Frankly, I am surprised there seems to be such complacency amongst the scientific elite that migrate to this forum. Without flagging this post or simply ignoring it, I would sincerely value input from the likes of Aggrad08 or AstroAg17 on how we can reverse ecological manipulations and preserve the planet for our youth.
Do Forum 15 nonbelievers have any concern regarding climate change?
3,706 Views |
39 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by BusterAg
I'm not anywhere close to the "scientific elite" that you are describing, but I think significant regulatory reform regarding nuclear power is needed. It is a clean energy and the new technologies are meltdown-proof.Adorable Mason Reeves said:
Frankly, I am surprised there seems to be such complacency amongst the scientific elite that migrate to this forum. Without flagging this post or simply ignoring it, I would sincerely value input from the likes of Aggrad08 or AstroAg17 on how we can reverse ecological manipulations and preserve the planet for our youth.
We make nuclear artificially too expensive for any private companies to expand, and of course the ignorant in our country scream "not in my backyard" whether they be on team R or team D.
In my view, AGW is a real issue that needs to be addressed, but with the answer sitting there right in our face our politicians continue to pursue wrong-headed solutions or no solutions at all.
Woody
If there is AGW, I'm not convinced any solution short of annihilating 99% of the human race and returning to hunter-gatherer societies is going to do much of anything but cause a lot of economic calamity.
Agree.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
If you think global warming is a problem, just wait till your children see "global running out of energy" to be followed by "global starvation." Sunlight plus water is the future. Nuclear will work, but it is not renewable. I'm not sure there is enough fissible material to meet the world's needs, notwithstanding the processing concerns. Perhaps a thorium-based process could be developed.
If humans have tipped the scales there is NOTHING we can do to stop it, without a time machine.
We're either going to be ok or we are all screwed.
The world will continue to change itself. Millions of organisms will die each year from famine, disease, drought, flood, etc. and millions will also live.
Humans don't have any idea how to truly predict world wide ecological changes that take millennia to occur. The best we can do is guess, and point at old rocks, fossils, and piles of dirt.
We're either going to be ok or we are all screwed.
The world will continue to change itself. Millions of organisms will die each year from famine, disease, drought, flood, etc. and millions will also live.
Humans don't have any idea how to truly predict world wide ecological changes that take millennia to occur. The best we can do is guess, and point at old rocks, fossils, and piles of dirt.
I agree with woody. Nuclear power is our best current option by far. This is the absurdity of the left, to malign republicans for ignoring what most climate scientists are saying and yet flatly ignore the science of nuclear power. I'm not fully sold on the idea of molten salt reactors being superior but would support some more testing of that idea.
I also don't think climate change is our most pressing ecological threat. The main worry there is slow sea level rise and ocean temperatures killing off habitats that can't adapt like coral reefs. Plain old human destruction, fishing, deforestation and pollution are. The commonly stated loss of 60 percent of animals since the 70s is not supported but it's still quite bad:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/574549/
We have to sustainability live. That doesn't mean live like Amish and only flush every third time, but it does mean the status quo won't do.
I also don't think climate change is our most pressing ecological threat. The main worry there is slow sea level rise and ocean temperatures killing off habitats that can't adapt like coral reefs. Plain old human destruction, fishing, deforestation and pollution are. The commonly stated loss of 60 percent of animals since the 70s is not supported but it's still quite bad:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/574549/
We have to sustainability live. That doesn't mean live like Amish and only flush every third time, but it does mean the status quo won't do.
I admit I'm skeptical of the doomsday predictions often thrown out there. But I do agree we should take better care of our planet and not over-consume every resource.
I honesty don't care if AGW is a thing or not. We should do better.
americathegreat1492 said:
If there is AGW, I'm not convinced any solution short of annihilating 99% of the human race and returning to hunter-gatherer societies is going to do much of anything but cause a lot of economic calamity.
Agree w Woody and Aggrad
However, I do think there is a flaw in the above thinking. While there will be some economic pain, I think the economic pain of doing nothing and remaining on our current course has the potential to be exponentially worse than just about anything the above post can conceive.
And to put an exclimation point on Aggrad....We should be very very concerned about what is happening to the oceans. They are very sick and without the ocean, we are fooked.
