Climate Change

[davew]

Activists want climate change skeptics charged with crime


http://www.gopusa.com/activists-want...ed-with-crime/

[rastajenk]

If that ain't some kind of fascism, I don't know what is.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

That's what you do when you are afraid of an honest scientific debate.

[chadk66]

they only respect free speech if it's their own.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I predict that in 200 years the climate will be different, but no matter which direction it goes, our technology will change, the location of our major cities will change, our way of life and just about everything else will change with it. Humans will continue to flourish and this period will be not be considered especially significant. The only thing that will remain the same is that the government still won't have a good healthcare system.

In some ways, I'm on the other side of this view. I'm not worried too much about climate change, as over the next couple of hundred years the probability it'll have much of an impact is low - along the same lines as the earth being hit by a giant meteor, a devastating solar flare, or even an exchange of nuclear weapons - with the EMP and nuclear winter effects.

However, one does not need a PhD in physics to understand the era of cheap energy is coming to a close, and the impact on our lifestyles will be profound. EROI of oil extracted in the 1930s was often 70 or 80-1, but today it's far lower, as are the "alternative" forms of energy like wind and solar (closer to 2.5-1). Cheap fossil fuels (abundant and easy to extract) allowed the earth's population to boom, and the overshoot based on "infinite growth" economic policies as they come to an end will be quite painful as they unwind. Many of the costs of the increased complexity of technology have been externalized, (i.e., outsourced to foreign countries with cheaper labor and less stringent environmental requirements), and the transition back to a lower energy footprint will be a challenge for many - as the skills of manufacturing, farming, and low-tech manual labor have been lost for many. Going back to 1800s technology, as jimmyb suggests, won't be so much as a choice but a necessity.

Human nature being what it is, the political fallout as "advanced civilization" declines will be a bumpy road, though nothing of course goes down in a straight line. A gentle transition to sustainable technologies is most likely not in the cards. Wars will be fought over the dwindling resources, political upheaval will gravitate towards authoritarian regimes, and humans won't be able to keep pace with the rapid changes in social fabric to ensure peace and calm. Governments will be forced to implement draconian measures to ensure their survival over the "free marketplace". Today's issues with the make-believe financials, decaying infrastructure, bankrupt pension funds, pollution, the welfare state, inefficient health care, and a military-industrial complex bent on keeping the American Empire intact will all resolve in a mostly downward trend in terms of the quality of life. History tells us that decline (or change) is never addressed in a proactive manner, but always as a reaction to collapse.

200 years from now I wouldn't be surprised if there's fewer than 1B left on the planet, and historians will look back these days as very significant - more along the lines of peak energy, peak pollution, peak population, peak democracy, peak internet, peak air travel, peak wealth, etc. The dream of never-ending progress and whiz-bang technologies to save us will be long-shattered, along with the ridiculous notions of migrating to the stars.
Whether humans will flourish is debatable, as the quality of life can improve coming out of collapse - but in terms of numbers, there will be a lot fewer of us.

[lefty359]

hcap, at one time the consensus was that the Earth was flat. How'd that come out? At the racetrack the consensus picks about 30 percent winners. The consensus among scientists at one time was that Einstein was nuts. So I don't get hung up on the consensus.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by lefty359

hcap, at one time the consensus was that the Earth was flat. How'd that come out? At the racetrack the consensus picks about 30 percent winners. The consensus among scientists at one time was that Einstein was nuts. So I don't get hung up on the consensus.

The consensus is that:

1. Temps rise ahead of CO2 rise by about 800 years, not the other way around.
2. The Earth has heated and cooled MANY times in the past for various reasons known and unknown.
3. Even in extreme situations, such as large asteroid hits, the Earth's balancing mechanisms brought us back into equilibrium.


We only have a reasonably good idea about climate since about 1850, and even the early data since then is suspect and not overly scientific. For example, much of the sea surface temp data until the last 30-40 years was taken unscientifically by a ships crewman in a bucket where ever and when ever he so desired to take it, even at the engine outlet. Anything before 1850 has been proxied to death.

