muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
I don't think it's funny..
..nor would you if your house burnt down, or was engulfed in a tsunami.
..or perhaps you are one of those people who have insurance,
and think you are immune
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Biden: "There's Going to Be Some Consequences" for Saudi Arabia
- Thread starter Debater Slayer
- Start date
..nor would you if your house burnt down, or was engulfed in a tsunami.
..or perhaps you are one of those people who have insurance,
and think you are immune
Creative... unintelligible, but creativeAtomic dust on my eggs for breakfast?
Hmmm.. "small is beautiful".
Grandiose ideas emanate from the rich.
..and you know what Jesus said about that.
The sky is falling! Thanks, Chicken Little.I don't think it's funny..
..nor would you if your house burnt down, or was engulfed in a tsunami.
..or perhaps you are one of those people who have insurance,
and think you are immune
I'll tell you what isn't funny. What isn't funny is environmental alarmists who really don't know what they are talking about pushing bad policies that actually kill people.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
No. The world (civilization) won't end if fossil fuels are used.
That's misinformation.
Here's the facts....
"We could go into the runaway greenhouse today if we could get the planet hot enough to get enough water vapor into the atmosphere," Colin Goldblatt, a professor of Earth system evolution at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada, and lead author of the study, told NBC News.
The reality, though, he said, is that burning all the planet's fossil fuels such as oil and coal is "very unlikely" to trigger the uncontrollable warming.
Source...
'Runaway greenhouse' easier to trigger on Earth than thought, study says
Would like to discuss points on the linked scientific papers? Were you able to access and read them? What scientific and factual objections do you have on their data based analysis that show wind and solar energy coupled with battery electric vehicles are orders of magnitude more sustainable and eco-friendly than other options, including nuclear.
Runaway greenhouse event will wipe out all life on the planet.
Our standard generic greenhouse event that is happening now will destroy our civilization only.
It would be great if you do not confuse two entirely different scenarios.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Anybody would think that you are living in a different world from the rest of us.
Why would you ignore the vast majority of scientists that treat climate-change seriously?
In the scientific journal BioScience, a January 2020 article, endorsed by over 11,000 scientists worldwide, stated that "the climate crisis has arrived" and that an "immense increase of scale in endeavors to conserve our biosphere is needed to avoid untold suffering due to the climate crisis."
Climate crisis - Wikipedia
I fully agree. There should be a separate set of legislations that regulate Greenhouse gases which is different from the legislations related to pollutants, as these two classes of molecules are harmful in very different ways.
However since the EPA is Environmental Protection Agency, and CO2 emissions do harm both the environment and human beings through global warming, CO2 and Greenhouse gases should also fall within its purview. So the Congress should expand its powers and ask them to create a seperate wing that specifically looks as GHG emissions and climate change impacts and develop appropriate policies. That will be the rational thing to do.
But I know that US politics is rarely rational.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Civilization will survive.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
..and you know that, how?
No. Civilization cannot survive when you have 11 billion people where debilitating heat waves days exceed 60 days per year, large scale droughts occur every 3 years and average yield of staples decrease anywhere between 10 -15% of 20th century average values. And we have not considered the massive displacement of people due to coastal inundations when cities like NY, LA, SF, Mumbai, Dubai all have to abandoned as sea water rise floods them and they are battered by increasingly violent oceanic cyclone events. All of these is just simple global warming of 4 C rise by 2100 with the current business as usual scenario which you would prefer.
Global and regional impacts of climate change at different levels of global temperature increase - Climatic Change
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Based on geological evidence, we are still part of a natural warming cycle that has been with us since the end of the last ice age. The glaciers used to as far south as NYC. They had already receded thousands of miles, before some entrepreneurs started blaming humans for the little bit of melting that was left. We are suppose top ignore the other 95% that had already melted before the industrial age.
Say for the sake of argument, this heating cycle is part of a natural cycle. This means we may not be able to do anything, but adapt. As shown above, in all the graphs, this natural cycle is already causing problems.
Would it be wise to cut off an easy and readily available source of energy; fossil fuels, that can be used for cooling air conditioning, seeing the alternatives are not ready for prime time? The bonehead idea of bottlenecking this easy source of world energy is being brought to you by the same boneheads that shut down the economy during Covid, leading to all types of international problems. Those pinheads are still very short sighted.
Say for the sake of argument, this heating cycle is part of a natural cycle. This means we may not be able to do anything, but adapt. As shown above, in all the graphs, this natural cycle is already causing problems.
Would it be wise to cut off an easy and readily available source of energy; fossil fuels, that can be used for cooling air conditioning, seeing the alternatives are not ready for prime time? The bonehead idea of bottlenecking this easy source of world energy is being brought to you by the same boneheads that shut down the economy during Covid, leading to all types of international problems. Those pinheads are still very short sighted.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
"Imagine if we ignore what the vast majority of scientists say, or what science actually says, and just assume that the cause of climate change isn't the thing that all the evidence suggests it is. We sure would be red in the face if we stopped doing the thing that was causing the problems if, in this imaginary world, it wasn't demonstrably causing that problem, right? Based on this hypothetical world that has no relation to material reality, therefore, we should just continue to do nothing."
Another way of looking at it:
"Yes, Ms Green, I understand that all the doctors have suggested that this cancerous tumour in your lung is a result of smoking and will require extensive chemotherapy and a lobectomy. But what if we imagine that all these people and evidence are wrong and that the tumour in your lung is just a perfectly natural thing that will go away on its own? You sure would look silly going through all these surgeries and treatments, wouldn't you? Therefore, I recommend you do nothing about it. Also, stress is bad for you, so you should probably keep smoking."
Anyone else want a go?
Last edited:
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Civilization will still be around. People will adjust and adapt. That's how nature works.No. Civilization cannot survive when you have 11 billion people where debilitating heat waves days exceed 60 days per year, large scale droughts occur every 3 years and average yield of staples decrease anywhere between 10 -15% of 20th century average values. And we have not considered the massive displacement of people due to coastal inundations when cities like NY, LA, SF, Mumbai, Dubai all have to abandoned as sea water rise floods them and they are battered by increasingly violent oceanic cyclone events. All of these is just simple global warming of 4 C rise by 2100 with the current business as usual scenario which you would prefer.
Global and regional impacts of climate change at different levels of global temperature increase - Climatic Change
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Because we are still here.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
You mean, you and I are.
Have you no children or grandchildren?
Don't you care about them?
Oh, no. Of course, I forgot.
"Science" is your god.
Despite the fact, the use of scientific knowledge has got us into this climate-crisis, you think it can get us out of it.
The chance would be a fine thing.
Mankind is violent in his love of wealth.
If we don't die due to harsher climate, the bombs will do it.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Civilization is also still around after the holocaust. That isn't a good excuse to not have done something to prevent the holocaust from happening when we had the opportunity.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
I don’t think we have 200 years to address the global climate crisis.
And by we, I mean humanity.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
There was something done. The allies won the war ending the holocaust.
Godwin is a hero.