affected by one person's actions.And if you're going to tell us that you feel responsible and almost obliged to support your fellow human being, we can apply that argument to the health of our environment.
War, poverty, famine, etc.: Such-and-such number of people will die this year as a result of war, famine, poverty, etc.
"Global warming": Maybe, sometime in the future -- don't know when or if -- something bad might happen which may or may not hurt people.
Sig courtesy of Plastik Assassin.
Greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13
lol?
Let me guess: All those scientists that talk about the bad state the planet is in are all biased, European and Russian Marxists?
I never expressed worries about a possible bad outcome for the human race. If anything, the extinction of mankind would be a good thing. I'm just talking about taking care of your environment.
The only problem people are having with the "Global Warming" part is that "warming" doesn't sound bad, considering how hot weather is called "good weather". And of course, the threat that you mgith actually have to miss out on some luxurities.
And I understand that people think money spent on environmental issues is a waste and should be reserved to economic, social and war related problems. But the planet can actually be helped by spending léss money. Using less gas, using "green energy".
And I knew the American car business would collapse some day, when I read about the Asian car industry spending a lot of time and money on environment friendly cars, while America refused to see this new green minded market.
Of course, more factors have played a major role in the downfall of the car industry, but I'm just saying. The green market has already boosted a lot of different industries for those who are prepared to face the facts and see the potential.
But they do. I think of these people who are actually suffering right now and think 'Damn, that sucks. But you know I could actually make an impact there for one or two people'. Hell, I get the occasional message back from some places. When they have very little, getting a little more is a big thing and I'm only too happy to give them what would otherwise be wasted on some extra cigars or something.
Except the environment isn't a human being AND those in existence effected by the environment aren't likely to be screwed too soon. As I've said before and will probably say again, there are more real problems out there than Global Warming which could benefit from your time and money a lot more. Thinking of spending several grand on an eco-friendly version of what you have and in perfect working order to? Don't be a smug bastard, donate that shit to charity!And if you're going to tell us that you feel responsible and almost obliged to support your fellow human being, we can apply that argument to the health of our environment.
victoria aut mors
What motivates me? I'm motivated by the fact that I've had the opportunity to study global warming, beyond what is heard in the media, and can confirm, to the best of my knowledge, that humans are responsible to some extent. Yes, there's evidence to suggest otherwise. There always is. But there's a lot more going for the perception I have chosen.
I'm also motivated by people who suggest otherwise. The naysayers. Those who are ignorant, and deny it. Those who are afraid, and deny it. Those who don't want to hear it, and deny it. Those who say there are more pressing issues, and belate it. The planet is in crisis. In a geologic sense, we are in a tailspin. Yet you still sit around and say poverty, famine and war are worse. Yes, you're correct, and I support you sacrificing 'a few extra cigars' to show this. But can you see how global warming can exacerbate what is already at stake? The poor, the marginalised, the hungry - they will become poorer, more marginalised, hungrier, the longer people such as yourself prevent action. Does deep poverty "effect [you] or anyone else around [you] know today in any real way"? If you say the Aboriginies, then maybe, but that's a weak argument, as they are not the poorest of the poor, who you do not encounter on a daily basis.
Oh, and it's certainly not cool to pretend to not care. Grow up, start taking this seriously. The evidence is there.
Yeah I had a feeling you weren't actually reading my posts...What main arguments?
All I got was people are gonna die after we're all dead, something about the Power of One, Gandhi and Martin Luther King and that the camp of scientists supporting global warming killing us sooner rather than later being right but not why.
My argument is thus:
1) Recent CC is has a natural factor, but has been greatly influenced by humans. Pumping 7.5-8.5 GIGATONNES of CO2 into the atmosphere EACH YEAR, as well as removing trees and digging up soil (forgot to mention, but has three times the CO2 of the air, and twice the CO2 of the biosphere) sorta does that.
