11 Feb 2019, 1:10 am
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
11 Feb 2019, 7:08 pm
Just came here to start a thread with this link: https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-a ... g-decades/
But I see the topic has already been started.
Crazy times. So crucial that we all act ASAP on all of these fronts in order to have a fighting chance of long term survival of our species.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.
16 Feb 2019, 4:34 pm
16 Feb 2019, 5:02 pm
16 Feb 2019, 5:56 pm
kokopelli
Veteran
Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,406
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind
16 Feb 2019, 6:10 pm
16 Feb 2019, 8:13 pm
16 Feb 2019, 10:17 pm
kokopelli
Veteran
Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,406
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind
16 Feb 2019, 11:08 pm
16 Feb 2019, 11:58 pm
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
17 Feb 2019, 12:12 am
EzraS wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
EzraS wrote:
People in their 70's have been hearing this sort of thing their whole lives.
Now it may actually be true this time. But people have been inundated with so much BS for so long, it just sounds like more of the same.
Now it may actually be true this time. But people have been inundated with so much BS for so long, it just sounds like more of the same.
Yes there's some truth to this. In the 50's scientists like Rachel Carson (I think Rachel Carson was the first to make the connection between pollution and health) then in the 60s environmentalists Paul and Anne Erlich predicted the collapse of civilisation by the 1980s due to population growth, resource depletion and pollution.
Of course they couldn't have predicted technological advancement in agricultural production which kept pace with population growth or the decline in fecundity (ratio of children produced per family) in the western and even parts of the developing world.
However, naysayers about climate change can't ignore the dramatic changes happening before their eyes but the public are sufficiently anaesthetised by pro-oil politicians, TV, netflix, sport and take away food to care about the planet's future
They are burned out with all the perceived hysteria and paranoia they get inundated with. Some examples of which I listed and you snipped. Even in this tiny little sub-forum it occurs almost daily. It's called overkill.
No. It's called trying to teach the difference between conspiracy theories & best known modern climate science to an 18 year old climate science denier who seems to be taking his debate points from the likes of the current potus & the rest of the climate science deniers in the WH administration.
People are not being hysterical and paranoid. They are reacting to the world's leading climate scientists sounding the alarm that we, collectively as Billions of human beings, have f****d our planet SO HARD that if we don't stop and change everything we're doing over the next decade we risk this place becoming uninhabitable for our entire species in a matter of a generation or two. What about any of this is exceptionally difficult to comprehend?
The part where there's actual scientific facts presented vs. biblical plague fairytales?
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.17 Feb 2019, 12:27 am
goldfish21 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
EzraS wrote:
People in their 70's have been hearing this sort of thing their whole lives.
Now it may actually be true this time. But people have been inundated with so much BS for so long, it just sounds like more of the same.
Now it may actually be true this time. But people have been inundated with so much BS for so long, it just sounds like more of the same.
Yes there's some truth to this. In the 50's scientists like Rachel Carson (I think Rachel Carson was the first to make the connection between pollution and health) then in the 60s environmentalists Paul and Anne Erlich predicted the collapse of civilisation by the 1980s due to population growth, resource depletion and pollution.
Of course they couldn't have predicted technological advancement in agricultural production which kept pace with population growth or the decline in fecundity (ratio of children produced per family) in the western and even parts of the developing world.
However, naysayers about climate change can't ignore the dramatic changes happening before their eyes but the public are sufficiently anaesthetised by pro-oil politicians, TV, netflix, sport and take away food to care about the planet's future
They are burned out with all the perceived hysteria and paranoia they get inundated with. Some examples of which I listed and you snipped. Even in this tiny little sub-forum it occurs almost daily. It's called overkill.
No. It's called trying to teach the difference between conspiracy theories & best known modern climate science to an 18 year old climate science denier who seems to be taking his debate points from the likes of the current potus & the rest of the climate science deniers in the WH administration.
