The 6th Mass Extinction as Ice caps both north and south are melting.

[Immanuel Can]

Why don't you believe the video?... he even openly states that it is not incontrovertible.

You just answered your own question, Gary. Let's have some incontrovertible data. If the deal's that important, we can't afford less.

But with something like climate, we may never get incontrovertible data until the worst actually happens.

That doesn't excuse thrashing about in panic. The chances that we will do the wrong thing are extremely high...and climate panickers tell us that this is waaaay too important an issue to get wrong. It's clear in a case like California or anti-hunting initiatives, that there are cases in which environmental do-gooders are capable of doing as much or more environmental damage than can be done by doing nothing quickly.

I'm for going with the best data we get. But right now, we don't have enough, so we ought to move slowly, and not panic. That's just good sense.

[Gary Childress]

You just answered your own question, Gary. Let's have some incontrovertible data. If the deal's that important, we can't afford less.

But with something like climate, we may never get incontrovertible data until the worst actually happens.

That doesn't excuse thrashing about in panic. The chances that we will do the wrong thing are extremely high...and climate panickers tell us that this is waaaay too important an issue to get wrong. It's clear in a case like California or anti-hunting initiatives, that there are cases in which environmental do-gooders are capable of doing as much or more environmental damage than can be done by doing nothing quickly.

I'm for going with the best data we get. But right now, we don't have enough, so we ought to move slowly, and not panic. That's just good sense.

OK. I can go with that. But it's a little hard for some of us not to panic when the stakes seem potentially so high. People are worried. I'm worried. And it's not quite over nothing from the looks of it so far.

[Immanuel Can]

OK. I can go with that. But it's a little hard for some of us not to panic when the stakes seem potentially so high. People are worried. I'm worried. And it's not quite over nothing from the looks of it so far.

I get that. But that's what the radicals and alarmists count on. They ratchet up the stakes until it starts to look look like you cannot NOT do something, however futile, misguided or even counterproductive that thing might be. They want you to start storing K-rations, or start burning corn in your car, or building windmills that kill birds...but it's all nonsense. They're just making themselves seem important...they're not telling you they know what to do.

Be cool. This world is a big place, and has been around a long while. We can wait a few days while we figure things out.

[Gary Childress]

OK. I can go with that. But it's a little hard for some of us not to panic when the stakes seem potentially so high. People are worried. I'm worried. And it's not quite over nothing from the looks of it so far.

I get that. But that's what the radicals and alarmists count on. They ratchet up the stakes until it starts to look look like you cannot NOT do something, however futile, misguided or even counterproductive that thing might be. They want you to start storing K-rations, or start burning corn in your car, or building windmills that kill birds...but it's all nonsense. They're just making themselves seem important...they're not telling you they know what to do.

Be cool. This world is a big place, and has been around a long while. We can wait a few days while we figure things out.

For what it's worth, I don't think there is a "they" who are trying to do anything. All it is is people reacting to some pretty scary news. I don't think it's a master plot to do anything other than the stated goal of preserving humanity, and yes, preserving a little of non-human species to boot isn't a bad thing either.

But sure, the possibility exists to over-react or incorrectly act and do things that are counter-productive. We can also do absolutely nothing and get nothing done. At least by acting, we become aware of the mistakes and can hopefully adjust. If we don't try, then we may never know what will work and what won't. Sometimes life is trial and error until you get it right.

[Immanuel Can]

For what it's worth, I don't think there is a "they" who are trying to do anything.

Sure there are. Every lunatic who wants a piece of the stage is in the game. Bill Nye would be a very good example of somebody really unqualified, but who wants to become a climate guru for the rest of us.

Sometimes life is trial and error until you get it right.

Yeah, sometimes. But how costly do you think climate errors are? If you think "not much," I guess then you can go ahead. Otherwise...not so much.

"Trial and error" has done a lot of damage in regard to the environment, actually. Think of how we've put up these horrid windmills that kill so many birds...or the way we're using massive swaths of our best arable land as low-grade fuel instead of food, because the corn lobby told us that "ethanol" would be "green." Or think of what the environmentalists have done to California...as the fires sweep down from the Tetons on Los Angeles.

