Positive: "The end is near" is now a scientific and religious outlook which stands a decent chance of bringing humanity together for a common purpose. Just gotta get over our prejudices, wars, regulatory restrictions, and perpetuating inequality. Any millennium now.
-
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!
What's the use of Climate Change?
- Thread starter Thanda
- Start date
Optimists are so adorable.
FYI, I consider pollution & other environmental degradation to be a separate issue from AGW.
I don't know if it's telling or mere hypocrisy that some of the biggest carbon footprints belong to those who cry the loudest, eg, Gore, Obama, Hollywood types.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
With more CO2 in the air, there's more food for the plants. They need it. Maybe this will make a comeback for the jungle, and perhaps even make the deserts grow again? Just throwing something out there...
Interesting. It never occurred to me that people could have so many expectations.
Climate change is inherently dangerous, mostly because we are demand so much of the environment and build huge structures that do not know how to deal with any significant changes.
Hasn't it been shown that in Gore's case it was a case of straight defamation?
No, it has not.
But he's not nearly as bad as Obama.
We'll also probably lose a lot of geese and swans. **** swans.
Thanda
Well-Known Member
Really? Or does no one care to investigate what they are. Are we a bit like newspapers who think only bad news is real news.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Can't find one, huh?
It's kind of like using chemo because you want to be bald. It'll do it, but there are so many better ways.
I think because climate change (drastic) scenarios mean the end of humanity as we know it, there is desire to be real with that, than paint a rosy picture of the planet, which will most certainly survive under human induced climate change.
To me, the discussion is usually about a few things. One is the little things each / all of us can be doing today that is different from perhaps yesterday and that would reverse the path toward extinction. This is where the politics and partisan stuff comes up in spades. Like, I don't get how a POTUS who makes this a big deal can justify flying around in Air Force One, and sleep well - other than being told that it is perfectly justifiable from those on his partisan side and that there are bigger fish to fry. But, it certainly tells me that as long as that is occurring, I really need not go overboard in all the teeny tiny things I may adjust. If I were instead to see POTUS treat that as BFD, I would see hypocrisy is being removed, to some degree, from the equation and a sense of consistency is called forth.
The other thing is the drastic, overall scenario used as a scare tactic to implement monumental changes. Also political, but not necessarily. It's akin to whatever a doomsday scenario is presenting and essentially trying to communicate you have reason to be fearful and there's either nothing or very little you can do about this. It's out of your individual control and did we mention that fear is suddenly a good thing to have allegiance to?
There's a factor that wishes to uphold the righteousness of science. I don't think I can do this factor justice in one paragraph. I don't think it's the primary factor and is why I list it third. I do think science is partially to mostly responsible for getting us to this point, but realize how debatable that is, and so rather just leave this point as short as I am.
But I do think the third factor is balanced by the other factor which is resistance to the notion of climate change on various levels or points being made. I think that resistance is a good thing, but like all things with consensus where politics is involved, the minority position (resistance) will be downplayed and ridiculed constantly. This last factor though is helped each day when a prediction from 10 to 30 years ago turns out to be inaccurate. Kind of like how if a religion claims the world will end in 1999, and there is resistance to that, and then when it comes to pass, the consensus around the religious position is that it's still going to end, just that we didn't get it right, so allow us now to use ad hoc explanations to further convince that the end is near, and surely we can be trusted to convey that information. I find it good to have healthy skepticism around anything related to drastic scenarios regarding climate change.
Which to me, is about the most positive thing that there is on this (broad) topic. That and the fact that man made climate change is inherently a natural occurrence.
GoodbyeDave
Well-Known Member
Looking at the natural changes in the past,
> the last major glacial advance in Europe seems to have wiped out the Neanderthals
> the "Little Ice Age" in the late Middle Ages seems to have been the last straw for Viking settlements in Greenland
Looking towards the future
> many major coastal cities will have to be abandoned (e.g. New York and (thankfully) Hull)
> the Sahara will expand northwards and the deserts in the USA will increase
but
> much of Britain will attain a Madeira-style climate, with the grass-lands of Ireland and western England given over to tropical fruit and vegetables, and the mountains of Wales and Scotland covered in vineyards.
> the last major glacial advance in Europe seems to have wiped out the Neanderthals
> the "Little Ice Age" in the late Middle Ages seems to have been the last straw for Viking settlements in Greenland
Looking towards the future
> many major coastal cities will have to be abandoned (e.g. New York and (thankfully) Hull)
> the Sahara will expand northwards and the deserts in the USA will increase
but
> much of Britain will attain a Madeira-style climate, with the grass-lands of Ireland and western England given over to tropical fruit and vegetables, and the mountains of Wales and Scotland covered in vineyards.
Let's just say current research suggests the problems outweigh the positives.
Now now now, don't get cranky just because I didn't bite into your baited hook for an argument.
Blasphemy!
(I have nothing else to add, in fact I am not sure what we are even talking about. But he is on my team and I felt the need to blindly defend him. That is all.)
I feel dumb for asking, AGW?
Are you serious?
Just for illustration's sake, imagine how much of an upside there would be if, say, the soil that sustains residences moved around in random ways.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Sure. We will lose a lot of wildlife and flora, and probably it'll have huge impact on human population as well.
But the thread was asking for something positive, something that we're not losing. At least that was my impression of the introductory post.