What are the main challenges facing Mankind today?

[Dan Emanuel]

I wouldn't say it's about maintaining 'optimal' climate, or 'optimal' sea level. The point, it seems to me, is about the negative effects that scientists are confident will happen if we continue on this trajectory. It's about the real things that we see happening now and can get worse, not about some 'optimal' climate that we want to maintain (whatever 'optimal' climate would mean on a global scale). Why should we simply let things happen and force ourselves to adapt if we can try to do something about it?

Having said that, I don't mean to say that we should completely ignore the potential economic effects of any changes we try to make. We have to be aware of both sides. However, I find it interesting that your concern for the 'world of value-creators' along with your lack of confidence in what the scientists are saying leads you to choose to do nothing when I could flip that around on you. How do you know that the changes we'd try to enact would be a burden that 'value-creators' can't handle? If you're so cavalier in saying that people in a hot climate can simply move, why aren't you just as cavalier in saying businesses could adapt to the new regulations? Do you have some proof that the economy could crash?


Not believing in the coming destruction of climate change is one thing, but I'm shocked at how flippant you are about the possible consequences of our current path.

I'm not being flippant, I'm being reasonable. I'm not being optimistic or pessimistic but realistic. In geologic history, this planet has been through the ringer a number of time's, if you believe the geological evidence, which I assume you do. So if we think about all that geologic history, all together, a chart, we'd notice on that chart, that would extend back in time billion's of year's, that the magnitude of man-made climate change is on the scale of a speck of dust in a giant empty house. Could something devastating --long-term now, this'd be beyond all our lifetime's --ultimately occur due to man-made climate change, that we could do something about right now, if we work really hard in a concerted effort? Anythings possible, but nobody has a crystal ball, although we do have geological evidence for what has already happened at various time's in our planets past, so we know the scale of the possibility's, and the magnitude of what we're concerned about with man-made climate change is laughable when considered within it's geological context. I.M.O. If I'm wrong, I want to know that, but I'm hearing the word "gamble" thrown around, so we know that we don't know for sure that something terrible is going to happen. Weather pattern's change over the year's. We've adapted before, we'll adapt now. Heck, we caused the dust bowl's --that may have been 1 of the very 1st time's we realized that we can affect our environment's, writ large. We'll figure out how to make the best of thing's. Florida will be submerged mostly, so we'll have a new coast down their. Big deal. It happen's, its happened, and it will keep happening. I'm against ice age's. And I think all the plant's are with me on that 1.


DJ

1.0
​

 

[Dan Emanuel]

No, we are talking about the problems facing mankind. And specifically about our inclination to annihilate ourselves and perhaps all life on Earth. Climate change is just a symptoms of our insanity. Huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons is another. Our inability and unwillingness to control our own population relative to our resources is another. And so is the idea that we can poison and pollute our own environment indefinitely without catastrophic consequence.

Where global nuclear annihilation is like shooting somebody with a gun, man-made climate change is like smoking cigarette's. They'll both kill you, but 1 of them is going to kill you now, and the other 1 won't kill you for decade's.

Only "smoking" in this case hasn't been shown to kill you. It will just rough you up a bit. Why should we force everybody to quit smoking? We shouldn't.


DJ

1.0
​

 

[PureX]

took me about a second and a half:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...-maddow-not-even-old-gen-eisenhower-saluted-/

Well, first off it's a complete non-issue for anyone who's not an idiot.

And secondly, your big accusation is based on (surprise, surprise) ignoring the context of the statement, which had to do with presidents saluting military upon boarding and exiting planes. Some do, some don't, some do it sometimes, but don't do it other times, because it's not necessary for a president to return a military salute, at any time.

Republicans tried to make some sort of political scandal out of Obama not returning a salute while exiting a helicopter (which is stupid even on the face of it) and Madow was pointing out that presidents are not obliged to do so, and that "Not even old Gen. Eisenhower … saluted military personnel" as president.

