Re: Climate Change!
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:33 am
Duty calls.C40 wrote:And Two drinks for any new thread participant who tries to convince Steveo
---an online community leveraging 14 years of experience in resilient post-consumerist praxis
https://forum.earlyretirementextreme.com/
https://forum.earlyretirementextreme.com/viewtopic.php?t=8376
Duty calls.C40 wrote:And Two drinks for any new thread participant who tries to convince Steveo
No, I'm just baiting steveo.Gilberto de Piento seems to be confusing climate with weather..
You do realize that the Russians are banking on your prediction being false. They're set to claim the last great untapped oil reserve under the Arctic sea, something they can't do unless the Artic ocean remains ice free. Considering the summer sea trade that has opened up due to the ever shrinking Arctic sea ice, you're very much on the wrong side of this bet.steveo73 wrote:Come back in 5 years time and my prediction is that there will be more ice in the world than what there is today.
I just bolded the parts that show factually that you have a distorted view of human beings. Your comments that are bolded are not factually true. The world is not in the bad place that you believe it to be.Campitor wrote:I am relaxed and I don't believe humans are bad - you're ascribing to me traits not in evidence. The pollution I've seen and experienced has occurred in the USA in some of the richest states. I don't think humans are malevolent on the whole but I do believe a majority are not good at weighing the long term consequences of certain actions which then cascade into negative outcomes for humans. And I think the argument that holding poorer countries to certain emissions is a red herring. I think a developing country can build better infrastructure using cleaner energy sources without greatly impacting their growth; I think the "let them pollute so they can catch up quickly" is a lazy and shortsighted argument. As the twig is bent so grows the tree - in other words - if your growth is structured around dirty energy, your infrastructure will continue to grow in that direction until negative outcomes are experienced which will be more costly to control or clean up, or at worst causes military tensions with your neighboring countries.steveo73 wrote:Relax. Stop buying into the theory that humans are somehow bad. We aren't.Campitor wrote:
I'm not worried about the Earth being destroyed. Earth has survived countless asteroid impacts and 5 major extinction events. It's humans that I'm worried about. Regardless if you believe in AGW or not, there is no denying that we are slowly but surely poisoning ourselves with the amount of pollutants we keep pumping out. I'd like clean energy because I love fresh air and smog free skies. I want less mercury in the ocean and beaches that don't coat your toes in petroleum if you sink your feet into the sand. I want to walk into a forest and not see plastic bags floating on trees or smell excrement on the tide because the waste facility was overwhelmed with flash flooding and had to dump raw sewage into the ocean. I'm sure there are lots of financial interests that want to see the AGW money wagon pick up speed. But you don't have to believe in AGW to see the worldwide distress that we as humans are inflicting on ourselves and other species. We don't need AGW as a reason to reduce emissions of every kind.
I personally also believe in other environmental issues such as not polluting our local environments but there isn't a massive problem here. If you are though an environmentalist like myself I think you should realise that the local issues tend to occur in poorer locations. The best way to help these locations is to ensure that they get the chance to economically progress. This is a really good reason why we need to stop all this AGW crap. We want the poorer countries to develop. As countries develop they tend to care more about their local environments.
According to the Pew Research Center:Luckily the majority of people on this Earth agree with me and we aren't on the whole doing dumb things to placate people that sprout this nonsense.
Majorities in all 40 nations polled say climate change is a serious problem, and a global median of 54% believe it is a very serious problem.
A global median of 51% say climate change is already harming people around the world, while another 28% believe it will do so in the next few years.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... -7-charts/Most people in the countries we surveyed say rich nations should do more than developing nations to address climate change. A median of 54% agree with the statement “Rich countries, such as the U.S., Japan and Germany, should do more than developing countries because they have produced most of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions so far.”
steveo73 wrote:Campitor wrote:I am relaxed and I don't believe humans are bad - you're ascribing to me traits not in evidence. The pollution I've seen and experienced has occurred in the USA in some of the richest states. I don't think humans are malevolent on the whole but I do believe a majority are not good at weighing the long term consequences of certain actions which then cascade into negative outcomes for humans. And I think the argument that holding poorer countries to certain emissions is a red herring. I think a developing country can build better infrastructure using cleaner energy sources without greatly impacting their growth; I think the "let them pollute so they can catch up quickly" is a lazy and shortsighted argument. As the twig is bent so grows the tree - in other words - if your growth is structured around dirty energy, your infrastructure will continue to grow in that direction until negative outcomes are experienced which will be more costly to control or clean up, or at worst causes military tensions with your neighboring countries.steveo73 wrote:
Relax. Stop buying into the theory that humans are somehow bad. We aren't.
I personally also believe in other environmental issues such as not polluting our local environments but there isn't a massive problem here. If you are though an environmentalist like myself I think you should realise that the local issues tend to occur in poorer locations. The best way to help these locations is to ensure that they get the chance to economically progress. This is a really good reason why we need to stop all this AGW crap. We want the poorer countries to develop. As countries develop they tend to care more about their local environments.
Many people are poor at judging outcomes that occur over lengthy periods of time. This is why smokers keep smoking and the overweight keep eating excessively and not exercising, why people throw trash on the street instead of the garbage can 5 feet away; they sacrifice their health and the environment's for short term pleasures. This doesn't make people "bad", it makes them poor at risk assessment. This isn't a distorted view and it's supported by research and history.I just bolded the parts that show factually that you have a distorted view of human beings. Your comments that are bolded are not factually true. The world is not in the bad place that you believe it to be.
I never said it was an either/or, rich-or-poor scenario. I was rebutting your comment about "we want the poorer counties to develop" as if that can only occur by using dirty energy. The "twig" comment is an analogy. As a sapling grows (the twig) into a tree, the direction that it grows (the bend) becomes permanent. The use of this analogy is to point out that growing infrastructure towards dirty-non-renewable energy sources will make it extremely difficult or impossible to change to better/cleaner technology later. If you start off using clean energy, it will be easier to keep moving in that direction.Your comments regarding poorer countries is also not true. This also impacts wealthier countries. Your comment regarding the twig and the tree is basically completely bizarre.
We need to discuss facts when it comes to these issues and if can't be so harsh and one-sided.
I don't believe it's nonsense - there is evidence the earth is warming. I could care less if the warming is caused by nature or humans. AGW has never been my primary motivator for supporting emission reduction of every kind (CO2, fertilizer runoff, etc) and is a distraction in the effort to scale back pollution. And I don't think reducing pollution output is dumb. Long term research definitively shows that our pollution is negatively impacting our health and environment. And luckily I'm unconcerned with what the majority thinks because the majority is unconcerned about anything that doesn't have an immediate feedback loop which makes their judgement specious in regards to long-term planning.I think that these debates degenerate because one side honestly believes that they are morally and scientifically right when they aren't. If anything the reverse is true. Luckily the majority of people on this Earth agree with me and we aren't on the whole doing dumb things to placate people that sprout this nonsense.
I honestly don't understand this. The world has been around for a lot lot lot longer than one human being's lifespan. The climate has been hotter and cooler and so many different things have happened.Campitor wrote:Many people are poor at judging outcomes that occur over lengthy periods of time. This is why smokers keep smoking and the overweight keep eating excessively and not exercising, why people throw trash on the street instead of the garbage can 5 feet away; they sacrifice their health and the environment's for short term pleasures. This doesn't make people "bad", it makes them poor at risk assessment. This isn't a distorted view and it's supported by research and history.
This simply isn't true. Your analogy again makes no sense. If poorer countries use fossil fuels they will get to use currently the most efficient source of energy. This will lower their costs to produce a certain level of output.Campitor wrote:I never said it was an either/or, rich-or-poor scenario. I was rebutting your comment about "we want the poorer counties to develop" as if that can only occur by using dirty energy. The "twig" comment is an analogy. As a sapling grows (the twig) into a tree, the direction that it grows (the bend) becomes permanent. The use of this analogy is to point out that growing infrastructure towards dirty-non-renewable energy sources will make it extremely difficult or impossible to change to better/cleaner technology later. If you start off using clean energy, it will be easier to keep moving in that direction.
The common ground will exist when you start dwelling in reality. You cannot state that the world is heading for disaster because it's a far out there opinion that will be proven wrong. You cannot state that the pollution is so bad because it's not. Reducing emissions also doesn't reduce pollution. This is not a fact and is easily disputed. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. We predominantly use clean coal now. In the past when we used poorer quality coal you might have had a point. We've basically fixed that though.Campitor wrote:I'm discussing it but so far you called my comments "bizarre", accused me of having a "distorted" view of human beings, etc. Your words denote a certain derision which makes your comments about avoiding harshness somewhat ironic. I am discussing facts. Humans pollute and have a hard time containing pollution - is this not a fact? Our pollution accumulates nearby because we are the generating source - is this not a fact? Reducing emissions reduces pollution - is this not a fact? Am I guilty of the sin of fact omission because I haven't mentioned any Steveo73 sanctioned facts? Where is the common ground here and how can any consensus be reached without a vigorous but friendly debate?
