• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Climate Change(d)?

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,932
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
It really comes down to there are too many people.
No, there fucking aren’t.

That comment is directly on a par with “It really comes down to there are too many Jews” - it’s the inevitable precursor to attempts to change the world for the worse.

Whether it's worth saying is debatable, but I agree with the "nature will reduce the population" part. Especially if one views humans (a likely factor in that reduction) as part of nature.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBT

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,914
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
Yes, but at what cost? Easily obtained coal and petroleum — however unnecessary they MIGHT be with today's high-tech — helped propel Homo sapiens into high technology. Several million years from now when H. sapiens is extinct and some other species MIGHT "pick up the mantle" they will be stymied by these deprivations.

Many dangers are much more short term and urgent than the loss of coal and oil. As just one example, the Amazon rain forest is projected to become arid by 2064.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,776
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
It really comes down to there are too many people.
No, there fucking aren’t.

That comment is directly on a par with “It really comes down to there are too many Jews” - it’s the inevitable precursor to attempts to change the world for the worse.

Whether it's worth saying is debatable, but I agree with the "nature will reduce the population" part. Especially if one views humans (a likely factor in that reduction) as part of nature.
Nature has had a number of attempts at reducing human population, and has been utterly unsuccessful at it, with populations both local and global rapidly overwhelming any natural reductions in very short order.

However the invention of a contraceptive that requires no action “in the heat of the moment”, and which is in the sole control of women, coupled with increasing access to primary education for girls, has succeeded where nature failed.

War, famine, disease - all were commonplace until the late C20th, and yet population grew exponentially. But since then, those things have become increasingly uncommon - and population growth has declined sharply, and is still falling.

This anti-human pseudo-religious “population problem” is bunkum. It’s very popular, and widely believed, but it’s nonsense nevertheless.

And (like the religious beliefs it resembles) people use it to justify all kinds of evil acts, both of commission and of omission.

It’s an idea that needs to die. There are NOT too many people, and there never will be unless something dramatic happens to counteract the demographic impact of the development of the oral contraceptive.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,304
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Yes, but at what cost? Easily obtained coal and petroleum — however unnecessary they MIGHT be with today's high-tech — helped propel Homo sapiens into high technology. Several million years from now when H. sapiens is extinct and some other species MIGHT "pick up the mantle" they will be stymied by these deprivations.

Many dangers are much more short term and urgent than the loss of coal and oil. As just one example, the Amazon rain forest is projected to become arid by 2064.
Who predicted such a thing? Was it the same person who in the 1950s predicted that by 2000 we would all own flying cars and there would be a thriving colony on Mars?

Or maybe Paul Ehrlich (a modern Malthusian) that predicted (in the 1980s, I think) that before the year 2000 there would be mass starvation and food riots in the U.S. Amazingly, some people still look to him as a reliable analyst. Why are there people who will accept any doomsday prophesy if it is cataclysmic enough?
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,914
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
One scientist's prediction fails, so you mistrust ALL scientists. Got it.

You'll fit in real well in post-rational Amerikka.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,304
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
One scientist's prediction fails, so you mistrust ALL scientists. Got it.

You'll fit in real well in post-rational Amerikka.
Not one "scientist" prediction but I have never seen any of the hundreds of catastrophic predictions of calamity I have heard actually happen.

I notice that you didn't say who made such a prediction. I would assume that it was a fear monger seeking clicks. You are surely not claiming that it was from a peer reviewed scientific journal are you?

When did it become a thing to say "the science says" followed by some asinine claims?
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,722
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Some yeras back I wraced a segment on low water toilets. A professor was conrcted to build a toiet for 3rd wprd cuntries.

He invnetd a super slippery surface with fine slippery threads. He had to createa faux poop to test it.

The amount of wtaer a tliet flushes depnds on how slippery the surface is.

Older technology was much more efficient as far as water use. They called them outhouses and they used no water. 😉

Not a good idea unless you have a lot of land to act like a septic system leech field.
A septic system needs water. Outhouses don't.

It is a matter of setting priorities, save water or eliminate stench. Steve was worried about water use. Cities like Paris and London were awfully smelly places before there were flush toilets but, with no flush toilets and sewer systems, their water use was minimal.

It's a sanitation issue, not just a smell issue.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,290
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Some yeras back I wraced a segment on low water toilets. A professor was conrcted to build a toiet for 3rd wprd cuntries.

He invnetd a super slippery surface with fine slippery threads. He had to createa faux poop to test it.

The amount of wtaer a tliet flushes depnds on how slippery the surface is.

Older technology was much more efficient as far as water use. They called them outhouses and they used no water. 😉
That worked well enough when 80 per cent of the population lives in rural settings. Not so much in countries where 80+ per cent is urbanised.

Highrise_Building_in_Hongkong.jpg

That looks like another version of Hell.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,914
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
I notice that you didn't say who made such a prediction. I would assume that it was a fear monger seeking clicks. You are surely not claiming that it was from a peer reviewed scientific journal are you?

When did it become a thing to say "the science says" followed by some asinine claims?
Sorry. I didn't know that the Amazon forest's fragility was little-known. These should help you get started:

I didn't Google to see if these scientists are "asinine." Perhaps you can do that for us.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,304
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
I notice that you didn't say who made such a prediction. I would assume that it was a fear monger seeking clicks. You are surely not claiming that it was from a peer reviewed scientific journal are you?

When did it become a thing to say "the science says" followed by some asinine claims?
Sorry. I didn't know that the Amazon forest's fragility was little-known. These should help you get started:

I didn't Google to see if these scientists are "asinine." Perhaps you can do that for us.
Sorry, my antivirus software won't let me open that link unless I disable the cookie blocking...which I'm not going to do. Does your link really state that "the Amazon rain forest is projected to become arid by 2064"? If so who is credited with the research? What peer reviewed journal was the research published in? I can check their credentials if I know their name.

Fragility is not a magic word that causes thinking people to suspend all reason and accept any claim that follows it.
 

bigfield

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,580
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah
I notice that you didn't say who made such a prediction. I would assume that it was a fear monger seeking clicks. You are surely not claiming that it was from a peer reviewed scientific journal are you?

When did it become a thing to say "the science says" followed by some asinine claims?
Sorry. I didn't know that the Amazon forest's fragility was little-known. These should help you get started:

I didn't Google to see if these scientists are "asinine." Perhaps you can do that for us.
Sorry, my antivirus software won't let me open that link unless I disable the cookie blocking...which I'm not going to do. Does your link really state that "the Amazon rain forest is projected to become arid by 2064"? If so who is credited with the research? What peer reviewed journal was the research published in? I can check their credentials if I know their name.

Fragility is not a magic word that causes thinking people to suspend all reason and accept any claim that follows it.
The article makes no predictions about how arid the Amazon will become. It makes the related claim that, as rainfall declines in the Amazon, rainforest is more likely to die off, and that this has been happening since 2000.


Doing my best potholer54 impersonation, the claim seems to originate with Robert Walker:



Walker's paper is published in Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. It's a peer-reviewed journal.

 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I notice that you didn't say who made such a prediction. I would assume that it was a fear monger seeking clicks. You are surely not claiming that it was from a peer reviewed scientific journal are you?

When did it become a thing to say "the science says" followed by some asinine claims?
Sorry. I didn't know that the Amazon forest's fragility was little-known. These should help you get started:

I didn't Google to see if these scientists are "asinine." Perhaps you can do that for us.
Sorry, my antivirus software won't let me open that link unless I disable the cookie blocking...which I'm not going to do. Does your link really state that "the Amazon rain forest is projected to become arid by 2064"? If so who is credited with the research? What peer reviewed journal was the research published in? I can check their credentials if I know their name.

Fragility is not a magic word that causes thinking people to suspend all reason and accept any claim that follows it.
The rain forests are being deforested. The Sahara and Gobi Deserts are growing. This can't be helpful for the long-term comfortable sustainability of our species. All three of these things are losses in the planet's ability to absorb the natural CO2 production on the planet. Then we add on top of that. So we have:
  • the excess CO2 we produced over 150 years in the atmosphere now
  • the reduced ability of the planet to absorb CO2
  • excessive CO2 production today and into the future

The trouble with climate change is it isn't a Hollywood movie. There isn't (as far as we are aware) a magic threshold where we can just stop right before it and we are saved or when it goes to complete heck. We have observed the planet warming over the last 50 years. Hence the title of the thread with the Change(d). The arguments being passed forth against climate change vary and often appear to be taken from a spinning wheel: no climate change, it is a lie, it isn't that bad, scientists predicted we'd die in a global freeze in the 70s, and maybe now shifting a new 'it won't be that bad'.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,932
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
population growth has declined sharply
Hoo-weee.
That’s like getting all happy because the rate at which inflation is increasing is slowing.
The net population is still increasing, and that will not continue indefinitely.
Even at current levels HSS is causing mass extinctions at a rate only exceeded by globally catastrophic impact events and vulcanism. Every extinction brought about either reduces earths HSS carrying capacity or forces changes to the biosphere supporting HSS.
In a mostly closed system like a planet, that is not sustainable. Absent adoption of nuclear energy or something equally or more capable, nature will certainly bring about a reduction in human population just as it has done to more than 99% of all species that have ever existed.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
population growth has declined sharply
Hoo-weee.
That’s like getting all happy because the rate at which inflation is increasing is slowing.
The net population is still increasing, and that will not continue indefinitely.
Even at current levels HSS is causing mass extinctions at a rate only exceeded by globally catastrophic impact events and vulcanism. Every extinction brought about either reduces earths HSS carrying capacity or forces changes to the biosphere supporting HSS.
In a mostly closed system like a planet, that is not sustainable. Absent adoption of nuclear energy or something equally or more capable, nature will certainly bring about a reduction in human population just as it has done to more than 99% of all species that have ever existed.
This is false. Humans have proven to be able to survive some pretty bad stuff. The question is less survival and more comfort.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,932
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
population growth has declined sharply
Hoo-weee.
That’s like getting all happy because the rate at which inflation is increasing is slowing.
The net population is still increasing, and that will not continue indefinitely.
Even at current levels HSS is causing mass extinctions at a rate only exceeded by globally catastrophic impact events and vulcanism. Every extinction brought about either reduces earths HSS carrying capacity or forces changes to the biosphere supporting HSS.
In a mostly closed system like a planet, that is not sustainable. Absent adoption of nuclear energy or something equally or more capable, nature will certainly bring about a reduction in human population just as it has done to more than 99% of all species that have ever existed.
This is false. Humans have proven to be able to survive some pretty bad stuff. The question is less survival and more comfort.
Wut?
Humans have been around for a geologic blink of an eye. We have proven nothing. The last few hundred thousand years have been relatively placid geologically, and HSS seems to have barely survived the Toba bottleneck of 70-75,000 ya.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,053
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Humans by virtue of science and technology enabled by our brains, dexterity, and speech has taken us out of the usual population checks and balances in the ecosystem. We have not yet developedthe capacity to use technology wisely and we blindly maximize consumption.

