Frozen Wasteland

[Dude]

The question is, do humans have to take responsibility for their actions? And at what point would the evidence be sufficient for the "climate doubters"? How much damage needs to be done before everyone is on board with making drastic changes - and by then, will it be too late?

 

There may be a bit of an alarmist tone in the scientific community now, but it is only because there is concern that if we don't bother changing our ways and continue on this path for years to come, there will be severe consequences. Even if you live in a bubble where fossil fuel consumption isn't producing enough CO2 to impact the environment, you still have to deal with the fact that oil and coal aren't renewable resources, and there are only so many wildlife refuges you can drill in before you find there is nowhere else to drill, baby, drill.

[Good Old Neon]

I'd be attaching my neural transmitter braid to the brain of a terradactyl and cowgirling it.

 

My point is that humans live within a system. A system of balance that is forever in flux. Because we are woven into the system, we change the balance. Mostly through our adaptability, lack of natural predators and success in populating. Change unprecedented by a species? Maybe. Unprecedented? lol

 

Ultimately, like Cormac, I see the concentrated feral fire of balance far outweighing cannibalistic unbalance.

 

I agree, but by and large, we’ve removed ourselves from that system, and rather than live within it, we have manipulated it on a grand scale, and for a while, it worked (and continues work) to our benefit – but now it appears as though we are seeing the effects of those changes, and the bill is in the post, with interest. It is estimated that prior to industrialization, the planet’s carrying capacity sat somewhere in the neighborhood of one billion – there are now six billion of us – and our ability to sustain that number comes largely by way of artificial, unsustainable, i.e. unnatural means. We’ve taken billions of year’s worth of stored energy, and released it back into the atmosphere within an extremely short period of time. We’ve created fertilizers from petroleum to feed more mouths than a pre-industrialized, pre-fertilized farm “community” could ever begin to hope to feed. And when that energy is no longer available, assuming alternatives to take its place are not yet widely available, we’re going to have a surplus population numbering in the billions, without the means to provide sufficient sustenance.

 

Or, perhaps, through the use of nuclear weapons, we’ll simply eliminate ourselves and everything else from the map – and there is nothing natural about that.

 

By definition, I suppose everything humans do is natural, but for better or worse, we’re pretty much living outside the example set by every other creature that has ever lived on this planet, long-term and successfully.\

 

Edit - for the record, put a "in my opinion" at the end of most of the previous sentences.

[Guest Speed Racer]

As with every instance of scarce resources, I think we'll all have to take responsibility for everyone's actions, eventually. To an extent, I see both sides of the argument as spouses bickering over a budget: "we should save, in case of emergency!" "there won't be an emergency! we should buy a boat while we can!" The worst that happens is you end up with more later on.

 

I would also agree with GON that humans have made it their primary aim to remove ourselves from the natural flux of the world, and I have to disagree with you, M. Chris and say that our scale of occupation is unprecedent, not only by our numbers but the number of and means by which we exploit other objects for our own advancement and continued removal.

[bobbob1313]

I agree, but by and large, we’ve removed ourselves from that system, and rather than live within it, we have manipulated it on a grand scale, and for a while, it worked (and continues work) to our benefit – but now it appears as though we are seeing the effects of those changes, and the bill is in the post, with interest. It is estimated that prior to industrialization, the planet’s carrying capacity sat somewhere in the neighborhood of one billion – there are now six billion of us – and our ability to sustain that number comes largely by way of artificial, unsustainable, i.e. unnatural means. We’ve taken billions of year’s worth of stored energy, and released it back into the atmosphere within an extremely short period of time. We’ve created fertilizers from petroleum to feed more mouths than a pre-industrialized, pre-fertilized farm “community” could ever begin to hope to feed. And when that energy is no longer available, assuming alternatives to take its place are not yet widely available, we’re going to have a surplus population numbering in the billions, without the means to provide sufficient sustenance.

 

Or, perhaps, through the use of nuclear weapons, we’ll simply eliminate ourselves and everything else from the map – and there is nothing natural about that.

 

By definition, I suppose everything humans do is natural, but for better or worse, we’re pretty much living outside the example set by every other creature that has ever lived on this planet, long-term and successfully.\

 

Edit - for the record, put a "in my opinion" at the end of most of the previous sentences.

 

[Good Old Neon]

 

 

I can't see it (websense), but, ummm.... there's a picture at the end of that quote, huh?

[bobbob1313]

I can't see it (websense), but, ummm.... there's a picture at the end of that quote, huh?

 

It is Daniel Quinn's novel, Ishmael. You sound like the gorilla.

[Good Old Neon]

It is Daniel Quinn's novel, Ishmael. You sound like the gorilla.

 

[JohnO]

You're using quotation marks, but I can't seem to recall who said that - and, more importantly, who on this board agreed with the person who said that.

