The vast majority of all species have gone extinct prior to man. Nature is "survival of the fittest" and "red in tooth and claw." It is a ruthlessly competitive system where only the strongest survive. Humans have proven to be the more adaptable animals in the history of the earth. We are also the only ones who give a crap about perserving other species.
-
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!
Global Warming Question
- Thread starter Darkness
- Start date
The vast majority of all species have gone extinct prior to man. Nature is "survival of the fittest" and "red in tooth and claw." It is a ruthlessly competitive system where only the strongest survive. Humans have proven to be the more adaptable animals in the history of the earth. We are also the only ones who give a crap about perserving other species.
Oh for Heaven's sake, Oberon. Did my "6th extinction" comment not clue you in that I was referring to a catastrophic mass extinction event, not the background extinction rate.
What I'm questioning is the term 'progress' or, in your above post, 'adaptable'. Yes, we've proliferated marvelously, especially since the industrial revolution, but proliferation isn't progress, and isn't success. Ebola viruses proliferate marvelously too -- till they so damage their 'life support system' that they wipe themselves out and take their host with them.
Success, to me, implies an equilibrium; a sustainable, co-operative interaction with our environment and resources. Our relationship with our environment is more like an infection than a successful co-operation. We're 'progressing' to the point that we kill our host.
What I'm questioning is the term 'progress' or, in your above post, 'adaptable'. Yes, we've proliferated marvelously, especially since the industrial revolution, but proliferation isn't progress, and isn't success. Ebola viruses proliferate marvelously too -- till they so damage their 'life support system' that they wipe themselves out and take their host with them.
Success, to me, implies an equilibrium; a sustainable, co-operative interaction with our environment and resources. Our relationship with our environment is more like an infection than a successful co-operation. We're 'progressing' to the point that we kill our host.
Last edited by a moderator:
There have been mass extinctions in the past too.
Then you are doomed. Nature is survival of the most adapted. "red and tooth and claw" and all that. There is no equilibrium but a constant flux. The earth is a dynamic system far from thermodynamic equilibrium and like all such systems it is an constant state of chaos.
Do you know what the most poisionous gas ever released into the atmospher was? Oxygen. It radically changed the course of life on the planet. Until we can literally blow out planet apart, we don't have the technology to "kill" our host. We probably have the technology to kill ourselves, but we aren't anywhere near that point.
yossarian22
Resident Schizophrenic
NO REALLY GUYS!
Making old technology progressively more expensive to implement while simultaneously increasing investment in cleaner technology isn't possible! Sure such that method would allow us more flexibility in which energy fields we would have to support and give us more than 1 or 2 options but really we should just flail wildly about and sputter about projected costs under this model with current projected GDP and blarg.
All of the warming models are projected to, all predictions so far have been off, I already noted how Hansen's 1988 prediction was off by 300%. Yet somehow "projected warming models" should cause bad policy implementation in order to "just do something" but projected models of cost aren't worth considering
Yes, it is possible to look into and fund more R & D while wasting money on Kyoto. A better idea would be to cut out the part of kyoto which costs so much and isn't expected to do anything.
Let's see:
Your choice: Lets throw money at the problem in the hopes that starting with something expensive that won't work will lead at some point to something that will
My choice: Continue R & D until we have a plan which will have an effect we can build off of.
hmmm....
Last edited:
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
How is an increase of less than a degree over a hundred years going to cause massive melting like that?
Is the globe warming up? Yes. But this is natural.
Is the global warming trend now the result of CO2 emission by humans? This is uncertain.
We do not fully understand clouds and precipitation, nor do we completely understand the self-regulating mechanism of weather. Yet, we have tons of computer models predicting the warming to skyrocket without taking into account these factors. A little sketchy.
Not every extreme weather event is "global warming" or "climate change".
richardlowellt
Well-Known Member
Because Oil, Gas and coal equal money, powerful lobbies make sure alternative fuels are not used. How many industries would go belly-up if alternative fuels where to be used. It's all about money and power, always has been and always will be. Greed begets Greed!!!
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
If those alternatives were economically viable, those companies would be taking advantage of them and making profit. But they don't, not because they have an anti-environment agenda, but because they won't make money if they switch to alternative fuels.
Absolutely.
Exxon Employee: "Look, I've discovered a clean and cheap alternative to gasoline! If we use it, we can say we are saving the environment, and it will cost us less too!
Exxon CEO: NEVER! I must destroy the environment at all costs! Screw my profits.
rojse
RF Addict
The real question here, then, is will I still be able to chat on RF?
themadhair
Well-Known Member
Do you really think that setting emissions standards wont help foster new technology? Do you really think that having world governments signed up to an emissions standards framework wont act as a stimulant for research into improved technology?
Also that IPCC quote - There is high agreement and much evidence that notable achievements of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol are the establishment of a global response to the climate change problem, stimulation of an array of national policies, the creation of an international carbon market and the establishment of new institutional mechanisms that may provide the foundation for future mitigation efforts
But you keep divorcing Kyoto from reality if it makes you think you have a point.
Apparently not.
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
Do you want to the tell the climatologists that their work doesnt factor these in? Or are you taking rubbish?
