If I change my avatar, I change my name.
General / Off-Topic Is man made climate change real or not? Prove your belief here.
- Thread starter Zak Gordon
- Start date
- Status
Meanwhile in Montana...
Socialists occupied the prairie and together with the enormous hordes of communists they can be seen wandering on the great plains in search of ....water!
By the year 2035 the days above 105 Fahrenheit increased sixfold compared to 2019. This decade lasting drought had many victims, first the plants and animals, then humans, valley fever had decimated 50% of Montana's population already, and most of all....
The great plains were no longer, and not only Montana turned into desert, from Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, to North Dakota, all one enormous stretch of desert, and the projections continued with increasing heat.
Not much longer and you could describe the entire area in one single word:
Admittedly, above being a bit of Cli-Fi by your's truly, but if you think this would be a very unliekly scenario.... think again!
Socialists occupied the prairie and together with the enormous hordes of communists they can be seen wandering on the great plains in search of ....water!
By the year 2035 the days above 105 Fahrenheit increased sixfold compared to 2019. This decade lasting drought had many victims, first the plants and animals, then humans, valley fever had decimated 50% of Montana's population already, and most of all....
The great plains were no longer, and not only Montana turned into desert, from Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, to North Dakota, all one enormous stretch of desert, and the projections continued with increasing heat.
Not much longer and you could describe the entire area in one single word:
Uninhabitable!
Admittedly, above being a bit of Cli-Fi by your's truly, but if you think this would be a very unliekly scenario.... think again!
Last edited:
To whom am I talking right now?
I find, indeed, strange similarities.
Yes I often had the same strange feeling to see a boss spend his time on the forums.
I imagine if all the bosses were doing the same thing.
.
'Climate Change for Dummies: The Basics of Climate Change Physics':
sciencetrends.com
So erm, actually it is quite detailed, but that is the point about the issue in general! So if you are a 'doubter' and are struggling with following the article (assuming you have a curious mind and want to know answers etc, and are not just set-in-stone denier till i die kind of person!), i will quote one part to clarify the gist of the science it is disecting:
And at that point, when you refuse to accept fact as fact, that is where belief comes into it.
You might believe (or think you believe because you been told it) that man made climate change is wrong, but that is all it is, just a 'belief'. You are still factually wrong as that is what the science tells us (that same science that gave you the internet, electricity, TV, the car etc).
Climate Change for Dummies: The Basics of Climate Change Physics - Database Football
Welcome to those who do not believe in climate change and wish to start a friendly debate over the internet! Better yet, welcome to those that do not fully understand the phenomenon of climate change and how human activity contributes to the occurrence – and are curious to learn more. And, best...
sciencetrends.com
So erm, actually it is quite detailed, but that is the point about the issue in general! So if you are a 'doubter' and are struggling with following the article (assuming you have a curious mind and want to know answers etc, and are not just set-in-stone denier till i die kind of person!), i will quote one part to clarify the gist of the science it is disecting:
And at that point, when you refuse to accept fact as fact, that is where belief comes into it.
You might believe (or think you believe because you been told it) that man made climate change is wrong, but that is all it is, just a 'belief'. You are still factually wrong as that is what the science tells us (that same science that gave you the internet, electricity, TV, the car etc).
Last edited:
My house is build to deal with our weather, it can even resist a hurricane if needed, of course if the sea rise 50 meters I got a problem.
When I designed it I was studying architecture In the Sahara region, some of the houses there are very old, however the design is clever as they even in those days had to deal with extreme heat. As I was relocating to a tropical zone I knew heat, humidity, storms and rain would be some of the factors I needed to get around, therefor it’s build in two ways.
Terrain and sub-terrain level.
The base wall is 500 mm thick using a mixture of adobe and cement, this function as a thermal battery and absorb the heat away from the house.
As it is connected to the sub-terrain part of the house, the heat is radiated into the ground and moved away from the structure.
I don’t use much A/C as the natural ventilation keeps the house at a constant 26 C. I also build a front wall with small ducts using old bottles,
This also brings down the temperatures inside the house.
