Climate Change

[Inferno]

Well lots of good points. My thoughts were always a sort of far in the distant future if it were necessary. To consider it today, in our present, seems ridiculous- can we dare tackle the world... id vote against it. What you bring up regarding funding and the inability to fix small environmental problems is very important. I think the wider point is the inter-connectivity of our economic and social system and its connection to our technical and scientific capabilities.

Absolutely, yes! In today's world, everything is connected to everything else. This relates to problem solving: One-dimensional thinking ("let's tackle this one problem with this one solution") has been a failure for the last 100 or so years. We need multiple solutions to multiple problems, hopefully all at once, because the world is so interconnected.
I think you're spot on.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Considering a glacial period wouldn't be ideal compared to the way humanity lives now, even though a glacial period will occur 10's of thousands of years from now, could the current climate crises be a blessing in disguise. I mean this in terms of alerting us to climate change, and forcing our hand into extensive study. I.e. hypothetically would we want to induce anthropogenic climate warming in contrast to the natural cooling trends at some point (even though that's what we appear to be doing anyway but in a blind, dangerous and uncontrolled way) ?

This is not a blessing in disguise. We have known that carbon (and other greenhouse gasses) can cause warming for decades now (scientists predicted global warming in the 50s and 60s based on that fact). We did not need to actually run the tests, as it were, to know the effects. However, you are correct; when the earth does start to cool, we would want to try and do some form of climate manipulation. Our civilization is built around the climate and temperature we have had for the last few thousand years. Thus, we do need to maintain it. That means stopping climate change now, and perhaps causing it ten thousand years from now.

Personally i don't agree with the general idea that "mother nature" has to be left alone. Rather than a leave no trace in terms of global human activity , which would have us using horse and carts in some Utopian "green" world. Should we rather look at climate as another aspect of our environment that we must attempt to master and influence to our needs....

Yes, we should look at climate as another aspect of the environment that we need to master. Short of completely using up the earth and abandoning it in favor of mastering space travel, we need to protect the climate and environment we have now. Our civilization survives on a knife’s edge (seven billion people need many resources). In addition, nature hates us and we have never stopped fighting against it. From warming and cooling our houses to vaccines, we have been at war with nature for millennia. Recently, we have been winning many battles against it, but our short sightedness (global warming, super bugs, etc…) may come back to bite us soon. We need mastery over nature, and that means we need science.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

I do not trust any scientist that believes life evolves,their credibility is shot with me so it means man-made climate change is just more money wasted on science they don't ever demonstrate to be used to make people products of the state for their vote.That is all evolution science has been used for and it is for your vote and toleration of un-Godly issues you would not vote for or tolerate if you believed the bible.In America it probably started in 1962 when they removed prayer and bible reading from public schools and filled your head only with evolution for your future vote and it worked unfortunately because you now vote for un-Godly issues and put liars in power in tall ivory towers like a good product of the state.

 

[Visaki]

I do not trust any scientist that believes life evolves....

At least you're clear with your bias.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Speaking of:

put liars in power in tall ivory towers like a good product of the state.

I do not trust any scientist that believes life evolves

That is the thing. You don't have to. The case they make is either solid or it isn't. If it is you should probably take it into consideration, if it isn't you discard it.
The beauty about science is that you have to justify what you say. When you state something, you state for a reason. If somebody states X, you can ask "why does that somebody state X"? and that person should be able to provide those reason in such a way that other people can check those same reason and ponder either or not those reasons offer sufficient justification to state X.
Now are they justified in stating that life evolves? Yes. Those who understand the reasons (scientists) agree. Now you are not a scientist, you do not understand it, not even rudimentary. You are just a guy on the internet protesting against the conclusion because of reasons that got nothing to do with life or evolution, reasons that can not be used to justify anything much less your assertions. To think that your proclamations means anything, is to misjudge the position you are arguing from. Your request other's to accept your propositions as if you understood what you are talking about, a request that is only reasonable if you understood what you are talking about, and yet you couldn't be more ignorant about it. You might just as well be saying that you don't trust that the earth isn't flat for all the difference it makes, I at least would care the same.

their credibility is shot with me so it means man-made climate change is just more money wasted

I don't follow your logic. Climate change and evolution are 2 completely different topics.
So you don't thrust biologists and that means that climate science is wrong? This just doesn't follow. How does the fact that you don't trust something make something wrong? Even worst, how does that make something, which is not the thing that you don't trust, wrong?

