The thing is, even if you have doubts, you can't say it definitely isn't happening. If you skew the possibility levels to even 50-50 or 40-60 (and they are massively higher than that), surely you would still not be in favour of taking the risk!
there will 'soon'; be 8 BILLION people on the planet all looking for shelter, food, water and a decent quality of life, dependant on where they live .. global warming and subsequent degeneration of planet earth's resources is a certainty .. land property well above sea level will be at an absolute premium .. buy now and avoid the rush .. future wars will be over water resources, oil will be a minor consideration in the struggle for survival and prosperity ..
Nature had a habit of repeating itself & by doing so wiping out its current civilisations.
Dinosaurs were around for thousands of years yet wiped out in less than a year.
since then we've had ice ages - now we're entering a new phase. It might be "man made" but nature can & does fight these things. Probably had enough & wants to start again.
Dinosaurs lived far longer on the planet than we have to date! 165 million years for the (big) dinosaurs (can be argued birds are evolved dinosaurs so they are still around); 5 million years for humanity
Nature had a habit of repeating itself & by doing so wiping out its current civilisations.
Dinosaurs were around for thousands of years yet wiped out in less than a year.
since then we've had ice ages - now we're entering a new phase. It might be "man made" but nature can & does fight these things. Probably had enough & wants to start again.
Dinosaurs were around for 200 million years before they were wiped out by a meteor strike. Pretty successful wouldn't you say?
Man has been around for a few hundred thousand years and as an organized civilization for a few thousand years - and already he's f*cked up!
Nature had a habit of repeating itself & by doing so wiping out its current civilisations.
Dinosaurs were around for thousands of years yet wiped out in less than a year.
since then we've had ice ages - now we're entering a new phase. It might be "man made" but nature can & does fight these things. Probably had enough & wants to start again.
To my mind this wouldn’t be a bad thing. Mankind has shown time and time again that we really don’t deserve to be the dominant species on this planet.
Nature had a habit of repeating itself & by doing so wiping out its current civilisations.
Dinosaurs were around for thousands of years yet wiped out in less than a year.
since then we've had ice ages - now we're entering a new phase. It might be "man made" but nature can & does fight these things. Probably had enough & wants to start again.
To my mind this wouldn’t be a bad thing. Mankind has shown time and time again that we really don’t deserve to be the dominant species on this planet.
I'd mind. Actually, I don't want to be accessed of being a snowflake or anything but the total destruction of humanity isn't something I fancy happening to me or my people.
On the other point the planet is not a sentient being. It can't have thoughts like "had enough, let's start again"
Nature had a habit of repeating itself & by doing so wiping out its current civilisations.
Dinosaurs were around for thousands of years yet wiped out in less than a year.
since then we've had ice ages - now we're entering a new phase. It might be "man made" but nature can & does fight these things. Probably had enough & wants to start again.
To my mind this wouldn’t be a bad thing. Mankind has shown time and time again that we really don’t deserve to be the dominant species on this planet.
I'd mind. Actually, I don't want to be accessed of being a snowflake or anything but the total destruction of humanity isn't something I fancy happening to me or my people.
On the other point the planet is not a sentient being. It can't have thoughts like "had enough, let's start again"
On this evidence, Golfie isn't a sentient being either to be fair... :-)
the thing is the renewables sector has a massive amount of money and the potential for it to be even more profitable than it already is. The fossil fuels industry is only profitable because of state subsidies around the world. If the energy sector was truly free market then the fossil fuel market would have died.
Nature had a habit of repeating itself & by doing so wiping out its current civilisations.
Dinosaurs were around for thousands of years yet wiped out in less than a year.
since then we've had ice ages - now we're entering a new phase. It might be "man made" but nature can & does fight these things. Probably had enough & wants to start again.
To my mind this wouldn’t be a bad thing. Mankind has shown time and time again that we really don’t deserve to be the dominant species on this planet.
I'd mind. Actually, I don't want to be accessed of being a snowflake or anything but the total destruction of humanity isn't something I fancy happening to me or my people.
