Personally I'm lukewarm on global warming -- it's warming but not like you think, but you get emotional about it. Did you actually take any collegiate level courses in science?
Climate change Threatens the Future of World Crop Production
- Thread starter Woody1
- Start date
Personally I'm lukewarm on global warming -- it's warming but not like you think, but you get emotional about it. Did you actually take any collegiate level courses in science?
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
For everyone and everything. It's the same as overfishing. It works up to a point, and then it collapses. Countries want lots of things that are bad for the long term prospects of humanity.
Would you prefer no farmland? I ask these questions to see how you reconcile ideology with reality.
Apparently you want the earth in full control and humans with no control. Where we all go back to planet nomads of some sort.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Yes I did. It's an emotional issue because it's an example of political bias leading to the deliberate spread of ignorance.
Would your emotions cool off with a cooler planet? Maybe we can find an aerosol that would do just that. Where would you go from there?
If you expect a pristine environment then that applies to everything, not just the air. You need to stop designing buildings too.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
We would probably just fuck things up even more. Would I prefer no farmland? It makes no difference what I think, this is the reality. Industrial society isn't sustainable. Which means our society is heading towards collapse, as all others have.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Of course it's unrealistic to expect that human activity would have no effect on the planet. But we are talking about mass extinction and unnecessary human suffering. Surely that's enough of a motivation to at least know what's really happening? Buildings and cities are actually better for the environment than suburban sprawl.
S/G. Thank you. I'm not trying to be critical. I'm trying to understand the ideology and I'm hearing a hopeless and dispairing defeatism.
There is hope, and you've hinted around about it. As humans, most of us are not very well adapted to our current environment. We were once the happiest and most prosperous as an agrarian society. I think many anthropologists would agree.
I get the feeling that almost everyone here is disconnected from their ancestral roots. When is the last time anybody grew a garden, went fishing, went for a hike, camped out? This forum is cyberspace and that's the vacuum we are all being pulled into.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
I'm not despairing. We do need to return to a sustainable agrarian society, and not just to make the hippies happy, it's critical to human well being. I don't typically see science deniers acknowledging this.
Global warming is really more of a control issue than a denial issue. A computer model that can't reliably predict the climate is going to require trillions of remedial capital expenditures. It better be worth it.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
The fact of global warming isn't dependent on a perfectly precise computer model. The idea is the cost of ignoring it is more than the cost of preparing for it. Or you can wait until the whole shit show collapses under the weight of its own dysfunction.
Wait. Didn't I see you spurn another member in a thread by saying they should be like Amish?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
My post said nothing about the amount of "farm land". You appear to have been unable to take in what I was saying. When you start addressing the content of my post, I am prepared to pursue the discussion.
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
It is you that looks like a fool at the moment. You seem incapable of dealing with the points raised in response to your own posts. Instead we get the replies ignored and further silly questions instead, such as about "CO2 thermostats" and whether we agree with some off-the-point contention or other about amounts of "farm land", which you have introduced.
I've seen this before with creationists. The game is to ignore replies and keep asking questions at a tangent to them, in hope that the interlocutor is suckered into chasing after answers to a random stream of unrelated silly questions. This serves to prevent any coherent account of the issue from developing as the thread proceeds.
I continue to offer you the chance of a proper discussion, but for that you need to start dealing with my replies, rather than going off at new tangents without addressing them.
Last edited:
Hey! If guy went fishing, he found one -Red Herring.
:EDIGHT:
Caught one, as in me.
:EDIT:
EDIT - I'm intoxicated and celebrating something else.
Last edited:
That's a fact. You seem to be having trouble with these basic facts.
N
For starters, there's no ideology involved in the basic discovery and analysis of AGW. It's a set of basic physical facts. Until you acknowledge them, you will continue to hear these bizarre voices in your head instead of reading what people post in front of you.
No, you aren't. // Hence your difficulty in hearing things.
For starters, there's no ideology involved in the basic discovery and analysis of AGW. It's a set of basic physical facts. Until you acknowledge them, you will continue to hear these bizarre voices in your head instead of reading what people post in front of you.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Whut? Is this a crossword clue or something?
I edited my post, again.
Sorry, I must seem really dumb. It's out of annoyance from the original poster.
It wasn't the intent of the OP to show the world how badly a climatologist missed a prediction forty years ago, or the hysteria that went along with it, but don't let me stop you.
Last edited: