3 ms·
It is human caused. It simply is. We have decades of research all saying the exact same thing, some of which was funded directly by the energy industry trying d
by ToucanLoucan 1y ago
It is human caused. It simply is. We have decades of research all saying the exact same thing, some of which was funded directly by the energy industry trying desperately to prove it's not.
It is. This is not a debate anymore, if you disagree, you either don't understand or don't want to understand and neither of those is my or anyone else's problem to solve. You're wrong.
- mhb 1y agoWhy is it important to you what the cause is? Don't you think it is important to do something about it even if it wasn't human-caused? Should we only solve problems that we cause? It looks like you have a few similarly confused commenters who think this is relevant to addressing the problem. It's a mystery why you want to derail the discussion to a debate about the cause rather than how to fix it. Maybe you're trying to say that understanding the cause is relevant to the solution, but if you are, you need to say it a lot more clearly.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 1y agoThe thing about human-caused things is humans can choose to stop doing the causal things. The set of potential solutions would be quite different if the cause wasn't humans. Might even be impossible. But we have quite a lot of evidence that we have been affecting the climate pretty substantially since the beginning of industrialization and increasingly so since, so it makes sense to work on the human causes.
- lisbbb 1y agoI disagree. I think if we stop using oil and gas, we fall into a new dark ages pretty fast and half or more of all humans will die. Is that what you intend?
- Sabinus 1y agoWe have more options than just (instantly) stop using oil and gas and those options would have been far more easy to implement had we been doing them for the last 50 years instead of arguing about if climate change is happening, and now, if humans have caused climate change. These other options require resources and time to implement, and the political capital required to make that happen has been and will be increased because of the aforementioned 'debates'.
- ToucanLoucan 1y ago> Why is it important to you what the cause is? Because trapping us in this endless debate of what the "real" cause is has been the go-to strategy for the oil and gas industry, where no matter how many times it is bloody proven, they hem and haw and say "well we need more evidence" but they aren't like, not selling gasoline anymore until we know it's safe are they? They just keep doing exactly what we're pretty damned sure is killing the planet, while endlessly debating whether it is or not.
- mhb 1y agoWhy do you care what they say? Shouldn't your response be that it doesn't matter who caused it; we need to fix it regardless. Why do you want to have that argument?
- sjsdaiuasgdia 1y agoHow would you expand "fix it" as used in your post? What are the generic fixes for global warming, that are applicable to any potential cause? Would the set of potential mitigating actions look the same between human-caused climate change and something like prolonged increases in solar energy output? We have a ton of evidence for human-caused climate change. Understanding the factors that contribute to a problem allow you to take more appropriate actions. Without looking at the causal factors, your ability to thoroughly mitigate tends to be limited. If you were trying to fill a bucket but the bucket was losing water as fast as you poured it in, wouldn't you look into why, maybe see if there's a hole? Or would you just keep pouring and hope for the best?
- mhb 1y agoI would look to see if there was a hole. I'd also consider that I could solve the problem by getting a bigger bucket, freezing the water, or pouring cement into the bucket.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 1y agoWell unfortunately we only have the one "bucket" - Earth. We don't have the opportunity to exchange it for a bigger bucket. Your other solutions don't work even in the metaphor's context. Flowing water doesn't freeze easily, so you're either cooling the whole system to insanely cold levels or you're pouring ice cubes into the bucket. But we're moving water in the bucket, not ice. We want liquid water. Are we gonna stand around and wait for it to melt when we get to where we're going? And won't the water just leak out while we wait? Cement? I can see that going two ways. Either the hole is so big that the unset cement flows through easily, or it does manage to fill the hole. In the first case nothing has changed except you now have a puddle of cement under the bucket, possibly starting to bind the bucket to the ground. In the other, you may indeed plug the hole, but you've substantially increased the bucket's weight and reduced its capacity. So now that we've both over-extended a metaphor - what are the generic solutions you propose for global warming?
- lisbbb 1y agoIt will always be up for debate, though. That's the thing--unless you are an absolutist, you will understand that scientific inquiry is a never-ending process and that all the "it's settled science" people don't seem to understand that at one time humans thought the earth was the center of the universe and that applying leeches to people helped remove the "ill humours" they were suffering form. All of that was also "settled science." Until it wasn't.
- vel0city 1y agoPeople are still debating if the Earth is round. You might think your spherical, heliocentric ideas are "settled science". Until it isn't.