@Colt45:
This is not a dating website.
Oh Shizzle…
[quietly deletes post about being a Scorpio and liking to take long walks on the beach…]
Scientific Discussion (No Politics) regarding validity of climate change
-
But the thing is, a nuclear war would COOL the world’s climate, and reduce our planet’s human burden.
-
The Economy Dies!?
Holy ����! I didnt see that coming! Good thing I got out of BC!
Must be tough being unemployed there in what with the economy having been killed by the carbon tax and all.
Now Garg, without googling, see if you can tell me when the Carbon tax was introduced in Canada and how quickly the economy died thereafterwards?
Your best guess!
GO!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK-esBqKyLM&feature=related
The carbon tax which was introduce in (without googling) I recall as 2008/2009 was NO WHERE NEAR what you would have liked to have seen Canuck. :) Lets face it. It’s about 1% of what you and Frimmel would like to impose! :P
And it also has an incremental effect if I’m not mistaken. 5 cents a litre extra this year, 10 cents next year, 30 cents a litre in 2015 kind of thing. Atleast that’s what they were talking about. I remember speaking with the minister of finance personally at the time, who’s campaign i worked on, and who I express my explicit- dissappointment with. He tried to convince me (at the time I drove 150km a day for work) that it was a “revenue neutral” tax. Pfftp. Lies. I never supported the BC libs again.
Tax and spend! Tax and spend! Knee in you package Knee in your package, knee in your package! :P
-
Vance!
I found a real world regime that is entirely in support of your plan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=t30IzpySXrs
Business is booming.
-
Whaddya think G? Carbon tax it is! Â
You see Joel, I’m a CONSERVATIVE and I don’t believe in living high on the hog, piling up debt, and distorting the biosphere for our own selfish benefit while leaving our children to pay back all that debt for ���� they didnt use and live in a less diverse and habitable planet for oil they didnt burn. It’s just not fiscally/environmentally/intergenerationally responsible.  ;-)
And you can add me to the list of solutions.
Looks like you and super H have been hard at work canuck! :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX5ODglF2Ys&feature=related
That’s a definite economic incentive for me to clean up the enviroment! :D
-
leaving our children to pay back all that debt
Who said anything about paying it back? :-)
North Korea would be better than nothing I guess, but I was hoping more for a full on China-Japan holocaust over those stupid islands they are so worked up about, or maybe an Iran-Israel battle of armageddon kind of scenario with Jesus returning and all that sh!t. Come on somebody’ gotta go first! Press the button and let’s get the show on the road!!
-
A bit late to the party, but here goes:
To all the guilt mongers out there, I have 3 questions regarding climate change, with 3 answers I would like you to refute.
Question #1:
Did the earth’s Climate Change BEFORE mankind? Answer = YESQuestion #2:
If every single human being on earth died tomorrow, would the Climate still change? Answer = YESQuestion #3:
Do scientists continue to tell us that mankind is 100% responsible for climate change? Answer = YESWhy is the answer to question #3 YES when we consider questions #1 and #2?
Why does popular opinion want me to believe humans are entirely responsible for climate change? (With religious conviction as if the earth is flat?)
With regard to the theoretical unknown, scientists frequently disagree with each other. Sometimes vehemently. But, when the vast majority of the scientific community agrees that there is a problem, then there IS a problem. Why is it so hard for some people to understand this?
When you’re on an aircraft, very few people claim that they know better than the pilot how to fly the plane and yet there are a great many people who insist that they know better than the scientists whose job it is to study the climate and it’s effects. Part of it is people buying into intentionally divisive propaganda perpetrated by various special interests; the rest is simply stupidity.
Human civilization living in a narrow band, suffered CATASTROPHIC climate changes OUTSIDE of that narrow band, long before modernization, and our modern effect on climate change. �
And I’ll tell you what happened…
Some people DIED. �
Some people ADAPTED. �That’s it.
You can’t make a direct comparison between modern times and the past. In the past, the coldest winter in Chicago in 1000 years would be a vicious killer. Now, it just means people wouldn’t go outside as much. The resiliency of the human race has increased significantly but, we are flirting with a serious test to that resiliency and there is a very real possibility that we will lose badly.