On the other point the planet is not a sentient being. It can't have thoughts like "had enough, let's start again"
Don’t get me wrong Henners, I would/will never revel in the downfall/demise of mankind. I, despite my sometimes despondent comments about humanity, actually love the human race. There are many fine and lovely people on this planet and we hear stories of bravery, compassion and humanity every single day yet those kinds of people aren’t in a position to really effect change. That power is in the hands of those who don’t show that compassion, do not show that humanity. Those who have been corrupted and tainted by power, greed and inhumanity are the ones holding the reins and they’re driving us over a cliff. I have no answers as to how this can be changed so perhaps my solution is an easy cop out but please don’t ever think I don’t give a shit about my fellow humans.
We're working about persevering the worldfor future generations 200 years down the line. How about looking after the people already in the world
Why not both?
Because i think 99.9999999% of people talk b@llocks. There will be some on CL but how many of us on here make unnecessary car journeys ie you could walk there in 30 mins and if you do walk does that change if it's pissing down with rain or freezing cold. I take it also where we can buy local we all buy local. Do we all take our holidays in the uk? None of us waste food?
We're working about persevering the worldfor future generations 200 years down the line. How about looking after the people already in the world
Why not both?
Because i think 99.9999999% of people talk b@llocks. There will be some on CL but how many of us on here make unnecessary car journeys ie you could walk there in 30 mins and if you do walk does that change if it's pissing down with rain or freezing cold. I take it also where we can buy local we all buy local. Do we all take our holidays in the uk? None of us waste food?
The problem is, we all do. I know I do anyway. Maybe a starting point is to question ourselves a bit more and make small changes - it is better to move in the right direction than the wrong one.
Problem is people won’t change in enough numbers to have an impact. They might want to but it’s just too damned difficult. Things like food packaging. Where it’s unnecessary or wasteful and even food portions which almost encourages waste have to be addressed by legislation in exactly the same way the carrier bag issue was addressed and has had an effect. It’s a massive challenge and I’m afraid our leaders don’t take action quickly enough and are happiest kicking problems down the road. In this case it needs change on a worldwide scale and it just won’t happen. Let’s hope the IPCC is another example of project fear.
China does more damage to global warming than America and Europe put together. Whatever we do in the UK to limit the problem is pretty much irrelevant. Not saying we should not try but putting it in perspective.
A large part of that is because more wealthy economies like the UK have effectively 'outsourced' our CO2 emissions to China.
If the CO2 output created by Chinese manufacturing was assigned to the countries where the products they make end up (which strikes me as reasonable) it would be a somewhat different picture.
All we've had for well over 100 years is lip service from national governments - it is not beyond the powers and collective will of humanity to make a real difference, even if global warming is only part man made and part a natural cycle.
All we've had for well over 100 years is lip service from national governments - it is not beyond the powers and collective will of humanity to make a real difference, even if global warming is only part man made and part a natural cycle.
Of course any range of percentages of 'man made' as opposed to 'natural' causes of climate change could be said to be 'part' caused by one or the other but I think the phrase 'only part man made' is in danger of misrepresenting the scientific consensus on the main cause.
According to NASA:
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
All we've had for well over 100 years is lip service from national governments - it is not beyond the powers and collective will of humanity to make a real difference, even if global warming is only part man made and part a natural cycle.
Of course any range of percentages of 'man made' as opposed to 'natural' causes of climate change could be said to be 'part' caused by one or the other but I think the phrase 'only part man made' is in danger of misrepresenting the scientific consensus on the main cause.
According to NASA:
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
.....or we can just lay the blame on 'the elite'? Much easier and very convenient for me and my actions.
Well, there's a reason that Trump has stopped Nasa reporting on climate and increasing subsidies to coal. Unless of course you think somehow he's not part of the elite.
Individual actions are good, but will not solve the problem. Our only hope to avert the worst of what's coming is to cut down on fossil fuels. That will only happen collectively with govts encouraging alternatives and us looking at what we produce and why. A lot of the "let's destroy the environment" rhetoric seems to be hard-wired among the political right, which is counter-intuitive as you'd expect conservatives to want to look after what's already there.
And as a country we really shouldn't be fracking and jailing people for opposing it.
I’m no scientist and have no idea if climate change is man made or natural. But the overwhelming evidence does seem to fall primarily on the side of man made.
However, it’s interesting to read articles with a counter viewpoint such as the below.
I’m no scientist and have no idea if climate change is man made or natural. But the overwhelming evidence does seem to fall primarily on the side of man made.
