Global Warming not looking good

polaris_x

catefrances wrote:

well now that weve established that i need to lighten up can we get back to the topic at hand?

Yes ... so, i ask again ... how many more people must die and suffer before it becomes an urgent matter? ... where we stop saying it's happened before therefore we don't need to act?

UpSideDown

polaris_x wrote:

catefrances wrote:

well now that weve established that i need to lighten up can we get back to the topic at hand?

Yes ... so, i ask again ... how many more people must die and suffer before it becomes an urgent matter? ... where we stop saying it's happened before therefore we don't need to act?

I don't know if people dying can be directly attributed to climate change just yet.........yes there has been an increase in the severity of disasters lately, but as to how much is the direct result of climate change, I'm guessing its hard to say. I'm curious to know if there is any evidence out there that is able to link these exact events to climate change?

Based on a lot of the replies in this thread - it seems like a lot of people are qualifying climate change based merely on the impact that humans will feel.........I have to ask why? Humans will probably be towards the end of the list to actually feel the impact.......

polaris_x

UpSideDown wrote:

I don't know if people dying can be directly attributed to climate change just yet.........yes there has been an increase in the severity of disasters lately, but as to how much is the direct result of climate change, I'm guessing its hard to say. I'm curious to know if there is any evidence out there that is able to link these exact events to climate change?

Based on a lot of the replies in this thread - it seems like a lot of people are qualifying climate change based merely on the impact that humans will feel.........I have to ask why? Humans will probably be towards the end of the list to actually feel the impact.......

increased amounts of extreme weather has always been the immediate impact of climate change ... it is the part of the foundation of the science ...

and yes - people do primarily care about the human cost and even at that they don't really connect the notion of biodiversity and sustainable ecosystems ... i'm pretty sure if polar bears could talk - they would be begging for us to act more urgently now ... but as it stands ... as long as the privileged people continue to withstand the consequences - there will be no such action ...

catefrances

polaris_x wrote:

catefrances wrote:

well now that weve established that i need to lighten up can we get back to the topic at hand?

Yes ... so, i ask again ... how many more people must die and suffer before it becomes an urgent matter? ... where we stop saying it's happened before therefore we don't need to act?

does the area have a history of this kind of disaster? is the area very densely populated, cause it seems to me people get more uptight when many lives are lost(understandably so) than if the land is destroyed? nature is a powerful force. and she doesnt care who is living where.

can every disaster of magnitude be blamed on mankinds evil ways??

Commy

catefrances wrote:

can every disaster of magnitude be blamed on mankinds evil ways??

when they happen more frequently then they have in the past you have to wonder.

catefrances

Commy wrote:

catefrances wrote:

can every disaster of magnitude be blamed on mankinds evil ways??

when they happen more frequently then they have in the past you have to wonder.

are you speaking of overall world wide or when they happen more frequently in a specific area?? and by past what time frame are we speaking of??

Commy

catefrances wrote:

Commy wrote:

catefrances wrote:

can every disaster of magnitude be blamed on mankinds evil ways??

when they happen more frequently then they have in the past you have to wonder.

are you speaking of overall world wide or when they happen more frequently in a specific area?? and by past what time frame are we speaking of??

eh good questions.



seems the overall trend worldwide has been more disasters, more devastating.

catefrances

Commy wrote:

catefrances wrote:

Commy wrote:

when they happen more frequently then they have in the past you have to wonder.

are you speaking of overall world wide or when they happen more frequently in a specific area?? and by past what time frame are we speaking of??

eh good questions.



seems the overall trend worldwide has been more disasters, more devastating.

devastating meaning?? are you measuring that by peoples lives lost? people displaced? destruction/rejiggering of the natural world?

how do we know this isnt just part of the cycle. a cycle we havent been a part of long enough to recognise, let alone be so deeply affected by?

Commy

catefrances wrote:

devastating meaning?? are you measuring that by peoples lives lost? people displaced? destruction/rejiggering of the natural world?

how do we know this isnt just part of the cycle. a cycle we havent been a part of long enough to recognise, let alone be so deeply affected by?

we don't and there is no way to know that.



but we do have very smart people who have dedicated their education and lives work to this very issue, and they are telling us to chill out on the emissions.



don't think its to much to ask, especially after having flown into LA, like its dirty there. the air is dirty. its that bad. think we could clean up a bit and it at the least i could take a deep breath.

catefrances

Commy wrote:

catefrances wrote:

devastating meaning?? are you measuring that by peoples lives lost? people displaced? destruction/rejiggering of the natural world?

how do we know this isnt just part of the cycle. a cycle we havent been a part of long enough to recognise, let alone be so deeply affected by?

we don't and there is no way to know that.



but we do have very smart people who have dedicated their education and lives work to this very issue, and they are telling us to chill out on the emissions.



don't think its to much to ask, especially after having flown into LA, like its dirty there. the air is dirty. its that bad. think we could clean up a bit and it at the least i could take a deep breath.

cities are like little hothouses... this is true. theyre dirty, smelly, a concentrated mass of people and a cancerous lung in the worlds body.

polaris_x

catefrances wrote:

does the area have a history of this kind of disaster? is the area very densely populated, cause it seems to me people get more uptight when many lives are lost(understandably so) than if the land is destroyed? nature is a powerful force. and she doesnt care who is living where.

can every disaster of magnitude be blamed on mankinds evil ways??

i hate to keep beating a dead horse ... but do you folks who don't believe in the science actually understand it?? ... because, you guys are missing the point entirely ... we are artificially altering the weather to increase the likelihood of extreme weather events ... look at the incidence of these events over the past several years ... it is increasing all the time ... and again - these are just the immediate consequences of climate change ... there is a whole host of consequences that are to be suffered in the medium and long term ...

he still stands

I love it when people think they are making an "argument" but it is merely an illogical "assertion." When there are millions of variables to consider in the whole global warming debate, you CANNOT take one variable out of myriad of variables, especially an unimportant variable, and say that it proves the debate one way or the other. If you're going to seriously create an argument here the first thing to do would be to take a look at the billions of pages (literally) of secondary research available to you from unbiased sources. Then, if you don't think that the evidence obviously points towards man-made global warming, you can look into forming your own argument based on primary research. I don't know that this has ever happened...

cincybearcat

polaris_x wrote:

catefrances wrote:

does the area have a history of this kind of disaster? is the area very densely populated, cause it seems to me people get more uptight when many lives are lost(understandably so) than if the land is destroyed? nature is a powerful force. and she doesnt care who is living where.

can every disaster of magnitude be blamed on mankinds evil ways??

i hate to keep beating a dead horse ... but do you folks who don't believe in the science actually understand it?? ... because, you guys are missing the point entirely ... we are artificially altering the weather to increase the likelihood of extreme weather events ... look at the incidence of these events over the past several years ... it is increasing all the time ... and again - these are just the immediate consequences of climate change ... there is a whole host of consequences that are to be suffered in the medium and long term ...

Clearly Polaris has researched this just as much if not more than anyone else here. And polaris has strong opinions about it.

I don't disagree at all (not sure how you could) with the science behind greenhouse gases. I think it is a good thing to focus efforts on becoming more sustainable. I do wonder how much an effect man has had on the system. I also wonder if the sample size we have is really big enough to make any conclusions.

But the reality is if Polaris is wrong but we make all these efforts to reduce carbon emissions, etc, we still end up in a better place. If polaris is right but we don't do anything, the results could be catastrophic...and who knows when (polaris would say it has started).

So, it makes sense to do as much as we can as soon as we can. The problem is it must be done in a way that doesn't cause other issues and that is where the argument begins for me. What do we have to do and how fast?

polaris_x

cincybearcat wrote:

So, it makes sense to do as much as we can as soon as we can. The problem is it must be done in a way that doesn't cause other issues and that is where the argument begins for me. What do we have to do and how fast?

this is the thing tho ... most people fall victim to some mythological notion of economic growth as the single most important variable to not hinder ... i say that it is absurd ... the most appropriate word would be sustainaility ...

if you consider the world to be a farm and house and family ... we need to operate in a way that ensures the family can live and future generations can live ... our current ways of life are unsustainable ...

as far as what needs to happen ... check out http://www.350.org

eyedclaar

polaris_x wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

So, it makes sense to do as much as we can as soon as we can. The problem is it must be done in a way that doesn't cause other issues and that is where the argument begins for me. What do we have to do and how fast?

this is the thing tho ... most people fall victim to some mythological notion of economic growth as the single most important variable to not hinder ... i say that it is absurd ... the most appropriate word would be sustainaility ...

if you consider the world to be a farm and house and family ... we need to operate in a way that ensures the family can live and future generations can live ... our current ways of life are unsustainable ...

as far as what needs to happen ... check out http://www.350.org

Hey, there's a cool high mountain lake pic of my wife and I on that site somewhere. We submitted it last year for the big 350 day.

polaris_x

eyedclaar wrote:

Hey, there's a cool high mountain lake pic of my wife and I on that site somewhere. We submitted it last year for the big 350 day.

ya gotta scroll through 1,445 pages of pictures to find it ... haha ... oh ... and i did the tick tock thing at central park last year for this ... :oops:

cincybearcat

polaris_x wrote:

eyedclaar wrote:

Hey, there's a cool high mountain lake pic of my wife and I on that site somewhere. We submitted it last year for the big 350 day.

ya gotta scroll through 1,445 pages of pictures to find it ... haha ... oh ... and i did the tick tock thing at central park last year for this ... :oops:

How did you get to central park?

polaris_x

cincybearcat wrote:

How did you get to central park?

really!?? ... this stuff again? ... this is sooo the old board ...

cincybearcat

polaris_x wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

How did you get to central park?

really!?? ... this stuff again? ... this is sooo the old board ...

hahaha..just messing with ya.

catefrances

polaris_x wrote:

catefrances wrote:

does the area have a history of this kind of disaster? is the area very densely populated, cause it seems to me people get more uptight when many lives are lost(understandably so) than if the land is destroyed? nature is a powerful force. and she doesnt care who is living where.

can every disaster of magnitude be blamed on mankinds evil ways??

i hate to keep beating a dead horse ... but do you folks who don't believe in the science actually understand it?? ... because, you guys are missing the point entirely ... we are artificially altering the weather to increase the likelihood of extreme weather events ... look at the incidence of these events over the past several years ... it is increasing all the time ... and again - these are just the immediate consequences of climate change ... there is a whole host of consequences that are to be suffered in the medium and long term ...

weather and climate arent the same thing... you know that right??