2) Inaction does not give results. It makes it worse. Action is best coordinated on a large scale, with national and international coordination. However this can be begun and augmented at an individual scale, with simple things, such as taking a bus. We don't need to become carbon zero (though that would help), as the environment has a natural propensity to store carbon. However we have greatly surpassed this, and our emissions must be kept in check, and definitely reduced. This does not have to be to the detriment of anybody or anything. See my example about home insulation in New Zealand.
Without going further, as I said I was going to rest this, those would be my main arguments.
As I see it, your arguments are "see no evil, hear no evil" and "not in my backyard". The former could be what inspired millions to support Hitler (not just in Germany). The latter... well I suggest coming to the realisation that in this globalised world the entire planet is your backyard.
Last edited by Alpha; 06-28-2009 at 12:25 AM. Reason: Teh grammerz
See, other people who're also into the whole thing can confirm to the best of their knowledge the exact opposite. Humans are responsible for agricultural practices and all kinds of other stuff too, are you gonna correct that stuff? I see some reason for motivation there, but it still doesn't strike me as a great reason to care so much.
Really? I'm curious, fill me in on the specifics here. If you have some kind of insider knowledge I'm all ears.But there's a lot more going for the perception I have chosen.
Where do I fit in? I'm not scared of it (nor most things in general), I acknowledge it likely exists, just that it may not be nearly as bad as some make out, and the only reason I'm sick of hearing it is because it's stuffed down my throat every time I decide to read a newspaper, look at news online and occasionally on other mediums I happen to chance by.I'm also motivated by people who suggest otherwise. The naysayers. Those who are ignorant, and deny it. Those who are afraid, and deny it. Those who don't want to hear it, and deny it. Those who say there are more pressing issues, and belate it. The planet is in crisis. In a geologic sense, we are in a tailspin. Yet you still sit around and say poverty, famine and war are worse. Yes, you're correct, and I support you sacrificing 'a few extra cigars' to show this. But can you see how global warming can exacerbate what is already at stake? The poor, the marginalised, the hungry - they will become poorer, more marginalised, hungrier, the longer people such as yourself prevent action. Does deep poverty "effect [you] or anyone else around [you] know today in any real way"? If you say the Aboriginies, then maybe, but that's a weak argument, as they are not the poorest of the poor, who you do not encounter on a daily basis.
How do you know the Earth getting a bit hotter will screw with the bottom level poor? They're already forced to live off the scraps and charity of wealthier society and I don't see that changing too much.
And if you think all Aborigines live in poverty you're greatly mistaken. Some choose to live as their ancestors did and make the most of it, others I grew up with in middle/lower middle class areas. Yeah, some of them are in the poorest bracket, and statistically they die sooner and such, but as with other groups here they have a choice and the ones that do want to make it enough get just as far as anyone else.
As for those I 'know' I keep in contact with a few peeps from Africa via a mission initiative thing. It's very interesting to hear from them how happy they are despite the lemons handed their way and I greatly admire their resilience I've seen expressed through the letters. While I'm aware I mightn't be getting real messages due to them being written up by others, they're still better than nothing.
Who's pretending?Oh, and it's certainly not cool to pretend to not care. Grow up, start taking this seriously. The evidence is there.
Evidence, what evidence?
Fine, fine I admit I skipped a few lines here and there. Mostly the Gandhi stuff.Yeah I had a feeling you weren't actually reading my posts...
How many GIGATONNES of shit does the atmosphere have all up? I'm pretty sure the atmosphere is WAY HUMOUNGOUSLY ****ING HUGE and I'm not sure that a mere 8.5 Giga anything would have too big an effect. Also I think that's part of the reasoning behind the nay-sayers. ALSO how much of an effect a lot of Carbon Dioxide actually has.My argument is thus:
1) Recent CC is has a natural factor, but has been greatly influenced by humans. Pumping 7.5-8.5 GIGATONNES of CO2 into the atmosphere EACH YEAR, as well as removing trees and digging up soil (forgot to mention, but has three times the CO2 of the air, and twice the CO2 of the biosphere) sorta does that.
