Climate change: What can you do to help halt global warming and when will you do it?

Forums › Off topic › Climate change: What can you do to help halt global warming and when will you do it?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 70

5346 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2250962 4-Jun-2019 11:12

Beccara:

Perhaps the answer to the Fermi paradox is that species reaching a certain technological threshold can't/won't transition away from older technologies in time to prevent ecological collapse

Perhaps the answer is technology is fundamentally incompatible with a planet's ecosystem survival?

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

nzrock

113 posts

Master Geek

#2250971 4-Jun-2019 11:28

DarthKermit:

Beccara:

Perhaps the answer to the Fermi paradox is that species reaching a certain technological threshold can't/won't transition away from older technologies in time to prevent ecological collapse

Perhaps the answer is technology is fundamentally incompatible with a planet's ecosystem survival?

more CO2 = more plant food, which means more plants + more O2, which means more food for herbivorous, which means more food for everybody, which as to be good for the planet's ecosystem

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18581 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2250975 4-Jun-2019 11:34

Since people are disappearing the world's forests at an unprecedented rate, I don't think that is going to help much.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

nzrock

113 posts

Master Geek

#2250977 4-Jun-2019 11:35

Rikkitic:

I think it is a stupid question. Can a man outrun a cheetah? Can a weightlifter beat an elephant? It is comparing apples to oranges. If the sun went out tomorrow, nothing we could do would compensate for that. It doesn't matter whether or not we have more effect on the climate than the sun does. What matters is that we have some effect, and that is causing us big problems.

It is not a stupid question, it is a very straight forward question.

You ether believe that man is responsible for climate change, with the sun having minimal effect or the sun is responsible for the current climate change with man having a minimal effect.

Comparing apples to oranges in this debate is exactly my point. Comparing what the sun can do to our climate to what we can do, with what ever leaver we have available (excluding nuking the planet) is like comparing, what we can currently do, to what the cave man could do, to change the climate

Talkiet

4787 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2250993 4-Jun-2019 11:39

nzrock:

Rikkitic:

I think it is a stupid question. Can a man outrun a cheetah? Can a weightlifter beat an elephant? It is comparing apples to oranges. If the sun went out tomorrow, nothing we could do would compensate for that. It doesn't matter whether or not we have more effect on the climate than the sun does. What matters is that we have some effect, and that is causing us big problems.

It is not a stupid question, it is a very straight forward question.

You ether believe that man is responsible for climate change, with the sun having minimal effect or the sun is responsible for the current climate change with man having a minimal effect.

[snip]

With all due respect, you're completely wrong.

It's logically possible for a very small force to have a massive impact. Read my lever comment further up. A small bump could unbalance a thousand ton rock and destroy a building.

You're asking me to decide if it was the small tap I made, or the thousand ton rock that destroyed the building, and excluding the actual situation of it being both.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2250994 4-Jun-2019 11:41

nzrock:

It is not a stupid question, it is a very straight forward question.

You ether believe that man is responsible for climate change, with the sun having minimal effect or the sun is responsible for the current climate change with man having a minimal effect.

That's a false dichotomy. Truth is we don't know which is the more significant cause.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2250998 4-Jun-2019 11:43

nzrock:

DarthKermit:

Beccara:

Perhaps the answer to the Fermi paradox is that species reaching a certain technological threshold can't/won't transition away from older technologies in time to prevent ecological collapse

Perhaps the answer is technology is fundamentally incompatible with a planet's ecosystem survival?

more CO2 = more plant food, which means more plants + more O2, which means more food for herbivorous, which means more food for everybody, which as to be good for the planet's ecosystem

It's abject disingenuous BS to argue that the projected increase in atmospheric CO2 levels are "good for the planet's ecosystem".

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/

Mistenfuru

198 posts

Master Geek

#2250999 4-Jun-2019 11:44

more CO2 = more plant food, which means more plants + more O2, which means more food for herbivorous, which means more food for everybody, which as to be good for the planet's ecosystem

Sadly it doesn't work that way, we've almost reached the point where increases in global temperature have more negative effect on plant growth than the benefits of an increase in C02

Geektastic

17927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2251000 4-Jun-2019 11:45

Why is it important whether humanity survives or not?

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2251001 4-Jun-2019 11:47

Geektastic: Why is it important whether humanity survives or not?

Because without us, stray kittens would starve.

tdgeek

29587 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2251003 4-Jun-2019 11:51

Mistenfuru:

more CO2 = more plant food, which means more plants + more O2, which means more food for herbivorous, which means more food for everybody, which as to be good for the planet's ecosystem

Sadly it doesn't work that way, we've almost reached the point where increases in global temperature have more negative effect on plant growth than the benefits of an increase in C02

I believe that there was an issue with the Amazon, where the temp caused the greenery to shut down and emit CO2 instead of taking it in

Mistenfuru

198 posts

Master Geek

#2251004 4-Jun-2019 11:51

Geektastic: Why is it important whether humanity survives or not?

I think Elon Musk put it best, "We have a duty to protect the light of consciousness"

kobiak

1615 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2251007 4-Jun-2019 11:57

https://www.rt.com/news/453382-greenpeace-founder-global-warming-scam/

not sure if it was posted before, but hey once again.

helping others at evgenyk.nz

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2251008 4-Jun-2019 11:58

I prefer Douglas Adams: "Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake coming down from the trees in the first place, and some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no-one should ever have left the oceans."

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18581 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2251011 4-Jun-2019 12:03

kobiak:

https://www.rt.com/news/453382-greenpeace-founder-global-warming-scam/

not sure if it was posted before, but hey once again.

From RT, that well-known source of objective, unbiased news.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 70