People are not being hysterical and paranoid. They are reacting to the world's leading climate scientists sounding the alarm that we, collectively as Billions of human beings, have f****d our planet SO HARD that if we don't stop and change everything we're doing over the next decade we risk this place becoming uninhabitable for our entire species in a matter of a generation or two. What about any of this is exceptionally difficult to comprehend?
The part where there's actual scientific facts presented vs. biblical plague fairytales?I'm talking about what appears to be the perception of many and why I think it exists. The feeling seems to be that the messengers talk too much about all kinds of things people are supposed to be afraid of, and it comes off as over exaggeration and melodrama.
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
17 Feb 2019, 12:39 am
If only those who ignored the science were the only ones to die then it wouldn't matter to us whether you believed it or not.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.17 Feb 2019, 1:05 am
kokopelli
Veteran
Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,406
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind
17 Feb 2019, 6:12 am
EzraS wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
EzraS wrote:
People in their 70's have been hearing this sort of thing their whole lives.
Now it may actually be true this time. But people have been inundated with so much BS for so long, it just sounds like more of the same.
Now it may actually be true this time. But people have been inundated with so much BS for so long, it just sounds like more of the same.
Yes there's some truth to this. In the 50's scientists like Rachel Carson (I think Rachel Carson was the first to make the connection between pollution and health) then in the 60s environmentalists Paul and Anne Erlich predicted the collapse of civilisation by the 1980s due to population growth, resource depletion and pollution.
Of course they couldn't have predicted technological advancement in agricultural production which kept pace with population growth or the decline in fecundity (ratio of children produced per family) in the western and even parts of the developing world.
However, naysayers about climate change can't ignore the dramatic changes happening before their eyes but the public are sufficiently anaesthetised by pro-oil politicians, TV, netflix, sport and take away food to care about the planet's future
They are burned out with all the perceived hysteria and paranoia they get inundated with. Some examples of which I listed and you snipped. Even in this tiny little sub-forum it occurs almost daily. It's called overkill.
No. It's called trying to teach the difference between conspiracy theories & best known modern climate science to an 18 year old climate science denier who seems to be taking his debate points from the likes of the current potus & the rest of the climate science deniers in the WH administration.
People are not being hysterical and paranoid. They are reacting to the world's leading climate scientists sounding the alarm that we, collectively as Billions of human beings, have f****d our planet SO HARD that if we don't stop and change everything we're doing over the next decade we risk this place becoming uninhabitable for our entire species in a matter of a generation or two. What about any of this is exceptionally difficult to comprehend?
The part where there's actual scientific facts presented vs. biblical plague fairytales?I'm talking about what appears to be the perception of many and why I think it exists. The feeling seems to be that the messengers talk too much about all kinds of things people are supposed to be afraid of, and it comes off as over exaggeration and melodrama.
That's exactly right.
All the gloomy predictions of gloom from warming up a bit doesn't match what has really happened in the past when it was warmer. Instead of destroying mankind, the warmer climate of about 10,000 years ago enabled man to settle down and start farming instead of remaining as nomadic wanderers living on subsistence hunting. The importance of that cannot be overstated. Without that warmth, it is very doubtful that we would ever have achieved the civilization we have today.
Instead, we would likely still live in animal skin tents moving from place to place on foot as our food supply dries up from overhunting and having to depend only on our own strength to deal with strangers stumbling upon our encampments looking to steal whatever they can from us including our food and making slaves of us or killing the men and taking the women and girls for themselves.
About the worst we actually have to worry about is rising sea levels. That's easy to deal with -- don't live on our near the coast. Don't buy beach houses.
We can adapt to Global Warming and we can do so far easier than we can to Global Cooling. If we were to see the beginning of another glaciation, it is quite likely that our civilization would crumble as people start going hungry and starving to death. I'll take Global Warming any day over that.
Tollorin
Veteran
Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
17 Feb 2019, 10:22 am
EzraS wrote:
I think in many cases it's more a matter of disagreeing rather than ignoring. Those who disagree like kokopelli and kraftiekortie for example come of as more reasonable.