However, it’s interesting to read articles with a counter viewpoint such as the below.
I’m no scientist and have no idea if climate change is man made or natural. But the overwhelming evidence does seem to fall primarily on the side of man made.
However, it’s interesting to read articles with a counter viewpoint such as the below.
I’m no scientist and have no idea if climate change is man made or natural. But the overwhelming evidence does seem to fall primarily on the side of man made.
However, it’s interesting to read articles with a counter viewpoint such as the below.
I’m no scientist and have no idea if climate change is man made or natural. But the overwhelming evidence does seem to fall primarily on the side of man made.
However, it’s interesting to read articles with a counter viewpoint such as the below.
I think you make a very good point though. As we are not scientists - or if some of us are we do a great job hiding it. And we are certainly not climate change scientists, we cannot know for certain. It is sensible, as you say, to look at both sides of the argument and to reach the conclusion you have stated in a previous post.
This is a bit different from usual political debate because if one side is right we (or our chidren and grandchildren) face a terrible future. If the other side is right they might still, but we can't do anything about it. So it makes sense to try to do something about it in case the climate change veiwpoint is right. And as you say, the overwhelming evidence points to it being so which makes doing something even more compelling.
Comments
Dinosaurs were around for thousands of years yet wiped out in less than a year.
since then we've had ice ages - now we're entering a new phase. It might be "man made" but nature can & does fight these things. Probably had enough & wants to start again.
Man has been around for a few hundred thousand years and as an organized civilization for a few thousand years - and already he's f*cked up!
To my mind this wouldn’t be a bad thing. Mankind has shown time and time again that we really don’t deserve to be the dominant species on this planet.
On the other point the planet is not a sentient being. It can't have thoughts like "had enough, let's start again"
How about looking after the people already in the world
Don’t get me wrong Henners, I would/will never revel in the downfall/demise of mankind. I, despite my sometimes despondent comments about humanity, actually love the human race. There are many fine and lovely people on this planet and we hear stories of bravery, compassion and humanity every single day yet those kinds of people aren’t in a position to really effect change. That power is in the hands of those who don’t show that compassion, do not show that humanity. Those who have been corrupted and tainted by power, greed and inhumanity are the ones holding the reins and they’re driving us over a cliff. I have no answers as to how this can be changed so perhaps my solution is an easy cop out but please don’t ever think I don’t give a shit about my fellow humans.
There will be some on CL but how many of us on here make unnecessary car journeys ie you could walk there in 30 mins and if you do walk does that change if it's pissing down with rain or freezing cold.
I take it also where we can buy local we all buy local.
Do we all take our holidays in the uk?
None of us waste food?
If the CO2 output created by Chinese manufacturing was assigned to the countries where the products they make end up (which strikes me as reasonable) it would be a somewhat different picture.
https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm
All we've had for well over 100 years is lip service from national governments - it is not beyond the powers and collective will of humanity to make a real difference, even if global warming is only part man made and part a natural cycle.
According to NASA:
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Individual actions are good, but will not solve the problem. Our only hope to avert the worst of what's coming is to cut down on fossil fuels. That will only happen collectively with govts encouraging alternatives and us looking at what we produce and why. A lot of the "let's destroy the environment" rhetoric seems to be hard-wired among the political right, which is counter-intuitive as you'd expect conservatives to want to look after what's already there.
And as a country we really shouldn't be fracking and jailing people for opposing it.
However, it’s interesting to read articles with a counter viewpoint such as the below.
https://google.co.uk/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2017/02/03/is-anything-wrong-with-natural-non-man-made-climate-change/amp/
Let’s backtrack ... I admit I do not know which is correct ... I’m not alone by the way, no one knows with 100% certainty.
I mention I looked at a counter viewpoint, which surely makes sense if I want to learn more about the subject matter.
And you tell me I am being disingenuous!
Methinks you just want to provoke an argument rather than have a sensible discussion.
Sorry, can’t be bothered to entertain you with that.
This is a bit different from usual political debate because if one side is right we (or our chidren and grandchildren) face a terrible future. If the other side is right they might still, but we can't do anything about it. So it makes sense to try to do something about it in case the climate change veiwpoint is right. And as you say, the overwhelming evidence points to it being so which makes doing something even more compelling.