Wow. All us environmentalists never considered that because we must be extremely dense. And I thought that scientific research was actually worth something. I shall have to discard the following in light of seeing the error of my ways:
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
Also this:
Kind of a tautology in that they have no incentive to produce the R&D to develop alternative fuel supplies or to build the additional infrastructure to deliver them. This isnt an argument against economic viability though. Suppose we lived in an electric-based society where the cars ran of rechargeables - do you think the electric companies would be keen to shoulder the burden of R&D and infrastructure development to bring us oil-based fuels? Of course not, but that doesnt mean that the product isnt economically viable.
I believe it will, but that's not the problem. As I have said repeatedly, it is possible for countries to come together to begin serious research and development into alternative energy without the expensive kyoto plan.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
Considering it was central point of Kyoto, the central motivation for proposing it and the reasons for its adoption it is pretty silly of you to continue ignoring it.
Because counties will suddenly start such research without the coal hammer being waved over their heads? Im sorry, but I have to really call your line of argumentation here for what it is a steaming pile of gosa. Getting world governments to agree on the colour of shoite would be close to miracle, so when you start making this your central thesis against Kyoto then you are pretty much abandoning reality based pragmatism.
Of course I still find it funny that you have had to de-contextualise this IPCC quote in order to continue arguing:
There is high agreement and much evidence that notable achievements of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol are the establishment of a global response to the climate change problem, stimulation of an array of national policies, the creation of an international carbon market and the establishment of new institutional mechanisms that may provide the foundation for future mitigation efforts
I'm not ignoring it. It's like saying "we have to build a house. So as a first step, we'll hire all the workers, buy the equipment, and pitch a tent. Then we'll go from there."
Completely ridiculous. Kyoto is a waste of time and money. We don't even know if it is possible to reduce emissions with current technology.
Your whole point seems to revolve around the idea that the ONLY way to begin climate change is starting SOMETHING, whether it works or not. You are simply wrong.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
Hence why those standards help foster new technologies. Stop being deliberately dense.
If only we had some other protocol that did something like I dont know established a global response to the climate change problem, that helped stimulate an array of national polices, that maybe helped create an international carbon market and maybe helped establish new institutional mechanism that would possibly provide the foundation for future efforts at mitigating climate change. Wait that sounds familiar .
If you take any policy I support and completely ignore the rationale, evidence and motivations behind said policies then it usually transpires that they turn out to be wrong. Although this seems to be a requirement for the Oberon school of Kyoto analysis.
Funny, I was thinking the same.
And here we go again with this blather. Yes, by all means lets get together and spend money on something we don't expect to work.
Or, instead, we could get together and simply pledge money for R & D, funnel money into nuclear power, or any number of other solutions that WON'T be a complete waste of time and money. Let's see, difficult choice...hmmm
On the one hand, we could have an international council which has countries funneling money into solutions that may work (R & D),
and on the other we have kyoto which does the same thing, only in addition it wastes trillions on methods nobody expects to work.
Decisions decisions.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
Why are so intent on ignoring what Kyoto does as per the IPCC quote?
Why are so intent on ignoring what Kyoto does as per the IPCC quote?
Why are you so intent on ignoring that it is entirely possible to do everything in your quote WITHOUT wasting money. If Kyoto was a treaty where all countries pledged to funnel money into alternative technologies, or spend X amount of money on research, or whatever, I would be all for it.
You keep repeating the same quote as if it means something other than "well, the policies implemented won't have any ACTUAL effects, but it is a start." I don't like first steps that cost money and don't get me closer to the goal.
yossarian22
Resident Schizophrenic
Look guys, this one model from TEN FRIGGIN YEARS AGO is wrong!All of the warming models are projected to, all predictions so far have been off, I already noted how Hansen's 1988 prediction was off by 300%. Yet somehow "projected warming models" should cause bad policy implementation in order to "just do something" but projected models of cost aren't worth considering
!!
!
I guess ALL climate models are so horribly inaccurate eh? No, of course the IPCC doesn't look at over 50 models and use their combined results to create rough models of global mean temperature (in all its noisy glory). So lets just sit on our hands.
Which would be the part that makes the older, inefficient technology expensive? I don't think you get how this works.
Shove money into R&D isn't a plan. Its the distinct lack of a plan. What shall we fund? Cold Fusion, pebblebed fission reactors, biofuels? It is far more effective to make older methods more expensive and cost prohibitive than it is to prop up new technology that may or may not be viable.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
Glad we cleared that up and you support Kyoto. Or are you still oblivious to the fact that setting stringent targets on emissions practically forces countries into such investment?
I keep repeating the same quote because you still arent getting it. Or rather, you are deliberately ignoring the role in Kyoto in fostering the global result to climate change. When you talk about investing in alternative technologies while completely ignoring the role of Kyoto as stimulant for just that then I can only conclude you are either being extremely dense or extremely argumentative. To talk about such investment as being good while ignoring a working mechanism that helps achieve just that, and particularly when you consider that getting world governments to agree the colour of shoite is almost a miracle, is totally and utterly missing the point.
This sentence only makes sense when you completely ignore what it is that Kyoto is achieving here. But that seems to be a recurring theme here. To be brutally honest, do you really think the IPCC, which culls the best scientific research on this issue to construct recommendations, would be so utterly dense to back Kyoto if it was as useless as you seem to imagine????