Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
You're pro letting a massive amount of the world's population die off and developing far more expensive and unsustainable methods to feed whoever is left using inefficient and potentially unreliable technological methods, when there are many other avenues to deal with the issue which aren't as expensive in terms of human life or resources.
Your idea is just really unworkable, and would involve mass deaths of the poorest and most vulnerable people.
It's just a terrible standpoint, whatever way I look at it.
Da Boss wrote: You're pro letting a massive amount of the world's population die off and developing far more expensive and unsustainable methods to feed whoever is left using inefficient and potentially unreliable technological methods, when there are many other avenues to deal with the issue which aren't as expensive in terms of human life or resources.
Your idea is just really unworkable, and would involve mass deaths of the poorest and most vulnerable people.
It's just a terrible standpoint, whatever way I look at it.
Da Boss wrote: You're pro letting a massive amount of the world's population die off and developing far more expensive and unsustainable methods to feed whoever is left using inefficient and potentially unreliable technological methods, when there are many other avenues to deal with the issue which aren't as expensive in terms of human life or resources.
Your idea is just really unworkable, and would involve mass deaths of the poorest and most vulnerable people.
It's just a terrible standpoint, whatever way I look at it.
Truth, although we may have different views of the world. I believe necessity causes innovation, and what better way to create necessity than global catastrophe?
I also consider many of the world's population ultimately expendable, myself included.
Da Boss wrote: You're pro letting a massive amount of the world's population die off and developing far more expensive and unsustainable methods to feed whoever is left using inefficient and potentially unreliable technological methods, when there are many other avenues to deal with the issue which aren't as expensive in terms of human life or resources.
Your idea is just really unworkable, and would involve mass deaths of the poorest and most vulnerable people.
It's just a terrible standpoint, whatever way I look at it.
]Truth, although we may have different views of the world. I believe necessity causes innovation, and what better way to create necessity than global catastrophe?
I also consider many of the world's population ultimately expendable, myself included.
So you're a utilitarian?
~Tim?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/03 22:11:46
Da Boss wrote: You're pro letting a massive amount of the world's population die off and developing far more expensive and unsustainable methods to feed whoever is left using inefficient and potentially unreliable technological methods, when there are many other avenues to deal with the issue which aren't as expensive in terms of human life or resources.
Your idea is just really unworkable, and would involve mass deaths of the poorest and most vulnerable people.
It's just a terrible standpoint, whatever way I look at it.
Truth, although we may have different views of the world. I believe necessity causes innovation, and what better way to create necessity than global catastrophe?
fething walk or ride a bike every once in a while instead of driving. Lord knows America could use it seeing how disgustingly fat this country has become.
Congrats! You just helped curb global warming.
Oh people just want to argue politics instead of taking incredibly simple steps that help everyone. Carry on then.
I do all this now and it does not help curb global warming. The carbon foot print is reduced by an such a small amount you may as well not do it. Less than 10% of plastic goes into each new bottle and I'd argue that the power costs associated with getting the bottles ready for recycling/recycling probably take more power than just making new ones. Using less resources? sure it helps/ reducing carbon no.
Composting locally instead of in a garbage dump / what is the difference ? All you are doing is reducing the size of land fill, nothing to do with global warming. it is still degrading in your compost bin.
Walking instead of driving ? sure that helps , also fat people make more gas so that also helps.
Unless we basically dismantle the supermarket system as we know it , whilst making things to last instead of producing throw away goods and reducing our reliance on electrical power for things we can do manually there will be no reduction in greenhouse gas.
You are right, it is up to us to change our habits in spending and the materials of things we buy, not point the finger at companies and governments.
I do not believe the science but I can still see that consumerism of society is in direct opposition to lessening climate change. It is up to everyone not just blaming industry.
Hell I don't even believe in being 'green' and I still do more 'green based' stuff than most committed 'greenies'. Next up is setting up a aquaculture tank and gardens. I'm not doing it because I'm saving the world, I'm doing it as it's a smart way to get freeish protein and food.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/04 01:43:45
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
Bullockist wrote: I do all this now and it does not help curb global warming. The carbon foot print is reduced by an such a small amount you may as well not do it.
Nothing matters so why do anything right?
feth carbon tax credits they're bunk, but literally all those things do help to reduce our emissions. I still cannot fathom how people can see things like the Pacific Garbage Patch and say "yeah, humans don't effect the environment".
