Climate change falsehood

[gonzo]

The discussion about climate change, whether it is true or not, has been dominated by the "greens" and other people with political agendas. They have managed to bias the discussion with the premise that a climate change is bad. In fact, with the premise that any change produced by humans is bad. They have a common theme which is that anything that any species other than human does is natural. However, anything done by the human species is unnatural and artificial. I think we are following our nature just as all other species are.

[daiquiri]

1) It took nature millions of years to create the underground and undersea oil deposits, through delicate biochemical and physical reactions which involved the whole planet plus the sun.

2) We will have it all burnt and transformed into heat and fumes in a period shorter than 200 years.

Are you trying to convince me that it couldn't have altered the environmental and climate equilibrium?
Then please, start...

[Autodafe]

I feel your "human nature" argument is inconsistent there Gonzo:
Why do you criticize the conservationists who act on the appreciation of natural beauty inherent in human nature, but applaud the pollution of global consumerism driven by the greed in human nature?

The "rat paradigm" (basing human action on a selfish "ratlike" morality) was a popular philosophical position for some intellectual trendoids in the '70's but there are a number of reasons that the "doing bad things is not my fault, it's in my nature" line is full of it. The first couple that spring to mind are:
1. It can be extended to justify, among other things, rape and murder.
2. Humans, more than any other species, have the ability to anticipate consequences of actions, which gives us a great edge in natural selection, but also gives us the opportunity to take more responsibility for what we cause. We may just be naked apes, but we're still smarter than the average bear.
3. There are other aspects of nature that humans do not consider acceptable applied to themselves. Wild animal populations do explode in rich times, and the animals consume happily, changing their environment (as you point out), up to the point when the environment no longer offers the resource needed. Disease and starvation follows, and population is thus brought under control in the natural way. If humans refuse to regulate their own consumption then nature will regulate it for us, and in ways we don't like.

On the point that "Change isn't Bad"

Change in itself is not a bad thing, but in this case, as in most cases involving human development, change is preceded by destruction.

Yes, fossil records show that new species will evolve after climatic cataclysms (just wait a few million years), but I don't agree that that gives us the right to cause extinction to thousands of species now in existence.

The "Change isn't bad" argument is particularly ironic as the only reason people resist the calls for climate change action is that they don't want to change their own lifestyle...

To generalise, conservationists want people to change to fit the world around them, climate change deniers and skeptics are reluctant to change themselves so feel the world can be changed or not to suit their convenience.

[Jimbo1490]

There is a thread for this already (such as it is ) and because such threads tend to devolve into childish drivel and name calling, I think most forum people would prob'ly appreciate it if the number of threads on this topic NOT proliferate beyond the current ones.

We the climate realists (AKA deniers) can defend our position quite nicely as I'm sure you'll agree after reading the nearly 200 thread pages. Please read up first so you can actually post something new, assuming you have same.

Edit:

In the three posts above there is not even one idea that has not already been thoroughly covered in the existing climate change thread.

Jimbo

[gonzo]

I ask why what humans do in pursuit of their nature is different from other species. That it may justify rape and murder is the kind of politiking that says:" it's for the children sake". Those arguments are not logical and are based on the premise that because they make a strong moral comment they cannot be discussed. In short, it is stupid.
Autodafe is following the drivel on other threads. Typical of his and other similar posts is that they don't answer the question at the start. Instead they post personal attacks.

[Autodafe]

Thanks for the link Jimbo, but I've read that one already. There's not much new there, on either side.

Gonzo had a specific question, and I attempted to put my views on it forward.

I'm sorry you feel it was name calling, it wasn't intended that way.

You certainly don't have to agree with me, but please read my post with some attention before you respond so rudely. You will find that I very specifically answered the question as you asked it.

If you feel that I have not addressed your topic please explain more clearly.

If you just want to soapbox your own opinion, set up a website, don't use a discussion forum. (note I said *if*)

[Ad Hoc]

"...I ask why what humans do in pursuit of their nature is different from other species..."

What is considered "human nature" here in Japan, is different and not applicable elsewhere. What is considered 'human nature' in the Omo Valley in Africa is different elsewhere, what is considered human nature is different for just about everyone, there is no universal "human nature", unless your definition is based upon one country.

So, please define human nature in your context.

As for "..Instead they post personal attacks.." isn't that the kettle calling the pot black?

This entire forum is being reduced such that I can't look forward to learning, but spend my energy defending my way of life or frustrating some ******* so much that he quits posting. It worked with Turd³ and Massomething De Chile but I've got better things to do than muss up the hair of these idiots every day. I'm not a moderator thus don't call the shots but were I, foreigners would be allowed on the condition that that don't start **** and Americans would be encouraged to talk about BOATDESIGN. I, personally, through the efforts of a seeming battalion of pricks posting here, feel about ready to go to war. I suppose you got what you wanted - I will now require that one earns my respect before I consider one's worthyness for my consideration. I am just one guy but I am really thinking isolationism is in my future. I'd like to just sit back and see how you deal with Kim Jong Il, Russia and Ahkmadinnerjacket for awhile. Let's see how you and your unicorns cope with the next Hitler. Good Luck!

