The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[RedDevil]

Carbon dioxide is good for plants, no?

Well, there's a side effect on the ability to absorb minerals.
Basically the more CO2, the less minerals in the plants, making them less nutritional.

https://elifesciences.org/articles/02245

[oil pan 4]

If global warming paused or slowed might mean CO2 is not the main driving force behind climate change.
But the believers will refuse to even consider that as a possibility.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

If global warming paused or slowed might mean CO2 is not the main driving force behind climate change.
But the believers will refuse to even consider that as a possibility.

If it kills us I wouldn't even care whether the climate changed or not.

You really seem to hate believers?

[freebeard]

Debunking? More like spinning.

Nobody really knows what's going on, but even little babies have opinions.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=define:copelessness

[oil pan 4]

Hate no, irritate and annoy, yes.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Hate no, irritate and annoy, yes.

Whoah! Okay...

[freebeard]

Since everyone's posts are read in the single voice in my head, I can't keep up so I don't try. But I do support trolling in general. If it's artfully done.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=trolling+and+poe's+law

[Vman455]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

A crime against humanity would be to have a great resource, and keep it locked away.

This has been on my mind for quite some time. If the use of the great resource means that the happiness of all of humanity in the future is jeopardized, does that justify its use? Those who, like yourself, believe that technology will progress sufficiently in the future to overcome any of the associated problems that could arise from burning fossil fuels as our primary energy source will probably answer "yes" (I think?). I vacillate between "yes" and "no" depending what mood I'm in--sometimes I think there are too many unknowns to arrive at a satisfactory answer to that question; sometimes I think it's quite clear what the trends in our planetary environment will be in the future given our activities now, but with no certainty of timescale; occasionally I wonder if we could have some sort of technological breakthrough or sea change in the near future that will change the game entirely; most of the time, I realize that my individual actions today make not one bit of difference either way.

But, it's fun to listen to the rest of you argue, so keep on. Although I don't think any of you are changing anyone else's mind here.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Vman455

This has been on my mind for quite some time. If the use of the great resource means that the happiness of all of humanity in the future is jeopardized, does that justify its use? Those who, like yourself, believe that technology will progress sufficiently in the future to overcome any of the associated problems that could arise from burning fossil fuels as our primary energy source will probably answer "yes" (I think?). I vacillate between "yes" and "no" depending what mood I'm in--sometimes I think there are too many unknowns to arrive at a satisfactory answer to that question; sometimes I think it's quite clear what the trends in our planetary environment will be in the future given our activities now, but with no certainty of timescale; occasionally I wonder if we could have some sort of technological breakthrough or sea change in the near future that will change the game entirely; most of the time, I realize that my individual actions today make not one bit of difference either way.

But, it's fun to listen to the rest of you argue, so keep on. Although I don't think any of you are changing anyone else's mind here.

Thanks for offering your perspective; that's the type of discussion I'm always looking for!

I wouldn't say that I expect future technology to solve all our problems. More like the problems of today are so clearly evident, and largely abated by leveraging the resources we already have, that to withhold the relief seems cruel, especially when the future is hardly knowable.

Growing populations, AIDs, malaria, hunger, disease... most all of these things are made significantly less worse by cheap energy. Cheap energy allows us to be more productive, which gives us time to get educated, and to grow sufficient food, and get medical care, and afford contraceptives, etc, etc.

Future awesome technology can only come about by leveraging current awesome technology. If we all lived subsistence lives, there would hardly be any people around, we'd be dying at birth, living short hard lives, and needing to procreate at breakneck speed just to keep up with all the death. Basically what everyone was doing prior to the early 1800s.

I don't like waste or extremely frivolous things, which is what drew me to this forum. Somehow waste and progress are linked though. We don't know what seemingly wasteful use of resources will produce the next great thing. Maybe sending people to the Moon was a huge waste, maybe not. Our fear of the enemy innovated GPS, which we're all better off for now. The problem is that nobody is sufficiently informed or wise enough to know what is productive use of resources, and what is a frivolous waste. OK, Hummers are a frivolous waste, but they're darn cool too. I can't resent a Hummer driver as an evil resource waster because it would be arbitrary. I've got a 4 bedroom 2100 sq/ft house. Most people in the world live much more modest than that. Perhaps I'm the evil resource waster?

I'm not saying we shouldn't concern ourselves with preserving resources and habitat for future generations; only saying that we shouldn't give these future problems outsized attention. We've got solvable problems now that we're better suited to address and are much more deserving of attention. Future generations will be better equipped to tackle future problems, especially as they manifest themselves more concretely.

When my grandchildren ask why we let so many people die of malaria and other easily treatable diseases, I'll just have to tell them we had more important things to do, like fight GMOs and give lip service to combating global warming.

... and finally, directed to the larger audience- It's hypocritical to point the accusing finger at oil companies and declare them the root of all evil. We're complicit in benefiting from the products they deliver. The person who has not benefited whatsoever from petroleum resources can cast the first stone.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by Vman455

But, it's fun to listen to the rest of you argue, so keep on. Although I don't think any of you are changing anyone else's mind here.

You can't solve problems with the level of thinking that create them.

People think in dichotomies. Maybe they stack up dichotomies, but they're inherently one-dimensional. We need to break out into two-dimensional thinking.

All phenomena are real in some sense, unreal in some sense, meaningless in some sense, real and meaningless in some sense, unreal and meaningless in some sense, and real and unreal and meaningless in some sense.

Robert Anton Wilson

Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/robert_anton_wilson