The thing is, most Americans aren't doing those 3 things I mentioned. Even warming alarmists (people like Gore) don't always practice what they preach. But can anyone give me a good reason why sensibly limiting pollution is a bad thing?
Frazzled wrote: And in the earlier times the temperature was much hotter and the air much more humid. Yet titanic creautes roamed the lands, seas, and air then, the likes of which are fantastical.
Its like everyone believes the current environment haas already been like this. Its ALWAYS been in a state of flux. Adapt or die.
Yeah, everything should adapt or die! Unless it's a business that's putting out greenhouse gases, then we can't possibly require them to change their practices in any way because they are precious, sacred flowers that will wither and die if we dare require new environmental standards.
But everything else should totally adapt or die.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Humankind lived on a hotter earth than now... in two major periods. From memory, one was in 800 AD and the other was prior to the mini-Ice Age. I'll see if I can find it....
Which has massive economic repercussions.
I mean, think about it - think about where our farming land is, and the vast infrastructure we've built to service that infrastructure. Think about the road and rail networks, the silos, slaughterhouses and all the rest. Now think about how a change in rainfall patterns and local temperatures might mean that that land is no longer effective farming land, and think about all the infrastructure we'll have to build up to farm in some other place.
Think about the trillions that kind of infrastructure shift will cost. And then think about the cost of doing that constantly - chasing new weather patterns as we continue to emit ever more greenhouse gases. And then compare that to the costs of moving to low carbon emissions processes.
This is a dollars and cents issue, and it is simply much more cost efficient to reduce emissions than to adapt to a changed climate.
Umm, we do hold back the tides. Ever been to Holland?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/04/04 02:17:40
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Bullockist wrote: I do all this now and it does not help curb global warming. The carbon foot print is reduced by an such a small amount you may as well not do it.
Nothing matters so why do anything right?
feth carbon tax credits they're bunk, but literally all those things do help to reduce our emissions. I still cannot fathom how people can see things like the Pacific Garbage Patch and say "yeah, humans don't effect the environment".
The thing is, most Americans aren't doing those 3 things I mentioned. Even warming alarmists (people like Gore) don't always practice what they preach. But can anyone give me a good reason why sensibly limiting pollution is a bad thing?
No mate, I'm saying I do those things but most of them do not reduce carbon emissions. They are 'green' and they help reduce the use of resources but in regard to reducing emissions they do not help much at all. Negligible would be the word I use (except for reduced use of petrol/oil.).
I am actually more worried about the crap we put into river systems/oceans than I am about global warming.
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
Are we Americans, naturally inclined to question the veracity when someone proclaims their expertise on something? Or is that a normal human behavior?
It's normal human behaviour. Whether or not it is sensible depends on how we question them. If we, for instance, reject the expertise and statement of that scientist because some non-scientific activist told us 20 years ago some fanciful story about environmental doom... well then what we're doing is very stupid indeed. Similarly, if we reject the scientist because some other person is making all sorts of claims, and we can't be bothered figuring out which one is being sensible so we just pick the one who's argument sounds the most pleasing to us, then we are doing something very stupid.
But if we instead ask the scientist to explain his arguments in terms we will understand, and ask for evidence of predictions his theory made coming true, well then maybe we're on to something.
There hasn't been a lot of that last one going on, though, unfortunately.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: How, exactly? We can literally survive in space for as long as supplies hold out.
Use of the same technologies on a much more massive scale could ensure the supplies, as well.
Literally nothing has to be developed - just more infrastructure must be constructed.
We are actually at a place where at least one guy is happily chatting about building vast artificial grow labs to survive in a ravaged Earth as an alternative to just emitting less greenhouse gasses. Extraordinary.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/04 02:29:32
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Bullockist wrote: I do all this now and it does not help curb global warming. The carbon foot print is reduced by an such a small amount you may as well not do it.
Nothing matters so why do anything right?
feth carbon tax credits they're bunk, but literally all those things do help to reduce our emissions. I still cannot fathom how people can see things like the Pacific Garbage Patch and say "yeah, humans don't effect the environment".
The thing is, most Americans aren't doing those 3 things I mentioned. Even warming alarmists (people like Gore) don't always practice what they preach. But can anyone give me a good reason why sensibly limiting pollution is a bad thing?
I am actually more worried about the crap we put into river systems/oceans than I am about global warming.
I guess the problem for me is I see all those things as being connected. A person who casually throws a McDonald's wrapper out the car window is just as likely to not give 2 gaks our dwindling freshwater resources or global warming.
