Space exploration = "male entitlement"?

[BSM1]

Sorry, but deniers of AGW are quickly approaching deniers of evolution on a crank level. And no one has claimed that sea level change will come from melting Arctic ice, nice strarwman. It is the melting of Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets along with thermal expansion that will cause sea level rise.

But one cannot deny the melting of Arctic ice. For the last couple of thousand years or so the Antarctic ice mass has been slowly increasing and warming is still not quite strong enough to reverse that. That is not the case with Greenland:

Greenland's ice sheet is driving global sea level rise. One section is melting 80% faster.

You know this has "GW melting ice is going to kills us all" nonsense has been going on for the last twenty years and there is still no definitive proof of any damage whatsoever from this pseudo-catastrophe. It was so disingenuous that "global warming" had to replace by "climate change" which, of course, is waaaay more nebulous and esoteric.

 

[Father Heathen]

This is the problem with the GW/CC hoax. There is no definable scientific proof or examples, just maybe's, could be's, innuendo, and anecdotal evidence. If there were any scientist that was willing to say without a shadow of a doubt that catastrophic climate change existed let alone causing any discernible damage he or she would be the featured story on every news network in the world. BTW, sea ice (ice already in the water) will not raise the water level one iota as it melts. It's called displacement--that's real science. Have a nice day.

So NASA are just a bunch of dumdumbs then?

 

[Polymath257]

It's more mockery than hostility.
So I don't give you permission to leave the thread.
You should address what you want....I promise to not bite.

Btw, I oppose the obsession with colonizing Mars....even with visiting it.
It's a waste of resources, & colonization is premature.

I think it quite useful to send probes. I really don't like the idea of sending humans at this point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know this has "GW melting ice is going to kills us all" nonsense has been going on for the last twenty years and there is still no definitive proof of any damage whatsoever from this pseudo-catastrophe. It was so disingenuous that "global warming" had to replace by "climate change" which, of course, is waaaay more nebulous and esoteric.

Are you totally ignorant about when the sea is to rise? It will not happen over night. The problem is that we will not be able to reverse the warming for a long long time. You and I will not be affected very much by AGW, but your children cannot claim the same. If you do not know what you are arguing against you cannot refute it. I would suggest a bit more research on your end.

 

[Curious George]

They can apply, though as mentioned, questions of values and "ought" or "ought not" are endlessly subjective.

For some humans, the measure of value is "this person must be human and the same race/ethnicity as me." For other humans, the measure of value is "this person must be human." For yet others, it is "this person must be a living, biological organism and being human doesn't matter." And for some, it is "this person can be living or non-living, human or non-human." Different cultures address it in different ways. In traditional animistic cultures, while many non-living things are considered persons, not all of them are. It depends a lot on the relationship the culture has with that aspect of reality. A tight, more frequent relationship usually means something will be considered to have agency or its own spirit or needs, whether alive or not. The measure of value is more about relationships than of what something is.

In thinking about that, humans basically have no meaningful relationship with extra-planetary bodies. It means that humans - including some animists - would assign no value to these entities as persons or agents. The important persons are the ones in our backyard - the land, the sea, the sky, and all the creatures dwelling there. In some cases, one might conclude that utilizing extra-planetary persons to help our friends here on earth would be warranted. For others, it wouldn't track this way - they'd honor the personhood of extra-planetary persons regardless of being close to them or not.

How then to proceed?

This certainly doesn't sound like space exploration, terraforming planets, and utilizing that planets resources is off the table. If people had a different tone, one of stewardship, sustainability, and harmony would the end be anymore or less acceptable to some? In other words, if we used a more feminine approach is it all ok now?

I understand not wanting to frame the discussion in should or should not, but at some point mustn't we? Perhaps you are operating from an entirely different worldview from which I have trouble seeing, but isn't there a point when we say x behavior should stop, or x behavior is not ok, or x behavior is harmful?

 

[Father Heathen]

You know this has "GW melting ice is going to kills us all" nonsense has been going on for the last twenty years and there is still no definitive proof of any damage whatsoever from this pseudo-catastrophe. It was so disingenuous that "global warming" had to replace by "climate change" which, of course, is waaaay more nebulous and esoteric.

Heart-Wrenching Video Shows Starving Polar Bear on Iceless Land

 

[BSM1]

Are you totally ignorant about when the sea is to rise? It will not happen over night. The problem is that we will not be able to reverse the warming for a long long time. You and I will not be affected very much by AGW, but your children cannot claim the same. If you do not know what you are arguing against you cannot refute it. I would suggest a bit more research on your end.

Proof. please, not histrionics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Proof. please, not histrionics.

You are the only one that has supplied histrionics. And no, I gave you evidence to go over. When you understand that source then we can move on.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think it quite useful to send probes. I really don't like the idea of sending humans at this point.

Aye, humans are fragile things which require much effort to keep alive & bring home.
Sending lawyers would eliminate the need for a return trip, but they typically have
poor technical skills, since they specialize in destroying things rather than creating them.
Probes are best, yielding far more scientific info for fewer dollars. And technological
advancements actually favor probes, which will increase in capability. Humans
just won't improve.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is the problem with the GW/CC hoax. There is no definable scientific proof or examples, just maybe's, could be's, innuendo, and anecdotal evidence. If there were any scientist that was willing to say without a shadow of a doubt that catastrophic climate change existed let alone causing any discernible damage he or she would be the featured story on every news network in the world.

