[Stu from NYC]

So we are doomed unless we are not

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by MrChipster

Lemmings do not commit suicide. However, this particular myth is based on some actual lemming behaviors. Lemmings have large population booms every three or four years. When the concentration of lemmings becomes too high in one area, a large group will set out in search of a new home. Lemmings can swim, so if they reach a water obstacle, such as a river or lake, they may try to cross it. Inevitably, a few individuals drown. But it’s hardly suicide.


So why is the myth of mass lemming suicide so widely believed? For one, it provides an irresistible metaphor for human behavior. Someone who blindly follows a crowd—maybe even toward catastrophe—is called a lemming. Over the past century, the myth has been invoked to express modern anxieties about how individuality could be submerged and destroyed by mass phenomena, such as political movements or consumer culture.

But the biggest reason the myth endures? Deliberate fraud. For the 1958 Disney nature film White Wilderness, filmmakers eager for dramatic footage staged a lemming death plunge, pushing dozens of lemmings off a cliff while cameras were rolling. The images—shocking at the time for what they seemed to show about the cruelty of nature and shocking now for what they actually show about the cruelty of humans—convinced several generations of moviegoers that these little rodents do, in fact, possess a bizarre instinct to destroy themselves.

Maybe it was just that so many relate to the idea of suicide. Crowd physiology is a sad an interesting subject. And, sadly crowd psychology can be applied to both sides of this climate discussion.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

So, you think that by making rude insults you will encourage people to accept your view?

Do you have a degree in climatology? Where did you study and have you done any post-graduate work in the field? On that's right you are on the "common sense" side of the argument.


Please explain how electricity works?'
Please explain how a nuclear reactor works.
Please explain how a microwave oven works.

Please only use common sense - since you don't please people that have devoted their lives to studying the science behind why things work

And I am sure all the scientists have very low IQs and qualify as STUPID per your remarks

Some would say your complaint about a rude post was quite "ahem" rude...

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

So we are doomed unless we are not

My wife calls me Eeyore, and we frequently say, we are doomed, we are all doomed…

Sometimes one must Laugh at oneself.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

I didn’t find it insulting at all. I found it sad.

And yes everything posted was a fact, so? How does any of that apply to the current discussion.

Seriously??? I would think that a string of failed predictions by the climate "experts" of the day would be highly relevant to their current predictions. Or is "anthropogenic climate change" the one and only true prediction???? You're right, it IS sad.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Uh, what has this to do with anything?

]

Uh, seriously? Is this intended to be sarcasm? I guess it is a magnetism that keeps you from flying off the planet into space also?


Do you have a degree in climatology? If so, from where and how long have you practiced in the field? If not, why do you feel comfortable drawing conclusions about what might or might not happen?

Oh, that's right, magnetism keeps the earth in orbit. ahem...

Asking about someone's degree is considered to be rude by the moderaters...

Ask me how I, ahem, know...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Anthropogenic Climate Change has started recently. No one here denies that the climate varies on its own over time, I am fairly confident 100% would agree with your statement.

How do you know? I mean, since you're not a climatologist... (your words, not mine...)

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

This is true; if I ignore that, you dismiss it as "some" when it is between 80% and 90% of accredited scientists that agree with anthropogenic climate change theory.

Even THAT stat is incorrect...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

This thread gets repeated OVER AND OVER. It feels a lot like a game of wacka-mole.

Same post over and over. Attack Attack Attack. "STUPID" "MORONS" "FANTASY" on one side.

I agree. You should stop doing it...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

True, there are scientists with experience and training that do not agree with the climate change theory. Absolutely true.

About 5% disagree completely, about 5 percent challenge some of the parts and predictions and about 5% disagree with the predicted time frame. The other 80% to 90% agree it s the best we have - not nonsense.

So, I assume you would ask 100 people if it would be dangerous to do something and if 90 of them said yes, but 10 said no, and you wanted to do it, you would do it anyway.

Say, something like eating sushi at a restaurant that frequently fails its health inspection, I mean, people eat there all the time - and you like the looks of the place right?

Repeating the same false information, again and again, does not make it correct...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Thank you for the informative post addressing the topic of this discussion - Climate Change.

No insult there... Ahem...

