Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: DENIAL

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: DENIAL
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 39 · 40 · 41 · 42

AuthorMessage
Profile SUPER NATIONALIST&SUPER PRIVILEGED I'm **in' RACIST; I'm **in' BIGOTED; I'm **in' PREJUDICED; I'm **in' JUDGEMENTAL; I **In' Have ALL dA CONSCIOUS & UNCONSCIOUS BIAS & ALL Other NASTIEs a HuWoMan Can **in' Have. ALL AGENDAs ALL dA **in' Kind of Gender
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 02
Posts: 4331
Credit: 6,361,373
RAC: 529
Russia
Message 1481860 - Posted: 26 Feb 2014, 9:42:25 UTC

Oh Kanada, P. MOore Kickin' Climate Change Behind

Love Green and Peace. Oh Yeah.

' '


ID: 1481860 · Report as offensive
anniet
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 7103
Credit: 1,233,377
RAC: 552
Zambia
Message 1482195 - Posted: 27 Feb 2014, 6:11:41 UTC - in response to Message 1481273.  

Sorry - butting in I know - but fascinating discussion!

If you consider that 84 people on the planet own more wealth than the combined assets of 3.5 billion (I believe those are the correct numbers) ending global poverty is NOT something that can only be achieved with more energy consumption or decimating populations. The culture of greed these piggies indulge in (and which others aspire to) is as far from "cultured" as you can get. And they're getting more grasping with every passing minute.

What is even more disturbing, is that much of the wealth and therefore almost all the political clout is in the hands of the biggest and loudest climate change decriers. They have the most to lose if clean, renewable energy is ever given a level playing field to take off from. Incidentally these are the same people who actively encourage activities that they know WILL accelerate melting of the ice caps, because it will make drilling for any oil beneath them much cheaper.

As a species, we have become so used to living under the cynical policies of divide and rule with its inherent festering of mistrust between us, that we think nothing of "investing" trillions in bigger and bigger guns to point at one another whilst presiding over the rapidest mass extinction of life this planet has ever seen (without the assistance of an asteroid smacking us between the eyes). We HAVE to invest in clean energy renewables with the least environmental impact if we want to lay any claim to being an intelligent species. (And environmental impact is not "spoiling the view from my trough, oink oink.") If we do not address this NOW - then our current "civilisation" will go down in any future history books as the darkest of all dark ages, and this generation as the most criminally negligent caretakers of the only home anything alive today will ever know.

We prosecute the poor and elderly for stealing food. (We even try to prosecute them when they take discarded food out of bins!) But when a corporation or industry's activities rob entire species of their right to exist and habitats of their ability to support richly diverse ecosystems, we do nothing, or give them tax breaks. A lot needs to change and the carrot hasn't worked. Time for a big stick perhaps? Anyway, sorry for intruding. Do carry on!
ID: 1482195 · Report as offensive
Profile Clyde "Liberal" Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Aug 99
Posts: 15268
Credit: 45,320,009
RAC: 801
United States
Message 1482294 - Posted: 27 Feb 2014, 14:18:19 UTC - in response to Message 1482195.  
Last modified: 27 Feb 2014, 14:19:18 UTC

Sorry - butting in I know - but fascinating discussion!

If you consider that 84 people on the planet own more wealth than the combined assets of 3.5 billion (I believe those are the correct numbers) ending global poverty is NOT something that can only be achieved with more energy consumption or decimating populations. The culture of greed these piggies indulge in (and which others aspire to) is as far from "cultured" as you can get. And they're getting more grasping with every passing minute.

Confiscating Wealth, and Enforced Economic Equality, has been tried for over 150 years, and only leads to MORE repression and Poverty.

This is one of those cases where 'The Cure is Worse than the Disease'.

“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”

-George Santayana (1863-1952)

Let's find a NEW Solution, and not repeat the failures of the past.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
--- George Santayana

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
--- Lord Acton
ID: 1482294 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1482298 - Posted: 27 Feb 2014, 14:49:37 UTC - in response to Message 1482294.  

Confiscating Wealth, and Enforced Economic Equality, has been tried for over 150 years, and only leads to MORE repression and Poverty.

