Except human flourishing is done by basically loaning from nature. That's not unlimited supply. Humans are heading into situation where current society as we know it now is bang. Gone. And if we don't do anything before that it's going to put humans into even bigger misery than before.

There's only so much resources this planet has. And only so much it generates per year. We are burning resources faster than it produces.

Yeah there's more people flourishing now. In future without radical changes now there's going to be lots of dead humans and lots of people suffering while they try to adapt to new reality. And at that point they will curse us for making the change worse than it could have been.

More nonsense posted by people in this thread. Oil and natural gas reserves are rising. We are in no danger of running our of either of those for 1000's of years and that's with today's technology, and we haven't even scratched the surface for the potential of nuclear. People seem to forget that 150 years ago oil was viewed as a nuisance black liquid that would get in the way when drilling for kerosene.

Also LOL at being one with nature then freaking out when people use compressed dead plants to heat/cool their homes, cook and refrigerate their food, drive to work, fly to vacation, farm and transport our food and just about every other thing every person itt does on a daily basis.

No dumpty, people are not just talking about gas and oil anymore they are talking bout your whole pfft environment, pfft mass extinctions, who cares.

You are completely and utterly obstinate and resistant to the idea of any negative feedback from the environment in face of unlimited exponential human growth.

Great news out yesterday. After denying it was a real threat for so long, republicans have finally come around on the issue and decided to work together to reverse the tides of a looming global threat before it's too late.

Air quality, water quality and life expectancy are improving and rising. Climate related deaths are at all time low's. This all happening while population, FF use and CO2 emissions all rise. And you think I'm being utterly obstinate and resistant.

You think unlimited exponential growth is a problem. What's your solution? Are you willing to cut your electricity use to a couple hours a day, stop driving? Spend 10x more on food? Pass laws that people can only have 1 child?

In the US that's true and it's due to environmental protection laws and the epa. The laws and agency which are under constant attack from the right wing nuts.

Desertification, decline of arable land and loss of water access is pretty much taken as given as being a massive source of global insecurity in the 21st century.

Also again you just completely ignore the mass extinctions and all the other terrible impacts we are having on our bio diversity and eco system such as the plastic islands floating in our Oceans. Because these do not fit into your yay coal narratives.

As regards climate deaths, I can only find one source backing your hypothesis, which originates in your lol philosophers book.

On the other hand there are numerous studies refuting that hypothesis.

Twenty governments commissioned an independent report in 2012 from the group DARA International to study the human and economic costs of climate change. It linked 400,000 deaths worldwide to climate change each year, projecting deaths to increase to over 600,000 per year by 2030.

http://daraint.org/wp-content/upload...9/CVM2-Low.pdf

STUDY: Climate Change-Fueled Food Crisis Could Kill Half A Million People By 2050

https://publichealthwatch.wordpress....eople-by-2050/

Measures To Cut Carbon Emissions Also Improve Your Health

https://publichealthwatch.wordpress....e-your-health/

Scientists Warn That Interaction Of Climate Change And Air Pollution Threaten Global Food Security

https://publichealthwatch.wordpress....food-security/

We are wasting our time with people that have never taken a college level biology class


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The data is taking from the World Bank and Emergency Events Database EM-DAT




Ok, Studies and predictions can be made about anything, doesn't prove anything. But one thing we can do is look at past predictions made by scientist on the first earth day in 1970.

Shifty,

"Ok, Studies and predictions can be made about anything, doesn't prove anything. But one thing we can do is look at past predictions made by scientist on the first earth day in 1970. "

Did you doctor that? Because I see sources from the unbelievably vast right wing derposphere saying "on or about the first earth day."

Which is a crucial distinction because, I think this quote:

1. "Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." - Harvard biologist George Wald

Is about the possibility of nuclear war, because in addition to being a nobel price winner who studied the biology of vision (not climate or anything like that) he was an anti-war activist.

It's truly amazing how many dedicated deniers there are on the internet reposting lists of quotes like that. I looked and found a possible source of that quote in a box at an archive at Harvard. Unfortunately, I don't have that box. It's possible the source is online, but with 145000 idiots reposting it with no context, it's a lot of work to find.

