Sign in to follow this  
LogicalFallacy

Climate & Environmental Warnings

Recommended Posts

So I've seen a slew of new articles and reports today once again reiterating the danger of our current environmental path.

 

A new report showing GW rate is increasing.

 

https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/98851471/humaninduced-global-warming-faster-than-ever-and-accelerating

 

And 15,000 scientists issue a second notice (Last one was in 1993.)

 

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/techandscience/thousands-of-scientists-issue-bleak-second-notice-to-humanity/ar-BBEVmmA?li=BBqdg4K&ocid=mailsignout

 

Insurers are saying they won't insure certain properties because of the risk of climate change making their business unsustainable.

 

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/98797867/insurers-warn-climate-change-will-hit-policy-prices-and-make-some-properties-uninsurable

 

The problem with humans is we are great at immediate danger - we see a lion and bam we take action. However with long slow burn issues like the environment, because everything looks fine, and we cannot see the danger, it can arrive and its too late.

 

Now the planet will be fine folks, no one is saying that its going to disappear, but humanity might well suffer heavily if nothing is done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your support
Buy Ex-C a cup of coffee!
Costs have significantly risen and we need your support! Click the coffee cup to give a one-time donation, or choose one of the recurrent patron options.
Note: All Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.

One word........Chicken Little.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have said Stephen Hawkings speculation was more Chicken Little...

 

And that was two words.... :lmao: 

 

Incidentally we've had one success environmentally in the last 25 years - the Ozone hole has decreased... why? Because we phased out chlorofluorocarbons!

 

So we can do stuff, we just gota start doing it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are some contrary ideas about global warming possibilities.

 

Why should the world climate today by compared to the time period 1850-1879? It appears that this was the coolest period in modern history based upon the graph shown in the link below, that seemed to be the basis for the OP link study. Why would one of the coldest periods in modern history be a good comparison for global warming studies?  Maybe I’m missing something.

Of course there is a generally large agreement in meteorology today concerning the reality of global warming. Also we know that what man is doing adds to green house gases such as CO2 and methane. But how much do these atmospheric changes effect global warming? That is where the debate exists. The question being: is it worth greatly increased costs of utilities, meats  and other commodities to try to curb human  input to the environment if that input could be generally inconsequential concerning the long-term effects on global warming?

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/08/03/german-scientists-find-climate-change-is-cyclical-global-cooling-coming-soon/

Cherry picking data, is what the link below asserts concerning this and some other global warming studies.

http://mobile.wnd.com/2017/08/stunner-did-global-cooling-impact-hurricane-harvey/

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just quickly off the top of my head, the way I understand it is that while climate change is an ongoing process with cycles, and there has been both hotter and cooler periods, I understand its the rate of increase in the warming that is alarming. Not that the max expected temperature is particularity unusual, but that is happening at such a rate that it is very hard to adapt to. 

 

PS, I see all too often, in comments section of articles people saying they called it global warming, now they call it climate change because they were wrong, blah blah - I'm sure people have come across this before.

 

In fact its to do with climate change is the wider area of study. Its like say Evolution... because it encompasses everything biological, like climate change does with climate. Global warming is a specific field of study that researches rising temperatures and their causes, but like say genetics studies DNA etc. Both are separate fields under an umbrella field. That's they way I understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imho it's hopeless, LF.

 

If you changed this thread from 'Climate & Environmental Warnings' to 'Obesity Warnings', you'd probably get the same spectrum of reactions.  

 

Some folks will take heed and change their diet for good.  Some folks will take heed for a while and change their diet for a while, but then lapse back into their previous ways.  Some folks will worry about it for a few minutes, shrug their shoulders and then carry on as before.  Some folks won't care about the warnings because there's a new reality show that's more important to them.  Some folks won't care about the warnings because they don't even care about themselves and are on a downward spiral of self-destructive behavior anyway.  Some folks won't care because they believe that God is going to destroy this sinful world anyway and they'll be reborn with new and perfect bodies.  Some folks simply can't understand the consequences of their actions and so can't see that what they eat today will affect their health tomorrow.  Some folks will simply deny that such a condition as obesity exists at all.  Some folks will assert that these obesity warnings are 'fake news'.  Some folks will claim that any and all such warnings are violations of their free choice.  Some folks will believe that these warnings are issued by a global cabal of shape-shifting reptilian overlords to keep us under their control.  And so on...

