Originally posted by FMFNo more than 200 million cows crapping. Both are parts of nature which is ongoing and which we can't stop anyway.
I have already posed the ironic question, and now you're posing the same ironic question to me - why? I should be flattered I suppose.
An iceberg twice the size of Manhattan breaking away from the Petermann Glacier in northern Greenland does not happen a few hundred million times a day, obviously. Is it cause for legitimate concern in any way to your way of thinking?
Originally posted by kevcvs57Whoopdy doo! Not in 150 years? Out of how many millions of years?
According to a BBC report this A.M N.A.S.A are calling the event 'unprecedented', apparently such an event has not occurred for 150yrs at least.
The biggest concern seems to the seasonal loss of 100% of the surface ice thus exposing the permanent ice sheet to warming by the sun.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18901068.
Originally posted by finneganAs sh76 indicated, the left's approach is just to create another big pile of money as a "save the world fund". You know, kinda like how the stimulus saved us all. Even if cap and trade was inacted today, from what I read it would not significantly reduce carbon emissions.
Well there is a series of Right wing responses.
1. Deny it is happening. Call it a left wing or secular humanist conspiracy. A variation on this is to quibble indefinitely about specifics.
2. Deny that it matters / trivialise it. This requires living in a time bubble - anything over the horizon does not exist. It also requires appeals to magical t ...[text shortened]... ems and no hardship - so the poor and the disadvantaged can be discarded. They do not exist.
Sorry, but there were more carbon emissions according to scientists from dinosaurs passing gas than from all the man made carbon emissions today. I simply don't buy that it will cause the end of the world. In fact, I think it rather arrogant that mankind thinks that he is that powerful. Some 98% or so of species that once roamed the earth are now extinct and most of it was not at the hand of mankind. Life goes on.
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignCows also emit massive quantities of methane gas of course and the meat industry grows and grows, taking up increasing proportions of agricultural land. This is not part of nature that is ongoing - it is a feature of industrialised farming and Western eating habits and as such very modern indeed. The meat industry can be confronted and not least with hopes for synthetic meat substitutes.
No more than 200 million cows crapping. Both are parts of nature which is ongoing and which we can't stop anyway.
Similarly, the introduction of corn syrup as sugar into a growing proportion of western foods only started in the Seventies and has induced an epidemic of gross obesity with associated ailments. It has taken forty years to recognise and start to get attention, much of that time with American interests obfuscating the science and subverting the WHO in its occasional attempt to point out the hazards.
American style capitalism is not a part of nature and has long ceased to be part of constructive economics. It will take time to overcome American style fascism before international politics becomes decent. You appear unable to think very far into either the past or the future, living as you do in utopia
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyAnd there were dinosaurs living on Antarctica in what would seem to us to be a tropical paradise.
Sorry, but there were more carbon emissions according to scientists from dinosaurs passing gas than from all the man made carbon emissions today.
I simply don't buy that it will cause the end of the world.
Nobody does. If you are forced to create strawman fallacies then you position is already lost.
What global warming will do, and already has done, is:
1. Change the environment.
2. Change the sea level.
Both are potentially more costly than stopping climate change. Its simply a question of whether we are capable of planning ahead for our own benefit. Clearly you would rather foist the problem off on your children.
In fact, I think it rather arrogant that mankind thinks that he is that powerful.
But it is stupid to think we cannot affect the climate. If you look at Google Earth/Maps, it is immediately evident that we have dramatically changed the vegetation of the Earths surface. If you have any knowledge of history at all, then you know that we have dramatically changed the variety of animals that live in most parts of the earth. If you have any knowledge of climate at all then you would know that vegetation and animals are an important factor in earths climate.
So I say again: it is stupid to think we cannot affect the climate.
Whats more, it is stupid to affect it and not plan ahead. History is littered with examples of peoples or whole civilizations that destroyed themselves because they went for the quick profit without seeing whether it was sustainable.
Will we all die if sea levels rise by 10m? Of course not. Will it cost us a lot? Yes. Is it cheaper to do something about it now and prevent it from happening? Yes.
But you have a typical republican mindset. You don't like the solutions people are using now, so you:
1. Spread false information.
2. Block everything you can.
3. Do not offer any alternative solutions.
Originally posted by twhiteheadGuess what would happen without human activity on earth.
And there were dinosaurs living on Antarctica in what would seem to us to be a tropical paradise.
[b]I simply don't buy that it will cause the end of the world.
Nobody does. If you are forced to create strawman fallacies then you position is already lost.
What global warming will do, and already has done, is:
1. Change the environment.
2. Ch ...[text shortened]... d false information.
2. Block everything you can.
3. Do not offer any alternative solutions.[/b]
1. The environment would change.
2. The sea level would fluctuate.
In fact, sceince tells us these things happened long before humans came around.
As far as the end of the world goes, no one can stop that either. Eventually the sun will see to it.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou presume that mankind can stop climate change. Even if man is a contributing factor, it is doubtful he is enough of a factor to stop things in their tracks.
And there were dinosaurs living on Antarctica in what would seem to us to be a tropical paradise.
[b]I simply don't buy that it will cause the end of the world.
Nobody does. If you are forced to create strawman fallacies then you position is already lost.