Large populations around tge world exist far beyong=d the capcity to feed themeves. The world depends o a few major grain producers that maximize production.

Large scale science based agriculture and now desalinization will only put off the inevitable.

Evolution is selecting us for extinction in a manner of speaking.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
population growth has declined sharply
Hoo-weee.
That’s like getting all happy because the rate at which inflation is increasing is slowing.
The net population is still increasing, and that will not continue indefinitely.
Even at current levels HSS is causing mass extinctions at a rate only exceeded by globally catastrophic impact events and vulcanism. Every extinction brought about either reduces earths HSS carrying capacity or forces changes to the biosphere supporting HSS.
In a mostly closed system like a planet, that is not sustainable. Absent adoption of nuclear energy or something equally or more capable, nature will certainly bring about a reduction in human population just as it has done to more than 99% of all species that have ever existed.
This is false. Humans have proven to be able to survive some pretty bad stuff. The question is less survival and more comfort.
Wut?
Humans have been around for a geologic blink of an eye. We have proven nothing. The last few hundred thousand years have been relatively placid geologically, and HSS seems to have barely survived the Toba bottleneck of 70-75,000 ya.
Large percentages of humans survived starvation in Africa. The internment camps of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. The sieges of WWII and predating it. Humans survived enough from the black death, which is really one of the only blights to really take a shot at our wider population. Substantial extinction is always possible, but those usually require a remarkably significant event that spans the globe.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,932
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
population growth has declined sharply
Hoo-weee.
That’s like getting all happy because the rate at which inflation is increasing is slowing.
The net population is still increasing, and that will not continue indefinitely.
Even at current levels HSS is causing mass extinctions at a rate only exceeded by globally catastrophic impact events and vulcanism. Every extinction brought about either reduces earths HSS carrying capacity or forces changes to the biosphere supporting HSS.
In a mostly closed system like a planet, that is not sustainable. Absent adoption of nuclear energy or something equally or more capable, nature will certainly bring about a reduction in human population just as it has done to more than 99% of all species that have ever existed.
This is false. Humans have proven to be able to survive some pretty bad stuff. The question is less survival and more comfort.
Wut?
Humans have been around for a geologic blink of an eye. We have proven nothing. The last few hundred thousand years have been relatively placid geologically, and HSS seems to have barely survived the Toba bottleneck of 70-75,000 ya.
Large percentages of humans survived starvation in Africa. The internment camps of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. The sieges of WWII and predating it. Humans survived enough from the black death, which is really one of the only blights to really take a shot at our wider population. Substantial extinction is always possible, but those usually require a remarkably significant event that spans the globe.
Your perspective is incredibly myopic on this subject. Blips like the holocaust are tantamount to examining a zit on a terminal cancer patient and declaring them healthy because the pimple popped and the site healed. My prediction applies on the scale of millennia or tens or hundreds of millennia, not days months or years. Yes, it’s very possible that HSS could wipe itself out tomorrow before lunch time, but that’s not what I’m talking about.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,914
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
population growth has declined sharply
Hoo-weee.

Even at current levels HSS is causing mass extinctions at a rate only exceeded by globally catastrophic impact events and vulcanism. Every extinction brought about either reduces earths HSS carrying capacity or forces changes to the biosphere supporting HSS.
Large percentages of humans survived starvation in Africa.

I think Elixir was referring to extinctions of species OTHER than H. sapiens.
Even those who don't care about other species may dislike for other reasons the ecological collapses that cause extinction.
Climate change and other problems, while very unlikely to extinctify mankind quickly, may cause war, periods of high death rates, and political turmoil.

I remain befuddled by ongoing apathy to ecological troubles.

The internment camps of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. . . .
:confused2: Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed? :cool:
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,932
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
The internment camps of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. . . .
:confused2: Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed? :cool:

Ya gets no bed in the internment camp!
But seriously, I am coming to doubt my communication skilz. Yes, the mention of extinctions is about the general degradation of the biome that supports the human species. It is happening fast, and ecologists are already warning that due to the interdependence of species we might be about to cause global famine. I don't think that will be the end of us, but it may well be something that, over the next few hundred years, oversees an actual decline in human numbers, not just a slowing of the growth rate.

I've envisioned a spacefaring society wherein every "unit", i.e. craft holding people, includes a machine that can take any X amount of mass and turn it into the same mass of anything else, transmuting elements as necessary. This form could accomodate trillions or quadrillions of humans in our home solar system alone, limited only by the amount of mass available to be transmuted.

