LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   General (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/)
-   -   Too Little, Too Late? - NY Times Finally Pulls Out the All the Stops on Climate Change (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/too-little-too-late-ny-times-finally-pulls-out-the-all-the-stops-on-climate-change-4175635536/)

enorbet 08-02-2018 01:47 PM

Too Little, Too Late? - NY Times Finally Pulls Out the All the Stops on Climate Change
 
Well, Gents it's High Stakes Poker time as in "Read "em and Weep". This is superb journalism but what I'd like to know is where was it 30 years ago?... or is it just easier to highlight big stories in the Digital Age?

Check this out --- Long Term Study on Climate Change is Bad News (we almost fixed it)---

RandomTroll 08-02-2018 03:22 PM

What difference would it have made? The NY Times has been calling for the elimination of the Electoral College since 1936. Svante Arrhenius pointed out the warming effects of CO2 in 1894 (he thought it would be to the good, increase agricultural production). I remember explaining it to a girlfriend's family back then. I remember a distinguished Yale economist who argued that it would cost less to fix the damages than to prevent them.

rokytnji 08-02-2018 03:40 PM

Well, red neck logic is in charge, by popular demand, so you can throw facts into the septic tank. I already live in a hot zone.

I should be dead when water hit's 20 bucks a gallon. Glad my planet polluting central a/c is humming away nicely. It will be replaced when it breaks, because in the desert. It is a needed appliance. That or dig a big man cave hole. Because when you get down to it. In the end. It is still, all about me.

Adobe and Hay houses may just be the ticket for surviving some of this on a low budget. But no body is pushing this via main stream . Lumber and brick is still king.

My great grand kids have a tough row to hoe. Seeing that Jimmy Carter was considered a idiot. He installed Solar Thermal Panels on the White House roof and was considered a laughing stock for being a caring human being. Red Neck logic again.

Nice article. Maybe should be shot into space .

Edit: Citation:

Code:

$ pinxi -W pecos,tx
Weather:
  Temperature: 37 C (98 F) Conditions: Clear
  Current Time: Thu 02 Aug 2018 07:23:04 PM CDT


ChuangTzu 08-02-2018 05:04 PM

yawn...

https://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures.../31/id/602999/
https://polarbearscience.com/2017/12...uesome-photos/
http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/05/...limate-change/
https://mynewsla.com/hollywood/2017/...t-me-to-death/


Inuit's have reported there are too many polar bears and the population is growing rapidly.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...rticle4099460/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfo...avut-1.4628156

fido_dogstoyevsky 08-02-2018 07:24 PM

Retired chemist, just voted yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by enorbet (Post 5886958)
...This is superb journalism but what I'd like to know is where was it 30 years ago?...

Actually closer to four decades... it was a serious discussion topic while I was an undergraduate in the early seventies.

rokytnji 08-02-2018 07:53 PM

Quote:

yawn...
Yeah, I would also at Anthony Watts spewing expertise in this field of study.

enorbet 08-02-2018 11:53 PM

It was my intention to "avoid the fray" and be impartial in this thread but I just have to comment that as always I enjoy your comments and redneck logic, rokytnji, and I especially appreciate and applaud your blog entry regarding the still. Cool stuff and rather important hack. Kudos.

.... and Anthony Watts? You mean "I'm not an expert but I played one on TV" Anthony Watts?

ondoho 08-03-2018 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandomTroll (Post 5887002)
Svante Arrhenius pointed out the warming effects of CO2 in 1894 (he thought it would be to the good, increase agricultural production). I remember explaining it to a girlfriend's family back then.

you are much older than i thought! respect!

strange how the "debunking" always seems to concentrate on one or two aspects only, often involving colourful imagery.
contrary to popular news coverage, global warming has all sorts of complex effects (not necessarily resulting in warmer weather, as the name might imply), is clearly measurable, and has long been considered a scientfic fact.
of course, in a world where darwinism is being "debunked" as a non-fact... - well, i just learned that fact & theory are not opposed terms...

hazel 08-03-2018 09:12 AM

Realistically there never was anything we could have done about global warming. Nothing could be done back in the 1980's because there was no way the human race was going to inflict a drastic and permanent cut on its standard of living unless there was overwhelming proof that our survival depended on it. And back then, there was no real evidence of any such thing. Now the evidence is stacking up and eventually it will amount to proof, but nothing really effective can be done because it is already much too late.

jsbjsb001 08-03-2018 09:51 AM

You should have added another option to your poll enorbet. Like "Other" or "Climate Change is real but not human/man-made."

I'm sorry, but the climate has been changing since the dawn of time - so it can't be "man-made". It's a natural fundamental process that would have happened regardless of whether we graced the poor (and no doubt sorry) Earth or not.

We have accelerated a fundamental process and therefore, we have sped up that same process to be seeing what we are with wild weather, more destructive storms, hotter (and colder) temperatures, etc.

RandomTroll 08-03-2018 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ondoho (Post 5887229)
you are much older than i thought! respect!

Finally, the respect I deserve. Svante & I were buds - great pastries!

fatmac 08-03-2018 11:27 AM

Sweltering in 80+F here, when, in my youth, the high temps used to be mid 60F that used to get me 'melting'. :)

Yes, most of it is man made, the excessive use of carbon fuels has caused a lot of it, & that has been proven - we should have stayed pedalling our bikes! :D

DavidMcCann 08-03-2018 11:35 AM

I'd like to know just what qualifications the 3 skeptics have! For the record, I did do a bit of climatology at Cambridge.

Of course, when the US Bible Belt turns into a dust-bowl ravaged by ever-more powerful tornadoes, at least the rest of us will be able to say "we told you so!" to the trumpkin!

hazel 08-03-2018 11:38 AM

@jsbjsb: it's true that there have been many episodes of global warming (and global cooling!) before we came on the scene. The biggest such episode was at the end of the Permian era. It was apparently caused by massive supervolcano eruptions in Siberia, and it caused the biggest ever mass extinction event. The extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous was a mere blip by comparison. Do we really want to go there again?

As an aside, I wonder what contribution to global warming the cryptocurrency craze is making?

ChuangTzu 08-03-2018 04:09 PM

The earth warms, the earth cools, the poles flip, the north and south poles become the equator, the equator becomes the north and south poles. Its called cycles, Natural Laws etc... it has occurred long before man took his/her first step, it will continue long after he/she takes their last step.

One natural/universal law is that the only constant in life, the only thing that remains unchanging is change itself. Perhaps, its time to add an * to this law that states, mankind's tendency to profit from that change is a new evolutionary trait.

These redundant threads are becoming quite comical, how many different ways do you need to rehash the same concept/idea?

ntubski 08-03-2018 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 (Post 5887302)
We have accelerated a fundamental process and therefore, we have sped up that same process to be seeing what we are with wild weather, more destructive storms, hotter (and colder) temperatures, etc.

So if we say "man-influenced", you would be satisfied?

enorbet 08-04-2018 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 (Post 5887302)
You should have added another option to your poll enorbet. Like "Other" or "Climate Change is real but not human/man-made."

I'm sorry, but the climate has been changing since the dawn of time - so it can't be "man-made". It's a natural fundamental process that would have happened regardless of whether we graced the poor (and no doubt sorry) Earth or not.

We have accelerated a fundamental process and therefore, we have sped up that same process to be seeing what we are with wild weather, more destructive storms, hotter (and colder) temperatures, etc.

Since I'm not immortal or even quite as old as The Earth ;) I am not concerned with saving Planet Earth. Earth will be just fine until our Sun swallows it up. I'm only concerned with Humanity's place on it, that there will still be one, and what Humanity can do and has done to influence that, so that's why I left that option out. To me the semantics of "made vs/ influenced" is too easily misconstrued and matters not one whit.

enorbet 08-04-2018 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuangTzu (Post 5887434)
The earth warms, the earth cools, the poles flip, the north and south poles become the equator, the equator becomes the north and south poles. Its called cycles, Natural Laws etc... it has occurred long before man took his/her first step, it will continue long after he/she takes their last step.

One natural/universal law is that the only constant in life, the only thing that remains unchanging is change itself. Perhaps, its time to add an * to this law that states, mankind's tendency to profit from that change is a new evolutionary trait.

These redundant threads are becoming quite comical, how many different ways do you need to rehash the same concept/idea?

It's rather obvious that your first sentence is real and true with one extremely important caveat - We haven't the technology to influence our home planet's magnetic field let alone polarity but we do have and have exercised substantial and profound (to Us) influence over climate.

Your second sentence is one I see repeatedly since it is the only possible raison d'etre Big Oil can come up with to make the claim that someone is getting rich off of "The Human Caused Climate Change Hoax" since they are getting rich off of denying it (talk about Poles flipping!) and History shows Status Quo is a powerful force, likely to win out. The hubris of deny-ers amazes me since it isn't as if one requires higher Math or expensive equipment to verify it is not a Hoax. There are actually people ready to trust that NASA/ESA recently discovered a 20km lake of unfrozen water roughly a kilometer under the surface of Mars' South Pole but question NASA/ESA and 55 other institutions and individuals recorded measurements, photos, and films documenting the change and Humanity's role in it right here on Earth!.

I'm afraid I strongly disagree with your 3rd and last sentence since I don't find it comical at all but rather disgusting and terribly tragic. How many ways? I suppose until a poll like this one has zero deniers of the all too obvious facts and nobody is going to be smug about having come to that conclusion early since the consequences, all of them, are likely beyond our imagination Bad. This is a case where I yearn to be wrong, but I likely am not. At this point all we can hope for regarding the future, if there is to be one, for Humanity that "Bad" will be a struggle that ultimately results in Growth and Maturity required to "reach the Stars".

ondoho 08-04-2018 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ondoho (Post 5887229)
of course, in a world where darwinism is being "debunked" as a non-fact...

this was confusing.
i should've clarified: in my opinion, doubting humanity's influence on global warming is akin to believing in Intelligent Design. there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuangTzu (Post 5887434)
The earth warms, the earth cools, the poles flip, the north and south poles become the equator, the equator becomes the north and south poles. Its called cycles, Natural Laws etc... it has occurred long before man took his/her first step, it will continue long after he/she takes their last step.

One natural/universal law is that the only constant in life, the only thing that remains unchanging is change itself. Perhaps, its time to add an * to this law that states, mankind's tendency to profit from that change is a new evolutionary trait.

https://xkcd.com/1732/
be sure to scroll down to the end, otherwise you won't get it.

Quote:

These redundant threads are becoming quite comical, how many different ways do you need to rehash the same concept/idea?
the same could be said about these redundant replies of yours...

jsbjsb001 08-04-2018 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazel (Post 5887331)
@jsbjsb: it's true that there have been many episodes of global warming (and global cooling!) before we came on the scene. The biggest such episode was at the end of the Permian era. It was apparently caused by massive supervolcano eruptions in Siberia, and it caused the biggest ever mass extinction event. The extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous was a mere blip by comparison. Do we really want to go there again?

Hay Hazel! Yes, it's very true that climate change didn't start with us. That was my main point in my last post above.

Quote:

As an aside, I wonder what contribution to global warming the cryptocurrency craze is making?
If there's $$$ to be made, I'd say probably a big contribution, particularly when you're talking about the "lobby groups" and alike...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ntubski (Post 5887452)
So if we say "man-influenced", you would be satisfied?

Hey ntubski! Don't always see a lot of posts from yourself, I guess you're a bit like me in that: I pick and choose what I do and don't reply to, even sometimes when I do know the answer(s).

It's not about me or even yourself being "satisfied", we can be satisfied all we want - that doesn't change anything. It doesn't stop climate change, but yes, that would be a far more accurate description in my view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by enorbet (Post 5887509)
Since I'm not immortal or even quite as old as The Earth ;) I am not concerned with saving Planet Earth.

I don't think you can "save" a planet from natural fundamental processes.

Quote:

Earth will be just fine until our Sun swallows it up. I'm only concerned with Humanity's place on it, that there will still be one, and what Humanity can do and has done to influence that, so that's why I left that option out. To me the semantics of "made vs/ influenced" is too easily misconstrued and matters not one whit.
I understand your point enorbet. Fair enough. I said what I said above because I can't vote in the current poll. I can't vote "Yes", I can't vote "No" because climate change is not a hoax and it's foolish IMHO to deny what's as clear as day - it IS happening, there's no doubt about that in my mind. And I can't vote "Jury Isn't In Yet" because I once again think it's clear that the climate IS changing.

My point is that it cannot be "man-made" if it's been happening since before we graced the poor Earth.

hazel 08-04-2018 08:13 AM

This week's New Scientist has several articles on global warming, including a rather ominous one about changing ocean currents.

Mill J 08-04-2018 09:05 AM

I'll throw some stuff in here too.

Think of the average acreage of farmland that is farmed using modern practices....

They pump anhydrous ammonia directly into the ground. This stuff is deadly, not only to humans but also the microbiology, who are necessary for healthy soil.

Since the soil is dead, they need to constantly fertilize their fields. Who cares that most fertilizers are deadly to soil life. There is no soil life anyways:D

Time to plant. They buy the latest Max, Advantage Plus, Highest yield, whatever, whatever, genetically modified herbicide tolerant seeds. These seed and the plants are toxic to insects, including beneficial ones like bees.

Later, nature's bare soil response team(weeds) kicks in to protect the soil from erosion and moisture loss. This is of course very undesirable. Break out the herbicide. The killer does its job and continues to kill the soil. Not to mention the next rain will carry it into the water supply. Hmm aquatic life is dying!?? But How???


After a successful harvest, the field is once more bare for over winter, except for a few herbicide resistant weeds.

Fields with this treatment, develop soil compaction. Which means it can no longer hold water like it should. When it rains there is HUGE amounts of runoff, When the sun shines its hard as a rock. In the spring it's one sloppy mess. Drainage tile to the rescue. Now the water can run off even faster and the weed killer reaches your water supply so much quicker.


So how would this affect the climate? Think about it...How many acres are farm this way? They contribute next to nothing the environment, hold very little water. Hence drought and flooding is a common side effect. Not to mention the chemicals involved.


Modern Farming is only a small factor in so called climate change, but don't underestimate it.


:twocents:

enorbet 08-04-2018 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 (Post 5887554)
I don't think you can "save" a planet from natural fundamental processes.

I think that view supposes we are somehow separate from those processes and we are not. If you insulate your house sufficiently when you exercise you will actually raise the temperature in your home as your elevated body heat is transmitted throughout your home. So if you become uncomfortably hot in that situation you would just keep on exercising and deny your effect on your environment? Everything that can happen is Natural. Unnatural and Supernatural are lies.


Quote:

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 (Post 5887554)
I understand your point enorbet. Fair enough. I said what I said above because I can't vote in the current poll. I can't vote "Yes", I can't vote "No" because climate change is not a hoax and it's foolish IMHO to deny what's as clear as day - it IS happening, there's no doubt about that in my mind. And I can't vote "Jury Isn't In Yet" because I once again think it's clear that the climate IS changing.

My point is that it cannot be "man-made" if it's been happening since before we graced the poor Earth.

You are dodging the issue by arguing pure semantics. Either humans are sufficiently numerous and productive to affect climate or they are not. Period.

jsbjsb001 08-04-2018 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enorbet (Post 5887751)
I think that view supposes we are somehow separate from those processes and we are not. If you insulate your house sufficiently when you exercise you will actually raise the temperature in your home as your elevated body heat is transmitted throughout your home. So if you become uncomfortably hot in that situation you would just keep on exercising and deny your effect on your environment? Everything that can happen is Natural. Unnatural and Supernatural are lies.

My point was that you can't stop a natural process, not how "separate" we are or ain't from it. I wasn't "supposing" anymore than that.

Quote:

You are dodging the issue by arguing pure semantics. Either humans are sufficiently numerous and productive to affect climate or they are not. Period.
Causing something, and merely effecting something ain't necessarily one of the same thing.

ChuangTzu 08-04-2018 04:12 PM

Often times the first sign of tyranny (in any form) is the absence of and/or refusal to allow opposing views. Notice how the for "man made climate change" group, cannot allow/permit an opposing/differing view, its either man made or its wrong, its this groups way or no way. That's not science its tyranny.