What if I was tempted to call both the world's best two fighters fags or something? I'm almost sure inaction would be much better then. In all seriousness though, we screw with the environment that much I'd think that either we're all gonna die at some point anyways OR nothing noticeable will happen. It's almost arrogant to think we can **** up a planet that's been around for so long and been through so much though.2) Inaction does not give results. It makes it worse. Action is best coordinated on a large scale, with national and international coordination. However this can be begun and augmented at an individual scale, with simple things, such as taking a bus. We don't need to become carbon zero (though that would help), as the environment has a natural propensity to store carbon. However we have greatly surpassed this, and our emissions must be kept in check, and definitely reduced. This does not have to be to the detriment of anybody or anything. See my example about home insulation in New Zealand.
So, rest it then. Anything else would suggest you're just as proud and arrogant as myself.Without going further, as I said I was going to rest this, those would be my main arguments.
Moreso, if it don't hurt me it's all good, PARTY!As I see it, your arguments are "see no evil, hear no evil" and "not in my backyard". The former could be what inspired millions to support Hitler (not just in Germany). The latter... well I suggest coming to the realisation that in this globalised world the entire planet is your backyard.
Also don't be hating on Nazi Germany. Like the good scientists for Global Warming they had good intentions I'm sure.
victoria aut mors
So we should just stop caring about anything that's not "a human being"?
I doubt you live by that rule.
And like I said a million times before, it's not because it won't kill human beings that it's healthy for our planet. You'd be surprised how long we'd survive on a shitty planet.
And your philantropy for those who "exist now" is kind of futile if (hypothetically) the human race will suffer far more in the future, isn't it?
Crao Porr Cock8: Getting it while the getting's good
You are correct. I also have a soft spot for cute widdle kittens and anything rodent-like.
Good thing it isn't shitty then.And like I said a million times before, it's not because it won't kill human beings that it's healthy for our planet. You'd be surprised how long we'd survive on a shitty planet.
So those alive now should keep suffering while we try to protect those who mightn't exist later on anyways? The future's not something any of us can know for sure I'd think. Unless you're a psychic, the avatar of an all knowing God or something like that.And your philantropy for those who "exist now" is kind of futile if (hypothetically) the human race will suffer far more in the future, isn't it?
victoria aut mors
I don't see where this is coming from.
It's not like we're stealing money from charities to build windmills...
I just don't understand how some people don't care about how nature is being deprived from its essential beauty.
It's coming from giving a damn for my fellow man!
Why build a windmill when you could donate the windmill fund to a charity?
As beauty is relative and there will be those who find things ugly or beautiful either way, I feel we should talk more about helping the current needy than getting ahead of ourselves with talk of later problems.
Yeah the media do mention some real problems occasionally, but crap like Global Warming tends to make it more often AND it tends to get an earlier spot in the publications.
victoria aut mors
So if people stopped talking about it, you'd care? You say you acknowledge it exists, but just want us to shut up? Get real.
The poorer are always more vulnerable when environmental disasters occur. Take the example of the 2004 Tsunami. Poor people, such as slum dwellers, are more likely to have insufficient housing than middle- and upper-class people. They are more likely to have all their means located in one location, for example, not having a bank account or access to insurance. Post-disaster, it is more difficult to return to normal, as they are not likely to have richer relatives and so-on. While this example is not directly applicable to CC, the principle remains. An example related to CC would be the poor people residing in fishing villages, and on flood banks and rivers that would become more vulnerable with rising sea levels.How do you know the Earth getting a bit hotter will screw with the bottom level poor? They're already forced to live off the scraps and charity of wealthier society and I don't see that changing too much.