Is it reasonable to disagree with what science is showing us? You do know there has been some catastrophic events in the story of humanity, right?
Was it "reasonable" to think that the Roman Empire would collapse?
Was it "reasonable" to think that a bunch of nomadic warring tribes would conquer the world most powerful empire and raze the greatest cities then build in human history?
Was it "reasonable" to think that a epidemic would decimate half of the European population?
Was it "reasonable" to think that a epidemic would decimate the populations of the American continent, opening it to conquest?
Was it "reasonable" to think that World War 1 would last years and that generals would be so carefree in sending millions of their country citizens to their death?
Was it "reasonable" to think that Hitler would pointlessly kill millions of peoples in extermination camps?
So, yes, I think that it is "reasonable" to think that catastrophes can befall us, more so if it's foreseen through scientific method.
kokopelli wrote:
EzraS wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
EzraS wrote:
People in their 70's have been hearing this sort of thing their whole lives.
Now it may actually be true this time. But people have been inundated with so much BS for so long, it just sounds like more of the same.
Now it may actually be true this time. But people have been inundated with so much BS for so long, it just sounds like more of the same.
Yes there's some truth to this. In the 50's scientists like Rachel Carson (I think Rachel Carson was the first to make the connection between pollution and health) then in the 60s environmentalists Paul and Anne Erlich predicted the collapse of civilisation by the 1980s due to population growth, resource depletion and pollution.
Of course they couldn't have predicted technological advancement in agricultural production which kept pace with population growth or the decline in fecundity (ratio of children produced per family) in the western and even parts of the developing world.
However, naysayers about climate change can't ignore the dramatic changes happening before their eyes but the public are sufficiently anaesthetised by pro-oil politicians, TV, netflix, sport and take away food to care about the planet's future
They are burned out with all the perceived hysteria and paranoia they get inundated with. Some examples of which I listed and you snipped. Even in this tiny little sub-forum it occurs almost daily. It's called overkill.
No. It's called trying to teach the difference between conspiracy theories & best known modern climate science to an 18 year old climate science denier who seems to be taking his debate points from the likes of the current potus & the rest of the climate science deniers in the WH administration.
People are not being hysterical and paranoid. They are reacting to the world's leading climate scientists sounding the alarm that we, collectively as Billions of human beings, have f****d our planet SO HARD that if we don't stop and change everything we're doing over the next decade we risk this place becoming uninhabitable for our entire species in a matter of a generation or two. What about any of this is exceptionally difficult to comprehend?
The part where there's actual scientific facts presented vs. biblical plague fairytales?I'm talking about what appears to be the perception of many and why I think it exists. The feeling seems to be that the messengers talk too much about all kinds of things people are supposed to be afraid of, and it comes off as over exaggeration and melodrama.
That's exactly right.
All the gloomy predictions of gloom from warming up a bit doesn't match what has really happened in the past when it was warmer. Instead of destroying mankind, the warmer climate of about 10,000 years ago enabled man to settle down and start farming instead of remaining as nomadic wanderers living on subsistence hunting. The importance of that cannot be overstated. Without that warmth, it is very doubtful that we would ever have achieved the civilization we have today.
Instead, we would likely still live in animal skin tents moving from place to place on foot as our food supply dries up from overhunting and having to depend only on our own strength to deal with strangers stumbling upon our encampments looking to steal whatever they can from us including our food and making slaves of us or killing the men and taking the women and girls for themselves.
About the worst we actually have to worry about is rising sea levels. That's easy to deal with -- don't live on our near the coast. Don't buy beach houses.
We can adapt to Global Warming and we can do so far easier than we can to Global Cooling. If we were to see the beginning of another glaciation, it is quite likely that our civilization would crumble as people start going hungry and starving to death. I'll take Global Warming any day over that.
Great parts of India and China will become uninhabitable before the end of our current century; not something easy to deal with.
