5 ms·

A milder question: do you believe humans are changing the environment at all?

graycat 12y ago
Here you are asking about me, personally, and not asking about science, policy, etc. But, I'll answer, this time. One thing I am demonstrating today, as I get voted down by about 50 points, is that there are a lot of really nasty, intolerant people on HN. Okay, now that I have established and know that, maybe it was worth the 50 points. The shame is HN's, not mine. "At all"? Sure: Light a candle and warm the planet. No doubt. Change? Yes. Significant or harmful? No. The environment? Well, yes: There has long been a lot of pollution of lakes and streams. E.g., Lake Erie used to be a total mess. People with boats saw scum on their boats. Now Lake Erie is much cleaner, and people can and are willing to catch and eat the fish. And people around the Great Lakes are really happy about the cleaner lakes. The clean air act did a lot to clean up auto smog in big cities. Out in the suburbs and country, nearly all the mandated changes in cars were an expensive, total pain in the back side for no good reason at all. Apparently for some years Japan had to learn some of the lessons about water pollution the hard way. Now they have had to learn about nuclear safety the hard way. I believe that they will learn. Apparently China is learning the lessons over again, also the hard way. But China can be severe on some law violations, and in places China has a lot of motivation to have some good laws and enforce them. I suspect that relatively quickly, mostly they will get the message. Maybe someday all the US rivers will be clean enough for fish to migrate up and breed. Dams will be an issue, but otherwise there shouldn't be much reason why not. Land runoff? Shouldn't really be a biggie. People have worked hard on the Chesapeake Bay, and likely they have made good progress. There's a lot of good economic value in a clean Chesapeake Bay. In places there has been overfishing, but that's not usually regarded as changing the environment. Still, a well run, regulated, fishery is in the interests of nearly everyone so is feasible in practice. But, apparently also there is something of an industry that wants to run environmental alarm scams for whatever agendas. From all I've been able to see, at least 99 44/100% of the alarm about human caused global warming, climate change, and depletion of the ozone is just such a scam. To me, the alarmists just don't make a solid case. It looks like a scam, walks like a scam, quacks like a scam, and I conclude it's a scam. It's a close cousin to the Mayan charlatans saying that to keep the sun moving across the sky it was necessary to kill people and pour blood on a rock -- literally, no exaggeration. A scam. A psychological manipulation and exploitation for reasons of a hidden agenda, usually for money or politics, with a lot of both involved. It's my best judgment; read my arguments on this thread; consider my judgment or not; take it or leave it as you wish. If you want to believe in human caused climate change, etc., go ahead, but my view is that you are being manipulated into letting manipulative, exploitative, selfish people on your back and into your pocket, shooting yourself in your foot, with higher prices across the board, often significantly higher, for no good reason. Here's one: Here on HN I noted that a car needs a source of energy, and for that energy a 15 gallon tank of gasoline is really tough to beat. Batteries? Good for golf carts and otherwise next to hopeless due, especially to recharging time. Heck, I can really like an electric car if only because I like high performance, and a series wound electric motor at stall generates essentially infinite torque. Also a generator-motor combination provides essentially a perfect transmission. And a battery with an electric motor is really low on moving parts compared with a gasoline engine. But, just like a Ford executive said long ago, and the auto industry understood well when electric cars were tried 100 years ago (with batteries nearly as good then as now), "You build me a good battery, and I will build you a good electric car.". We're still waiting for that good battery, say, one that can beat a 15 gallon tank of gasoline. Well, that message was heresy here on HN. A lot of electric car true believers here? Who hate gasoline? Apparently. So, what's the best way to beat a 15 gallon tank of gasoline? Apparently scream about CO2 and climate change. Money? Sure, get a lot of subsidies. Later, tax carbon. Did I mention a hidden agenda, follow the money, on your back and in your pocket? Maybe a winner will always get picked on, and a 15 gallon tank of gasoline is a great winner -- super tough to beat. So, it gets picked on. But not by me -- I believe that tank is terrific and want to continue to benefit from it.
pdonis 12y ago
One way that doesn't seem to get talked about much: land use. The land surface of planet Earth looks a lot different than it did a few hundred years ago, and even more different than ten thousand years ago before humans started farming. For example, I look around my local area and compare it with what it looked like when I was growing up: then, lots of woods with a few farms; now, lots of asphalt and concrete and buildings. Ten thousand years ago it would have been all forest.