This is one of those cases where 'The Cure is Worse than the Disease'.

“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”

-George Santayana (1863-1952)

Let's find a NEW Solution, and not repeat the failures of the past.

You obviously have never been to Sweden or Norway. Nor do you know your history because enforced economic equality has prevented the rise of Communism in Western Europe.

Look its very simple, there are no new solutions to this problem. Either you have massive wealth inequality or you don't. You can close the gap in exactly two ways. Either make everyone a lot richer while preventing the rich from getting richer, or you make the rich poorer and use some of their money to help the poor get richer. The first option is a pipe dream. You can't make everyone rich. The second option is more realistic.

And honestly, how is the cure worse than the disease? The disease will eventually result in total social disintegration. In Communist revolutions. In dictatorships of the proletariat. In Anarchy and total stagnation. The cure? Social democracy like you see in Europe. Higher taxes for the rich. Tighter regulations for businesses. A much larger degree of social cohesion.

Honestly, the only question that you should be asking is whether it is not to late for a cure.
ID: 1482298 · Report as offensive
Profile Clyde "Liberal" Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Aug 99
Posts: 15268
Credit: 45,320,009
RAC: 801
United States
Message 1482305 - Posted: 27 Feb 2014, 15:10:14 UTC - in response to Message 1482298.  

Confiscating Wealth, and Enforced Economic Equality, has been tried for over 150 years, and only leads to MORE repression and Poverty.

This is one of those cases where 'The Cure is Worse than the Disease'.

“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”

-George Santayana (1863-1952)

Let's find a NEW Solution, and not repeat the failures of the past.

You obviously have never been to Sweden or Norway. Nor do you know your history because enforced economic equality has prevented the rise of Communism in Western Europe.

YES, I have been to Sweden (Ancestors came from there), but not Norway. Sorry, your assumptions about this American are wrong again.

Comparing what has worked for a short period in these Country's, and enforcing their Cultures and Idea's upon others, is as if America did the same. (We did - that was wrong. They/You do - that is also wrong).

"enforced economic equality has prevented the rise of Communism in Western Europe."

Wouldn't an Advanced People's have found, or at least tried, a different way?

Says something about European Thought/Culture.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
--- George Santayana

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
--- Lord Acton
ID: 1482305 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1482314 - Posted: 27 Feb 2014, 15:30:15 UTC - in response to Message 1482305.  
Last modified: 27 Feb 2014, 15:35:12 UTC

"enforced economic equality has prevented the rise of Communism in Western Europe."

Wouldn't an Advanced People's have found, or at least tried, a different way?

What could have been better than the government enforcing some degree of economic equality and social security, thereby robbing the Socialists/Communists from their agenda, ensuring that they had little to offer to the workers, further co-opting those Socialist/Communists and making them lose their radical elements, all without the use of excessive violence or turning into some authoritarian dictatorship?

Really the only other way of preventing a communist revolution would have been to hunt down all communist sympathizers and jailing/killing them.

And in any case, we are getting really off topic here.
ID: 1482314 · Report as offensive
Profile Clyde "Liberal" Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Aug 99
Posts: 15268
Credit: 45,320,009
RAC: 801
United States
Message 1482316 - Posted: 27 Feb 2014, 15:45:25 UTC - in response to Message 1482314.  

"enforced economic equality has prevented the rise of Communism in Western Europe."

Wouldn't an Advanced People's have found, or at least tried, a different way?

the only other way of preventing a communist revolution would have been to hunt down all communist sympathizers and jailing/killing them.

And in any case, we are getting really off topic here.

Jailing? Killing? Sorry, don't understand.

YES... OFF TOPIC.

No more. OK?
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
--- George Santayana

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
--- Lord Acton
ID: 1482316 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3564
Credit: 1,778,580
RAC: 846
United States
Message 1482319 - Posted: 27 Feb 2014, 15:55:56 UTC

Does it bother you to hear and see the assertion that "there is a consensus on global warming; 97% of scientists agree".

Well I don't believe there is any consensus except among the IPCC non-climate-scientists who phonied (to coin a word) up the data and conclusions.
ID: 1482319 · Report as offensive
Profile Clyde "Liberal" Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Aug 99
Posts: 15268
Credit: 45,320,009
RAC: 801
United States
Message 1482341 - Posted: 27 Feb 2014, 16:52:42 UTC - in response to Message 1482319.  

