Marblehead Posted June 2, 2017 You can't control the world. Those who try only fail. I recently read something similar to that somewhere. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Daeluin Posted June 2, 2017 Wow... now I know why I stay out of these threads. All this hot headed energy is heating up the earth y'all. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windwalker Posted June 2, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Brian said: So what's the correct average global temperature, Jetsun? If we intend to take control of the planet's thermostat, are we going to have an optimal target or are we going to run it up and down in a knee-jerk fashion for a century or two? Seems a reasonable question. More to the point if somehow the US is able to influence the global temperature who do we influence it for? Who decides what temperature is good, and what is not...What if some small island country out in the ocean needs it to be cooler for it to remain above sea level, and some other country needs it be warmer for better food production. Just a gen comment not directed at anyone.... Edited June 2, 2017 by windwalker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted June 2, 2017 3 minutes ago, windwalker said: More to the point if somehow the US is able to influence the global temperature who do we influence it for? Who decides what temperature is good, and what is not...What if some small island country out in the ocean needs it to be cooler for it to remain above sea level, and some other country needs it be warmer for better food production. Just a gen comment not directed at one.... Well someone recently said the President should be removed from office if he puts other interests over US interests, so... <shrug> 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted June 2, 2017 Good question. Those who have the money and the power would decide who gets what. It is a reality at this moment though. There are Pacific islands that are just barely above present sea level. There was one recently that was almost totally evacuated because the oceans were taking back the land. And places like Bangladesh are in harm's way. Their land is gradually becoming unproductive because of salt water intrusion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windwalker Posted June 2, 2017 Just now, Brian said: Well someone recently said the President should be removed from office if he puts other interests over US interests, so... <shrug> haha I know.... interesting times we live in....just hope the US is able to survive the the onslaught from within, no doubt in my former military mind that in can from with out.... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windwalker Posted June 2, 2017 (edited) Yep know how the islanders must feel,,,things change...good thing they didn't live on the coast 14000 years ago... If this happened then, with out us,,how is it that we expect do something about it now, with us... Edited June 2, 2017 by windwalker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jetsun Posted June 2, 2017 13 minutes ago, Brian said: So what's the correct average global temperature, Jetsun? If we intend to take control of the planet's thermostat, are we going to have an optimal target or are we going to run it up and down in a knee-jerk fashion for a century or two? Seems a reasonable question. I don't know what the correct temperature should be, but it is clear man is having an impact on it "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position." https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jetsun Posted June 3, 2017 13 minutes ago, windwalker said: More to the point if somehow the US is able to influence the global temperature who do we influence it for? Who decides what temperature is good, and what is not...What if some small island country out in the ocean needs it to be cooler for it to remain above sea level, and some other country needs it be warmer for better food production. Just a gen comment not directed at anyone.... Well there are large areas of the world, mostly poor countries such as Bangladesh who are likely to be flooded, with millions displaced and in poverty as a consequence. The UN has said it is likely to be the most impoverished who are hardest hit. I guess if all anyone cares about is nationalism then Trump is your man, if you care about humanity as a whole then not so much. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windwalker Posted June 3, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Jetsun said: Well there are large areas of the world, mostly poor countries such as Bangladesh who are likely to be flooded, with millions displaced and in poverty as a consequence. The UN has said it is likely to be the most impoverished who are hardest hit. I guess if all anyone cares about is nationalism then Trump is your man, if you care about humanity as a whole then not so much. you posting using tech. that was produced using tech, and other things that might contribute to what you have such feelings about. They are so poor, and yet they have atomic weapons...is it the rest of the worlds fault, and the rest of world should fix it.... If I had such passion as you for "humanity" I would have moved there to help them out.....hey might be an idea instead of posting on the net. you can go help them directly... Just a thought...I'd do it... just saying.. Edited June 3, 2017 by windwalker 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jetsun Posted June 3, 2017 1 minute ago, windwalker said: ? you posting on tech. that was produced using tech, and other things that might contribute to what you have such feelings about. They are so poor, and yet they have atomic weapons...is it the rest of the worlds fault, and the rest of world should fix it.... If I had such passion I would have moved there to help them out.....hey might be an idea instead of posting on the net. you can go help them directly... Just a thought...I'd do it... just saying.. Yeah ok ..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jetsun Posted June 3, 2017 30 minutes ago, Marblehead said: You can't control the world. Those who try only fail. I recently read something similar to that somewhere. I have no doubt the world can correct itself and balance its own environment.. if we stop interfering with what it is trying to do. Even with our interference it will still probably be ok, we will just cause ourselves a great deal of misery and pain going against the natural processes until we learn that it is foolish to do so. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted June 3, 2017 15 minutes ago, Jetsun said: I don't know what the correct temperature should be, but it is clear man is having an impact on it "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position." https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ If the problem is temperature, your graph should, also: Notice anything curious? The temperature leads the CO2 levels -- except for now? Hmmm... Are we sure we understand the relationship? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted June 3, 2017 19 minutes ago, Jetsun said: Well there are large areas of the world, mostly poor countries such as Bangladesh who are likely to be flooded, with millions displaced and in poverty as a consequence. The UN has said it is likely to be the most impoverished who are hardest hit. I guess if all anyone cares about is nationalism then Trump is your man, if you care about humanity as a whole then not so much. How soon, do you think? http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.EL5M.ZS?end=2010&start=1990&view=chart Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted June 3, 2017 6 minutes ago, Brian said: If the problem is temperature, your graph should, also: Notice anything curious? The temperature leads the CO2 levels -- except for now? Hmmm... Are we sure we understand the relationship? Link for this graph? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted June 3, 2017 (edited) 15 minutes ago, ralis said: Link for this graph? Hold on and I'll Google it for you... https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/comment-page-1/ https://skepticalscience.com/Global-Warming-in-a-Nutshell.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle http://lafenergy.org/essays/gwfig1.php Edited June 3, 2017 by Brian Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredaze Posted June 3, 2017 (edited) I'm from the U.S., glad this got rejected. I used to buy into the whole gloom-and-doom climate change scenario, but I am more skeptical now. What I am in favor of - more research into climate science and honest debate, from both sides. So many people only know one side (usually the Al Gore "save the polar bears" pseudoscience emotional manipulation), but it's good to hear both arguments. Either way, there would be obvious economic losses if the U.S. signed this. Compare that to HYPOTHETICAL (even the U.N. research says the difference would be small) changes in climate that would result from signing this. Stefan Molyneux does a pretty good breakdown of this. I've heard these bureaucrats, politicians, and other con-artists called "watermelons" meaning Green "progressives" on the outside, Red Marxists on the inside. Edited June 3, 2017 by futuredaze 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredaze Posted June 3, 2017 (edited) The two major statements about climate change are both unscientific: Anthropogenic climate change is not an "undeniable fact" nor is it a hoax. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan I do not think we have enough knowledge to predict the climate. If anybody knows of any climate models that have accurately forecasted the next 20+ years, let me know. Until then, I will be skeptical, and I think more people should be too. Both sides push their agendas and ignorance. Even if it is happening and is as bad as some say, there is no doubt that some will exploit it for personal gain. Therefore it is possible that anthropogenic climate change could both be an undeniable fact AND a hoax. But I think more research is needed -- weather and climate systems seem very complex, more than any scientific models can accurately reflect. Maybe one day, we will have a good enough understanding, but I don't think we are there yet! but I'm not an expert, so if any of you are, please let me know of the best studies, researchers, etc. to look into. Edited June 3, 2017 by futuredaze 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windwalker Posted June 3, 2017 (edited) edited: using current models to predict past climate events. already done.... Edited June 3, 2017 by windwalker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LAOLONG Posted June 3, 2017 (edited) . Edited June 4, 2017 by SHINTO Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spotless Posted June 3, 2017 (edited) Look at some of these supporter that are considered "actual supporters" of climate and environmental agreements. Their PR agencies prioritize "look good" "feel good" "responsibility" campaigns for a few hundred million - it has never meant that they actually support the stuff. Big business campaigns on behalf of good labor laws and against child labor laws - then does everything they can to obtain the cheapest labor available anywhere in the world regardless of the conditions of the workers UNLESS the PR people convince them they need to watch their public image in these things. If your business is going to be impacted by a global concensus then you would want to be at the table when it happens and you would want to be looked upon as someone not trying to under mine the process - (even though you certainly are there to do just that wherever it is not obvious). So just because big big oil and big chemical is at the table of global trends in environmental awareness and regulation - it certainly does not mean they are Actually interested in making things more difficult for themselves. Some of those involved actually do have children and eyeballs and and understanding of just how absurd things have been allowed to go. They understand that most of our wild fish are not without plastic in them and many chemical residues. Some of the executives actually do want to participate in global regulation - and they want global regulation and accord because otherwise everything is re-routed to the best cheaters - and without real agreements the cheaters become everyone. It takes nothing to hide whole abohrrant practices in foreign holdings kept apart from the name brand - but global accords tighten the belt on much of that. It starts to become economically more feasible just to do the right thing than slide all over the place under cover. Look at Monsanto - this company is one of the most disgusting examples of thug monopoly in the world - it has eyes in everything that undermines it - and it pays its PR managers and its hoard of lawyers well to propagate a "pro-science" facade. It would fuck its own grandmother regarding the environment - but it has to play - so it pays to play at the big tables. Is the USA going Rogue - the two weakest leaders of the worlds largest countries are Trump and Putin. Russia is essentially a mob country that exports its countries given natural resources - they make nothing the world is eager to purchase with the exception of military stuff - of which theirs is not cutting edge - just easily available. Putin runs his country like a sewer- he does not have the capacity to lead and build. Trump is a twin - weak and opportunistic - a consummate con man as cheap as the overly guided cage he lavishes upon his ego. When I was a kid you could barely breath in many areas of LA. Cars on a sunny clear day would vanish from sight within a block because of smog. It would have been rediculous to argue with the idea that cars were not the problem - but many argued. Strong laws were enacted and California emerged as a leader in fighting pollution - and we the United States are the worlds leading manufacturer and exporter of pollution reduction technologies. Today in Los Angeles there are many times the cars there were in the early 70's - yet cars do not disappear in a block on clear sunny days. You can plant your head in the bog of denial until your toes turn green from stupidity - sometimes what is obvious is simply obvious. It is so incredibly in vogue just now to be "rogue" - very fashionable - ultra positioned in conceptual banter and straw man fear mongering - kinda makes grabbing a woman by her "snatch" a fun and adventurous thing to do. (and some of us are thinking - wow - so this is what you come up with when you get frustrated?). Edited June 3, 2017 by Spotless 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MooNiNite Posted June 3, 2017 On 6/2/2017 at 5:47 AM, Jetsun said: 99.9% of credible scientists agree that climate change is a thing 99.99% of misinformed people think climate change is the same thing as global warming. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MooNiNite Posted June 3, 2017 If you are against pollution then you should support Trump. He is helping the free market and lowering taxes. Independent companies like Tesla could replace all gasoline cars by 2025. That would have a much greater environmental effect than any democratic money scheme. Kindle books, email, and similar technological advances have greatly lessened our dependency on paper. Technological advances in solar panels, and other forms of generating power are also important. Anyone that understands economic and technological growth would understand that lowering taxes and stimulating the free market economy is the best route to technological advancement. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