There is no long term evidence stating what you are stating. You appear to have an extremist viewpoint that isn't backed up by reality.Campitor wrote:I don't believe it's nonsense - there is evidence the earth is warming. I could care less if the warming is caused by nature or humans. AGW has never been my primary motivator for supporting emission reduction of every kind (CO2, fertilizer runoff, etc) and is a distraction in the effort to scale back pollution. And I don't think reducing pollution output is dumb. Long term research definitively shows that our pollution is negatively impacting our health and environment. And luckily I'm unconcerned with what the majority thinks because the majority is unconcerned about anything that doesn't have an immediate feedback loop which makes their judgement specious in regards to long-term planning.
That's pure B.S. steveo because I've already pointed out local effects measured in my lifetime. Reduced snowfall and more hot summer days in Portland, Oregon. Increased incidence of domoic acid in shellfish. Horticultural zones getting warmer (Portland Oregon is now 2 zones warmer).steveo73 wrote:No one and this is recognised by alarmists within their lifespan will be able to see the impact of climate change.
I honestly don't understand this. The world has been around for a lot lot lot longer than one human being's lifespan. The climate has been hotter and cooler and so many different things have happened.
No one and this is recognised by alarmists within their lifespan will be able to see the impact of climate change.
I don't think your point is at all relevant to this discussion.
This simply isn't true. Your analogy again makes no sense. If poorer countries use fossil fuels they will get to use currently the most efficient source of energy. This will lower their costs to produce a certain level of output.
I am dwelling in reality. Many countries and scientists label artificially produced CO2 a pollutant. Reducing CO2 emissions is important because CO2 release, when generated artificially by humans, emit other harmful gases as a byproduct - reduce man-made CO2 and you reduce the harmful byproducts. Is this true or not true?The common ground will exist when you start dwelling in reality. You cannot state that the world is heading for disaster because it's a far out there opinion that will be proven wrong. You cannot state that the pollution is so bad because it's not. Reducing emissions also doesn't reduce pollution. This is not a fact and is easily disputed. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. We predominantly use clean coal now. In the past when we used poorer quality coal you might have had a point. We've basically fixed that though.
I am dwelling in reality. I never said that the world is headed for disaster and in fact I've stated that the world will be fine. I'm not concerned about the "world" but rather the humans that live on it. We don't predominantly use clean coal throughout the world. Clean coal technology isn't cheap so it's implementation isn't widespread especially in poor areas which consider it too costly. And again - many countries and scientist categorize man-made CO2 emissions as a pollutant so labeling it as such isn't extreme.The common ground will exist when you start dwelling in reality. You cannot state that the world is heading for disaster because it's a far out there opinion that will be proven wrong. You cannot state that the pollution is so bad because it's not. Reducing emissions also doesn't reduce pollution. This is not a fact and is easily disputed. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. We predominantly use clean coal now. In the past when we used poorer quality coal you might have had a point. We've basically fixed that though.
The definition of extremist is "a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action." I didn't know that having a position on emissions reduction is considered extreme. I have yet to advocate for anything "extreme" in action other than to state emissions of all kind that have negative scientifically proven outcomes should be reduced. That is hardly an extreme position. You seem to enjoy putting intentions conjured by your imaginations into other people's statements. At this point you seem to have an irrational means of debating a topic that should be open to discussion within a certain decorum. You just run around labeling everything you don't agree with as irrational, distorted, etc. You might as well just copy and paste "BLAH BLAH BLAH" in your responses; you use borderline ad-hominem attacks in all your statements.There is no long term evidence stating what you are stating. You appear to have an extremist viewpoint that isn't backed up by reality.
I'll explain this to you. The changes are too insignificant for you to see it. You are just deluding yourself. These changes are just natural changes that are occurring. I quoted previously within this thread how an AGW proponent has stated exactly the same thing. I accept you don't want to read that or accept that but it doesn't change the facts.George the original one wrote:That's pure B.S. steveo because I've already pointed out local effects measured in my lifetime. Reduced snowfall and more hot summer days in Portland, Oregon. Increased incidence of domoic acid in shellfish. Horticultural zones getting warmer (Portland Oregon is now 2 zones warmer).
It'll take a lot longer however some people can see it happening now. Mind you I can't wait until I remember this thread on my deathbed and have a little chuckle to myself. That'll learn em.BRUTE wrote:brute is super excited to check back in 50 years which side was right. or maybe it won't be decided by then. what's a good date?