Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 49

Thread: Climate Change: Unrealistic Expectations for an Unchanging World?

  1. #1
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,758
    Post Thanks / Like

    Climate Change: Unrealistic Expectations for an Unchanging World?

    After reading the article below, on the migration of crab specieis into antarctica, as well as our regular threads and linked articles here, I wondered something.

    Do those on the "Climate Change is a Pending Disaster and Must Be Stopped Now at all Costs" side of the debate have unrealistic expectations regarding the climate, specieis extinctions and evolution itself?

    I ask, because it appears that an underlying ideal is a desire for a permanant climactic and species distribution status quo, no changes (not warmer, not colder, but exactly the same as now) and no extinctions (and no evolutionary advancements by specieis making them able to colonize new areas) permitted?

    All politics aside, what IS the "perfect solution outcome" for climate change disaster warners? What, in a perfect world, is the outcome that you seek regarding global climactic changes, how much change is permittable? And do all specieis that exist today warrant protection, not only from us but from other species, at all costs?

    And how do you balance our beleif in the science of evolution and filling of niches created by mutantism and climactic changes histroicly, with the desires above?

    The article: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/08/giant-king-crabs-threatening-antarctica-scientists-warn/?test=faces[/url]

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4132025]
    Do those on the "Climate Change is a Pending Disaster and Must Be Stopped Now at all Costs" side of the debate have unrealistic expectations regarding the climate, specieis extinctions and evolution itself?[/QUOTE]

    I dont think you are framing this correctly. No one says "Must be stopped Now at all costs" - I am concerned with having people admit it's real. that's a modest goal and a starting point.

    [QUOTE=Warfish;4132025]
    All politics aside, what IS the "perfect solution outcome" for climate change disaster warners? What, in a perfect world, is the outcome that you seek regarding global climactic changes, how much change is permittable? And do all specieis that exist today warrant protection, not only from us but from other species, at all costs?
    [/QUOTE]


    again I dont know what the solution is or if there is a solution. Putting one's head in the sand, and pretending everything is a-ok... is not smart. Or even worse, chalking it all up to the end times. If you believe God is coming down from heaven to smite all the sinners, and He will do so in the next year or so, that's not someone I want in politics making long term policy decision.

    I will say this much, the cliche "an oz of prevention is worth a pound of cure" applies. I don't know how we can prevent this disaster or even if it's possible but all these weather events, rising sea levels etc, there will be money spent on it, and businesses will be hurt. i'd rather spend an oz on prevention than a pound on cleanup.

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,905
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4132025]Do those on the [b]"Climate Change is a Pending Disaster and Must Be Stopped Now at all Costs"[/b] side of the debate have unrealistic expectations regarding the climate, specieis extinctions and evolution itself?[/QUOTE]

    There are very few reasonable people who feel this way, but I do share your overall feelings toward overreaction and unadaptability.

    A recent study shows that 2/3 of Tea Party members do not believe the Earth is warming. Maybe we should focus on getting a significant percentage of the population to acknowledge basic facts?

  4. #4
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,758
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4132059]I dont think you are framing this correctly. No one says "Must be stopped Now at all costs" - I am concerned with having people admit it's real. that's a modest goal and a starting point.[/quote]

    I am unaware of anyone who has made a claim that "the climate doesn't change over time".

    Hence, there is 100% agreement that climate change is "real". If that is your concern, then your concern is addressed.

    The political and scientific issue is what is our contribution to the change, and what can/should be done about that contribution.

    [QUOTE]again I dont know what the solution is or if there is a solution. Putting one's head in the sand, and pretending everything is a-ok... is not smart.[/QUOTE]

    Making changes for the ske of change isn't smart either.

    [QUOTE]I will say this much, the cliche "an oz of prevention is worth a pound of cure" applies.[/quote]

    Prevention of what? Curing what?

    You yourself say you do not have a "solution", nor have you answered the question posed directly in the OP, i.e. what IS your preferred climactic outcome. If you cannot even answer that basicquestion, the "what is your goal here" question, why woukld anyone take seriously your ideas regarding prevention (of what, you can't say) and cure (for what, you cannot say)?

    [quote]I don't know how we can prevent this disaster or even if it's possible but all these weather events, rising sea levels etc, there will be money spent on it, and businesses will be hurt. i'd rather spend an oz on prevention than a pound on cleanup.[/QUOTE]

    Then I'll ask again, what is your preferred climactic condition in a perfect world Bit? What is your perfect outcome, assuming no political, economic or social barriers to your preferred outcome on the issue of climate?

    This really is a very basic question, that would have to be answered before any further questions could be addressed.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,554
    Post Thanks / Like
    Let's face it, WF: the reality is that the end game has nothing to actually do with the environment.

    This is all about power. Control. Plain and simple. Once you jam this propaganda down the throats of weak-minded scientifically ignorant Americans, you start the garner enough support to regulate industry unnecessarily. It's about increasing the power of the state. Nothing else.

    These people are not only ignorant of the consequences of their actions, but they're lying through their teeth about what their motivation is. We all care about the Earth, but don't hide behind that as a veil for your hunger for power.

  6. #6
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,758
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=parafly;4132088]A recent study shows that 2/3 of Tea Party members do not believe the Earth is warming.[/quote]

    I would venture that represents a lack of faith in the Government more than a real beleif that stats lie, but thats just an opinion. Clearly a core ideal of that particular group is that the Government cannot be trusted, be it on financial issues (their core) or scienctific issues that involve a great deal of state money being involved, and economic ramifications beyond just agree/dissagree.

    With that said, I have nothing but disdain for any religious or ignorance-based disagreement with science. I'm no flat-earth'er, no creationist. I have total faith in the work of science, when it is uncolored by Govt. funding, Corporate influence or political bais. The issue is how much of those three things are involved in our science today.

    [quote]Maybe we should focus on getting a significant percentage of the population to acknowledge basic facts?[/QUOTE]

    I agree completely. Scientific observation is, barring academic dishonesty or political motivations, king. If temperatures are warming as observed, that is a fact.

    But it should also be said that it is only one fact, in a much greater and complex system, and based only upon a very limited sub-set of accurate observations.

    Like describing a single dirt particle on the ass of a football player for 1 second during a game, that one fact is not validation for cutting the player in question.
    Last edited by Warfish; 09-08-2011 at 11:54 AM.

  7. #7
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,758
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'll also say again to Bit, since it appears he missed this yesterday in his own thread, that if he truly believes climate change is caused by man's activities, and it is a looming disaster, the single biggest contribution he as an individual can make is to forgo eating or wearing of any domesticated meat products, as widespread-industrial food-animal rearing is a greater contribution to greenhouse gasses than any other under the unbrella of "man caused factors". As I said yesterday, if Bit is serious, and wishes to help, he can easily choose this for himself and his family, and I'd be happy to assist him in the transition with advice, recipies and more.

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4132115] If temperatures are warming as observed, that is a fact.

    Like describing a single dirt particle on the ass of a football player for 1 second during a game, that one fact is not validation for cutting the player in question.[/QUOTE]

    2011 will be the warmest year on record. we could say the same about 8 of the last 10 years.

    Despite all this there is a huge proportion of people who refuse to believe climate change is real. the poll i started the other day, even with the "unfair" choices, the NO's won, handily.

    People don't think it's real and if they do, they explain it away as just a small data point in a world full of millions of data points.

    we shall see. In general I trust science. Alot of people in this country don't. there are many people in this forum who believe that the 99% of scientists who back climate change as real are in some sort of global conspiracy to get money or something? it's ludicrous.

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,905
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4132115]I would venture that represents a lack of faith in the Government more than a real beleif that stats lie, but thats just an opinion. Clearly a core ideal of that particular group is that the Government cannot be trusted, be it on financial issues (their core) or scienctific issues that involve a great deal of state money being involved, and economic ramifications beyond just agree/dissagree.[/QUOTE]

    It's a problem that the global scientific community and all scientific data is now synonymous with "Government."

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4132119]I'll also say again to Bit, since it appears he missed this yesterday in his own thread, that if he truly believes climate change is caused by man's activities, and it is a looming disaster, the single biggest contribution he as an individual can make is to forgo eating or wearing of any domesticated meat products, as widespread-industrial food-animal rearing is a greater contribution to greenhouse gasses than any other under the unbrella of "man caused factors". As I said yesterday, if Bit is serious, and wishes to help, he can easily choose this for himself and his family, and I'd be happy to assist him in the transition with advice, recipies and more.[/QUOTE]

    warfish you are very good at creating impossible logic puzzles but the logic falls apart at the very beginning. I never proposed a solution, nor did I propose any anti-climate change action. You put that assumption in there.

    You also make a false dichotomy saying if I don't do every thing correct then the whole thing is bullcrap. That's like saying Al gore lives in a mansion therefore global warming is false. one thing has nothing to do with the other. if a dozen scientists in the UK faked some data that doesn't prove that the other 90,000 scientists are liars. It's reduco ad absudium and it's a fun debate tactic but not based in reality.

    All i really want is for people to respect science more than they do today. The science is real whether we want to believe it or not.

    you seem to be on the side of fighting hypocracy... what about the hypocracy of the right wing that wants no part of government, until something floods or burns or earthquakes then they want the government to help?

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,183
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4132129]2011 will be the warmest year on record. we could say the same about 8 of the last 10 years.

    Despite all this there is a huge proportion of people who refuse to believe climate change is real. the poll i started the other day, even with the "unfair" choices, the NO's won, handily.

    People don't think it's real and if they do, they explain it away as just a small data point in a world full of millions of data points.

    we shall see. In general I trust science. Alot of people in this country don't. there are many people in this forum who believe that the 99% of scientists who back climate change as real are in some sort of global conspiracy to get money or something? it's ludicrous.[/QUOTE]

    What about the CERN article that shows the Sun is responsible for the warming not CO2 and the obvious cover-up? I don't think there are a lot of people that disagree with the data, it is the interpretation of the data that is in question.

    [URL]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/[/URL]

    [URL]http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/25/some-reactions-to-the-cloud-experiment/#more-45850[/URL]

  12. #12
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,183
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4132134]warfish you are very good at creating impossible logic puzzles but the logic falls apart at the very beginning. I never proposed a solution, nor did I propose any anti-climate change action. You put that assumption in there.

    You also make a false dichotomy saying if I don't do every thing correct then the whole thing is bullcrap. That's like saying Al gore lives in a mansion therefore global warming is false. one thing has nothing to do with the other. if a dozen scientists in the UK faked some data that doesn't prove that the other 90,000 scientists are liars. It's reduco ad absudium and it's a fun debate tactic but not based in reality.

    All i really want is for people to respect science more than they do today. The science is real whether we want to believe it or not.

    you seem to be on the side of fighting hypocracy... what about the hypocracy of the right wing that wants no part of government, until something floods or burns or earthquakes then they want the government to help?[/QUOTE]

    No one said Gore's actions make global warming, I mean climate change, I mean ManBearPig, fake. It just shows that Al Gore the man is a fraud and a hypocrite. Plain and simple.

  13. #13
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,758
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4132129]2011 will be the warmest year on record. we could say the same about 8 of the last 10 years.[/quote]

    Source please.

    [QUOTE]Despite all this there is a huge proportion of people who refuse to believe climate change is real.[/QUOTE]

    As I often remind you in the "illegal immigrant/immigrant" issue, the term you should use above is man-caused climate change. Not climate change. I would stress Bit, that your consitent use of dishonest langauge is part of yoru problem in convicing others of teh validity of your cause.

    [QUOTE]People don't think it's real and if they do, they explain it away as just a small data point in a world full of millions of data points[/QUOTE]

    If the climate is simple, as you seem to indicate here, and "global temperature" is all that needs to be looked at, please list for us all thefactors that effect our global climate, and their values for the periods you cover in your initial comment.

    After all, if it's NOT as complicated as "a million data points", you should be able to do this with relative ease.

    [QUOTE]we shall see. In general I trust science.[/QUOTE]

    As do I.

    What are you doing, personally, about your belief in man-caused climate change. I ask again, have you given up all industrial meat products and food as yet? Do you live a car-free lifestyle, and refuse to fly anywhere? Do you heat your home 100% with renewable/eco-friendlier enegery sources, such as wind and solar?

    What changes have you made in your own life, specificly, in relation to man-caused climate change?

    [quote]there are many people in this forum who believe that the 99% of scientists who back climate change as real are in some sort of global conspiracy to get money or something? it's ludicrous.[/QUOTE]

    I would say it's laughable to postuate that funding, employment and politics do not play a role in State-funded, State-managed research. The same way I would say it's equally laughable to postulate that similar issues are not in play with Corporate-funded research. Influence is influence.

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,905
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4132129]there are many people in this forum who believe that the 99% of scientists who back climate change as real are in some sort of global conspiracy to get money or something? it's ludicrous.[/QUOTE]

    It's not only the forum, it's a large percentage of the population. The scientific community and people like Al Gore did a huge disservice to the cause by playing up the hysteria, panic, and radical changes.

    If the facts were presented in a concise and logical manner, and a different approach and strategies were laid out (energy independence, pollution = health hazard, phasing in an upgrade in intrastructure, etc.) there would be far less push back from the other side.

  15. #15
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,758
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4132134]I never proposed a solution, nor did I propose any anti-climate change action.[/quote]

    Perhaps, as this forums leading proponent of man-caused climate change, the responsabillity is upon you to define your issues and terms better.

    As yet, you continue to refuse to state what the perfect climactic outcome is. Or what issues you beleive need to be prevented. Or what cures you beleive need to be implemented and why.

    I'll repeat, if your ONLY issue here is "do people believe in climate change", then your issue is baseless, 100% of people believe the climate changes over time.

    If your issue is more accurately described as "man-caused climate change is a problem than needs fixed", then you really do have a responsabillity to address the questions above Bit.

    [QUOTE]You also make a false dichotomy saying if I don't do every thing correct then the whole thing is bullcrap.[/QUOTE]

    I'm asking you, the leading proponent of man-caused climate change on this forum, what you ahve done personally about an issue you clearly, per your posting history, feel is important.

    I don't think it inappropriate to put that question out there. How can one take seriously a person who screams loudly that "this dirt stain is an issue that demands to be fixed now!!!!", but does nothing to clean the dirt stain themselves?

    That isn't a logic puzzle my friend, it's basic logic. If you feel something is an issue, and you partake is things that effect that isseu, one would expect you to alter your own behaviours frist and foremost.

    [quote]you seem to be on the side of fighting hypocracy... what about the hypocracy of the right wing that wants no part of government, until something floods or burns or earthquakes then they want the government to help?[/QUOTE]

    If you'd like to start a new thread to discss that, I'd be happy to chime in on it. But I won't derail this one.

  16. #16
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,183
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=parafly;4132149]It's not only the forum, it's a large percentage of the population. The scientific community and people like Al Gore did a huge disservice to the cause by playing up the hysteria, panic, and radical changes.

    If the facts were presented in a concise and logical manner, and a different approach and strategies were laid out (energy independence, pollution = health hazard, phasing in an upgrade in intrastructure, etc.) there would be far less push back from the other side.[/QUOTE]

    Oh you mean reality? Yes there is a lot to be said for energy independence, pollution = health hazard, phasing in an upgrade in intrastructure, etc. but when you trump up ManBearPig to try to scare people into forwarding your cause then you can be upset when the curtain is pulled back and you are exposed.

    If companies could produce high milage, safe, feature rich vehicles that could complete with thier gas fueled bretheren then they would sell. Forcing them with subsidies and fear before their time isn't going to work and will only hurt the industry. Same goes for solar, wind, etc.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4132150]
    I'm asking you, the leading proponent of man-caused climate change on this forum, what you ahve done personally about an issue you clearly, per your posting history, feel is important.[/QUOTE]


    again I've never said how it could be fixed, what could be done to fix it or whether it even can be fixed. My whole goal is for people to admit it's real. It's a modest goal, and for the most part, a failed one.

    right now the northeast is under historic flooding but that's normal apparently. nothing to see here...

    [QUOTE=Warfish;4132150]

    I don't think it inappropriate to put that question out there. How can one take seriously a person who screams loudly that "this dirt stain is an issue that demands to be fixed now!!!!", but does nothing to clean the dirt stain themselves?[/QUOTE]

    again when have I demanded a fix? Now or anytime?

    also you might remember several years ago I said I rode a bike to work and got absolutely lambasted by the forum. Forgive me if I don't want to share my personal details. Maybe I eat meat, maybe i don't, it doesn't really matter either way.

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Trades;4132158]

    If companies could produce high milage, safe, feature rich vehicles that could complete with thier gas fueled bretheren then they would sell. Forcing them with subsidies and fear before their time isn't going to work and will only hurt the industry. Same goes for solar, wind, etc.[/QUOTE]

    it should be noted that oil and gas industries enjoy huge subsidies that keep the cost lower... even federal taxes are super low on gas, compared to the rest of the world. It's not really honest to say electric cars and solar panels don't deserve subsidies, when oil and gas industries do.

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Trades;4132137]What about the CERN article that shows the Sun is responsible for the warming not CO2 and the obvious cover-up? I don't think there are a lot of people that disagree with the data, it is the interpretation of the data that is in question.

    [URL]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/[/URL]

    [URL]http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/25/some-reactions-to-the-cloud-experiment/#more-45850[/URL][/QUOTE]

    to be clear the CERN data didn't say it was the sun and not the Co2. it said the sun was one of many parameters.

    [quote]
    Director General of CERN, Rolf-Dieter Heuer, downplayed the results, however, in an interview with German newspaper Die Welt.

    "I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them," he said. "That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters."

    [url]http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/165340.html[/url]
    [/quote]

  20. #20
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,183
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4132202]it should be noted that oil and gas industries enjoy huge subsidies that keep the cost lower... even federal taxes are super low on gas, compared to the rest of the world. It's not really honest to say electric cars and solar panels don't deserve subsidies, when oil and gas industries do.[/QUOTE]

    I never said oil and gas industries do and if you have read my other posts you know I have said ALL government subsidies of companies should end. Why should the government picking winners and losers in the free market?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us