Does it bother you to hear and see the assertion that "there is a consensus on global warming; 97% of scientists agree".

Well I don't believe there is any consensus except among the IPCC non-climate-scientists who phonied (to coin a word) up the data and conclusions.

Yes, it is a disingenuous [meant to mislead] statistic.

It hurts their case very, very, very much.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
--- George Santayana

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
--- Lord Acton
ID: 1482341 · Report as offensive
Profile The Simonator
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Nov 04
Posts: 5698
Credit: 3,471,084
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1482364 - Posted: 27 Feb 2014, 17:30:10 UTC - in response to Message 1482319.  

Does it bother you to hear and see the assertion that "there is a consensus on global warming; 97% of scientists agree".

Well I don't believe there is any consensus except among the IPCC non-climate-scientists who phonied (to coin a word) up the data and conclusions.

Scientists can't even agree what temperature water boils at. Speaking as a scientist, i'd be worried if 97% all agreed about something as complex and hard to model as the global climate, it suggests we're taking too simplistic a view of it.
97% of climate scientists, whose grant funding depends on there being a problem to solve, agree. There's a statistic i believe.
Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.
ID: 1482364 · Report as offensive
anniet
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 7103
Credit: 1,233,377
RAC: 552
Zambia
Message 1482537 - Posted: 27 Feb 2014, 23:25:47 UTC - in response to Message 1482294.  

That's not actually what I was suggesting, but um...thanks for the tip. :)

Yes

and Yes

Just a change in our priorities would be nice. Being nicer would be nice!!
ID: 1482537 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1482820 - Posted: 28 Feb 2014, 16:48:26 UTC - in response to Message 1482364.  

Does it bother you to hear and see the assertion that "there is a consensus on global warming; 97% of scientists agree".

Well I don't believe there is any consensus except among the IPCC non-climate-scientists who phonied (to coin a word) up the data and conclusions.

Scientists can't even agree what temperature water boils at. Speaking as a scientist, i'd be worried if 97% all agreed about something as complex and hard to model as the global climate, it suggests we're taking too simplistic a view of it.
97% of climate scientists, whose grant funding depends on there being a problem to solve, agree. There's a statistic i believe.


Totally agree with your statement, The Simonator. +1


I don't *DENY* that humanity is having an effect on global climate via CO2 emissions. My own opinion is that it appears to be quite likely that we are having at least some small effect. Also, my opinion is that we are affecting global climate through other of our activities. However, the 'science' is far from settled. There are some major inconsistencies in the data that we collect that indicate that we do not yet fully understand the process. All *anyone* can have at the moment is opinion on the subject.

It never ceases to amaze me that the same 'Warmists' (yes, it seems to have become more of a religion than a science) that condemn the opinions of some scientists because of who they work for (oil/gas industry, etc.), fail to see the same issue on the other side. As you pointed out, a lot of the *climate* scientists depend for their grant funding on at least the possibility of the existence of a problem to be solved. Both sets of scientists may be somewhat biased in their viewpoints. Scientists, just like non-scientists, kinda need money to provide things like feeding and housing their families, and they don't want to bite the hand that feeds 'em.

Now, I don't work as a scientist currently, but I *do* have a strong background in the sciences (especially physics), and have worked in the sciences in the past. Around 40 years ago, I happened upon a textbook on climatology, studied it, and have maintained an interest ever since. I know enough on the subject to spot some glaring holes in the current models I have seen. Some of their predictions just don't match up with data being collected. In fact, the data shows the opposite of that the models predict. Yes, the scientists have too simplistic of a view of it.

Also, the non-scientists have WAY too simplistic of a view of it. Many seem to believe that the scientists will figure out some 'magic bullet' of a solution to the 'problem'. They seem to think that the problem (if there is one) can be solved without much pain on the part of humanity. This does not match reality.

