Dear Environmentalists, please stop ranting about global warming

[FirstAscent]

Hey, isn't PETA also on that road where they'll only be satisfied when all human beings are wiped out?

I think it's safe to say, humans being selfish is a lot better than humans being dead.  Not saying "screw the planet", but, if I gotta live in space for the rest of my life, I'll be down with that.

So you admit it's better to be selfish and try and prevent our home from being destroyed by our pollution rather than being dead due to ecosystem destruction by our hand?

I've yet to see you admit it.

Just once, say that your top priority is human survival, and not that of "the planet," and I'll be behind you 100% on that.

My top priority is human survival within a natural environment that is allowed to proceed at a pace that is neither accelerated or decelerated by mankind. Simple enough.

Oh, so close, but you had to go and restrict it like that!
"within a natural environment that is allowed to proceed at a pace that is neither accelerated or decelerated by mankind."

So: Only on Earth, and we must limit our population so that we have no effect - as if we were not even there.

I didn't say that.

[1715314710]

1715314710

[1715314710]

1715314710

[1715314710]

1715314710

[RodeoX]

Perhaps the next branch smart enough to throw them will have even better parties.

Hmmm. maybe there is reason for hope? Maybe honey badgers will take over? They would party hardy for sure!

[myrkul]

Hey, isn't PETA also on that road where they'll only be satisfied when all human beings are wiped out?

I think it's safe to say, humans being selfish is a lot better than humans being dead.  Not saying "screw the planet", but, if I gotta live in space for the rest of my life, I'll be down with that.

So you admit it's better to be selfish and try and prevent our home from being destroyed by our pollution rather than being dead due to ecosystem destruction by our hand?

I've yet to see you admit it.

Just once, say that your top priority is human survival, and not that of "the planet," and I'll be behind you 100% on that.

My top priority is human survival within a natural environment that is allowed to proceed at a pace that is neither accelerated or decelerated by mankind. Simple enough.

Oh, so close, but you had to go and restrict it like that!
"within a natural environment that is allowed to proceed at a pace that is neither accelerated or decelerated by mankind."

So: Only on Earth, and we must limit our population so that we have no effect - as if we were not even there.

I didn't say that.

Yes you did.
"within a natural environment"
By definition, anything extra-terrestrial will be an artificial environment, or not humanity's natural environment.

"that is allowed to proceed at a pace that is neither accelerated or decelerated by mankind."
In order for it to be neither accelerated or decelerated, we must avoid affecting our environment at all. As though we are not even there.

[myrkul]

Here, let me help you:

"My top priority is Humanity's survival, and the best way to do that, until we have a solid self-sustaining space presence, is to not drastically alter our biosphere."

I think even you can agree with that one, yes?

[FirstAscent]

Here, let me help you:

"My top priority is Humanity's survival, and the best way to do that, until we have a solid self-sustaining space presence, is to not drastically alter our biosphere."

I think even you can agree with that one, yes?

I mostly agree with that. However, to be honest, it makes little difference to me if humanity survives or not in the distant future. It just seems irrelevant. Our lives, our children, and so on - that is important. If the human species slowly dwindles or evolves makes little difference to me. Now if I could come along for the ride and see the rest of the Universe, that would interesting, I admit.

As for not drastically altering our biosphere, I would prefer something more along the lines of "as much as possible, do not alter our biosphere".

[Mike Christ]

I mostly agree with that. However, to be honest, it makes little difference to me if humanity survives or not in the distant future. It just seems irrelevant. Our lives, our children, and so on - that is important. If the human species slowly dwindles or evolves makes little difference to me. Now if I could come along for the ride and see the rest of the Universe, that would interesting, I admit.

As for not drastically altering our biosphere, I would prefer something more along the lines of "as much as possible, do not alter our biosphere".

So your children's children don't matter?  And their children don't matter?  That's not very nice.

[FirstAscent]

I mostly agree with that. However, to be honest, it makes little difference to me if humanity survives or not in the distant future. It just seems irrelevant. Our lives, our children, and so on - that is important. If the human species slowly dwindles or evolves makes little difference to me. Now if I could come along for the ride and see the rest of the Universe, that would interesting, I admit.

As for not drastically altering our biosphere, I would prefer something more along the lines of "as much as possible, do not alter our biosphere".

So your children's children don't matter?  And their children don't matter?  That's not very nice.

Nothing lasts forever. Don't mince words. Dwindling can be the result of people not having children, and/or having only one child.

[Mike Christ]

I'm not mincing words.  You're saying you don't give two shits what happens after your children.  With that logic, you should just do whatever you want, since you don't care about posterity.  There's nothing you, as an individual, will do in your daily life that can alter your life or your children's life significantly.  It will, however, significantly alter the lives after, and this can be good or bad.  Since neither you or I know when the human race will finally kick the bucket, we can only assume we're not going away in the next 100 years.

[FirstAscent]

I'm not mincing words.  You're saying you don't give two shits what happens after your children.

You're mincing words. I apologize for not catering to your brand of taking only the literal meaning of every word. Children can be a metaphor. This particular sideline conversation is over unless you want it to become very heated and simultaneously irrelevant.

[myrkul]

Here, let me help you:

"My top priority is Humanity's survival, and the best way to do that, until we have a solid self-sustaining space presence, is to not drastically alter our biosphere."

