global warming

[invisible]

As for the rest of it, I am well aware fear drives people into less than rational action. This is part of the reason I am trying to be a rational voice when it comes to the cause of climate change.

When you say that you are being a rational voice, this kind of reminds me of the types of journalists who will organise debates between American white-supremacist spokespeople with others who are protesting against these white-supremacist groups. "We need to represent both viewpoints equally". In a strictly formal sense, it's rational. But then again, rational people are pretty much in agreement that white-supremacist groups are destructive of human society, and cooperation between diverse groups of people. So journalists who promote this sort of debate are actually helping to disseminate these kinds of views by giving them representation in the debate.

These kinds of views don't deserve representation. It's very farcical of you to suggest that these climate views are worth representing. They aren't worth representing. There isn't any genuine debate happening here. The idea that there is a debate is a sort of falsehood. The debate is well and truly over. Scientists worldwide have reached overwhelming consensus about the human contributions to current climate change.

The only genuine debate that seems to be worth representing, is whether it is still worthwhile for industry to persist in these filthy power sources - whether furthering the currently prevailing economic trends is worth the price of irreversible damage to the planet that we inhabit. Maybe you should try representing this kind of side of the debate, if it's really the market deregulation of the industrial complex that you support, rather than this silly idea that humans are not causing climate change?

I'm not sure what the big deal is about what kind of terrible actions fear about climate change would drive people to. Researching more efficient solar batteries and more effective solar plants? Yeah, that is like sooo dangerous! Especially by comparison to the outcomes of coal power! Whatever.

 

[Eventhorizon]

If I may, I would like to ask serious questions of those people who believe man made global has been proven.

If we move forward with the assumption that it is mankind's activities alone that are increasing global tempatures and act in a way where all of our actions are based on that, what if you are actually wrong? What if it's something natural that is effecting the climate? What if we never know what that is because research into other potential causes never starts having decided you already know the cause? What if it's actually a natural though ultimately catastrophic change either in the earth itself or outside influences such as the sun. What if tempatures will increase because of the natural causes and had we looked for and found them, we could have had a better chance at predicting How long the tempature increase would last and planned accordingly? What if it would have been better to spend money and resources on protecting what we could from heat we ultimately could not control anyway? What if we should be trying to dig shelters into the earth? Putting scientific research into the best way to protect food resources from heat? Building structures designed to disappate heat etc... in other words giving humanity it's best chance to protect as many people as possible given what we actual "know" rather than what you guess at.

 

[Ryso89]

My take: Global warming is both man made, and natural. The history of the earth proves that it is natural, but human activity is reckless and absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, (carbon emissions, deforestation, ocean acidification, etc. ) affecting temperature. Look at what industrial civilization has done to the earth in the past 100 years, in the past 50, in the past 10. It's fucking dismal. To think our activity is NOT having an impact is moronic.

Scientific consensus has shown what we've done. Do you REALLY believe the scientific community has a political agenda? Why would they? I do believe scientists have been proven to make an "official" statement under the influence of dirty money, but what's happening to the planet is clear, despite all of the data. And if anyone is concerned with the integrity of the scientific community, look at the pushback against the Trump agenda.

From my perspective, the need to question the merits of global warming comes from watching too much idiot box. Or simply the need to be reassured that a lifestyle of leisure and wasteful consumption is "ok", and that there is no threat, and that we can all carry on with our ways of life, as if this culture is sustainable. Spoiler alert, it's not. I understand certain types need proof or firm reassurance of their beliefs on this subject. To those I ask, where do you stand? If you don't have an answer, the subject probably isn't worth your time.

 

[88chaz88]

If I may, I would like to ask serious questions of those people who believe man made global has been proven.

If we move forward with the assumption that it is mankind's activities alone that are increasing global tempatures and act in a way where all of our actions are based on that, what if you are actually wrong? What if it's something natural that is effecting the climate? What if we never know what that is because research into other potential causes never starts having decided you already know the cause? What if it's actually a natural though ultimately catastrophic change either in the earth itself or outside influences such as the sun. What if tempatures will increase because of the natural causes and had we looked for and found them, we could have had a better chance at predicting How long the tempature increase would last and planned accordingly? What if it would have been better to spend money and resources on protecting what we could from heat we ultimately could not control anyway? What if we should be trying to dig shelters into the earth? Putting scientific research into the best way to protect food resources from heat? Building structures designed to disappate heat etc... in other words giving humanity it's best chance to protect as many people as possible given what we actual "know" rather than what you guess at.

Yeah, what if we created a cleaner, safer environment for everyone and it was all for nothing?

Also, every idea you've put forth, we're already doing.

It's not about whether or not global warming is man made. It's happening, and human industry is contributing to it. It's too late to turn back the tide, and every step we take now goes towards protecting ourselves, reducing the effects, and mitigating future damage. Assuming that global warming isn't happening, against all consensus and evidence, helps absolutely fuck all.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Yeah, what if we created a cleaner, safer environment for everyone and it was all for nothing?

Also, every idea you've put forth, we're already doing.

It's not about whether or not global warming is man made. It's happening, and human industry is contributing to it. It's too late to turn back the tide, and every step we take now goes towards protecting ourselves, reducing the effects, and mitigating future damage. Assuming that global warming isn't happening, against all consensus and evidence, helps absolutely fuck all.

I'm sorry you believe that. There's simply nothing that shows to what extent humans effect the climate. We likely do but it's the extent of which that is in question.
Also what I "put forth" were not ideas as much as they were questions.
In the end, if we do not start asking questions like these and taking them seriously, it may be that many billions of people will suffer where they did not need to.
Its clear to me that people have adopted global warming as what can only be described as a religious philosophy. Believe as we do or be called and treated as a heretic.
You can't argue with religious people and you can't argue with those who believe in man made global warming and both groups have no proof.

 

[Skarekrow]

I'm sorry you believe that. There's simply nothing that shows to what extent humans effect the climate. We likely do but it's the extent of which that is in question.
Also what I "put forth" were not ideas as much as they were questions.
In the end, if we do not start asking questions like these and taking them seriously, it may be that many billions of people will suffer where they did not need to.
Its clear to me that people have adopted global warming as what can only be described as a religious philosophy. Believe as we do or be called and treated as a heretic.
You can't argue with religious people and you can't argue with those who believe in man made global warming and both groups have no proof.

And you claim that I always have to be right...hahahahahaha.
There is plenty of proof, you have just swept it off the table and then said - “See, no proof.”.

 

[Littlelissa]

And you claim that I always have to be right...hahahahahaha.

hahaha, that might be one thing EH is right about, lol

 

[Skarekrow]

hahaha, that might be one thing EH is right about, lol

Lol
I admit when I have wrong information or no proof.
If someone can offer me proof of something that is provable, then I change my views.
But it doesn’t work both ways with EH.
He’s right, you’re wrong...if you disagree then he accuses you of doing the very thing that he does to everyone.

 

[Littlelissa]

Lol
I admit when I have wrong information or no proof.
If someone can offer me proof of something that is provable, then I change my views.
But it doesn’t work both ways with EH.
He’s right, you’re wrong...if you disagree then he accuses you of doing the very thing that he does to everyone.

I'm only pulling your leg.

 

[Skarekrow]

I'm only pulling your leg.

I know.

 

[Skarekrow]

Cause I’m always right.

 

[Littlelissa]

Cause I’m always right.

Exactly.

 

[Stu]

I'm only pulling your leg.

I am extremely jealous, you never pull my leg. You obviously like him more than me. I think I need to open a "Farewell Forum" thread and let everyone know I am leaving (and then never leave)

 

[Littlelissa]

I am extremely jealous, you never pull my leg. You obviously like him more than me. I think I need to open a "Farewell Forum" thread and let everyone know I am leaving (and then never leave)

Why don't you come out to play anymore on the answer with a question?
You mean ...get a temporary ban and then come back again two days later like I did, lol?

 

[Littlelissa]

You obviously like him more than me

Not true.

 

[Eventhorizon]

hahaha, that might be one thing EH is right about, lol

I remain right about 98% or more of what I have said. I'm sorry you don't see that. Perhaps one day, with time you will see that. I will not require an apology at that time.

 

[Littlelissa]

I remain right about 98% or more of what I have said. I'm sorry you don't see that. Perhaps one day, with time you will see that. I will not require an apology at that time.

Your a good bloke EH. That's good because I don't like apologising.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Your a good bloke EH. That's good because I don't like apologising.

No one plans on being wrong.

 

[Stu]

If I may, I would like to ask serious questions of those people who believe man made global has been proven.

If we move forward with the assumption that it is mankind's activities alone that are increasing global tempatures and act in a way where all of our actions are based on that, what if you are actually wrong? What if it's something natural that is effecting the climate? What if we never know what that is because research into other potential causes never starts having decided you already know the cause? What if it's actually a natural though ultimately catastrophic change either in the earth itself or outside influences such as the sun. What if tempatures will increase because of the natural causes and had we looked for and found them, we could have had a better chance at predicting How long the tempature increase would last and planned accordingly? What if it would have been better to spend money and resources on protecting what we could from heat we ultimately could not control anyway? What if we should be trying to dig shelters into the earth? Putting scientific research into the best way to protect food resources from heat? Building structures designed to disappate heat etc... in other words giving humanity it's best chance to protect as many people as possible given what we actual "know" rather than what you guess at.

If we move forward with the assumption that it is mankind's activities alone that are increasing global tempatures and act in a way where all of our actions are based on that, what if you are actually wrong

This statement is a misinterpretation of the facts. No one is saying that mankind's activities alone that are increasing global temperatures, rather what is being said is that industrialization has increased the potential for global warming, tipped the scale.

What if it's something natural that is effecting the climate?

Obviously there are natural causes as well

What if we never know what that is because research into other potential causes never starts having decided you already know the cause?

What exactly is the basis of this assumption, Climatologists have been studying the climate change, not human causes of change. It would seem that you are assuming that the consensus that human activity is affecting the climate assumes that nothing else is being considered.

What if it would have been better to spend money and resources on protecting what we could from heat we ultimately could not control anyway? What if we should be trying to dig shelters into the earth? Putting scientific research into the best way to protect food resources from heat? Building structures designed to disappate heat etc... in other words giving humanity it's best chance to protect as many people as possible given what we actual "know" rather than what you guess at

It would seem that reversing the dumping of heat trapping gases would be a good first step. Kinda like the first rule in getting out of a hole.

 

[Skarekrow]

I remain right about 98% or more of what I have said. I'm sorry you don't see that. Perhaps one day, with time you will see that. I will not require an apology at that time.

98%?
It certainly isn’t reflected in your spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
What an arrogant statement.