 

Evolution hasn't equipped humans... as a species ...with the ability to freely and willingly unite in a common cause.

 

So, if the problems we face can only be solved if humans unite in a common cause...?

 

 

:shrug:

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly, science is a universal liberal plot designed to bring down Trump, the oil companies, the mining companies and capitalism itself. Commie bastards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LF,  the terminology you're looking for in the op is the difference between humans being proactive vs. reactive 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     If we debate things long enough the decisions will make themselves.

 

          mwc

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

Imho it's hopeless, LF.

 

Evolution hasn't equipped humans... as a species ...with the ability to freely and willingly unite in a common cause.

 

So, if the problems we face can only be solved if humans unite in a common cause...?

 

 

:shrug:

 

 

 

So perhaps the best thing is for each individual to be prepared to adapt to changes as best they can?

 

Hmm you last line reminds me of Carl Sagan: "If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  12 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

Imho it's hopeless, LF.

 

Evolution hasn't equipped humans... as a species ...with the ability to freely and willingly unite in a common cause.

 

So, if the problems we face can only be solved if humans unite in a common cause...?

 

 

:shrug:

 

 

 

So perhaps the best thing is for each individual to be prepared to adapt to changes as best they can?

 

Yes.  As individuals we can do that.

But as a species, I submit that we cannot.  In nature, when a species is faced with change and crisis, only those members who can adapt will survive.  Yet, the act of adapting changes these survivors, so that they are no longer what they were before they were forced to adapt.  So it will be with humanity.  We will not survive en bloc, as an entire species, because too many of us cannot or will not adapt.  Instead, certain individuals, enclaves and factions will find ways to adapt and survive.  Quite how they will do so is an unknown.  What they will become in doing so is also an unknown.  Maybe these survivors will be so changed that the word 'human' won't really apply to them any more.  

 

So I stand by my usage of the word hopeless, when it comes to the future of the human race as we know it.

For humanity as it is today, there is no hope.  We are too splintered and too self-destructive to unite in any common purpose - even the continued survival of our race.  

 

Remember this, LF?  

 

 

When this movie came out I was visiting my British friends, Neal and Katie and we saw it in London. 

Afterward Neal said, "Well, that outcome would never be believed by millions of people."  

 

Me:  'Oh, you mean they'd never believe the story line?  That the entire human race could unite and fight a common enemy?"

 

Neal:  "No. I meant that millions of Muslims and millions of racists would never believe or accept that their lives had been saved by a Jew and a black man."

 

At the time I thought he was being too harsh and too dismissive, but these days I reckon he was right on the money.

No matter how high the stakes and no matter what the threat, there are some people who will never unite and cooperate with others.  With that kind of poison in our gene pool, how can the human race possibly survive in it's current form?

 

:(

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:
  12 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

Imho it's hopeless, LF.

 

Evolution hasn't equipped humans... as a species ...with the ability to freely and willingly unite in a common cause.

 

So, if the problems we face can only be solved if humans unite in a common cause...?

 

 

:shrug:

 

 

 

So perhaps the best thing is for each individual to be prepared to adapt to changes as best they can?

 

Yes.  As individuals we can do that.

But as a species, I submit that we cannot.  In nature, when a species is faced with change and crisis, only those members who can adapt will survive.  Yet, the act of adapting changes these survivors, so that they are no longer what they were before they were forced to adapt.  So it will be with humanity.  We will not survive en bloc, as an entire species, because too many of us cannot or will not adapt.  Instead, certain individuals, enclaves and factions will find ways to adapt and survive.  Quite how they will do so is an unknown.  What they will become in doing so is also an unknown.  Maybe these survivors will be so changed that the word 'human' won't really apply to them any more. 

 

So in a word what you are talking about is evolution. Those with traits that help survival in changing circumstances will survive, those who don't have such traits die off.

 

2 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

So I stand by my usage of the word hopeless, when it comes to the future of the human race as we know it.

For humanity as it is today, there is no hope.  We are too splintered and too self-destructive to unite in any common purpose - even the continued survival of our race.  