You said in the past that some people died and some adapted. This is true. But, the typical adaptation procedure was to pack up the hide covered tent and just move to a more habitable area. We can’t do that anymore. The human race has grown roots. Not only do we already occupy every possible habitable area(in great numbers I might add) but we’re also nowhere near as nomadic as we once were.
If there ever comes a time where formerly habitable areas become even marginally uninhabitable we simply aren’t equipped to handle a mass migration. Millions or even billions of people would die from war, exposure, starvation, and rampant disease in the horribly overcrowded areas that would result. I find it a bit disturbing that you have such a carefree attitude towards this.
If you can’t grow corn in the mid west, you’ll grow corn in south america, or a greenhouse. � And people will probably starve and die in the meantime. � That’s nothing new. � Look at the civilizations that used to live along the nile. Or native american civilizations. It’s a MOVE or DIE planet. � That’s always been a fact.
Seems simple enough. Except it isn’t. Did you consider what would happen to the economies of the countries that are currently supplying the rest of the world with their sustenance if they became, at least partially, unable to grow food? A large portion of the world still exists on subsistence farming. Most of those areas are too poor to rapidly undertake an agricultural modernization program to cover the loss. And they won’t be seeing a lot of help from the countries with the ability to help them modernize as they will be the ones suffering from economic troubles due to the loss of their farming income and the huge increase in the cost of food for their own populations.
And I looked at the civilizations along the Nile. Bipedal beings have been living there since the evolution of humanity. There has never been a significant mass extinction there since the Toba event 70,000 years ago because it’s one of the most habitation friendly places on the planet. It’s warm and fertile and teeming with yummy wildlife. As for the Native American civilizations, most of them died from war, foreign diseases for which they had no immunity, and because the animals they relied on for sustenance were slaughtered specifically to starve them to death. How does that relate to the climate?
Probably within the next few hundred or a thousand years, we would have the tech to gather resources from other worlds/moons and or to synthesize usable materials from the atomic level. You would also have to take in account colonization of other worlds (potentially). In the long run, climate change won’t mean a damn thing. We have hundreds of other potential threats we would need to worry about.
Currently our ability to launch a handful of people and less than a hundred tons of supplies into low earth orbit, let alone deep space or even Mars, is prohibitively expensive to all but the richest countries. Even if we magically gained the ability to move 100,000 people/day, and the massive amount of supplies needed to support them, offworld at this very moment, it would take us 30 years to evacuate 1 billion people. At the current rate of growth we reproduce 1 billion people in less than 25 years. Unless you’re hoping to find a Stargate, the colonization math doesn’t work.
The science is separate from the politics. What to do about it is the politics.
It seems that it is all intertwined, which is the problem. The author makes a point to condescend the “trojan horse for socialism” underlying argument as exaggerated and conspiratorial, but his summation of the reasons for social and economic change point back to exactly what he was dismissing. In fact, his later assertion is that the title of his article is essentially true, because the entire movement is more about social, economic and fundamental change in human thought than it is about the environment or climate. The science simply is a means to and end, and a very convenient one at that.
The only reason they are intertwined is because we sat on our hands for the last 40 years(the gas crunch of the 70’ being the defining moment). We let the problem grow until the only entities left with enough money and power to force the rapid change scientists say is necessary are governments. If even a small portion of companies and individuals had made a gradual change to refine the system 40 years ago, this wouldn’t even be a political issue today. You can thank ignorance, resistance to change, and the desire for profit over doing the smart thing for that.
I must say that I am struck by how naively you think that everyone in the world would be on board with the solutions you posit. Not all countries will be able to do what you propose or want to do it. What body will enforce this worldwide change, because certainly only the United States participating cannot be enough? If we cannot even convince those in our own country to agree on the issue and move on a solution, how much more impossible would it be to convince over 200 nations, with differing resources and economies, to help save the planet. Not only is it wrong to do so, it is utterly implausible.
I know that not every country can make that change quickly. But, the point is to get them to change as quickly as they can within reason. And at this point we won’t have to do much convincing because the ever increasingly destructive natural disasters that are beginning to befall us should be convincing enough.