If the 'Warmists' are correct, and humanity is fast approaching a tipping point for a horrible disaster, then there is only one viable solution. Turn out the lights, the party is over. Yes, I know, there has been great progress in the so-called renewable sources of energy. But since, per the 'Warmists', CO2 is a big, bad, boogie-man, and since there is only 1 way that it can be reliably removed from the atmosphere (conversion into Carbonate minerals), and this one way is so slow (atmospheric half-life >500 years), we would need to stop all use and drilling/mining of oil/gas/coal ASAP. Then ride out the damage that has already been done.

The so-called 'renewable, green' power sources all have some fairly serious opposition and problems.

1. Nuclear fission - many people object, produces some fairly nasty radioactive waste (dangerous for over 200,000 years).
2. Nuclear fusion - much cleaner, but much more difficult. 60 years ago it was 30 years away. Today, it is still 30 years away. Not to mention that the easiest fuel to use is the isotope He-3 (2 protons, 1 neutron in the nucleus) which is extremely rare on Earth, but somewhat more common on the lunar surface due to the solar wind. Do you *really* wanna strip-mine the moon?
3. Geothermal - Not available everywhere, and uses techniques similar to 'fracking' gas and oil. Injecting water down into fractured hot rocks under the earth's surface, and spinning turbines (which drive generators) with the steam. Due to caustic other things in the steam, it is also very high maintenance.
4. Hydroelectric - somewhat clean, but most all sites suitable are already developed. Plus MANY other uses for the water. Plus, changes in rainfall due to climate change may affect them.
5. Wind turbines - Got people that object to them. Kills the little (and some not so little) birdies. Also, they spoil the view. Plus they use certain rare-earth elements to get magnets strong enough to be viable. These same rare-earth elements are used in a great many other things... Oh, did I mention they are *rare*?
6. Solar panels - somewhat expensive to make, plus a lot of pollution (heavy-metal). Plus, there is also 'spoiling the view'.
7. Tidal power - some argue it hurts the marine life. Plus they are also gonna be high maintaince. Plus, tides are not continuous. They are only periodic (2 to 4 per day).
8. Solar mirror-furnaces - uses mirrors to concentrate the sun's energy onto boilers which drive turbines which drive generators. Rather expensive and spoils the view. Plus gonna fry the bugs and birds.

Another note on 5, 6, and 8: In any given spot, the wind does not blow all the time, nor does the sun shine all the time. So you need other sources for when that happens. Furthermore we cannot have some sort of 'planetary power grid'. Transmission losses would be rather high, further increasing the needed generation capacity. To eliminate the problem of transmission line losses, we would need a 'room temperature' superconductor with a high current capacity. Guess what, there aren't any. So, since people tend to not live near the best sites for solar (the high desert) or wind turbines (mountain passes), we can either build more capacity to cover the (non-global, shorter) transmission line losses, or we must locate other generation plants nearer to where the people do live. So, for the foreseeable future, we need some sort of base-level generation (sure, renewables can help, but for the most part can't replace it). And for the foreseeable future, it is abundantly clear that the mix *must* include some level of fossil-fuel use.

Remember, if the warmists are right, we would need to *eliminate* oil/gas/coal use... totally. Not just use for transportation, not just use for electrical generation, but totally... everything. And a great many things use oil/gas/coal in their production. Plastics and pharmaceuticals just to name two (the carbon will eventually wind up as CO2 in the air). Just cutting down on their use just puts off the 'warmist' doomsday, but doesn't avert it. Good luck convincing the People in the developed west that have 'the good life' now, and the People in the developing nations that want it, that they can no longer have it or have it at all. We are talking about a return to pre-industrial revolution subsistence-level farming for the great majority of people. Of course, especially here in the west, there would be massive die-offs of people due to starvation, thirst, and disease. Also, there would be the issue of who gets how much of what power remains. Who decides what uses are high-priority enough to get power 24x7, and what uses won't get any?

I am not a 'denier'. I think that there is the possibility that we are having some level of effect on the global climate. But I am also not a 'warmist'. I am not sure that the level of effect on the global climate will be as bad as it is made out to be. I guess you could call me a skeptic. I think that we need a LOT better of an understanding of what is going on before we can decide on what to do (especially since the only cure is quite a drastic thing).