I'm not solidly sold on all the science, but ice is melting, seawater is rising, and we're getting worse instead of getting better as a species. But I got myself fixed last year so really why should I care about the future of others?
Hummers for all! And not even the good ones, only the gakky H2's that even rappers don't feature in videos anymore they suck so much.
Unit1126PLL wrote: How, exactly? We can literally survive in space for as long as supplies hold out.
Use of the same technologies on a much more massive scale could ensure the supplies, as well.
Literally nothing has to be developed - just more infrastructure must be constructed.
We are actually at a place where at least one guy is happily chatting about building vast artificial grow labs to survive in a ravaged Earth as an alternative to just emitting less greenhouse gasses. Extraordinary.
It is entertaining isn't it.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Da Boss wrote: You're pro letting a massive amount of the world's population die off and developing far more expensive and unsustainable methods to feed whoever is left using inefficient and potentially unreliable technological methods, when there are many other avenues to deal with the issue which aren't as expensive in terms of human life or resources.
Your idea is just really unworkable, and would involve mass deaths of the poorest and most vulnerable people.
It's just a terrible standpoint, whatever way I look at it.
Truth, although we may have different views of the world. I believe necessity causes innovation, and what better way to create necessity than global catastrophe?
I also consider many of the world's population ultimately expendable, myself included.
You seem to be saying that innovation is good, but we should not innovate in terms of sustainable power supplies, recycling techniques, and flood adaptation, we should wait for catastrophe as that will force us to innovate.
Unit1126PLL wrote: How, exactly? We can literally survive in space for as long as supplies hold out.
Use of the same technologies on a much more massive scale could ensure the supplies, as well.
Literally nothing has to be developed - just more infrastructure must be constructed.
We are actually at a place where at least one guy is happily chatting about building vast artificial grow labs to survive in a ravaged Earth as an alternative to just emitting less greenhouse gasses. Extraordinary.
It is entertaining isn't it.
It's fething amazing that someone is acting that idiotic.
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
I am actually more worried about the crap we put into river systems/oceans than I am about global warming.
Agreed.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Actually we can feed way more than 7 billion people. Its a complete myth that Earth cannot feed the current, or even future, population.
The problem is that the food isn't able to be distributed to everyone. The largest growth epicenters are not correlated with where there is arable land. That is the reason people are starving, they are outgrowing their local food production.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
I am actually more worried about the crap we put into river systems/oceans than I am about global warming.
Agreed.
Why? Just because the consequences are tangible or immediate?
Corrected your typo
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Do some research on their counterpart, they're all over the place on the 'net. Here's one: The NIPCC, a group that describes itself as:
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed – or not reviewed – by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the issue of global warming.
Looks like they've just released another report too... here's the conclusion:
Conclusion
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts
describes thousands of peer-reviewed scientific
journal articles that do not support, and often flatly
contradict, IPCC’s pessimistic narrative of “death,
injury, and disrupted livelihoods.” The impact of
rising temperatures and higher atmospheric CO2
levels in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries
has not been anything like what IPCC would have us
believe, and its forecasts differ wildly from those
sound science would suggest.
Why is this research and perspective missing
from IPCC’s reports? NIPCC has been publishing
volumes containing this research for five years—long
enough, one would think, for the authors of IPCC’s
reports to have taken notice, if only to disagree. But
the drafts of the Working Group II contribution to
IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report suggest otherwise.
Either IPCC’s authors purposely ignore this research
because it runs counter to their thesis that any human
impact on climate must be bad and therefore stopped
at any cost, or they are inept and have failed to
conduct a proper and full scientific investigation of
the pertinent literature. Either way, IPCC is
misleading the scientific community, policymakers,
and the general public. Because the stakes are high,
this is a grave disservice.
How CO2 enrichment has affected global food
production and biospheric productivity is a matter of
fact, not opinion. The evidence is overwhelming that
it has and will continue to help plants thrive, leading
to greater biodiversity, shrinking deserts, expanded
habitat for wildlife, and more food for a growing
human population. In sharp contrast to IPCC’s
pessimistic forecast of declining food production,
NIPCC’s authors say “a future warming of the climate
coupled with rising atmospheric CO2 levels will boost
global agricultural production and help meet the food
needs of the planet’s growing population.” They find
“the positive direct effects of CO2 on crop yields tend
to overcome any negative effects associated with
changed weather conditions.”
Journalists, policymakers, and the interested
public should demand to know why IPCC either hides
or is silent about these truths.