The difference in wind speed going through the bottles cooled it down around 2-5 C
Last edited:
I was watching the news about the York flooding. The main angle the report went for was how the insurance companies dealt with this problem. There may still be a few people out there with their heads stuck in the sand, but actuaries are professional future predictors. They take great care with their calculations because vast sums of money are involved in their predictions
Even Donald Trump who stands on a platform of "It's cold so Climate Change must be some sort of Chinese hoax, so let's burn some pure clean All-American coal"*... doesn't really believe the guff coming out of his mouth
Whether this climate change is man made is more difficult to prove. Here's the thing... it doesn't matter
Whether this weather is a man made disaster is not important. We are now living with the consequences of this temperature rise and we should be doing everything we can to mitigate these effects. The best people to talk to about how to proceed are the climatologists, because, you know, it's their job to understand the climate
*I may have inadvertently slightly paraphrased Trump's statement
The Challenges of Climate Change - The Actuary Magazine
The global actuarial response to the difficulties of climate change
theactuarymagazine.org
Even Donald Trump who stands on a platform of "It's cold so Climate Change must be some sort of Chinese hoax, so let's burn some pure clean All-American coal"*... doesn't really believe the guff coming out of his mouth
Whether this climate change is man made is more difficult to prove. Here's the thing... it doesn't matter
Whether this weather is a man made disaster is not important. We are now living with the consequences of this temperature rise and we should be doing everything we can to mitigate these effects. The best people to talk to about how to proceed are the climatologists, because, you know, it's their job to understand the climate
*I may have inadvertently slightly paraphrased Trump's statement
Fake news
Anyway, I’m all for doing something, what I’m against is the solutions presented, because as I see it, it’s only more control, taxes and I don’t like that.
all the brainy people out there need to start thinking outside the box, I read a few days ago that a danish company had a new way to remove methane from livestock, just by changing their diets, we need innovative solutions, not more control and restrictions.
The geopolitical impact of global warming may turn out to be more damaging(to some) than the temperature rise it self.
If the ‘weath belt’ moves north from the Midwest and Ukraine to Canada and Siberia, the power shift would be significant.
The Russian policy is more or less: Global warming is real, human activities contribute. The result is mostly positive for Russia. Lets push on.
The geopolitical impact of global warming may turn out to be more damaging(to some) than the temperature rise it self.
If the ‘weath belt’ moves north from the Midwest and Ukraine to Canada and Siberia, the power shift would be significant.
The Russian policy is more or less: Global warming is real, human activities contribute. The result is mostly positive for Russia. Lets push on.
those Russians....Fake news
Anyway, I’m all for doing something, what I’m against is the solutions presented, because as I see it, it’s only more control, taxes and I don’t like that.
all the brainy people out there need to start thinking outside the box, I read a few days ago that a danish company had a new way to remove methane from livestock, just by changing their diets, we need innovative solutions, not more control and restrictions.
I'd prefer eating Danish cows on millennial diets than eating insects that's for sure. If we continue to do nothing then it will be the poorest people that end up taking the brunt of the costs of Global Warming. That just doesn't seem fair to me
Inb4 hive cities are built to get the worlds populous out of the wastelands.
Speaking to the last paragraph, you would indeed be correct concerning cries of communism. Perhaps not communism but rather socialism.There are lots of promising ideas on the way, but more or less all in an experimental state and not production ready yet. There is a good case to believe that all of these ideas will be deployed far beyond 2050. Scientists warn that climate change will massively accelerate with the melting of the polar ice, which not only will rise the sea level but also will set a lot of bound CO2 free that in return will further accelerate the process. The main problem is the continuously accelerating speed in that all this happens and which is already visible in some areas on Earth.
Frankly, it already has started and our time is running out. Just take these buildings you mention as an example. Might help in some structurally weak areas with lots of free building ground. But imagine the big metropoles where you can't just rebuild the houses from scratch or make some fundamental structural changes there. Many, many humans will die subsequently, including massive streams of immigration where the current situation will appear like a holiday trip in comparison. We just can't afford the luxury of local thinking anymore.
That's where band-aid measures like higher taxes are unavoidable, not just to set the resources free to accelerate the development of urgently needed new technology (development costs of ITER, anyone?), but at the same time also decelerate or hamper any forms of unneeded leisure traffic. Mainly to win time in the first place.
What I think is wrong though is to shower these higher taxes in a scattergun approach. This will also affect the poorest of the poor that in many regions didn't profit from income growth during the last 20 years. No wonder these people are running angry and feel betrayed by their governments. That's where all these conspiracy theories are stem from. Interestingly, even the richer people (or those who think they are rich, looking at you jasonbarron
I think the right approach would be to let the 100 richest companies who produce 71% of the industrial greenhouse gas emissions taking the lion's share.[1] But then I already hear some people yelling "communism", loss of freedom and the whole shebang while in reality in many cases the top managers of just these companies already have understood very well that without such massive investments the bill will be magnitudes higher if we lose this race against the time..
[1] Carbon Majors Report
The thing about taxes that socialist leaning non business owners don't understand is that exorbitant taxes have a negative impact on revenue generation in most cases and that the taxes are ALWAYS passed along to the consumer.
There are lots of promising ideas on the way, but more or less all in an experimental state and not production ready yet. There is a good case to believe that all of these ideas will be deployed far beyond 2050. Scientists warn that climate change will massively accelerate with the melting of the polar ice, which not only will rise the sea level but also will set a lot of bound CO2 free that in return will further accelerate the process. The main problem is the continuously accelerating speed in that all this happens and which is already visible in some areas on Earth.
Frankly, it already has started and our time is running out. Just take these buildings you mention as an example. Might help in some structurally weak areas with lots of free building ground. But imagine the big metropoles where you can't just rebuild the houses from scratch or make some fundamental structural changes there. Many, many humans will die subsequently, including massive streams of immigration where the current situation will appear like a holiday trip in comparison. We just can't afford the luxury of local thinking anymore.
That's where band-aid measures like higher taxes are unavoidable, not just to set the resources free to accelerate the development of urgently needed new technology (development costs of ITER, anyone?), but at the same time also decelerate or hamper any forms of unneeded leisure traffic. Mainly to win time in the first place.
What I think is wrong though is to shower these higher taxes in a scattergun approach. This will also affect the poorest of the poor that in many regions didn't profit from income growth during the last 20 years. No wonder these people are running angry and feel betrayed by their governments. That's where all these conspiracy theories are stem from. Interestingly, even the richer people (or those who think they are rich, looking at you jasonbarron
I think the right approach would be to let the 100 richest companies who produce 71% of the industrial greenhouse gas emissions taking the lion's share.[1] But then I already hear some people yelling "communism", loss of freedom and the whole shebang while in reality in many cases the top managers of just these companies already have understood very well that without such massive investments the bill will be magnitudes higher if we lose this race against the time..
[1] Carbon Majors Report
When the industrialization started we were on a “wrong” course, however there has been many attempts to do it in a green way, do you know that the electric car was invented before the petrol driven car?
Now as I said I’m all for change as long as it’s voluntary and not shoveled down people’s throats, and I hate big cities, they are per design a death trap.
This is almost identical to my position on the issue(s). I'm all for sustainability, conservation and the cleaning/protection of our environmental systems (my business is closely related to this field), but I don't react well to enforced societal changes, wealth re-distribution, thought policing (suppression of free speech) or scare mongering.
Edit: @Frillop Freyraum seriously? You really want to take the position that the people responsible for feeding, clothing and basically supplying every good and service you consume are dumb? It's your highly intelligent, highly motivated and industrious capitalists who will be the one's to adapt to the changing circumstances, whatever they happen to be.
Last edited:
Frillop....what is up with that name?
One thing we can all agree to regardless how we see this is that the earth is an enclosed habitat with limited total of resources but also regenerative capabilies that work in synergy to sustain its conditions.
We can reproduce models on a far simpler scale and observe the fundamental problematic everywhere in life.
People like to see the world in "balance" but often fail to realize that everything is in a constant pattern of change that eventually culminates in a sustainable condition on the back of casualties. The number of prey animals sustains a certain number of predators. These numbers change all the time but because they have direct consequences on each other they level out in a balance that enables both species to keep going. It might look like harmony but it isnt. Instead its constant warfare, attack and defense the results in a draw every time. And thats only for the successful species we can observe. Because theres a pretty big list of species who didnt make it and are extinct.
Another constant in our lives is "too much is bad" and this again goes for everything. Vitamins are necessary but take too much and you run into problems. We need oxygen to survive but there is something called "oxygen poisening". Our body running on auto-pilot for the most part consists of a million parameters working within thresholds to keep going. If any one of these parameters gets out of control the whole system suffers.
On a larger scale the world is the host and humanity is a kind of bacteria like every other species. The host works because every single part operates within parameteres that sustain the modus operandi. Humanity has established itself as the dominant predator on this planet. Not on an individual basis but overall we control everything else. The problem is that our capabilities due to knowledge, technology and tools gives us options that is beyond understanding. When we create a water dam or "move mountains" our actions come with certain consequences we mostly dont recognize or realize too late. The world has become smaller mostly because the numberof humans has exploded in the last centuries due to longer lifespans and better protection against microbiological threats...basically inhibitors to preserve a balance. As such we are the victims of our own success. Because the earth as a whole is only able to sustain a certain number of people. Technological breakthroughs push that number but all of it usually comes at a prize. Its still an enclosed habitat. We cant spend more then we have, there is no "refill" coming. Demand for food has increased dramatically and has already surpassed the production capabilities of certain countries.
Technology and tools has enabled us to increase yield short-term but if we provide more water to a certain area to push results that water will be missing somewhere else and we usually only discover in hindsight what kind of problems that generated. Usually its a local consequence making different species go extinct or because our actions interfere with complex systems that we dont understand in detail. We are able to affect weather and our creations have resulted in massive topological change (man-made deserts)
There are different types of computer games. I like the ones which give you a certain kind of resource and the tools to exploit and use these for better results. Its basically an "optimization" process challenging you in a playful way. Thats what the earth is. There is another kind of games that has no boundaries and enables you to grow and become bigger/more powerful because because whenever something is need its "created" out of nothing for you to keep going (incremental progression games).
Humans basically behave like game type 2 even tho its a game type 1. And that creates problems. Water isnt infinite. Air isnt infinite. Or better....we require both in a composition that allows us to consume them without side effects. Heavy Industry areas have locally affected air quality or polluted water. Both of these things directly affect human wellbeing. Humanities current "solution" is to place the less desirable things as far away as possible (out of sight, out of mind) but of course, because this is an enclosed habitat we only push the problem ahead and its always there, growing and becoming more severe.
I dont think you can realistically "argue" humanities innocense or lack of role when it comes to climate change or degeneration. Logic and understanding pretty much dictate that we play a major role due to our actions. What we see when we observe these topics is mostly acceptance of guilt or rather the lack of it because admitting that its our fault collectively would decapitate certain commercial domains overnight or ruin a lot of people who make their money with what they do.
The decade long farce about "smoking, good or bad for you?" isnt an attempt to figure out the truth. Its rather the survival strategy of some few people who became rich by providing a pollutant and they risk ruination and catastrophical lawsuits if they simply accepted their fault in the current medical problems of many.
Earth simply lacks the space or resources to allow infinite growth but thats exactly what humanity has done in the last 200 years. Expanding and growing uncontrolled and we are simply pushing into the borders now. Its probably not a long-term problem...at least not for the planet. It ll change and it ll cost a whole lot of species their existence...possibly humanities own. Or we change accordingly, either biologically (so we can tolerate lower quality air and water) or in behavior to not threaten the fragile cage we live in. Personally I believe that we are long past that option already. Its too late to change behavior. What we have done these last few decades only now becomes appareant or rises to the surface and many of them include long-term problems that will not vanish when we simply "stop" doing something especially as we cannot seem to come to an agreement what "that" is. They will play out and many of them include climate changes that will change the environment.
In the end its really of no importance if "we are at fault or not" because thats in the past. The poles melting or climate changing are current FACTS and as the dominant species that is beginning to leave the planet we should approach the problems with "what have we done to produce these problems" and not try to deny them. many seem to think that if we are not at fault we can simply carry on as usual but even if we are innocdnt in all this change is required of us and THAT should be the focus. I believe that we can overcome the coming decades but it ll come at certain sacrifices. Additionally things play out so slowly on a global scale that I doubt I ll see things really getting ugly in my lifetime. I dont envy the coming generations who have to handle the mess of their ancestors.
We can reproduce models on a far simpler scale and observe the fundamental problematic everywhere in life.
People like to see the world in "balance" but often fail to realize that everything is in a constant pattern of change that eventually culminates in a sustainable condition on the back of casualties. The number of prey animals sustains a certain number of predators. These numbers change all the time but because they have direct consequences on each other they level out in a balance that enables both species to keep going. It might look like harmony but it isnt. Instead its constant warfare, attack and defense the results in a draw every time. And thats only for the successful species we can observe. Because theres a pretty big list of species who didnt make it and are extinct.
Another constant in our lives is "too much is bad" and this again goes for everything. Vitamins are necessary but take too much and you run into problems. We need oxygen to survive but there is something called "oxygen poisening". Our body running on auto-pilot for the most part consists of a million parameters working within thresholds to keep going. If any one of these parameters gets out of control the whole system suffers.
On a larger scale the world is the host and humanity is a kind of bacteria like every other species. The host works because every single part operates within parameteres that sustain the modus operandi. Humanity has established itself as the dominant predator on this planet. Not on an individual basis but overall we control everything else. The problem is that our capabilities due to knowledge, technology and tools gives us options that is beyond understanding. When we create a water dam or "move mountains" our actions come with certain consequences we mostly dont recognize or realize too late. The world has become smaller mostly because the numberof humans has exploded in the last centuries due to longer lifespans and better protection against microbiological threats...basically inhibitors to preserve a balance. As such we are the victims of our own success. Because the earth as a whole is only able to sustain a certain number of people. Technological breakthroughs push that number but all of it usually comes at a prize. Its still an enclosed habitat. We cant spend more then we have, there is no "refill" coming. Demand for food has increased dramatically and has already surpassed the production capabilities of certain countries.
Technology and tools has enabled us to increase yield short-term but if we provide more water to a certain area to push results that water will be missing somewhere else and we usually only discover in hindsight what kind of problems that generated. Usually its a local consequence making different species go extinct or because our actions interfere with complex systems that we dont understand in detail. We are able to affect weather and our creations have resulted in massive topological change (man-made deserts)
There are different types of computer games. I like the ones which give you a certain kind of resource and the tools to exploit and use these for better results. Its basically an "optimization" process challenging you in a playful way. Thats what the earth is. There is another kind of games that has no boundaries and enables you to grow and become bigger/more powerful because because whenever something is need its "created" out of nothing for you to keep going (incremental progression games).
Humans basically behave like game type 2 even tho its a game type 1. And that creates problems. Water isnt infinite. Air isnt infinite. Or better....we require both in a composition that allows us to consume them without side effects. Heavy Industry areas have locally affected air quality or polluted water. Both of these things directly affect human wellbeing. Humanities current "solution" is to place the less desirable things as far away as possible (out of sight, out of mind) but of course, because this is an enclosed habitat we only push the problem ahead and its always there, growing and becoming more severe.
I dont think you can realistically "argue" humanities innocense or lack of role when it comes to climate change or degeneration. Logic and understanding pretty much dictate that we play a major role due to our actions. What we see when we observe these topics is mostly acceptance of guilt or rather the lack of it because admitting that its our fault collectively would decapitate certain commercial domains overnight or ruin a lot of people who make their money with what they do.
The decade long farce about "smoking, good or bad for you?" isnt an attempt to figure out the truth. Its rather the survival strategy of some few people who became rich by providing a pollutant and they risk ruination and catastrophical lawsuits if they simply accepted their fault in the current medical problems of many.
Earth simply lacks the space or resources to allow infinite growth but thats exactly what humanity has done in the last 200 years. Expanding and growing uncontrolled and we are simply pushing into the borders now. Its probably not a long-term problem...at least not for the planet. It ll change and it ll cost a whole lot of species their existence...possibly humanities own. Or we change accordingly, either biologically (so we can tolerate lower quality air and water) or in behavior to not threaten the fragile cage we live in. Personally I believe that we are long past that option already. Its too late to change behavior. What we have done these last few decades only now becomes appareant or rises to the surface and many of them include long-term problems that will not vanish when we simply "stop" doing something especially as we cannot seem to come to an agreement what "that" is. They will play out and many of them include climate changes that will change the environment.
In the end its really of no importance if "we are at fault or not" because thats in the past. The poles melting or climate changing are current FACTS and as the dominant species that is beginning to leave the planet we should approach the problems with "what have we done to produce these problems" and not try to deny them. many seem to think that if we are not at fault we can simply carry on as usual but even if we are innocdnt in all this change is required of us and THAT should be the focus. I believe that we can overcome the coming decades but it ll come at certain sacrifices. Additionally things play out so slowly on a global scale that I doubt I ll see things really getting ugly in my lifetime. I dont envy the coming generations who have to handle the mess of their ancestors.
There are lots of promising ideas on the way, but more or less all in an experimental state and not production ready yet. There is a good case to believe that all of these ideas will be deployed far beyond 2050. Scientists warn that climate change will massively accelerate with the melting of the polar ice, which not only will rise the sea level but also will set a lot of bound CO2 free that in return will further accelerate the process. The main problem is the continuously accelerating speed in that all this happens and which is already visible in some areas on Earth.
Frankly, it already has started and our time is running out. Just take these buildings you mention as an example. Might help in some structurally weak areas with lots of free building ground. But imagine the big metropoles where you can't just rebuild the houses from scratch or make some fundamental structural changes there. Many, many humans will die subsequently, including massive streams of immigration where the current situation will appear like a holiday trip in comparison. We just can't afford the luxury of local thinking anymore.
That's where band-aid measures like higher taxes are unavoidable, not just to set the resources free to accelerate the development of urgently needed new technology (development costs of ITER, anyone?), but at the same time also decelerate or hamper any forms of unneeded leisure traffic. Mainly to win time in the first place.
What I think is wrong though is to shower these higher taxes in a scattergun approach. This will also affect the poorest of the poor that in many regions didn't profit from income growth during the last 20 years. No wonder these people are running angry and feel betrayed by their governments. That's where all these conspiracy theories are stem from. Interestingly, even the richer people (or those who think they are rich, looking at you jasonbarron
I think the right approach would be to let the 100 richest companies who produce 71% of the industrial greenhouse gas emissions taking the lion's share.[1] But then I already hear some people yelling "communism", loss of freedom and the whole shebang while in reality in many cases the top managers of just these companies already have understood very well that without such massive investments the bill will be magnitudes higher if we lose this race against the time..
[1] Carbon Majors Report
I think you sum it up nicely (in terms of just where we are and what it is going to take to improve on where we are currently heading in terms of the colossal damage AGW is going to cause the worlds nations over the next century or two).
This was a relevant article just up on the Guardian, from Michael Mann and his concerns over the role the 'denial' machine is playing is stopping us solve the problem of AGW:
'Climate change deniers’ new battle front attacked':
Climate change deniers’ new battle front attacked
‘Pernicious’ campaign is unfair on well-meaning people who want to help – expert
www.theguardian.com
And while i took the choice to change my own lifestyle choices over the last 20 years as i began to understand the scale of the problem coming, i would like to do more (like have the spare capital to totally do over the homes energy systems and go as near 'off grid' as i could etc) while also realising this is just a tiny bit of the problem. Sadly the sheer size and contribution to AGW that comes from just how the world is run is where the biggest changes are needed, and that HAS TO mean regulation of some kind.
