3 ms·
I don't have time for a long detailed reply but I will respond to a couple of things here. > Do you think that CO2 is not a problem? It's not so much that I t
by southern_cross 8y ago
I don't have time for a long detailed reply but I will respond to a couple of things here.
> Do you think that CO2 is not a problem?
It's not so much that I think "that CO2 is not a problem", but rather that it's probably not THE problem when it comes to climate change issues - and certainly not the most pressing problem of our age, as it is often made out to be. And I think people who go too far down that path ("We're all doomed!") are maybe a little off-kilter mentally, to put it nicely, but there seems to be quite a few of them out there.
As to skepticalscience.com, some years back I spent many an hour reading through the stuff there, but eventually got to the point where I just no longer took it too seriously. The page you pointed me to "has issues"; the entire web site itself "has issues"; and even the guy who runs the site (John Cook) "has issues". I won't go into the details here because if you are as familiar with the situation as I am then I'm sure you're aware of at least some of those issues.
- kaybe 8y agoWhat do you think our most pressing problems are? And what to you think the problem is when it comes to climate change issues? I'm interested in your opinions and ideas since you seem to have given this a lot of thought.
- southern_cross 8y agoCoal is a problem, end-to-end. The buildup of nuclear waste (at least in the U.S.) is a problem. Sufficient freshwater supplies are a problem. Wildfires are a problem. Pollution (particularly plastics) is a problem. Concentrated overpopulation (too many people crammed into too small a space) is a problem. "Refugeeism" is a problem (note that I didn't say "refugees".) The threat of nuclear war (or at least the threat of rogue nations and such) is still a potential problem. And so on. But what really disturbs me on a longterm basis is the fact that we have so much of our population and infrastructure located along coastlines. We've built permanent infrastructure on largely impermanent land, which is often perpetually at risk. And I'm not just talking about sea level rise, but rather subsidence (the land is often sinking faster than the sea is rising), constant erosion, hurricanes (common and often devastating), tsunamis (less common but often even more devastating), and so on. As to sea level rise itself, the seas have been rising pretty incessantly ever since the start of the last interglacial period (if I'm using the right terminology here), and AFAIK there is nothing to indicate that this has ever stopped. It has apparently proceeded in fits and starts, though, and by my math it's still occurring at something like half the rate of the historical average. So when some mentions sea level rise in relation to climate change my reaction is more like "So what? Sea level rise is nothing new, but it's less of aa overall global issue now than it was in the past. As for any anthropogenic influences, that's more a matter of rate than anything. But unless the natural part of sea level rise comes to a complete stop, then all of that coastal infrastructure is pretty much doomed in the long run anyway, and it's probably not even particularly safe even if it does stop."