My simple example is to not cut down every damn patch of forest to build some stupid store that already exists all over the city. Recently by my house a forest was cleared to build a self-storage place. My goodness what a waste, chop down all the trees to store crap because people buy too much stuff.
Ugh, that kind of stuff turns me into a tree-hugger.
Ugh, that kind of stuff turns me into a tree-hugger.
Agree. The problem is that if you say you are for common sense environmental protection then one extreme claims you are a climate change denier and the other extreme says you are a communist.Frok said:
My simple example is to not cut down every damn patch of forest to build some stupid store that already exists all over the city. Recently by my house a forest was cleared to build a self-storage place. My goodness what a waste, chop down all the trees to store crap because people buy too much stuff.
Ugh, that kind of stuff turns me into a tree-hugger.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
I tend to think these things are sorting themselves out already to some extent. Birth rates are generally falling, populations are concentrating in cities, and agriculture is always getting more efficient. With a little encouragement these trends could mostly fix the problem. We could end up with a nearly completely urban population concentrated in a small amount of space, another section of rural ag land, and most of the rest as wilderness.
The other remaining trouble is then liquid and vapor pollutants, but we've already made great progress there as well
The other remaining trouble is then liquid and vapor pollutants, but we've already made great progress there as well
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Quote:
One of the primary problems with virtually any environmental issue is that the issue almost immediately becomes politicized and taken over by vested interests that have their own agendas.
Those advocating for protecting the environment have many priorities and agendas, but actual protection of the environment is far too frequently pretty far down the list.
Similarly, those opposing proposals to protect the environment also have suspect priorities and agendas.
It's really difficult to know what the true environmental condition is in any given area, what the appropriate response (if any) is, who should implement the response, and when the response is sufficient.
Further, what does "protect the environment" mean? To some, it means complete abolition of man from the area to be protected. To others, it means good stewardship, which is itself a vague term. And to others, it means complete exploitation with only lip service being given to remediation.
This sounds like a bunch of excuses to justify not caring about the problem...or the classic case of admiring the problem and not going any further.
When the public can only evaluate the thoroughly politicized problem from sources that characterize it on a spectrum between "actually the change is beneficial" and "it's too late to do anything this is going to be cataclysmic", not caring is a pretty rational reaction. None of us have any idea how to weigh the cost/benefit of any action taken to manage the human impacts on the climate because none are ever offered for our consideration. Any assent to the belief in one side of this issue or the other is one made on faith. The science is esoteric, the analysis is speculative, and the practical enforcement of any action would be in the hands of people that we do not trust.diehard03 said:Quote:
One of the primary problems with virtually any environmental issue is that the issue almost immediately becomes politicized and taken over by vested interests that have their own agendas.
Those advocating for protecting the environment have many priorities and agendas, but actual protection of the environment is far too frequently pretty far down the list.
Similarly, those opposing proposals to protect the environment also have suspect priorities and agendas.
It's really difficult to know what the true environmental condition is in any given area, what the appropriate response (if any) is, who should implement the response, and when the response is sufficient.
Further, what does "protect the environment" mean? To some, it means complete abolition of man from the area to be protected. To others, it means good stewardship, which is itself a vague term. And to others, it means complete exploitation with only lip service being given to remediation.
This sounds like a bunch of excuses to justify not caring about the problem...or the classic case of admiring the problem and not going any further.
Humans used to live at the merciless whim of the planet. We found ways to mitigate that, many of which are reliant upon abundant, cheap, portable and reliable energy, and now we can support a population that is way over what the last generation of doom predictors would have told you was a tipping point. If maximizing human flourishing is not your goal, then it's hard to have a debate at all. The rock we're riding around on took a punch from an asteroid that wiped out a wide swath of life, drastically and virtually immediately changed the climate and it adapted. The planet changes, sometimes drastically, and persists. Are we capable of significantly lengthening or shortening mankind's blip on the earth's radar? I guess a full-on nuclear conflict would do the trick directly, but short of that, we're just riding the waves hopefully making the place more livable for the people that are here now.
Humans wandered into the Americas when the climate was so cold that a good chunk of our current ocean sat frozen over the poles. Would they have thought their migration route being covered with 100' of water as "sustainable". Stuff is going to change if geologic history tells us anything, I would prefer to keep all options at our disposal to deal with that change.