What global warming will do, and already has done, is:
1. Change the environment.
2. Ch ...[text shortened]... d false information.
2. Block everything you can.
3. Do not offer any alternative solutions.[/b]
You at least recognize there are costs, whereas most of the proponents deny there are such. The question is whether the costs are justified by the chances of success, against the chances that nature will take care of itself.
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettI'm in favor of some carbon cutting measures such as development of alternative energy sources (though not cap and trade). I was playing Devil's advocate in response to finnegan's caricature.
In other words, you won't agree to do anything about it until it's far too late. If you were just destroying your own planet I wouldn't care, but you're destroying my planet as well.
Originally posted by finneganI don't have any affection for the rich any more than for the poor. However I don't harbor resentment against either group.
Strange, though, how it is reasonably accurate.
Your affection for "the rich" is touching of course. They must be protected and clearly you are the man for the job.
Originally posted by sh76But the argument will be made that cap and trade is needed for those alternative energy sources to be "created". In other words, you have to make affordable energy sources unaffordable for people to pursue them. Just look at all the wonderful alternatives cap and trade has created in Europe. LOL.
I'm in favor of some carbon cutting measures such as development of alternative energy sources (though not cap and trade). I was playing Devil's advocate in response to finnegan's caricature.
Originally posted by whodeyPart of what you discount is the notion of "externalities." Corporations like to regard any costs other than direct costs of production as not their responsibility. The reality that they impose costs which others will have to pay for in one form or another is just inconvenient, so ignored. Extracting and consuming scarce and non renewable resources which at the same time cause environmental harm is not an activty that should be regarded as simply a matter of pumping stuff out of the ground and burning it. It is cheap because we fail to account for it sensibly and realistically. Proper accounting would for example wish to reduce trivial uses of scarce resources, and promote alternatives that are sustainable and renewable. You would see that as the state interfering with the rights of private property of course, since in your ideology environmental and social harm are somebody else's problem.
But the argument will be made that cap and trade is needed for those alternative energy sources to be "created". In other words, you have to make affordable energy sources unaffordable for people to pursue them. Just look at all the wonderful alternatives cap and trade has created in Europe. LOL.
Originally posted by whodeyIn geological time huge changes have taken place in the Earth's environment but apart from the the comet that crashed into the world of the dinosaurs it has happened (in human terms) imperceptibly slowly. nature can adapt to gradual change within limits (there have been a number of mass exinctions other than the dinosaurs) but it cannot adapt to very rapid change.
Guess what would happen without human activity on earth.
1. The environment would change.
2. The sea level would fluctuate.
In fact, sceince tells us these things happened long before humans came around.
As far as the end of the world goes, no one can stop that either. Eventually the sun will see to it.
Over the last thousand years mankind has transformed China from a land of deep forest into its present form, while in Europe the entire landscape of Germany was transformed from forest, marsh and slow, winding rivers with huge estuaries into its present tidy and agriculturally productive form. The impact of the industrial revolution ahs been as dramatic but far more quickly.
The new information from greenland does not tell us that the ice will disappear even in our lietimes - probably it could not melt away in less than a few thousand years even with global warming. What it does, though, is confirm the pace and direction of change and the evidence that this process is caused by human activity. We do not need the world to end for there to be serious and immensely costly implications. But we do in fact know many of the sources of change - in our industrial processes, our dependence on the meat industry and other factors that can be addressed.
Originally posted by sh76There a lot of really pleasant and attractive rich people and conversely among poor people because people are diverse regardless of their wealth status. It is not about liking or hating people. However, the consequences of excessive inequaliity are well documented and it is perfectly reasonable to be angry about that. Excessive inequality is harmful and its effects are something I certainly protest about. The notion that we live in a global meritocracy where wealth is distributed on any rational criteria is too absurd to contemplate. The offshore tax havens channel and launder the wealth of drug barons, arms dealers, tyrants, oligarchs, all the tax evading creeps of our corporate world, along with their wives, girlfriends, children and hangers on and we are expected to accept the creation of a new oligarchy that owns our planet.
I don't have any affection for the rich any more than for the poor. However I don't harbor resentment against either group.
1 edit
Originally posted by finneganI agree with your basic point (until you started getting into the oligarchs ruling the planet stuff) that excessive income inequality is, by and large, a negative. You can help this by raising taxes a little and increasing opportunity through education. All that is fine and good.
There a lot of really pleasant and attractive rich people and conversely among poor people because people are diverse regardless of their wealth status. It is not about liking or hating people. However, the consequences of excessive inequaliity are well documented and it is perfectly reasonable to be angry about that. Excessive inequality is harmful and its ...[text shortened]... d hangers on and we are expected to accept the creation of a new oligarchy that owns our planet.
But making this about "getting" the rich or disliking people merely because they've succeeded is downright crazy. You don't want to discourage people from trying to become rich either.
Originally posted by finneganI wish you would watch this video of George Carlin on global warming. He is much better at words than I.
In geological time huge changes have taken place in the Earth's environment but apart from the the comet that crashed into the world of the dinosaurs it has happened (in human terms) imperceptibly slowly. nature can adapt to gradual change within limits (there have been a number of mass exinctions other than the dinosaurs) but it cannot adapt to very rapid ...[text shortened]... ustrial processes, our dependence on the meat industry and other factors that can be addressed.