Only recently did China overtake the US as the worlds largest producer of greenhouse gasses, but we have been going at it for a LOT longer. It would be hypocritical of us to demand that the rest of the world make a change when we have been a big part of the problem and we are resisting change. The countries that are reluctant to make a change aren’t going to go along with the program until we can prove that we can do it. Nobody wants to do it because it will be painful economically and probably in quality of life. The problem is that the longer we wait, the more painful it will get.
I mean really? the entire history of civilization was to burn oil? It’s a -recent- trend, not a societal crux. It changed TO this in the last hundred or so years, an it will change AWAY from this in the next hundred years or so.
You’re making an assumption here. And one I believe is wrong. All the evidence suggests that as long as the world is awash in cheap fossil fuels, nobody will be willing to switch to more expensive alternatives even if they are less environmentally destructive. You’re projecting that we will develop similarly priced or cheaper clean alternatives without proof of a concrete timetable. What if it take 250 years instead of the next 100? Can we wait that long?
-clarification-
**1. YES PROVEN SCIENCE DOESN’T LIE!!!
2. CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL! AND HAPPENING!
We all agree on that.
As we continue in this thread, can we choose to all agree on my 2 points?
This is true. Proven science does not lie. Although, many people have chosen to follow faith-based science. And faith-based science lies religiously. See what I did there? Wordplay. Points!
The question that is VERY unresolved, is how much is man responsible for?
It’s not unresolved. It’s very resolved. Mankind is responsible for a small portion of the greenhouse gasses that currently inhabit the atmosphere. Unfortunately, since the climate is delicately balanced as opposed to being built like a brick shithouse and is susceptible to even minor changes, the small portion that we have added is having a very noticeable effect. Noticeable, as in bad.
And how much does it matter?
For us? Not so much. For future humans? Probably a lot. If it does get really bad, you and I will probably be dead by then. The question is whether or not you care if future humanity is praising or cursing our dead names depending on how we handle the problem right now. Or if you care if your children suffer or not. I don’t have kids so not a big selling point for me. I just subscribe to the “do the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing” policy.
and how much of it is reversible/irreversible
I don’t think we have enough info to answer that question. Can’t hurt to take a shot at it though because the alternative doesn’t look very bright.
These are matters of opinions. And opinions use science to mislead.
More a matter of desire than opinion. People want to lay on the couch watching “Friends” and eating Cheetos or sit at their desks playing Axis and Allies eating Cheetos. A lot of people don’t want anything to disrupt that so when someone comes along and says they have to disrupt their lives(even in a small way) for the sake of humanity, they will inherently gravitate toward the scientists who tell them that everything’s fine and they don’t have to change. Even if those scientists are a very small minority. And even if those scientists are wrong.
Science doesn’t mislead. People mislead. Sometimes they even mislead themselves.**
-
The answer is to treat is as we treat any other harm done by one to another (or in economics an “externality”) and disincentivize it.
Probably the most sensible statement I have heard on this topic. The carbon tax would not amount to much per litre of fuel. Europe pays much more for fuel than north americans or US citizens in particular. They mainly drive small fuel efficient cars but if you want a gas guzzling muscle car you can get one, you do more damage and you pay a bit more, fair enough. Personally, I own 2 muscle cars, my 454 powered 71 truck gets about 4 miles per gallon and my 80 Z28 gets about 6. If you wanna play you gots to pay, again, I can life with that.
For the most part, it seems its Americans who deny any possibility that humans affect the climate in any way. I don’t know what is so hard about say that humans do affect it but maybe in such a small way its not worth mentioning or to contemplate it was a good thing we started to do it 1000s of years ago to keep that next ice age at bay but now its time to slow down the human change…or not.
I don’t think a gradual introduction of a carbon tax with gradual ramp up would cause the world economy to collapse. I would trade north american technology and some oil costing X for the same cost X which had little technology and lots of oil consumption.
Oil production along with natural gas is starting to increase in north american at an ever accelerating rate. Lots of cheap fossil fuel might help the economy in the short run but having to explain to your kids where Santa goes in the summer when there is no ice at the north pole might be a bit awkward.
-
I must say that I am struck by how naively you think that everyone in the world would be on board with the solutions you posit. Not all countries will be able to do what you propose or want to do it. What body will enforce this worldwide change, because certainly only the United States participating cannot be enough? If we cannot even convince those in our own country to agree on the issue and move on a solution, how much more impossible would it be to convince over 200 nations, with differing resources and economies, to help save the planet. Not only is it wrong to do so, it is utterly implausible.
I know that not every country can make that change quickly. But, the point is to get them to change as quickly as they can within reason. And at this point we won’t have to do much convincing because the ever increasingly destructive natural disasters that are beginning to befall us should be convincing enough.
But whose reason? What body will define it and how will they mandate it? I know you cannot answer for certain, but you could give me a best guess. In any even, I do not like where this leads… a global body which has power over US sovereignty and Canadian sovereignty and British sovereignty etc… As evident as some of these problems are today, it is not bad enough currently for nations to throw their economies in the tank to fight a mostly invisible bogeyman. Ultimately, the average person will care more about their immediate needs: a job, a home, food/gas prices and their televisions… maybe their drugs too, than they will care about lowering their carbon emissions. Food at least will be influenced by the environment, but it is one aspect among many. There are and have always been natural disasters; how can we determine that a given disaster is caused by global warming. Can you throw earthquakes and tsunamis in that category? Tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires? These all occur naturally every year. I suppose you can claim increased frequency is evidence. Regardless, it is a pertinent question to ask what will be convincing enough for the world.
Only recently did China overtake the US as the worlds largest producer of greenhouse gasses, but we have been going at it for a LOT longer. It would be hypocritical of us to demand that the rest of the world make a change when we have been a big part of the problem and we are resisting change. The countries that are reluctant to make a change aren’t going to go along with the program until we can prove that we can do it. Nobody wants to do it because it will be painful economically and probably in quality of life. The problem is that the longer we wait, the more painful it will get.
Hypocritical, yes… but I thought we were talking about immediate necessity, at least we were previously in this discussion. If it is crucial that the world reduce its contributions to climate change, then there must be a rapid downgrade from current emissions by everyone, no? Forgive me if I am throwing you into the Frimmel’s Day plan without your consent. This is beside the point of how we get everyone to comply… specifically, large countries, who are not friendly to us and have shown little to no compunction at pretty much raping the environment for their benefit. (e.g. Russia, China, N. Korea, maybe Iran, Venezuela…) If it will be economically painful (disastrous more likely) for us, weakening our ability to do or enforce anything globally, do you not think that these other nations will not capitalize on our weakness? Even if you stick your head in the sand and don’t think it could or will happen, it is still a reasonable question to ask. This does not even bring up all of the domestic problems it will cause for us, to re-tool and dispose of all our inefficient vehicles and devices. Quality of life will suffer drastically, but the interesting thing will be to see how many people would just be okay with it.
-
Great posts all around!
My only complaint with long posts though, is there are usually too many items to comment on, so I’ll just cherry pick a few.
Migration of people… People have been migrating since the beginning of time, and continue to migrate TODAY. Despite whatever you may think. 100 years ago on the very island I live on, the largest city was Leechtown. It rivalled Victoria for the capital of British Columbia. Today Leechtown doesn’t exist, there’s only a single (and bad) dirt road in, and there’s nothing to be seen there but trees.
Whether you talk about the natives who -science has proven- came here from Asia, or the europeans who came here more recently. Migration happens, and is still happening, and there are still huge swaths of habitable-yet-uninhabited areas all over the globe. Canada being a prime example. People are migrating north here everyday.
Natives food supply… For the record, MOST native cultures -specifically in Canada, are coastal/lakeland survivors. That’s what they lived off. The Natives that lived off of the Buffalo and Caribou, migrated WITH the animals, (Even the eskimos still move seasonally today) and in some cases the natives exterminated the herds -without- any help from anyone else. Sure there may have been an isolated incident where a food supply was targetted by europeans. But I can’t find an actual incident of that recorded, and in all likelyhood the food supply was just as plausibly targetted by other natives.
Regarding trusting scientists/pilots… I really liked your point U-505, and I like that it will illustrate my own. As a pilot in training, I’d be happy to provide advice to the man flying the plane, or take over the flying after finding out that he’s planning to use his skills to crash the plane and all it’s “useful” passengers into the pentagon or otherwise to secure funding for his own personal Jihad. This must be gaurded against.
Millions or even billions of people would die from war, exposure, starvation, and rampant disease in the horribly overcrowded areas that would result. I find it a bit disturbing that you have such a carefree attitude towards this.
NEWSFLASH # 2 U-5! :P No matter what we do 6 Billion people are going to die over the next 100 years, from war, exposure, starvation, rampant disease, and old age.
It’s not a matter of me being care-free, it’s a matter of fact, and it’s nothing new. :D
-
My theory about climate change is this. In the year 13000bc there was an ice age. If this event were to happen today it would kill millions of people. The Ice shield stretched from the artic to Iowa. This would be considered massive climate change if it happened today. My question to all of you who believe we have control of the climate is this. How many SUV’s were the cavemen driving back the? I believe the climate may be changing but I don’t believe we are having a huge impact on it. The world has had global warming and global cooling throughout it’s existence. If you don’t believe me look it up. I personally believe we are stewards of the earth and should do our part to keep it clean and take care of nature the best that we can to leave to future generations. I also believe there are things that are out of our control and it is mans arrogance to believe we can control the weather. I will finish with this the politicians who say we have climate change have and agenda and those that don’t probably have one too. Good discussion guys.
-
Fred Flintstones SUV was ball’n….
-
It didn’t run on fossil fuels as his pet was one of them GAR.
-
We didn’t have guns 2000 years ago but people were in fact killed back then, therefore guns can’t possibly kill people because people were killed before guns were around.
I think we can see the fallacy in that logic replace SUVs with guns and……
We do affect the climate just as there is pee in your pool if I pee in your pool. The question is by how much and is that bad or good. The answer is more and more but more by .00000000001% can be an ignorable amount. Bad or good, well it was good that we prevented a new ice age but bad if we keep going to a possible tipping point where the end result means much less of the earth surface is feasible for humanity to live economically.
and in some cases the natives exterminated the herds -without- any help from anyone else. Sure there may have been an isolated incident where a food supply was targetted by europeans. But I can’t find an actual incident of that recorded, and in all likelyhood the food supply was just as plausibly targetted by other natives.
Garg, perhaps you could peruse the following….
http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/buffalo.htm
Under the heading:
E. US POLICY TO EXTERMINATE THE BUFFALO
. Officers and enlisted personnel also killed buffalo for food and sport, though the impact of their hunts was minute when compared to the organized efforts of the professionals." (The Military and United States Indian Policy, p. 171) "In 1874, Secretary of the Interior Delano testified before Congress, “The buffalo are disappearing rapidly, but not faster than I desire. I regard the destruction of such game as Indians subsist upon as facilitating the policy of the Government, of destroying their hunting habits, coercing them on reservations, and compelling them to begin to adopt the habits of civilization.”
Perhaps a better source of information
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/five-things/the-great-american-bison/8950/
I for one live 1/2 mile from one of the 5 great lakes. Until rain stops falling in the northeast of North America climate change won’t affect me much. Sucks if you live on the ocean coast I guess or near a newly emerging desert…… I’m ok Jack, keep your hands of my stack!
-
Thank you for the 1990’s mediafire website Mal, but… Â :)
Some scholars suggest
Isn’t exactly imperical evidence… ?
And your website supports my position quite fundamentally
“Although the army was plagued by strategic failures, the near extermination of the American bison during the 1870s helped to mask the military’s poor performance. By stripping many Indians of their available resources, the slaughter of the buffalo severely reduced the Indians’ capacity to continue an armed struggle against the United States. The military’s role in this matter is difficult to asses. Sheridan and Sherman recognized that eliminating the buffalo severely reduced the Indians’ capacity to continue an armed struggle against the United States. The editors of the Army and Navy Journal supported the proposition, comparing such an effort with Civil War campaigns against Confederate supplies and food sources. Forts provided de facto support for hunters, who used the civilian services often found near army bases. Officers and enlisted personnel also killed buffalo for food and sport, though the impact of their hunts was minute when compared to the organized efforts of the professionals.” (The Military and United States Indian Policy, p. 171) “In 1874, Secretary of the Interior Delano testified before Congress, “The buffalo are disappearing rapidly, but not faster than I desire. I regard the destruction of such game as Indians subsist upon as facilitating the policy of the Government, of destroying their hunting habits, coercing them on reservations, and compelling them to begin to adopt the habits of civilization.” (The Military and United States Indian Policy, p. 171) Two years later, reporter John F. Finerty wrote that the government’s Indian allies "killed the animals in sheer wantonness, and when reproached by the officers said: ‘better kill buffalo than have him feed the Sioux.'” Although Sheridan added that “if I could learn that every buffalo in the the northern herd were killed I would be glad,” some indications point to a groundswell of military opposition to the killing. (The Military and United States Indian Policy, p. 172)
While evidence seems to point to the existence of an official policy, the debate about whether one actually existed still continues (as noted in the above paragraph).