Apocalypticism will always get traction. If you can get people to believe that a certain course of action will result in them losing everything, you can get them to agree to giving up almost everything as a bargain. So much the better if you can get them to take from others to avert The End. It's a fundamentally political tool. The current abandonment of any attempt at persuasion apart from appeal to emotion and fear is off-putting to me personally.
I can't give you a standing ovation but I wish I could.
Nuclear energy is the elephant in the room when it comes to climate activists.
If you truly are all about simply preventing pollution and carbon output, then pushing nuclear power should be your primary focus. The fact that it is not tells you that they have other objectives that have a higher priority than protecting the environment and climate.
It's as annoying as those that refuse to believe that such high levels of carbon output are anything to worry about.
If you truly are all about simply preventing pollution and carbon output, then pushing nuclear power should be your primary focus. The fact that it is not tells you that they have other objectives that have a higher priority than protecting the environment and climate.
It's as annoying as those that refuse to believe that such high levels of carbon output are anything to worry about.
7nine
I clicked on this thread expecting to see a politics forum-like slathering of vitriol...what an interesting read all along...interesting ideas, no insults...dang!!
(Did I somehow leave TexAgs?!?)
(Did I somehow leave TexAgs?!?)
Let’s Go Brandon!
If you venture away from forum 16, you can discuss climate change with adults.West Point Aggie said:
I clicked on this thread expecting to see a politics forum-like slathering of vitriol...what an interesting read all along...interesting ideas, no insults...dang!!
(Did I somehow leave TexAgs?!?)
First time venturing over here. I, too, was shocked at this thread and adult discussion. Thank heavens (no pun intended). Forum 16 is beyond nuts.Woody2006 said:If you venture away from forum 16, you can discuss climate change with adults.West Point Aggie said:
I clicked on this thread expecting to see a politics forum-like slathering of vitriol...what an interesting read all along...interesting ideas, no insults...dang!!
(Did I somehow leave TexAgs?!?)
I absolutely love nature and the outdoors and spend lots of time and money trying to protect wild places.
Am I worried about man made climate change? No, especially not CO2 caused climate change.
Am I worried about man made pollution and crimes against nature? Absolutely
Climate change is occurring, always has been. Hell 20,000 years ago Michigan was covered by an ice sheet.
My issues with the current "climate change" politics and "science".
Sure science agrees the climate is changing, but even that is sketchy info at best and we really only have decent data for 200 years of a 6 bn yr story.
Most importantly there is very weak proof that human activity has any statistically significant impact on the climate whatsoever. Solar flare activity, cloud dynamics, and many other variables are exponentially more significant than human activity that its irresponsible to point at human activity as the cause of any climate change.
On the political side it's even more of a **** show. I don't really want to get into that aspect, but there are two topics I will hit on.
1. I would love to support politicians that will actually protect nature, but the current climate either produces someone who is so crazy about climate change they ignore actual solvable problems or someone who won't do anything to solve the real problems as they will be seen as a crazy climate change person.
2. The solutions for climate change are so pathetically obvious money and power grabs that it does more harm than good.
3. I would ask the republicans to really rethink their position on public lands. We texans have very little background and knowledge to the situation as we have very little history with public land use, but americas public lands are one of this nations greatest treasures and assets, and transferring them to the states will certainly guarantee their demise.
Am I worried about man made climate change? No, especially not CO2 caused climate change.
Am I worried about man made pollution and crimes against nature? Absolutely
Climate change is occurring, always has been. Hell 20,000 years ago Michigan was covered by an ice sheet.
My issues with the current "climate change" politics and "science".
Sure science agrees the climate is changing, but even that is sketchy info at best and we really only have decent data for 200 years of a 6 bn yr story.
Most importantly there is very weak proof that human activity has any statistically significant impact on the climate whatsoever. Solar flare activity, cloud dynamics, and many other variables are exponentially more significant than human activity that its irresponsible to point at human activity as the cause of any climate change.
On the political side it's even more of a **** show. I don't really want to get into that aspect, but there are two topics I will hit on.
1. I would love to support politicians that will actually protect nature, but the current climate either produces someone who is so crazy about climate change they ignore actual solvable problems or someone who won't do anything to solve the real problems as they will be seen as a crazy climate change person.