If it's worth doing, it's worth getting right. Getting it wrong is very costly.

[Gary Childress]

For what it's worth, I don't think there is a "they" who are trying to do anything.

Sure there are. Every lunatic who wants a piece of the stage is in the game. Bill Nye would be a very good example of somebody really unqualified, but who wants to become a climate guru for the rest of us.

OK. Do you think fossil fuel interests are bolstering climate skepticism, then? Do "they" want to divert attention away from doing something to fight climate change because it generally means shifting dependence away from fossil fuels and therefore cutting profits?

[Luxin]

deleted 454

[Immanuel Can]

For what it's worth, I don't think there is a "they" who are trying to do anything.

Sure there are. Every lunatic who wants a piece of the stage is in the game. Bill Nye would be a very good example of somebody really unqualified, but who wants to become a climate guru for the rest of us.

OK. Do you think fossil fuel interests are bolstering climate skepticism, then? Do "they" want to divert attention away from doing something to fight climate change because it generally means shifting dependence away from fossil fuels and therefore cutting profits?

Oh probably. That's why the data are so important: people on both sides have an interest in telling the story only their own way.

[Gary Childress]

Sure there are. Every lunatic who wants a piece of the stage is in the game. Bill Nye would be a very good example of somebody really unqualified, but who wants to become a climate guru for the rest of us.

OK. Do you think fossil fuel interests are bolstering climate skepticism, then? Do "they" want to divert attention away from doing something to fight climate change because it generally means shifting dependence away from fossil fuels and therefore cutting profits?

Oh probably. That's why the data are so important: people on both sides have an interest in telling the story only their own way.

So what sort of data are you looking for? Are you looking for data to prove that climate change is happening as a result of human activity or are you looking for data that it will have extremely detrimental effects on humanity? Both?

[Immanuel Can]

So what sort of data are you looking for? Are you looking for data to prove that climate change is happening as a result of human activity or are you looking for data that it will have extremely detrimental effects on humanity? Both?

Well, the first thing is that we need to know what's causing it, and if anything we can do will have a substantial effect on it. If we can't, then trashing our industries and wrecking our economies, or investing in counterproductive "environmentalist" gestures (like windmills or burning corn fields) that actually make things worse is not going to help, but is actually going to accelerate the human misery. And we don't want that, right?

[Gary Childress]

So what sort of data are you looking for? Are you looking for data to prove that climate change is happening as a result of human activity or are you looking for data that it will have extremely detrimental effects on humanity? Both?

Well, the first thing is that we need to know what's causing it, and if anything we can do will have a substantial effect on it. If we can't, then trashing our industries and wrecking our economies, or investing in counterproductive "environmentalist" gestures (like windmills or burning corn fields) that actually make things worse is not going to help, but is actually going to accelerate the human misery. And we don't want that, right?

What about going solar? And what is "counterproductive" about wind power?

As far as what's causing it, as many as 97% of actively publishing climate scientists seem to point to human-created CO2 emissions as being an "extremely likely" and significant factor.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

That seems like a pretty substantial number of people who actually know what they're talking about being in agreement. I suppose the other option is for you and I to go take a graduate studies course on climate so we can have an adequately informed debate about it.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

As far as "wrecking our economies", what makes you think that shifting production to a greener economy will "wreck" our economy?

[Dontaskme]

Humans are an anti-natural, omnicidal, unsustainable species.

...are your words, not mine

the hysteria is all yours

and: how do you square Humans are an anti-natural, omnicidal, unsustainable species. with there is no human to kill itself?

the two don't jibe

Henry, when it was written...”Humans are an anti-natural, omnicidal, unsustainable species.”

This is just a perception....it’s a knowledge, which is a story within consciousness, in other words it’s a dream about Humans who are an anti-natural, omnicidal, unsustainable species. Including the hysteria over this realisation.

This discussion is self talking to itself, it’s the dream of separation believed to be real.