Also (just remembered), my figure of 8m sea level rise is taking into account from the Greenland Ice Sheet and the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (EAIS). Current predictions do not take account of ice cap melt as we do not understand the mechanics completely (aside from knowing that they are very likely to melt under a warmer atmosphere). A glaciologist at uni that I spoke to just last week at a Geology keg party said that's something glaciologists are working on all the time. He said what is certainly known is that ice shelves (the bits of ice caps that roll off continents and go over the sea) are the "flying buttresses" of continental glaciers, and also that glaciers that have deep basins beneath them are inherently unstable. The basin thing has been seen over North America (Great Lakes made that glacier unstable and prone to melt) and over Europe. The flying buttresses has been seen in the EAIS, which did not exist until it had ice shelves to build upon that were constructed by the West AIS. The Larsen Ice Shelves (almost completely gone in the last 9 years) were one of the main supporters of the EAIS, making it very likely to melt with increasing temperatures. The EAIS has a sea level equivalent of 8m. We're just lucky that the WAIS isn't in the same boat: it has a sea level equivalent of 60m.
As a generalisation, they are poorer.And if you think all Aborigines live in poverty you're greatly mistaken. Some choose to live as their ancestors did and make the most of it, others I grew up with in middle/lower middle class areas. Yeah, some of them are in the poorest bracket, and statistically they die sooner and such, but as with other groups here they have a choice and the ones that do want to make it enough get just as far as anyone else.
I feel I've made that fairly clear, but if not: IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeEvidence, what evidence?
But where's your evidence? So far it's just "oh, I once saw a graph" and "I don't care... It probably won't be bad.".
Mostly the stuff you don't want to hear.Fine, fine I admit I skipped a few lines here and there. Mostly the Gandhi stuff.
The atmosphere has 750 Gigatonnes of carbon. Can you see how an additional 3.5 Gt each year can have an effect? In 100 years that's 350 Gt. Yeah; "WAY HUMOUNGOUSLY ****ING HUGE" alright. A WAY HUMOUNGOUSLY ****ING HUGE impact for the time we've been here.How many GIGATONNES of shit does the atmosphere have all up? I'm pretty sure the atmosphere is WAY HUMOUNGOUSLY ****ING HUGE and I'm not sure that a mere 8.5 Giga anything would have too big an effect. Also I think that's part of the reasoning behind the nay-sayers. ALSO how much of an effect a lot of Carbon Dioxide actually has.
It's arrogant to not care that we have.What if I was tempted to call both the world's best two fighters fags or something? I'm almost sure inaction would be much better then. In all seriousness though, we screw with the environment that much I'd think that either we're all gonna die at some point anyways OR nothing noticeable will happen. It's almost arrogant to think we can **** up a planet that's been around for so long and been through so much though.
Soon, maybe (to the former). Never, no way (to the latter).So, rest it then. Anything else would suggest you're just as proud and arrogant as myself.
Hitler had ambitions for a pure Aryan race from the start... that's a good intention? That's horrible!Moreso, if it don't hurt me it's all good, PARTY!
Also don't be hating on Nazi Germany. Like the good scientists for Global Warming they had good intentions I'm sure.
That is certainly not true.
Global warming is just a reoccuring theme in newspapers and such because by now it is considered a regular thing to talk about it.
We're not supposed to convince people of it. Most people realise what's going on enough already.
The thing is just that not enough is being done.
And if the whole environment thing wasn't there, you think much more money would be spend on war victims etc.? Come on. Man is a selfish being.
I believe what can be proved scientifically and global warming can be proven...The question is whether or not we let it control our lives I fell we should just ignore it and let it happen..All these hippy bastards believe we can do something about be honest with yourselves there is nothing we can do centuries of burning fossil fuels and pollution has killed our planet and it is our own fault and we brough this upon ourselves...
What?
The question is whether or not we let it control our lives I fell we should just ignore it and let it happen..All these hippy bastards believe we can do something about be honest with yourselves there is nothing we can do centuries of burning fossil fuels and pollution has killed our planet and it is our own fault and we brough this upon ourselves...