Is there something to be concerned about at all? Will its effects be bad enough to warrant essentially killing civilization? Will the 'cure' be worse than the 'disease'? Would it be better to spend multi-trillions of US$, Euros, and other currencies trying to avert the potential crisis? Or would it be better to spend that money to learn how to adapt to it?

I do not have the answers to any of these questions, and currently I don't think anybody else does either. Should we be concerned/worried? Yes, I think so. Should we do 'the cure' before we understand things MUCH better? Heck no.
https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.
ID: 1482820 · Report as offensive
ihenderson

Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 00
Posts: 50
Credit: 1,100,259
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1482837 - Posted: 28 Feb 2014, 17:38:37 UTC - in response to Message 1482820.  

Finally a post that agrees with my thinking and makes sense.

Add to this the underlying warming since the last Ice age and the documented warming since 1650 its obvious that the climate is warming with or without man made influences. I am not a denier either but see the evidence for what it is, without the hysteria. Are humans making things warmer, yes. To the degree the "warmists" say, probably not.

Does it bother you to hear and see the assertion that "there is a consensus on global warming; 97% of scientists agree".

Well I don't believe there is any consensus except among the IPCC non-climate-scientists who phonied (to coin a word) up the data and conclusions.

Scientists can't even agree what temperature water boils at. Speaking as a scientist, i'd be worried if 97% all agreed about something as complex and hard to model as the global climate, it suggests we're taking too simplistic a view of it.
97% of climate scientists, whose grant funding depends on there being a problem to solve, agree. There's a statistic i believe.


Totally agree with your statement, The Simonator. +1


I don't *DENY* that humanity is having an effect on global climate via CO2 emissions. My own opinion is that it appears to be quite likely that we are having at least some small effect. Also, my opinion is that we are affecting global climate through other of our activities. However, the 'science' is far from settled. There are some major inconsistencies in the data that we collect that indicate that we do not yet fully understand the process. All *anyone* can have at the moment is opinion on the subject.

It never ceases to amaze me that the same 'Warmists' (yes, it seems to have become more of a religion than a science) that condemn the opinions of some scientists because of who they work for (oil/gas industry, etc.), fail to see the same issue on the other side. As you pointed out, a lot of the *climate* scientists depend for their grant funding on at least the possibility of the existence of a problem to be solved. Both sets of scientists may be somewhat biased in their viewpoints. Scientists, just like non-scientists, kinda need money to provide things like feeding and housing their families, and they don't want to bite the hand that feeds 'em.

Now, I don't work as a scientist currently, but I *do* have a strong background in the sciences (especially physics), and have worked in the sciences in the past. Around 40 years ago, I happened upon a textbook on climatology, studied it, and have maintained an interest ever since. I know enough on the subject to spot some glaring holes in the current models I have seen. Some of their predictions just don't match up with data being collected. In fact, the data shows the opposite of that the models predict. Yes, the scientists have too simplistic of a view of it.

Also, the non-scientists have WAY too simplistic of a view of it. Many seem to believe that the scientists will figure out some 'magic bullet' of a solution to the 'problem'. They seem to think that the problem (if there is one) can be solved without much pain on the part of humanity. This does not match reality.

If the 'Warmists' are correct, and humanity is fast approaching a tipping point for a horrible disaster, then there is only one viable solution. Turn out the lights, the party is over. Yes, I know, there has been great progress in the so-called renewable sources of energy. But since, per the 'Warmists', CO2 is a big, bad, boogie-man, and since there is only 1 way that it can be reliably removed from the atmosphere (conversion into Carbonate minerals), and this one way is so slow (atmospheric half-life >500 years), we would need to stop all use and drilling/mining of oil/gas/coal ASAP. Then ride out the damage that has already been done.

The so-called 'renewable, green' power sources all have some fairly serious opposition and problems.