I’m still not seeing any compelling evidence? Even from the source… Other than Indians killed the herds of their enemies… and that a modern 1870’s government recognized the importance of the food source strategically?
-
And the second source agrees… the first factor in the -extinction- of the species.
American Indian tribes acquired horses and guns and were able to kill bison in larger numbers than ever before
Not as previously expressed in a statement I wholeheartedly REJECT.
and because the animals they relied on for sustenance were slaughtered specifically to starve them to death
:)
The history of the buffalo though, is an interesting read, especially in a climate-change/enviromental context.
Again, it’s move, adapt, or die. That’s history, And not even 150 year old history. One has to look at the whole picture.
-
I have no doubt horses and guns help natives hunt for sustenance more vigorously, but natives tend to use and eat what they killed unlike the white man.
Rather than rehashing that debate lets review how others debated the topic of ‘Buffalo being killed to control the Natives’
http://www.westerncivforum.com/index.php?topic=2284.0
From:
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/macleans/bison-back-from-brink-of-extinctionIn the United States, the decimation of the buffalo was part of a deliberate, and successful, effort to starve the Plains Indians into submission. As Geist recounts in his book, many high-ranking U.S. officials were explicit about their intentions. “The civilization of the Indian is impossible while the buffalo remains upon the plains,” declared secretary of the interior Columbus Delano in 1873. Two years later, Gen. Philip Sheridan told a joint session of Congress that buffalo hunters had done more to settle what he called “the vexed Indian question” than the entire U.S. army. Sheridan urged the politicians to continue to support the hunters. “For the sake of lasting peace,” he said, “let them kill, skin and sell until the buffaloes are exterminated.”
The Canadian government didn’t go after the buffalo quite so vigorously. But commercial over-hunting to supply the fur trade achieved much the same result. In both countries, the demise of an animal that had dominated the landscape for so long proved astonishingly swift - by 1890, only a few hundred head remained.I try to play devils advocate with myself before asserting claims that are easily refutable. Googling the contra-position from yours helps to make your argument more sound.
-
The efforts of early 20th century organizations like the American Bison Society, headed by zoologist William Hornaday and former president Theodore Roosevelt, were able to rescue the bison from its impending extinction
Well there’s no contra position to “The American President rescued the bison from it’s impending extinction” is there?
I’m not quite clear what we’re discussing though… ?
1. I am refuting the claim that the sole reason the buffalo almost went extinct was because of efforts to control natives? It’s a fallacy.
2. I’m proving is that the migration/forced adaption of people is NORMAL, and has occurred in very recent history.
those are the points I wish to convey that relate to the climate change discussion….
-
**HOLY ******
FYI - those are Bison skulls if you didn’t know…
-
2. I’m proving is that the migration/forced adaption of people is NORMAL, and has occurred in very recent history.
those are the points I wish to convey that relate to the climate change discussion….
So why can’t reduction in carbon emissions in order to preserve the current climatic system be part of the adaptation process? Kind of like trying to preserve the Buffalo from extinction?
Doesn’t that seem like the rational choice?
Please explain your opposition to this course of action, it seems completely in congruence with your perspective.
-
I read this article this morning and thought of this thread.
The Register is a British IT/Science ‘rag’ somewhat off the wall but often an interesting source of news with usually a science/technology twist.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/06/climate_change_articles_survey/
Suggested Topics