The experience of being a Human informs it has a big brain which has evolved to a state of being self reflecting, although a reflection can only be synonymous to a dream. Also this brain has evolved a sophistication where it can believe this self reflection is a real character in daily life, when in reality, this character is just one of many EXPERIENCES of consciousness.

The human story aka knowledge is an appearance capable of disappearing forever, who knows?
Without this appearance theres absolutely nothing happening.

Life is a dream dreamt by no one..full stop.

.

[Immanuel Can]

What about going solar?

It's a technology we should certainly develop. At present, there are considerable limitations to it. It would be great if we could get it right.

And what is "counterproductive" about wind power?

Giant wind turbines are very destructive to birds. They kill millions every year. Meanwhile, these huge turbines produce power that is surplus, and is unreliable because it depends on the wind. There is research as well to show that these giant, expensive machines also give people a kind of vertigo or nausea, and have other effects that are undesirable on wildlife. And they're ugly.

Where I live, we have many of these ugly things. But all the power they produce doesn't add up to a fraction of what we get from water and other sources like atomic, and it's surplus power we cannot use. So why do we have these things?

I suppose the other option is for you and I to go take a graduate studies course on climate so we can have an adequately informed debate about it.

Not necessary. What's necessary is only that our policy-makers justify their policies on the basis of data that is unequivocal.

As far as "wrecking our economies", what makes you think that shifting production to a greener economy will "wreck" our economy?

Because none of our current "green" sources can replace even a tenth of what it is we get from other sources. So that means we simply would have to stop living the way we are, and learn how to make do with very little energy available. In climates like the one I live in, that would make life quite unbearable, actually.

[Belinda]

What about going solar?

It's a technology we should certainly develop. At present, there are considerable limitations to it. It would be great if we could get it right.

And what is "counterproductive" about wind power?

Giant wind turbines are very destructive to birds. They kill millions every year. Meanwhile, these huge turbines produce power that is surplus, and is unreliable because it depends on the wind. There is research as well to show that these giant, expensive machines also give people a kind of vertigo or nausea, and have other effects that are undesirable on wildlife. And they're ugly.

Where I live, we have many of these ugly things. But all the power they produce doesn't add up to a fraction of what we get from water and other sources like atomic, and it's surplus power we cannot use. So why do we have these things?

I suppose the other option is for you and I to go take a graduate studies course on climate so we can have an adequately informed debate about it.

Not necessary. What's necessary is only that our policy-makers justify their policies on the basis of data that is unequivocal.

As far as "wrecking our economies", what makes you think that shifting production to a greener economy will "wreck" our economy?

Because none of our current "green" sources can replace even a tenth of what it is we get from other sources. So that means we simply would have to stop living the way we are, and learn how to make do with very little energy available. In climates like the one I live in, that would make life quite unbearable, actually.

Nuclear power may be our only salvation.

[Belinda]

What about going solar?

It's a technology we should certainly develop. At present, there are considerable limitations to it. It would be great if we could get it right.

And what is "counterproductive" about wind power?

Giant wind turbines are very destructive to birds. They kill millions every year. Meanwhile, these huge turbines produce power that is surplus, and is unreliable because it depends on the wind. There is research as well to show that these giant, expensive machines also give people a kind of vertigo or nausea, and have other effects that are undesirable on wildlife. And they're ugly.

Where I live, we have many of these ugly things. But all the power they produce doesn't add up to a fraction of what we get from water and other sources like atomic, and it's surplus power we cannot use. So why do we have these things?

I suppose the other option is for you and I to go take a graduate studies course on climate so we can have an adequately informed debate about it.

Not necessary. What's necessary is only that our policy-makers justify their policies on the basis of data that is unequivocal.

As far as "wrecking our economies", what makes you think that shifting production to a greener economy will "wreck" our economy?

Because none of our current "green" sources can replace even a tenth of what it is we get from other sources. So that means we simply would have to stop living the way we are, and learn how to make do with very little energy available. In climates like the one I live in, that would make life quite unbearable, actually.

Belinda replied:Nuclear power may be our only salvation. Men being what they are if nuclear power is perceived as legitimate official efforts to increase green sources will cease.