Here you are asking about me, personally, and not asking about science, policy, etc. But, I'll answer, this time. One thing I am demonstrating today, as I get voted down by about 50 points, is that there are a lot of really nasty, intolerant people on HN. Okay, now that I have established and know that, maybe it was worth the 50 points. The shame is HN's, not mine. "At all"? Sure: Light a candle and warm the planet. No doubt. Change? Yes. Significant or harmful? No. The environment? Well, yes: There has long been a lot of pollution of lakes and streams. E.g., Lake Erie used to be a total mess. People with boats saw scum on their boats. Now Lake Erie is much cleaner, and people can and are willing to catch and eat the fish. And people around the Great Lakes are really happy about the cleaner lakes. The clean air act did a lot to clean up auto smog in big cities. Out in the suburbs and country, nearly all the mandated changes in cars were an expensive, total pain in the back side for no good reason at all. Apparently for some years Japan had to learn some of the lessons about water pollution the hard way. Now they have had to learn about nuclear safety the hard way. I believe that they will learn. Apparently China is learning the lessons over again, also the hard way. But China can be severe on some law violations, and in places China has a lot of motivation to have some good laws and enforce them. I suspect that relatively quickly, mostly they will get the message. Maybe someday all the US rivers will be clean enough for fish to migrate up and breed. Dams will be an issue, but otherwise there shouldn't be much reason why not. Land runoff? Shouldn't really be a biggie. People have worked hard on the Chesapeake Bay, and likely they have made good progress. There's a lot of good economic value in a clean Chesapeake Bay. In places there has been overfishing, but that's not usually regarded as changing the environment. Still, a well run, regulated, fishery is in the interests of nearly everyone so is feasible in practice. But, apparently also there is something of an industry that wants to run environmental alarm scams for whatever agendas. From all I've been able to see, at least 99 44/100% of the alarm about human caused global warming, climate change, and depletion of the ozone is just such a scam. To me, the alarmists just don't make a solid case. It looks like a scam, walks like a scam, quacks like a scam, and I conclude it's a scam. It's a close cousin to the Mayan charlatans saying that to keep the sun moving across the sky it was necessary to kill people and pour blood on a rock -- literally, no exaggeration. A scam. A psychological manipulation and exploitation for reasons of a hidden agenda, usually for money or politics, with a lot of both involved. It's my best judgment; read my arguments on this thread; consider my judgment or not; take it or leave it as you wish. If you want to believe in human caused climate change, etc., go ahead, but my view is that you are being manipulated into letting manipulative, exploitative, selfish people on your back and into your pocket, shooting yourself in your foot, with higher prices across the board, often significantly higher, for no good reason. Here's one: Here on HN I noted that a car needs a source of energy, and for that energy a 15 gallon tank of gasoline is really tough to beat. Batteries? Good for golf carts and otherwise next to hopeless due, especially to recharging time. Heck, I can really like an electric car if only because I like high performance, and a series wound electric motor at stall generates essentially infinite torque. Also a generator-motor combination provides essentially a perfect transmission. And a battery with an electric motor is really low on moving parts compared with a gasoline engine. But, just like a Ford executive said long ago, and the auto industry understood well when electric cars were tried 100 years ago (with batteries nearly as good then as now), "You build me a good battery, and I will build you a good electric car.". We're still waiting for that good battery, say, one that can beat a 15 gallon tank of gasoline. Well, that message was heresy here on HN. A lot of electric car true believers here? Who hate gasoline? Apparently. So, what's the best way to beat a 15 gallon tank of gasoline? Apparently scream about CO2 and climate change. Money? Sure, get a lot of subsidies. Later, tax carbon. Did I mention a hidden agenda, follow the money, on your back and in your pocket? Maybe a winner will always get picked on, and a 15 gallon tank of gasoline is a great winner -- super tough to beat. So, it gets picked on. But not by me -- I believe that tank is terrific and want to continue to benefit from it.

pdonis 12y ago

One way that doesn't seem to get talked about much: land use. The land surface of planet Earth looks a lot different than it did a few hundred years ago, and even more different than ten thousand years ago before humans started farming. For example, I look around my local area and compare it with what it looked like when I was growing up: then, lots of woods with a few farms; now, lots of asphalt and concrete and buildings. Ten thousand years ago it would have been all forest.