Climate Change discussion split from "2050"

[ProxyAmenRa]

Why do you think there will be environment destruction in the first place?

 

[Duxwing]

Re: 2050

Why do you think there will be environment destruction in the first place?

Pollution? Overfishing? Overgrazing? Global warming, whatever its cause?

-Duxwing

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Re: 2050

Pollution? Overfishing? Overgrazing? Global warming, whatever its cause?

-Duxwing

What pollution? The polluted countries are generally third world ones.

Overfishing? If it exists, it can be solved by limited property rights over regions of the ocean.

Overgrazing? Can be solved by property rights.

Anthropogenic caused global warming is utterly bullshit.

 

[redbaron]

Re: 2050

Anthropogenic caused global warming is utterly bullshit.

Oh my...

'Global warming' is only the tip of the iceberg. One of the biggest problems arising out of anthropogenic causes is the elimination of biodiversity. And if you don't think preserving biodiversity is important, you don't understand it.

 

[Analyzer]

Re: 2050

Anthropogenic caused global warming is utterly bullshit.

Yeah its one of most bullshit marketing schemes ever.

 

[Analyzer]

Re: 2050

Oh my...

'Global warming' is only the tip of the iceberg. One of the biggest problems arising out of anthropogenic causes is the elimination of biodiversity. And if you don't think preserving biodiversity is important, you don't understand it.

I agree but not related to the earth warming due to C02 levels.

 

[redbaron]

Re: 2050

Yeah its one of most bullshit marketing schemes ever.

Where does the basis of this come from?

I read a book by geologist Ian Plimer a couple of years ago, and it was all quite well constructed, however it became clear that he had selectively picked out things that support scepticism of global warming. I sort of suspect that this trend would continue among sceptics, however I'm willing to change my mind if my suspicions turn out to be wrong.

I won't deny that global warming has quite literally been marketed by various groups and that there's a lot of misunderstanding and bullshit perpetuated by activists surrounding the issue because they take scientific research out of context, and use it to leverage their own ideals.

This is what I suspect you're referring to as bullshit marketing, and I'd agree. However this isn't really a criticism of research science as much as it's a criticism of disingenuous people.

 

[Hadoblado]

Re: 2050

Climate change probably deserves its own thread. While on topic, it's similar to the theology debacle in that it will kill any new direction for the thread it is being debated in. I'm still very interested to hear everyone's thoughts on it. My opinion on it mirrors RB's.

 

[Absurdity]

Re: 2050

Climate change probably deserves its own thread.

Done.

 

[Hadoblado]

Wow that was quick! Thanks bud!

 

[Duxwing]

Re: 2050

What pollution? The polluted countries are generally third world ones.

The pollution spreads, and their being third world how makes anything better?

Overfishing? If it exists, it can be solved by limited property rights over regions of the ocean.

It exists, and what if the owners disregard environmental damage? Think of later generations, for whom even towering tort sums will not revive extinct species or ruined ecosystems. And what of millionaires who buy up irregular tracts, and so on?

Overgrazing? Can be solved by property rights.

Overgrazing usually occurs on privately owned land; again consider future generations and ecological impact.

Anthropogenic caused global warming is utterly bullshit.

Whatever the cause, the earth is warming. If we cause it, then we must cease it; if we are not the cause, then we must adapt.

-Duxwing

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Re: 2050

The pollution spreads, and their being third world how makes anything better?

Start an NGO and fix the problem.

It exists, and what if the owners disregard environmental damage? Think of later generations, for whom even towering tort sums will not revive extinct species or ruined ecosystems. And what of millionaires who buy up irregular tracts, and so on?

Overgrazing usually occurs on privately owned land; again consider future generations and ecological impact.

Purchase the rights when they fail, rehabilitate and profit. Many people and companies already do this. Back in my environmental engineering days, I did some very minor consultation on a few projects.

If they're any entrepreneurs out there, a company devoted to soil and erosion rehabilitation could make a pretty penny.

Whatever the cause, the earth is warming. If we cause it, then we must cease it; if we are not the cause, then we must adapt.

Why do you implicitly posit that warming is bad?

 

[Thurlor]

I'm rather undecided when it comes to climate change. I acknowledge the climate is changing/warming but am unsure if we are the cause or if we should even try to reverse the changes.

Some of my considerations;

- Humans are a natural product of their environment and everything they do is therefore natural (houses = bird nests, termite mounds, etc). Humans altering their environment is the equivalent of organisms altering a planet's atmosphere to a reducing one. It probably has less of an impact actually. Is the case of humans 'bad' because we are thinking beings?

- If the cause is not related to the activities of humans why should this change any imperatives to fix issues? Will species still not go extinct?

- More species have become extinct throughout history than are alive today. Should we be trying to bring them back?

- I remember reading somewhere that the Earth is headed for another Ice Age relatively soon. If this is so should we allow this to happen or attempt to warm the Earth to offset any cooling?


Personally I envision a future where humans have left the Earth (to repair on it's own or with help) and have colonized the lifeless worlds out in space. Much further in the future with access to near limitless real-estate (Dyson Spheres/Swarms) I believe we may decide to revive all species to have ever existed, maybe even all sentient individuals (anastasis?)

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Oh my my my...

What pollution? The polluted countries are generally third world ones.

Not so. Industrialization produces pollution (not all pollution, lest some dimwit go that direction). Pretty widely accepted. Pollution is ubiquitous, it just occurs in different forms that aren't always recognized as such. The polluted areas are those with nonexistent or lax regulations regarding pollution control.

Overfishing? If it exists, it can be solved by limited property rights over regions of the ocean.

If it exists.
Unfortunately biota don't recognize arbitrary political boundaries.

Overgrazing? Can be solved by property rights.

Livestock don't recognize arbitrary boundaries either.
We've already been there and done that.

if you don't think preserving biodiversity is important, you don't understand it.

This can easily be extended to pollution, nutrient cycling, overfishing et al... Goddamn.

Advocates of privatizing the commons do not understand population dynamics or biogeography. They don't want to.

Start an NGO and fix the problem.

How about... stop actively creating the problem? Do you even Precautionary Principle bro?

Humans are a natural product of their environment and everything they do is therefore natural (houses = bird nests, termite mounds, etc).

Will species still not go extinct?

Personally I envision a future where humans have left the Earth

Extinction is also natural. In fact, I recommend it. At least then we're not putting faith of our continued existence in technologies that don't exist.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Do you even Precautionary Principle bro?

Why the hell would I do that?

And as for the use of property rights to ensure proper resource management, it does work.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Why the hell would I do that?

And as for the use of property rights to ensure proper resource management, it does work.

The home ranges of most species (insects included) extend beyond the sizes of most private parcels, or even most clusters of private parcels. Inconsistent management and/or utilization across parcels make much larger areas unsuitable.

If it works, then prove it. This is the science and technology subforum. Where's your evidence?

There's a lot more evidence that it doesn't work.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Once again, why should I use the precautionary principle?

I must state that I do not value the environment itself. Ergo, arguments highlighting the extinction of species are utterly meaningless to me.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Once again, why should I use the precautionary principle?

I must state that I do not value the environment itself. Ergo, arguments highlighting the extinction of species are utterly meaningless to me.

Uncertainty kills.

And good luck living in isolation from it.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Uncertainty kills.

And good luck living in isolation from it.

My work life is statistics, probability and uncertainty. I have published journal papers in the area. Now, you didn't answer the question. Once again, why should I use the precautionary principle?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

My work life is statistics, probability and uncertainty. I have published journal papers in the area. Now, you didn't answer the question. Once again, why should I use the precautionary principle?

I did answer it, you just don't know how to apply it. Uncertainty kills.

Come on now, don't disappoint. Drown me in literature under the guise of you making an argument and declare victory until I've refuted 8000 pages of ideological b.s. I'm waiting.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I did answer it, you just don't know how to apply it. Uncertainty kills.

No! You have not answered the 'why'. Why should I follow or use the precautionary principle?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

No! You have not answered the 'why'. Why should I follow or use the precautionary principle?

Because not doing so has incomprehensible systemic effects that differ from the security offered in the world as it exists in the present or that which did exist in the past. Effects you refuse to acknowledge or explore.

Better yet, or shall I rephrase in 7962 more words?

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Because not doing so has incomprehensible systemic effects that differ from the security offered in the world as it exists in the present or that which did exist in the past. Effects you refuse to acknowledge or explore.

Better yet, or shall I rephrase in 7962 more words?

In many circumstances the risk and uncertainty is unknown. There are even unknown unknowns. This is not a sufficient reason in and of itself not to do something.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

In many circumstances the risk and uncertainty is unknown. There are even unknown unknowns. This is not a sufficient reason in and of itself not to do something.

