Climate change real or hoax?

[RejZoR]

15 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

You've got the scale wrong though - yes, climate change happens naturally. But we're talking several thousand years on the quick side of things, not 200 or 300 years.

 

And frankly, we're not that concerned with Earth, per se, but rather Humanity. Earth will survive. It'll adapt. And if there are mass extinctions, new life will evolve to take the place of those that died out.

 

The problem is we want to avoid the "died out" part for Humanity.

I don't know a single person concerned about climate change that isn't also concerned about companies polluting.

You've made this claim twice, but everyone I know who supports climate change also supports enforcing environmental protections against polluting.

Well, it doesn't seem like it. All I hear is about this fucking climate shit and literally ZERO about all the shit dumped everywhere. I don't give a shit if they "support it" by default. No one's being vocal about it at all.

[dalekphalm]

21 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Well, it doesn't seem like it. All I hear is about this fucking climate shit and literally ZERO about all the shit dumped everywhere. I don't give a shit if they "support it" by default. No one's being vocal about it at all.

Plenty of people are being vocal about - maybe you're not listening to what they're saying?

 

Example: When the US gutted the EPA recently, people lost their shit.

 

Another example: When Montreal wanted to dump raw sewage into the Laurentian, again - people lost their shit.

 

Every time an oil train or pipeline leaks, people lose their shit.

 

So, it's happening. People care. They're trying to do things about it. But in the case of the US, environmental protections have just been getting worse over the last few years.

[RejZoR]

Only when something big happens. But for all the little shit that's just being done without media attention, everyone's just fine with it apparently. But god forbid my car emits 3g of fucking CO2 more than green nutcases want.

[straight_stewie]

On 2/28/2019 at 7:36 PM, dalekphalm said:

yes, climate change happens naturally.

And frankly, we're not that concerned with Earth, per se, but rather Humanity.

The problem is we want to avoid the "died out" part for Humanity. 

Which is why I always propose that it doesn't matter if humans are accelerating climate change or not.

Neither changing what we are doing nor having no effect on the environment at all will change that situation in any meaningful way.

The solution, rather counterintuitively, is to purposefully affect the environment. In other words, to have complete control over what's going on.

I think that both common sides of the argument: To "go green" (in common parlance, to try to have no effect) and "it's not real", are both equally detrimental to our chances of survival in the long term.

[XR6]

On 2/26/2019 at 6:01 AM, Allmykidsareblack said:

Climate change is a fake way of draining all the money out of hard working people

This is hilarious but also a bit worrying at the same time.

Climate change is real; it's been proven by science. 

It's a big issue in today's society, and while yes it is being exploited by politicians and businessmen who want to gain quick fame by pledging to be 'eco-friendly' it isn't a get rich quick scheme trying to drain your bank account.

Also may I remind you it doesn't cost much to help the environment. Recycling and using reusable cups are only a couple of the many low-cost (or even free) ways to clean up the earth (if you're into that sort of thing). 

You don't even have to do that though, climate change isn't necessarily going to affect humanity as it is right now (which is all people care about).

The bottom line is climate change is real but actually doing something about it is optional.

Humanity right now won't be affected, but down the line (let's say in 2090 for example) they certainly will; that's what people need to consider in all of this.

[dalekphalm]

7 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

Which is why I always propose that it doesn't matter if humans are accelerating climate change or not.

Neither changing what we are doing nor having no effect on the environment at all will change that situation in any meaningful way.

The solution, rather counterintuitively, is to purposefully affect the environment. In other words, to have complete control over what's going on.

I think that both common sides of the argument: To "go green" (in common parlance, to try to have no effect) and "it's not real", are both equally detrimental to our chances of survival in the long term.

I agree that weather manipulation would be quite ideal, but that's not the same thing as leaning into Clime Change.

 

Climate Change is causing totally uncontrollable weather extremes. Humans can do several things:

1. Slow down climate change

2. Give us more time to develop technology to either adapt to the new environment, or even make changes to the environment on purpose.

 

Eventually we can probably reverse the man part of the climate change and bring us back to natural climate changes, but only if we commit to actually trying to fix the problem.

[straight_stewie]

11 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

1. Slow down climate change 

I would agree, except that legitimate studies are split about 50/50 as to whether humans are having a measurable impact or not.

Considering how big of a disruption switching to a completely renewable lifestyle practically overnight would be to, well, anything humans do really, is it really worth the tradeoff, especially when you can view doing such things as misappropriating resources that could be used to find an actual solution? If the band-aid is just as expensive as the stitches, why get the band-aid?

It should be noted that I don't lump things like recycling and not littering into those statements. I believe that those type of things are just downright intelligent things to do, even if the case were such that they had no impact on the environment or climate in any way. Of course, rather trivially, poor garbage collection has at least the impact of causing a fetid eyesore.

[Fasauceome]

I have no idea how but this topic has remained so civil even when far more benign ones have been locked from huge arguments. I keep being amazed that I see this thread every once in a while.

[Tog Driver]

On 2/26/2019 at 2:37 AM, wasab said:

Star trek teleporter works by destroying the original human into beams of energy, beam its information back to the ship, and use all that information to reconstruct the human. No one ever complains it is not original. 

That is just supposed to be something cool for the show, It is killing you, and recycling your pieces to make something that looks like you, and thinks it is you.

 

Think of your consciousness as sort of a magic bubble around you, pieces come and go but the bubble is still around you, whether it be a Transporter or putting yourself into a computer, there is no way for the bubble to get to where the transporter brought you, or for it to get into the computer, all of your information is there, but "you" are gone, you step onto the transporter pad and say Beam Me down, and, then black, whatever happens when you die, but that's not what this is about.

[wasab]

4 minutes ago, Tog Driver said:

That is just supposed to be something cool for the show, It is killing you, and recycling your pieces to make something that looks like you, and thinks it is you.

 

Think of your consciousness as sort of a magic bubble around you, pieces come and go but the bubble is still around you, whether it be a Transporter or putting yourself into a computer, there is no way for the bubble to get to where the transporter brought you, or for it to get into the computer, all of your information is there, but "you" are gone, you step onto the transporter pad and say Beam Me down, and, then black, whatever happens when you die, but that's not what this is about.

Conscienceless is just memory or information, there is inherently nothing fake or real about two identical pieces of information. You may think it means something cuz we humans have always been self center that way but in the eyes of universe and all the laws of physics that govern it, a teleported human has no difference between that of the "original"

[aezakmi]

1 hour ago, fasauceome said:

I have no idea how but this topic has remained so civil even when far more benign ones have been locked from huge arguments. I keep being amazed that I see this thread every once in a while.

They're talking about the Star Trek teleporter and I have no idea why.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, fasauceome said:

I have no idea how but this topic has remained so civil even when far more benign ones have been locked from huge arguments. I keep being amazed that I see this thread every once in a while.

No one here has actually denied climate change. I'm glad we're all on the same page, but it feels weird. 

[straight_stewie]

1 hour ago, Tog Driver said:

It is killing you, and recycling your pieces to make something that looks like you, and thinks it is you.

There are various episodes where the characters actually experience things while being transported.

One example that comes to mind is TNG season 6 episode 2 "Realm of Fear".

Barclay discovers that there some people stuck inside the transporter beam, and must grab them during transport to save them. This would seem to indicate that, in whatever form, the thing being transported is coherently Reginald Barclay.

[BetterThanLife]

Humans are a hoax.

[Tog Driver]

24 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

There are various episodes where the characters actually experience things while being transported.

One example that comes to mind is TNG season 6 episode 2 "Realm of Fear".

Barclay discovers that there some people stuck inside the transporter beam, and must grab them during transport to save them. This would seem to indicate that, in whatever form, the thing being transported is coherently Reginald Barclay.

Oh, I didn't think if that, if I'm not mistaken, the in show explanation is that it takes you apart and puts you back together somewhere else, that makes me think it is "science" but actually magic where they move you through sub-space or something.

 

But if something actually takes you apart and puts you back together it won't be you on the other end, just a copy.

 

of course this is "greater then the sum of its parts" stuff, so that's hard to science out.

[dalekphalm]

7 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

I would agree, except that legitimate studies are split about 50/50 as to whether humans are having a measurable impact or not.

Source for the claim that studies are split 50/50 on human impact? Everything I've read does not lead to that conclusion.

 

We're having an impact - there's extremely little doubt about that. How big the impact humans make, and how fast it is accelerating things, are the questions we need to explore.

7 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

Considering how big of a disruption switching to a completely renewable lifestyle practically overnight would be to, well, anything humans do really, is it really worth the tradeoff, especially when you can view doing such things as misappropriating resources that could be used to find an actual solution? If the band-aid is just as expensive as the stitches, why get the band-aid?

I don't know anyone except radicals that actually suggest cold turkey switching to renewable energies. The problem is that when we suggest moving even slowly to renewable energies, we get people who don't want to make even a little progress, unless it's magically 100% perfect.

 

ICE vehicles didn't start out good either, they were shit at first. It took a lot of money and time to change that.

 

No one has proposed any stitches. As I see it, there are basically two main camps:

1. Those who propose climate change reduction strategies (Kyoto Accord, Paris Accord, etc)

2. Those who think we shouldn't do anything

 

If you have a suggestion for "stitches" or a bandaid solution that would actually do anything, I'm all ears.

 

What we need to do is reduce consumption of oil (and other fossil fuels) where possible. We know we're not going to 100% eliminate oil usage. Things like polymers and other plastics made from oil will be needed for decades (if not centuries).

 

But that doesn't mean we should continue to burn oil for things like regular cars, when not needed.

 

Also, moving electrical grid power generators off of Coal, even if we're moving to a different (yet still better and less environmentally dangerous) fossil fuel, such as Natural Gas.

 

We should also be looking at investing in next generation Nuclear facilities - especially the types that can use spent fuel rods from older nuclear designs.

7 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

It should be noted that I don't lump things like recycling and not littering into those statements. I believe that those type of things are just downright intelligent things to do, even if the case were such that they had no impact on the environment or climate in any way. Of course, rather trivially, poor garbage collection has at least the impact of causing a fetid eyesore.

Agreed - and the reason why people recycle, where they don't buy an EV, etc - is because recycling and trash have an easy to see, easy to accomplish, immediate effect, and it doesn't cost you anything (or the cost is incredibly minimal). Buying an EV, or replacing your appliances with energy efficient models, are expensive and/or also require a change of habit.

 

Once people are asked to change their habits in a drastic way, that's where people stop caring.

5 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

There are various episodes where the characters actually experience things while being transported.

One example that comes to mind is TNG season 6 episode 2 "Realm of Fear".

Barclay discovers that there some people stuck inside the transporter beam, and must grab them during transport to save them. This would seem to indicate that, in whatever form, the thing being transported is coherently Reginald Barclay.

Star Trek is very inconsistent with the Transporter.

 

There is both dialog and scenes that give evidence to suggest both models:

1. That the Teleporter keeps you - the original person - alive, and uses subspace or some other technobabble to transport your matter, as well as

2. That you are being destroyed down to the molecular level, your molecules are being scanned, and a data transmission sends the data to the other end, where you're reconstructed with the same organization of molecules (though these molecules aren't your original molecules).

 

Chalk it up to inconsistent writing.

 

Example: Thomas Riker - the transporter beam that was beaming up Will Riker bounced off of the atmosphere when he was a Lieutenant. The beam was split by the atmosphere, and half the transmission was reflected down to the surface, which created a 100% perfect and identical clone of Riker (in every way that matters, he *is* "Will Riker"), and the other half of the beam was received by the Starship in orbit, in which "Actual" Will Riker was beamed aboard.

 

If the Teleporter worked by actually "moving" your molecules (as in "You" you), then this couldn't happen. But at the same time, we know you are awake and aware of the transporter stream in some capacity, which supports that yes in fact you are moving along with the data.

[Allmykidsareblack]

5 hours ago, floofer said:

No one here has actually denied climate change. I'm glad we're all on the same page, but it feels weird. 

I will deny climate change. It is just made up to limit our economy or China would not allowed to be to pollute.