Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warming is over.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • cale
    replied
    Originally posted by 4x4_e30 View Post
    I'm putting my money on cold fusion. If we can't figure that out within the next 20 years, by my calculations we're fucked no matter what.

    Unlimited free energy, think about it. Kind of hard to wrap my head around personally. Things that used to be impractical or inefficient will be done on a large scale with brute force. The only limiting factor will be material sciences. Technological advancement will go through the roof. Pair that with automation and AI, it is quite possible for humanity to completely eradicate poverty and hunger, while also preserving our environment. An ideal situation would be off planet mining, Mars colonization, etc.

    It's too bad we'll probably end up nuking each other to death fighting over that technology before it has the chance to save the planet.
    I'm not in the camp who thinks "we're fucked" wrt AGW. Some people certainly are, global conflicts over food, arable land and water will become a greater issue for those with less and will cause major conflict. The developed world however, primarily North America will find a way around anything but the most catastrophic events.

    Leave a comment:


  • 4x4_e30
    replied
    I'm putting my money on cold fusion. If we can't figure that out within the next 20 years, by my calculations we're fucked no matter what.

    Unlimited free energy, think about it. Kind of hard to wrap my head around personally. Things that used to be impractical or inefficient will be done on a large scale with brute force. The only limiting factor will be material sciences. Technological advancement will go through the roof. Pair that with automation and AI, it is quite possible for humanity to completely eradicate poverty and hunger, while also preserving our environment. An ideal situation would be off planet mining, Mars colonization, etc.

    It's too bad we'll probably end up nuking each other to death fighting over that technology before it has the chance to save the planet.

    Leave a comment:


  • decay
    replied
    i think i like the word "unique" a little more than "special", but let's not go down the rabbit hole on that.

    the reality is that we're a variant of primate that, on a geological scale, just showed up a little while ago, and we are actively destructive to the environment we depend on to sustain us.

    maybe we are talking about the difference between "sentience" and "intelligence" here, because you can have the former without the latter.

    Leave a comment:


  • cale
    replied
    Intelligence is absolutely a sliding scale. My understanding of biology is quite limited, but I don't believe there to be a switch that gets flicked which turns intelligence on or off in species, ours is simply more developed. I simply believe that there is such a distinct gap between us and the runner up, it would be foolish to suggest any other species should be prioritized over us. It isn't a matter of us vs. them in their entitery, because without them there is no us....but we sure as hell are at the top of the list. If the flood is coming and Noah's ark arrives, I'm making room for more people than I am animals. The 4.5 billion years the Earth has been around tells us that we are special unlike anything before us.

    Leave a comment:


  • decay
    replied
    Originally posted by cale View Post
    That's not what sentience is, but I agree with your premise. Our intelligence should prioritize us over other species
    where i'm not sure i agree 100% is that we measure intelligence and sentience by our own self-defined metrics

    other primates and octopi have demonstrated learning, tool usage and creation, and other tasks that require what we define as intelligence

    , but I think it's imperative that also includes obligations we have to protect the Earth from our abuse of it. The latter is non-negotiable, and the crux of this AGW argument is whether or not we're actually doing that.
    ...absolute yes to this, and if we're not capable of being good custodians to this planet we happened to find ourselves on, are we actually intelligent?

    Leave a comment:


  • cale
    replied
    That's not what sentience is, but I agree with your premise. Our intelligence should prioritize us over other species, but I think it's imperative that also includes obligations we have to protect the Earth from our abuse of it. The latter is non-negotiable, and the crux of this AGW argument is whether or not we're actually doing that.

    Leave a comment:


  • marshallnoise
    replied
    Originally posted by decay View Post
    ok, i'll take the bait on this one



    humans have existed for 300K years at the most optimistic estimates



    the earth is 4 billion years old



    that means we've been around for roughly 0.0075% of the time



    what prioritizes humans above any other species that spent millions of years evolving?
    Being sentient. No other animal has the capacity to bargain with the future and see beyond themselves. We are superior in that regard.

    Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • decay
    replied
    Originally posted by marshallnoise View Post
    It is unreasonable for a well fed human to tell another malnourished human that they will come second to the earth's flora and fauna. I do not and will not accept that thinking.
    ok, i'll take the bait on this one

    humans have existed for 300K years at the most optimistic estimates

    the earth is 4 billion years old

    that means we've been around for roughly 0.0075% of the time

    what prioritizes humans above any other species that spent millions of years evolving?

