If people read up on Aral Sea crisis and its implication on weather and climate on the surrounding region, they would never say that's arrogant from humans to claim they can change weather.

Thanks!

Those were two very proficient and to the point posts about how research and political diversion tactics work.

To all of those who feel like it's arrogant to presume a single species could have such a profound impact on the planet: This happened before. Not only in the history of human beings, wich it did with the agriculturalization of the planet, but with other species as well.

None of us would be alive without plants. In fact no oxygen dependant life form would be. (Aside from maybe fish, that ones debatable.) Because plantlife on land terraformed our planet. Prior to plants settling on the surface (as opposed to the oceans) there was very little oxygen in the athmosphere and what little there was, was being produced by oceanic plantlife. Most of that was bein reabsorbed into the ocean though. It was only when plants began to conquer the landmasses, that the planets oxygen levels rose to the point that they are at now.

Little tiny plantcells radically changing the athmosphere by releasing new gases into it unwittingly and changing the atmospherinc balance forever.

The fact that we have the power to change this planet forever should not come as a surprise to us. Evading that, by claiming arrogance in the face of change is just evading responsibility.

A lot of deniers take the see to believe approach on climate issues but blindly believe in books written 2000 years ago, about phenomenons that can't be seen.
People should be more consistent. Just my 2 pence!

There is undeniable evidence for anthropogenic global warming but what I f#cking despise about it is that it's used as nothing more than a political weapon for the alarmists on the left usually who often don't know any better of it's extent ...

Carbon tax is a stupid over reaction but if the alarmists cared so much about the planet then why won't they live in third world shitholes is beyond me since there's a lot of us out there who don't want to be forced to pay to maintain their current lifestyles to be more ecofriendly ...

Bold: Because that's not how that works. If things with the climate go to shit, everybody loses, doesn't matter if you were ecofriendly or not. To make things better (or at least slow down the tide of things getting worse) it's going to have to be society wide adaptations. Plus, you don't have to live a shitty life to be eco friendly. Actually, the advancement of certain types of technologies is easily the most promising way to become more ecofriendly.

Haha, I wish they were a bit more concise, but they are very complicated subjects.

But, awesome information about plants dude, I've taken several courses in geology and prehistoric earth, and the point you bring up is something I havent even thought of but scientifically relevant. I'm surprised I didn't think of it myself.

cheers

It is how it works though. By the time our compounding of air pollution takes some noticeable effect I'll be dead by then and like you said, it won't matter if I were ecofriendly or not since I'm likely not alive anymore! 

We don't need to force efficiency standards at the expense of economic development. If you want to lower emissions you pretty much have to sacrifice your current lifestyle, that means no cars, no heating or air conditioning, very few appliances, and etc ... 

Don't expect to become more ecofriendly in the near future though technology when we have yet to figure out how to completely replace car engines ... 

One of my favorite insights on the climate change debate is by the physicist Richard Muller who published strong evidence for anthropogenic climate change in 2012. He said this on the website Quora. I hope everybody reads it, and comment on it if you're interested. I'd consider my self a skeptic or luke-warmist according to his taxonomy. The debate isn't so simple  to be honest. And there are bad people on both sides. 

https://www.quora.com/How-many-climate-change-denialists-are-there-in-the-US

"The number of climate change deniers in the US depends on what you mean by "denier". I, for example, am not only convinced that global warming is real, and caused by humans, but I can make a compelling case that it is so, and I spend a substantial part of my time talking to those who don't accept that.  I don't publicize the list of people I have convinced, but you would likely recognize some of the names.

On the other hand, I might be listed as a "climate change denier" because I also can show that hurricanes are not increasing (as many alarmists claim), neither are tornados, and droughts and floods are not becoming more common.  

So how do you classify me?  A climate change denier?  A global warming believer?  In my book, "Energy for Future Presidents" (pig 74) I give the following categories:

Alarmists. They pay little attention to the details of the science. They are “unconvincibles.” They say the danger is imminent, so scare tactics are both necessary and appropriate, especially to counter the deniers. They implicitly assume that all global warming and human-caused global warming are identical.

Exaggerators. They know the science but exaggerate for the public good. They feel the public doesn’t find an 0.64°C change threatening, so they have to cherry-pick and distort a little—for a good cause.

Warmists. These people stick to the science. They may not know the answer to every complaint of the skeptics, but they have grown to trust the scientists who work on the issues. They are convinced the danger is serious and imminent.

Lukewarmists. They, too, stick to the science. They recognize there is a danger but feel it is uncertain. We should do something, but it can be measured. We have time.

Skeptics. They know the science but are bothered by the exaggerators, and they point to serious flaws in the theory and data analysis. They get annoyed when the warmists ignore their complaints, many of which are valid. This group includes auditors, scientists who carefully check the analysis of others.

Deniers.They pay little attention to the details of the science. They are “unconvincibles.” They consider the alarmists’ proposals dangerous threats to our economy, so exaggerations are both necessary and appropriate to counter them.

I am probably closest to being a "lukewarmist".  So would I be placed in the category of denier?

Should the alarmist and the exaggerators be listed as "deniers" since they don't accept the basic conclusions of the IPCC?  (They think the IPCC understates the conclusions.)

This all illustrates why people who give statistics on the number of deniers are often  giving misleading conclusions."

And people shouldn't be forced to fund for a supposedly more greener future that most of us will probably never see or know whether or not the payoff would have been worth it ... 

I don't deny the evidence for climate change however over reacting about it as if humans are the main and by at large factor for the cause of it does no good when we have yet to determine their extent ... 

I'm all for a more ecofriendly world but I don't think forcing standards upon everyone is the way to go about it ... 

1. That's pretty optimistic...Especially considering we're already seeing it's effects. Stronger storms, record breaking heatwaves all across the U.S. and in Europe, unprecidented droughts and flooding. I can't imagine what things will be like when people start being displaced by rising tides, or the serious food shortages start. Also, you don't have or plan to have kids? You don't have anyone in your life that it's important to you that will be alive after your gone? That's pretty sad...

2. All of that is false. I'm actually not sure how you think any of that is true...

3. Of course we know how to replace ICEs...Ford and Chevy have electric cars on the way that will do 200 miles on a single charge. In 5 years, they'll be at 400 miles, and it will take 10 minutes to recharge them.