Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Orange

Is climate change real, and human caused?

Is climate change real, and substantially human caused?  

25 members have voted

  1. 1. Is climate change real, and substantially human caused?

    • Yes
      18
    • No
      7


Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said:

I think this is such a dumb question. It’s like arguing over who started a fire instead of figuring out how to put it out.

I agree.  Most folks care more that you blindly believe vs what you do.  Like I said, I’ve done more to reduce my CO2 footprint than the vast majority of believers but they still get angry that I don’t just accept their religion.  It’s perplexing.

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said:

I think this is such a dumb question. It’s like arguing over who started a fire instead of figuring out how to put it out.

Do I believe that there is some chance that it isn't human caused,  of course.   But we have to make decisions based on what we know right now.   We don't just get to "wish away" data that doesn't support our ideology.   Furthermore what is the tradeoff if it isn't human caused?   Cleaner air and me fuel efficient cars?  Of course change can bring disruption but nobody is trying to bring back blacksmiths and CRT TVs.  People should view this as an opportunity instead of bitching Obama won't let them buy old fashioned lightbulbs.

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

I agree.  Most folks care more that you blindly believe vs what you do.  Like I said, I’ve done more to reduce my CO2 footprint than the vast majority of believers but they still get angry that I don’t just accept their religion.  It’s perplexing.

You can believe whatever wacky shit you want if you are doing your part,  I suppose! 

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said:

I think this is such a dumb question. It’s like arguing over who started a fire instead of figuring out how to put it out.

That was the point i tried to make in several posts above.   Human caused or not it would be nice to moderate climate if we can do it economically.

Since we can't model climate effectively yet, we have no idea what the cost is of fixing it.    Or even if we can.

 

 Also the negative effects of climate change are constantly pointed to in the media.  They never mention the positive effects like longer growing seasons in many area's of the country including the midwest.   The new crops that will be able to be grown or the larger harvests of old crops that farmers will harvest.  

If we have to go back into the stone age to save Florida I say let them swim.   I like electricity and cars and my heated house.   If we can manage a standard of living and fix it without destroying our economy or mitigate it somehow economically then we need to do those things.

We just don't have the knowledge at this point to even form a plan though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

That was the point i tried to make in several posts above.   Human caused or not it would be nice to moderate climate if we can do it economically.

Since we can't model climate effectively yet, we have no idea what the cost is of fixing it.    Or even if we can.

 

 Also the negative effects of climate change are constantly pointed to in the media.  They never mention the positive effects like longer growing seasons in many area's of the country including the midwest.   The new crops that will be able to be grown or the larger harvests of old crops that farmers will harvest.  

If we have to go back into the stone age to save Florida I say let them swim.   I like electricity and cars and my heated house.   If we can manage a standard of living and fix it without destroying our economy or mitigate it somehow economically then we need to do those things.

We just don't have the knowledge at this point to even form a plan though.

Plus half the world population doesn’t give a shit and will continue to pollute no matter what we do. We even have the human caused climate change believers on this board that want no part of nuclear power which would significantly reduce carbon emissions and which could be safely implemented in the short term. 

They want rather cover the earth with wind spinners and solar power panels which are space eaters and highly inefficient. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

Plus half the world population doesn’t give a shit and will continue to pollute no matter what we do. 

This is why I think we are doomed.  China and India will have 3 billion just between the two of them in ten years. And they have smartphones and want 1st world lifestyles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bsu_alum9 said:

This is why I think we are doomed.  China and India will have 3 billion just between the two of them in ten years. And they have smartphones and want 1st world lifestyles.

This. If anyone wants to see a polluted shithole, visit China or India. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BSUTOP25 said:

This. If anyone wants to see a polluted shithole, visit China or India. 

India is hands down the filthiest, most overcrowded shithole I've ever visited. Sri Lanka was close. But India was like the granddaddy of them all in that regard. I've never been to China but I imagine there's a lot of similarities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Joe from WY said:

India is hands down the filthiest, most overcrowded shithole I've ever visited. Sri Lanka was close. But India was like the granddaddy of them all in that regard. I've never been to China but I imagine there's a lot of similarities. 

In terms of trash and garbage I didn’t think China was nearly as bad as India.  Now pollution and air quality?  That’s a different story.  It’s a major major problem.  Beijing was beyond terrible.  I can’t imagine it’s not a major health issue.

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Akkula said:

Do I believe that there is some chance that it isn't human caused,  of course.   But we have to make decisions based on what we know right now.   We don't just get to "wish away" data that doesn't support our ideology.   Furthermore what is the tradeoff if it isn't human caused?   Cleaner air and me fuel efficient cars?  Of course change can bring disruption but nobody is trying to bring back blacksmiths and CRT TVs.  People should view this as an opportunity instead of bitching Obama won't let them buy old fashioned lightbulbs.