    Leave a comment:


  • E30 Wagen
    replied
    Originally posted by marshallnoise View Post
    Not all scientists are the same. Telling me that I have to accept their work (whose? specifically) simply because they "earned" it is not a good enough reason for me to change my mind. I accept their work, I don't have to agree with it either. Don't mistake one for the other.
    Specifically? I'm no expert but I figure the climatologists and all the folks at NASA monitoring our atmosphere with satellites and anybody on the ground monitoring changes, collecting and verifying all possible data points, probably running computer simulations, etc etc. If you think you're better at collecting and analyzing data than nasa, or that a scientist who's likely spent the better of their life immersed in their respective field isn't good enough for you, then whatever.
    Well give it a wee bit more weight there fella. I am willing to bet that the vast majority if not all of people balking at the environmentalist movement are doing so because of economic reasons. One does not HAVE to be tied to the other, but for some reason they are politically. I know it didn't come from the right either.
    I didn't mean to sound like I'm defending anything that's been proposed because, like I said, I haven't bothered to read what's all on the table. I am pretty center right and 100% for protecting our economy.

    Nature isn't looking out for you in any meaningful way. It isn't without its own hierarchy. Let me tell you, you aren't at the top.

    Regarding the bolded section above: Ok...what is the alternative? Genocide? Fratricide? You seem to value nature more than fellow man. What are the limits at which you would stop interceding for nature?
    Why do you keep pretending nature has these omniscient, interpersonal qualities? I at look at everything in nature through a mostly geological and evolutionary biological lens. If we're not at the top then tell me who or what is.

    I do not value nature more than fellow man (well, in most cases) and if you're seriously going to characterize my position as being approving of genocide then something is wrong with you. I can more or less see things from your point of view, namely avoiding drastic economic impacts. But so often people from your position jump right to the extremes of mine as if we want to protect the environment to the exclusion of all else. Instead of genocide, maybe we could start with simply not doing the things I listed as much as we can? Inculcate a culture of reduce-reuse-recycle, which many european countries and Japan already do; in fact I think a lot of it needs to start with stopping our throw away culture and our desire for ridiculously big and gas guzzling SUVs. Maybe try some baby step policies to address lax energy and pollution standards? I don't know, there's got to be lots of little things we can at least try.
    If you know what types of hardships mankind, as a species, has gone through, you would have not brushed it aside so easily. There is no excuse for living today without a heaping pile of context navigating your thoughts continually.
    Whatever profound statement you're trying to make about our progress as human beings isn't landing. We need sharp, innovative minds looking forward, not backward.

    It is unreasonable for a well fed human to tell another malnourished human that they will come second to the earth's flora and fauna. I do not and will not accept that thinking.
    I don't know where the hell that's coming from but I don't agree with that line of thinking either...

    Leave a comment:


  • marshallnoise
    replied
    Originally posted by CarpHunter View Post
    Holy fuck Marshall, if that nonsense doesn't scream manifesto what does?

    Pink bubbles go ape.

    Leave a comment:


  • marshallnoise
    replied
    Originally posted by E30 Wagen View Post
    Respect for authority figures, specifically from academic sectors, seems to be your main issue. If you can't accept the work that these people do and the rigors of the scientific process then it's pointless to discuss anything further with you. Sure, there can be biases and corruption, and on some level it's up to you to determine the validity of studies, perhaps like it is for a patient to make sure he's getting the best medical opinion. But when it comes to true hardcore academic research it's the best we've got at understanding natural phenomena.
    Not all scientists are the same. Telling me that I have to accept their work (whose? specifically) simply because they "earned" it is not a good enough reason for me to change my mind. I accept their work, I don't have to agree with it either. Don't mistake one for the other.

    No dispute here, I'm just not plugged in to everything going on.
    Well give it a wee bit more weight there fella. I am willing to bet that the vast majority if not all of people balking at the environmentalist movement are doing so because of economic reasons. One does not HAVE to be tied to the other, but for some reason they are politically. I know it didn't come from the right either.

    I get your point. It's just weird how you characterize nature as an adversary or something. It's not. It's just our habitat, our one and only, and I definitely respect the influence it has over us. However, I also respect the influence we have over it. Obviously nature restores itself in a way, but it seems naive to think that the domino effect of deforestation, the loss of wetlands, urban sprawl, the unprecedented release of co2 and particulates into the atmosphere, and the loss of entire ecosystems, will bounce back regardless of our constantly expanding civilizations.
    Nature isn't looking out for you in any meaningful way. It isn't without its own hierarchy. Let me tell you, you aren't at the top.

    Regarding the bolded section above: Ok...what is the alternative? Genocide? Fratricide? You seem to value nature more than fellow man. What are the limits at which you would stop interceding for nature?

    And if you're going to characterize me as an ungrateful, petulant, urban-dwelling child who misses the "context of history," well, blow me. Sorry if you thought I was being condescending or implying you're an idiot, but seriously, get fucked anyway. Your arguments are terrible. I'm very aware of what life was like for our ancestors and the ingenuity [edit: AND SCIENCE] required to get where we are today. My dad's ancestors were dirt poor. I didn't grow up poor but I definitely wasn't rich. I know what long, hot days framing a house feels like and what 12 hour days working in a boiling factory feels like. But so what, what's your fucking point? How do the toils of my ancestors impact how we approach environmental policy now? Are you suggesting we revert our mentality back 100 years because that's what got us here in the first place? Just keep doing things the same for another 100 years? Are you really going to start going on about some environmentalist conspiracy about keeping people poor? I am so sick of hearing that ignorant blue collar mentality about [insert conspiracy] or the gubment or whatever keeping them in their place.
    If you know what types of hardships mankind, as a species, has gone through, you would have not brushed it aside so easily. There is no excuse for living today without a heaping pile of context navigating your thoughts continually.

    It is unreasonable for a well fed human to tell another malnourished human that they will come second to the earth's flora and fauna. I do not and will not accept that thinking.

    God I could go on but I don't think there's any getting through to you.
    Save the keystrokes.

    Leave a comment:


  • CarpHunter
    replied
    Holy fuck Marshall, if that nonsense doesn't scream manifesto what does?

    Leave a comment:


  • E30 Wagen
    replied
    Originally posted by marshallnoise View Post
    I agree that scientists, engineers and economists should advise the public. But I don't always believe them, nor should you. More over, I wish the state of Louisiana and specifically New Orleans listened to the Army Core of Engineers more when they kept telling the state/city that the levees weren't sufficient. Oh wait, politics got in the way.
    Respect for authority figures, specifically from academic sectors, seems to be your main issue. If you can't accept the work that these people do and the rigors of the scientific process then it's pointless to discuss anything further with you. Sure, there can be biases and corruption, and on some level it's up to you to determine the validity of studies, perhaps like it is for a patient to make sure he's getting the best medical opinion. But when it comes to true hardcore academic research it's the best we've got at understanding natural phenomena.
    Google: Green New Deal. Google: France's Yellow Vest Movement

    Not sure if you will click...but...its all laid out there for you.
    No dispute here, I'm just not plugged in to everything going on.

    Clearly you don't get my point. No, we haven't "destroyed" the environment. We have caused damage that recovers and usually, very quickly, indicating nature is far more resilient than you give it credit for. Hell, you can blow the top off a mountain and it would take one more massive earthquake to push it back up.

    I may sound like a paranoid idiot to you, but spending 15 minutes outside of your, (supposition here) urban bubble, would greet you with how a grizzly bear, charging moose, charging elk, freezing cold, extreme heat (both happen without man's help, think Alaska), wolves, buffalo, might kill you. It certainly doesn't care about you, even a little. More over, it will probably something stupid that kills you like a disease carrying mosquito.

    You lack all appreciation for what the modern world has done for you. Mankind has overcome amazing obstacles of nature for you to sit here and type this on a computer or cell phone.

    It would do you well to stop being an ungrateful, petulant child and begin to think about what life was like for all of our ancestors. You should be appreciative that we have roads, electricity, running water (potable no less), a means to translate your labor into money to purchase housing, food (from anywhere btw).

    You seem to lack ANY imagination about what people actually lived like not that long ago. Let me tell you something; IT WASN'T BETTER. Now is the best its ever been. And it didn't get that way by praying to mother gaia. It got that way by man taking control of the environment around him and making it a reasonably hospitable place to be. And all of our efforts still can't prevent you from getting cancer, a malignant tumor, or a million other things THAT WILL KILL YOU.

    You seem to think that I don't see the big picture at all, but it is you my friend who misses the context of history. I have never said to do nothing; but to do something carefully and extremely well thought out that will benefit ALL mankind, not just the elites who want to take environmentalist policy and use it as a hammer to bludgeon the "have nots" with and create a legitimate underclass.
    I get your point. It's just weird how you characterize nature as an adversary or something. It's not. It's just our habitat, our one and only, and I definitely respect the influence it has over us. However, I also respect the influence we have over it. Obviously nature restores itself in a way, but it seems naive to think that the domino effect of deforestation, the loss of wetlands, urban sprawl, the unprecedented release of co2 and particulates into the atmosphere, and the loss of entire ecosystems, will bounce back regardless of our constantly expanding civilizations.

