5 ms·

Not a bad way to put it. I've always wondered why framing things this way doesn't work: the things people claim cause global warming, whether or not they have a

Not a bad way to put it. I've always wondered why framing things this way doesn't work: the things people claim cause global warming, whether or not they have anything to do with global warming, are on their own not sustainable, and will likely lead to long term suffering for humanity, so we should find ways to reduce them and find more sustainable ways of living.

briandear 11y ago
The odd thing is that what we're doing has been "sustainable" since the Industrial Revolution. I am honestly interested in what "sustainable" actually means. It would seem that nothing is truly sustainable. I should like to see evidence of what actually is and isn't sustainable because from my chair, "sustainable" isn't wel defined. Dinosaurs lived in a sustainable environment and yet, here we are. My feeling is that the sense of emergent disaster is manufactured by those with vested political and financial interests. Progress in things like energy, manufacturing, etc., is welcome and naturally occurs as a function of a free market and a desire to achieve a competitive advantage. However, this 'end is near' cult that would have us believe the ice caps would have been gone by now and island nations would have disappeared. We've had a grand total of .36 degrees warming over the past 100 years. The climate is changing -- but not that much: not enough to warrant 50,000 people jetting off to Paris to talk about it on the taxpayers' dime. Let's improve industrial processes to eliminate toxic pollution (you know, real pollution -- things like Benzene and Mercury and 2.5 particulates,) and stop wasting everyone's collective time with Chicken Little exploitations of the politically active, but stupid masses of people that seem to think their kids will become scrambled eggs on the sidewalk if they don't recycle that plastic bottle immediately. There are people that actually believe Chinese smog is from CO2! It's depressing how incredibly wrong public opinion often is due to well placed agitators with a PhD after their name and a bank account full of grant funds.
- Angostura 11y ago
  > The odd thing is that what we're doing has been "sustainable" since the Industrial Revolution. You then go on to set out how you're not sure what sustainable means. So let me see if I can help. A simple guide would be that resource is being used in a sustainable way if the resource isn't being used up faster than it is replenished, or in other words 'If we keep doing this, can we keep doing this for a long time?' So by that measure, solar power, wind, geo-thermal are sustainable - the fact that we use them, doesn't diminish the amount available. To an extent cutting down a tree and burning is sustainable, if you can grow trees fast enough. Fossil fuels aren't sustainable. Firstly, there is a finite amount in the ground, and the speed at which we extract it far, far outweighs the speed at which new deposits are being laid down. Secondly, we need to use the atmosphere as the dumping ground for fossil fuels' waste products - including CO2. The atmosphere isn't infinite and we can measure that CO2 concentrations are rising in line with our output. Clearly, this is a simplified explanation, but I hope it is helpful. It does illustrate that no, we haven't being using resources in a sustainable fashion since the industrial revolution. Just because something hasn't run out yet, doesn't mean than it has been used sustainably. Finally - sustainable resource use isn't a magic get out of jail free card. Yes, the dinosaur ecosystem was sustainable. That doesn't mean that they were immune from meteor strikes. > My feeling is that the sense of emergent disaster is manufactured by those with vested political and financial interests. My feeling is that if you looked into the actual science a bit, your feeling may change.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
  > However, this 'end is near' cult that would have us believe the ice caps would have been gone by now and island nations would have disappeared. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise How about you just ignore the cult and look at what actual scientists have to say? You are mostly displaying complete lack of clue, just as some of the cultists. > There are people that actually believe Chinese smog is from CO2! Yes, the world is full of idiots, big deal. That doesn't mean that there aren't some quite good scientists who have some pretty convincing measurements of what is happening right now to offer, and who certainly don't expect CO2 to form a fog or whatever in our atmosphere.
  - reitanqild 11y ago
    Isn't it weird how justified people who are sure they are right right feel to label almost anyone else as idiots? Read me out here and get some good ideas for a campaign: There are literally 1000s of good reasons for people who aren't scientists to be sceptical, feel free to start with the 1400 or 1600 private jets that landed in Davos to discuss CO2 and AGW. If someone is serious about this that would be a mighty good place to start, not because the emissions from 1500 planes matter but because they show, loud and clear, that those who claim to care really doesn't care at all
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      Another "reality check": how many of these rich warming enthusiasts are buying property in Canada, or 6m (or whatever implausible sea level rise they claim to expect) above current ports? How many are selling their nice beach houses?
      - js8 11y ago
        In fact, some of them do: https://twitter.com/bouckap/status/675226198704848898/photo/1 https://twitter.com/bouckap/status/675226198704848898/photo/... (There are serious reasons to believe that AGW is one of the causes of the Syrian conflict.)
- Oletros 11y ago
  > There are people that actually believe Chinese smog is from CO2! It's depressing how incredibly wrong public opinion often is due to well placed agitators with a PhD after their name and a bank account full of grant funds. Care to give just one example of this PhD agitation. But the comment about "bank account full of grant funds" says a lot about all of your post. > We've had a grand total of .36 degrees warming over the past 100 years. The climate is changing -- but not that much: Apart that we're reaching 1 C above the pre industrial mean, 0.36 or 1 C is a LOT of change for 100-150 years.

