The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[sendler]

Ecological denialism-There's nothing wrong. We don't need to change anything.

=

Ecological fatalism-We're so screwed. It's too late. There's nothing we can do. We don't need to change anything.

[Xist]

How about "We might as well try to have breathable air and drinkable water for as long as possible?"

[sendler]

200 Million years is possible if we could put selfishness and ego aside (and ancient non-scientific beliefs) and be smart about it.

[freebeard]

Ecological denialism- = Ecological fatalism

Those strike me as opposed but equally wrong. I agree the effect is similar.

[redpoint5]

Ecological realism- There are reasonable actions that can be taken to preserve the environment, and an understanding that change is constant and inevitable. Realization that most harm done towards humans is a result of direct action/inaction, and not due to ecology.

Originally Posted by sendler

200 Million years is possible if we could put selfishness and ego aside (and ancient non-scientific beliefs) and be smart about it.

Life will be around in 200 million years, but probably not human life. As our understanding of science improves, individuals grow more powerful. Lunatics will one day wield enormous destructive power.

Most of human history occurred prior to scientific discovery. Knowledge of Newton's Laws of Motion isn't necessary for species survival. Plenty of species are 200 million years old, and none of them have scientific belief systems.

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

This non-scientific belief seems to be pretty good for humanity. I'll cling to this one.

[Xist]

A 90% vegan seemed to feel that cuban-based life forms were mostly responsible for snowball warming or whatever. She was upset about the Paris Pinkie Swear and did not seem to care that one hundred trillion dollars only covered the first phase alone.

I mentioned my idea of creating a solar shade and she just asked how many greenhouse gases that would create.

Who cares that the Earth would be cooler, ice caps would grow, and the sea level would lower. It wouldn't smell right!

[sendler]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

and the Pursuit of Happiness."

This non-scientific belief seems to be pretty good for humanity. I'll cling to this one.

We have evolved to not worry about the future since we never used to have any real influence over it when we lived simply on natural solar flows. Now we have great power over the environment. And each other. So I must add an addendum to the previous to include the pursuit of happiness for the next 10,000 generations. The only way is utilizing a wise system view based on science.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'll point out that methane is relatively short-lived (12 years by one source). While it is a potent greenhouse gas, it likes to turn into water and carbon dioxide.

Right, and carbon dioxide sticks around for a very long time.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sendler

We have evolved to not worry about the future since we never used to have any real influence over it when we lived simply on natural solar flows. Now we have great power over the environment. And each other. So I must add an addendum to the previous to include the pursuit of happiness for the next 10,000 generations. The only way is utilizing a wise system view based on science.

With the continual decline in the rate of population growth, increases in efficiency, development of technology, and economic motivation to harness the abundant free and renewable energy, I see very little evidence to conclude that 10,000 generations is unlikely.

However, seeing the rapid progression of humanity's ability to go from beating each other with clubs, to mowing them down with machine guns, to thermonuclear annihilation, I see nothing that would prevent lunatics from wielding unimaginable power in the future. Perhaps they will be able to "print" a gene mutation that kills humanity. Maybe they develop self-replicating machines that hunt people.

Science will be our demise, not our savior.

[Fat Charlie]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I see nothing that would prevent lunatics from wielding unimaginable power in the future.

In the future? In the sense that today we only have stable, levelheaded people in charge of nukes?