|
|
14-12-2022, 11:59
|
#556
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Lake Ont
Posts: 8,547
|
Re: Coral Reef Status
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondR
There is one major flaw in the "greenhouse" effect theory which I have never seen adequately explained.
The earths atmosphere once contained many orders of magnitude more CO2 than it does now.
|
(gotta love the technique of preposterous assertions without detail or cites. Atta boy... make'em work for it)
CO2 levels haven't been this high since about... 10 or 20 million years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bycrick
Urgent? The climate nuts have been predicting the end of the world for 50 years. "The end is nigh!" Why should I believe it this time.
|
Your hyperbole aside, there's been no significant change in the original, 50+ yr old notion that this added CO2 is going to cause warming. It has, and it will continue to do so. Certain catastrophic effects are still likely, like loss of polar ice leading to significant sea level rise. Ditto for major heat catastrophes in some places.
Just cos you and I won't be around for the worst of it doesn't make it non-urgent.
Quote:
... the realization that it took us 100 years to get here and we’re not going to solve the problem tomorrow no matter how loudly you cry "crisis" or "emergency."
|
Ya hafta start somewhere. Sooner is better and easier.
So Ray & By... your reasons are really self-interest ("I've got mine, Jack"), with a small side of belief system, whether it's denial (Ray) or blaming the victims (By). Self-interest is a very logical position; most of the living world practices it. A bit disappointing in a species that has the ability to consider and choose outcomes for the maximum benefit... but it is what it is.
__________________
When we give up on truth, we concede power to those with the wealth and charisma to create spectacle in its place.
- Timothy Snyder
|
|
|
14-12-2022, 13:13
|
#557
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Panama
Boat: Norseman 447
Posts: 1,626
|
Re: Coral Reef Status
So, you’ve decided that the boogeyman is CO2 and we’ve got to do something about it. How about plastic pollution, micro or macro? How about heavy metals? How about rare earths? How about non-plastic trash? Why is your worry of CO2 the most important, interesting or critical?
I’ve got mine? Don’t be silly. Regardless of the attitudes of the collectivists, we have never been, and never will be, equal in results. Sone people are unlucky: born in the wrong place, mistreated by others for whatever reason, anffected by natural disasters, etc. But it’s not my job to (try to) right every wrong, or even just those that you think are important.
Maximum good for the maximum number. As chosen by you and your like-thinking friends.
|
|
|
14-12-2022, 13:21
|
#558
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Lake Ont
Posts: 8,547
|
Re: Coral Reef Status
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bycrick
So, you’ve decided that the boogeyman is CO2 and we’ve got to do something about it. How about plastic pollution, micro or macro? How about heavy metals? How about rare earths? How about non-plastic trash? Why is your worry of CO2 the most important, interesting or critical?
|
All of the above concerns are important. I've said so many times. At heart, they're all symptoms of the same problem.
And just like your opposition to doing anything about CO2, many people have similar opposition to doing anything about those either, for much the same reasons. And here we are.
__________________
When we give up on truth, we concede power to those with the wealth and charisma to create spectacle in its place.
- Timothy Snyder
|
|
|
14-12-2022, 13:44
|
#559
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Panama
Boat: Norseman 447
Posts: 1,626
|
Re: Coral Reef Status
Ohhhh. They’re ALL important. I hate to have to explain it to you, but money and other resources are NOT unlimited. Therefore if we are going to "do something," we must decide how much, of what, to do when. And my opinions are at least as good as yours.
And you have nothing to base your statement that I don’t want to anything, except the fact that I have clearly stated that I don’t like your solutions. That’s politics. I get a vote too, even if you don’t like it.
And I’ll bet my footprint is a whole lot less than yours. Want to compare, or are you going to plead privacy as you did previously?
|
|
|
14-12-2022, 14:32
|
#560
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Lake Ont
Posts: 8,547
|
Re: Coral Reef Status
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bycrick
... And my opinions are at least as good as yours.
...
And I’ll bet my footprint is a whole lot less than yours.
|
And next, you'll tell us that your dad can beat up my dad.
__________________
When we give up on truth, we concede power to those with the wealth and charisma to create spectacle in its place.
- Timothy Snyder
|
|
|
14-12-2022, 15:15
|
#561
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Boat: Island Packet 40
Posts: 6,432
|
Re: Coral Reef Status
"Your hyperbole aside, there's been no significant change in the original, 50+ yr old notion that this added CO2 is going to cause warming."
"notion"? you mean all this economic destruction is being implemented on the strength of a notion??
__________________
Satiriker ist verboten, la conformité est obligatoire
|
|
|
14-12-2022, 16:33
|
#562
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Panama
Boat: Norseman 447
Posts: 1,626
|
Re: Coral Reef Status
Ah, LE. All hat and no cattle. As before.
|
|
|
14-12-2022, 17:06
|
#563
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Good question
Boat: Rafiki 37
Posts: 14,140
|
Re: Coral Reef Status
It’s nice to see some honest comments regarding the real question that drives denialism. It’s not about the science. It’s about the consequences of this knowledge.
Science has analysesd the problem, and has predicted the outcome of current actions. But science and scientists do not make social and economic policy. They can only inform the decision.
It is up to us, through our political systems, to make the social and economic choices. And it’s clear that one of the choices — indeed the one we are generally making — is to do nothing. Science is telling us what the consequences of this choice will be; an increasingly degraded global ecosystem over the medium to long term. But this choice has the real benefit of continued status-quo gains in the short term for those in the rich, developed parts of the world.
The alternatives generally require real sacrifice from those of us in the developed world, and that is something hard to sell, especially when the harms seem far off, and the costs are immediate.
I think there are valid arguments to support either choice. I personally think one is wiser than the other, but I understand why one would choose something I would not.
|
|
|
14-12-2022, 17:25
|
#564
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2022
Posts: 195
|
Re: Coral Reef Status
The answer is very simple.
All over the planet, mandate that 90% of the entire population must jump head first into a 24 inch tree shredder.
You care the most. You go first.
Cheers!
|
|
|
14-12-2022, 17:34
|
#565
|
Senior Cruiser
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: PORTUGAL
Posts: 30,584
|
Re: Coral Reef Status
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike OReilly
It’s nice to see some honest comments regarding the real question that drives denialism. It’s not about the science. It’s about the consequences of this knowledge.
Science has analysesd the problem, and has predicted the outcome of current actions. But science and scientists do not make social and economic policy. They can only inform the decision.
It is up to us, through our political systems, to make the social and economic choices. And it’s clear that one of the choices — indeed the one we are generally making — is to do nothing. Science is telling us what the consequences of this choice will be; an increasingly degraded global ecosystem over the medium to long term. But this choice has the real benefit of continued status-quo gains in the short term for those in the rich, developed parts of the world.
The alternatives generally require real sacrifice from those of us in the developed world, and that is something hard to sell, especially when the harms seem far off, and the costs are immediate.
I think there are valid arguments to support either choice. I personally think one is wiser than the other, but I understand why one would choose something I would not.
|
Yep.. Its all in the hands of those politicians I hate and the rich folk I envy.. Aledgedly.
__________________
It was a dark and stormy night and the captain of the ship said.. "Hey Jim, spin us a yarn." and the yarn began like this.. "It was a dark and stormy night.."
|
|
|
14-12-2022, 18:22
|
#566
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Chesapeake
Boat: Catalina 22 Sport
Posts: 1,190
|
Re: Coral Reef Status
Quote:
Originally Posted by torpnr
Which begs the question, what evidence would be compelling to coax in either direction?
So, for those in this debate, which to date has been fairly well-tempered relative to other conversations on the same topic, I am curious:
For those on both sides of the debate, what would it take to change your minds?
|
This is a great question. For me, it would take a novel theory that supplanted the ACC/greenhouse gas model that was tested and supported by a large number of well-designed studies that robustly tested a number of the attributes and predictions of the new theory. If I saw that, I would drop the ACC/GHG model in a hot minute.
|
|
|
14-12-2022, 18:27
|
#567
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Chesapeake
Boat: Catalina 22 Sport
Posts: 1,190
|
Re: Coral Reef Status
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bycrick
(redacted)
And I’ll bet my footprint is a whole lot less than yours. Want to compare, or are you going to plead privacy as you did previously?
|
This is great and the planet owes you a tip of the hat. Of course, this means that you would probably be very little affected by the changes needed to get us all down to a small footprint. So, why the ranting and raving?
|
|
|
14-12-2022, 18:44
|
#568
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Lake Ont
Posts: 8,547
|
Re: Coral Reef Status
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bycrick
Ah, LE. All hat and no cattle. As before.
|
Nice to see you keeping the debate squarely focused on the actual facts, and avoiding the temptations of easy ad-homs. Stay classy. And, so many links you've provided; I'll need a month to check them all!
__________________
When we give up on truth, we concede power to those with the wealth and charisma to create spectacle in its place.
- Timothy Snyder
|
|
|
14-12-2022, 19:06
|
#569
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Chesapeake
Boat: Catalina 22 Sport
Posts: 1,190
|
Re: Coral Reef Status
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
There are two mindsets in this thread.
Trust authority, trust scientists, trust media, trust their agenda.
Question authority, question scientists, question media, question their agenda.
|
This is a sly one - gotta hand it to you. This is another denialist sleight of hand (not as pathetic as claiming you are Joseph Priestly, but still a whopper). This is the grift where a denier makes a false equivalency between their dismissing of anything and everything they don't agree with as being the same as scientific skepticism.
And of course, this one also uses the lame trick of refuting a position that no one has taken. This has been debunked before on this thread. Unsurprisingly, you ignored that.
Authority emanates from justice, truth, and the general consent of the governed. When one speaks the truth and is fair, they have earned authority. We need authorities to administer justice and make big decisions based on sound information and the general consent of the governed.
It is not about trusting scientists. It is about trusting the scientific method. It is the only way to get close to truth. It is rational, objective, and if you do it well, the opportunity to understand how nature actually works. It is not infallible but it is self-correcting. The only alternatives are religion and nihilism. Thanks, but I'll pass on those.
The "trust media" one is just childish. No one with a three digit IQ believes all that they read in the media. I do trust that the media's primary interest is selling ad space. Other than that, I take it with a grain of salt. (The crosswords I always trust.)
The "trust their agenda" is a dog whistle for conspiracy theories. That there is a vast conspiracy out there to do evil things contrary to the interests of freedom-loving people everywhere. It is so silly.
So, if it makes you feel superior to think that we fit your silly stereotype, I can't stop you, even though it is, like so many other things you write, completely bass ackwards.
|
|
|
14-12-2022, 19:28
|
#570
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Chesapeake
Boat: Catalina 22 Sport
Posts: 1,190
|
Re: Coral Reef Status
Quote:
Originally Posted by boatman61
Yep.. Its all in the hands of those politicians I hate and the rich folk I envy.. Aledgedly.
|
If you only make cynical and snarky wisecracks, people are going to fill in the blanks. How about you contribute to the thread some clear declarations of your views and beliefs and we can honestly wrestle with them? I'd be very interested to learn what you actually believe and how you view some of these difficult issues.
And if it turns out that you are fond of politicians and are happy for the rich to be richer, I will humbly retract my speculation!
|
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Display Modes |
Rate This Thread |
Linear Mode
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
Advertise Here
Recent Discussions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vendor Spotlight |
|
|
|
|