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Ptmckiou

The whole point of science is also to measure the data. Measuring CO2 in ice cores, the planet had a predictable rate in its changes (yes there are measurable natural climate cycles). However, since the time of the industrial revolution that timeline has drastically sped up. Mankind has influenced thr planets once steady natural cycles. If you would like to use common sense instead of science data, it too leads you to the same conclusion. Of course man influences the earth. Did you ever see pictures of Los Angeles in the 1930’s? You can’t see one block down the roads because smog is so thick due to fossil burning fuels. I remember seeing it coming in for a landing at the airport in the ‘70’s. Terrible. Since California passed hard restrictions on particulate’s on vehicles and other sources, they don’t have smog days anymore. The aide is clear and smog alerts are no more, Human beings polluting the earth in whatever capacity always needs to be addressed. We should always look to bettering our environment. That is common sense. However, will we get there? Doubtful. Not because it’s not possible. Our society can’t make changes when profits are more important. Fossil fuel industry doesn’t want to lose its profits (and subsidies), and keep giving huge donations to politicians which then make voting decisions based on money, not science, and definitely not common sense.

Yes. Humans are adverse to change. But, they change SLOWLY as illustrated by the example of the smog pollution of the 1930s in California. China and the US are the top polluters in the world. Therefore, I worry about their populations because it is simple - pollution increases directly with population. Therefore more CO2 production, which heats the planet.

Most people in the US never worry about increasing population because the US has retained a mentality created by the historic frontier expansion and a mindset that "bigger is better". There is a historic Evangelical concept of "conquering the environment". I don't believe that I have ever heard the concept of population debated on TV - the subject is ignored
..........Climate heating, stronger hurricanes, and western fires are screaming out for the subject of over-population to become a priority among the top industrialized nations.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Byte1

I don't believe in arguing a topic in circles. Either oil is a good fuel source or it isn't. For someone to say, well maybe/MAYBE we are supposed to use it for something else, is just circling the discussion. That's kind of like we shouldn't have used horses for transportation or for pulling wagons and plows before we had a combustion engine. And we shouldn't use a combustion engine because there might be something better to use that we just haven't thought of yet. Oil is a great commodity, an excellent form of power until someone comes up with something superior. Right now, EV autos are not superior, only different and have different means of producing the power required. Changing from fossil fuel to electric is not going to effect climate changing.

The whole term Climate Change is bogus. Man has no control over it, unless perhaps we had a nuclear war where fallout caused a nuclear winter. But, that too would eventually go back to normal. Let's be honest and just call it "Pollution Control" or something more truthful. If we control pollution, we can give longevity to the living and breathing. TO believe that we are like gods where we can control the climate or the rotation of the Earth, is being pretty arrogant. Yes, we CAN control pollution and that can be healthy and create a longer lifespan for living creatures. We are not going to raise or lower the oceans. We are not going to change the rotation of the Earth. We are not going to change the weather by using electricity versus fossil fuel. We can limit our infringement on the quality of our atmosphere.
Global Warming and Climate Change is a given. Man made Global Warming and Climate Change is just a gimmick. If one wishes to run amok shouting and protesting a "pollution" problem, go for it.

The oceans ARE rising due to the melting of glaciers. Scientists have measured the rise for years and it is increasing at a frightening rate. The military knows that Annapolis will be underwater by about 2060. These are not theories. They are measurable FACTS. And can be easily looked up by anyone. We live in an information society.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Thank you, I agree, and personally, I know of NO ONE that disputes this comment. If there are such people, I feel sorry for them. All they have to do is walk o0ut side and see it change daily.



I think there is general agreement on this also.



Okay, Can I assume that is a personal opinion? You say you "think" this; would you share what you base that opinion on?



Yes, I think we agreed on this above.

Can we also agree that the change you are referring to here is a change in our behavior that caused the problems in the first place - i.e. that we caused pollution with a behavior of driving gas-powered cars that emitted toxic poisons and pollution and corrected that behavior by enforcing regulations that required the cars (and other sources) not to put out as much bad stuff?



And that, sir, is the question at the heart of this discussion. Sadly, by use of the common tongue term "climate change," we conflate the assertion at the top of climate change all by itself over time with the anthropogenic greenhouse effect or anthropogenic climate change. Which, hopefully, we can all agree is what we are really talking about man-made climate change.



Okay, I am also not a scientist or expert in the field of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect.

Can I ask how you KNOW that? Also, I would suggest that the theory does not claim that man can control the climate, only that man can affect the climate. There is, I think you will agree, a big difference between the two.



Thank you for the honest statement of fact. I believe many of the posters here agree with you. I will not debate your position; that is philosophical, moral, ethical, etc., etc., a discussion which I think is way beyond the scope of this discussion.

Let me say that in my case, I have spent my life trying to make things better for other people. That does not make me a better person than you; that is NOT virtue signaling; it is simply saying I do what makes me feel good.