When an action negatively impacts the knowns and fills the void with unknowns, that action is undesirable. Thus, for a very basic example, renewable energy sources should be preferred over nonrenewable energy sources because they will not last forever. The same goes with pre-emptively banning the production of CFCs via the Montreal Protocol even if we don't know the ultimate fate of the chain of chemical reactions; or protecting declining populations of species from tangible threats because the trophic effects of their extinction are unknown.

If you were aware of the systemic implications of your position you'd realize and understand that your position constitutes aggression, although indirect, convoluted, and ego-sustaining.

 

[redbaron]

This can easily be extended to pollution, nutrient cycling, overfishing et al... Goddamn.

I know, I just didnt want to have to justify dozens of different claims if I was challenged. Each one is in itself an entire topic of discussion.

I guess I just have to stand by what I said, which is that anyone who doesn't think they are of great importance simply doesn't understand them. Or perhaps more pessimistically, is wilfully closed off to them.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I know, I just didnt want to have to justify dozens of different claims if I was challenged. Each one is in itself an entire topic of discussion.

I guess I just have to stand by what I said, which is that anyone who doesn't think they are of great importance simply doesn't understand them. Or perhaps more pessimistically, is wilfully closed off to them.

I know. I just do what I do because.... Proxy.

 

[Cognisant]

A warmer climate is a more active climate, more violent weather, higher seas, this is detrimental to existing infrastructure but infrastructure can be adapted, people will move, places that were arctic tundra will become farmland, places that were dangerously hot before will become lethally so, life will go on, differently.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

When an action negatively impacts the knowns and fills the void with unknowns, that action is undesirable.

Wait a second, I thought we were discussing the precautionary principle. It usage is applied to situations whereby there is a unknown probability that a unknown risk of an unknown significance will occur. This means that you do not know whether or not an action will negatively impact knowns. Apart from this, what we are left with is simply you equivocation unknowns as undesirable. All of this, of course, is not sufficient reason to not engage in an action.

By the way, you shouldn't tread into the subject of economics. It is not your strong point.

I know, I just didnt want to have to justify dozens of different claims if I was challenged. Each one is in itself an entire topic of discussion.

I have had the debates a thousand times over. You're free to read them. All of the arguments, justifications, theory, evidence, etc. are contained within them.

I guess I just have to stand by what I said, which is that anyone who doesn't think they are of great importance simply doesn't understand them. Or perhaps more pessimistically, is wilfully closed off to them.

Are you promoting religion of some sort? The other day this dude said I closed my heart to Jesus and don't know him in my life... What you said is eerily similar.

 

[redbaron]

Are you promoting religion of some sort? The other day this dude said I closed my heart to Jesus and don't know him in my life... What you said is eerily similar.

What else can I say when I don't really want to debate the issue?

I don't care to enlighten you as to the importance of maintaining biodiversity (among other things). There's really only three possibilities (maybe a combination of) here, which are:

- you don't yet understand its importance
- you don't want to understand its importance
- you understand its importance, but simply don't care

I'm suspecting it's the third one, and that your issue has less to do with the fact that you don't understand or don't want to - you're simply comfortable with the environment you live in, and that these issues will not really affect you directly in any significant way, and so you just don't give a shit. Example:

I must state that I do not value the environment itself. Ergo, arguments highlighting the extinction of species are utterly meaningless to me.

Which is why I'm not really interested in the discussion, because it's not a question of science or truth - it's now a question of morals, and debating morals is not something I've ever been interested in.

I mean, I could go ahead and explain that the extinction of certain species that affects biodiversity has an impact that extends well beyond the immediate environment they inhabit, and is going to invariably affect something you do value, but what's the point? I don't think you really give a shit, so long as you get to have a relatively comfortable life you're not going to really care.

 

[Hawkeye]

In many circumstances the risk and uncertainty is unknown. There are even unknown unknowns. This is not a sufficient reason in and of itself not to do something.

The thing is, we know that "shit" is going down. Imagine what would have happened if we didn't severely decrease the use of CFCs...

3rd world mainly responsible for pollution... lol whatever.

The amount of ignorance you show on topics such as pollution, over-fishing, over-population, etc... does provide an amusing read however.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9YOVuEQugE

 

[Polaris]

A warmer climate is a more active climate, more violent weather, higher seas, this is detrimental to existing infrastructure but infrastructure can be adapted, people will move, places that were arctic tundra will become farmland, places that were dangerously hot before will become lethally so, life will go on, differently.

Ahum....

Leaving the question of anthropogenic causes out of it, there are other greenhouse gases more potent than CO2 that may be released as result of CO2-induced warming. Now, the issue of Arctic Tundra. Arctic tundra is a nursery for the greenhouse gas methane CH4, which is 25 times more powerful that CO2. Now, take a look at the sheer size of areas currently classified as Arctic Tundra, and then contemplate the potential effect of all that methane released into the atmosphere....I doubt there will be much farming going on....or perhaps we will be farming dates

Very interesting videos below. It is just a matter of polishing up simple chemistry and microbiology in order to understand the interactions explained.

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN4OdKPy9rM&list=PLF48ACB853C81076A&index=2

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVpQnpWS2wU&list=PLF48ACB853C81076A&index=14

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHqKxWvcBdg&list=PLF48ACB853C81076A

Perhaps Proxy and his fellow engineers could invent a low-impact scheme for harnessing the methane for future energy consumption? Plenty of potential there.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Perhaps Proxy and his fellow engineers could invent a low-impact scheme for harnessing the methane for future energy consumption? Plenty of potential there.

A tad bit out of my field of expertise. I would refer to Architect. He is really smart.

 

[Absurdity]

I'm planning on being the Muad'dib of our future desert planet.

Better start working on my stillsuit...

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

What else can I say when I don't really want to debate the issue?

I don't care to enlighten you as to the importance of maintaining biodiversity (among other things). There's really only three possibilities (maybe a combination of) here, which are:

- you don't yet understand its importance
- you don't want to understand its importance
- you understand its importance, but simply don't care

I'm suspecting it's the third one, and that your issue has less to do with the fact that you don't understand or don't want to - you're simply comfortable with the environment you live in, and that these issues will not really affect you directly in any significant way, and so you just don't give a shit. Example:

Which is why I'm not really interested in the discussion, because it's not a question of science or truth - it's now a question of morals, and debating morals is not something I've ever been interested in.

I mean, I could go ahead and explain that the extinction of certain species that affects biodiversity has an impact that extends well beyond the immediate environment they inhabit, and is going to invariably affect something you do value, but what's the point? I don't think you really give a shit, so long as you get to have a relatively comfortable life you're not going to really care.

My Bachelors in Engineer with honors was civil engineering with an environmental major. Essentially a combination of civil engineering, chemical engineering and environmental science. Yes, I have studied biology, ecology, microbiology, soil, the nonsensical subject called 'sustainability', etc. I am quite a learned individual. I must state this is not the field of my employment.

I know that we have been told our whole lives that the environment is something to be valued in itself. That it should be perceived as a deity, mother earth. You wouldn't want to treat your mother poorly now, would you? I think what struck a nerve is that I simply don't hold the "environment" as something to be valued for its own sake. It must raise the ire of certain individuals. "How could this person not value the same things I value?"

The honorable and very astute Duxwing highlighted some environmental problems which are in fact resource management problems. Sound economic theory and practice show us that clearly defined property rights create an environment whereby resources are generally managed properly. This is generally something you don't learn school.

If people are overly concerned about biodiversity or what not, they do something about. Say by up some land and create a nature reserve. Greenpeace generates a billion dollars in revenue each year, I am sure they will be able to engage in this sort of philanthropy.

The thing is, we know that "shit" is going down. Imagine what would have happened if we didn't severely decrease the use of CFCs...

3rd world mainly responsible for pollution... lol whatever.

The amount of ignorance you show on topics such as pollution, over-fishing, over-population, etc... does provide an amusing read however.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9YOVuEQugE

More affluent countries have better waste management. Waste is simply not dumped. There is an abundance of wastewater treatment plants, solid waste collection and processing, hazardous waste treatment, etc. All good things. If you study the same engineering degree as I you will learn how to design and build most of these things. Another phenomena of affluent countries is that for projects of certain sizes are required to conduct environment assessments and produce environmental impact statements. This process generally involves the identification of hazards to the environment and society and the mitigation, avoidance or compensation measures which are to be employed. These are absent in thirdworld countries.

 

[Hawkeye]

More affluent countries have better waste management. Waste is simply not dumped. There is an abundance of wastewater treatment plants, solid waste collection and processing, hazardous waste treatment, etc. All good things. If you study the same engineering degree as I you will learn how to design and build most of these things. Another phenomena of affluent countries is that for projects of certain sizes are required to conduct environment assessments and produce environmental impact statements. This process generally involves the identification of hazards to the environment and society and the mitigation, avoidance or compensation measures which are to be employed. These are absent in thirdworld countries.

There is a difference between most polluting and most polluted; one accounts for global environmental damage the other does not, with former being a bigger issue.

You will find the top global environmental damaging, i.e., most polluting countries are not 3rd world countries.

 

[Valentas]

Fuck Climate Change theories, it is utter nonsense. People spew out 3.5% of total CO2 each year and they are trying to push the carbon tax? Tax fuckin' whatever spews out 96.5% and not people...every single winter down in my country is more and more cold. We had a record last year -40 below zero, first time in 50 years. Great Britain is forecasted to receive tons of snow, it is unseen for decades and all this climate change propaganda(we are the most guilty) is another tool to tax the hell out of people because we are a burden for the elite psychopaths who consider us just like in Matrix Agent: "you humanity are a disease.." while they are the fuckers who loot economy after economy and leave everything in ruins. They are the idiots who are interefering with Tesla Motors company's efforts to roll out electric cars out there for the public and cut down on the oil. And they are doing DAMN good job at brainwashing people. All schools teach that we are the cause of warming climate. Teachers are clueless programmed idiots who cannot research people who ridiculed mainstream views on global warming for twenty years already....geologist shown proof in rocks that there were 2000 ppm of CO2 20k years ago and there were no plants or advanced tech there...and lo and behold, planet survive and it does not give a damn about idiots walking up there.

For every rule you consider a norm, please, go on the Internet and search for the complete opposite evidence and don't be surprised to find proof that this idea was also fed to you as truth..."if you repeat a lie enough times, it will become a truth". The issue is not lies, it is an issue of individual who would better watch TV than find out whether "what if?" in one's conciousness actually might be truth...

Also this video is quite informative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOyBfihjQvI

 

[Thurlor]

@ ProxyAmenRa

I'm sorry, but not placing any value in the environment is sort of like shitting in your nest and not caring about biodiversity is sort of like wanting to live in a beige world.

 

[redbaron]

Stuff

Like I said I'm not willing to go into a moral discussion. If someone doesn't want to find the truth, and is going to selectively pick out reasons to not care about the environment on the basis of that subjective desire to be indifferent there's really not much I can do.

I disagree with this viewpoint not because I disagree morally - but because you use this viewpoint to selectively interpret things in such a way that allows you to continue on living in ignorance of reality.

 

[Grayman]

@ ProxyAmenRa

I'm sorry, but not placing any value in the environment is sort of like shitting in your nest.

I do that all the time but I have pipes in my nest that send it all out to someone elses nest.

 

[Etheri]

I'd say I mostly agree with cog and thurlor. I acknowledge climate change, and I'm not saying it's really a good idea... But the earth has been much warmer before, and it didn't have anything to do with us. Plants grow better with more CO2 and a warmer climate . Insects and reptiles get bigger, ...

Life will go on. People will die, species will die out, but that's nothing new. It's been going on since way before we got here. In fact, this process is the very reason we got here.

I also still think that all these environment problems is because we're too many. 7 billion huge omnivores, and people are concerned about 'the ecosystem'. Think about it globally and add us to it, it seems pretty out of proportion.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

There is a difference between most polluting and most polluted; one accounts for global environmental damage the other does not, with former being a bigger issue.

You will find the top global environmental damaging, i.e., most polluting countries are not 3rd world countries.

I tried to look up some rankings of which countries pollute the most but I ran into a problem. The rankings which I found classify greenhouse gas emissions as pollution. This biases the rankings. Anyhow, I hope you do know that affluent countries have waste management systems that process, treat, stabilize and store waste. Third world countries don't really have these sorts of things. It is kind of the reason why there are regular dysentery and cholera outbreaks. Children dying of diarrhea induced dehydration. An absolute fucking travesty and you harping on about what countries pollute more. Do you not care for people? Do you not have a soul?

Like I said I'm not willing to go into a moral discussion. If someone doesn't want to find the truth, and is going to selectively pick out reasons to not care about the environment on the basis of that subjective desire to be indifferent there's really not much I can do.

I disagree with this viewpoint not because I disagree morally - but because you use this viewpoint to selectively interpret things in such a way that allows you to continue on living in ignorance of reality.