[masalai]

And to think I gave that foul-mouth his points - what a sorry example of an American...

[CDK]

Originally Posted by daiquiri

1) It took nature millions of years to create the underground and undersea oil deposits, through delicate biochemical and physical reactions which involved the whole planet plus the sun.

2) We will have it all burnt and transformed into heat and fumes in a period shorter than 200 years.

Are you trying to convince me that it couldn't have altered the environmental and climate equilibrium?
Then please, start...

Exactly my line of reasoning. I posted it somewhere in the middle of the climate change thread, but that was already a ping pong game or a paste-as-many-links-as-you-can contest.

On both local and global scale climate changes are in evidence and the causes are certainly complex mixtures of natural and man made causes.

By far the most comfortable explanation is that this is all part of cosmic sequences, which are beyond our control. We can then go on living like we do now and by the time natural resources have been completely depleted, "they" will have found us a new energy source.

In the past and the present, mankind made a lot of irreversible mistakes like destroying the rain forest and killing people for religious reasons. It seems as if only individuals can have a conscience, but a group of people always behaves like a sociopath. The fact that we invariably chose our leaders from the same pool of ignorants may have something to do with it.

[daiquiri]

Originally Posted by mark775

...

...

And what does it have to do with climate change?

[Boston]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

There is a thread for this already (such as it is ) and because such threads tend to devolve into childish drivel and name calling, I think most forum people would prob'ly appreciate it if the number of threads on this topic NOT proliferate beyond the current ones.

We the climate realists (AKA deniers) can defend our position quite nicely as I'm sure you'll agree after reading the nearly 200 thread pages. Please read up first so you can actually post something new, assuming you have same.

Edit:

In the three posts above there is not even one idea that has not already been thoroughly covered in the existing climate change thread.

Jimbo

I gotta go with Jim on at least the fundamentals of this one
lets keep the climate change thread were it is and let boat design be boat design
I for one am actually looking forward to working out a boat design and am in it mostly for the benefit of the education

let keep the climate change thread to one thread please
B

[Ad Hoc]

I don't understand why some are criticising this thread.
1)The topic is very clear...climate change (why look and comment if you have no interest/opinion on said subject?)
2) It is located in the "open discussion" section..so clearly not boat design.

It is not like on the 'real boat threads' everyone sticks religiously to the topic at hand anyway! Most comments on the 'real boat threads' are just opinions which sadly often have no relevance to the subjected matter being posted anyway, save for the...lets join hands and sing cum-baye-yah together with a guitar....ah, but it is still about boats, that's why!...ugh!

[Boston]

no big deal
was just a suggestion cause this particular issue seems to have some volatility associated with it and your not likely to get a sing along out of anyone
nice thought though

would be interesting to hear the lyrics the two major camps would come up with

tell you what Ill bail out and stick with throwing a wrench into the other climate change sing along from time to time and you guys enjoy the camp fire ( burning crude oil or an endangered tree of some sort ) over hear

best
B

I would ask how you explain all the melting ice if the world isnt actually warming up though
seems like kinda a no brainer

oh kinda curious
what makes you think that rapid climate change is "good"
the whole theory basically states that the induced change is sufficiently rapid as to deny species the possibility of adapting quickly enough to survive
the theory is backed up in that regard by the rapid loss of species that has been and continues to be observed
take corral for instance
temp variations and pollution have been shown to be the reason 80% of the corral in the Caribbean and 50% or the corral in the Indian ocean have died
and stag horn corral in the Bahamas once the climax species is now all but extinct
any ideas on how that can be a good thing
or did I misunderstand you somehow

cheers
B

[Ad Hoc]

Boston

I think it would be very interesting what the lyrics of each camp come out with...but, would it say more about their song choice/personal taste than the meaning behind them??

"...I would ask how you explain all the melting ice if the world isn't actually warming up though.."

I don't think there are any illusions that the world is not warming up...the key issue is what is the cause?

There are many contributing factors.

If the predicted climate changes are to be taken as "proof" that the world is 1)continuing to warm 2) likely sources of increase, then these "models" of climate like any model requires validation.

Trouble with that is, if the current sate of the art for weather forecasting, which by comparison is significantly easier, can only predict 7 days at best, how can any predictions for 20, 50 or 100 years be believed. The amount of inputs required for such a model is far beyond "simple" weather forecasting.

Ergo...yes, does appear the world is getting warmer, but why...the why has yet to be validated by any model currently.