Also envisioned a post-apocalyptic terrestrial society consisting of a few million humans, widely dispersed geographically, but still possessed of today's (and tomorrow's) technology, plus the hard-won wisdom of how to avoid another apocalypse of the kind that wiped several zeroes off the number of humans on earth.

I consider both of those scenarios equally far-fetched, though I have experienced both of them in extremely vivid dreams. More likely in reality, there will be intermittent wars and famines in the (relatively) near future that will permit the slowing and speeding up of the growth rate of human population until a real catastrophe - physical or biological - strikes and "we" are back to the neolithic sans any of the benefots of current technology, assuming that there's anyone left.

I think we should bear in mind that if humans disappeared today, all superficial evidence of our existence would disappear from the face of the earth in 10,000 years or less. In ten million years, only science on a par with our current science would be able to detect that humans had ever been here at all. We are just not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things.
 
Last edited:

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
population growth has declined sharply
Hoo-weee.

Even at current levels HSS is causing mass extinctions at a rate only exceeded by globally catastrophic impact events and vulcanism. Every extinction brought about either reduces earths HSS carrying capacity or forces changes to the biosphere supporting HSS.
Large percentages of humans survived starvation in Africa.
I think Elixir was referring to extinctions of species OTHER than H. sapiens.
Even those who don't care about other species may dislike for other reasons the ecological collapses that cause extinction.
Climate change and other problems, while very unlikely to extinctify mankind quickly, may cause war, periods of high death rates, and political turmoil.

I remain befuddled by ongoing apathy to ecological troubles.
I'm not denying much of anything. I started the thread indicating climate has changed, past tense, and we need to figure out how we are going to deal with it, as we continue to make things worse.
The internment camps of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. . . .
:confused2: Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed? :cool:
Stating that people have survived much much worse, with fewer resources. We are a rare species in being able to adapt technologically to expanded needs. In general, we only have hunger on this planet because of leadership and apathy.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,776
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
The net population is still increasing, and that will not continue indefinitely.
True. According to our best demographers, it will stop in around thirty years.

That you imagine this to be a major problem is something I can’t help you with.

We are likely already below replacement rate; The remaining growth is ‘locked in’ by the fact that women don’t have children as soon as they are born, so the growing number of girls being born in the late 1990s implies a growing number of mothers having babies today - so even with each mother now having fewer than two children, population continues upwards for a few decades.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,776
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Absent adoption of nuclear energy or something equally or more capable, nature will certainly bring about a reduction in human population just as it has done to more than 99% of all species that have ever existed.
Sure, maybe.

Though if we choose to continue to reject nuclear power even as our species suffers catastrophic population decline due to that rejection, perhaps we deserve it.

The reason why we are currently ignoring good solutions is that things really aren’t bad at all. Yet.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,932
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
if we choose to continue to reject nuclear power even as our species suffers catastrophic population decline due to that rejection, perhaps we deserve it.

If we blow ourselves up, or fail to avert an avoidable impact event … we will deserve it. And if we overcome all an thrive for hundreds of millennia, we will deserve that.

If I was god I wouldn’t bet on it.
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
6,625
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I need to use up my "gifted" articles, so I'm linking one about all of the recent evidence about climate change in the US.

https://wapo.st/3zI208H

"In Montana and Wyoming, massive flooding has destroyed bridges, swept away homes, and forced the evacuation of more than 10,000 visitors from Yellowstone National Park. Half a million households in the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley lost power earlier this week after violent thunderstorms swept through. And a record-setting heat wave pushed temperatures into the triple digits from Nebraska to South Carolina, leaving more than 100 million Americans under heat warnings and killing at least 2,000 cattle in Kansas.
10 steps you can take to lower your carbon footprint
The official first day of summer has not even arrived and already the country is overheated, waterlogged and suffering. Extreme weather is here early, testing the nation’s readiness and proving, once again, that overlapping climate disasters are now becoming more frequent and upending Americans’ lives.
“Summer has become the danger season where you see these kinds of events happening earlier, more frequently, and co-occurring,” said Rachel Licker, principal climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a research and advocacy group. “It just shows you how vulnerable our infrastructure is and that this is just going to get increasingly problematic.”


Several experts say these types of simultaneously occurring disasters reveal the extent to which Americans remain unprepared for the escalating impacts of climate change. Downed power lines, homes swept away amid flooding and overwhelmed storm water systems highlight how little progress governments have made toward girding communities for extreme weather.
Yet, they caution, there are limits to how much the nation can adapt. The world has already warmed between 1.1 and 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) above the preindustrial average. If countries continue emitting carbon pollution at historically high rates, the future will be hotter — and harder to bear."

