@Joe C: Just more fodder to be chewed up and "spun" into another "We need your taxes to do a study" rant. No offense to you or your post meant.
@Joe C: Actually, I do. It sounds to me like the article you posted is describing Nature's Thermostat. What concerns me is the fact that things like this are almost always manipulated for the sake of a financial agenda. IMHO, that needs to be separated from the true topic of discussion. No offense was meant to you or to your post.
Why do people always answer to something I have not written? And then come up with a ridiculous sentences like this: "Even if one would not accept this as an argument for a climate change influenced by humans... to state that the impact of humans on nature would not change the climate is unreasonable." Where have I said it is unreasonable? I have said that being reasonable or not is neither scientific nor proof. I asked how you come to the conclusion that changing human behaviour, would make a significant and decisive difference, and you come along with nothing but wishful thinking! Another piece of scientific thinking is this one: "we are 'changing' the earth so why should the climate be unaffected?" This is so, because you believe it is? And who has questioned that in the firsat place... And the main questions you seem not to even have recognized: How are you going to chnage the behaviour of 7 Billion people AND why don't you read up on what we actually know? The simple, indeed scientific numbers that we already are at 1.7 degrees of those 2.0 degrees (that our crooked politicians insist would be harmless) and that there is no way of preventing it stopping at even 2 or 3 or 4 or whatever degrees... This thread is from the beginning filled with peoples statement that !I am a good person, I am against climate change!" and nothing else. It is circus of hypopcrites...
1. Humankind HAS an influence on it. But there is no way to answer the question of responsibility, because we have no way of knowing the magnitude of the part of the complete of climate change, that is caused by humans. Remember: We do know that there has been climate change long before humans had any influence on it. 2. The effects will be enormous on the coast lines, because of the rising sea levels. I already posted an article from The New Yorker on what will happen soon in Miami. What will be happen to coral reefs is already visible. Agricultural changes will be massive following a rise of average temperatures. Keep your eyes open, and if you see change coming in YOUR life, then go with it as soon as possible. It is stupid to hope for real political action, these crooks just talk, because then they paid. It is as simple as that... Remember: In a state like California, where there is an immense lack of water, they use 4 gallons of water to grow every single almond. Not even something as retarded and absurd as that can be stopped, so do not hold your breath for solving the "problem" of climate change.. You second question is the important one, you are right! The funny part is, that it is always the wise people in forums who continually answer any question with: "Do not see it as a problem, see it as a challenge!" ....it is usually them who see a problem, when there actually is a challenge. Adapt!
"What can you do? Kill them? Starve them to death, because they're taking our air?" The earth is a closed system, it regulates itself. Just watch YOUR space and watch for chnages that will affect... then act.
Simply stop talking of global warming or whatever.... and think in terms of Climate Change and all the silly quesations will disappear. And it means accepting our ignorance. The use of the phrase "global warming" already showed, how we try to disguise our ignorance by pretending we know and have facts.
I only mentioned "Climate Change" in the quote you posted. Please take a chill pill for your Global Warming experiences
This is probably the single most stupid thing you have ever written here and clearly shows your conservative roots (in seeing only the worst in Humans) and no understanding of our potential, that which Humans can do at their best... Unlike animals, we can (and we must, with today's powers at our disposal) predict consequences of our activities and scientific insight surely can help there, so we can think before we act and do not have to unleash our wisdom upon the world just to see what will happen, and then act... But you know better, I am sure...
I strictly replied to It’d require exactly the same conditions without humans to compare. I reasoned the impact with action/re-action a simple physical principle you’ve left out to quote and the warming with CO2 level increase as greenhouse gas . No wishful thinking, no belief. Nowhere, never said you had said. Cannot know what you consider as ‘main’ questions, especially when placed at the end of your post…. The point is not to change the behavior of 7 Billion people and I posted ‘what we already know’. https://forums.mydigitallife.net/th...inion/page87?p=1309552&viewfull=1#post1309552 Each single person of us can change the ‘behavior’, that’s all. But to do that one needs an alternative to choose. To offer such is job of the government which recognizes that a change is reasonable and the industry that produces and offers alternatives. This worked with CFCs and the ozone hole, no incomprehensible claim that 6 Billion (that time) people would have to change their behavior therefore... One of the best decisions ‘my’ government has ever made was the nuclear phase-out. I cannot see such. I only see one negative/dissatisfied person who refuses personal responsibility by pointing on the 'hardly changeable behavior of a group of beings' he belongs to... Yes I know anything is s*it already... no need to care about.... Never-mind. Everybody has to get along with the own point of view...