Are you really trying to make us believe that this was a lie? That not one time as president did Eisenhower fail to return a military salute, when every member of the military he ever walked by in his years as president was required to salute him? Not ONCE did he fail to return that salute??? Because that's the point Madow was making: that presidents are not required to return all those salutes, and do not return them every time. Because doing so would be both exhausting, and silly, when you're constantly surrounded by military personal.

So, do you really think she was lying?

If so, do you really think that "lie" mattered to anyone who is not an absurdly biased moron trying desperately to slander Obama?

 

[ok doser]

Well, first off it's a complete non-issue for anyone who's not an idiot.

And secondly, your big accusation is based on (surprise, surprise) ignoring the context of the statement, which had to do with presidents saluting military upon boarding and exiting planes. Some do, some don't, some do it sometimes, but don't do it other times, because it's not necessary for a president to return a military salute, at any time.

Republicans tried to make some sort of political scandal out of Obama not returning a salute while exiting a helicopter (which is stupid even on the face of it) and Madow was pointing out that presidents are not obliged to do so, and that "Not even old Gen. Eisenhower … saluted military personnel" as president.

Are you really trying to make us believe that this was a lie? That not one time as president did Eisenhower fail to return a military salute, when every member of the military he ever walked by in his years as president was required to salute him? Not ONCE did he fail to return that salute??? Because that's the point Madow was making: that presidents are not required to return all those salutes, and do not return them every time. Because doing so would be both exhausting, and silly, when you're constantly surrounded by military personal.

So, do you really think she was lying?

If so, do you really think that "lie" mattered to anyone who is not an idiot?

Take it up with Politifact. :idunno:

Which is not, btw, a "right wing propaganda site"


And dude?

Your crush on Maddow?

Better have it looked at by a medical professional before it gets worse.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

Evidence that our planet will become uninhabitable in the near future is exciting to you?...

Where are you getting this? That link you shared didn't say anything about the planet becoming uninhabitable due to man-made climate change.

Your hysterical (archaic).

...What experiment? What are you talking about? Be specific...

Retroactively.

...Get off this ice age kick, that is not what the data is telling us...

Except for the geologic record data. Ice age's are a trend on this planet. If you believe the geological evidence, which I assume you do.

...Further... your comparison doesn't make sense because you are unconvinced there is a problem, you have said this countless times. Pick a side, Senator!...

If they're is a problem, then prove it. You haven't done so yet. My position is that ice age's are a problem, and if we know how to warm the planet at will, over year's and decade's, then thats not a bad position to be in whenever it is that the next ice age come's around the mountain.

...We were able to raise the temperature on the earth on accident. You think we produced cars, factories, and all of these other sources of pollution with the sole intent of making the earth warmer?...

No. Retroactively.

...No scientist with half a brain would want to make an already (relatively) stable climate warmer because they understand the consequences of those actions. You don't understand either, despite the evidence sitting right in front of you.

The only evidence I see is a group of people hellbent on forcing us into an enormous, global effort to stave off something that they have not proven is a problem.


DJ

1.0
​

 

[chrysostom]

The only evidence I see is a group of people hellbent on forcing us into an enormous, global effort to stave off something that they have not proven is a problem.

don't you see the idiots?

 

[Dan Emanuel]

Are you kidding me?! So the data indicating a rising global temperature and a drought are just a coincidence?...

No! I'm not denying man-made climate change; I'm denying that its a problem worthy of the kind's of coercive tactic's required in order to push through the agenda that you and you're sympathizer's are promulgating.

Drought's are not new. We didn't invent drought's. Yes, if man-made climate change is occurring (which I don't deny), then the frequency and location of drought's will change (not as if they are stable year-to-year now anyway; drought's seem to work on decade's-long schedule's) and are changing now. But we didn't invent drought's. That is specifically what I was addressing.

...I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt because no one can be that dense unless they are doing so on purpose.

:idunno:


DJ

1.0
​

 

[Dan Emanuel]

I haven't said it was man-made...

I haven't said it wasn't.

...But climate change is here, along with its social ramifications.

This very thread being a very mild case in point.


DJ

1.0
​

 

[Dan Emanuel]

I suspect that you're encountering the "O'Reilly" syndrome. That is a person who is so invested in playing the verbal gladiator that they can't engage in a dialogue seeking reason or truth.

You lay down you're argument (once), and if anybody disagree's with anything at all that you say, there suffering from "O'Reilly syndrome?"

Your a trip. :chuckle:


DJ

1.0
​

 

[PureX]

Where global nuclear annihilation is like shooting somebody with a gun, man-made climate change is like smoking cigarette's. They'll both kill you, but 1 of them is going to kill you now, and the other 1 won't kill you for decade's.

Well, except that it's not just "you" that dies. Is it. So although "you" get to kill yourself with guns or cigarettes, fast or slow, in your analogy, "you" don't have the right to make that decision for everyone else on Earth. Which is why some of us are so incredulous at the casualness and carelessness with which you seem to be willing to do so.

Only "smoking" in this case hasn't been shown to kill you.

And yet, like smoking, reason strongly suggests that when we poison our own life-sustaining environment deliberately, and indefinitely, it eventually will suffer a catastrophic collapse, and take us down along with it.

It will just rough you up a bit. Why should we force everybody to quit smoking? We shouldn't.

Well, first off, you have no way of knowing that this is all that will happen. Especially when the people who study it overwhelmingly disagree with you. And secondly, it's not an individual outcome, so it's not an issue that we can allow to be resolved according to individual choice.

Are you that blinded by self-centeredness that you really can't recognize this?

 

[Dan Emanuel]

It is true, we all have a bias. I will speak for myself as to why this is frustrating.

In other topics here on TOL, most of them have an ethical/moral argument. These arguments are abstract and are the product of various sources. These discussions are fun for that reason, different people have different experiences that make up their position.

This kind of discussion is a bit different. There isn't a moral argument to be made here...

Disagree. The only way that you and you're sympathizer's are going to get you're way as thing's stand, is over and against the will's of those who disagree with you're agenda. This require's force and coercion; jail-time, fine's and new tax's; this is slavery, what your proposing, and only because some people think something. I think something too. You haven't met the burden of proof, by you're own admission (see below).

...The climate is either changing or it isn't...

Finally we agree!

I have no good reason to think its not changing, by the way.

...Data and scientific evidence suggests that it is, and it is doing so in a violent way...

Relative only to recent human history, but not relative to geological history.

...So much, in fact, that many of the industries leading voices are warning that it will get worse...

And again, how bad are we talking about, in relation to the geological history of this planet?

...What frustrates me is that in the face of such evidence, there is still resistance. Further, this resistance is not based on anything. The argument ends with "Oh, it's a hoax."...

I have no good reason to think the climates not changing.

...What a selfish, risky gamble...

Risk. Gamble. These are not word's used by those in the know. When you know something, you talk in certainty's. The climate is certainly changing due to human activity and behavior, for example (assuming that it is, and again, I don't deny it). What remain's uncertain, is how serious a thing this is. You haven't met the burden of proof. I'm unconcerned about climate change that doesn't involve ice age's, and I'm more concerned about what you and you're sympathizer's want to force down our throat's, over the barrel of a gun, using the states monopoly on force against the rest of us. Your tyrant's.

...We can either invest a fraction of our budget to contribute to a solution/alternative or we can pretend it isn't happening and ruin this place for our future generations. It baffles my mind.

Study away, by all mean's. If you can find evidence that we are heading for collective doom, then please by all mean's share that evidence with us all so that we can all be on the same page and do something intelligent about it.

Failing that, quit being so hysterical.