briandear 11y ago

The odd thing is that what we're doing has been "sustainable" since the Industrial Revolution. I am honestly interested in what "sustainable" actually means. It would seem that nothing is truly sustainable. I should like to see evidence of what actually is and isn't sustainable because from my chair, "sustainable" isn't wel defined. Dinosaurs lived in a sustainable environment and yet, here we are. My feeling is that the sense of emergent disaster is manufactured by those with vested political and financial interests. Progress in things like energy, manufacturing, etc., is welcome and naturally occurs as a function of a free market and a desire to achieve a competitive advantage. However, this 'end is near' cult that would have us believe the ice caps would have been gone by now and island nations would have disappeared. We've had a grand total of .36 degrees warming over the past 100 years. The climate is changing -- but not that much: not enough to warrant 50,000 people jetting off to Paris to talk about it on the taxpayers' dime. Let's improve industrial processes to eliminate toxic pollution (you know, real pollution -- things like Benzene and Mercury and 2.5 particulates,) and stop wasting everyone's collective time with Chicken Little exploitations of the politically active, but stupid masses of people that seem to think their kids will become scrambled eggs on the sidewalk if they don't recycle that plastic bottle immediately. There are people that actually believe Chinese smog is from CO2! It's depressing how incredibly wrong public opinion often is due to well placed agitators with a PhD after their name and a bank account full of grant funds.

Angostura 11y ago
> The odd thing is that what we're doing has been "sustainable" since the Industrial Revolution. You then go on to set out how you're not sure what sustainable means. So let me see if I can help. A simple guide would be that resource is being used in a sustainable way if the resource isn't being used up faster than it is replenished, or in other words 'If we keep doing this, can we keep doing this for a long time?' So by that measure, solar power, wind, geo-thermal are sustainable - the fact that we use them, doesn't diminish the amount available. To an extent cutting down a tree and burning is sustainable, if you can grow trees fast enough. Fossil fuels aren't sustainable. Firstly, there is a finite amount in the ground, and the speed at which we extract it far, far outweighs the speed at which new deposits are being laid down. Secondly, we need to use the atmosphere as the dumping ground for fossil fuels' waste products - including CO2. The atmosphere isn't infinite and we can measure that CO2 concentrations are rising in line with our output. Clearly, this is a simplified explanation, but I hope it is helpful. It does illustrate that no, we haven't being using resources in a sustainable fashion since the industrial revolution. Just because something hasn't run out yet, doesn't mean than it has been used sustainably. Finally - sustainable resource use isn't a magic get out of jail free card. Yes, the dinosaur ecosystem was sustainable. That doesn't mean that they were immune from meteor strikes. > My feeling is that the sense of emergent disaster is manufactured by those with vested political and financial interests. My feeling is that if you looked into the actual science a bit, your feeling may change.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
> However, this 'end is near' cult that would have us believe the ice caps would have been gone by now and island nations would have disappeared. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise How about you just ignore the cult and look at what actual scientists have to say? You are mostly displaying complete lack of clue, just as some of the cultists. > There are people that actually believe Chinese smog is from CO2! Yes, the world is full of idiots, big deal. That doesn't mean that there aren't some quite good scientists who have some pretty convincing measurements of what is happening right now to offer, and who certainly don't expect CO2 to form a fog or whatever in our atmosphere.
- reitanqild 11y ago
  Isn't it weird how justified people who are sure they are right right feel to label almost anyone else as idiots? Read me out here and get some good ideas for a campaign: There are literally 1000s of good reasons for people who aren't scientists to be sceptical, feel free to start with the 1400 or 1600 private jets that landed in Davos to discuss CO2 and AGW. If someone is serious about this that would be a mighty good place to start, not because the emissions from 1500 planes matter but because they show, loud and clear, that those who claim to care really doesn't care at all
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    Another "reality check": how many of these rich warming enthusiasts are buying property in Canada, or 6m (or whatever implausible sea level rise they claim to expect) above current ports? How many are selling their nice beach houses?
    - js8 11y ago
      In fact, some of them do: https://twitter.com/bouckap/status/675226198704848898/photo/1 https://twitter.com/bouckap/status/675226198704848898/photo/... (There are serious reasons to believe that AGW is one of the causes of the Syrian conflict.)
Oletros 11y ago
> There are people that actually believe Chinese smog is from CO2! It's depressing how incredibly wrong public opinion often is due to well placed agitators with a PhD after their name and a bank account full of grant funds. Care to give just one example of this PhD agitation. But the comment about "bank account full of grant funds" says a lot about all of your post. > We've had a grand total of .36 degrees warming over the past 100 years. The climate is changing -- but not that much: Apart that we're reaching 1 C above the pre industrial mean, 0.36 or 1 C is a LOT of change for 100-150 years.