 

I don't see why it's so bad to formerly agree that one theory might be plausible, and subsequently find another theory much better explains phenomena we're experiencing. Isn't that what scientific reasoning/explanation is?

Algore has said it and continues to say it every time someone challenges his position. It is a weak minded response used to close off debate. Why is it important that anyone on this board agree with the person(s) who use the phrase?

 

Positioning a theory as a plausible cause is one thing, using fascist tactics to silence competing theories is something else. It is particularly reprehensible in the case of Algore and his ilk at the UN who have a commercial interest in promoting a particular theory. That's commerce not science.

[bobbob1313]

What's with the Algore thing?

[Good Old Neon]

Algore has said it and continues to say it every time someone challenges his position. It is a weak minded response used to close off debate. Why is it important that anyone on this board agree with the person(s) who use the phrase?

 

Positioning a theory as a plausible cause is one thing, using fascist tactics to silence competing theories is something else. It is particularly reprehensible in the case of Algore and his ilk at the UN who have a commercial interest in promoting a particular theory. That's commerce not science.

 

Seriously you guys, how many dissenting scientists does the UN/IPCC have to wrongly imprison, strong arm, murder or make disappear before you guys wake up and smell what they and Algore is cooking?

[Guest Speed Racer]

Algore has said it and continues to say it every time someone challenges his position. It is a weak minded response used to close off debate. Why is it important that anyone on this board agree with the person(s) who use the phrase?

 

Positioning a theory as a plausible cause is one thing, using fascist tactics to silence competing theories is something else. It is particularly reprehensible in the case of Algore and his ilk at the UN who have a commercial interest in promoting a particular theory. That's commerce not science.

 

Your post implied that (a) person(s) on this board agreed with the person making the quote, which IS relevant to this discussion if you're using it as a part of this discussion.

 

Are you saying that all of us who support parts of the theory of climate change agree with everything that Al Gore says, always? That our ideas are exactly the same as his, all the time? Or are you just throwing around quotes from famous people? Because that's a fun game!

 

Throwing around a quote from someone on the "other side" of the debate, and then implying that everyone opposing your argument agrees with it, is a pointless and useless tactic when you're trying to have a productive discussion. Throwing around a quote from someone on the "other side" and NOT implying that people opposing your argument here is just as pointless.

 

It's quite possible that you can support some of someone's ideas and not support other statements they make. It's also possible that you think climate change is a viable theory, and not be incredibly familiar with the works and doings of Al Gore.

[bobbob1313]

"When I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh shut up' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining."- Glenn Beck

 

 

You heard it here first, JohnO hates 9/11 victims.

[JohnO]

we’re going to have a surplus population numbering in the billions.

Who determines who is surplus? ANSWER: The guys with the bigger guns.

 

Over 97% of species that ever lived are now extinct. Lower life forms make up the vast majority of the 3%. Now we're supposed to be smarter than anything that ever came before but it's only a matter of when, not if, humans will join that list of extinctions. Let's see dinosaurs ruled the earth for 160 million years so we only need to go about 159.99 million years to catch them. Did the dinosaurs worry about climate change? How many shows did TRex make it to?

[Guest Runaway Jim]

"When I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh shut up' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining."- Glenn Beck

 

Someone actually said that?

[Guest Speed Racer]

Who determines who is surplus? ANSWER: The guys with the bigger guns.

 

I don't care how many people in the car do or don't have guns, a car will break down and affect each passenger more or less equally because of its surplus passengers if too many are stuffed inside; similarly, the earth won't give a rat's ass who has guns when it becomes overwhelmed. I know you're smart enough to know what GON is talking about, you just choose to mince words in favor of making what you perceive to be a joke.

[JohnO]

Your post implied that (a) person(s) on this board agreed with the person making the quote, which IS relevant to this discussion if you're using it as a part of this discussion.

You are imagining things. Stay on your meds.

 

Are you saying that all of us who support parts of the theory of climate change agree with everything that Al Gore says, always? That our ideas are exactly the same as his, all the time? Or are you just throwing around quotes from famous people? Because that's a fun game!

We're talking about climate change right? Again, you have an over active imagination.

 

Throwing around a quote from someone on the "other side" of the debate, and then implying that everyone opposing your argument agrees with it, is a pointless and useless tactic when you're trying to have a productive discussion. Throwing around a quote from someone on the "other side" and NOT implying that people opposing your argument here is just as pointless.

Now you are really being foolish. The quote was used to demonstrate the point I was making which was open debate is good and necessary and in this case the "other side" is using age old tactics to stifle opposition. Your poor attempt to make it something else is really pathetic..

 

It's quite possible that you can support some of someone's ideas and not support other statements they make. It's also possible that you think climate change is a viable theory, and not be incredibly familiar with the works and doings of Al Gore.

I'm familiar enough with the works and doings of Algore to know he is living proof that there's a sucker born every minute. Others can support him if they like, that is their choice. My choice is to not support him.

