climate change - 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.
User avatar
By Bulaba Jones
#14721309
There are indeed people who either think global climate change isn't occurring, or that humans have little to nothing to do with it. IMO I think it's already too late to do much about it. Even if industrial-scale pollution and habitat destruction were massively halted, the damage has already been done.
By Decky
#14721326
I am reliably informed by my brother that Mossad have a weather controlling machine.
By Atlantis
#14721409
Bulaba Jones wrote:IMO I think it's already too late to do much about it.

skinster wrote:I think it's fair to say...we're fucked.


In its effect, that sort of fatalistic view is no different from climate change denial, since it relieves us of the necessity to take action.

Of course, it is still possible to fight climate change. It's a matter of political will.

Instead of coordinating their efforts, nations are still engaged in a resources-grabbing race.

Decky wrote:I am reliably informed by my brother that Mossad have a weather controlling machine.

If that is the case, the machine must have malfunctioned. Or else they wouldn't have so much desert in Israel.
User avatar
By Hong Wu
#14721412
Science says that we have to vote for Hillary or everyone's going to die. You're not anti-science, are you? Science will punish you!

And don't get mad at me, I didn't make this stuff up. I was talking to science just last week and he was saying this shit.
User avatar
By Bulaba Jones
#14721413
Atlantis wrote:In its effect, that sort of fatalistic view is no different from climate change denial, since it relieves us of the necessity to take action.

Of course, it is still possible to fight climate change. It's a matter of political will.


Well, no, it isn't a resignation to fatalism, but an observation of what's going on. The rate of extinctions and numbers of species now endangered is alarmingly high, and global climate patterns are shifting. By the time anyone in politics with power decides to try and actually curb this, it'll be too late to stop the lingering runaway effects of a warmer Earth and a decimated global ecology; at some point people will grudgingly realize we can't destroy the only planet we live on, but so much will be lost at that point. No one said there isn't a necessity to do something. The issue is that those with money don't care.
By Atlantis
#14721425
Bulaba Jones wrote:Well, no, it isn't a resignation to fatalism, [...]

Oh yes, it is a resignation to fatalism.

To say that we can't do anything about it anyways will invariably lead to an attitude of 'tough lack for future generations' and 'let's enjoy it while it lasts', as expressed by the Gaia founder James Lovelock, who wants to plaster the planet with thousands of nuclear power stations.

Political inertia is second nature to politicians of all times. However, to solve a problem it needs political will. That vision is lacking today, as elected politicians are loath to look beyond the next election and at a time everybody holds onto economic growth as onto dear life.

Nobody said it would be easy. But it's the only way. If humans are endowed with greater intelligence than a virus multiplying to destroy its host organism, then humans can devise ways of averting climate change.

No one said there isn't a necessity to do something. The issue is that those with money don't care.

How convenient! It's always the others who have to do something. As long as 1% or the richest will make sacrifices, the 99% can go on consuming as hard as they like?
By Truth To Power
#14721874
Bulaba Jones wrote: The rate of extinctions and numbers of species now endangered is alarmingly high,

What's alarming about it? More than 99.99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct. Doesn't seem to have hurt us.
and global climate patterns are shifting.

As they have always done.
By the time anyone in politics with power decides to try and actually curb this, it'll be too late to stop the lingering runaway effects of a warmer Earth and a decimated global ecology;

Warmer temperatures produce a more productive ecology.
at some point people will grudgingly realize we can't destroy the only planet we live on,

There is no possibility we could destroy the planet.
but so much will be lost at that point.

And gained.
No one said there isn't a necessity to do something.

Then let me be the first: there is no necessity to do anything about CO2 emissions.
The issue is that those with money don't care.

I don't have money, and I don't care either.
User avatar
By Bulaba Jones
#14721899
Atlantis wrote:Oh yes, it is a resignation to fatalism.

To say that we can't do anything about it anyways will invariably lead to an attitude of 'tough lack for future generations' and 'let's enjoy it while it lasts', as expressed by the Gaia founder James Lovelock, who wants to plaster the planet with thousands of nuclear power stations.

Political inertia is second nature to politicians of all times. However, to solve a problem it needs political will. That vision is lacking today, as elected politicians are loath to look beyond the next election and at a time everybody holds onto economic growth as onto dear life.

Nobody said it would be easy. But it's the only way. If humans are endowed with greater intelligence than a virus multiplying to destroy its host organism, then humans can devise ways of averting climate change.


I don't think you understand what I meant. I'm highly skeptical that there will be radical changes in the near future re: climate change policies. I don't think we are doomed as a species and I don't think life on this Earth is ending any time soon. What I do think is that by the time something drastic is done, an enormous, immense, amount of damage to the global ecology and shifting patterns of weather will be done.

How convenient! It's always the others who have to do something. As long as 1% or the richest will make sacrifices, the 99% can go on consuming as hard as they like?


I did not suggest or imply this.
#14721921
The only way for climate deniers to argue is to break down sentences into fragments so that they can then deconstruct fragments of ideas without attempting to grasp ideas or put forth any of their own. There is no way to look at Climate Change as a theory and deny it, because there is no better explanation for Climate Change than it is man-made. Simply, none exists and none will ever exist because it is based on facts that cannot be countered. So they will continue to exploit that shadow of a doubt that exists in all things because at the end of the day the world could just not exist altogether, and if that's true then of course humans aren't causing climate change!
By Truth To Power
#14722150
Pants-of-dog wrote:Are you saying that rising CO2 levels are only beneficial?