    And if you're going to characterize me as an ungrateful, petulant, urban-dwelling child who misses the "context of history," well, blow me. Sorry if you thought I was being condescending or implying you're an idiot, but seriously, get fucked anyway. Your arguments are terrible. I'm very aware of what life was like for our ancestors and the ingenuity [edit: AND SCIENCE] required to get where we are today. My dad's ancestors were dirt poor. I didn't grow up poor but I definitely wasn't rich. I know what long, hot days framing a house feels like and what 12 hour days working in a boiling factory feels like. But so what, what's your fucking point? How do the toils of my ancestors impact how we approach environmental policy now? Are you suggesting we revert our mentality back 100 years because that's what got us here in the first place? Just keep doing things the same for another 100 years? Are you really going to start going on about some environmentalist conspiracy about keeping people poor? I am so sick of hearing that ignorant blue collar mentality about [insert conspiracy] or the gubment or whatever keeping them in their place.

    God I could go on but I don't think there's any getting through to you.

    Leave a comment:


  • marshallnoise
    replied
    Originally posted by Wschnitz View Post
    Marshall isnt wrong about lower classes caring much less about the environment, but its not because they consciously don't care about it as he implies.
    I never said that. I did say it was a binary choice.

    Poor people are apathetic to the problems their actions create because they cant afford to avoid those problems.
    Ehhh, no. Its more like: If I am to give a shit about tomorrow and this place I occupy, I better have something to subsist on otherwise whatever happens tomorrow is pointless.

    Cheap products are not good for the environment, packaged in un-recyclable materials, are usually produced in mass, are usually heavily processed, and are cheaply constructed leading to short life cycles which means the product ends up in a landfill sooner than it should.
    This is your opinion. I would view cheap products as the way humans can make their lives more comfortable while not giving out tremendous amounts of money for higher quality products. Using your logic, any tool that didn't come off the Snap-On truck is bad for the environment because it isn't the "best" and won't last forever. Terrible world view in my opinion.

    This is what the corporations want. They want you to think nothing is really happening and you personally cant do anything. While they hand more money off to politicians and keep pumping out more pollutants than all the individuals on the planet will for generations. You have been tricked into thinking the Economy needs to constantly grow, that it needs to be unhindered to achieve balance, that rules are unhelpful and cause chaos. When in reality it is the opposite.
    As much as you guys think I ramble, this constitutes as rambling from the left.

    Corporations want to make money. The way they do that is by finding niche markets to sell their goods. This meets the consumer's needs and employs tremendous amounts of people. Corporations aren't nothing; they are people running them and being employed by them. Stop pretending that if corporations went away that all of the world's problems would disappear.

    Lead was in fuel until scientists pointed out it was going to kill people.
    Lead was in fuel to make sure that metal doesn't corrode away in a combustion chamber. How many cars landed in junkyards because all of the valve seats in the engine were smashed to pieces and no longer sealing the chamber? There is an unintended consequence right there. Its a little more complex than your simple statement.

    The same folks who are banning lead bullets "because lead gonna kill people!!!" think that lead in bullets leeches out into water supplies. Science has shown that bullets do not leech much beyond a couple feet. Might even be inches. NOT THE SAME. Yet, legislatures get a hold of that and make uninformed, retarded decisions like banning lead bullets from hunting. You know what happened? Tons of wild game got shot with ineffective bullets and they suffered needlessly.[/QUOTE]

    Cigarettes were the worlds favorite drug ingestion method until people learned their life span could be as short as 50 years old due to carcinogens, when scientists revealed it.
    Good on them. But its not a one-size-fits-all problem as it is presented. A plurality of people smoke FOR 50 years and have nothing but wheezing problems. No cancer, no emphysema, nothing.

    Last I checked, Doctors were considered experts, right? They endorsed cigarettes for a good while, didn't they? Doh!

    Asbestos was a great affordable insulator until it was discovered by scientists that it will cause lung cancer and kill you if you breath it in.
    Just as above, it CAN kill you. It doesn't always. Asbestos doesn't kill you btw, just the dust. It is an amazing fire retardant and has saved countless millions of lives throughout human history. I am sure you are aware that it is a natural occurring mineral. Fuck you environment, having all dangerously substances everywhere. See, nature IS trying to kill you.

    The fact that you are so blind as to trust corporations whose only interests are pure profit, at the expense of individuals and the environment but are skeptical of most things scientists say about climate is disturbing.
    I think you quite intentionally misrepresent the situation. Corporations don't hold guns against your head and force you to purchase their goods. Its disturbing that you seem to think they do. And its disturbing that you think that corporations aren't other people, because corporations ARE other people.

    Leave a comment:


  • marshallnoise
    replied
    Originally posted by cale View Post
    Erring on the side of the non-expert columnists being correct over the scientists is about as far from bright as you can get.

    I never said that. Understanding and actually thinking about the fact that humans carry bias, regardless of their field of expertise IS bright. You should try it sometime!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X