They've included a feth ton of references and peer-reviewed articles in these reports if you want to take the next step and review it.
The point being, there are many legitimate scientific critics of the IPCC that should provide at least a red-flag for you... and maybe, not just take the UN/Government's study as gospel.
All this says to me, really, is that we really don't KNOW how climate works and what is, if any, the human impact. That doesn't mean we should stop researching this, nor does it mean we shouldn't advocate for alternative/clean energy sources... but, it does mean that we should be very wary of any bureaucrats asking for money in the name of "Climate Change™".
Your point about legitimate critics is well-taken. But just as you question the motives of the IPCC, the NIPCC isn't exactly unimpeachable. The suggestion to "do some research" readily reveals the NIPCC to be the brainchild of Fred Singer, of "second-hand smoke is harmless" fame, and paid consultant for a number of large oil companies.
Kabal of the Slit Throat ~2000pts
Elect of the Plaguefather 4500pts
Do some research on their counterpart, they're all over the place on the 'net. Here's one: The NIPCC, a group that describes itself as:
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed – or not reviewed – by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the issue of global warming.
Looks like they've just released another report too... here's the conclusion:
Conclusion
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts
describes thousands of peer-reviewed scientific
journal articles that do not support, and often flatly
contradict, IPCC’s pessimistic narrative of “death,
injury, and disrupted livelihoods.” The impact of
rising temperatures and higher atmospheric CO2
levels in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries
has not been anything like what IPCC would have us
believe, and its forecasts differ wildly from those
sound science would suggest.
Why is this research and perspective missing
from IPCC’s reports? NIPCC has been publishing
volumes containing this research for five years—long
enough, one would think, for the authors of IPCC’s
reports to have taken notice, if only to disagree. But
the drafts of the Working Group II contribution to
IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report suggest otherwise.
Either IPCC’s authors purposely ignore this research
because it runs counter to their thesis that any human
impact on climate must be bad and therefore stopped
at any cost, or they are inept and have failed to
conduct a proper and full scientific investigation of
the pertinent literature. Either way, IPCC is
misleading the scientific community, policymakers,
and the general public. Because the stakes are high,
this is a grave disservice.
How CO2 enrichment has affected global food
production and biospheric productivity is a matter of
fact, not opinion. The evidence is overwhelming that
it has and will continue to help plants thrive, leading
to greater biodiversity, shrinking deserts, expanded
habitat for wildlife, and more food for a growing
human population. In sharp contrast to IPCC’s
pessimistic forecast of declining food production,
NIPCC’s authors say “a future warming of the climate
coupled with rising atmospheric CO2 levels will boost
global agricultural production and help meet the food
needs of the planet’s growing population.” They find
“the positive direct effects of CO2 on crop yields tend
to overcome any negative effects associated with
changed weather conditions.”
Journalists, policymakers, and the interested
public should demand to know why IPCC either hides
or is silent about these truths.
They've included a feth ton of references and peer-reviewed articles in these reports if you want to take the next step and review it.
The point being, there are many legitimate scientific critics of the IPCC that should provide at least a red-flag for you... and maybe, not just take the UN/Government's study as gospel.
All this says to me, really, is that we really don't KNOW how climate works and what is, if any, the human impact. That doesn't mean we should stop researching this, nor does it mean we shouldn't advocate for alternative/clean energy sources... but, it does mean that we should be very wary of any bureaucrats asking for money in the name of "Climate Change™".
Your point about legitimate critics is well-taken. But just as you question the motives of the IPCC, the NIPCC isn't exactly unimpeachable. The suggestion to "do some research" readily reveals the NIPCC to be the brainchild of Fred Singer, of "second-hand smoke is harmless" fame, and paid consultant for a number of large oil companies.
Of course... always question everything!
Also... I think they haven't accepted any contributions from oil companies for quite some time.
I am actually more worried about the crap we put into river systems/oceans than I am about global warming.
Agreed.
Why? Just because the consequences are tangible or immediate?
Corrected your typo
It wasn't wrong at all. We can see the affects of climate change, be in natural or man-made.
Just because you say it doesn make it true...
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Again, "taking their word for it" doesn't amount to compelling evidence.
Yup... google-fu is your friend.
All of this is easier if you'd simply have a mindset that everyone has an agenda. Temper your reviews from multiple sources with that... and then come to your own conclusions.
Kabal of the Slit Throat ~2000pts
Elect of the Plaguefather 4500pts