So you think we should just sit back and let the planet continue as it is, because we brought this upon ourselves, and should let people suffer for it later, without trying to fix the problem we (as people) started ?? Thinking like that is the reason why not enough is being done.
I don't have to be a hippie bastard to want to try and help the planet I live on. Not just for me but the future too. I'd like to think that any normal person wouldn't want the planet they live on to turn to shit. Sure we can't take back what has already been done. But do nothing?....?
Last edited by GypsyElder; 09-22-2009 at 06:06 PM.
We should certainly do something to stop Global Cooling. It's a pandemic! Slowly as the years pass, Global Cooling will have caused the ice sheets at both poles to expand greatly, thus reflecting even more sunlight and causing more cooling. In another forty or fifty years, fresh water will be extremely scarce, the ocean will have too much salinity to support life, and the increased cost of natural gas, heating oil, and electricity will have driven hundreds of millions deep into poverty!
Oh, wait ... that argument was around in the 70's. I forgot it changed to "global warming" since then, and now "global climate change". Silly me.
...
Does the earth go through natural cycles of climate change? Yes.
Has the earth's climate been getting warmer during the past couple of decades? Yes.
Have humans produced more than ever before during the past couple of decades? Yes.
(Now, some people would stop there, make up ideas, and assume that a few facts automatically correlate. Others would continue searching.)
Is a couple of decades enough to make accurate predictions concerning changing climate? No.
Has the earth been warmer than it is now? [b]Yes.[b]
... Even at times in history when there has not been as much industrial production, pollution, or humans? Yes.
... Did humanity thrive in these times of increased temperatures, which lead to extended growing seasons for crops and thus a huge increase in agricultural production? Yes.
Is the earth still warming from a "mini-ice-age" that occurred centuries ago? Yes.
Will sea levels decrease if the polar ice caps melted, based on the simple fact that ice takes up less room than water? Yes.
Is it likely to get a straight, honest answer for this second group of questions from people who support the idea of man-affected climate change? No.
Sig courtesy of Plastik Assassin.
Greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13
And science improves over time. I'm glad you understand the concept of a feedback mechanism too. Indeed; colder temperatures mean polar ice expands, reflecting more light. It also works in reverse. Another thing you touch on is that there are fluctuations in climate system. Nobody denies that, but what you tend to ignore is that, despite short-term fluctuations, long-term trends do exist. And contemporary, global warming is one of those.
*Claps* But please note long-term trends. Can't stress it enough.Does the earth go through natural cycles of climate change? Yes.
*Clap clap* But please note that human or non-human, there are issues associated with this that require addressing.Has the earth's climate been getting warmer during the past couple of decades? Yes.
Did you mean for [that] to be there? It's good you recognise this. Also note where these chemicals are from: carbon in the long-term carbon cycle. Oil. Natural Gas. Et al. Carbon that was sequestered from the atmosphere many moons ago. I'd say millions and billions but you wouldn't believe me, which is silly in itself.Have humans produced more [greenhouse gas emissions] than ever before during the past couple of decades? Yes.
Those others are right in doing so. But they might miss the painfully obvious and essential.(Now, some people would stop there, make up ideas, and assume that a few facts automatically correlate. Others would continue searching.)
And yet you are the one doing this (reference to 1970s theory of cooling, and comparing it to today). Geologists examine ice cores, plant spores, tree rings, etc, which are hundreds of thousands of years old. And sediment records are hundreds of millions of years old.Is a couple of decades enough to make accurate predictions concerning changing climate? No.
But 95% of the time it has been much, much colder. And those periods of warming did not coincide with 6 billion humans.Has the earth been warmer than it is now? [b]Yes.[b]
Yes, at times when volcanoes were spewing out millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide, directly into the upper atmosphere. Ironically, it lead to an initial cooling, due to reduced sunlight. this killed plants, and prevented carbon sequestration. When the sky cleared, then it got warm. I could get more detailed, but this explanation suffices until I have more time.... Even at times in history when there has not been as much industrial production, pollution, or humans? Yes.
Please explain when. Had humanity left the Fertile Crescent yet? Did we inhabit atolls in the Pacific? Did we lack space for climate refugees?... Did humanity thrive in these times of increased temperatures, which lead to extended growing seasons for crops and thus a huge increase in agricultural production? Yes.
You're referring to events such as in Shakespeare's time when the Thames froze over every winter? Note this is a short-term fluctuation. The Thames has NOT frozen since the Elizabethan (may be one or two years, but nothing like an annual occurrence).Is the earth still warming from a "mini-ice-age" that occurred centuries ago? Yes.
What?? Put a bottle of water in the freezer and watch it expand. Besides, ice caps on land (West and East Antarctic Ice Sheets; Greenland) are currently not displacing water. If they melt, they will displace water, raising sea levels. The WAIS has a sea-level-equivalent of 60 metres globally. Thankfully, that glacier is not very vulnerable. But the much smaller EAIS and Greenland Ice Sheet are.Will sea levels decrease if the polar ice caps melted, based on the simple fact that ice takes up less room than water? Yes.
Did you provide any evidence whatsoever to prove your claim? No.Is it likely to get a straight, honest answer for this second group of questions from people who support the idea of man-affected climate change? No.
And what I want to ask is: man-made or not, is it an issue? Does warming need to be addressed regardless? I'll cite an example close to home for me. Tropical mosquitoes are increasingly being found in the north of New Zealand, where they have not been able to survive previous winters. They carry tropical diseases, such as malaria. Do we address the warming, or the mosquitoes? Does it matter how global warming is caused, or just that it is, and that it has associated problems?
Last edited by Alpha; 09-22-2009 at 02:59 AM.
That doesn't change the fact that forty years ago, "science" pointed to the idea that the earth was going into a man-made ice age.
Supposedly, yes -- the earth has been getting warmer. That doesn't mean that the earth has been getting warmer because of humans.Another thing you touch on is that there are fluctuations in climate system. Nobody denies that, but what you tend to ignore is that, despite short-term fluctuations, long-term trends do exist. And contemporary, global warming is one of those.
If human activity had not caused or advanced any sort of climate change, what makes you think that human activity can prevent or slow any sort of climate change?*Clap clap* But please note that human or non-human, there are issues associated with this that require addressing.
Yeah, [that] was prettymuch implied anyway. But thanks for clarifying, for those who didn't understand.Did you mean for [that] to be there? It's good you recognise this.
Because you'd have no proof that it would be that old, besides radiometric dating, which has dated Twinkies to thousands of years old, living whales to millions of years old, and petroleum from a source in Australia to be about four thousand years old. You want to call a belief "silly", learn a little about it first so you're not so ignorant of it.Also note where these chemicals are from: carbon in the long-term carbon cycle. Oil. Natural Gas. Et al. Carbon that was sequestered from the atmosphere many moons ago. I'd say millions and billions but you wouldn't believe me, which is silly in itself.
To show how foolish the entire "omigod, humans are destroying the earth!" argument is. Do you think no geologists were involved in the "global cooling" theory?And yet you are the one doing this (reference to 1970s theory of cooling, and comparing it to today).
Who says it was cooler 95% of the time? Oh, that's right -- you say it. Thank you, at least, for using an accurate word -- sure, it coincides with a large human population. That makes it a coincidence. Unfortunately for the "global warming" crowd, more evidence is needed than "well, we have a lot of humans now, and it's getting warmer now, so humans MUST be causing it!"But 95% of the time it has been much, much colder. And those periods of warming did not coincide with 6 billion humans.
