Hundreds of Scientists Say Climate Change Is Not Science, CO2 Is Benign

[fishonjazz]

Okay. Let us back this up a second.

Humans can not change there environment? That's plain dumb right? Like, is that not exactly what humans do by nature? There are very few animals that create structures to temper the environment. Humans are best at it including things like Medicine, which are an extension of environmental tempering. Actually, I should include ants an bees as they are great at controlling there environments in there own sorts way.

The think with CO2 is a evolutionary adaptation. If you are going in to a ice age you warm the planet. If you are getting to hot you cool it off. We can do this if we put are collective efforts to it.

Why did you quote my post? Your post had nothing to do with my post you quoted.

Oh ya I forgot, you are dumb.

 

[♪alt13]

That's quite melodramatic. The biggest problem with climate change is that it will create an unprecedented refuge crisis. Hundreds of millions of people, specially in developing countries like Bangladesh, will have to evacuate low-lying areas. This will lead to political and social unrest. Developed countries will, more or less, be able to transition economically and infrastructurally to the new conditions. So "what will survive it" will be the same human civilization we have now. I don't understand why you, and many others, consider climate change an existential crisis.

It's not melodramatic at all. You only proved the validity of the question I was asking when you began to answer it. Isn't your post laying out what you think will and won't survive?

 

[Siro]

It's not melodramatic at all. You only proved the validity of the question I was asking when you began to answer it. Isn't your post laying out what you think will and won't survive?

Okay, when you put it like that, yeah, it's a legitimate question, as our current civilization is based on the current climate, and we'll have to transition to the new one. Your wording was very dramatic though, and I thought you were arguing for an "end of civilization" kind of scenario.

I only wish developing countries can develop fast/far to be comparable to places like the US, Europe, and East Asia within the next few decades. I also think climate change will be a boon to some countries, like Russia and Canada, if current models hold up.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

One day we going to pull some Matrix **** and block out the sun.

 

[Siro]

One day we going to pull some Matrix **** and block out the sun.

There are some geo-engineering proposals to make the atmosphere more reflective. I don't think we'll have to go that far, but such proposals exist.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

There are some geo-engineering proposals to make the atmosphere more reflective. I don't think we'll have to go that far, but such proposals exist.

Then the robots are going to harvest our bodies for energy.

 

[Boris]

Why did you quote my post? Your post had nothing to do with my post you quoted.

Oh ya I forgot, you are dumb.

That was rude.

I quoted your post cause people calling global warming fake news is pretty dumb. We obviously can control are environment.

Sorry if quoting you got you triggered. I will not do so in the future as I see value in human beings being happy an not bothered over what the ybelief in. I respect that it bothered you so much.

 

[♪alt13]

Okay, when you put it like that, yeah, it's a legitimate question, as our current civilization is based on the current climate, and we'll have to transition to the new one. Your wording was very dramatic though, and I thought you were arguing for an "end of civilization" kind of scenario.

I only wish developing countries can develop fast/far to be comparable to places like the US, Europe, and East Asia within the next few decades. I also think climate change will be a boon to some countries, like Russia and Canada, if current models hold up.

It will be dramatic. Whole nations will disappear, there is a mass extinction underway, great cities will be lost, the fortune's of nations will shift, biomes will be lost.

Seriously the extinction of the human race or the end of civilization is not where I set the bar for drama. There are plenty of things that fall short of that mark that are not only dramatic but tragic.

 

[Siro]

It will be dramatic. Whole nations will disappear, there is a mass extinction underway, great cities will be lost, the fortune's of nations will shift, biomes will be lost.

Seriously the extinction of the human race or the end of civilization is not where I set the bar for drama. There are plenty of things that fall short of that mark that are not only dramatic but tragic.

That's fair. It's also kind of exciting. It'll probably drive the tech infrastructure needed for mega-projects. I'm hoping that will serve as a facilitator for space expansion. I also wish I had the money to invest in currently dirt-cheap Canadian real estate in remote areas. Again, I worry about the political upheavals and loss of life. I wish there wasn't so much poverty in the world, and I don't think the time-frame for expected changes is long enough for worldwide parity in levels of development. It'll be an interesting century nonetheless.

 

[Siro]

Then the robots are going to harvest our bodies for energy.

That part of the Matrix is pretty stupid. We require energy to survive. We don't produce energy.