Ref: Tyranny of the mind https://www.monticello.org/site/jeff...-god-quotation
Tyranny of the Majority https://edsitement.neh.gov/curriculu...ranny-majority
Tyranny of Science https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...nny-of-science

jsbjsb001 08-04-2018 04:47 PM

It's really cause and effect in many ways.

The cause: is a natural process that would have happened regardless of our presence on this Earth or not; that is being accelerated (but not caused) by us humans.

The effect: wilder weather, more destructive storms, hotter and colder temperatures, etc

If it were not for our "contribution", the same would have taken many, many more years/decades/etc to happen instead. And it therefore cannot be "man-made" if it's fundamentally a "natural process".

While I agree that first of all: we all have a "stake" in it. And yes, we should try and limit the effects of climate change. But to be realistic, we can only try and slow it down - we still can't actually stop it from happening. I really don't understand this left/right bullsh*t.

anestis89 08-04-2018 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuangTzu (Post 5887434)
The earth warms, the earth cools, the poles flip, the north and south poles become the equator, the equator becomes the north and south poles. Its called cycles, Natural Laws etc... it has occurred long before man took his/her first step, it will continue long after he/she takes their last step.

One natural/universal law is that the only constant in life, the only thing that remains unchanging is change itself. Perhaps, its time to add an * to this law that states, mankind's tendency to profit from that change is a new evolutionary trait.

These redundant threads are becoming quite comical, how many different ways do you need to rehash the same concept/idea?

Well said. Nothing more to add.

Myk267 08-05-2018 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 (Post 5887793)
It's really cause and effect in many ways.

The cause: is a natural process that would have happened regardless of our presence on this Earth or not; that is being accelerated (but not caused) by us humans.

The effect: wilder weather, more destructive storms, hotter and colder temperatures, etc

If it were not for our "contribution", the same would have taken many, many more years/decades/etc to happen instead. And it therefore cannot be "man-made" if it's fundamentally a "natural process".

While I agree that first of all: we all have a "stake" in it. And yes, we should try and limit the effects of climate change. But to be realistic, we can only try and slow it down - we still can't actually stop it from happening. I really don't understand this left/right bullsh*t.

I don't think anyone disagrees with you all that much. I think you may have just gotten a bad read of the poll text: "Human Caused Climate Change is Real?" This is definitely a poll of whether or not you think anthropogenic climate change is real.

You suggest that the Earth would have naturally reached the point we are at now, much later. I'm wondering if that's true? It's my understanding that before the industrial revolution Co2 was relatively static relative to afterwards.

enorbet 08-05-2018 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuangTzu (Post 5887778)
Often times the first sign of tyranny (in any form) is the absence of and/or refusal to allow opposing views. Notice how the for "man made climate change" group, cannot allow/permit an opposing/differing view, its either man made or its wrong, its this groups way or no way. That's not science its tyranny.

How do you get a "tyrannical my way or the highway" scenario out of a binary situation? Precisely what Science does is to formulate a hypothesis and then attempt to "punch holes in it". If no holes can be punched then it is accepted that is "bulletproof" at least up to the parameters tested. One binary situation for an illustration is whether the earth is flat or roughly a globe. It can't be both. One or the other is accurate and correct and if one side amasses patterned data that constitutes the preponderance of evidence, that side is more likely to be correct. Whether or not the argument is concluded or not depends entirely on whether or not the opposing view has amassed a similar body of objective data or has barely a leg to stand on. That is not tyranny. That is critical thought. "Open Mindedness" doesn't mean accepting all wild claims regardless of evidence.

The Science is clear. It would be far more comfortable if the data read differently but unfortunately it does not, firstly whether humanity is a part of the cause or not, then secondarily if it is , then can it also reverse that effect.

While Myk267 makes a valid point regarding what trends did actually exist before the Industrial Revolution which may lead to a firmer reduction of any gap that may exist between "caused" or "affected and accelerated", I care not about the distinction.

If I'm a passenger in a car that is being driven dangerously fast given weather conditions because it is raining cats and dogs, I don't care about any argumentative distinction between what will cause the likely upcoming accident, the rain or the car's velocity. I just want the driver to ease off the gas

ondoho 08-05-2018 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enorbet (Post 5887865)
If I'm a passenger in a car that is being driven dangerously fast given weather conditions because it is raining cats and dogs, I don't care about any argumentative distinction between what will cause the likely upcoming accident, the rain or the car's velocity. I just want the driver to ease off the gas

well said!

Mill J 08-05-2018 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enorbet (Post 5887865)
If I'm a passenger in a car that is being driven dangerously fast given weather conditions because it is raining cats and dogs, I don't care about any argumentative distinction between what will cause the likely upcoming accident, the rain or the car's velocity. I just want the driver to ease off the gas

But what if the driver has plenty of "under the table" money? You won't be arguing with a couple million $$ knowing if you reach your destination it'll be worth your while.

The problem I see it that no matter what we do, the real culprits are the under the table type. Who's planning to argue with them?

Meanwhile we suffer because it's getting illegal to ship a chainsaw, trimmers, etc with adjustable carburetors. The new trucks "require" exhaust fluid or it won't start. Just to mention a few, You get the point.

All the while the real culprits probably never worked a day in their life.

