Page 10 of 19

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 21 Aug 2019, 13:29
by beowulf7
Dave, just chill :) You're contributing to global warming! ;)

Horse and water? Strategus is looking to validate his opinion - to "win" rather than to debate. Who needs to review outside sources when "In my opinion" and "that's not gonna happen" count as arguments?

I lived through all this about smoking and cancer, pesticides and bees, estrogen and femininisation. Years ago I used to see the same willful blindness coming from those who's religious faith was being challenged. It does not matter what the "enemy" says, what is important is not to listen but to dismiss. Changes in what is "commonly understood" must follow a bell curve. Tree-huggers were early adopters and I guess Trump's coal mining buddies will be last to accept (or at least admit).

We are already seeing businesses (driven by consumers) switching to less destructive practices (packaging, recycling, etc)

I foresee a big shift once Trump goes...

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 21 Aug 2019, 13:46
by Strategus
beowulf7 wrote:Dave, just chill :) You're contributing to global warming! ;)

Horse and water? Strategus is looking to validate his opinion - to "win" rather than to debate. Who needs to review outside sources when "In my opinion" and "that's not gonna happen" count as arguments?

I lived through all this about smoking and cancer, pesticides and bees, estrogen and femininisation. Years ago I used to see the same willful blindness coming from those who's religious faith was being challenged. It does not matter what the "enemy" says, what is important is not to listen but to dismiss. Changes in what is "commonly understood" must follow a bell curve. Tree-huggers were early adopters and I guess Trump's coal mining buddies will be last to accept (or at least admit).

We are already seeing businesses (driven by consumers) switching to less destructive practices (packaging, recycling, etc)

I foresee a big shift once Trump goes...


No I'm not. I'm interested in ideas that challenge my opinion. I just don't like people wafting in the general direction of the internet and claiming that proves they are right.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 21 Aug 2019, 13:47
by Strategus
And I wod not count on Trump's absence as being in any way influential. It's the backroom boys who call the shots. Just like in gun laws.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 21 Aug 2019, 14:23
by beowulf7
I'm interested in ideas that challenge my opinion


Fair enough. For one, I'm not that interested in taking on that role. Your form of debate is not very engaging :) Have fun

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 21 Aug 2019, 14:45
by Strategus
beowulf7 wrote:
I'm interested in ideas that challenge my opinion


Fair enough. For one, I'm not that interested in taking on that role. Your form of debate is not very engaging :) Have fun

Bye

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 23 Aug 2019, 21:33
by Strategus
WHSeward wrote:@strategus,

both Venus and Mars have atmospheres that are over 90% CO2. There is no geological or astronomical reason why the Earth couldn't too given our neighbors on both sides do. In fact, in all likelihood Earth's atmosphere once was over 90% CO2 too..

It is crazy to imagine that earth could go to 90% co2. Due to our emissions? Co2 is what, 0.3% now? So if it increases to 4% we all die and the plants take over. Then it goes back to 0.3%. Earth survives, humanity doesn't.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 23 Aug 2019, 22:36
by schocker
I am going to take beowulf7 advice " It does not matter what the "enemy" says, what is important is not to listen but to dismiss." So Strategus I think you are wasting your time with them. You are correct to question and probe as that is what is needed not the group think we are being fed.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 23 Aug 2019, 23:06
by WHSeward
@strategus, to be clear, I'm not saying I think the Earth will go back to 90% CO2 either, I was just commenting on the back and forth between you and Dave.

You are quite right that the biosphere as a whole has been very robust to temperature changes. It is individual species that get wiped out, not all life, and so it is unlikely that we go back to a CO2 dominant atmosphere.

Unfortunately, that is cold comfort. There were no humans nor even anthropoids on earth the last time the global temperature was over 22C. I don't think we can even begin to calculate the potential level of disruption to the biosphere and economic losses we face from very rapid climate change.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 23 Aug 2019, 23:22
by Strategus
WHSeward wrote:@strategus, to be clear, I'm not saying I think the Earth will go back to 90% CO2 either, I was just commenting on the back and forth between you and Dave.

You are quite right that the biosphere as a whole has been very robust to temperature changes. It is individual species that get wiped out, not all life, and so it is unlikely that we go back to a CO2 dominant atmosphere.

Unfortunately, that is cold comfort. There were no humans nor even anthropoids on earth the last time the global temperature was over 22C. I don't think we can even begin to calculate the potential level of disruption to the biosphere and economic losses we face from very rapid climate change.

Absolutely agree on all that

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 24 Aug 2019, 23:36
by schocker
CO2 is 405 ppm.....