I make no claim of superiority; in fact, in my experience, people who believe the way you believe are typically more successful and happier than I am.



Excellent question; I am, in fact, an atheist; I wasn't always; at one time, I actually preached for a while as a stand-in for my brother the lifelong SBC preacher.

And you bring up an interesting question that is very hard to answer.

1. There is certainly a line of reasoning that God has a plan and will take care of the planet for as long as it suits his plan. Being God, there is not really anything we can do to cause that plan to be deviated from - i.e., God will clean up our messes if it suits him.

2. We are charged, per some version of the bible, with being good stewards of the land/earth god has given us. I will omit bible references; I am sure you are familiar.

From my perspective, I guess fall into the camp that God helps those that help themselves, hence medicine, science, etc

And, while outside the scope of this discussion I will in slightly peak oil, or the theory(?) that oil is a limited resource. It is limited by the material it was created from being not of infinite origin. So, while we don't know for sure how limited it is, it seems reasonable to assume it is.

In that case, we should then consider the optimum use of this very valuable resource. Some of the other uses we make of include:

Medicine, fertilizer, pesticides, etc., Here is a reference for some. There are many other uses - other than as fuel.

Petroleum in Real Life




Well, I sort of answered that above, and I don't believe in God. But, a more valid question, I think, is, what is the BEST use we can make of OIL? Since it is limited (I assume) even if we don't know how limited (years, decades, centuries, eons?) It would seem to me we would be better stewards if we made the best use of the oil, not the most convenient.



Hmm, complex. First, I am all in for natural gas for electricity generation short term (until we can develop better, Solar wind, hydro, etc., are progressing very rapidly and, with worldwide governmental support, will continue to advance even faster. Of course, it is incumbent on us not to replace one problem with yet another - so, in developing alternate sources of energy, we must try to prevent creating a new monster with even worse side effects.

But, there is always a but; COAL is among the dirtiest source of energy known to man. That is not really debatable, And it was only a result of expensive regulations that required scrubbing and other actions that we reduced some of the pollutions down to levels we can manage. And we still do not manage a major by-product of coal-fired energy product - coal ash is incredibly harmful to humans.

Oil; on the other hand, is of limited use in Electricity production - around 0.5% of our electricity is produced using petroleum liquids - I think.

We use petroleum products to propel vehicles, heat buildings, and produce electricity (0.5%). In the industrial sector, the petrochemical industry uses petroleum as a raw material (a feedstock) to make products such as plastics, polyurethane, solvents, and hundreds of other intermediate and end-user goods.

Here is a chart of many uses of oil - kindly provided by the fossil fuel industry (not that they have a vested interest - LOL)

72 Uses of Oil



That is very true, but some of us think there is more to do. Along lines of cleaning up the environment.

If we are wrong, we are not suggesting anything to make it worse. But if we are right, we are talking about some very serious consequences. We don't KNOW; we are suggesting we err on the side of caution. It can't hurt.



So, you would vote for a candidate that is in favor of taking steps to curb climate change if their other policies are agreeable to you? Considering your positions stated above, I would consider that an excellent position to take.

And I thank you for posting a comment that encouraged discussion.

Good post. I am impressed with the detail and the empathy required to go to that much effort. Kudos !!!!!!!

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by MrChipster

Lemmings do not commit suicide. However, this particular myth is based on some actual lemming behaviors. Lemmings have large population booms every three or four years. When the concentration of lemmings becomes too high in one area, a large group will set out in search of a new home. Lemmings can swim, so if they reach a water obstacle, such as a river or lake, they may try to cross it. Inevitably, a few individuals drown. But it’s hardly suicide.


So why is the myth of mass lemming suicide so widely believed? For one, it provides an irresistible metaphor for human behavior. Someone who blindly follows a crowd—maybe even toward catastrophe—is called a lemming. Over the past century, the myth has been invoked to express modern anxieties about how individuality could be submerged and destroyed by mass phenomena, such as political movements or consumer culture.

But the biggest reason the myth endures? Deliberate fraud. For the 1958 Disney nature film White Wilderness, filmmakers eager for dramatic footage staged a lemming death plunge, pushing dozens of lemmings off a cliff while cameras were rolling. The images—shocking at the time for what they seemed to show about the cruelty of nature and shocking now for what they actually show about the cruelty of humans—convinced several generations of moviegoers that these little rodents do, in fact, possess a bizarre instinct to destroy themselves.

Thank you for the knowledge!