And even you. Would you break out a bicycle(these are dangerous anymore, everybody's in to much of a hurry) and sell you vehicles? How about flipping the main breaker on your electrical meter, for good?

enorbet 08-05-2018 05:26 PM

Mill J the analogy has a problem in that I wouldn't consider the bux as a reasonable incentive to allow continued high danger of death. Money's no good in the grave. I do see what you mean however but I disagree with what solutions you imagine. I dislike regulations as much as anyone maybe even more than most since I too think one of the regulations you mentioned is bullshit. Chainsaws hardly constitute a major threat but that's still a small price to pay for preventing a disaster that affects everyone. The diesel truck fluid filters seems an even smaller price to pay especially IF the playing field was anywhere near level. The regulations of corporate contribution are not nearly as stringent and more easily circumvented.

Be that as it may, there are alternatives to internal combustion vehicles that could have had a substantial impact decades ago, and a few that at least help now that are short of going bicycle although I suspect there are ways to make that attractive to city dwellers. I live way out in the country so although bicycles won't work well for me they don't have to. I don't need to drive much partly because I consolidate my excursions and work mostly from home.

As for electricity. a far more important issue in many ways, let me relate an event for you. Back when Jimmy Carter was president, I worked for a solar company that did provide for home systems (wholesale to plumbers) but specialized in industrial systems like car washes, hospitals, industrial laundries etc. We were very successful, so much so that the electric company was concerned so they built an all electric home designed from the ground-up to conserve energy. It was a 2000 sq ft home with a family of four living in it. During the months I saw from January through March in Western Colorado where days well below 0 (zero) Fahrenheit (10-20 below was not uncommon) were far more common than not, their monthly TOTAL electric bill, including electric heat, never exceeded $35.00 USD. Partially electric homes having 8-10 times that amount during those months were not at all uncommon.

The point is that a reduction down to 10% of current use is a HUGE impact and would not require "flipping the breaker for good". Furthermore even below that level is the simple fact that one is going to have severe difficulty fixing a problem that many don't even consider a problem but rather a hoax, which is exactly what Big Oil hoped to achieve so buying levels don't drop. There are ways to at least minimize the impact but before we can address that in earnest we have to admit there may actually be a looming disaster. The situation is such that even if all the evidence is wrong, if storms won't increase in intensity, if many harbors and coastal cities won't become flooded and unusable, if some areas become uninhabitable, if large numbers of sea creatures don't die off, etc. etc, etc. what will we have lost by being prudent? Shouldn't we err on the side of safety and caution? Won't civilization become more sustainable as well as safer if we make such changes?

Mill J 08-05-2018 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enorbet (Post 5888119)
Mill J the analogy has a problem in that I wouldn't consider the bux as a reasonable incentive to allow continued high danger of death. Money's no good in the grave. I do see what you mean however but I disagree with what solutions you imagine.

I'm not sure what solutions I imagine. You know as well as I do nobody's going to ditch a car for a bike, or throw the breaker :rolleyes:

Quote:

I dislike regulations as much as anyone maybe even more than most since I too think one of the regulations you mentioned is bullshit. Chainsaws hardly constitute a major threat but that's still a small price to pay for preventing a disaster that affects everyone.
Very frustrating getting a new gas powered tool that has no carb adjustments on it. How can that be environmentally friendly when they end up in a landfill because they don't last worth a hoot. It takes nothing less then an aftermarket carb to make it usable for any length of time. Unless you run to the repair shop all the time.


The point I was making is: We as an average person living our daily life get the brunt of the "saving the environment" when the emissions that me and you contribute in our whole lives are probably < 5 minutes emissions for one large factory.

I am all for improving the world around me. But as long as the higher ups turn a deaf ear to where the most money comes from.....


//Warning Off Topic!
Somtimes I wish it would be possible to run
Code:

valgrind ./government
and see money leaks :D

ChuangTzu 08-05-2018 10:20 PM

Mill J, that's because it has nothing to do with saving the environment, never has never will be about it, that is a farce/scare tactic control mechanism to cause knee jerk emotional and irrational responses....
https://www.businessinsider.com/craz...house-2016-11/
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/..._n_579286.html
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/christ...house-n2363571
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vzFeiKH1jQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF-fq2Zn7I#t=4m33s (longer version)
http://www.celebcasas.com/oprah-winfreys-house.htm
https://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/bonos-house/
https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff...a-washington-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermejo_Park_Ranch
http://theladderranch.com/about/

Mill J 08-05-2018 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuangTzu (Post 5888176)
Mill J, that's because it has nothing to do with saving the environment, never has never will be about it, that is a farce/scare tactic control mechanism to cause knee jerk emotional and irrational responses....

Couldn't agree more. That "Environment Friendly" sticker sells the product. Those same words, create a lot of hush money/bribes, fines and lots of other revenue. It's a huge racket.

What's worse a lot of supposedly "safe" things ARE destroying the environment, as I mentioned in my first post. Luckily Mon$anto is facing lawsuits. Unfortunately they are big enough, it probably won't affect them. That's just one instance...

enorbet 08-06-2018 01:53 PM

So should I conclude that you think "Since rich people exist, Human Caused Global Climate Change is a hoax"?

ChuangTzu 08-06-2018 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enorbet (Post 5888460)
So should I conclude that you think "Since rich people exist, Human Caused Global Climate Change is a hoax"?

Where on this huge beautiful blue Earth did you get that idea?

It has nothing to do with rich people or rich countries, yet it does have everything to do with some rich people and some rich companies/entities/groups etc... It is an elaborate well organized, 100 + year old scheme to take from the masses in order to consolidate money, power etc... in the hands of the few. That method has a political ideology behind it...hmmm, I think I mentioned that in a different thread about the same topic.

