Climate Change: are we screwed?


So, not flattery, not graciousness, but an insult I just didn’t understand. Ha! I love it. No, really. I’m not the least upset. Really. I’ll smile all day at “being gotten”. Even if you didn’t intend an insult, I love it!

I was hoping the emoji would indicate I was joking. Sorry for the misunderstanding.


Not an insult as much as a sincere warning. We can all fall for fallacies (eh) here and there - which is why they are so popular.


Welcome to the last days of abundance.
Enjoy (really, I mean it because one day you will be ‘historian’ to generations after us)
I think it all boils down to what Stuart said in the most recent episode about the 5 whys game invariably ending in “destroy capitalism” (because what we can do as individuals is really a drop in the bucket compared to the neglected responsibilities of the corporate machine).
Right, so what does that mean? Take a personal inventory and ask yourself what you can do…not should, can. Once you’ve done that, and are satisfied that is all you can do and have actually done it, enjoy yourself! :slight_smile: Personally that means working for a not-for-profit company (yeah, there are actually not-for-profit security agencies : hired goons making the world a better place ;)), having an organic and free range butcher, annoying my MP, supporting social good companies (i.e., to the stars academy, etc.) and whatever charities you believe in, choosing public transit, not having kids, not buying dumb and harmful things like swiffers, plastic lunch baggies, etc. etc. I dunno, whatever is right for you; But for all love, recognise that you are blessed and enjoy yourself!


You didn’t mention organic coffee!! I mean, REALLY! :smile:


Hope you understand I believe that man has had an adverse effect on all aspects of Earth’s environment. So, I wanted to mention just a couple of things of how I, personally, have benefited from programs that were probably initiated by the concern over climate change. There are, no doubt many, but I want to mention a couple. First, there was the tax credit for energy efficiency on homes and appliances. So, I was able to install much better windows in our house and get a newer refrigerator. The second thing was, by having a bad year income wise, we were able to qualify for getting our home tightened up and some insulation put in where it wasn’t. That has made our home more comfortable and there are definite savings in our bills.

One thing I do keep on the look out for is the research on batteries. Lion batteries are an acceptable stop gap, but they are dirty in materials and manufacture, so I take notice when seeing a company or university show their latest research on the matter.


Reuters: Evidence for man-made global warming hits ‘gold standard’: scientists


Interesting article: There can be no question the climate is changing.

Man made? This is almost impossible to prove 100% without a significant change in the way we treat the planet. However, there is lots of good science to suggest man made causes are the most likely.

  • We need to accept that we live on a planet with finite resources. This is true for many reasons: Rubbish disposal, Fuel, Food production, Clean water being amongst them.

  • We need to stop burning fossil fuel, wood and other plant matter and look for better sources of energy. We also need to improve energy efficiency so we use less. This is true is only to maintain our resources. If man made CO2 emissions are causing or accelerating climate change as I, and many others, believe we should see a slow down, and perhaps eventual reversal, in, climate change.

  • We need to become a less consumerist society: expecting to buy less stuff. We should expect the goods we buy to be made of a better quality so they last longer. We should also be returning to a repair and mend mentality. We should also embrace second hand more both by donating and buying.

  • We should be looking at our diet. This may be by moving towards a vegetarian or vegan diet, though I am suggesting anyone should have to give up meat and fish entirely. This both reduces resource use as it takes more land to produce meat since you need to grow the crops to feed the animals but also has well known health benefits. In the UK and probably most of the first world we waste a lot of food for aesthetic reasons, misshaped carrots for example, I might care that I want perfectly shaped veg if it is being served whole for a romantic dinner but I would normally have chopped it up first, for example in a vegetable chilli or lasagne. We also need to consider food miles eating more locally and more seasonally.

All of the above just makes sense but this does cause a political issue that needs to be addressed here. Our present economy is pushed by growth so encourages us to create and sell more stuff which is the opposite of what I am advocating here. The basis of the economy, and the politics driving it, need to change. How does this need to change and how to we manage this to change smoothly?


Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh. This old bullshit again.

As someone who worked on a couple of large scale Y2K mitigation projects for fairly big organisations, I am compelled to say this:


The problem was discerned and scoped (and there definitely was a problem). Plans were designed, tested, and then implemented. Those implementations ensured that the bulk of computer systems affected by the Year 2000 bug were either fixed so that the bug was removed or mitigated against, or those systems were upgraded or wholly replaced.

Problem. Solution. Implementation.

Y2K did not cause catastrophe not because there wasn’t a problem to begin with, but because a very large number of people and organisations threw themselves at the highly visible problem, and sorted it out. To casually dismiss what was a herculean effort unheard of previously in IT industries, just because it didn’t fail, is just ridiculous.

And to say “the only thing that happened” with a flippant tag at the end is ridiculous; the benefits of the mass upgrades that took place were spectacular. A large number of legacy systems were removed, bringing many organisations’ technology stacks right up to date for the time.

When you start using one, let me know :frowning:


I think there is more we can do than many think. If you live in Canada, the UK or the US we have governments elected to do the will of the people, many don’t seam to realise that though. The same is true in many other countries throughout the world though sadly not all. Popular action can make a difference here. It takes longer in non-democratic countries but the US and Canada were once part of the British Empire and both the UK and France had feudal monarchies so things can and do change.

For me there are three commandments:

  • Be excellent to each other: Show each person in the world all the love and tolerance you can. This is not the same as tolerating ideas that should be challenged. This extends to future generations and we should leave them with better, at least no worse, options than we had.

  • Don’t be bogus: Always show honesty both in fact and intent.

  • Where it doesn’t conflict with the other two Party on Dude: our time on Earth is fleeting so we should all strive to Enjoy Youself when it does not lead to the detriment of others

No apologies to others for appealing to Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure here.

I knew there were a small army of people working behind the scenes to fix these issues and I am proud to say at least one member of our community was working on this.


Thank you for bringing out my error. It was a false premise I have used to explain my cynicism of the “we are all going to die” mentality. I am glad for this. It may help with future embarrassment. (well, maybe, I’m full of it after all)

Yes. Definitely. Just one question regarding the use of wood. Isn’t that considered a carbon neutral source? If the source of wood is properly managed, shouldn’t there really be no issue there? If firewood is scavenged instead of harvested, isn’t it a matter that the carbon is released quickly in a fire instead of gradually in decay? I find it too much work anyway and hopefully won’t have to contend with cutting and ash hauling. Bah!

I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt and consider this a friendly poke. :slightly_smiling_face:

However, my concerns of censorship remains. If insisting on integrity in the scientific community by hearing professionals who are skeptical means that I do not have a scientific mind, then so be it. Nothing has been said that has diminished my concerns. I have repeatedly expressed that I am inclined to think that man’s activities have adversely affected all aspects of our environment, including the climate. What I have face here, with that concern, is condescension. An attitude of a thinly veiled “how can you be so stupid as to question this, or give consideration to any who does?” when all I have done (besides expressing where my cynicism comes from, and expressing it badly at that, for which I apologize) is express concern that all professionals should be heard. This being said, I do not suffer arrogance gladly and not at all if I don’t have to. @WarrenHill has mentioned in many posts, including this in this thread, of “being excellent”. I insist, no beg, of being called out when I fail that standard.

Therefore, other than the possibility of expressing further apologies, I’m done here.


Depends on your definition but Yes it is carbon neutral if you grow new trees to replace what you burn though burning the tree adds to CO2 now the new tree will absorb it as it grows.


Well yes, everyone can do more. I can do more, I’m pretty much a pollution factory of cigarette butts…but something something…something… quitting the only vice I have left right now makes Sarah go something…something crazy! That’s not happening right now. Fullstop. I could make myself delusional and present angst for approval to anyone who would listen…but that would just be a lie. Delusional lies are definitely not fun :frowning: It also doesn’t mean that I start driving instead of taking public transit (although I admit an i8 roadster could break my resolve on that one pretty easily ;)), stop using my reusable coffee mug at work instead using the much more convenient to go cups that are available, buying meat at Lawblaws knowing full well the cow endured a lifetime of misery and suffering but hey it’s $3 cheaper, etc.etc.

I do what I can and then enjoy myself :slight_smile:

Yes, I am aware that God appointed me, and everyone, stewards of this planet (I’m speaking from my own experience/motivations here) but I’m not perfect in many other ways as well and I don’t see my environmental responsibilities as a zero sum game. Thaaaaat being said, you’ve got me thinking about a recent article I read on carbon recapture, spread and fan, and 7-11. Ha ha doesn’t make any sense? That’s ok, most of what I say doesn’t ! Just know I’ll probably be reviving this thread in a couple weeks and I think I’m gonna do something just for you WarrenHill :slight_smile:


Not to be a Debbie Downer but I do think we, us, the humankind, are not going to be able to stop warming of the planet; just too little too late. While not completely giving up hope – although looking at my current home country of United States, it’s incredible how, different planets we seem to live in this country when it comes to science, scientific evidence, skepticism, conspiracy theories etc, all putting up a wall between logic and reason, and action – the focus may have to shift from how to stop it all, to how to continue life with elevated CO2 levels and inevitable warming. More wars, forced migration & misery up ahead boys and girls!

Boy these cheerios have a weird aftertaste.

edit: Elevated CO2 Levels Directly Affect Human Cognition. (The actual study)

tl;dr: Our baseline CO2 is rising --> “statistically significant and meaningful reductions in decision-making performance".


Two points I would like to raise:

The baby strike: The UK media are reporting that couples are refusing to have children because the kids will not have any future as a result of climate change. Is this UK only and are we talking about about a hand full of individuals or a real movement? As usual it’s not clear from the main stream media.

A quote I heard today If we fight for what we believe, we may lose, but if we don’t we have already lost. I intend to keep fighting.


Is this “~99% of scientists” statistic about all people currently employed by universities for research or teaching, or actually relevant people? Because I don’t see how that’s a relevant statistic. I don’t think a generic maths professor is going around trying to stop hospitals from using a type of neurological medicine, because the maths professor believes it to be a placebo.

Just wanted to say that it’s a strange argument because at least 50% of scientists cannot point out why exactly water is wet, but we don’t suddenly have a need to have every broadcast of a flood bring the unbiased viewpoint of questioning whether that flood was actually a liquid or not.

I never tried lighting my house on fire but where are the political parties that talk about saving money and jobs by relaxing building fire safety standards? Those videos in the news of burning houses were staged, I tell you! Just miniatures.

Do French, or German, or Japanese or Cantonese internet fora also have “global warming true or false?” topics with 34 comments? Or do they instead go on about fire safety rules or something? Because I wonder if this stuff is not just a localised thing, because it scratches my head why of all things to question the truth about there are enough people singling in on this topic instead of those suspicious looking mathematicians. “Shor’s algorithm: are we screwed?” doesn’t exist yet.


If this were the statistic being quoted I would be concerned. I would not be surprised if this were true but the figures showing the strength of belief regarding man made climate change are based on individuals directly involved in climate study. If we are asking the opinions in unrelated areas of science then I don’t see how this is relevant. I may choose to accept the views of a particular scientist out of respect for their standing but that should not justify your beliefs. The considered views of specialists however is different. It does however only take one piece of contradictory evidence to show when we need to rethink our views.

I can for example explain why Isaac Newton was wrong but as an engineer I normally rely on Newtonian physics because the maths is easier and the errors are too small for me to care about in most situations.

How is this relevant? The placebo effect is real, drugs are often used where there is no proven or understood mechanism, but I would not expect this from a maths professor: If a clinician told me the drugs would work and I felt better as a result why shouldn’t they be prescribed

The evidence for man made climate change is, as far as I am aware, accepted on every continent. If you have contradictory evidence however I would love to see it.


That is precisely what I mean, Warren. On every point. Did I use too much sarcasm? :grin:

Especially this. As far as I’m aware, in my small world, I’ve only seen English speaking people become deniers. I’m a little interested to know if that’s really the case, and if so why that is the case. I used fire safety as an alternative to start question the world; I believe Johannes used medicine as an alternative - but I do think it’s also some English speaking thing (I’ve heard that there are some Australians who think it too) to think polio and smallpox are what their kids need.

I mean if it’s just people clicking on recommended videos on YouTube all day long until they start to believe something, then why don’t religions use that to let people think the warming of the world means Gehenna is near and you should all buy indulgences?
There has to be more to it than that.


This may in part be because English is the language of international so most papers are written in English. This does not indicate there are not sceptics elsewhere in the World. Some may honestly not be convinced by the weight of data others may have financial incentives to fuel confusion.

It is well known that cigarette companies spent a fortune investigating cancer to find non-cigarette causes so they could argue a link between smoking and premature death had not been proven. Fossil fuel companies may have similar motivations. Are they acting on these? You decide.


You’re not being a debbie downer because it had to be said. Personally, it doesn’t matter why its happening,who or what is to blame, or specifically how…I just know it is and I honestly have low confidence in solutions when we are still discussing those points (art bell and whitley streibers coming global superstorm was published over a decade ago, that’s my personal mark for understanding what time it is)
It’s like we’re still deciding if a patient even needs care when really the only care we can offer is paliative. Personally, that means ejoying these last days. Which I am trying to do but seeing as this is what I’m wearing right now as I type

in your countrys most southern state…it may be too late even to do that properly :frowning:


I’m sorry, I have to be the voice of dissent. Climate change is real. But the climate goes in cycles. It has very little to do with humans. I mean, this kind of global warming alarmism has been going on forever. However, according to the article on, the earth is actually the coolest it has been in it’s long history. (See the graph of ocean temperatures near the bottom of the article.) Quoting the article, “Geologists and paleontologists think that during much of the Paleocene and early Eocene, the poles were free of ice caps, and palm trees and crocodiles lived above the Arctic Circle.” And this was before humans.

Now, the global warming/the civilization is ending claptrap has been going on for many years.

  • In 1970, Harvard University biology professor George Wald, a Nobel laureate, predicted, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
  • Also in 1970, Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford University biologist, predicted in an article for The Progressive, “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
  • In 1969, Erlich also predicted “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

And if these predictions, that were made 50 years ago, had come true, we would not be having this discussion.

Not only that, but the “heat wave” in the late 80s/early 90s was caused more by an active solar cycle. A period which predicted satellites being knocked down by solar flares, and the like, but also affected global temperatures. These temperature changes can be seen by parallel temperature changes on Mars.

Secondly, if the earth is so fragile, how has it been able to survive so many cataclysmic events in it’s history? Just to name a few:

  • The 1883 eruption of the Krakatoa volcano, in present-day Indonesia, had the force of 200 megatons of TNT. That’s the equivalent of 13,300 15-kiloton atomic bombs, the kind that destroyed Hiroshima in World War II.
  • The 1815 Tambora eruption, the largest known volcanic eruption. It spewed so much debris into the atmosphere that 1816 became known as the “Year Without a Summer.” It led to crop failures and livestock death in the Northern Hemisphere, producing the worst famine of the 19th century.
  • The A.D. 535 Krakatoa eruption had such force that it blotted out much of the light and heat of the sun for 18 months and is said to have led to the Dark Ages.
  • Geophysicists estimate that just three volcanic eruptions — Indonesia (1883), Alaska (1912) and Iceland (1947) — spewed more carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere than all of mankind’s activities during our entire history.
  • Floods in China in 1887, which took an estimated 1 million to 2 million lives, followed by floods there in 1931, which took an estimated 1 million to 4 million lives.
  • Earthquakes like Chile’s 1960 Valdivia earthquake was 9.5 on the Richter scale. It created a force equivalent to 1,000 atomic bombs going off at the same time.

This does not even begin to consider threats from space. Like the asteroid that hit earth 2 billion years ago, creating the Vredefort crater in South Africa, which has a diameter of 190 miles, or the Sudbury Basin, resulting from a meteor strike 1.8 billion years ago. At 39 miles long, 19 miles wide and 9 miles deep, it’s the second-largest impact structure on earth. Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay crater is a bit smaller, about 53 miles wide. Or how about the meteor impact that killed the dinosaurs?

I think that there is plenty evidence to make people want to question the conclusions of the global warming scientists. First off, the scientific method requires questioning a hypothesis, not accepting it blindly. And the fact that all environmental scientists accept global warming as fact is nonsense. Especially when there is evidence that the pro-global warming scientists were caught “cooking the books” to make environmental data look worse, discarding data that did not fit the narrative.

Occasionally, environmentalists spill the beans and reveal their true agenda. Barry Commoner said, “Capitalism is the earth’s number one enemy.” Amherst College professor Leo Marx said, “On ecological grounds, the case for world government is beyond argument.”

This is purely a political issue to grab power. And in my humble and honest opinion, it is arrogant to think that humans can have that kind of effect on the planet, especially when weather catastrophes like the Galveston hurricane in 1900 (4th deadliest Atlantic hurricane), which happened before cars were a common thing, occurred. Global warming pundits in 2005 said that we would see a series of “super hurricanes” hitting the United States, after the very active 2005, and after Hurricane Katrina. It turns out, there was not another hurricane above a category 1 to hit the continental US until Hurricane Irma in 2017, 12 years later.

I also think it is the pinnacle hubris to think that humans have the right to attempt, or even the ability to attempt to keep the earth at some arbitrary level of stasis. Stewardship of the resources of the planet is one thing, but trying to force it to some arbitrary and man-made level of stasis is the pinnacle of hubris. And doing it to seize power and bring about a global government even more so.

Of course, this is my humble opinion, but I believe that there is more than enough evidence to consider not taking the global warming folks at face value.

Please respect our code of conduct which is simple: don't be a dick.