I think even you can agree with that one, yes?

I mostly agree with that. However, to be honest, it makes little difference to me if humanity survives or not in the distant future.

OK, just so I know where you stand. Any demise of the human species, or even any great difficulties due to climate change - anthropogenic or not - will happen long after your death. 100 years, or a million, if you're not there to see it, it doesn't make any difference. Anything past my expected demise is effectively "the distant future." This being the case, you should be comforted that the earth will go on, regardless of what we do.

As for not drastically altering our biosphere, I would prefer something more along the lines of "as much as possible, do not alter our biosphere".

Very well, I can amend the statement to:
"My top priority is Humanity's survival, and the best way to do that, until we have a solid self-sustaining space presence, is to alter our biosphere as little as possible."

However, I should point out that there are events, completely outside of our control, which will drastically alter our biosphere. The most certain, though also the furthest away, is the sun baking our planet to a cinder in ~4.5 billion years. Nearer-term, there are asteroid impacts, supervolcano eruptions, solar fluctuations, and any number of other events, any one of which stand to wipe not only our species, but nearly every other one as well, off the face of the planet. It's happened before.

Therefore, my statement would look more like this:
"My top priority is Humanity's survival, and the best way to do that is to get a solid self-sustaining space presence, and in the meantime, alter our biosphere as little as possible."

[iCEBREAKER]

How long has the earth existed?
How long has there been life on Earth?
How long have there been Humans on Earth?
How long have we been tracking the temperature?

An admirable start; allow me to continue this most pointed line of questioning.

What is the total sum of the global carbon cycle and what percentage of that is due to human activity?
What amount of methane, CO2, SOX, and NOX are released by an average volcano?
What amount of methane, CO2, SOX, and NOX are released by a large volcanic eruption?
What amount of CO2 is trapped by forests, oceans, and other carbon sinks?
How much is climate change slowed by negative feedback mechanisms such as cloud albedo, the iris effect, and global dimming?
How would anything else cause more climate change than the sun?
How can anyone take the Official Science of Government Sponsored Academia seriously, given the utterly humiliating/discrediting disclosures found in the CRU whistleblower's bombshell data leak (Climategate)?

[johnniewalker]

I have taken several classes through Scripps Institute of Oceanography (respected research institute). Their consensus is that a global warming is occuring and that humans are the cause of it. The evidence points to the fact that this is true. And, there is no denying (even if you're a skeptic) cold, hard facts (no pun intended).

The one big question I have is, how were there periods of warming and ice ages before the burning of fossil fuel was even a plausible thought? I bet nearly every timeline presented by an organization that believes in global warming extends back just far enough to make the change in temperature look like it is increasing linearly. View heating/cooling trends since the Earth's formation. Global warming is a natural phenomenon. The only thing we (humans) might be doing is slightly accelerating it.

[myrkul]

Global warming is a natural phenomenon. The only thing we (humans) might be doing is slightly accelerating it.

What I've been shouting all along.

[iCEBREAKER]

I have taken several classes through Scripps Institute of Oceanography (respected research institute). Their consensus is that a global warming is occuring and that humans are the cause of it. The evidence points to the fact that this is true. And, there is no denying (even if you're a skeptic) cold, hard facts (no pun intended).

Scripps?  That appeal to authority might be persuasive to me, had I not spent several years attending even more prestigious institutions and doing my own research.   

Their consensus is based on flawed data and flawed models, as revealed by the Climategate dossier.

That flawed consensus, and the flawed data and flawed models which produced it, are hopelessly compromised by the incentives ($$$) to confirm ACG/AGW and the penalties for disputing it ("Hey Denier, you're fired").

There is plenty of room to disupte that consensus.  Your desire to Declare Victory does not reflect, much less create, reality.

You will find that the best coverage of Climategate was reported by The Register.  As an IT-focused news site, they had an advantage over the MSM in understanding all the wonky bits (hackers? arrays? fudge factors? code comments?).

Reading the Climategate archive is a bit like discovering that Professional Wrestling is rigged. You mean, it is? Really?

The archive - a carefully curated 160MB collection of source code, emails and other documents from the internal network of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia - provides grim confirmation for critics of climate science. But it also raises far more troubling questions.

Perhaps the real scandal is the dependence of media and politicians on their academics' work - an ask-no-questions approach that saw them surrender much of their power, and ultimately authority. This doesn't absolve the CRU crew of the charges, but might put it into a better context.

After a week of scrutiny of the emails, attention is now turning to the programming source code. Three quarters of the material released is the work of the academics, much of which they had jealously guarded. This includes a version of the world's most cited and respected temperature record - HADCRUT - and a number of surveys which featured prominently in the reports of the UN's climate change panel, the IPCC. The actors here shaped the UN reports, and ultimately - because no politician dare contradict the 'science' - shaped global policy.

The allegations over the past week are fourfold: that climate scientists controlled the publishing process to discredit opposing views and further their own theory; they manipulated data to make recent temperature trends look anomalous; they withheld and destroyed data they should have released as good scientific practice, and they were generally beastly about people who criticised their work.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/

Climate change is a natural phenomenon, controlled primarily by the sun and other aspects of geophysics that dwarf anything man has ever done.