Please do relieve me of my ignorance. Enlighten me. Shine god's light into my heart and compel me to sing 'Amazing Grace'.

There is something that I find interesting about some people which includes you. If someone is of a different mind to them, they must be ignorant. A display of hubris and egotism...

 

[Hawkeye]

I tried to look up some rankings of which countries pollute the most but I ran into a problem. The rankings which I found classify greenhouse gas emissions as pollution. This biases the rankings. Anyhow, I hope you do know that affluent countries have waste management systems that process, treat, stabilize and store waste. Third world countries don't really have these sorts of things. It is kind of the reason why there are regular dysentery and cholera outbreaks. Children dying of diarrhea induced dehydration. An absolute fucking travesty and you harping on about what countries pollute more. Do you not care for people? Do you not have a soul?

I am fully aware of the lack of waste management in third world countries, but they also don't have the luxuries more developed countries have; these luxuries create pollution regardless of any laws attempting to limit the amount.

An example off the top of my head would be the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. That wasn't created by third world countries.

By the way, the topic was about environmental destruction, not the mortality rate of third world countries.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I am fully aware of the lack of waste management in third world countries, but they also don't have the luxuries more developed countries have; these luxuries create pollution regardless of any laws attempting to limit the amount.

I have this strange feeling that you consider anything and everything as pollution.

 

[redbaron]

A display of hubris and egotism...

*drowns in irony*

 

[Hawkeye]

I have this strange feeling that you consider anything and everything as pollution.

No I don't. Pollution is an unwanted byproduct or substance that causes damage to either health or the environment.

 

[The Introvert]

I've seen some people throwing around CO2 as the primary cause for climate change.

In fact, the gas that plays the largest role in climate change? Water vapor.
http://knowledge.allianz.com/?626/global-warming-what-role-does-water-vapor-really-play

The system builds on itself. We're already fucked. Anyone who denies climate change is either a bumbling idiot or lying to themselves (probably both). Those who claim the process has not been sped up by humans is either a bumbling idiot or lying to themselves.

However, I think an argument could be made that:

a) It would cycle anyway (so long as danger involved is understood)
b) Why should I care if the world gets screwed up and everything dies

Can't really argue with people's morals.

However, Proxy, I think you should care. You live in Australia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming_on_Australia

It's estimated to even decimate your precious economy

 

[Grayman]

I've seen some people throwing around CO2 as the primary cause for climate change.

In fact, the gas that plays the largest role in climate change? Water vapor.
http://knowledge.allianz.com/?626/global-warming-what-role-does-water-vapor-really-playhttp://

Water also plays a large part in cooling. It absorbs the heat when it evaporates and then disperses the heat when it solidifies into rain. It also helps in the formation of clouds.

 

[Absurdity]

IMO the whole project of trying to convert the denialist heathens is a waste of time although it will continue, since contemporary liberalism is a secular descendent of Puritanism and as a result, evangelizing is in its nature. I agree with Introvert that if we aren't fucked already, we will be soon. Civilizations have run themselves into the ground before without realizing it until it's too late. It is arrogant for us to presume that it will somehow be different for us.

The smart money should be banking on adaptation and exploitation of changing circumstances. Once I have the requisite capital, I'll be investing in premium beachfront condos in Deadhorse, AK.

 

[Hawkeye]

I've seen some people throwing around CO2 as the primary cause for climate change.

In fact, the gas that plays the largest role in climate change? Water vapor.
http://knowledge.allianz.com/?626/global-warming-what-role-does-water-vapor-really-play

The system builds on itself. We're already fucked. Anyone who denies climate change is either a bumbling idiot or lying to themselves (probably both). Those who claim the process has not been sped up by humans is either a bumbling idiot or lying to themselves.

Without the increased level of CO2, the water vapour contributes little to global warming.

It is merely an amplifier, but what use is an amplifier if it has nothing to amplify? For this reason CO2 plays a larger role in climate change than water vapour.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

No I don't. Pollution is an unwanted byproduct or substance that causes damage to either health or the environment.

Yes, and you view everything and anything as pollution.

*drowns in irony*

You're one of those people. People of a different mind than you are simply ignorant in your mind.

However, Proxy, I think you should care. You live in Australia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming_on_Australia

It's estimated to even decimate your precious economy

I have a bachelors of engineering (Hons.) with first class honors. I have published papers on modelling in peer reviewed journals. I do have the faculties to read other researchers' work and formulate my own judgements. ^_^