To be accurate, within the limits of rising concentrations that could plausibly be caused by human fossil fuel use, rising atmospheric CO2 levels are net beneficial to humanity and ecological productivity.
LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX wrote:The only way for climate deniers to argue is to break down sentences into fragments so that they can then deconstruct fragments of ideas without attempting to grasp ideas or put forth any of their own.

That is nonsense.
There is no way to look at Climate Change as a theory and deny it, because there is no better explanation for Climate Change than it is man-made.

Actually, there is a far better explanation: it is natural.
Simply, none exists and none will ever exist because it is based on facts that cannot be countered.

No, that's false.
So they will continue to exploit that shadow of a doubt that exists in all things because at the end of the day the world could just not exist altogether, and if that's true then of course humans aren't causing climate change!

Silliness.
By Pants-of-dog
#14722160
Truth To Power wrote:To be accurate, within the limits of rising concentrations that could plausibly be caused by human fossil fuel use, rising atmospheric CO2 levels are net beneficial to humanity and ecological productivity.


I doubt it.

Now, since you used the "net" term, we can logically surmise that there will be, and possibly already are, negative effects to climate change.
By Atlantis
#14722202
Bulaba Jones wrote:I don't think you understand what I meant.

What's so hard to understand in what you said?

You don't believe that there will be the political will to achieve a change. I reply that it is not impossible to achieve that political will, and that it is in fact the only solution.

Will we achieve the political will? That is something we can never tell in politics. It's the political process that counts. There is no savior to save the planet single-handedly, we can only be part of a process.

I did not suggest or imply this.


You said:

The issue is that those with money don't care.


Which to me suggests that you believe that those with money have to take action, while the rest of us can lean back. To which I replied that the large majority of consumers with little money can to far more damage than the small number of rich people, who may incidentally even be more environment-conscious than most of us.
User avatar
By Bulaba Jones
#14722235
Atlantis wrote:What's so hard to understand in what you said?

You don't believe that there will be the political will to achieve a change. I reply that it is not impossible to achieve that political will, and that it is in fact the only solution.

Will we achieve the political will? That is something we can never tell in politics. It's the political process that counts. There is no savior to save the planet single-handedly, we can only be part of a process.


I do think there will be the political will to eventually enact change; I never said there won't be. In my previous post I even said that I think it will happen.

If you aren't going to read what I say, I won't bother responding, but you keep insisting I've said things when, in fact, I've literally said the opposite.

Which to me suggests that you believe that those with money have to take action, while the rest of us can lean back. To which I replied that the large majority of consumers with little money can to far more damage than the small number of rich people, who may incidentally even be more environment-conscious than most of us.


As I said, the way you are interpreting something I said which was worded incredibly simple and easy-to-understand is wrong.

I don't know why it's hard for you to understand what I said because it wasn't like I used big words or confusing concepts in those posts. It's honestly pretty weird when you keep insisting I said/believe something when I've clarified for you that "no, I don't."
By Truth To Power
#14722255
Pants-of-dog wrote:I doubt it.

That's your right.
Now, since you used the "net" term, we can logically surmise that there will be, and possibly already are, negative effects to climate change.

Certainly. Wind patterns have changed, so some areas that used to get enough rain are getting less, while other areas are getting more. On balance, there has to be more rain because higher temperature accelerates the hydrological cycle, but the areas that are getting less rain are certainly negatively impacted by the change.

Of course, the systems of atmospheric and oceanic circulation are chaotic, and we don't really understand why they change the way they do, so to claim that any such change in prevailing wind and rain patterns can reliably be attributed to rising CO2 is just a typical AGW lie. The truth is, we can't predict how climate is going to change yet, and we can't control it yet, so the best we can do is prepare for whatever comes (e.g., with hydrological projects to control and take advantage of altered fresh water flows) and adapt to whatever happens when it comes. The AGW propaganda effort is impeding such constructive responses to climate change by actively preventing development of useful climate models that accurately represent the influence of CO2 on climate.
By anasawad
#14722257
Actually we do understand how climate works and how earth's system works and we understand the cycles and why they happen.
Thats why scientists say this shouldn't happen. You know, because of long long decades of constant research into climate science, they came up with one simple result, this is an unnatural change. (duh)

The time when we didn't understand the climate was somewhere around the 60s or so.

Ooh, and its not chaotic, it actually has very specific cycles and patterns that can only change if external factors effected it. (i.e like humans)
By Pants-of-dog
#14722258
@Truth To Power So, when you said we did not need to do anything, were you claiming that we do not need to do anything about the negative impacts?
By Truth To Power
#14722262
anasawad wrote:Actually we do understand how climate works and how earth's system works and we understand the cycles and why they happen.

If that were true, we would be able to predict the climate. We can't, which is why no competent climate scientist agrees with you.
Thats why scientists say this shouldn't happen.

Nonsense.
You know, because of long long decades of constant research into climate science, they came up with one simple result, this is an unnatural change. (duh)

"Came up with" is right.
The time when we didn't understand the climate was somewhere around the 60s or so.

:lol:
Ooh, and its not chaotic, it actually has very specific cycles and patterns that can only change if external factors effected it. (i.e like humans)

Flat wrong. It was chaotic for billions of years before humans came along, and it still is.
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Truth To Power So, when you said we did not need to do anything, were you claiming that we do not need to do anything about the negative impacts?

Your question is (surprise!) disingenuous. I stated clearly and explicitly that we need not do anything about human CO2 emissions, and I gave an example of something we should do to alleviate the negative impacts of climate change.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10
EU-BREXIT

The illib undems just had guy vernosestud over sa[…]

Why are you angry at antifa and not the literal n[…]

You can believe in religion and have socialist va[…]

Schizophrenia

Well the point of mental treatment is to adjust b[…]