American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)

American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)

American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)

American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)

American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)

The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)

International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)

U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)

U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”
“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”

SOURCE: Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus

BTW, sea ice (ice already in the water) will not raise the water level one iota as it melts. It's called displacement--that's real science. Have a nice day.

Except icebergs are made of freshwater, not saltwater, which is not as dense and thus has a greater volume than saltwater and thus contributes a greater volume than what it initially displaced. Not to mention that a lot of the ice that is melting due to climate change is on land, and thus was not initially contributing to any form of displacement until it falls into the ocean after melting.

SOURCES:
Melting icebergs boost sea-level rise
Melting of Floating Ice Will Raise Sea Level | National Snow and Ice Data Center
Melting glaciers will dominate sea-level rise

 

[Father Heathen]

Proof. please, not histrionics.

You've been grabbed by the scruff of the neck and had your nose rubbed in it, but you've been trained to embrace willful ignorance like a good little automaton.

 

[BSM1]

American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)

American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)

American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)

American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)

American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)

The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)

International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)

U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)

U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”
“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”

SOURCE: Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus

Except icebergs are made of freshwater, not saltwater, which is not as dense and thus has a greater volume than saltwater and thus contributes a greater volume than what it initially displaced. Not to mention that a lot of the ice that is melting due to climate change is on land, and thus was not initially contributing to any form of displacement until it falls into the ocean after melting.

SOURCES:
Melting icebergs boost sea-level rise
Melting of Floating Ice Will Raise Sea Level | National Snow and Ice Data Center
Melting glaciers will dominate sea-level rise

Check out the dates on the studies. If there were validity to the claims, we should all be dead by now. As to the icebergs, anything that's floating in the sea (or any body of water for that matter) has already displaced the water it's in; in other words it's already raised the water level all it's going to no matter what it's made of. This is why steel ships float. But be that as it may, there is still not one incidence of any person, plant, or animal being harmed that can be linked without a doubt to GW/CC. There is absolutely no proof of even one inch of land that has been lost directly and solely due to GW/CC, and this has been going on for over twenty years. You've been scammed.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Check out the dates on the studies.

Do we have reason to believe that the laws of physics have altered significantly since 2010? Also, you said no scientist has ever come out and said climate change is fact. That is absolutely demonstrably false, as I have shown.

If there were validity to the claims, we should all be dead by now.

Now you're just being silly.

As to the icebergs, anything that's floating in the sea (or any body of water for that matter) has already displaced the water it's in; in other words it's already raised the water level all it's going to no matter what it's made of. This is why steel ships float.

I've already explained that icebergs are made of freshwater, not saltwater, which has a larger volume when melted and thus the displacement isn't the same. I linked three pages of info that explained this.

But be that as it may, there is still not one incidence of any person, plant, or animal being harmed that can be linked without a doubt to GW/CC. There is absolutely no proof of even one inch of land that has been lost directly and solely due to GW/CC, and this has been going on for over twenty years. You've been scammed.

More than 1,000 species have been moved due to human impact
7 Species Hit Hard by Climate Change—Including One That's Already Extinct
Climate change is already making us sick
Climate Change and Human Health

Try looking next time.

 

[Quintessence]

This certainly doesn't sound like space exploration, terraforming planets, and utilizing that planets resources is off the table. If people had a different tone, one of stewardship, sustainability, and harmony would the end be anymore or less acceptable to some?

For me, personally, that would make a huge difference. It'd also make a huge difference if humans demonstrated some real sacrifice when it comes to cleaning up their own room before messing up someone else's. As a kid, I used to be exited about the prospect of space travel. Then, as I learned about how this planet used to be before "progress" I saw no reason to believe that humans wouldn't do the exact same thing once they left earth. There are ways to build and develop in ways that allow native ecosystems to co-exist along with Western notions of "progress," but we don't do it because it isn't "profitable" (and because Western culture isn't animistic and doesn't regard native ecosystems or their inhabitants as persons with rights to be respected and accommodated).

I don't consider this to be a "feminine" approach. Some couch the narrative in that fashion, but I don't believe in gender, much less slapping gender-words onto things that make no sense.

I understand not wanting to frame the discussion in should or should not, but at some point mustn't we? Perhaps you are operating from an entirely different worldview from which I have trouble seeing, but isn't there a point when we say x behavior should stop, or x behavior is not ok, or x behavior is harmful?

Individuals definitely have every right to make that decision for themselves; I'd say we have an obligation to live in accord with our values as it builds honorable character. Where I usually have trouble is when expectations are projected onto others who may or may not share your values and sense of character. By extension, I can't with any approach that suggests there's "an answer" to the question that is somehow singular and/or authoritative for everyone. With respect to humans mucking up other planets as badly as they have their own, I don't really have a vote in the discussion one way or another. Enough people believe in it that money will be thrown at this, and I can't do anything about that. History will inevitably repeat itself with humans exploiting and abusing things they colonize. It's sad, but I shrug, move on, and focus on things like the little patch of restored prairie in my front yard.