If there is no regulation there is no pressure to change (then doom for civilization 300 years from now etc). For what ever reason the right (in America in particular) has come to see the word 'regulation' as some kind of communistic mechanism with only negative connotations. While that serves the local political process (of keeping the right in charge of domestic issues) it confuses and complicates so many things that can make governance of a country more effective and efficient (in a positive sense!).
Regulation is just about having some rules. We all need rules in our lives for just about everything. Even a decent Christian understands the 'reason' for the Ten Commandments i'm sure(?). So when people like Mann (or others concerned about AGW and our countries contributions to it) talk about needing 'regulation' in place to guide companies to contribute less to AGW, we are talking about providing rules (through our governments that we need to run our countries or else we'd all be living like savages) to follow to better and more speedily see a positive outcome. That is all.
It's no Big Brother desire to be able to walk into your home and tell you what to do (although to be honest in the AGW debate we all need a bit of guidance it seems!), it's simply about ensuring we do not carry on endangering the future our grand-children (it is that close!) are going to be living because of our in-actions to tackle the serious issues around AGW.
And obviously looking at the world right now, and the mostly spectacular failures to manage AGW (RIP those poor folk caught up in the fire storm in Australia right now etc) we NEED some guidance on what and what not to do to slow down AGW, right now. It's pretty urgent.
I think you sum it up nicely (in terms of just where we are and what it is going to take to improve on where we are currently heading in terms of the colossal damage AGW is going to cause the worlds nations over the next century or two).
This was a relevant article just up on the Guardian, from Michael Mann and his concerns over the role the 'denial' machine is playing is stopping us solve the problem of AGW:
'Climate change deniers’ new battle front attacked':
Climate change deniers’ new battle front attacked
‘Pernicious’ campaign is unfair on well-meaning people who want to help – expert
And while i took the choice to change my own lifestyle choices over the last 20 years as i began to understand the scale of the problem coming, i would like to do more (like have the spare capital to totally do over the homes energy systems and go as near 'off grid' as i could etc) while also realising this is just a tiny bit of the problem. Sadly the sheer size and contribution to AGW that comes from just how the world is run is where the biggest changes are needed, and that HAS TO mean regulation of some kind.
If there is no regulation there is no pressure to change (then doom for civilization 300 years from now etc). For what ever reason the right (in America in particular) has come to see the word 'regulation' as some kind of communistic mechanism with only negative connotations. While that serves the local political process (of keeping the right in charge of domestic issues) it confuses and complicates so many things that can make governance of a country more effective and efficient (in a positive sense!).
Regulation is just about having some rules. We all need rules in our lives for just about everything. Even a decent Christian understands the 'reason' for the Ten Commandments i'm sure(?). So when people like Mann (or others concerned about AGW and our countries contributions to it) talk about needing 'regulation' in place to guide companies to contribute less to AGW, we are talking about providing rules (through our governments that we need to run our countries or else we'd all be living like savages) to follow to better and more speedily see a positive outcome. That is all.
It's no Big Brother desire to be able to walk into your home and tell you what to do (although to be honest in the AGW debate we all need a bit of guidance it seems!), it's simply about ensuring we do not carry on endangering the future our grand-children (it is that close!) are going to be living because of our in-actions to tackle the serious issues around AGW.
And obviously looking at the world right now, and the mostly spectacular failures to manage AGW (RIP those poor folk caught up in the fire storm in Australia right now etc) we NEED some guidance on what and what not to do to slow down AGW, right now. It's pretty urgent.
im just putting out there that doom of mankind is a bit over the top. i mean nepal wouldnt even notice if the sea level would rise literal 2km.
yeah. those stupid dinosaurs didnt evolve enough to stop a stupid huge meteor killing nearly all of them. damn dinosaurs! they couldve known better!
- Status