Climate change alarmism from the left

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 15
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
The left: The Climate is so bad right now that we don’t have the ability to fix it!

Me: I don’t have the ability to fix my dead grandfather.  That doesn’t mean I lecture to politicians about the need to fund technology that can bring people back from the dead.

The left: We didn’t mean it like that.  We want to fix a unfixable problem!
#2
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
We want to reduce the effect of something that is impossible to be completely and perfectly treated. I mean we can't exactly cure the deadliest form of cancer, still doesn't stop us from wanting to suppress and treat the cancer so that it affects less of daily lives of people rather than killing them.
#3
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
Climate change isn't exactly a white and black problem. All "we" or "leftists" (apparently, although I identify myself with kinda the "left" if so) advocate is, for example, chop down 50 acre of the forests rather than 200, pollute 20 tons of trash rather than 300 by recycling many things, etc. It isn't all or nothing.
#4
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
There comes a point where a grandparent has to decide whether or not to spend his entire fortune with a small chance of fighting cancer extending his life for a few years at the cost of bankrupting his progeny, leaving them penniless.

We are making foolish choices with the cost/benefit analysis where too many people are sacrificing all at the altar of climate grifters.
#5
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,181
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Intelligence_06
Preserving old growth forests and abstaining from using materials that won't bio-degrade as disposables are infinitely more rational than a conviction that the earth's climate turns on a trace gas that already (and always has) saturated its spectrum.
Topic's author
#6
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
I mean we can't exactly cure the deadliest form of cancer, still doesn't stop us from wanting to suppress and treat the cancer so that it affects less of daily lives of people rather than killing them.
People argue that with enough funding that you can cure/treat cancer which saves people’s lives.  By arguing climate change is unsolvable, you are saying no amount of money thrown at the problem will solve the problem.  So why complain about it?
#7
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Preserving old growth forests and abstaining from using materials that won't bio-degrade as disposables
That is what we do to stall climate change. Of course climate changes naturally. This is how we make it less harmful than it already is. If you are somehow dismissing these as useless efforts, that is when you don't understand the environment.

#8
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
People argue that with enough funding that you can cure/treat cancer which saves people’s lives.  By arguing climate change is unsolvable, you are saying no amount of money thrown at the problem will solve the problem.  So why complain about it?
You don't need to fully solve the problem. You just have to keep the level of it being problematic to one low where one can live sustainably. We just need to keep the harmful effects of nature at bay instead of domesticating the entire nature.

That is what we are trying to do, and if we aren't trying to do that and instead attempting to pull a Don Quixote towards the cyclones, then I'd argue maybe the decision makers aren't smart enough.

#9
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,181
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Intelligence_06
Preserving old growth forests and abstaining from using materials that won't bio-degrade as disposables
That is what we do to stall climate change.
Forests don't stall climate change by any hypothetical mechanism that stands the test of logic, nor does litter accelerate it.

Old growth forests are of value because they have complex ecosystems and they are beautiful. Litter is a problem because it kills animals and it's disgusting.
#10
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Forests don't stall climate change by any hypothetical mechanism that stands the test of logic, nor does litter accelerate it.
Litter damage the ecosystem which may eventually kill trees. I know it currently isn't doing a lot, but it is because most people are showing restraint.

Without trees and we would be left with much less oxygen recycling plants and things go haywire from there.

#11
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,181
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Intelligence_06
Forests don't stall climate change by any hypothetical mechanism that stands the test of logic, nor does litter accelerate it.
Litter damage the ecosystem which may eventually kill trees.
That's a stretch.


I know it currently isn't doing a lot, but it is because most people are showing restraint.
Some more than others, but as far as plants are concerned it's just so much more unhelpful substrate (dirt).


Without trees and we would be left with much less oxygen recycling plants and things go haywire from there.
We definitely need plants on this planet, but the suggestion that deforestation is a risk to our oxygen supply is absurd.

The oceans are full of plants. All our farms are full of plants. When we deforest a region plants will grow behind.

Those new plants may be useless to the vast majority of animal species and boring/ugly to us but they will certainly extract oxygen from water as all plants do.
#12
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
This is how we make it less harmful than it already is.
What's the exact ideal average global temperature? You claim the climate is harmful. What's the definition of the least harmful climate? No abstractions. I want concrete data and hard numbers if you are going to make the claim that today's climate is harmful for all life.

Also, tell me the optimal PPM of CO2 for sustainable plant life. Exact numbers only. No guessing allowed. The fate of the world is at stake.
#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
For all those people hand-wringing about what 400 ppm of CO2 will do to all life on earth, here is a historical footnote:

In Earth's geological history, there have been periods when atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels were much higher than they are today, and during these times, Earth supported massive trees and plants. One notable period was the Carboniferous Period, approximately 360 to 300 million years ago.

During the Carboniferous Period, atmospheric CO2 levels were significantly higher than they are today, possibly reaching levels as high as 2000 to 3000 parts per million (ppm), or even higher. These elevated CO2 levels, combined with other favorable environmental conditions such as warmth and moisture, created an optimal environment for plant growth.

As a result, the Carboniferous Period is sometimes referred to as the "Age of Ferns and Giant Trees." Forests dominated by tree-sized ferns, horsetails, club mosses, and early conifers covered large portions of the Earth's landmasses. Some of the trees that grew during this time, such as the lycopods and tree-sized ferns, could reach impressive heights, with some estimates suggesting they may have exceeded 30 meters (100 feet) in height.

The dense vegetation of the Carboniferous Period played a crucial role in sequestering atmospheric carbon, with large amounts of organic material accumulating and eventually forming coal deposits. These coal deposits, which are mined for their fossilized plant remains, are evidence of the abundance and size of the plants that existed during this period.

Overall, the Carboniferous Period serves as a prime example of how elevated CO2 levels in Earth's past have supported the growth of massive trees and plants, shaping the planet's ecosystems and leaving behind significant geological and biological legacies.

In other words, we have a lot more fossil fuel to burn before we can get back to the golden age of life on Earth.

#14
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,181
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
It also gives a clue as to how much more carbon remains buried. In a simplified model if the total difference in atmospheric carbon is due to plant corpse fossilization then there should be enough coal and oil to reach 2-3 parts per thousand again.
Topic's author
#15
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
You don't need to fully solve the problem. You just have to keep the level of it being problematic to one low where one can live sustainably. 
That would be solving the problem.  If your problem is you are failing a class and you need a 70, solving the problem is having at least a 70; it's not having a 100.  Either you have at least a 70 or you don't.