 

Have fun getting your shorts in a knot.

 

I don't care how many people in the car do or don't have guns, a car will break down and affect each passenger more or less equally because of its surplus passengers if too many are stuffed inside; similarly, the earth won't give a rat's ass who has guns when it becomes overwhelmed. I know you're smart enough to know what GON is talking about, you just choose to mince words in favor of making what you perceive to be a joke.

You don't know me at all. I wasn't joking.

[M. (hristine]

I agree, but by and large, we’ve removed ourselves from that system, and rather than live within it, we have manipulated it on a grand scale, and for a while, it worked (and continues work) to our benefit – but now it appears as though we are seeing the effects of those changes, and the bill is in the post, with interest. It is estimated that prior to industrialization, the planet’s carrying capacity sat somewhere in the neighborhood of one billion – there are now six billion of us – and our ability to sustain that number comes largely by way of artificial, unsustainable, i.e. unnatural means. We’ve taken billions of year’s worth of stored energy, and released it back into the atmosphere within an extremely short period of time. We’ve created fertilizers from petroleum to feed more mouths than a pre-industrialized, pre-fertilized farm “community” could ever begin to hope to feed. And when that energy is no longer available, assuming alternatives to take its place are not yet widely available, we’re going to have a surplus population numbering in the billions, without the means to provide sufficient sustenance.

 

Or, perhaps, through the use of nuclear weapons, we’ll simply eliminate ourselves and everything else from the map – and there is nothing natural about that.

 

By definition, I suppose everything humans do is natural, but for better or worse, we’re pretty much living outside the example set by every other creature that has ever lived on this planet, long-term and successfully.\

 

Edit - for the record, put a "in my opinion" at the end of most of the previous sentences.

And I guess my response is that it is arrogance to believe that it's even remotely possible to remove ourselves from that system. Whether through the inclination towards war, natural disaster, epidemic disease, or unseen apocalyptic occurences, the system seeks to balance itself. The element that is in a precarious position is humans, the innocent as well as the guilty. The system does not differentiate.

[Guest Speed Racer]

You really didn't read what I wrote, did you? There was no point to you posting that Al Gore quote, because no one here was supporting him or his ideas in the first place. It was a non-sequiter, and I was just pointing it out as such. If you think that this issue is binary - those who agree that there is climate change and those who do not - you are being incredibly short-sighted. More than likely, you simply present the argument as such on this board out of laziness and a desire to stir shit.

[Guest Speed Racer]

You don't know me at all. I wasn't joking.

 

Because your post so over-simplified and hyperbolic, I guess I just assumed you must be joking.

[bobbob1313]

And I guess my response is that it is arrogance to believe that it's even remotely possible to remove ourselves from that system. Whether through the inclination towards war, natural disaster, epidemic disease, or unseen apocalyptic occurences, the system seeks to balance itself. The only element that is in a precarious position is humans, the innocent as well as the guilty. The system does not differentiate.

 

Well, I think that's the point. We as a species believe we can continue unabated, but there will be a tipping point where our actions have consequences and the system balances itself out. We seek to remove ourselves from the system of life, and that will bring our downfall (maybe).

[JohnO]

It is you who did not read what I wrote. My original post was a response to the question, "when did the trend change from global warming to climate change?" You then decided to spin it into a shit weave of implications and assumptions. Now your behavior may stem from either an over active imagination or a case of paranoid delusions but in either case that's not my problem. If my posts really annoy you please feel free to ignore them.

 

Oh and the debate is not between "those who agree that there is climate change and those who do not" as the climate has been changing since the planet was formed. The debate is about what affect human activity has on the global climate. That is the debate Algore has tried to shut down with his silly phrase. It seems with every passing day more and more of the data they use to support their theory is shown to be questionable. Here from this weekends London Times: World may not be warming, say scientists

[lamradio]

[bobbob1313]

Seriously, what is the "Algore" thing?

[JohnO]

kinda like Bobdole.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Your whole reply to "when did the trend change":

 

More precisely it was when they couldn't prove it to be a man made phenomena and turned to religious rhetoric with a dash of Ponzi scheme called cap and trade thrown in for good measure. Every time someone says "the science is settled" alarm bells should go off in your head. Not long ago the greatest minds of the time felt the same way about eugenics.

 

First, who's they?

 

The italicized sentence does imply - I don't care what you say - that people in this thread have heard someone make that statement, and did not hear alarm bells. That, or, as I've said, it was a complete non-sequitur thrown in there for color. I like spinach!

 

Oh and the debate is not between "those who agree that there is climate change and those who do not" as the climate has been changing since the planet was formed. The debate is about what affect human activity has on the global climate.

 

That phrase was pure laziness on my part. I thought I have been overtly clear a number of times that this is about "the human impact of ___ v. ____," and didn't care to write out the whole thing.