1. Nuclear fission - many people object, produces some fairly nasty radioactive waste (dangerous for over 200,000 years).
2. Nuclear fusion - much cleaner, but much more difficult. 60 years ago it was 30 years away. Today, it is still 30 years away. Not to mention that the easiest fuel to use is the isotope He-3 (2 protons, 1 neutron in the nucleus) which is extremely rare on Earth, but somewhat more common on the lunar surface due to the solar wind. Do you *really* wanna strip-mine the moon?
3. Geothermal - Not available everywhere, and uses techniques similar to 'fracking' gas and oil. Injecting water down into fractured hot rocks under the earth's surface, and spinning turbines (which drive generators) with the steam. Due to caustic other things in the steam, it is also very high maintenance.
4. Hydroelectric - somewhat clean, but most all sites suitable are already developed. Plus MANY other uses for the water. Plus, changes in rainfall due to climate change may affect them.
5. Wind turbines - Got people that object to them. Kills the little (and some not so little) birdies. Also, they spoil the view. Plus they use certain rare-earth elements to get magnets strong enough to be viable. These same rare-earth elements are used in a great many other things... Oh, did I mention they are *rare*?
6. Solar panels - somewhat expensive to make, plus a lot of pollution (heavy-metal). Plus, there is also 'spoiling the view'.
7. Tidal power - some argue it hurts the marine life. Plus they are also gonna be high maintaince. Plus, tides are not continuous. They are only periodic (2 to 4 per day).
8. Solar mirror-furnaces - uses mirrors to concentrate the sun's energy onto boilers which drive turbines which drive generators. Rather expensive and spoils the view. Plus gonna fry the bugs and birds.

Another note on 5, 6, and 8: In any given spot, the wind does not blow all the time, nor does the sun shine all the time. So you need other sources for when that happens. Furthermore we cannot have some sort of 'planetary power grid'. Transmission losses would be rather high, further increasing the needed generation capacity. To eliminate the problem of transmission line losses, we would need a 'room temperature' superconductor with a high current capacity. Guess what, there aren't any. So, since people tend to not live near the best sites for solar (the high desert) or wind turbines (mountain passes), we can either build more capacity to cover the (non-global, shorter) transmission line losses, or we must locate other generation plants nearer to where the people do live. So, for the foreseeable future, we need some sort of base-level generation (sure, renewables can help, but for the most part can't replace it). And for the foreseeable future, it is abundantly clear that the mix *must* include some level of fossil-fuel use.

Remember, if the warmists are right, we would need to *eliminate* oil/gas/coal use... totally. Not just use for transportation, not just use for electrical generation, but totally... everything. And a great many things use oil/gas/coal in their production. Plastics and pharmaceuticals just to name two (the carbon will eventually wind up as CO2 in the air). Just cutting down on their use just puts off the 'warmist' doomsday, but doesn't avert it. Good luck convincing the People in the developed west that have 'the good life' now, and the People in the developing nations that want it, that they can no longer have it or have it at all. We are talking about a return to pre-industrial revolution subsistence-level farming for the great majority of people. Of course, especially here in the west, there would be massive die-offs of people due to starvation, thirst, and disease. Also, there would be the issue of who gets how much of what power remains. Who decides what uses are high-priority enough to get power 24x7, and what uses won't get any?

I am not a 'denier'. I think that there is the possibility that we are having some level of effect on the global climate. But I am also not a 'warmist'. I am not sure that the level of effect on the global climate will be as bad as it is made out to be. I guess you could call me a skeptic. I think that we need a LOT better of an understanding of what is going on before we can decide on what to do (especially since the only cure is quite a drastic thing).

Is there something to be concerned about at all? Will its effects be bad enough to warrant essentially killing civilization? Will the 'cure' be worse than the 'disease'? Would it be better to spend multi-trillions of US$, Euros, and other currencies trying to avert the potential crisis? Or would it be better to spend that money to learn how to adapt to it?

I do not have the answers to any of these questions, and currently I don't think anybody else does either. Should we be concerned/worried? Yes, I think so. Should we do 'the cure' before we understand things MUCH better? Heck no.

ID: 1482837 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 9884
Credit: 7,396,006
RAC: 76
United Kingdom
Message 1482967 - Posted: 28 Feb 2014, 23:00:05 UTC - in response to Message 1482837.  
Last modified: 28 Feb 2014, 23:00:49 UTC

That makes for a good juncture to jump to a follow-on thread before this thread becomes too large even for our planet!

Please follow on on: Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: DENIAL (#2)


All on our only one planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1482967 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 39 · 40 · 41 · 42

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: DENIAL


 
©2019 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.