Forums / Discussion / General

Asked some drunk people about it. Haha

What do you guys think about climate change?

It's real, it's just that people don't understand that it's not like the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" it takes decades for climate to change drastically. The place I grew up in was originally all green, lush dense forests, over the course of thirty years it became home to tumbleweeds and dust storms.

Global Warming exist, or rather the Weather is changing. The amount of influence humans are actually having on the change, versus the change being a natural cycle between extreme heat and extreme cold that exist over thousands of years for the planet, is what's usually debated.

I believe the changes to our climate that humans have are minimal, compared to the amount of influence we have on things like water quality, which seems more likely to get us all killed and should have as much if not more attention then all the ads telling you to buy a preis.

I also though believe in hedging bets, and even if humanity has a minimal impact on the climate, we should be working on using that minimal influence to make the climate more beneficial to us, rather then just doing nothing about it.

I'd call it more of Climate Change since the world climate has always been changing slowly and all places change different depending on many factors like the weather patterns, the water cycle, the carbon cycle and the earth's atmosphere.

Basically to say that the globe's climate does not change is basically trying to deny several science fields like geography, chemistary, biology and etc at their most basic and fundamental.

However the arguement around it revolves more around whether humans are actually accelating the cycle to be faster or change unpredictably than what people can be prepared for or not.

As to Black Graphic T's suggestion that we make it benefitial towards humans if we do have mininal or significent influence can end up backfiring if humans have no clue what they're doing. Afterall, you are affecting entire ecosystems that are giant webs of different things interacting with each other in a sort of balance, change one thing and the results can easily end up biting species, especially humans, in the ass.

Like one example is in Brazil where deforesting (trees keep the soil together as well as give off water and oxygen into the air thus helping in making rain clouds) followed by heavy farming that is done poorly can ruin the soil and screw over both humans and animals (irony being that for a long time the process was repeated after each failure in hopes for the next time being different).

You can in theory get good results from making the weather work your way, but humans are at the mercy of nature's whims (a thing we can try to control but often enough ends with humans fucking up and causing more issues for ourselves) and ecosystems reacting to small changes in meaningful ways.

The whole entire thing really about trying to stop climate change or global warming should really be describe as delaying and preparing for the inevitable changes that will happen in time.

I view that the question becomes moot when the reality of economics and the role of the state are added.

Human impact on weather is no where near as evident as human impact on ecosystems. I personally fear that the "hype" over global warming is taking center stage over far more devastating realities of ecological destruction.

And unlike the hypothetical models of imminent doom, the cost-benefit analysis of the extreme solutions offered, or the political and economic aims of government bureaucrats and corporate CEOs, there are actually realistic, cost-effective, politically achievable solutions that can solve much of the ecological damage, instead of "solving" global warming.

Climate Change in a broad sense is not the issue here. Most seem to agree that the climate changes naturally.

The issue revolves around the government's use of such science in making public policy with regards to things like (way back when) the Kyoto Protocol, or more recently the Paris Climate Accord. Cap and Trade with regards to "carbon credits", Al Gore wanting to be the first "Carbon Billionaire" with regards to investing in such Green Tech. Elton Musk becoming a billionaire thanks to such generous government investments. Where does the majority of such investments come from? The gub'mint.

Without such direct investment from governments, "green energy" wouldn't be able to sniff at traditional methods in terms of cost/benefits. Yet the prevailing wisdom seems to be that throwing more money at green energy will someday fix the issue. Why throw money at corporations that offer a flawed product hoping they will fix it? Throw money at public research and let private business capitalize on the research. Alot cheaper then funding an entire businesses retirement package, no?

Anyways, such issues comes down to whether or not you support using government money for such causes. Left vs Right.