Maybe if you think it's a huge gotcha, you can find it. If you do, I'll worry about whatever #2 is on that list.

Shifty, do you think you would have supported or opposed the kinds of environmental legislation that happened because of lefty activism in the late '60s and early '70s?

Well, we know you would have opposed them.

Rivers in the US were on fire

Smog in London had killed thousands

smog in Los Angeles wasn't far behind

Lead in the atmosphere was like 10000 times higher

Of course there are plenty of idiots who want to repeal the clean air and water acts and eliminate the EPA and undo what has made the US a better and cleaner place than it was 40 years ago. And those same idiots will fight tooth and nail to prevent it from becoming even better in the future.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...-our-children/

over/under on how many of those were quote mined?

Shifty's post?

Those quotes are in lists all over the internet. I spent like half an hour trying to get the source of the first quote and it's very difficult because there were 145000 hits of right wing nut job after right wing nut job.

This is related, but not specific to right wing nut jobs, but the internet is kinda getting worse and worse. Back in the day you'd never get 10 sites all saying the same thing, let alone 145000.

Yes.

Shifty,

how do you know those quotes weren't taking out of context?

Just browsing through others, this is striking

This didn't come true, but why?

Los Angeles in the 1970s



and I lived in SoCal in the 1970s and it was like that a lot and it's never like that now. THANKS TO ENVIRONMENTALISTS!!!!

My understanding is that air quality improved because more coal was burned. Coal is basically plants and can be used for filtering, so having more of it in the air has to be good.

It's like a giant charcoal filter in the shy.

Just like any movement they had a purpose when they started. They did a great job of pointing out the things that needed to be improved and they were improved. Now they are going way overboard. The EPA is just out of control with the water rights/property rights they are trying to take away.


It's nice to see that the earth is finding a use for the excess Carbon dioxide emissions we are polluting the planet with:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346

Your right, I probably should have looked into the predictions made a bit more and what context they were in. Doesn't change the fact that plenty of predictions were terribly wrong and the opposite pretty much happened. To my knowledge non the alarmist (mckibbon, Hansen, ehrlich etc.) Have ever admitted to being wrong or apologized for the harm they've done.

Honest question do you really believe that without environmentalist people living in LA would be going to work in gas masks today?

Probably not, but that's not a good point. The air would be lousy and many people's lives would be worse and cut short.

Like in Beijing, a lot of people might wear masks of some kind, but people just move out before they have to wear real gas masks.

The second part really belongs in the other thread. The earth obviously has a lot of negative feedback that keeps climate generally within a somewhat limited range. That doesn't mean human activity can't have a large impact or even that conditions can't be changed enough that opposing feedback is overcome.

As for the first part, there's also plenty of room to argue that the EPA hasn't done nearly enough with water. Groundwater is being depleted and polluted all over the country and the world.

Like just about every other environmental issue, there's a tragedy of the commons. Owners of water rights have the ability to take and to pollute water that is under other people's property and that everyone needs. And groundwater needs to be recharged. The air and water not generally being considered a public resource would just be disastrous.

But obviously one study/data point supporting your hypothesis is gospel.

Its funny how so called skeptics are all so immediately accepting of any study that supports their world view.

Also trying to equate that list of quotes you found on tinfoilhat.com with the present overbearing consensus on climate change is just pure crazy talk.

Pretty cool, the Earth is greening far more than we expected:



http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate3004.html

Could help to explain why climate models have been so crap (probably a minimal short-term impact, but potentially a large long-term impact).

Funny how domer cites Nature as an authority when he has a cherry-picked article that he thinks agrees with his truthing, but dismisses it as "alarmist" propaganda every other time.

Your right, the data in that chart is probably not 100% accurate, I'd guess climate related deaths in the early 1900's are much higher because not all were reported due to of lack of communication.

It's funny how alarmist are so quick to discredit the source or say that think tank is working for big oil. But then use "studies" that receive huge grants. You don't think there is an incentive for scientists to be pro climate change? Consensus in science has for the most been wrong throughout history.