Do you think Man has significantly raised Co2 on earth?

[Hank]

1 hour ago, ArtVandelay said:

 . . . the sun is increasingly getting hotter, it’s estimated in 1-2 billion years earth will no longer be inhabitable.

Doggone it! Not sure I can nurse my Mooney for that long!

[Utah20Gflyer]

3 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

No, it won’t. The sun is getting hotter and will eventually turn into a red giant that will engulf earth in about 5 billion years or so.
But we don’t have that long, the sun is increasingly getting hotter, it’s estimated in 1-2 billion years earth will no longer be inhabitable.

I’ve heard a billion years as an estimate of remaining habitability for the earth, the earth will over that time period be warming as the sun becomes hotter and starts growing in size.  One thing that is for sure is that long term the survival of the human race is going to depend on our ability to adapt. If we are going to survive we will eventually have to become a space faring species that can survive in conditions and environments that are incredibly harsh compared to our current planet.  If a 2-3 degree temperature change in 100 years is going to kill us all like some doomsday aficionados claim then we are never going to make it long term as a species. 
 

Personally I fall in the techno optimist camp.  I think the way forward is the rapid advance of technology and infrastructure.  If our society it advanced and wealthy enough we can solve all sorts of problems.  If we are poor and backwards because we live under an authoritarian government our options to solve any serious problem in the future is in doubt.  
 

[flyboy0681]

12 hours ago, Utah20Gflyer said:

How about the Covid lab leak theory.  Initially it was described as not only a conspiracy theory but a racist conspiracy theory.   The FBI and DOE have now stated the lab leak theory is the most likely scenario for the start of the pandemic. 

 

This does not qualify as an answer to my question because it hasn't been proven to be true (yet).  What I was looking for are long held conspiracy theories that proved to be actually true. For example, if the CIA was found to have been behind the JFK assassination, or that little green men were found to have landed in Roswell. Those would have satisfied my question.

[good2eat]

The question that stays in my mind about  global warming/climate change/climate catastrophe or whatever it will be called next is why does no one walk the path of ok, what if?

Seems to me the net result would be migration.  Sea levels rise, move to higher ground, too warm nearer the equator, move north or south.  Why does the sky is falling crowd dwell only on perceived negative impacts?  Doesn’t a slightly warmer climate unlock billions more acres to vegetation growth and food production that cannot now produce due to a short growing season?
 

History also tells us cold temperatures are far more deadly than warmer temperatures- one could make a case and extra 1.5 decrees C would be a net positive.

Why do we not hear vigorous debate about the 2 sides of the coin and not just doom and gloom?

[flyboy0681]

2 minutes ago, good2eat said:

The question that stays in my mind about  global warming/climate change/climate catastrophe or whatever it will be called next is why does no one walk the path of ok, what if?

Seems to me the net result would be migration.  Sea levels rise, move to higher ground, too warm nearer the equator, move north or south.  Why does the sky is falling crowd dwell only on perceived negative impacts?  Doesn’t a slightly warmer climate unlock billions more acres to vegetation growth and food production that cannot now produce due to a short growing season?
 

History also tells us cold temperatures are far more deadly than warmer temperatures- one could make a case and extra 1.5 decrees C would be a net positive.

Why do we not hear vigorous debate about the 2 sides of the coin and not just doom and gloom?

Some of your questions could be answered by my fellow Floridian's who are paying 5 digit homeowners insurance premiums. I consider myself lucky in only paying high 4 figures for a three year old house that is built like a fortress to weather any storm that nature can throw at it.

[N201MKTurbo]

5 minutes ago, flyboy0681 said:

Some of your questions could be answered by my fellow Floridian's who are paying 5 digit homeowners insurance premiums. I consider myself lucky in only paying high 4 figures for a three year old house that is built like a fortress to weather any storm that nature can throw at it.

Are you saying that hurricanes are worse now? The deadliest hurricane in US history was in 1900. The deadliest hurricane in Florida was in 1928. 

