How would a liberal reply to the climate change rhetoric if this was said..

Move along, nothing to see here!
Dream of Freedom
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Nebraska, US

Re: How would a liberal reply to the climate change rhetoric if this was said..

Post by Dream of Freedom » Tue Dec 04, 2018 6:50 pm

@jennypenny

Yes I lack the "remedial stuff". After watching the video I think we would have been better off discovering oil during a cooling period.

jennypenny
Posts: 5974
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Location: Stepford USA

Re: How would a liberal reply to the climate change rhetoric if this was said..

Post by jennypenny » Tue Dec 04, 2018 7:04 pm

Ugh, did I do it again with the remedial comment?! Sorry, I'm really not trying to be rude, just having a stressful day and not watching my words. Sorry.

I like how he explains everything in the video, which is why I have it bookmarked.

User avatar
stand@desk
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: How would a liberal reply to the climate change rhetoric if this was said..

Post by stand@desk » Thu Dec 13, 2018 12:01 am

Jacob,
If Yellowstone errupted (which is well overdue as far as I know), we'd all be goners anyway right? The ash would get us first, machines would be inoperable, and likely other chaotic effects. Maybe the other side of the world could last longer than North Americans.

But back to your earlier post, if the climate is always changing, we are always at risk of too much warming or cooling on longer scales in the later and shorter in the former. It has always been a threat and will always be one no matter what we do. And if people are not able to debate population control (which is a strong correlation to a man induced warming planet), what chance could we ever have at overcoming the warming threat? Nature will take care of it for us it sounds like and that is what it is doing.

User avatar
daylen
Posts: 693
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: How would a liberal reply to the climate change rhetoric if this was said..

Post by daylen » Thu Dec 13, 2018 8:26 am

stand@desk wrote:
Thu Dec 13, 2018 12:01 am
Nature will take care of it for us it sounds like and that is what it is doing.
What is nature and why would it help us?

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 10531
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: How would a liberal reply to the climate change rhetoric if this was said..

Post by jacob » Thu Dec 13, 2018 9:03 am

@stand@desk - You misunderstand. Geologically, the climate is always changing, yes. However, the historical range of the climate on this planet is much wider than human civilization can tolerate and it's interestingly also higher than what individual human beings can tolerate without technological aids(*). Agriculture is only possible within a very narrow range of temperatures as humanity has only developed a limited number of species (7 with rice, corn, wheat, and soy being the primary ones) for mass production of calories. Productivity will decline by ~10% for each degree of heating. This will eventually take the slack (waste) out of the food system and then nature will run its course on the human population as production keeps dropping.

Climate is always changing and there's always some volcano risk but right now it is changing faster than it ever has (even faster than the Permian extinction event which was driven by volcanic emissions) and humans are greatly increasing that risk(**) by emitting more CO2 than any volcanoes have ever done.

(*) Which go a long way. Humans after all have been able to walk on the moon by bringing a suit, their own oxygen, and a one week food supply. They have, however, not been able to establish any kind of self-sustaining outpost anywhere outside the earth system. Even Earth-based experiments have failed so far...which should be a reason for concern; and perhaps something the wannabe space-faring moguls should pay more attention to than launching electric cars into space. But point being, if we had a time machine we could send humans back to previous climates where they would literally die because the climate did not have sufficient oxygen for human needs (because humans evolved in a mid-level oxygen rich climate).

(**) Although the closer it gets to near certainty (the tipping points) the less it makes sense to talk about it as a risk as this implies some randomness. If I jump out of a high building, it doesn't make sense to talk of an increasing risk of death as I fall closer to the ground.

Post Reply