There's a lot more in the article if anyone is interested in reading it, it should be available for two weeks without a paywall.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,776
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
I need to use up my "gifted" articles, so I'm linking one about all of the recent evidence about climate change in the US.

https://wapo.st/3zI208H

"In Montana and Wyoming, massive flooding has destroyed bridges, swept away homes, and forced the evacuation of more than 10,000 visitors from Yellowstone National Park. Half a million households in the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley lost power earlier this week after violent thunderstorms swept through. And a record-setting heat wave pushed temperatures into the triple digits from Nebraska to South Carolina, leaving more than 100 million Americans under heat warnings and killing at least 2,000 cattle in Kansas.
10 steps you can take to lower your carbon footprint
The official first day of summer has not even arrived and already the country is overheated, waterlogged and suffering. Extreme weather is here early, testing the nation’s readiness and proving, once again, that overlapping climate disasters are now becoming more frequent and upending Americans’ lives.
“Summer has become the danger season where you see these kinds of events happening earlier, more frequently, and co-occurring,” said Rachel Licker, principal climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a research and advocacy group. “It just shows you how vulnerable our infrastructure is and that this is just going to get increasingly problematic.”


Several experts say these types of simultaneously occurring disasters reveal the extent to which Americans remain unprepared for the escalating impacts of climate change. Downed power lines, homes swept away amid flooding and overwhelmed storm water systems highlight how little progress governments have made toward girding communities for extreme weather.
Yet, they caution, there are limits to how much the nation can adapt. The world has already warmed between 1.1 and 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) above the preindustrial average. If countries continue emitting carbon pollution at historically high rates, the future will be hotter — and harder to bear."

There's a lot more in the article if anyone is interested in reading it, it should be available for two weeks without a paywall.
The UCS bear significant responsibility for climate change, as they have consistently lobbied for the closure of low carbon generating plants, and against the construction of more such plants.

Where they have been successful in getting plants closed, the shortfall in electricity generation has invariably been made up largely by the burning of more fossil fuels.

To have them express concern about climate change is like having the KKK express concern about the number of lynchings that are happening. They are a large part of the problem, and can take their feigned concern and shove it.
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
6,625
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I need to use up my "gifted" articles, so I'm linking one about all of the recent evidence about climate change in the US.

https://wapo.st/3zI208H

"In Montana and Wyoming, massive flooding has destroyed bridges, swept away homes, and forced the evacuation of more than 10,000 visitors from Yellowstone National Park. Half a million households in the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley lost power earlier this week after violent thunderstorms swept through. And a record-setting heat wave pushed temperatures into the triple digits from Nebraska to South Carolina, leaving more than 100 million Americans under heat warnings and killing at least 2,000 cattle in Kansas.
10 steps you can take to lower your carbon footprint
The official first day of summer has not even arrived and already the country is overheated, waterlogged and suffering. Extreme weather is here early, testing the nation’s readiness and proving, once again, that overlapping climate disasters are now becoming more frequent and upending Americans’ lives.
“Summer has become the danger season where you see these kinds of events happening earlier, more frequently, and co-occurring,” said Rachel Licker, principal climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a research and advocacy group. “It just shows you how vulnerable our infrastructure is and that this is just going to get increasingly problematic.”


Several experts say these types of simultaneously occurring disasters reveal the extent to which Americans remain unprepared for the escalating impacts of climate change. Downed power lines, homes swept away amid flooding and overwhelmed storm water systems highlight how little progress governments have made toward girding communities for extreme weather.
Yet, they caution, there are limits to how much the nation can adapt. The world has already warmed between 1.1 and 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) above the preindustrial average. If countries continue emitting carbon pollution at historically high rates, the future will be hotter — and harder to bear."

There's a lot more in the article if anyone is interested in reading it, it should be available for two weeks without a paywall.
The UCS bear significant responsibility for climate change, as they have consistently lobbied for the closure of low carbon generating plants, and against the construction of more such plants.

Where they have been successful in getting plants closed, the shortfall in electricity generation has invariably been made up largely by the burning of more fossil fuels.

To have them express concern about climate change is like having the KKK express concern about the number of lynchings that are happening. They are a large part of the problem, and can take their feigned concern and shove it.
The UCS may have done some negative things, but the article was only demonstrating examples of how the climate has changed. It wasn't meant to advocate for the UCS, imo. In fact, the article only quoted on scientist who is a member of the UCS. We really don't know if she holds the same views as the entire organization. I'm only vaguely familiar with the UCS, but if some of their efforts have made climate change worse, I'm sure that wasn't their intent. Comparing them to the KKK is absurd An organization can be misguided without purposely meaning to do harm. Sometimes the most well meaning people cause harm. There is nothing well meaning about the KKK.

I would simply say that the USA as well as other advanced westernized countries are significantly responsible for climate change. I live in an area where most people drive either gas guzzling pick up trucks or SUVs, where people run their A/C 24/7, with settings on unrealistically low temps, where people eat meat at most meals, etc. etc. It's ordinary people, often due to ignorance, that are significantly responsible for climate change.

We have no mass transit here. Everything is so spread out, that it's close to impossible to walk anywhere. Consumerism is over the top too. Government and industry are also significantly responsible for climate change. I would imagine that whatever harm the UCS has done is small compared to the American lifestyle.

But, I digress. I wasn't posting to place blame. I was simply posting an article that explains some of the most recent examples of the impact of climate change.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,053
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Watched NOVA on the history of climate.

Cold periods are the exceptions. Having ice at both poles at the sane time generally defines a cold period.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,594
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Watched NOVA on the history of climate.

Cold periods are the exceptions. Having ice at both poles at the sane time generally defines a cold period.
Except that much of what is now low-lying land was drowned during much of that time.