The unanswerable question that the Alarmists never address is, "what is the appropriate temperature that Earth should be at? That of the Little Ice Age? 1975? 2015? That's the problem though. The Earth is ever changing based on factors both in our control and those outside our control. Further, we have only a limited understanding of Earth's balancing mechanisms, and so taking action to limit our impact on temps may in fact cause the opposite effect.

So anyone who can state categorically that they "know" the truth of climate change is talking from the backside. The real truth is that we have a very long way to go to understand it all. A good start would be to remove as much money and politics from the equation as possible.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

In some ways, I'm on the other side of this view. I'm not worried too much about climate change, as over the next couple of hundred years the probability it'll have much of an impact is low - along the same lines as the earth being hit by a giant meteor, a devastating solar flare, or even an exchange of nuclear weapons - with the EMP and nuclear winter effects.

However, one does not need a PhD in physics to understand the era of cheap energy is coming to a close, and the impact on our lifestyles will be profound. EROI of oil extracted in the 1930s was often 70 or 80-1, but today it's far lower, as are the "alternative" forms of energy like wind and solar (closer to 2.5-1). Cheap fossil fuels (abundant and easy to extract) allowed the earth's population to boom, and the overshoot based on "infinite growth" economic policies as they come to an end will be quite painful as they unwind. Many of the costs of the increased complexity of technology have been externalized, (i.e., outsourced to foreign countries with cheaper labor and less stringent environmental requirements), and the transition back to a lower energy footprint will be a challenge for many - as the skills of manufacturing, farming, and low-tech manual labor have been lost for many. Going back to 1800s technology, as jimmyb suggests, won't be so much as a choice but a necessity.

Human nature being what it is, the political fallout as "advanced civilization" declines will be a bumpy road, though nothing of course goes down in a straight line. A gentle transition to sustainable technologies is most likely not in the cards. Wars will be fought over the dwindling resources, political upheaval will gravitate towards authoritarian regimes, and humans won't be able to keep pace with the rapid changes in social fabric to ensure peace and calm. Governments will be forced to implement draconian measures to ensure their survival over the "free marketplace". Today's issues with the make-believe financials, decaying infrastructure, bankrupt pension funds, pollution, the welfare state, inefficient health care, and a military-industrial complex bent on keeping the American Empire intact will all resolve in a mostly downward trend in terms of the quality of life. History tells us that decline (or change) is never addressed in a proactive manner, but always as a reaction to collapse.

200 years from now I wouldn't be surprised if there's fewer than 1B left on the planet, and historians will look back these days as very significant - more along the lines of peak energy, peak pollution, peak population, peak democracy, peak internet, peak air travel, peak wealth, etc. The dream of never-ending progress and whiz-bang technologies to save us will be long-shattered, along with the ridiculous notions of migrating to the stars.
Whether humans will flourish is debatable, as the quality of life can improve coming out of collapse - but in terms of numbers, there will be a lot fewer of us.

I didn't say it wouldn't be bumpy.

[chadk66]

wasn't there a hole in the ozone once that was going to consume all of mankind?

[lefty359]

Originally Posted by chadk66

wasn't there a hole in the ozone once that was going to consume all of mankind?

Yep, and not that long ago. We were all going to die from ultraviolet rays.
How'd that come out?

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

200 years from now I wouldn't be surprised if there's fewer than 1B left on the planet,

That's a doubtful prediction but if true they will be Muslims.

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by lefty359

Yep, and not that long ago. We were all going to die from ultraviolet rays.
How'd that come out?

I got sun burned once

[Tom]

Originally Posted by chadk66

wasn't there a hole in the ozone once that was going to consume all of mankind?

All that man-made air pollution from the USA plugged it up.

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by Tom

All that man-made air pollution from the USA plugged it up.

that makes sense.

[incoming]

City found in middle of ocean ...story at link

https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/wond...cid=spartandhp

Somebody please connect the dots for the missed informed about the biggest hoax of all times. Of course, a politician was the main instigator.