 

[NAOS]

Developed countries will, more or less, be able to transition economically and infrastructurally to the new conditions.

link?

What models is this statement using to support its claims? Like them, I'd like to know pretty much what is going to survive and what isn't so that I can start shaping my stock portfolio accordingly. It sounds like they know the ecology of the future and are honing in on the economy that will take advantage of that ecology's affordances. Totally ****ing rad.

thanks for that link.

 

[NAOS]

That's fair. It's also kind of exciting. It'll probably drive the tech infrastructure needed for mega-projects. I'm hoping that will serve as a facilitator for space expansion. I also wish I had the money to invest in currently dirt-cheap Canadian real estate in remote areas. Again, I worry about the political upheavals and loss of life. I wish there wasn't so much poverty in the world, and I don't think the time-frame for expected changes is long enough for worldwide parity in levels of development. It'll be an interesting century nonetheless.

You sound like you're on a comfortable perch.

 

[♪alt13]

That's fair. It's also kind of exciting. It'll probably drive the tech infrastructure needed for mega-projects. I'm hoping that will serve as a facilitator for space expansion. I also wish I had the money to invest in currently dirt-cheap Canadian real estate in remote areas. Again, I worry about the political upheavals and loss of life. I wish there wasn't so much poverty in the world, and I don't think the time-frame for expected changes is long enough for worldwide parity in levels of development. It'll be an interesting century nonetheless.

Assuming you're right about Canada. I don't see how Canada and it's 30 something million citizens benefitting is likely to drive innovation.

 

[Siro]

link?

What models is this statement using to support its claims? Like them, I'd like to know pretty much what is going to survive and what isn't so that I can start shaping my stock portfolio accordingly. It sounds like they know the ecology of the future and are honing in on the economy that will take advantage of that ecology's affordances. Totally ****ing rad.

thanks for that link.

Part of it is just common sense. Permafrost is retreating in northern areas, so that will open up vast swaths of currently unworkable/unlivable land. Most models also expect increased rainfall in northern latitudes, while will go nicely with rising temperatures.

Taken from https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/

I understand that climate change is complicated, but we can fairly assume that the parts of the world will suffer, while others will see some benefit. I am also speculating, since I don't know the consequences of every change, like the increase in ocean acidity and drop in O2 levels. On the one hand, the earth has seen many different climates, and some were much warmer than the current one, and the biosphere survived. On the other, the planet's climate typically changes over eons, not centuries, so it is an unprecedented situation.

Here's an article that focuses on the economic opportunities of climate change.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/04/global-warming-who-loses-and-who-wins/305698/

 

[Siro]

Assuming you're right about Canada. I don't see how Canada and it's 30 something million citizens benefitting is likely to drive innovation.

But how many refuges from affected countries will flock to Canada or Russia? Also, what will more populous countries like the Europeans and Americans do to combat the effects of global warming? Surely they will build massive flood barriers in NYC and elsewhere. It is a major worldwide crisis, and it will force major infrastructural solutions.

 

[NAOS]

Part of it is just common sense. Permafrost is retreating in northern areas, so that will open up vast swaths of currently unworkable/unlivable land. Most models also expect increased rainfall in northern latitudes, while will go nicely with rising temperatures.

Taken from https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/

I understand that climate change is complicated, but we can fairly assume that the parts of the world will suffer, while others will see some benefit. I am also speculating, since I don't know the consequences of every change, like the increase in ocean acidity and drop in O2 levels. On the one hand, the earth has seen many different climates, and some were much warmer than the current one, and the biosphere survived. On the other, the planet's climate typically changes over eons, not centuries, so it is an unprecedented situation.

Here's an article that focuses on the economic opportunities of climate change.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/04/global-warming-who-loses-and-who-wins/305698/

Who are you arguing with? Who has said that the biosphere will collapse?

I don't need basic hand-holding with Earth Science. I understand that the systems are complex and that there will be areas that see "benefit" (always a curious word with serious human valence).

The truth is that we do not know what will happen. Even modest estimates look bad for MILLIONS of people, i.e. people without a comfortable perch. It feels a bit disgusting to listen to armchair Earth Scientists talk -- in some flip cosmopolitan fashion -- about beachfront property on Hudson Bay and human progress/innovation when they'll self-admit to huge holes in their understanding. I didn't think you were one to believe in the magical power of positive thinking.