Those links were to illustrate some of the most prevalent doomsday preachers and the obvious hypocrisy of their message. Which is no different then the TV preacher living in a mega mansion with his/her private jet, yacht etc... while preaching the message of a man/prophet/teacher/etc... that espoused the virtue's of letting go, not having attachments, frugality etc....

Al Gore's inconvenient truth is that he has become extremely rich from the man made climate hoax, his companies (invested in) are the very companies behind the Carbon tax/credit scheme promoted around the world. He is just one example. Let's see him ditch the private jet, ditch the massive fleet of armored vehicles and live in a house that is 5,000 sq ft. or less....don't hold your breath on that one. Oh wait, since we exhale CO2 maybe we should hold our breath, oh damn, that might be the next tax, a penny/half-pence per breath. Funny how these scientists make fun of the doomsday preachers on TV and in churches, yet replace God with Science, Jesus with Climate Change and its the same message, with the same send us your money at the end of the TV segment. Charlatans/Hucksters/Shysters....

Again, I have already pointed out that the climate changes in predictable natural cycles; what's new is some people/companies/entities etc... have discovered a way to profit from this natural occurrence and have spent billions of dollars propagating and disseminating that scheme.

Should we be smart and good stewards of the planet, of course, should man use that to control and tyrannize his fellow mankind, no way. I'll give you an example of being a good steward: There is a Taoist principle (Lao Tzu was one person who taught this), "Before mankind invents something he should thoroughly research all possible negative side effects, and eliminate them, until no negative side effects remain, if this is not possible then it is better to not invent that thing."

More ref: https://designyoutrust.com/2011/08/r...necker-island/

Quite strange for the founder of the World Wildlife fund to:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...-tiger-6174056
http://www.pandaleaks.org/book/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-approach.html

ondoho 08-07-2018 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuangTzu (Post 5888483)
It has nothing to do with rich people or rich countries, yet it does have everything to do with some rich people and some rich companies/entities/groups etc... It is an elaborate well organized, 100 + year old scheme to take from the masses in order to consolidate money, power etc... in the hands of the few. That method has a political ideology behind it...hmmm, I think I mentioned that in a different thread about the same topic.

so you're saying "because some people are corrupt and will use just about everything to get richer and more powerful, everything they abuse to achieve that is automatically a hoax"?

conspiration theorists' horse manure.

enorbet 08-07-2018 02:13 AM

ChuangTzu I see that you are passionate about your politics and that's a good thing or can be unless it leads one to view everything as binary Us vs/ Them. That is much like what is often called "reverse racism" which is really just "racism" practiced by those that feel victimized by racism and lash out, blind to their absolute similarity to those they consider the perpetrators excepting the object of their focus. Things and especially people just aren't that simple as polemics can lead us to believe.

Yes you have pointed out that Climate Change is in predictable natural cycles and that is basically a truism but at the same time by using the term "natural" in your way takes humans out of the equation when really it can be accurately said that on one level there is no difference between volcanoes, asteroids, sea creatures, dinosaurs and mammals in that they all have been a part of that equation. The evidence that the vast and increasing burning of fossil fuels has had a profound effect on Climate is a matter of historical record that displays an anomaly just like that in other epochs where catastrophic events occurred. Some of those were nearly instantaneous other built slowly for eons but the effects are recorded in rocks, ice, and the fossil record. Liberals didn't invent the human catalyst anymore than cyanobacteria created Huronian Glaciation. The major difference is that bacteria couldn't realize or communicate their catalytic effect. Apparently some of us humans can't either.

Note: If you find that comparison offensive let me employ a Sicilian cliche - "Only a true friend will inform you when your face is dirty". It is not my intent to defame you. It is my intent to upset your comfort zone to incite you to be more objective. Progression mathematics is a mature mechanic and the anomaly is very clear, regardless of anyone's politics or philosophy.

ondoho 08-07-2018 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enorbet (Post 5888697)
Progression mathematics is a mature mechanic and the anomaly is very clear, regardless of anyone's politics or philosophy.

this.

again, the relevant xkcd.

enorbet 08-07-2018 06:28 AM

Hazel already pointed out disturbing alteration of ocean currents which is a hugely important clue. Nobody with any credibility within the field has any doubts that humans have powerfully affected climate change, the difficulty is nailing down the rate of change which commonly outpaces even the most dire predictions. Here's a good bit of scientific data regarding that as well as "Natural Forces".

Quote:

Originally Posted by insideclimatenews.org
Oceans have enormous capacity to hold heat. So ocean temperatures, unlike temperatures on land, are slow to fluctuate from natural forces, such as El Niņo/La Niņa patterns or volcanic eruptions. Think night and day, said Trenberth. As night falls on land, so do air temperatures. But in the oceans, temperatures vary little.

This makes it easier to tease out the influence of human-caused climate change from other possible causes of surging ocean heat.

According to research by Trenberth and Lijing Cheng, of the Institute for Atmospheric Physics in Beijing, the heat storage in the oceans during 2015 and 2016 amounted to a stunning force: an increase of 30.4 X 1022 joules of energy roiling Earth's systems since 1960. The overload is helping throw off Earth's energy balance, needed for the climate to be relatively stable. Put another way: The excess energy amassed in the oceans since 1992 is roughly equivalent to 2,000 times U.S. electricity generation during the past decade, the researchers explained.

Ocean temperatures have been rising about 0.12 degrees Celsius per decade on average over the past 50 years. The higher temperatures are driving marine life toward the poles in search of livable habitats, bleaching coral reefs, and causing severe impacts on fisheries and aquacultures. They also contribute to more frequent and intense extreme weather events. In the three back-to-back deadly hurricanes of 2017—Harvey, Irma and Maria—warmer waters played a role in worsening the storms.

