Climate Change Discussion/ split from What is the purpose of a Taekwondo form?

[Flying Crane]

This is not meant to stir the pot. I found it a very interesting article in a weekly cattlemen's memo email. 5 Deadly Diseases Emerging from Global Warming
I have seen several times where we have received cattle from or shipped cattle to other states and they get sick. It always surprises me how a distance of say <1000 miles can have such affects but I know it is real. It is certainly believable there are unknown bacteria in ice that is 1000's of years old.

Good catch. Very interesting and potentially terrifying.

 

[dvcochran]

Good catch. Very interesting and potentially terrifying.

Rub some dirt on it and you will be fine.
I have never lost a cow to sickness. Treatment works in all cases if done responsibility. I hope the same is true for humans. Exposure is one of the best ways to a good, strong immune system.

 

[Flying Crane]

Rub some dirt on it and you will be fine.
I have never lost a cow to sickness. Treatment works in all cases if done responsibility. I hope the same is true for humans. Exposure is one of the best ways to a good, strong immune system.

Depends on what it is. It can be one of the best ways for a lot of people to die.

 

[Flying Crane]

When was that ever said? I never said don't listen to climatologist. I said don't listen to only climatologist. One of the biggest mistakes I have made in the past is passionately thinking my idea was the only way to a solution. I am become wise enough to listen to other ideas and opinions.

.

Again I need to ask: who else has a relevant opinion on what is actually happening with the climate, other than the scientists who study it and it’s interconnected components?

 

[Flying Crane]

Did you not see the part.where 200 scientific bodies around the world signed in support of the scientific consensus on climate change?

How many sources do you require?

NASA has more than just climatologists by it's self. Although again the logic of listening to economists being paid by the oil industry instead of the scientists who study the field escapes me. It seems like a good way to muddy the waters without any real benefit.

And as was pointed out, who suggested such immediate extremes? If ever such suggestions are necessary it willnknly be because of the inaction and lethargy of world governments.

Regarding the bolded portion, I unfortunately had my father use the same debate point on me during my parents visit for thanksgiving. I determined to not have such discussions during their stay, by mom brought it up so there we were.

My dad suddenly made the jump to “what do you want me to do, live in a cave??”

I’m sitting there thinking, “holy ****, how did we get to living in a cave?” I just wanted a governmental administration that acknowledges the problem for what it is and makes a commitment to working on solutions and not determining to bring back more coal jobs.

I believe it is a tactic used to try and portray those concerned about the climate as extremist and unreasonable. It’s utter nonsense.

 

[dvcochran]

Again I need to ask: who else has a relevant opinion on what is actually happening with the climate, other than the scientists who study it and it’s interconnected components?

It needs to be a collective of science, engineering, economic, and financial minds. Why financial? The snail darter has cost Tennessee billions of dollars (just one of many examples). Ever heard of a snail darter? After over-reaction, they are now an infestation that is costing big dollars. When you get only one opinion working on a problem that is, well a problem. Information will be missed or misused.

 

[Flying Crane]

It needs to be a collective of science, engineering, economic, and financial minds. Why financial? The snail darter has cost Tennessee billions of dollars (just one of many examples). Ever heard of a snail darter? After over-reaction, they are now an infestation that is costing big dollars. When you get only one opinion working on a problem that is, well a problem. Information will be missed or misused.

Financials are part of reality, but that has nothing to do with the climate. Regardless of the financials, the climate is what it is. Economists have nothing to say about what is actually happening to the climate.

 

[Flying Crane]

A further comment on the issue of financials: rising sea level will not halt because we object to the cost of it. The cost is irrelevant to what is happening. And as expensive as it may be to try and solve these problems, I can guarantee that it will be far far far more expensive and disruptive if we ignore it and then try to fix it once it reaches catastrophic levels. Imagine the cost of moving all the inhabitants of New York City to Ohio, as the coastal cities become submerged. Now factor in the cost of moving every other coastal city in the world. Looking to save a few bucks? Ignoring or refusing to deal with the realities of climate change ain’t the way to do it.

 

[dvcochran]

Financials are part of reality, but that has nothing to do with the climate. Regardless of the financials, the climate is what it is. Economists have nothing to say about what is actually happening to the climate.

Agree, but they will all have a large say in how we deal with the problems.

 

[Flying Crane]

Agree, but they will all have a large say in how we deal with the problems.

They do. But that does not stop the seas from rising.

 

[dvcochran]

They do. But that does not stop the seas from rising.

What would you wish to happen? You can be irrational all you want but there will be a process, multiple process, legal, environmental, political, ethical. Sadly, money will drive a big part of the change. With the population growing exponentially at larger and larger powers each year I don't know if we can "fix" the problem. The top predator gets what it wants.

 

[Flying Crane]

What would you wish to happen? You can be irrational all you want but there will be a process, multiple process, legal, environmental, political, ethical. Sadly, money will drive a big part of the change. With the population growing exponentially at larger and larger powers each year I don't know if we can "fix" the problem. The top predator gets what it wants.

Where exactly, was I being irrational?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Previously? There is no previously. That is my point, we now have this tremendous amount of data that has to coalesce. So much data that it is what is triggering the alarmist reaction. Yes, we need to acknowledge the data and respond in a responsible manner. What exactly that is we do not know yet. Close to throwing darts blindfolded. There are certainly corrections that should be made. Adding catalytic converters to cars in the '70,s for example. The lower level atmosphere has been improved. Efforts like these should be stronger in Asia.
Methane? Man is the top predator. There are fewer animals globally than they were 200 years ago. Studies of the atmosphere over the largest stock yards in the U.S. and China report no differences. We will figure it out in time.

Time we do not have. Global warming is not linear. It is self-accelerating. As snow pack and glaciers melt, that adds to the warming, because those are reflective features that reduce the amount of solar energy that heats the ground. So warmer climate reduces snow pack which speeds the warming climate which melts the snow pack faster.

All the while, things humanity does that contribute are not reducing (amount of paved land, deforestation, CO2 emissions, etc.).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

ALL of this is already being done. Maybe not at the pace the liberals like but it is being done. FWIW "green tech" is nothing more than a political buzz word. Again, (and again) if you listen to only one stream of information, climatologist for example, you gen ONLY one opinion. That is not informed information. It is hearing what you want to hear.
I agree that our petroleum energy dependency should and will change. That is a global reality. People way smarter than me are working on ways to replace petroleum. Are you willing to do without transportation, and heat, and most of the things in your house that are in some way dependent on petroleum? Most people are not so demand plays a HUGE roll. Oh by the way, it is the largest part of our economy, directly and indirectly. Are you ready to give up the luxuries this country affords? It is easy to stand in the me too crowd and cry.

Wait, what???
Who do you think is the voice needed to balance the bias of climatologists?? They are the people who study the issue, the only ones who really understand it. They are precisely the place to get information on the climate. And getting that information is precisely what leads to an informed opinion.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

When was that ever said? I never said don't listen to climatologist. I said don't listen to only climatologist. One of the biggest mistakes I have made in the past is passionately thinking my idea was the only way to a solution. I am become wise enough to listen to other ideas and opinions.

I'm sorry, but that's like saying "don't just listen to accountants and bookkeepers about how to do your accounting". I guess a mathematician might have some input on the math, or a manager might have input on how the money is best spent, but that's not really accounting, is it?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It needs to be a collective of science, engineering, economic, and financial minds. Why financial? The snail darter has cost Tennessee billions of dollars (just one of many examples). Ever heard of a snail darter? After over-reaction, they are now an infestation that is costing big dollars. When you get only one opinion working on a problem that is, well a problem. Information will be missed or misused.

The solution should - scientists aren't very good at crafting useful solutions on their own. But those other voices aren't useful in the identification of the problem, nor in predicting future climate effects (meaning effects upon the climate). Economists and engineers really don't have much useful input in identifying the cause.

 

[dvcochran]

The solution should - scientists aren't very good at crafting useful solutions on their own. But those other voices aren't useful in the identification of the problem, nor in predicting future climate effects (meaning effects upon the climate). Economists and engineers really don't have much useful input in identifying the cause.

Climatologist will not have useful input on how design and construct effective measures to offset any damage we have done. Nor will scientist give much of a care as to how the measures are paid for. These are huge hurdles to be jumped.
For sake of argument lets say the global temperature increase is purely due to increased CO2 caused by human and warm blooded animal input. This is not a "flip a switch" solution. We cannot say "just stop what we are doing". Unless you want to step back your life style a couple hundred years. And kill off a very large portion of human and warm blooded animals. I know this sound extreme, and it is. But if the demand for the product producing
CO2 goes away (cars for example) the emissions will decrease. The flip side of this of course is creating a practical vehicle with little or no CO2 emissions. This is where financial & political entities come into the equation.
You touch on the point I am trying to make when you say scientists are not good at crafting solutions on their own. I would argue that engineers can very much help in identifying the cause.

 

[dvcochran]

Where exactly, was I being irrational?

Your's is the "I want it fixed and I want it now" voice. Not rational.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Climatologist will not have useful input on how design and construct effective measures to offset any damage we have done. Nor will scientist give much of a care as to how the measures are paid for. These are huge hurdles to be jumped.

Yes. That's part of what I said.

For sake of argument lets say the global temperature increase is purely due to increased CO2 caused by human and warm blooded animal input. This is not a "flip a switch" solution. We cannot say "just stop what we are doing". Unless you want to step back your life style a couple hundred years. And kill off a very large portion of human and warm blooded animals. I know this sound extreme, and it is. But if the demand for the product producing
CO2 goes away (cars for example) the emissions will decrease. The flip side of this of course is creating a practical vehicle with little or no CO2 emissions. This is where financial & political entities come into the equation.
You touch on the point I am trying to make when you say scientists are not good at crafting solutions on their own. I would argue that engineers can very much help in identifying the cause.

Engineers (unless they train as climatologists, in which case they become part of the population "climatologists") aren't going to understand the climate models sufficiently to analyze the inputs. It's like asking an electrical engineer to analyze the problem with a combustion engine. They might be able to find it, but only if it's in the electrical system, and they won't (unless educated on engines) know what the interaction of that electricity is with the other components. They will be a necessary component in any solutions (IMO, that's something engineers tend to do better than anyone else - craft solutions). So, perhaps I should clarify my earlier point. Engineers should be consulted - by the climatologists - when there's a question about something the climatologists cannot directly measure, themselves.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Your's is the "I want it fixed and I want it now" voice. Not rational.

I don't recall seeing anything in his posts that said it had to be fixed now. Waiting to START fixing, though, makes the fixing more difficult, more costly, and possibly less effective.