2. The solutions for climate change are so pathetically obvious money and power grabs that it does more harm than good.
3. I would ask the republicans to really rethink their position on public lands. We texans have very little background and knowledge to the situation as we have very little history with public land use, but americas public lands are one of this nations greatest treasures and assets, and transferring them to the states will certainly guarantee their demise.
I've avoided posting in this thread because I didn't see much point. But I listened to an interesting podcast from 99 Percent Invisible about sand. It was an interview about a new book The World in a Grain, with the author Vince Beiser. He had done research how much sand developing countries are using in sand, glass, and computer chips. He has some crazy stats about how much cement we are creating every year. He also pointed out that sand use is following the path of oil where we've exhausted the easy to access sand and are now having to find sources that are more impactful to the environment similar to fraking for oil. He's hoping his research leads to a change in the modern trend of making things larger than we really need out of cement. It was a lot more interesting than you think a conversation about sand would be.
His best quote was in summary at the end that inspired me to try and paraphrase here. That the use of sand is dwarfed by all the other contributers to climate change. But that they really all boil down to overconsumption. The overconsumption of oil, carbon, clean water, meat, sand, timber, and fish. Obviously not all these things are as critical as others or as easily solved as others. His estimation was that clean water was probably the most critical, and probably the hardest to solve. He admitted that sand fell pretty far down on priority, and something that there will always be a base minimum need for.
The rest are my opinions and not the authors:
The US has been successful recently in timber restrictions and replanting requirements. Hopefully Trump doesn't roll these back more and we can influence developing countries to adopt similar practices.
Other posters on here have downplayed the impact of overconsumption of Carbon, and and I won't argue it because there's no point. However, I do think it is an easier one to solve. Almost all uses of carbon for energy can be replaced by renewables. I wish the US has the foresight and the guts to replace or energy use with renewables. We can create a lot of well paying jobs, cut the cost of renewables, and make it more accessible. Then we can sell that technology and techniques to these developing countries. Instead we have a President that thinks climate change is a hoax or fake news/science and energy companies literally spending millions of dollars to influence scientific studies, the press, and politicians to try and downplay the impact that CO2 emissions have on the environment.
His best quote was in summary at the end that inspired me to try and paraphrase here. That the use of sand is dwarfed by all the other contributers to climate change. But that they really all boil down to overconsumption. The overconsumption of oil, carbon, clean water, meat, sand, timber, and fish. Obviously not all these things are as critical as others or as easily solved as others. His estimation was that clean water was probably the most critical, and probably the hardest to solve. He admitted that sand fell pretty far down on priority, and something that there will always be a base minimum need for.
The rest are my opinions and not the authors:
The US has been successful recently in timber restrictions and replanting requirements. Hopefully Trump doesn't roll these back more and we can influence developing countries to adopt similar practices.
Other posters on here have downplayed the impact of overconsumption of Carbon, and and I won't argue it because there's no point. However, I do think it is an easier one to solve. Almost all uses of carbon for energy can be replaced by renewables. I wish the US has the foresight and the guts to replace or energy use with renewables. We can create a lot of well paying jobs, cut the cost of renewables, and make it more accessible. Then we can sell that technology and techniques to these developing countries. Instead we have a President that thinks climate change is a hoax or fake news/science and energy companies literally spending millions of dollars to influence scientific studies, the press, and politicians to try and downplay the impact that CO2 emissions have on the environment.
And because I can't sleep, stupid Aggies and Astros playing badly tonight, I'll add that there's some interesting stuff going on with lab grown meat right now. Realistically I doubt lab grown meat could replace something you put on a grill or in a smoker. But maybe it could replace the kind of meat you put in a casserole, a pasta, or a burrito.
He was talking about sand used to make glass, cement, and computer chips. Maybe there's a difference from your experience? He did specifically say that desert sand was useless for those above purposes because it's shape was different. Desert sand is eroded by wind while the sand used in production of cement, glass, and chips is taken from river beds and is eroded by water.
I can only really tell you what he said.
I can only really tell you what he said.
I'm surprised no one posted God's weighing in on the matter; especially with a board called "RELIGION".