[flyboy0681]

12 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Are you saying that hurricanes are worse now? The deadliest hurricane in US history was in 1900. The deadliest hurricane in Florida was in 1928. 

I can say emphatically, with 100% confidence that the intensity has increased over the past few decades. Absolutely, and thinking otherwise is being disingenuous. As you are well aware (or should be), sea temperatures are the fuel and the increase has had a direct impact. You point to the "deadliest" being in 1900, but did you ever give any thought to the fact that other than watching a barometer plunge there was no way of knowing one was approaching? Floridian's like myself start gluing our eyes to the screen the moment the National Hurricane Center spots a thunderstorm forming off the west coast of Africa.

Walk a mile in my shoes and you may just change your mind.

[rbp]

13 hours ago, Utah20Gflyer said:

I find it surprising that someone would contest that the climate change movement is authoritarian in nature and instead claim that pointing out this obvious fact is a conspiracy theory.  I’d like to see some climate proposals that don’t involve centralized control over energy resources.  Show me the climate change proposal that celebrates human freedom and autonomy.  I’ll be waiting anxiously.  

We (Americans) as a people used to talk about  "commonweal" --  the promotion of "happiness, health, and safety of all of the people of a community or nation -- and "public policy," -- laws and regulations for the commonweal.  Federalism gave us the notion that each State could have its own public policy, which means we have things state health insurance, state taxes, state drivers licensees, state gun regulations, state education.

Energy is a very local topic -- gas, oil, coal, sunlight, wind, pipelines all have deep local implications. 

But national security, foreign policy, defense, pollution, transportation, commerce and economic issues make energy a national issue. 

It also turns out that extraction, production and distribution  of oil, gas, and coal find themselves in Red states and consumption (and therefore pollution) in (populous northeast and California)Blue states. Texas notably is both. 

So there is an innate geographic tension to this, and politicians at the Federal level are contending with this, specially in the Senate which is not truly representative.

So what one person might call "national public energy policy" another person will call it "authoritarian."

 

 

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, Utah20Gflyer said:

I’ve heard a billion years as an estimate of remaining habitability for the earth, the earth will over that time period be warming as the sun becomes hotter and starts growing in size.  One thing that is for sure is that long term the survival of the human race is going to depend on our ability to adapt. If we are going to survive we will eventually have to become a space faring species that can survive in conditions and environments that are incredibly harsh compared to our current planet.  If a 2-3 degree temperature change in 100 years is going to kill us all like some doomsday aficionados claim then we are never going to make it long term as a species. 
 

Personally I fall in the techno optimist camp.  I think the way forward is the rapid advance of technology and infrastructure.  If our society it advanced and wealthy enough we can solve all sorts of problems.  If we are poor and backwards because we live under an authoritarian government our options to solve any serious problem in the future is in doubt.  
 

2-3 deg won't kill "us" as in kill the entirety of humanity.  Some/many/millions or billions will still live.  But there will be tremendous hardship and famine and drought, and storms, and sea level rise destroying cities, and death and destruction and locusts and angel of death and billions dying.  And all sorts of other nasty stuff.  :-O  Anyway even if "we will survive" it won't be fun. 

Somewhere between it aint happening, to it aint man's fault and it would happened anyway because we are just minuscule and couldn't do anything to the whole planet, and its not something we want to think about fixing because doing something means awful authoritarianism will rain upon us and that would be a cure worse than the problem, is, maybe just some, just a little, good old neighborly lets each do something about it, each our part? A little?  A little bit a little bit if everyone does something on their own then I think that does something that adds up.

[flyboy0681]

6 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Somewhere between it aint happening, to it aint man's fault and it would happened anyway because we are just minuscule and couldn't do anything to the whole planet

I always think of the scene from the film "Apollo 13" where the co2 dial is increasing. While the space that they were confined to was not tremendous, who would think that simply exhaling would actually cause their own deaths? Thankfully the techno-dweebs on the ground put their heads together to come up with a workable solution.

