Our Present Course Leads to Certain Catastrophe

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Yes, that was the point. You're missing the forest for the trees. Regardless of arguments about what this does to climate in the long run it is destroying the planet; that much is clear.

if by "destroying the planet" you mean "having unpleasing local impacts that are generally only a catastrophe in impoverished nations that can't pay for the fallout", sure.

otherwise you are complaining about a sun burn while being boiled alive.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Why it took an argument over climate to get everyone paying attention I don't know.

Because the type of environmentalism you are talking about is a human aesthetic, whereas our impact on the climate could potentially end society.

As gross as smog is, it wont end our species. The garbage patch isn't an existential threat to humanity.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
So, we're all going to die.

Assuming that that's inevitable, then why did I need to know this?

The thing is I don't think it is inevitable, and knowing is at least a prerequisite to doing anything

Originally posted by Oliver North
if by "destroying the planet" you mean "having unpleasing local impacts that are generally only a catastrophe in impoverished nations that can't pay for the fallout", sure.

otherwise you are complaining about a sun burn while being boiled alive.

Because the type of environmentalism you are talking about is a human aesthetic, whereas our impact on the climate could potentially end society.

As gross as smog is, it wont end our species. The garbage patch isn't an existential threat to humanity.

Again, what is the point of existing if it means living with maladies and malaise because of the poisons we pump into our own resources?

Most people don't even look at the current situation as ending our species, only as causing issues that would wipe out many forms of life, flood lowland areas and cities, and cause an increase in temperatures. I've seen no major sources proporting Day After Tomorrow scenarios resulting in the large-scale death or eventual extinction of the human race. That said, again it is still amazing that it took things getting to this point for everyone to make such a concerted effort; of course when many tried to get the message out about CFCs, dumping of chemical waste, etc back in the 80s and early 90s no one much listened to that. Maybe it's the fact that now there are a lot more major faces behind the push, not to mention all the social media putting it in everyone's faces. Whatever the case, as I said, glad something is happening.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Again, what is the point of existing if it means living with maladies and malaise because of the poisons we pump into our own resources?

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Most people don't even look at the current situation as ending our species, only as causing issues that would wipe out many forms of life, flood lowland areas and cities, and cause an increase in temperatures. I've seen no major sources proporting Day After Tomorrow scenarios resulting in the large-scale death or eventual extinction of the human race.

did you watch the video in the OP?

Originally posted by Ascendancy
I really can't understand why everyone acts like this only matters if global temperatures are affected. Whether that's the case or not we still have circulating gyres of waste in the oceans, we still have chemicals being dumped into waterways and habitats everyday, and we're still adding pollutants into the air that do nothing to improve our health and increase the occurrence of acid rain.

A few years back when inimalist and I argued this topic for pages, that was the same argument I made to him about it, as well.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Yes, it's clear global temperatures are rising, but whether that is our fault or not it is clear that as a whole humanity has contributed a relentless flow of synthetic pollution to this planet and continues to do so. Global warming or the lack their of doesn't even matter, but hey, if it gets people talking that's great. Just glad to see that we're able to recycle two-thirds of all the trash in our house.

I think global-warming could still be important to talk about and mitigate...but possibly not. I still feel that there is a stupidly absurd bias in the scientific community to focus on the "negatives" of global warming instead of the positives. We are causing far more harm to humans and the environment with pollution, imo. Shit would get warmer, anyway.

The fear is a runaway effect. If that happens, yes, global warming will be shitstomping serious.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
It is admittedly a little disconcerting that you don't make a distinction between "end of human existence on planet Earth forever"and "nuisance for human existence that can kill a lot of people".

I remember one news article quoting a scientist as saying--and this was during the height of the fears of bees dying out--that should the European honey bee die out, then it would be an unprecedented global ecological disaster, something that could only be mitigated by warmer temperatures allowing the African honey bee to supplant it.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I remember one news article quoting a scientist as saying--and this was during the height of the fears of bees dying out--that should the European honey bee die out, then it would be an unprecedented global ecological disaster, something that could only be mitigated by warmer temperatures allowing the African honey bee to supplant it.

I think the scientist was putting too much importance on the honeybees' involvement in the sexual process of flowering plants on the European Continent.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I remember one news article quoting a scientist as saying--and this was during the height of the fears of bees dying out--that should the European honey bee die out, then it would be an unprecedented global ecological disaster, something that could only be mitigated by warmer temperatures allowing the African honey bee to supplant it.

for sure

The last I had heard, they really still didn't know the cause of the colony collapse either (I think they thought it was a parasite, after fears of it being like cell phone radiation or pesticides were ruled out).

and for sure, this is an advantage and a benefit that other bees or insects may pick up for the loss in crop pollination. However, for us to enjoy this benefit, we need to still be able to grow crops, whereas currently, over 50% of the United States is experiencing drought conditions.