Look at Florida for the Cretaceous, K/T, Eocene, and Miocene at Earth History
Also look in the "Global Series Thumbnails" at Global Series - Deep Time Maps™

Florida was underwater from the Cretaceous to the Miocene.

I've also found Plate Tectonics and Earth History though it is more abstract.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,745
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Watched NOVA on the history of climate.

Cold periods are the exceptions. Having ice at both poles at the sane time generally defines a cold period.
There is no such thing as "normal" when it comes to global climate; there have been very long periods of warming or cooling, impacted by various biotic and astronomical events. Our evolution as a species occurred during a significant cooling stage, and most of the ecosystems that surround us are heavily adapted to those conditions. We may well have succeeded in ending the present age of glaciation for good, not the first time a significantly novel organism has permanently changed the biochemical face of the planet. Were it nor for the rise of the cyanobacteria, none of us would be here, for instance. But they killed the vast majority of the other living things around them, as well.

graph-from-scott-wing-620px.png
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,776
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Watched NOVA on the history of climate.

Cold periods are the exceptions. Having ice at both poles at the sane time generally defines a cold period.
There is no such thing as "normal" when it comes to global climate; there have been very long periods of warming or cooling, impacted by various biotic and astronomical events. Our evolution as a species occurred during a significant cooling stage, and most of the ecosystems that surround us are heavily adapted to those conditions.

View attachment 39121
Exactly. “Normal” or “typical” conditions are irrelevant; What matters is conditions that can support human life and civilisation.

Saying “the Earth has usually been warmer than it is today, so warming isn’t a problem” is as relevant as saying “most of the Solar System is a vacuum, so losing our atmosphere wouldn’t be a problem” - it’s true, as long as you are unconcerned about life.

Ultimately there are no problems, because the universe is almost entirely uninhabitable for humans, and if we all die, the universe will be essentially unchanged.

However, as a living human being, I take a more parochial perspective, in which I care more about the survival and thriving of my species, than I do about the climate our planet experienced before we even evolved.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,745
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Watched NOVA on the history of climate.

Cold periods are the exceptions. Having ice at both poles at the sane time generally defines a cold period.
There is no such thing as "normal" when it comes to global climate; there have been very long periods of warming or cooling, impacted by various biotic and astronomical events. Our evolution as a species occurred during a significant cooling stage, and most of the ecosystems that surround us are heavily adapted to those conditions.

View attachment 39121
Exactly. “Normal” or “typical” conditions are irrelevant; What matters is conditions that can support human life and civilisation.

Saying “the Earth has usually been warmer than it is today, so warming isn’t a problem” is as relevant as saying “most of the Solar System is a vacuum, so losing our atmosphere wouldn’t be a problem” - it’s true, as long as you are unconcerned about life.

Ultimately there are no problems, because the universe is almost entirely uninhabitable for humans, and if we all die, the universe will be essentially unchanged.

However, as a living human being, I take a more parochial perspective, in which I care more about the survival and thriving of my species, than I do about the climate our planet experienced before we even evolved.
Indeed. Though all things considered, handing the planet back to the surviving dinosaurs would have some upsides, at least for most earthly organisms that aren't us. Perhaps we should consider stepping aside?
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,776
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,745
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,290
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Despite what some may argue, there is just way too many of us.
No, there really isn’t.

How so? Is there an ideal number? One that we have achieved, or are yet to achieve? What is the metric?
An interesting question from someone who claims to know that we are too numerous.

I base my view on the impact we are having on the planet, ecosystems, other species, habitats, pollution, consumption, the congestion of our cities, etc. And yes, I am aware of the counter arguments.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,290
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Despite what some may argue, there is just way too many of us.
No, there really isn’t.

How so? Is there an ideal number? One that we have achieved, or are yet to achieve? What is the metric?
That’s an excellent question, and one that you really should have asked before concluding that we have exceeded it.

I stated my view. You stated yours. I asked what your metric was.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,745
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Despite what some may argue, there is just way too many of us.
No, there really isn’t.

How so? Is there an ideal number? One that we have achieved, or are yet to achieve? What is the metric?
An interesting question from someone who claims to know that we are too numerous.

I base my view on the impact we are having on the planet, ecosystems, other species, habitats, pollution, consumption, the congestion of our cities, etc. And yes, I am aware of the counter arguments.
So you have no ideal number, just... feelings?

The number you wish to reduce our population to, then, is also just going to be based on whenever you feel it's been enough to save the whales?
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,290
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Despite what some may argue, there is just way too many of us.
No, there really isn’t.

How so? Is there an ideal number? One that we have achieved, or are yet to achieve? What is the metric?
An interesting question from someone who claims to know that we are too numerous.

I base my view on the impact we are having on the planet, ecosystems, other species, habitats, pollution, consumption, the congestion of our cities, etc. And yes, I am aware of the counter arguments.
So you have no ideal number, just... feelings?

The number you wish to reduce our population to, then, is also just going to be based on whenever you feel it's been enough to save the whales?

Being a matter of both population numbers and consumption rates, it depends on a ratio of both. Including a matter of livability, sheer congestion in excessively large cities.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,745
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Despite what some may argue, there is just way too many of us.
No, there really isn’t.

How so? Is there an ideal number? One that we have achieved, or are yet to achieve? What is the metric?
An interesting question from someone who claims to know that we are too numerous.

I base my view on the impact we are having on the planet, ecosystems, other species, habitats, pollution, consumption, the congestion of our cities, etc. And yes, I am aware of the counter arguments.
So you have no ideal number, just... feelings?

The number you wish to reduce our population to, then, is also just going to be based on whenever you feel it's been enough to save the whales?

Being a matter of both population numbers and consumption rates, it depends on a ratio of both. Including a matter of livability, sheer congestion in excessively large cities.
So present your numbers.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,290
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Despite what some may argue, there is just way too many of us.
No, there really isn’t.

How so? Is there an ideal number? One that we have achieved, or are yet to achieve? What is the metric?
An interesting question from someone who claims to know that we are too numerous.

I base my view on the impact we are having on the planet, ecosystems, other species, habitats, pollution, consumption, the congestion of our cities, etc. And yes, I am aware of the counter arguments.
So you have no ideal number, just... feelings?

The number you wish to reduce our population to, then, is also just going to be based on whenever you feel it's been enough to save the whales?

Being a matter of both population numbers and consumption rates, it depends on a ratio of both. Including a matter of livability, sheer congestion in excessively large cities.
So present your numbers.

I don't have ''ideal numbers'' - just the impact that human activity is having in relation to population and consumption rates in a given region, nation, state, etc.

The USA, for instance;

''The United States is already overpopulated in the sense that we are consuming our national ecological resources at an unsustainable rate. Our growing dependence on foreign energy supplies is a prime example. We now depend on foreign imports for 28.8 percent of our energy consumption: two-thirds of our petroleum products and about one-sixth of our natural gas consumption.1Because of the abundance of our nation's resources, we have long been careless about our level of consumption, but it is the precipitous rise in the U.S. population over the last four decades that has resulted in our outstripping of our national resources. We are living beyond our means and are doing so increasingly as our population expands. This is a serious problem with major implications for future generations.''

''Nations with high consumption levels generally have large ecological footprints, i.e. environmental impact. Add to the equation a large population with a high level of consumption — as is the case with the United States — and the situation becomes unsustainable. Population growth is steadily diluting the U.S. biocapacity, leaving only about 5 hectares [about 12.4 acres] of productive land available per person. Meanwhile, the steady rise in consumption has increased Americans’ per capita ecological footprint — in part because of our growing dependence on imported energy resources — to more than 9.4 hectares [about 23.3 acres].3 In the last four decades, the U.S. has gone from a positive net ecological surplus of 2.1 hectares per capita to a deficit of -4.4 hectares per capita.4 Another aspect of this same trend into unsustainable consumption is that the U.S. per capita ecological footprint has increased gradually — six percent since 1980 — while per capita biocapacity has decreased rapidly — 26 percent — due to a 30 percent increase in the U.S. population.5''
 

bigfield

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,580
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah
Despite what some may argue, there is just way too many of us.
No, there really isn’t.

How so? Is there an ideal number? One that we have achieved, or are yet to achieve? What is the metric?
An interesting question from someone who claims to know that we are too numerous.

I base my view on the impact we are having on the planet, ecosystems, other species, habitats, pollution, consumption, the congestion of our cities, etc. And yes, I am aware of the counter arguments.
So you have no ideal number, just... feelings?

The number you wish to reduce our population to, then, is also just going to be based on whenever you feel it's been enough to save the whales?

Being a matter of both population numbers and consumption rates, it depends on a ratio of both. Including a matter of livability, sheer congestion in excessively large cities.
So present your numbers.

I don't have ''ideal numbers'' - just the impact that human activity is having in relation to population and consumption rates in a given region, nation, state, etc.

The USA, for instance;

''The United States is already overpopulated in the sense that we are consuming our national ecological resources at an unsustainable rate. Our growing dependence on foreign energy supplies is a prime example. We now depend on foreign imports for 28.8 percent of our energy consumption: two-thirds of our petroleum products and about one-sixth of our natural gas consumption.1Because of the abundance of our nation's resources, we have long been careless about our level of consumption, but it is the precipitous rise in the U.S. population over the last four decades that has resulted in our outstripping of our national resources. We are living beyond our means and are doing so increasingly as our population expands. This is a serious problem with major implications for future generations.''

''Nations with high consumption levels generally have large ecological footprints, i.e. environmental impact. Add to the equation a large population with a high level of consumption — as is the case with the United States — and the situation becomes unsustainable. Population growth is steadily diluting the U.S. biocapacity, leaving only about 5 hectares [about 12.4 acres] of productive land available per person. Meanwhile, the steady rise in consumption has increased Americans’ per capita ecological footprint — in part because of our growing dependence on imported energy resources — to more than 9.4 hectares [about 23.3 acres].3 In the last four decades, the U.S. has gone from a positive net ecological surplus of 2.1 hectares per capita to a deficit of -4.4 hectares per capita.4 Another aspect of this same trend into unsustainable consumption is that the U.S. per capita ecological footprint has increased gradually — six percent since 1980 — while per capita biocapacity has decreased rapidly — 26 percent — due to a 30 percent increase in the U.S. population.5''
Pretty sure you meant to link this article:

(You can take your pick, really. The whole site's dedicated to closing the USA's borders, so pretty much every article is going to be some variation of, "fuck off we're full.")

I think this was the important part:
National overpopulation simply means the population of the country in excess of the ability of available resources to sustain it without degrading the environment. The theory that underscores this concept is that the population size magnified by both per capita consumption (affluence) and offset by technology determines the environmental impact of that population.
The article seems to claim that the US has exceeded this number, but it doesn't actually say what the number is, nor does it explain how to determine when environmental degradation is happening.

It's an odd metric, because even pre-industrial populations caused environmental damage, and that would seemingly quality as overpopulation. Even early agrarian civilisations degraded their environment, so pretty much any society with cities is, "overpopulated."

It seems to me that, not only do you not have "ideal numbers" but that you cannot produce any numbers with this approach. And if you can't produce any numbers then what business do you have claiming that there are too many people?
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,053
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Asking for numbers and sources can often be a way of saying I don't have a good argument against what you say or you don't wnat to acknowledge the obvious reality.

Anyone who thinks the USA is not overpopulated and over consuming is not playing with a full deck and is not living in the real world.

We have a 'consumer economy' as does the industrialized nations. Wn have a huge overcapcity to supply basic necessities. This means a relatively small percent of population is employed providing necesary goods and sevices. The economy grows by finding more things to produce and consume.

It us why when consumer confidence drops the economy drops.

The global consumer economy is what pulled China up out of the misery of Maoism.
 

DBT

Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
13,290
Location
ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Asking for numbers and sources can often be a way of saying I don't have a good argument against what you say or you don't wnat to acknowledge the obvious reality.

Anyone who thinks the USA is not overpopulated and over consuming is not playing with a full deck and is not living in the real world.

We have a 'consumer economy' as does the industrialized nations. Wn have a huge overcapcity to supply basic necessities. This means a relatively small percent of population is employed providing necesary goods and sevices. The economy grows by finding more things to produce and consume.

It us why when consumer confidence drops the economy drops.

The global consumer economy is what pulled China up out of the misery of Maoism.

Exactly.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,776
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Cities are densely populated, but that’s a major benefit to the environment in a number of ways: It isolates large numbers of humans in small areas, leaving the wider countryside less impacted by their presence; It also allows humans to be vastly more efficient in provision of services, and supply of goods.

The idea that a subset of the Earth (whether a nation, county, city, or anything else) might be overpopulated, while the rest of the planet is not, is just stupid. People clump together, because they like to do so more than they like not to, for various reasons (most involving the ability to get resources from other people).

Globally, overpopulation is indeed hard to define. But while resources are so abundant that it remains cheaper to mine new ores than it is to recycle the materials from our waste streams and dumps; And while hunger is continuing to become less and less of a problem, and more people suffer health problems due to too much food than due to too little, it seems that the burden of proof lies with people claiming that overpopulation is a thing.

How can we explain the abundance of food and resources, if overpopulation is a thing?

As to resource use, that’s really not a thing either. The first law of thermodynamics tells us that pretty much everything humans have ever extracted is still here on Earth; And the second law tells us that one we have spread it out, we will need a lot of energy to regather and recycle it.

So resource scarcity isn’t really a thing, it’s just a symptom of energy poverty.

We have access to vast amounts of energy. While that remains true, there’s very little that we could run out of. Some stuff might get pretty expensive, but that’s just a function of how expensive energy is - and we know how to generate electricity very cheaply.

Worrying about population is sensible IF and ONLY IF the population is growing at a rate greater than the possible rate of food production (it’s not, and unless something dramatic changes, it never will); OR energy cannot be obtained inexpensively once all environmental externalities included in the cost (it can).

The difference to any individual between a planet with three billion, six billion, eight billion, or even eleven billion people is utterly negligible. In all of these cases, most people will choose to live in big conurbations, and those who don’t will have plenty of options of remote places to go instead.

We are not running out of anything, except perhaps Helium. Everything else we have ever extracted from the lithosphere is still here, and we can recycle it if we choose to do so.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Asking for numbers and sources can often be a way of saying I don't have a good argument against what you say or you don't wnat to acknowledge the obvious reality.

Anyone who thinks the USA is not overpopulated and over consuming is not playing with a full deck and is not living in the real world.

We have a 'consumer economy' as does the industrialized nations. Wn have a huge overcapcity to supply basic necessities. This means a relatively small percent of population is employed providing necesary goods and sevices. The economy grows by finding more things to produce and consume.

It us why when consumer confidence drops the economy drops.

The global consumer economy is what pulled China up out of the misery of Maoism.
...and why they can't breath the air.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,776
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Asking for numbers and sources can often be a way of saying I don't have a good argument against what you say or you don't wnat to acknowledge the obvious reality.

Anyone who thinks the USA is not overpopulated and over consuming is not playing with a full deck and is not living in the real world.

We have a 'consumer economy' as does the industrialized nations. Wn have a huge overcapcity to supply basic necessities. This means a relatively small percent of population is employed providing necesary goods and sevices. The economy grows by finding more things to produce and consume.

It us why when consumer confidence drops the economy drops.

The global consumer economy is what pulled China up out of the misery of Maoism.
...and why they can't breath the air.
*Breathe
 
Top Bottom