Do You Believe in an Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect?

I voted yes but even if it is not due to human activities I believe it is a beneficial belief to hold.

A measured and sympathetic attitude towards this and other planets, will yield a living philosophy which can endure.

Doing things to planets that don’t usually occur, are probably not what they are built to handle. Although the weather seams to reduce carbons over time.

Ethically we cannot really travel to other planets and rape their resources, because if they have life they may one day have intelligent life. Naturally they wont be able to move into an industrial or metal age even, if we eat up their resources. If we consider that for our civilisation to survive, it is going to come close to the limits [of use/resources] before reaching a permanent solution. I mean that we will use most of what the earth has, before we have technology which takes us into 100% re-use.

So that is our only known example, to be what it takes for an intelligent species to survive.

We have to find the 100% re-use solutions, or we will fail. There is nothing else going to happen here?

_

I believe it can happen in areas, but the confluence of factors leading to explaining global is based on embarrassingly faulty mathematical understandings, and it becomes evident this is the case in other fields, especially paleoarcheology, when we are clearly seeing different climate shifts during our species tenure on the planet. I don’t believe the manipulation of carbon output will “save” jackshit, cause Climate Change > Human Carbon Footprints by a massive, terribly large margin. It’s a fucking joke from a archaeological perspective, if I’m forced to accept humans are causing sea levels to rise, then I’m forced to accept Flint Knapping caused the Bearing Land bridge to submerge, and that the origins of metal working culture cut off the last off the Wolly Mammoths on a Island off Alaska 4,000 Yeats ago.

That’s retarded, but that’s exactly the clever logic I’m being asked to accept when looking back in time, and I’m deeply unimpressed with attempted forced change in definitions such as changing it from “Global Warming” to “Global Climate Change”… Didn’t stop it from bring a retarded theory, still as fucked up and stupid as before. Might of worked on me in 4th Grade, but I’m a adult, I know that is a lousy gimmick. Likewise further adapting it as "it is mostly natural, but ALSO human influence, and these complicated, ludicruse carbon tax schemes will save us, reversing it… " is 100% certainly wrong. We were already trending hotter, last interglacier period was hotter than this… no amount of carbon manipulation will reverse that, again Nature > Human. We are barely renting it, and currently can’t make it any cooler through carbon emission tricks than what it already would of been- and it was by default getting hotter and hotter, definitely has the last 10,000 year. So I see that as a idiotic psuedo-science, as solutions go.

As an analogy, let’s say someone sold you a burning house… previous tennent didn’t want it anymore… was on fire. Gave you a fantastic deal… you move in. No real problems at first, tad bit muggy, you sit on the couch (graciously came fully furnished) and you light a cigarette. Smoke it… Then light another… Smoke it, finish it… Then light another.

Your wife never approved of your nasty smoking habit, and notices it is getting hotter. She sees the flame and smoke in your cigarette, blames it.

“Every time you light that cigarette, it gets hotter. Your cigarette emissions are causing a massive temperature spike.”

She drawls up some graphs, going off her wristwatch and thermometer on the wall… proving conclusively that your cigarette smoking is causing the temperature spike. You… Smoking on the couch, note to her that the house was on fire already when we bought it and moved in… So your not to blame.

She then says that indeed the house us on fire, but the temperature spike is a combination of House on Fire/Cigarette smoking causes, and that by not smoking, we can lower the overall temperature of the house down to natural room temperature. You point our this is a bunch of bullshit, look at that wall, it is clearly on fire. She sees the cat is on fire, from the wall, and it is screeching and screaming, and blames you smoking a dozen feet away for hurting it with your cigarette smoking, and demands you get serious, get real, show some compassion towards the cat, if you would only stop smoking, the fire would stop burning.

That is our current state of argument.

I can agree with One Liner that environmental awareness is “potentially” good, but we have to admit, the Carbon Scare is A Boy Who Cried Wolf scenario. Gaia isn’t a entity, doesn’t give a fuck about you or your spiritual stewardship, it has it’s own damn plans, and doesn’t give a rats ass for your weak, illogical reasoning.

We should be focusing on real ecological problems, like localized breathable air. My town was declared by Time Magazine back in the 60s to be the most polluted city in the world… I made a lot of money in the 90s as a kid sweeping sidewalks, getting up all the pollutants that would fall. Air is breathable now. Had shit to do with carbon or global warming, had someone tried to pull that scam, it never would of been cleaned up.

The Global Warming debacle needs to be immediately abandoned by the left, and we need to properly build up the environmental sciences. It created a rather scary and abhorrent feedback loop of psuedo-science fear mongering amongst the left by former Christians turned atheists still clinging onto a apocalyptic fantasy. Stoics used to believe the universe ended through environmental collapse and then by fire too… Kin Dza Dza! Played on that theme, one half of the universe was a dry, used up pist-capitalist desert, while the other half (our half) was newer, still green.