So, lets imagine this benefit compensates for bee colony loss means that crops can now grow at the current rate on any suitable land, and further, that warming has moved this land further north. Sure, there would then be a benefit, and GMOs could probably stop there from being a massive food crisis, but the negative from this, such as most of America being ill suited for growing anything, water shortages, fires, etc, I can't really see the benefit of maintaining the status quo in that context. It seems much more like an adaptation to worsening conditions than a benefit for humans.

Additionally, this benefit will only last so long as the temperature stays exactly at what it was that balanced the bees with the crops. Any hotter, and the land required to grow food disappears even further.

Climate change is an issue where our immediate actions will play out over the course of hundreds of years. Any benefit that does not extend that far into the future is hard to call a benefit. TBH, we would need to see something that, as a constant, increased its benefit to humanity as temperature increased, even into the range where the temperature would be fatal to humans.

And to clarify, this is dealing with Canada and America, two of the richest nations on the planet. How is Africa going to deal with increasing food shortage and drought? Does the scenario described above still count as a benefit if a large portion of the world is facing epidemic starvation?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think the scientist was putting too much importance on the honeybees' involvement in the sexual process of flowering plants on the European Continent.

the European honeybee is also the one that pollinates American crops

Originally posted by dadudemon
We are causing far more harm to humans and the environment with pollution, imo. Shit would get warmer, anyway.

harm is an ill defined concept, but I can't think of a single example that supports this claim.

Like, ok, air pollution causes cancer. Climate change has the potential to cause society to collapse.

Well, as a whole we've show we don't care too much for this planet anyway. If we destroy ourselves there's nothing really to feel sorry about is there? Maybe those who survive will do this differently. I have the feeling that many people who are considered "primitive" would survive this and in terms of the big picture wouldn't even really see a difference.

most people considered "primitive" are in geographic regions that are most at risk due to climate change.

also, we get it, you don't like humans. obvious suicide reference is obvious.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
I have the feeling that many people who are considered "primitive" would survive this and in terms of the big picture wouldn't even really see a difference.

Generally "primitive" societies are quite dependent on their environment not collapsing.

Originally posted by Oliver North
the European honeybee is also the one that pollinates American crops

There are several species of "European honeybees". There isn't just one.

However, I didn't think it affected the North American colonies, in the context of that scientist's comment. I believe it was in reference to the production in Europe, not America.

http://www.ibra.org.uk/articles/European-honey-bee-declines

But I checked and I may be out of date. It appears to be affecting America since 2004:

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/ccd/ccdprogressreport2011.pdf

🙁

Originally posted by Oliver North
harm is an ill defined concept, but I can't think of a single example that supports this claim.

Under pollution is included things like CO2 emissions. The "harm" caused by various types of pollution is hardly undefined.

But, if you don't think pollution harms humans (and many other species), I am open to some science.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Like, ok, air pollution causes cancer. Climate change has the potential to cause society to collapse.

First, I want to address your use of "climate change". That's not what you mean, imo. You mean global warming. "Climate change" is something being used because of the variability in climate that arises (more extremes). When you get down to the nitty gritty, you don't talk about "global climate change temperature", you refer to it as "global mean temperature". The warmer, the more indicative of global warming. That warming ties into climate change. That climate change does contribute to the various changes seen around the world (some bad, some good).

We can claim many things have the potential to cause societies to collapse. But I think saying things like "global warming" has the potential to cause societal collapse is similar to (but not as severe as) tinfoil hat talk.

This current period (Holocene) largely disagrees with the notion that climate change causes societal collapse.

http://thegwpf.org/science-news/2225-benny-peiser-climate-change-a-civilisation-collapse.html

We also live in a different time-period so it could be even better (or it could be worse) as we experience climate change.

Significant climate change will happen. This is pretty much inevitable. Societies are more likely to collapse for political reasons than climate change.

I think we'll see more problems with energy than we will with climate change.

Originally posted by Oliver North
most people considered "primitive" are in geographic regions that are most at risk due to climate change.

I don't think this is true. It is true for some, obviously, but the way you word this makes it seem like those geographic regions at highest risk to climate change are occupied mostly by "primitive" people.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Generally "primitive" societies are quite dependent on their environment not collapsing.

I believe history shows migration is their solution.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Under pollution is included things like CO2 emissions. The "harm" caused by various types of pollution is hardly undefined.

yes, however, I wouldn't call climate change a "pollution" issue. reducing "pollution" will do very little, given the amount of carbon already in the atmosphere.

Originally posted by dadudemon
First, I want to address your use of "climate change".

I use the terms interchangeably, I wouldn't read much into it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But I think saying things like "global warming" has the potential to cause societal collapse is similar to (but not as severe as) tinfoil hat talk.

so, is it that you don't think the temperature is going to rise as much as the scientists think, or that the rise isn't going to be as bad as they thought?

[keeping in mind, looking back at the past 10 years the warming and consequences have been more severe than scientists initially thought]

Originally posted by dadudemon
This current period (Holocene) largely disagrees with the notion that climate change causes societal collapse.

http://thegwpf.org/science-news/2225-benny-peiser-climate-change-a-civilisation-collapse.html

I would be inclined to disregard anything from the GWPF

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

Originally posted by dadudemon
Significant climate change will happen. This is pretty much inevitable. Societies are more likely to collapse for political reasons than climate change.

Jared Diamond, in his book Collapse, which looks at the collapse of many civilizations through history, would disagree.

Jared Diamond does not belong to a think tank whose stated goal is to promote climate "skepticism"

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think we'll see more problems with energy than we will with climate change.

because the two aren't related?

Originally posted by Oliver North
most people considered "primitive" are in geographic regions that are most at risk due to climate change.

also, we get it, you don't like humans. obvious suicide reference is obvious.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Nope. I enjoy being alive and I am not a misanthrope, I just don't miss the big picture while trumpteting the new environmentalism.I'm not a fatalist either, just a realist. Think of me as the Mono tottering towards the closing pyramid wall in The Fifth Element ; if I or those who follow me die as a result of the foolish decisions of others then death will simply be the outcome, with the hope that those who follow will do better. We're here discussing inanities on a forum; what will your one-sided banter do to save the world? Besides being clearly closed-minded you proffer no solutions and present your views in ways that make others loathe to hear your hardline points.

dawwwwww, puddin'

hughughughughughughug

let's never fight again 😍😍

Originally posted by Oliver North
yes, however, I wouldn't call climate change a "pollution" issue. reducing "pollution" will do very little, given the amount of carbon already in the atmosphere.

I don't either (meaning, I don't think that reducing our GHG problem to just pollution is the best approach or even intellectually honest). But I think it's absurd to conclude that reducing our "pollution" will do very little. There are more kinds of pollution than just CO2. Some kinds are much more directly related and measurable to human and environmental destruction.

Also, at what point do we say humans no longer have a stake in this world? I know that sounds stupid considering our proliferation, but we do have to consider the consequences of catastrophic change to our actions. "But, Jim! What of the catastrophic consequences if we DON'T change!" Yeah...you already know my position on that: it's not as bad as some people think it will be.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I use the terms interchangeably, I wouldn't read much into it.

My bad and apologies. In the past and with other people, I have seen that used as a way to hide and avoid the "warming" portion of the argument.

Originally posted by Oliver North
so, is it that you don't think the temperature is going to rise as much as the scientists think, or that the rise isn't going to be as bad as they thought?

I don't know where my option is in there but I think the consequences are not going to be as bad as being purported.

Originally posted by Oliver North
[keeping in mind, looking back at the past 10 years the warming and consequences have been more severe than scientists initially thought]

I would take the position that: "It was not nearly as bad in some areas as predicted but it was worse in some areas."

Originally posted by Oliver North
I would be inclined to disregard anything from the GWPF

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

Why? It makes a case, several times, about how society would be affected and cites its sources. Based on the writing, it looks like the overall conclusions is "it's not as bad as some people say".

Based on my own research (NOT scientific...just reading and searching on my own), I get the vibe that there is some areas of concern. I cannot and will not sweepingly decide that no one will be hurt, affected, or detrimented due to climate change.

It is just that, I find myself having to take constant skeptic positions with you because you're so extremely polar on this topic. Any other place or discussion, I usually have to take the side of, "no, read this shit...CG/GW are serious business".

Originally posted by Oliver North
Jared Diamond, in his book Collapse, which looks at the collapse of many civilizations through history, would disagree.

Do you have any other sources besides Jared Diamond's book? Don't get me wrong, I find Jared Diamond's works awesome but I read that his book "Collapse" had tons of factual errors and misrepresentations so I shied away from it.

Originally posted by Oliver North
because the two aren't related?

Because the two are intimately related?

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Besides being clearly closed-minded you proffer no solutions and present your views in ways that make others loathe to hear your hardline points.

This is how I view his approach to this topic, as well. HOWEVER, I still love him. 😍

Originally posted by Oliver North
dawwwwww, puddin'

hughughughughughughug

let's never fight again 😍😍