 

I agree. What I hope for is that we can as a species change. This is more of a wish though, rather than based on reality.

 

2 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

Remember this, LF?  

 

When this movie came out I was visiting my British friends, Neal and Katie and we saw it in London. 

Afterward Neal said, "Well, that outcome would never be believed by millions of people."  

 

Me:  'Oh, you mean they'd never believe the story line?  That the entire human race could unite and fight a common enemy?"

 

Neal:  "No. I meant that millions of Muslims and millions of racists would never believe or accept that their lives had been saved by a Jew and a black man."

 

At the time I thought he was being too harsh and too dismissive, but these days I reckon he was right on the money.

No matter how high the stakes and no matter what the threat, there are some people who will never unite and cooperate with others.  With that kind of poison in our gene pool, how can the human race possibly survive in it's current form?

 

:(

 

 

An interesting thought. Australia just held a referendum on Gay marriage. It got voted yes to allow by 61% to 39% no. But think of that, in Australia, in 2017, 39% of the population doesn't want gays to have the same rights as anyone else. We can't even get a super majority to agree on basic rights, let alone humanity's wellbeing and survival. 

 

And I don't suppose anybody would like to take a stab at what groups formed the primary opposition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, mwc said:

     If we debate things long enough the decisions will make themselves.

 

          mwc

 

And when we try to make a decision, it leads to endless debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole debate reminds me of fundy churches, one is more holy, righteous, etc, than the other.  In this case, the other is more rational, correct, scientic than the others.  Same attitude, same snide arrogance, same shit different day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Burnedout said:

This whole debate reminds me of fundy churches, one is more holy, righteous, etc, than the other.  In this case, the other is more rational, correct, scientic than the others.  Same attitude, same snide arrogance, same shit different day. 

 

BO,

 

You once told me that a lot of what you post is simply done to provoke a reaction, to get a rise out people.

 

That being so, I've little doubt that's what you're doing here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

So in a word what you are talking about is evolution. Those with traits that help survival in changing circumstances will survive, those who don't have such traits die off.

...

Memetic evolution, yes.  Genetic evolution, not very much.

 

The human species is effected by both.  Memetic evolution has become a rather powerful influence over many things since civilization first arose.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

BO,

 

You once told me that a lot of what you post is simply done to provoke a reaction, to get a rise out people.

 

That being so, I've little doubt that's what you're doing here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what?  It is also my opinion.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

So what?  It is also my opinion.  

 

 

Yes.  It's your opinion.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  52 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

So what?  It is also my opinion.  

 

 

Yes.  It's your opinion.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Or you could be saying that it's your opinion...

 

...just to get a rise out of me.

 

:shrug:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, bornagainathiest said:
  52 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

So what?  It is also my opinion.  

 

 

Yes.  It's your opinion.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Or you could be saying that it's your opinion...

 

...just to get a rise out of me.

 

:shrug:

 

 

It really doesn't matter to me. You can take it any way you want to take it. I said it because I wanted to.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

It really doesn't matter to me. You can take it any way you want to take it. I said it because I wanted to.  

 

And you could also be saying that to get a rise out of me, too.

 

But seeing as it doesn't matter to you, I'll follow your lead.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

And you could also be saying that to get a rise out of me, too.

 

But seeing as it doesn't matter to you, I'll follow your lead.

 

 

 

What makes you think I said my initial statement towards you?  I just posted it up there to whom it may concern. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

What makes you think I said my initial statement towards you?  I just posted it up there to whom it may concern. 

 

You could be saying that, just to get a rise.

 

And when you say that it doesn't matter to you, you could be saying that to get a rise, too.

 

Perhaps I'd better take everything you post as an attempt to get a rise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bornagainathiest said:

 

You could be saying that, just to get a rise.

 

And when you say that it doesn't matter to you, you could be saying that to get a rise, too.

 

Perhaps I'd better take everything you post as an attempt to get a rise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well have a rise.  I don't care.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Burnedout said:

 

Well have a rise.  I don't care.  

 

You care enough to reply.

 

If you really didn't care you wouldn't reply.

 

(Waits for BO to show that he cares.)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this