Eating Vegan, dancing to the goddesses of earth, smoking pot, watching NBCNews, while talking about Chomsky and Zizek while recycling your biodegradabkes in compost and recyckeables separate from the trash won’t ever keep it from not getting hot as fuck, even if we all follow to the last.

It was already getting, hot as fuck. Our civilization peaked coincidently (or perhaps not coincidently) at this point, and it comes as a bewildering shock.

No… we can’t keep the weather frozen in our grandparents era, nor can we morph it back to the 1700s, or the 1200s, or the 500s, 3000BC, 12,000BC, 20,000BC, 100,000BC.

No amount of exhortion or compromise, funny figuring or exasperation or call to liberal social networks or educational status is going to convince me otherwise. I"he looked it over 100 times, I’m convinced it is a bullshit substitute religion for atheists who can’t let go of Christian and Stoic assumptions. They cling to it out of absolute necessity.

I’m a Christian, I firmly believe god has a plan for all our deaths, and has been plotting it for centuries, and that no amount of carbon trickery will defer his revenge for crucifying him. He clearly has a grudge, and we are fucked. Sounds laughable to many of you, but hey… at least I can approach the environmental sciences rationally and skeotically because of it, you can’t precisely because you lack it. It is your alternative religion, and you can’t see how cultic or controlling the fears are to you.

I would definitely prefer to live in a world where everyone believes in the human cause rather than a “natural” cause, irrespective how ludicrous the evidence is as this false believe would have other consequences (for better and for worse).

Why do you believe that?

Why do you not consider the aspect of spoof and the reasons for it?

I think that is in need of an explanation.

I would rather live in a world where we have competent sciences. We get far more options, choices, in reacting to a accurate portrayal of what us happening, then we do to flights of mass hysteria and jibbergoop.

The effort to get China to put scrubbers on it’s factory and mills, for example, has been seriously undermined by the carbon emissions hysteria. Carbon Emissions don’t hurt the average Chinese person, what hurts them is the fallback from their mills. This is low athmospheric pollution, bad for the lungs.

But the environmentalists are all over the board, and can’t concentrate their fire on what needs to be done. Sometimes the Chinese government decided all they need to do is sign up to a car bone missions program if it looks like it won’t happen on a geopolitical scale… nothing gets cleaned up if this happens, they regularly shut down factories in China, and would just claim those reduced emissions as their target goal… every other mill would continue to pollute bad.

But we got too many airheads running loose with fears we will all be Kevin Costner in WaterWorld soon, and get agitated saying “Somebody needs to fucking do something, this needs to get fucking real” and the end result is nothing.

We’ve had far more carbon than this in the past. Carbon isn’t scaring me, it is the local pollution fucking over generations of people. I know the scrubbers work, I’ve seen the change myself. We really do need to just focus on scrubbers and keeping mine water out of the rivers, and human waste out of the farm fields. We do this, and 90% of problems go away. If you want to recycle to eat organics, go on spiritual goddess retreats to learn what wholesome foods to eat dedicated to each goddess, fine, fuck- whatever… neither good nor bad from a environmental standpoint. We put all our trash in dumps, and in the US we have started tapping into the methane deposited that build from trash. Recycling doesn’t matter as much, given we will soon have the capacity to mine our older dumps for cans using small digging drones… our best resource mines are former dumps. Most will get exploited over time. My main concern is making sure dumps don’t contaminate the ground water. Recycle, don’t, whatever… I know our dump has the overturning of trash down to a science. They systematically do it. I have no doubt they will someday mine the living day lights out of it once they can.

Meaning, if it takes a false belief to bring about change then I am all for it as I think change needs to happen; as doing the same shit over and over just doesn’t appear to be working.

What do you think brought all the “same shit over and over” to begin with?

False belief is all there has ever been.

True, but sticking to one set of false beliefs is foolish and doesn’t result in progress whereas trying differing false beliefs over and over again “may” eventually result in change (banging your head against a brick wall eventually feels good when you stop).

What, pray tell, do you imagine that one set of false beliefs to have been??? :-s

One set of false beliefs is that technology and science can solve our problems.

Oh that’s not a belief. That is a government mandate and obsession with power.

People then believe this mandate and obsession with power.

Not all people.

A vocal minority is far more powerful than the silent majority.

Yes. But there is an unadapted minority within the silent majority, and sometimes this unadapted people are even the majority. It depends on how the times are, how the respective situation is.

With regard to the belief in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect, there is a vocal minority and a silent minority behind the vocal minority, and this two want the majority to believe in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect as if it should become a part of their new religion - other parts of tis new religion are: globalism (although it mainly contradicts the anthropogenic greenhouse effect) feminism, system of guilt complex (guilty conscience, thus: guiltism [does that word exist already?]), … and so on. The question is whether it is already a majority or still a minority that believes in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect. The number of that believers still increases.

Isn’t the jury still out on this? Our records are too new to know whether environment had a bearing on the ozone or not.

What does the op suggest we do in light of that?

The opening post of this thread merely suggests a question and the re-voting option. :wink: