General / Off-Topic Is man made climate change real or not? Prove your belief here.

I think that is a common misconception. A global collapse will affect anyone under a certain age, even people that are not considered "young" today. Basically, when the manure hits the fan, everyone is to his own. You will have rights to whatever you can cling onto, while defending yourself with the other hand. That includes the rich, and it will probably be an "easier" task for someone who has been used to live on the street from whatever they could find in the garbage.

That’s why it’s always a good idea to be self sustainable, you don’t need to be rich to do that, it’s also a good idea to be armed 😀

 
Rant mode on:
I think that the OP's opening question is flawed.

"Prove your belief here" in itself is textbook living-death oxymoron.

That being said, the longer I listen and observe the discussions around climate change in the greater public, the more I am reminded to the heretics vs. conformists.

To me personally, I have no need to prove anything that I know to be objective and verifiable, reliably accounted for, hence factual, all the rest is down to individual perception, always, hence the next person will perceive planck time different than I. ;)

Belief in contrast is a faith based system, and should not be brought into the equation when we wish to exchange on the issue of climate change in my opinion.

In the heretics vs conformists mindframe, curvature of spacetime could be considered a heretic belief thus to be eradicated by the inquisitors by all means. The conformists now would ask the heretic for prove of his belief, and the heretic dumps a 20 pound granit on the conformists foot, stating this to be an example for curvature of spacetime. Result ---> Heretic burning at stake! ;)

This is the current level that I perceive in the public discussion, and it is hyped by media and of course the forces at play that wish to deflect from accountabilities by playing the heretics card.

Rant mode off
 
Might be all true for known conditions now and in the past. Not anymore for our 'endgame' as I envision it. Then all these notions will be moot and those who are the first to die will be the lucky ones. But fear you not, we're "just" talking about the fate of our descendants. I talk to you as an atheist, not in a fanatic, religious visionary way like this angry squaller. But that's how I feel about it, the future of humankind, just the emotional part. If we don't get our crap together. It won't be the government, it won't be God, it won't be an atom bomb. It will be much, much worse, and we all are doing it. Right now.
In any case, rich or poor, I will not want to live in the world of tomorrow as it is currently imagined.
 
TBH only a bunker is really tough to break through, otherwise you can bomb virtually any settlement though both will be suceptible to a siege.
 
Of course is man made, we are evolution oddity, a invasive species that does not fit the Earth ecosystem - not contributing to it in any positive way. I know that we are tha cause and eventually we will pay a gruesome price if we dont stop acting against common sense.
 
Rant mode on:
I think that the OP's opening question is flawed.

"Prove your belief here" in itself is textbook living-death oxymoron.
You might have missed my explanation earlier for the choice of wording? It boils down to this, both sides of the AGW debate (to be frank there really does not need to be one, the science has spoken!) often accuse the other of following some occult belief in their fervent desire to influence the other.

I find this highly amusing in general as the science behind AGW is concrete (so erm not actually a 'belief' but fact!), but that does not stop the other side (the denial of AGW side) from accusing those that don't follow their belief (and theirs is actually just that, as no science backs it up) as being 'cultists' or 'fanatics' or spouting zealot ideology etc. So i chose the topic title 'very' carefully to include all parties and all outlooks, and poke a bit of fun at those that deny the science.
 
The funny part of this is that you yourself posted an article on conspicuous energy consumption from computers, gaming in particular but I'd say endlessly nattering on the Internet counts, too. Not that I needed the article or your admission, I pointed out the energy waste associated with gaming and forum noodling weeks ago and all the hypocrites could say (as you are now) was "Hur hur hur!" I guess the message is your energy consumption is fine, regardless of how much you use or what it's used for. I sure wish that I had a nice ivory tower like yours, Zak.
I know you are basically here to 'troll' these kind of threads (you have never contributed anything substantial, just opinion that seems to come from Fox News!), i get it, but just to make it 100% clear to everyone else, you accused my of hypocrisy over my stances re AGW. I then gave you a quick few examples of how i've changed my lifestyle to reduce my impacts on AGW as i became aware of the issue and it's importance. You then proceeded to ignore my question re your own efforts and proceeded to call me a hypocrite. Just so that is clear to all.

I won't respond to further posts by you in general (as a rule i don't like to feed trolls), just so you understand why you are not worth time wasting in a debate with ok?

If you actually come up with a solid contribution to (these) the thread i will off course be open for discussion. It's just about not wasting peoples time mostly. I try to respect peoples time most of the time.

------------

So here is a bunch of stuff from the recent IPCC's findings, and it is pretty indepth looking at why the 1.5 degrees C above pre-industrial levels of CO2 is so important etc:


The IPCC is a body of scientists and economists – first convened by the United Nations (UN) in 1988 – which periodically produces summaries of the “scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation”.

The reports are produced, in the first instance, to inform the world’s policymakers.

In this detailed Q&A, Carbon Brief explains why the IPCC was asked to produce a report focused on 1.5C of global warming, what the report says and what the reaction has been
 
It seems weird to me that so many people picture an environmentally linked "collapse" as something that's going to be like a switch being thrown, as opposed to a long, steady grind where Morbad's point makes some sense. The scenarios where things happen quickly effecting "rich and poor alike" are going to be something along the lines of an apocalyptic meteorite strike, or a global pandemic, not the climate crisis (God, I cringe even writing that in such a way that makes it look like I think there will actually BE one in the near future).
It won't be "switch", in that I actually agree with you and Morbad. And that is how fatality will take its course. It will start in that we're slowly getting used to thousands at first, then millions of people dying in consequence of the rise of the sea level. No, it won't be a switch, we all will have enough opportunities to getting used to scenarios that already have started and make us feel slightly uncomfortable right now (if you take care at all. Didn't you say you are a christian? Hello??). But it definitely will be a switch in geological dimensions.
 
Last edited:
saying that climate change is man-made or that mankind is the reason for climate change is factually wrong. the climate has always changed and will always be changing. the water level had swings of >200m in the history of earth.
saying we can stop climate change is like saying that we can stop the earth from rotating.
 
Go it Zak. Thanks!

Thing is, while politcos continue to stall and protect powerful fossil fuel interests, the public is fed with plenty of paid for attacks on science, paid for by the big wallets of Exxon and the likes.

This article is from 2013!

 
saying that climate change is man-made or that mankind is the reason for climate change is factually wrong. the climate has always changed and will always be changing. the water level had swings of >200m in the history of earth.
saying we can stop climate change is like saying that we can stop the earth from rotating.
Uh dude! go back and read the thread. You making a colossal embarrassment off yourself with that statement.

(pst! no one is saying the climate never changes! pst! it is ALL about the speed of change currently that IS the problem, re-read the thread, the info is here!)
 
You might have missed my explanation earlier for the choice of wording? It boils down to this, both sides of the AGW debate (to be frank there really does not need to be one, the science has spoken!) often accuse the other of following some occult belief in their fervent desire to influence the other.

I find this highly amusing in general as the science behind AGW is concrete (so erm not actually a 'belief' but fact!), but that does not stop the other side (the denial of AGW side) from accusing those that don't follow their belief (and theirs is actually just that, as no science backs it up) as being 'cultists' or 'fanatics' or spouting zealot ideology etc. So i chose the topic title 'very' carefully to include all parties and all outlooks, and poke a bit of fun at those that deny the science.
Maybe I did read his post wrong, but wasn't this pretty much his point? I actually agree with your OP, but also think the wording of the topic was somewhat misleading and contradictory. Anyway, I try to get out of this thread. Nothing against you but there are way too many cynics around here that neither you nor me nor the pope nor science will ever convince.
saying that climate change is man-made or that mankind is the reason for climate change is factually wrong. the climate has always changed and will always be changing. the water level had swings of >200m in the history of earth.
saying we can stop climate change is like saying that we can stop the earth from rotating.
[EDIT]
It's the speed in how it happens which is the point and where we have overwhelming evidence for. It's the speed of this development which will be absolutely lethal to mankind as there's no way to slowly adopt. It's by far the biggest increase in the history of mankind and there's a clear link to the beginning of the industrial era.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I did read his post wrong, but wasn't this pretty much his point? I actually agree with your OP, but also think the wording of the topic was somewhat misleading and contradictory. Anyway, I try to get out of this thread. Nothing against you but there are way too many cynics around here that neither you nor me nor the pope will ever convince.

What a tosh. It's the speed in how it happens which is the point and where we have overwhelming evidence for. It's the speed of this development which will be absolutely lethal to mankind as there's no way to slowly adopt. It will be still relative slow compared to one single human lifetime, but a blink in the history of Earth and - that's the decisive point - of all 'natural' climate changes in past of the last millions of years. Drop this nonsense in a reputable science magazine and learn something new. I don't ask you to just believe me. Learn. LEARN!
okay so to get this straight. you say im right, that climate change always happened and will always happen.

then you say that this time its relatively fast, which is a problem. and the next thing all these idiots say is: hey lets waste trillions of $ and basically everything we have to TRY and STOP climate change (which cant work and wont work) so that in the end, when you see that we cant stop it, there is no more resources of any kind (e.g. money) left to fight the consequences?

wouldnt it be a lot smarter to just use the money we would waste now to try and fight the consequences now, as they are inevitable going to happen anyway? or do you just want to buy yourself a green conscience so you can die in peace while future generations will die because of your waste of money for useless poopoo?

btw. id be interested in hearing about your stance about nuclear power.
 
okay so to get this straight. you say im right, that climate change always happened and will always happen.

then you say that this time its relatively fast, which is a problem. and the next thing all these idiots say is: hey lets waste trillions of $ and basically everything we have to TRY and STOP climate change (which cant work and wont work) so that in the end, when you see that we cant stop it, there is no more resources of any kind (e.g. money) left to fight the consequences?

wouldnt it be a lot smarter to just use the money we would waste now to try and fight the consequences now, as they are inevitable going to happen anyway? or do you just want to buy yourself a green conscience so you can die in peace while future generations will die because of your waste of money for useless poopoo?

btw. id be interested in hearing about your stance about nuclear power.
I saw my mistake but was too slow to edit my post. Please be fair and quote the new one.
Yes, climate change has always happened, no one is denying this. But one thing I said was and is correct: It's the speed in where it happens and which is an overwhelming pointer to human influence. It's she speed what matters and which is unmatched in the history of Earth. Scientists have reliable methods to evaluate this.

What you are talking about is mentioned here:
https://www.earthfacts.com/climate/climate-change-history/
But read this article carefully, only on the first glance it's confirming your point. At least you can learn where your point is coming from.
Here's a small excerpt from this article, it's how it starts. But you really shouldn't stop reading after that:
Although climate change is a hot topic in the news, the Earth's climate has been changing throughout our planet's history.

There are many sources of evidence for climate change - fossils, for example. When scientists look at core samples drilled into ocean floors, they find alternating layers of marine fossils. Layers with an abundance of warm weather animals alternate with layers in which these animals are very scarce. This indicates that the climate has changed periodically.
 
Last edited:
No it won't be a switch. It will be an accelerating decline, leading to more and more parts of the system breaking down, further accelerating the decline until it becomes so fast that it can be seen as a collapse. There will be several crucial "points" along the way though and some of those might go pretty fast. When (not if) the financial system collapses, the banks will close in a matter of days (or weeks).

The human population seems to pretty much follow the way bacteria grow on a medium in a Petri dish:

150109


After a lag phase, the population grows exponentially. The lag phase is partly explained by the exponential growth being perceived as close to nothing at the beginning, similar to the growth of the human population for many millennia before 1900. After the exponential growth phase, follows the stationary phase, where cells dying (mortality rate) balances cell division (birth rate). Bacteria doesn't die that quickly when starved, and the exponential growth phase is typically a matter of days, but humans do not survive long without food (we can't sporulate or switch metabolism like yeast), so the stationary phase of the human population will be short. We already see a slight increase in global hunger and malnutrition, indicating that the stationary phase is "over".
 
Last edited:
Of course is man made, we are evolution oddity, a invasive species that does not fit the Earth ecosystem - not contributing to it in any positive way. I know that we are tha cause and eventually we will pay a gruesome price if we dont stop acting against common sense.
That is probably true, but being described as an invasive species, is a thought that most people simply can't accept. I personally find it hard, and I've been called a misanthrope more often than I remember. But you're right and the lack of accepting our influence of the biosphere makes it hard to make changes.
 
Top Bottom