 

[♪alt13]

But how many refuges from affected countries will flock to Canada or Russia? Also, what will more populous countries like the Europeans and Americans do to combat the effects of global warming? Surely they will build massive flood barriers in NYC and elsewhere. It is a major worldwide crisis, and it will force major infrastructural solutions.

Canadian politics wold get nasty fast. I don't seem them letting in a couple hundred million brownies.

New Orleans is far from a hub of innovation. They have had a sea wall for decades. Cataclysm isn't really what drives innovation. It's almost always wealth. Think of our great scientists and the nation's that innovated. They weren't forced to they were in a privileged position to be able to. Does anyone think that an African nation is likely to cure malaria just because many of their citizens die from it? Will Americans become more innovative by spending resources on walls in an attempt to preserve what they have? I just don't see how it would be that way.

 

[Siro]

Who are you arguing with? Who has said that the biosphere will collapse?

I don't need basic hand-holding with Earth Science. I understand that the systems are complex and that there will be areas that see "benefit" (always a curious word with serious human valence).

The truth is that we do not know what will happen. Even modest estimates look bad for MILLIONS of people, i.e. people without a comfortable perch. It feels a bit disgusting to listen to armchair Earth Scientists talk -- in some flip cosmopolitan fashion -- about beachfront property on Hudson Bay and human progress/innovation when they'll self-admit to huge holes in their understanding. I didn't think you were one to believe in the magical power of positive thinking.

I know. But what can be done? I think two things will help: one, developed countries should be more open to welcoming the millions of climate change refuges. This isn't looking good with the rise of anti-immigrants sentiments in the developed world, but who knows about public sentiments in 20 or 50 years? Second, developing countries should continue onward toward industrial development, as that would allow people to more effectively deal with climate disruption.

It isn't about comfortable perches. The world is as it is. I try to think about the future and the values we should adopt to maximize human well-being, and I see climate change as an opportunity for increased cooperation and capabilities. There is no avoiding major disruption at this point, and I was simply thinking of ways to take advantage of the coming changes.

 

[Siro]

Canadian politics wold get nasty fast. I don't seem them letting in a couple hundred million brownies.

New Orleans is far from a hub of innovation. They have had a sea wall for decades. Cataclysm isn't really what drives innovation. It's almost always wealth. Think of our great scientists and the nation's that innovated. They weren't forced to they were in a privileged position to be able to. Does anyone think that an African nation is likely to cure malaria just because many of their citizens die from it? Will Americans become more innovative by spending resources on walls in an attempt to preserve what they have? I just don't see how it would be that way.

I think politics will get nasty in a lot of places. I bet millions of Bangladeshis will flock to India, and who knows what that will do to the already tense Muslim-Hindu relations. I have no doubt that the coming decades will present a plethora of political and social challenges.

But I do think crises drive innovation. Think of the Manhattan project, or the moon landing, or the incredible social changes that happened to Europe and Japan following WWII. That's why I keep saying that developed nations will probably find a way to deal with the disruption, but I do acknowledge that many will suffer. But once the economic cost of not throwing resources at the problem outweighs the resources needed to control the problem, it is likely that we will see resources thrown at controlling the problem.

 

[♪alt13]

I think politics will get nasty in a lot of places. I bet millions of Bangladeshis will flock to India, and who knows what that will do to the already tense Muslim-Hindu relations. I have no doubt that the coming decades will present a plethora of political and social challenges.

But I do think crises drive innovation. Think of the Manhattan project, or the moon landing, or the incredible social changes that happened to Europe and Japan following WWII. That's why I keep saying that developed nations will probably find a way to deal with the disruption, but I do acknowledge that many will suffer. But once the economic cost of not throwing resources at the problem outweighs the resources needed to control the problem, it is likely that we will see resources thrown at controlling the problem.

Those Innovations weren't driven by a period of American crisis, they were driven by a period of American Conquest. The social changes in Germany and Japan were imposed on them. It wasn't a revolutionary up swelling caused by an internal crisis, it was two Nations we built in the image we had for them. The Manhattan Project and Apollo missions happened here instead of Europe because of our lack of a real crisis. Wealth and power, opportunity and growth drove American innovation.

The people that stand to benefit the most from climate change will have the least incentive to act. They will actually have the incentive not to act. Someone else will be paying cost.