 In the future when we find out climate change isn't real, we are gonna feel really dumb having all this clean air and water for nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Joe from WY said:

India is hands down the filthiest, most overcrowded shithole I've ever visited. Sri Lanka was close. But India was like the granddaddy of them all in that regard. I've never been to China but I imagine there's a lot of similarities. 

A friend of mine spent a couple weeks in China when we were at SJSU, and he said it was pretty nice, other then being crowded as hell. Although he was traveling with the Warriors, so I imagine they weren’t exactly slumming it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, CV147 said:

I think it's real and most likely human exacerbated. I just don't buy the doomsday hysteria.

I am certain the private sector will develop energy sources that are cheaper than fossil fuels, as well as solutions to deal with the consequences of warming. I am also certain that carbon credits are a money grab that will enrich the wrong people, while making everything more expensive for the rest of us.

I think there's certainly a chance of that happening, but shouldn't the government step in to incentivize green energy sooner rather than later?  Miami Beach has been pumping out more and more seawater every day.  Tokyo is investing millions to try and shore up its sea wall.  Usually when you follow the money, you find the truth, and most places -- including Trump's golf course in Scotland, which is spending a TON of money to fight sea rise -- are spending money to fight an obvious crisis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Nevada Convert said:

The climate is always changing, so that's an obvious answer to that. But how much it's changing, and how much of it is caused by humans are the two big questions. I certainly think man is responsible for some of it, but I'm not one of the crazy left wingers that think we have a WWII kind of crisis. 

The hardcore climate changers have to realize that scientists still don't know enough about the environment for them to be making such bold statements. Especially since their predictions are always wrong.

The climate expert at CAL that predicted back in 2009 that in the next year, storm patterns would permanently leave the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range in CA/NV with very little moisture and turn them from forests into mountain deserts.

Well, Mammoth Mountain Ski Area just closed yesterday for the season with over 68' ft of snow on the upper half of the mountain, being the 3rd biggest season ever. They were expecting to stay open into August, but the day time times have been getting to high. There's still plenty enough snow to ski, but it's just too wet to slide on very well. I think they still have a 6' to 8' base at the top. 

Indeed, they're usually understating the crisis in their models.

https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2018/09/06/History-suggests-impacts-of-global-warming-are-being-underestimated/9871536238447/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/09/tipping-points-could-exacerbate-climate-crisis-scientists-fear

https://www.uni-bonn.de/Press-releases/climate-change-ocean-warming-underestimated

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, SalinasSpartan said:

I think this is such a dumb question. It’s like arguing over who started a fire instead of figuring out how to put it out.

Anyone investigating a fire will tell you that you have to determine how it started in order to prevent other fires.  This is a dumb statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, bsu_alum9 said:

This is why I think we are doomed.  China and India will have 3 billion just between the two of them in ten years. And they have smartphones and want 1st world lifestyles.

China is the world leader in spending on green energy.  We're still the #1 per capita polluter.  This is a boring, in accurate talking point.   We can cede the lead on future energy technology to China, or we can take the lead.  I suppose if you want us to take a backseat on the world stage let's just keep pretending we need more drilling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Orange said:

Anyone investigating a fire will tell you that you have to determine how it started in order to prevent other fires.  This is a dumb statement.

It’s more like asking someone to stop pouring gasoline on the fire, but doing so is incredibly profitable for them, so they claim that gasoline isn’t even flammable, and half the firefighters go, “yeah that makes sense.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, tspoke said:

 In the future when we find out climate change isn't real, we are gonna feel really dumb having all this clean air and water for nothing.

I think this is the problem in this debate. Climate Change and pollution is conflated by activists. No one wants pollution and everyone wants good stewardship of our environment. There is just so much propaganda on the subject. I doubt that there are very many people on the right that don't believe that there is climate change occuring. There is just disagreement on how much we mortgage our future for the present. In India alone, 23 million farms depend on diesel for irrigation and millions more in 3rd world countries depend on diesel for basic clean water. Do we let those people die for the possibility of a half degree drop in temperature 30 years from now based on non reproducible science. Do we spend trillions on a negligible decrease in temperature in the next 30 years. CO2 has been used as a marker for climate change but has never been predictive or predictable in it's increase. Rising water levels  has been occuring for centuries and has been adequately dealt with by technology of their times.  Those who spout the 97% scientific consensus have never read the original articles. Let the data stand on it's own without politicization. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SJSUMFA2013 said:

It’s more like asking someone to stop pouring gasoline on the fire, but doing so is incredibly profitable for them, so they claim that gasoline isn’t even flammable, and half the firefighters go, “yeah that makes sense.”

Yeah, it was his shitty analogy that I was struggling to work with, but this is probably a better illustration of the reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...