I don't have the impression the government here abuses 'global warming' to collect taxes, sorry. What I hope is that they do not waste them due to incompetence, though. To go for environmental protective measures also means to 'pay something' for it. My electricity provider is not the cheapest one, but one that provides electricity made of 100% renewable sources. And the government collects extra taxes on electricity for the 'energy revolution'...the nuclear phase out... As said already...important is what one does and is doing...questions about 'others' and fictional situations and reactions on it lead to nothing..... I think what I do is right and that's the reason why I am doing it....I do not expect all 'the others' have the same opinion and I do not use 'the others' to argue against something...
@Yen: Not there, but here, it's a distinct possibility, sorry to say. I've seen it in New York government. They raise taxes (typically what's called 'Sin Tax'), claim that the money is going toward one thing and it ends going into something completely different. The USA is littered with examples of this. They have. Many times, it goes unreported by the mainstream media because it's unimportant.
Maybe I illustrate some relations to compare. Well here taxes concerning vehicles are a matter of the federal government. But there are also taxes which are collected by the state government. Germany consists of 16 federal states. There are 2 taxes which can be considered as CO2 related: 1. The tax on cars (depends on kind of engine and cylindrical capacity). 2. And there is tax on fuel. For instance gasoline costs 1.215 Euro/ Liter. 36.7 cent costs and profit for the manufacturer 19.4 cent VAT 65.4 cent energy tax Means 69.8% of the costs are taxes! A car with around 150 horse power 120 Euro car tax per year. That means most of the taxes are fuel related, the car tax plays a minor role. (It's different with Diesel engines, there the fuel is cheaper?!?!? for some...incomprehensible reasons.... and the car taxes are higher) Diesel engines are only clean with expensive tech involved...otherwise they are dirty... I think the problem is not the taxes themselves. They are fair because they are related to consumption. A big car consumes more fuel and a big car with lots of power requires bigger money...and a car with more power requires an engine with a higher cylindrical capacity.. The problem is the inability of the government and the resulting mistrust what makes the people angry about taxes. The government has at least 2 jobs to do using the money collected from taxes. To care for the infrastructure (streets/condition and the like). Research for alternatives and control directions by tax privileges (e-cars and the like)
@Yen you have good judgement of problem but unfortunately the result is only utopia the government around the world first think in $$$$ and forget another big and serious problems imo
Diesel is only relatively OK outside the cities, on an open road, when temperature is optimal for the catalysts/filters, we are told... So, that doesn't really help... In the UK the price of diesel is not lower, sometimes it is even higher than unleaded. One must provide roads and organisation for it all, including the traffic related health services, all sorts of injuries etc. due to road accidents, pollution etc. - and it costs... Anyone with a clever idea how to do it without taxes?
@gorski: Some taxes are fair, others are not. In California, if you have over a million dollars in an account, you don't need to have car insurance. I'm not advocating Libertarianism, I'm just saying that every issue requires a certain amount of financial common sense. When you ask for something to be constructed, you ask the government to split the cost of this project. This involves taxes. Understood. The American government is filled with people trying to fleece the taxpayer with "pie-in-the-sky" projects and scientific studies for this and that. It's called "Pork Barrel" spending. I'm not saying "Don't do them". Not at all. But let's look at things realistically, and make sure the money is well spent. And I'm not against recycling, reuse, or conservation in -ANY- capacity. It needs to be done -REGARDLESS- of climate change. The polluters need to be forced to clean up their mess, and we need to examine the models of other countries who are "getting it right". We are living longer, and we consume a lot of resources. The more people that the earth holds, the more problems the environment will have. We use goods whose manufacture require a huge amount of toxic chemicals and toxic processes. So what do we do?