Climate Change Thread

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The world is much cooler than it once was, but much warmer than some of our more recent cold periods. SOURCE

The last century or so has seen, by human standards, a fairly large increase in average temperature. Whether this is driven primarily by humans or not, it is certainly altering our life space and creating concerns that must be addressed.

[Husar]

The world is much cooler than it once was, but much warmer than some of our more recent cold periods. SOURCE

And again I generally agree with you, but have to say that to argue we're fine because dinsosaurs and insects the size of a rhinocerus could survive much warmer temperatures is not exactly consistent with my goals in life. *squashes a bug that is conveniently not large enough to eat him*

Of course in the long term we may have to find another planet anyway and in the really long term even that won't save us eternally.
Maybe the idea is that we could rather leave the universe with a bang now than to drag it out for a few more millennia.

Regardless, the best approaches should factor in considerable death and damage. A question of "whether" we can avoid consequences is a bad one, and any action motivated by it will invariably disappoint.

Well, yes, and I haven't turned vegan yet either to save the planet. Either way changing what we can is better than just running into the light. I mean, even the Chinese are willing to cooperate the matter, but then again some say it's their conspiracy.

[Pannonian]

The world is much cooler than it once was, but much warmer than some of our more recent cold periods. SOURCE

The last century or so has seen, by human standards, a fairly large increase in average temperature. Whether this is driven primarily by humans or not, it is certainly altering our life space and creating concerns that must be addressed.

More immediately, although this may apply less to the US than to Europe, the energy suppliers that the Euros depend on are decidedly unfriendly to our way of life. If we don't want to go with the Saudis and others in the area, then there are the Russians. And the Russians count as relatively close to our way of thinking. We need to reduce our energy consumption, if only to gain more independence in our foreign policy. The 1970s (IIRC) should have driven this lesson home.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

More immediately, although this may apply less to the US than to Europe, the energy suppliers that the Euros depend on are decidedly unfriendly to our way of life. If we don't want to go with the Saudis and others in the area, then there are the Russians. And the Russians count as relatively close to our way of thinking. We need to reduce our energy consumption, if only to gain more independence in our foreign policy. The 1970s (IIRC) should have driven this lesson home.

Ya think? I remember those gas lines. I remember the death of the "Big Steel" US auto.

[Greyblades]

I found something squeezed into the end of a BBC article about trump and the CIA; Trump says a series of big environmental decisions including US participation in the Paris climate change deal will come quickly.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I found something squeezed into the end of a BBC article about trump and the CIA; Trump says a series of big environmental decisions including US participation in the Paris climate change deal will come quickly.

He has to address it fairly quickly once in office. A fair chunk of his voters have no interest in shackling the economy in order to meet the Paris accord demands. Not quite sure what he will do with it though.

[Gilrandir]

Not quite sure what he will do with it though.

Neither is he.

[Fisherking]

I support continued research into climate but see consensus as a limiting factor in scientific advancement.

I view government legislative intervention as dubious. Primarily because it was the topic of policy papers in the early 1970 as a means of population control. A propaganda tool to expand government power.

Since that time we have had; a coming ice age, acid rain, the ozone hole, global warming, and simply climate change. The bulk of the money to bring these issues to the fore has also come from the same people who commissioned the policy papers and their adherents in government.

All of the science behind these causes have been marked by controversies in their scientific voracity and methodology.

Whether or not anthropomorphic impact on climate is real or not the policies are in line with the original outline and those serve corporatists and government at the expense of everyone else.

However, not being one to take someone’s word for things I have done my own research. At best I find it inconclusive.

The question comes down to what you are willing to give up. Do you sacrifice rights and liberties for the promise of additional security for what may or may not be a problem we can effect or do you resist additional governmental control. And do understand, that control will be limitless, at least in the end.

[Husar]

Since that time we have had; a coming ice age, acid rain, the ozone hole, global warming, and simply climate change. The bulk of the money to bring these issues to the fore has also come from the same people who commissioned the policy papers and their adherents in government.

the ice age is technically still coming, the effects of acid rain could be seen on plenty of exposed statues and the likes and the ozone hole is closing again because we raplaced the problematic cooling fluids with ones that release terrible greenhouse gases. Maybe the lesson is not that someone is making up problems to scare us, but that playing with chemistry on a grand scale without thinking about any consequences can have side effects?
Besides, you forgot plastic in our fish.

However, not being one to take someone’s word for things I have done my own research. At best I find it inconclusive.

Are we to take your word for it or would you be willing to explain your conclusion in a bit more detail?
Because my research came to the opposite conclusion. We can either discuss it now (hopefully in a friendly way) or just agreee to disagree.

The question comes down to what you are willing to give up. Do you sacrifice rights and liberties for the promise of additional security for what may or may not be a problem we can effect or do you resist additional governmental control. And do understand, that control will be limitless, at least in the end.

I think that is a bit too poetic. Restricting industry emissions etc. is hardly a terrible restriction of freedom. The point is even funnier when you compare Europe and Africa before and after the restrictions. Arguably we are doing even better and they even worse, so where is the big problem? Besdies, government is what the citizens make of it, not a separate threatening entity. And the enemies of climate change just seem to have voted for a POTUS who seems far more liberty-threatening than all the ones before him.