DJ

1.0
​

 

[chrysostom]

No! I'm not denying man-made climate change; I'm denying that its a problem worthy of the kind's of coercive tactic's required in order to push through the agenda that you and you're sympathizer's are promulgating.

keep up the good work

 

[Dan Emanuel]

A great point, however, what we are talking about is an accelerated change that is causing violent repercussions. These accelerated changes are due to our reckless use of toxic materials.

You need to familiarize yourself with exactly what we are already doing regarding toxic chemical's. Its the furthest thing from "the wild west" in the chemical industry. Everything is highly and carefully regulated. They're are certain country's, backwater's, that are not on board right now, but free enterprise is changing that where the applicable states aren't cooperating with the West. Business's have to meet requirement's in order to sell into Western market's, which effectively drive's Western standard's into manufacturer's, wherever there factory's may be.


DJ

1.0
​

 

[Dan Emanuel]

So, all of this is fabricated?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

No. Thank's for sharing it.


DJ

1.0
​

 

[chrysostom]

You need to familiarize yourself with exactly what we are already doing regarding toxic chemical's. Its the furthest thing from "the wild west" in the chemical industry. Everything is highly and carefully regulated. They're are certain country's, backwater's, that are not on board right now, but free enterprise is changing that where the applicable states aren't cooperating with the West. Business's have to meet requirement's in order to sell into Western market's, which effectively drive's Western standard's into manufacturer's, wherever there factory's may be.


DJ

1.0
​

even in china?

 

[Dan Emanuel]

Let me put it this way - if I submitted a drug for FDA approval based on the same paucity of data, they'd laugh me out of the office.

Thats an interesting analogy.


DJ

1.0
​

 

[Dan Emanuel]

And this explains the difference (Not that I actually expect you or Dan to seriously consider this data, since it is invalid, of course. /s ):
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

What are you reading? I don't deny man-made climate change! I deny that man-made climate change is a looming catastrophe and will lead us all to our collective doom. That, in particular, I deny.


DJ

1.0
​

 

[Dan Emanuel]

don't you see the idiots?

DJ

1.0
​

 

[Dan Emanuel]

Well, except that it's not just "you" that dies. Is it. So although "you" get to kill yourself with guns or cigarettes, fast or slow, in your analogy, "you" don't have the right to make that decision for everyone else on Earth...

I agree with you! If you "smoking cigarette's" kill's or harm's me, then you shouldn't have the right to "smoke cigarette's." We're in agreement on this point.

...Which is why some of us are so incredulous at the casualness and carelessness with which you seem to be willing to do so...

You haven't shown that "smoking" in this case kill's. Thats all.

...And yet...

"And yet?" You admit that man-made climate change hasn't been proven to be our collective doom? I thought you were convinced that it is . . . .

...like smoking, reason strongly suggests that when we poison our own life-sustaining environment deliberately, and indefinitely, it eventually will suffer a catastrophic collapse, and take us down along with it...

Our planet is not our body. Everything that we "poison" the earth with, came from the earth. So the earth itself is the root cause of the problem your concerned with.

...Well, first off, you have no way of knowing that this is all that will happen...

I know that. What I'm not sure is whether you know that we have no way of knowing that this isn't all that will happen.

...Especially when the people who study it overwhelmingly disagree with you...

People who study it, overwhelmingly agree with me that man-made climate change is real (I have no good reason to deny it). What we do not agree on, is how big a deal this is.

...And secondly, it's not an individual outcome, so it's not an issue that we can allow to be resolved according to individual choice...

And yet thats what we have to deal with, being that the most advanced state's are federalist constitutional republic's. Individual choice reign's. Ask Churchill whether we should employ another form of government instead . . . . :nono:

...Are you that blinded by self-centeredness that you really can't recognize this?

What is it with you and Quetzal and the vitriol? Geez . . . .


DJ

1.0
​

 

[Dan Emanuel]

keep up the good work

DJ

1.0
​