Locally, this would be fine -- but we're not talking about local climates, we're talking about a global climate. The earth has been hotter than it is now, and it's not because of volcanoes everywhere, and it's not because of humans.Yes, at times when volcanoes were spewing out millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide, directly into the upper atmosphere. Ironically, it lead to an initial cooling, due to reduced sunlight. this killed plants, and prevented carbon sequestration. When the sky cleared, then it got warm. I could get more detailed, but this explanation suffices until I have more time.
Ever heard of the Renaissance?Please explain when. Had humanity left the Fertile Crescent yet? Did we inhabit atolls in the Pacific? Did we lack space for climate refugees?
It was prettymuch an annual occurrence a couple hundred years ago. Not for one or two years, or even just for a decade -- that's the way it was. Historically, the Thames had frozen over every year. When it started not freezing over in the winter, that was the change.You're referring to events such as in Shakespeare's time when the Thames froze over every winter? Note this is a short-term fluctuation. The Thames has NOT frozen since the Elizabethan (may be one or two years, but nothing like an annual occurrence).
My mistake -- the way I explained it was correct, but I said it wrong at the end. Since ice takes up more room than water, the ice melting will lower sea levels.What?? Put a bottle of water in the freezer and watch it expand.
Yes and no. But first -- ever wonder why Greenland is called Greenland? How about because it used to be green? Which means that Greenland used to be quite a bit warmer than it is now.Besides, ice caps on land (West and East Antarctic Ice Sheets; Greenland) are currently not displacing water. If they melt, they will displace water, raising sea levels.
Anyway, yes, if ice caps that are currently over land melt, they will release more water. Why? Because they have been sucking water out of the system for as long as they have existed.
I have to ask for a credible cite for this.The WAIS has a sea-level-equivalent of 60 metres globally.
What would you like evidence for? What have I said yet that relies on evidence, and not common sense and logic?Did you provide any evidence whatsoever to prove your claim? No.
Not really, no.And what I want to ask is: man-made or not, is it an issue?
No. If it's going to change, it's going to change whether or not humans do anything to change it either way. Its pretty foolish to think that we have so much of an effect on the earth -- we don't control it, it controls us. If the earth's climate changes (like it's done many times before -- without humans), we're just along for the ride.Does warming need to be addressed regardless?
You can't stop global warming, so you address the mosquitoes. It's a disease for which there is no known cause, cure, or treatment -- so since we can't treat the disease, we treat the symptoms.I'll cite an example close to home for me. Tropical mosquitoes are increasingly being found in the north of New Zealand, where they have not been able to survive previous winters. They carry tropical diseases, such as malaria. Do we address the warming, or the mosquitoes? Does it matter how global warming is caused, or just that it is, and that it has associated problems?
Sig courtesy of Plastik Assassin.
Greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13
Considering that man is speeding up the process of global warming, and global warming can eventually lead to drastic global cooling, I'd say that's correct.
There honestly should only be one side to this argument. Humans are causing the warming cycle to increase.
Nature produces more pollution than humans do. However, nature produces pollutants over longer periods of time, dispersing them over large areas, and eventually recycling, getting rid of the pollutants entirely. What humans have been doing for quite some time now has been polluting continuously in specific designated areas, so much so, that the pollutants don't have time to recycle back into the natural cycle of the environment. This process drastically increased at the start of the Industrial Revolution, in which humans began dispersing pollutants up into the atmosphere via industrial smoke stacks, and in the past one hundred years, the average global temperature, due to pollutants not being recycled, especially the excessive amount of C02, the average global temperature has increased by about .74°C, and per decade for the last fifty years, has been increasing about .13°C.
So your point is that you don’t think Humans have had anything to do with Global Warming? Human activities such as emitting pollutants effect the earth no?To show how foolish the entire "omigod, humans are destroying the earth!" argument is.
Clint said pretty much what I was going to say and more, Humans may not effect all climate changes but definitely contributing to this issue.
( A major cause the way I see it)
Last edited by GypsyElder; 09-22-2009 at 07:12 PM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks