| EricHiggin said: I posted the Nasa greening link slightly earlier in the thread, and since you were active here, I figured you may have noticed it. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth/ So instead of the planet being less green in more places, it's more green in some places and less green in others. So it's still balancing, just in a different manner. Sounds kind of like how manufacturing is still happening, just much less in some countries and more in others, so who cares if your job is gone? Life is about change so learn a new skill or trade and stop complaining, right? Should people have to deal with mother nature, or relocate if they don't like the present green distribution? What about those who say it's the future, period, and there's no stopping it, so get on board or be left behind? |
I did read that. Hence why I re-used some NASA links to forward my own arguments.
But no, it's not "balancing" so to speak as per the evidence I provided prior.
| EricHiggin said: What about periods like the "dust bowl" in America? Some poor farming methods are partially to blame, but mostly extended drought. Did man made climate change cause the drought, and did the drought ever end? How could it if things are just going to keep getting worse? Agricultural land isn't vegetation of significance? That explains a lot... You didn't answer the question for the most part, and you don't say how much worse the extra fires are getting, if at all. Will other vegetation adapt as well? Aren't humans an invasive species...? Does that 'problem' need to be solved? More like too much of both, unrealistic green objectives and general power grabs on the side while they're at it. So President Trump would be better than no leader at all? What about Hitler? Just because you're benefiting yourself, doesn't in anyway guarantee you're benefiting others as well, like your customers. So 75 years for the seas to rise 1 foot then? How many islands that would be impacted by this aren't burning fossil fuels anymore, and haven't been for quite some time? If it's a worldwide problem, and they have little control or power over the seas, how many have left the islands knowing that's the smart thing to do, like you said, by predicting what's coming and do what's necessary in your power to stop it or avoid it if you can't stop it. The planet used to be much warmer and had much more CO2 in the air, and wasn't near as green if you go far enough back. How did the planet cool itself down to where it was a couple of hundred years ago? Climate scientists, not all scientists. To expect that people don't think certain scientists won't put forth BS for their careers sake is being unrealistic. It also doesn't necessarily mean you're anti evidence, because you just may be 'anti politics' for example, and therefore, due to their connection and ridiculous propositions, like the new green deal, not to mention corruption in general, many may just be skeptical, and rightfully so. What if Einstein wasn't skeptical about Newtons science? Or should I say 'science'? Sure, implement green policies for things like recycling or energy efficiency, but leave climate change out of it then. Trying to solve climate change would be a major undertaking and would cost a ton of money and time, only to find out it was all for nothing? That doesn't sound smart to me, yet it does sound overly cautious at the expense of others. Should America have been cautious by rounding up the Japanese during WWII and putting them in internment camps? So then there's no political stance to blame then, since either side can do good sometimes, and other times not so much? 97% of what, .01% of the total? How certain are those climate scientists, and what are they willing to gamble to prove their certainty? Scientists don't control the world and certainly aren't politicians. I also think most would trust a businessman over a politician because at least they're taking a risk. Musk owns and runs a green energy auto, battery, and solar company, as well as a space exploration company. If Musk really thought climate change was going to be a serious problem in his lifetime, don't you think he would've put the space company on hold before it's inception, and focused fully on green energy and renewables? If he by some chance wasn't sure back then, if it became evident now or shortly, would he put the space company on hold, since we're so far from achieving another planet to call home? Yet the blame always goes to the guns, and guns are where 'progress' is made, by the politicians. The same politicians who make it clear that climate change is an immediate threat and if we don't do everything we can now we're all doomed. But I thought they were all part of the problem. Why isn't the rest getting fixed? Why isn't it even mentioned? Why is it being allowed to get worse? Don't be a 'climate denier', say the politicians... along with, you're just a 'conspiracy theorist'. Proven science is 100%, is it not? Theorized, proven mathematically, and physically, multiple times by different people, correct? You apparently have 97% of the climate scientists who agree, and only on the theory for the most part. The math and physical scientific proof is far from 100% accurate. Then the 'climate believers' can be the one's to profit. Just think about how wealthy they will all end up. Except, wait... they won't, because they are typically the type of people who believe in equality, like free everything for everyone? Hmmm. |
No evidence supporting any of this has been provided, so will be ignoring and disregarded in it's entirety.
However... On the issue of science, scientific consensus and scientists...
You do not get a cytologist, which is a scientist that studies cells to write a paper on seismology, which is the study of Earthquakes.
Hence why a "Scientific Consensus" between "Climate Scientists" is damn important and including "all scientists" whether they are scientists that study Physics, Seismology, Cytology, Meteorology, Epidemiology, Biology, Marine Biology, Paleontology to form/write an opinion/paper on a specific topic like Climate Change... Is to put it bluntly. Stupid.
They have neither the experience, education or even work in said field, for obvious reasons as those scientists specialize elsewhere. - This is just basic common sense though.
| fatslob-:O said: That's not how it works ... Absence in a stance does not necessarily imply being political and the only group that this does 'effect' is from the viewpoint of pro-green supporters since the idea is still a very hard sell even among other progressive factions ... |
You are right. But in this instance their "doing nothing" is actively supporting the proactive destruction of our environment.
| fatslob-:O said: By comparison, just about everyone thinks that industrialization was a godsend improvement for humanity and even the likes of India are looking to emulate China's success in widespread industrialization ... |
It certainly helped. And it has been good for humanity.
| fatslob-:O said: Again, climate change only materially effects the pro-green group who are especially known to be fringe doomsayers and nobody else really seems to think it's a negative since it's far more worth it to industrialize ... |
False. It effects everything on this planet.
Hard to drive industry if everyone ceases to exist.
| fatslob-:O said: Greens do NOT represent the people so before they go speaking for them maybe they should get more voters behind them to be able to back their words ? |
They represent a large portion of the people... And because of such will drive politicians and companies to have greener mandates.
| fatslob-:O said: Seeing as how Sony has on more than one occasion acted in line with progressive politics, it isn't "just a few greener initiatives" but Sony are downright being arrogantly hardline progressive ... |
Who gives a crap? Sony are a company, they can do whatever they desire, if you don't like the approaches they take with something... You are entitled as a consumer to take your business elsewhere.
It's called a "free market".
| fatslob-:O said: And western society is more fragile than you think. For one, many democracies out there are 'illiberal' by nature. 'Liberal' democracy as seen in western civilizations in itself is an outlier since it has high maintenance costs ... (I think even real autocracies are more prevalent than liberal democracies ?) |
Again. If a western society is so fragile that a company making greener initiatives is cause for it's collapse, that society should fail.
| fatslob-:O said: If you want our system to be modeled so badly after Turkey or Russia where political interference runs rampant in everyday life just to achieve the selfish quest to combat climate change then be my guest but at that point your nation loses the ability to be 'liberal' due to such systematic interference hence why the examples I listed are still considered 'democracies' but they are not 'liberal' in any sense of the word due to the severe political restrictions placed on them ... |
I never said anything should be modeled after Turkey or Russia, making this tangent redundant.
| fatslob-:O said: By no means is Sony setting a good example for other businesses or companies to follow and we shouldn't take our existing model for granted like that if we want a pristine and a harmonious society where people of differing political backgrounds can peacefully coexist instead of a one with political persecution ... |
It does set a good example if Sony can profit from it and help out the planet whilst they are at it.
Capitalism 101. Supply/Demand.
| fatslob-:O said: Greens should build their own nation and experiment how far they can go without industrialization such as not having many factories or plants around ... |
Nah.
Being green doesn't mean banning factories/plants/industry anyway.
| fatslob-:O said: It's either the union or being green because they can't have both! (not especially when many people see industrialization as fundamental to modern civilization) |
The Unions have done some good for the average worker. Especially in my own nation.
Again though... You can be industrial and green, they aren't mutually exclusive.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
