In the worst case human caused global warming is a threat of extinction for all humanity. - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14928366
Bulaba Jones wrote:The facts are clear: there is observable climate change happening on a global scale. It's a matter of why it's happening, and what the consequences will look like. Most scientists agree that humans are largely driving the changes we're seeing today, but not all scientists. Most scientists also agree that there will be lasting consequences (regardless of how dire those consequences are), but not all scientists. Another fact is that we are in the beginning stage of Earth's Sixth Extinction event (I capitalize that because that's the term, and Earth has had five previous mass extinctions we are aware of).

A fact everyone can agree on is that 43% of Earth's ice-free land is being used by humans. That 43% land use and development figure includes urban sprawl and other settlements, farming and livestock production, industrial uses, and so on.

Another set of facts is that the human population continues to increase, land development continues to increase, pollution (from every sector of civilization, from industrial pollution to urban pollution to accumulated pollution in the oceans and so on) and waste continues to increase, loss of natural habitat/deforestation on every settled continent continues to increase, and the depletion of natural resources/demand for goods continues to increase.

Those factors can't possibly continue to go on without serious consequences to the planet. Although there is talk about a possible leveling-off of the human population in the next century or so, what that means would be starvation, mass civil unrest across the globe, and conflict over arable land and food. In a century, it's hard to fathom we won't have the means to sustain much of our population through synthetic food production, or else risk the above. Assuming we develop a more economical way to grow meat in vats (we have already grown meat in vats, but it's too early for it to be affordable) along with mass production of vegetables and other foodstuff, the kind of starvation we can only imagine would occur during a "leveling-off effect" of the human population can be avoided, which would accordingly mean our population will continue to increase.

It doesn't matter what the global temperature averages are when we continue to deplete natural resources, expand our numbers at an increasing rate, destroy natural habitats (which is accelerating global extinction rates) and the forests that go along with the land, pollute the land and water, and continue to develop more and more land for human use. Those things can't possibly continue to go on without serious and long-lasting consequences (unless one believes God will come down and save us).

I totally agree with everything you said there except the part at the end.
I think it matters a great deal if temp. get as high as they will if we do nothing.
If all that you said comes to pass BUT not large global warming; THEN humanity will have very hard times but extinction is off the table.

I HOPE that if the West starts a missive crash program to avert AGW, that this will (in itself) be enough to reach the mass of people of all the world and divert them from having more than 2 children. There are hopeful signs that that idea is taking hold. So, that the population will level off without the mass starvation that was ALWAYS required in the past. As an example, apparently, the pop. of India from 1000 BCE to 1300 AD did not go up much. There were recurring famines from a failure of the monsoon = droughts. And this kept the pop. pretty much level. We have access to better tech to control births, so maybe we can do it without mass starvation.

But, playing Russian roulette with a 10 chambered revolver is just dumb, IMHO.
#14928372
I said what you put in bold to make a point about how people who think climate change is a conspiracy theory ignore the clear and present effects of human habitation. It's like attempting to reason with a Sovereign Citizen.
#14928376
Climate change, AGW, are not conspiracy theories, but fact. There is no doubt that humans are affecting the world's ecosystem in a negative manner. See the Aral Sea, and the Amazonian Rain-forest, for direct examples.

What people often object to is the politicizing of climate change, and the blatant fear-mongering about what will happen in 100 years if we don't act NOW.
#14928394
I wasn't referring to you. There are people on this board who essentially think it's a conspiracy theory (TTP, etc), and who believe there will be no serious consequences of human activity.
#14928407
Bulaba Jones wrote:I said what you put in bold to make a point about how people who think climate change is a conspiracy theory ignore the clear and present effects of human habitation. It's like attempting to reason with a Sovereign Citizen.

Yes, I put Solar Cross in that group, which is why I said his posts and links are not useful in this debate. This debate being about at what point do we start to do something drastic to stop AGW before it kills us? If not all of us, for sure way over half of us.

PS I gave you 2 thumbs in this thread.
#14928769
Godstud,
The key element of my *reasonable worst case* that leads to extinction is the release of large to vast amounts of methane.
Quote ---What is methane's contribution to global warming?
Link to this page --- https://www.skepticalscience.com/methan ... arming.htm
What the science says...
While methane (CH4) is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, there is over 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere. Hence the amount of warming methane contributes is 28% of the warming CO2 contributes. /quote

What the above says is ---
1] That the current level of CH4 in the air contributes over 25% to earth's heating as the current 404 ppm of CO2 does.
2] Other sources agree that there is 100 times to 1000 times more CH4 frozen in the sea floor of the shallow waters of the Arctic Sea, than there is in the air now. This is not including the CH4 in permafrost.
3] Since we are going on the reasonable worst case, it makes sense to look at what happens if 400 times more CH4 is added to the air in a few decades.
4] Since we are assuming a few decades not centuries, the figure that CH4 is 100 times worse than CO2 [ton for ton] means that we have to combine the effects of 400 times more CH4 in the air and CH4 being 100 times worse than CO2. Am I wrong to multiply the 2 numbers? If no, then 400 x 100 =40,000 times worse than all the CO2 in the air now. Even if we reduced that to 10,000 times worse, that still sounds like the end of civilization to me. And likely human extinction too.

With 10,000 times more forcing that is pushing up the world's temp. than the forcing now, this is going to shoot the temp. up like a rocket.

I think the logic is air tight.
The only way you can deny it is to just deny the CH4 will be released.
But, you are not scientist [I think] and so your opinion or hope is not going to stop reality from doing its thing.
What your opinion does is let you sleep at night.
I have proposed a fairly pain free solution. At least if not the solution, at least an attempt to make a big difference.

I understand that with Trump and the Repuds in office nothing of any sort will be done. I'm just asking you people to file this away for future action. I hope it is not too late then.

I'm 71 and have a heart condition. I'll likely die in the next few years. Most of you-all are younger or much younger. The much younger ones will likely live to see the reasonable worst case begin to take off, IF IT DOES TAKE OFF ANY TIME IN THE NEXT 40-50 YEARS. One crazy nut says it will take off in 1 or 2 years. Not, may take off; that it *will* take off. I hope he is a crazy nut, but who knows?

Playing Russian roulette with a 10 chambered revolver is just dumb if there is any reasonable alternative.
#14928771
You seem to be implying that it's up to me. It's not. I'm not for gambling, either, and I'm for everything we can possibly do to prevent AGW. I am, however, realistic about the chances of that happening NOW.

We have people. like Trump, who are moving AGAINST the trend to improve the environment to stop AGW, and even working to sabotage it.
#14928832
Trump is not suggesting anything that will matter, and his opponents aren’t offering anything that will make a difference. All politics, no serious environmentalists I have seen in politics.
#14928835
Trump is a cocksucker who is working against scientists and the world community in it attempts to combat AGW.

Get used to it, @One Degree. Your Commander in Chief is a lying asshole, who is just making the US look shitty.
#14928844
Godstud wrote:Trump is a cocksucker who is working against scientists and the world community in it attempts to combat AGW.

Get used to it, @One Degree. Your Commander in Chief is a lying asshole, who is just making the US look shitty.


So the real problem is we should make sure we fit in with the ‘popular group’?
#14928888
Bulaba Jones wrote:There are people on this board who essentially think it's a conspiracy theory (TTP, etc),

It's no mere theory, as the climategate emails proved. I have spent enough time in the PR game to recognize a well-funded PR campaign when I see one. The only question is, who is doing it, and why? The most reasonable explanation I can think of that fits all the known facts is that it is the CIA or some other covert branch of the US government, and they are doing it to reduce the incomes of major oil-exporting countries like Russia, Venezuela and Iran, which are almost all hostile to US interests. A few billion covert dollars can have a huge impact in a tiny field like climatology, and if it deprives hostile governments of hundreds of billions, it's money well spent.
and who believe there will be no serious consequences of human activity.

I have said no such thing. There are various kinds of human activity that could have very serious consequences up to and including extirpation of the human species (highly possible with either AI or bioweapons). What I have said is that there is no chance that human emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels could have serious negative consequences, and that will be proved correct before much longer.
#14928962
One Degree wrote:So the real problem is we should make sure we fit in with the ‘popular group’?
Can you stop being a complete dishonest poster for one minute? The "popular group"? Where do you get this shit from? I guess your comprehension of simple facts has reached an all-time low, as you are frequently saying exactly the opposite of what people state.

The group denying AGW is the one that doesn't believe in science, thinks the world is flat, and is too busy sucking Trump's cock to take notice of the real problems facing the world. They're too concerned with the selfish principles that Trump jams down your throat. Open wide!

Yeah, forget the science, @One Degree. Side with the morons and people who'd like to revise science for their political or religious agendas. Be a dumbass. :knife:
#14928965
Godstud wrote:Can you stop being a complete dishonest poster for one minute? The "popular group"? Where do you get this shit from? I guess your comprehension of simple facts has reached an all-time low, as you are frequently saying exactly the opposite of what people state.

The group denying AGW is the one that doesn't believe in science, thinks the world is flat, and is too busy sucking Trump's cock to take notice of the real problems facing the world. They're too concerned with the selfish principles that Trump jams down your throat. Open wide!

Yeah, forget the science, @One Degree. Side with the morons and people who'd like to revise science for their political or religious agendas. Be a dumbass. :knife:


Really? You just totally ignore my environmental position for an invented one you have a memorized insult for?
At least pretend to address my actual comments and those of others. I was not aware of a single flat earther on Pofo or is in an intimate relationship with Trump. Where did these people post?
#14928967
You're the one making the moronic assumption that the AGW support is based on "popularity", which I took for what it is: Stupid. I also took it for your usual anti-science, Pro-Trump(poor education), anti-facts rhetoric.

Was I wrong?
#14928971
Godstud wrote:You're the one making the moronic assumption that the AGW support is based on "popularity", which I took for what it is: Stupid. I also took it for your usual anti-science, Pro-Trump(poor education), anti-facts rhetoric.

Was I wrong?


I quoted your comment which my comment referred to. It should not be a mystery to you. Inventing positions for me is very dishonest.
#14928973
That's your usual go-to position, since Trump told you China invented AGW to damage the USA. Why shouldn't I think that, from the guy who dismissed science and fact on a regular basis?

Is AGW fake news. @One Degree ?
#14928975
Godstud wrote:That's your usual go-to position, since Trump told you China invented AGW to damage the USA. Why shouldn't I think that, from the guy who dismissed science and fact on a regular basis?

Is AGW fake news. @One Degree ?


You seem to be debating someone else so I will leave you to it.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

I think future vice-president Kushner has the fact[…]

As someone that pays very close attention to Amer[…]

I (still) have a dream

...Kids don't need to drive anywhere to play with[…]

Jared Kushner is inspired by the real estate pote[…]