If anyone wants to have an adult conversation on environmental issues count me in. Anyone who goes down the rabbit hole of AGW and endless conversations on eventual extinction, ice ages, or global meltdowns, etc can count me out.
Genesis 8:22
"While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease."
Everyone enjoy the cooler weather this weekend. God nailed it again!
If anyone wants to have an adult conversation on environmental issues count me in. Anyone who goes down the rabbit hole of AGW and endless conversations on eventual extinction, ice ages, or global meltdowns, etc can count me out.
Genesis 8:22
"While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease."
Everyone enjoy the cooler weather this weekend. God nailed it again!
Gotta day I agree with you.
We've been given charge over the Earth, by God.
Strangely enough our "available" resources seem the match the human population need(s) fairly closely.
The truth is that humans don't have a good idea about the quantity of many of the so called "expendable" resources. All we know is that they are, for the time being, finite. We have no idea how much is left of said resource.
We've been given charge over the Earth, by God.
Strangely enough our "available" resources seem the match the human population need(s) fairly closely.
The truth is that humans don't have a good idea about the quantity of many of the so called "expendable" resources. All we know is that they are, for the time being, finite. We have no idea how much is left of said resource.
oldarmy1 said:
I'm surprised no one posted God's weighing in on the matter; especially with a board called "RELIGION".
If anyone wants to have an adult conversation on environmental issues count me in. Anyone who goes down the rabbit hole of AGW and endless conversations on eventual extinction, ice ages, or global meltdowns, etc can count me out.
Genesis 8:22
"While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease."
Everyone enjoy the cooler weather this weekend. God nailed it again!
So are you saying that there's no way we can make the planet uninhabitable for humans?
AstroAg17 said:
Is there a method other than using all the nukes? Even then I'm not sure everyone would die.
I think this is incredibly cavalier. I guess if you want to assume you're correct if one single human lives, but I think most would agree that the intent of the question was the earth being able to support some resemblance to the life we've known. I wouldn't say an existence resembling The Road would be acceptable.
Did the author define "overconsumption"?Quad Dog said:
I've avoided posting in this thread because I didn't see much point. But I listened to an interesting podcast from 99 Percent Invisible about sand. It was an interview about a new book The World in a Grain, with the author Vince Beiser. He had done research how much sand developing countries are using in sand, glass, and computer chips. He has some crazy stats about how much cement we are creating every year. He also pointed out that sand use is following the path of oil where we've exhausted the easy to access sand and are now having to find sources that are more impactful to the environment similar to fraking for oil. He's hoping his research leads to a change in the modern trend of making things larger than we really need out of cement. It was a lot more interesting than you think a conversation about sand would be.
His best quote was in summary at the end that inspired me to try and paraphrase here. That the use of sand is dwarfed by all the other contributers to climate change. But that they really all boil down to overconsumption. The overconsumption of oil, carbon, clean water, meat, sand, timber, and fish. Obviously not all these things are as critical as others or as easily solved as others. His estimation was that clean water was probably the most critical, and probably the hardest to solve. He admitted that sand fell pretty far down on priority, and something that there will always be a base minimum need for.
The rest are my opinions and not the authors:
The US has been successful recently in timber restrictions and replanting requirements. Hopefully Trump doesn't roll these back more and we can influence developing countries to adopt similar practices.
Other posters on here have downplayed the impact of overconsumption of Carbon, and and I won't argue it because there's no point. However, I do think it is an easier one to solve. Almost all uses of carbon for energy can be replaced by renewables. I wish the US has the foresight and the guts to replace or energy use with renewables. We can create a lot of well paying jobs, cut the cost of renewables, and make it more accessible. Then we can sell that technology and techniques to these developing countries. Instead we have a President that thinks climate change is a hoax or fake news/science and energy companies literally spending millions of dollars to influence scientific studies, the press, and politicians to try and downplay the impact that CO2 emissions have on the environment.
Featured Stories
See All
40:58
12h ago
5.1k
Baseball Thoughts: Aggies ascend to No. 1 after Commodore crushing
by Ryan Brauninger
Third baseman Gavin Grahovac named SEC's Freshman of the Week
by Richard Zane
No. 1! Texas A&M claims top spot in D1Baseball's latest rankings
by Richard Zane