[Shadrach]

16 minutes ago, rbp said:

We (Americans) as a people used to talk about  "commonweal" --  the promotion of "happiness, health, and safety of all of the people of a community or nation -- and "public policy," -- laws and regulations for the commonweal.  Federalism gave us the notion that each State could have its own public policy, which means we have things state health insurance, state taxes, state drivers licensees, state gun regulations, state education.

Energy is a very local topic -- gas, oil, coal, sunlight, wind, pipelines all have deep local implications. 

But national security, foreign policy, defense, pollution, transportation, commerce and economic issues make energy a national issue. 

It also turns out that extraction, production and distribution  of oil, gas, and coal find themselves in Red states and consumption (and therefore pollution) in (populous northeast and California)Blue states. Texas notably is both. 

So there is an innate geographic tension to this, and politicians at the Federal level are contending with this, specially in the Senate which is not truly representative.

So what one person might call "national public energy policy" another person will call it "authoritarian."

 

 

Those policy makers might seem less authoritarian if they did not have such insatiable appetites for prestigious and cavernous real estate (which by some estimates may be under water in 50 years) along with copious amounts of Jet A.

[rbp]

2 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Those policy makers might seem less authoritarian if they did not have such insatiable appetites for prestigious and cavernous real estate (which by some estimates may be under water in 50 years) along with copious amounts of Jet A.

Do you think the southern slave holders in the late 18th C century were any different and wanting to protect their “property”? 

[Shadrach]

15 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

2-3 deg won't kill "us" as in kill the entirety of humanity.  Some/many/millions or billions will still live.  But there will be tremendous hardship and famine and drought, and storms, and sea level rise destroying cities, and death and destruction and locusts and angel of death and billions dying.  And all sorts of other nasty stuff.  :-O  Anyway even if "we will survive" it won't be fun. 

Somewhere between it aint happening, to it aint man's fault and it would happened anyway because we are just minuscule and couldn't do anything to the whole planet, and its not something we want to think about fixing because doing something means awful authoritarianism will rain upon us and that would be a cure worse than the problem, is, maybe just some, just a little, good old neighborly lets each do something about it, each our part? A little?  A little bit a little bit if everyone does something on their own then I think that does something that adds up.

Even without climate catastrophe, much of the developed world is heading for a population collapse in our life time. Those are not fuzzy numbers.  China may be in for the worst, but reliable data out of Beijing is a rarity. The reversal of one child has done little to reverse the course.  

[rbp]

6 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Even without climate catastrophe, much of the developed world is heading for a population collapse in our life time. Those are not fuzzy numbers.  China may be in for the worst, but reliable data out of Beijing is a rarity. The reversal of one child has done little to reverse the course.  

Malthus is rolling in his grave 

[ilovecornfields]

It’s amusing to me that the ones constantly bringing up authoritarian regimes trying to control behavior are clearly doing so in order to manipulate behavior. Due to my broad political leanings in the past I’m on several mailing lists and I’ll often get mail from the Republican party, Democratic Party, Southern Poverty Law Center, NRA, Planned Parenthood, NPR  etc. They’re constantly trying to scare me into donating money or else “they” will oppress “us.” Just different sides of the same coin. I really enjoyed the book “Think Again” and am currently listening to “The End of the world is just the beginning” which isn’t enjoyable but certainly interesting. Anyone up for a Mooneyspace book club?

”It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” Mark Twain (or maybe not)

[flyboy0681]

1 minute ago, ilovecornfields said:

It’s amusing to me that the ones constantly bringing up authoritarian regimes trying to control behavior are clearly doing so in order to manipulate behavior. Due to my broad political leanings in the past I’m on several mailing lists and I’ll often get mail from the republicans party, Southern Poverty Law Center, NRA, Planned Parenthood etc. They’re constantly trying to scare me into donating money or else “they” will oppress “us.” Just different sides of the same coin. I really enjoyed the book “Think Again” and am currently listening to “The End of the world is just the beginning” which isn’t enjoyable but certainly interesting. Anyone up for a Mooneyspace book club?