 

[Mugnuts]

I do not trust any scientist that believes life evolves,their credibility is shot with me so it means man-made climate change is just more money wasted on science they don't ever demonstrate to be used to make people products of the state for their vote.That is all evolution science has been used for and it is for your vote and toleration of un-Godly issues you would not vote for or tolerate if you believed the bible.In America it probably started in 1962 when they removed prayer and bible reading from public schools and filled your head only with evolution for your future vote and it worked unfortunately because you now vote for un-Godly issues and put liars in power in tall ivory towers like a good product of the state.

Welcome Back ACB.

This reminds me back in the 90's when USA went to put a stop to those pesky Sadamite forces and all the houseplants died. Failing to provide sunlight and water had nothing to do with it though. It was a clear message that there was some higher power at work trying to send a message. Also this divine sender of perfectly clear messages in a form that made all the neighbourhood alley cats very ornery at night. The cries of an angered deity of course, not because the females were in heat. Later during the OJ trial and the riots the almighty sent committed a miraculous event by sending a tornado to my hometown. The first recorded of it's time. Not at all a coincidence, or a few people lowering the bar on how we classify a tornado to make the news. How profoundly obvious was it of course about the anger and utter displeased feelings this omnipotent being possessed about Mankind's transgression towards him/her.

ACB, this is what you sound like still. At least it wasn't a run on sentence, so good on you for that.

I love the fact that you state that mankind can do nothing to change the climate of our world/eco-system with the mass accumulation of by-products from our industries, depletion of forests, and so on, but when it comes to removing mandatory prayer and the discovery of evolution, then the whole world is about to fucking implode. Good logic. :lol:

 

[Collecemall]

On a rampage of necromancy eh? Need to rename you Lazarus.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Speaking of:

put liars in power in tall ivory towers like a good product of the state.

I do not trust any scientist that believes life evolves

That is the thing. You don't have to. The case they make is either solid or it isn't. If it is you should probably take it into consideration, if it isn't you discard it.
The beauty about science is that you have to justify what you say. When you state something, you state for a reason. If somebody states X, you can ask "why does that somebody state X"? and that person should be able to provide those reason in such a way that other people can check those same reason and ponder either or not those reasons offer sufficient justification to state X.

Well I recently saw a interview with Bill Nye the science guy and now he is going to write a book about man-made climate change and promote it because he thinks it is an important issue and yet I cannot trust him,his credibility is shot because he believes life evolves and promotes it.I know climate change is a different topic but science's credibility is shot.It is a political issue and not real science and nobody really buys it.I don't based on the weather.

Now are they justified in stating that life evolves? Yes. Those who understand the reasons (scientists) agree. Now you are not a scientist, you do not understand it, not even rudimentary. You are just a guy on the internet protesting against the conclusion because of reasons that got nothing to do with life or evolution, reasons that can not be used to justify anything much less your assertions. To think that your proclamations means anything, is to misjudge the position you are arguing from. Your request other's to accept your propositions as if you understood what you are talking about, a request that is only reasonable if you understood what you are talking about, and yet you couldn't be more ignorant about it. You might just as well be saying that you don't trust that the earth isn't flat for all the difference it makes, I at least would care the same.

I don't give them the benefit of the doubt.I go by their evidence for evolution,not what they say.If life evolves I'd believe it but it doesn't according to their evidence.

their credibility is shot with me so it means man-made climate change is just more money wasted

I don't follow your logic. Climate change and evolution are 2 completely different topics.
So you don't thrust biologists and that means that climate science is wrong? This just doesn't follow. How does the fact that you don't trust something make something wrong? Even worst, how does that make something, which is not the thing that you don't trust, wrong

I know they are two separate issues but credibility matters to me.It doesn't mean we can't be wrong about something but you know how many scientists accept evolution and how it is promoted as true science.