Not only are these increases explainable by human contributions, but it has been impossible to discover any other remotely possible cause. To the best of our knowledge and research it is an open and shut case.

There is much more data at the full article here ===>>> https://insideclimatenews.org/news/0...global-warming

Incidentally since it was stated here that "this is not science but tyranny", a conspiratorial hoax, let me mention that I have considerable training in Science and Engineering and I subscribe to several science oriented forums... serious ones where the percentage of PhDs is very high and in almost all of them discussion of Human Caused Climate Change is disallowed and the reason is clearly stated. All serious scientists know it is real and true, the evidence is overwhelming, and trying to argue with those dead set on denying it for political, economic, or philosophical agendas is both a waste of time and does not fall under the heading of Science but (naturally) under politics, economics and philosophy. Other such disallowed subjects deemed unworthy of debate in the face of the evidence is "The Apollo Moon Landing Hoax". There's just no sense in getting bogged down in bullshit.

One of the forums I habituate that is extremely serious, just click this and take a look around, https://www.physicsforums.com, has a few admins who joined in the filming of parts of the documentary film recording glacier melt, --- Chasing Ice --- These people are not climatologists but physicists, chemists, etc. and have no dog in this race biasing them to yell "The Sky is Falling!". They'd really rather find evidence that it is not occurring but the evidence is simply overwhelming and not a little scary.

ChuangTzu 08-07-2018 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ondoho (Post 5888669)
so you're saying "because some people are corrupt and will use just about everything to get richer and more powerful, everything they abuse to achieve that is automatically a hoax"?

conspiration theorists' horse manure.

No, I am saying they are indicative of the corruption behind the movement which is more rooted in politics then science. Or perhaps, politics co-opted the science behind it, but that is another debate/possibility.

Regarding the manure comment, it is the best fertilizer to grow and cultivate vegetation in an organic matter, so thank you. Horse shit is one reason mankind can feed itself. ;)

Perhaps you are in favor of this:
https://yournewswire.com/soros-faceb...rming-deniers/
https://www.triplepundit.com/2015/09...enier-skeptic/
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-env...change-deniers

ChuangTzu 08-07-2018 07:01 PM

F. Scott Fitzgerald:
“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”

Mill J 08-07-2018 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuangTzu (Post 5889133)
Regarding the manure comment, it is the best fertilizer to grow and cultivate vegetation in an organic matter, so thank you. Horse shit is one reason mankind can feed itself. ;)

Absolutely True! I've used many tons just for that purpose. It'll get you the nicest soil you'll ever grow something in.

Mara 08-08-2018 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ondoho (Post 5888669)
so you're saying "because some people are corrupt and will use just about everything to get richer and more powerful, everything they abuse to achieve that is automatically a hoax"?

conspiration theorists' horse manure.

Dear ondoho and other participants of this thread,
Personal attacks are not tolerated at LQ. We may disagree, but we do it politely. Please avoid that kind of a language. Thank you.

enorbet 08-09-2018 12:43 PM

OT question for Mara - Hello Mara I'm writing this in hopes of getting some clarification. I took ondoho's statement of "conspiration theorists horse manure" as a derisive judgment on ideas not people and therefore not personal. Apparently you, or someone, took it differently and in fact as a personal attack. Could you please explain this fine line so we can all understand this better?

jefro 08-09-2018 09:43 PM

This is the problem I have with climate.

If you believe science then most of Africa was a vast forest that died off some 4K to 20K years ago. If you believe science then you have to believe that Chili and Peru were once lush areas that went desert some 2000 years ago. If you believe science then you you'd believe the Mayan civilization died off mainly from a drought. Did mankind have a hand in it then. Well, maybe. Are there billions of variables in this issue? Yes.

enorbet 08-10-2018 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jefro (Post 5890009)
This is the problem I have with climate.

If you believe science then most of Africa was a vast forest that died off some 4K to 20K years ago. If you believe science then you have to believe that Chili and Peru were once lush areas that went desert some 2000 years ago. If you believe science then you you'd believe the Mayan civilization died off mainly from a drought. Did mankind have a hand in it then. Well, maybe. Are there billions of variables in this issue? Yes.

While it is certainly true that climate, since it takes place on so many levels and has so many influences globally that translate locally, is more complex than say why two atoms of hydrogen combine with one atom of oxygen to make a molecule of water, and while it is possible to consider some large number of variables (not certain it amounts to billions... could be millions or hundreds of thousands) it should be obvious that like in most events it is possible to rule out a very large number as "impossible or unlikely" since Probability is a very advanced and refined area of Science and Mathematics.

Regarding your specific examples let's start with the Mayan civilization and whether or not they had a hand in their own demise. The story of the fate of the Mayans isn't isolated. We know not only from Archaeology and the fossil record but in some cases from well documented written accounts from the times that numerous civilizations with similar farming practices did indeed powerfully influence conditions that resulted in drought. The very same practices and processes that brought about The Dust Bowl in the south eastern US played a large part in the loss of cities of the Aztecs, the Incas as well as the Mayans and hundreds of civilizations large and small throughout human history. This really isn't very complicated and is extremely well researched and verified.

The situation in Africa is more complicated mainly because this didn't occur as you said "4K to 20K years ago" but over millions of years yet the causes are very well known and involve plate tectonics which operate on very long time scales. Even the lake of magma that caused The Great Rift Valley is well researched and verified and it, combined with India slamming into Asia and creating the Himalayan mountain range is very well understood and has resisted all efforts to falsify the process.