”It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” Mark Twain (or maybe not)

That is broad. Did you donate to "Stop the steal"?

[ilovecornfields]

18 minutes ago, flyboy0681 said:

That is broad. Did you donate to "Stop the steal"?

I haven’t donated to any of them in years but it doesn’t get me off their mailing lists!

Edit: That’s not entirely true. I think we still donate to NPR every month.

[Shadrach]

10 minutes ago, rbp said:

Malthus is rolling in his grave 

Malthus gets a pass as his analysis was applicable to his place in time. He could not have foreseen the decadence of a modern society with so many recreational alternatives to procreation.

Paul Ehrlich on the other hand is still at Stanford and remains impenitent to this day for being about as wrong as any person could be on population. 

[Shadrach]

25 minutes ago, ilovecornfields said:

It’s amusing to me that the ones constantly bringing up authoritarian regimes trying to control behavior are clearly doing so in order to manipulate behavior. Due to my broad political leanings in the past I’m on several mailing lists and I’ll often get mail from the Republican party, Democratic Party, Southern Poverty Law Center, NRA, Planned Parenthood, NPR  etc. They’re constantly trying to scare me into donating money or else “they” will oppress “us.” Just different sides of the same coin. I really enjoyed the book “Think Again” and am currently listening to “The End of the world is just the beginning” which isn’t enjoyable but certainly interesting. Anyone up for a Mooneyspace book club?

”It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” Mark Twain (or maybe not)

Amen. The tactics and rhetoric indeed overlap.  Policy is indeed another matter.

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, rbp said:

Do you think the southern slave holders in the late 18th C century were any different and wanting to protect their “property”? 

It's likely that I'm not smart enough to see the connection.  That's a risky post. Comparing the Democrats of today with the Democrats of the 1800s may get this thread closed. 

[flyboy0681]

2 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

It's likely that, I'm not smart enough to see the connection.  That's a risky post. Comparing the Democrats of today with the Democrats of the 1800s may get this thread closed. 

Why go back to the 19th century? Comparing the Republicans of today from those of the Reagan era is like night and day.

[Shadrach]

3 minutes ago, flyboy0681 said:

Why go back to the 19th century? Comparing the Republicans of today from those of the Reagan era is like night and day.

Agree. It's a sad state of affairs that is especially palpable on local election day month.

[flyboy0681]

1 minute ago, Shadrach said:

Agree. It's a sad state of affairs that is especially palpable on local election day month.

I didn't always agree with Reagan, but his enthusiasm for the future of the country was contagious. And he was correct when he said "you ain't seen nothing yet" at a time when a lot of people were saying the best days were behind us, just as there are many today. I am, and have always been very bullish on the USA. When millions were liquidating their accounts in 2008, I was on a buying spree and it paid off in spades. Never bet against the United States of America.

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, flyboy0681 said:

I didn't always agree with Reagan, but his enthusiasm for the future of the country was contagious. And he was correct when he said "you ain't seen nothing yet" at a time when a lot of people were saying the best days were behind us, just as there are many today. I am, and have always been very bullish on the USA. When millions were liquidating their accounts in 2008, I was on a buying spree and it paid off in spades. Never bet against the United States of America.

That's a nice sentiment but I think it fuels the notion that America can withstand any cultural, political or economic storm. Which I don't think is true. It requires some degree of cohesion and agreement on basic national values and that has been evaporating for quite sometime.  Success has never been guaranteed for any country. Cynics on both sides have been prognosticating the demise of the Republic since its birth. There will come a time when they're right.  I hope that I am long gone by then.

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Even without climate catastrophe, much of the developed world is heading for a population collapse in our life time. Those are not fuzzy numbers.  China may be in for the worst, but reliable data out of Beijing is a rarity. The reversal of one child has done little to reverse the course.  

I wish I could find the article in the newspaper from early this week - but it was an interesting forecast that was citing how Chinas population already peaked at something like 1.5B and was forecast to drop below 750M by 2050, but the article was about how India is supposed to pass China during this next month!