Here is a very good article from Scientific American explaining the details of those events that have and continue to shape global climate but with a much more profound effect on some locales, while others were and are only mildly affected

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...man-evolution/


There is nobody doubting that so-called Natural Events like plate tectonics, volcanoes, asteroids and the like have had profound effects on climate in the ~4 billion years that Earth has existed. However there are very few if anyone doubting that The Dust Bowl was not almost entirely a man-made event and it is known that those same farming methods with only slight variations caused similar events over and over and over again in numerous locations. So it cannot be doubted than Man affects his environment. This is exactly why many early cities even up until the end of the 19th century (and later) nearly destroyed themselves by such un-hygienic practices as drawing drinking water from the same rivers used to dump sewage. It's why toilets are not located in kitchens and gas traps are included in sewer pipes and sinks. This is Science that took a very long time to work out but now most of us just take these for granted and don't think of it as scientific discovery but it most certainly is.

So just how far does your doubt of Science extend? You certainly don't have to answer that for me but you should consider that answer for yourself.

jefro 08-10-2018 02:43 PM

I'm just saying that every person that has ever lived on earth would have to be blamed for any climate change. This tends to be a true fact that most could agree with. Maybe to some degree the animals and plants could have affected a change too.

There are very few humans that have ever lived that didn't have some negative impact on the earth. My complaint is that there are literally billions of variables and many of them are not well known or well tested. I still go back the the statement that says, let me study weather for 1000 years and I'll tell you what the weather will be tomorrow. Weather has changed over the millions of years on earth from both internal, surface and external changes.


In my short stay on this earth I have seen almost every claim changed on every idea. Asbestos was a miracle in 1960. We were entering an ice age in 1962. MTBA was an EPA way to save the planet. EPA mandated better emission by percentage over total weight. These same notions in 1960 were considered science in the day and oppressed the notions of 1940's. Here's one. Solar PV panels have used about twice the energy they have ever created. Wind generators are killing birds. The earths magnetic poles may be changing or may be reducing may be one of the few claims that I tend to believe. I have seen this oddity onboard ships. I don't believe that electric cars as of yet are a more green solution. No one has shown the batteries to be easily recycled. The materials in them are all exotic and many dangerous and come from places that have no respect for the earth.
Don't let me get on medical issues. Billions of dollars on cancer since my grandfather died from it. Basically all that has changed is early diagnosing. HIV totally could go extinct but we can't get idiots to stop spreading it along with other preventable diseases.

It is not a question if I believe in science. It is a question of their credibility. I have seen too many wrong guesses in my life and pompous claims of how great the notions are.

As for the wind generators I tried to the EPA to study my solutions to reduce bird deaths and they refused.


No, I don't think the US knew about the sneak attack at Pearl Harbor or the twin towers.

I don't care if 100 people or a million tell me some notion. I don't have to believe it. (unless I live in some mind controlled country) I don't have to believe the stupid stuff they say on the news either. I've lived in other countries and know that everywhere they have biased media.

ChuangTzu 08-10-2018 02:54 PM

Jefro, very good points.

In order to understand where the "Man Made Climate Scheme" came from, it is important to understand that it is rooted (Australian meaning as well) in the belief that man is the problem; man is viewed as a parasitic anomaly that is ruining the world, and that unless this parasite is either 1) eradicated, 2) numbers reduced to a more "controllable" level, and/or 3) mankind (except for elites) must be taken back to a preindustrial world, then the world will only continue to be corrupted by the influence of these parasites. Bill Gates, George Soros, The Rockefeller Foundation, etc... have said this many times in writing as well as Ted Talks, etc... Before them it was Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, Mussolini and others...

This is ideology/philosophy and politics masquerading as science, and is actually unscientific. As stated earlier in the thread it is: Tyranny of Science, Tyranny of Mind and Tyranny of the Majority.

PS: these are the same scientists that cannot predict the weather accurately today or tomorrow, let alone 25-50-100 years from now. That is why they changed the scheme from Global Warming to Climate Change, because with the later, they can claim to be right either way. Its Politics/Ideology pure and simple. Look up Identity Politics.

Ref:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...4.2010.00556.x

"“The analysis of Nature into its individual parts, the grouping of the different natural processes and objects in definite classes, the study of the internal anatomy of organized bodies in their manifold forms—these were the fundamental conditions of the gigantic strides in our knowledge of Nature that have been made during the last 400 years. But this method of work has also left us as legacy the habit of observing natural objects and processes in isolation, apart from their connection with the vast whole; of observing them in repose, not in motion; as constraints, not as essentially variables; in their death, not in their life.”
—Frederick Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific"
https://isreview.org/issue/72/marxism-and-environment

http://climateandcapitalism.com/2014...-soviet-union/

"Frank Furedi:
"What we today call 'environmentalism' is ... based on a fear of change. It's based upon a fear of the outcome of human action. And therefore it's not surprising that when you look at the more xenophobic right-wing movements in Europe in the 19th century, including German fascism, it quite often had a very strong environmentalist dynamic to it. The most notorious environmentalists in history were the German Nazis. The Nazis ordered soldiers to plant more trees. They were the first Europeans to establish nature reserves and order the protection of hedgerows and other wildlife habitats. And they were horrified at the idea of hydroelectric dams on the Rhine. Adolf Hitler and other leading Nazis were vegetarian and they passed numerous laws on animal rights.""
http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs...zi_ecology.htm

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffma...%20Ecology.htm

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...et_so_far.html


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:35 PM.