see the problem for me with this line of thought is this, and I kind of already said it:
If global warming is real, and we are going to eperience fallout as a result, it would be wise to accomodate the possibility.
If it is fake, and one accommodates the possibility, then what is actually lost other than a possible relocation and perhaps a stock pile of water and weapons?

If you don't prepare for it, that would be similar to refusing to wear safety goggles because you feel confident, even though there is a chance that shrapnel could blind you at a moment's notice.

Personally... I wear safety goggles.

...or the gun conundrum.
If you have a gun you prolong their existence.
If you don't have a gun you risk your protection.
So you buy a gun.

I'm with you Leo, and like I said I seek more sustainable energy regardless of whether or not we are capable of of mitigating climate issues, and so yes I generally speak for that cause.
However at the same time I am considering possibilities here, and while I cannot say that the evidence I have researched or heard is 100% foolproof and reputable, I have to consider that it is in order to attempt to survive and keep my family and my children alive should things go the way many people have publicly predicted.

Or am I just over reacting?
I don't think so.

The truth about my intentions here is that I am not actually trying to have anyone convince me otherwise. As far as debate is concerned, there is none really to be had with me because I have already decided.

More so I am presenting these thoughts to this group of people in hopes that they begin to consider this line of thinking.
Because I like your minds here. So I offer my understandings.

I wear my clear polarized ski mask as safety goggles whenever I am dealing with the homeless so that they cannot spit on me or at least not into my eyes and upper face.

So I do indeed know what safety goggles are.

My view of extinction of a species is that all is as God wills it.

My view of the human function in existence on Earth is that if God wills it then there is nothing we can do about it.

The Earth is God's footstool. We humans only occupy it.

There have been several Ice Ages over the past millions of years of Geological Time. Our modern Science has proved it to us.

The warming scenario that we are presently within is simply the other side of the Ice Age coin.

Warming seems to me to be perfectly normal and completely unavoidable by the insects and humans that occupy God's footstool here.

Lots of Africans will starve as that continent becomes warmer and dryer.

We should therefore come up with a treaty with the Russians and Chinese to invest more in Africa to save the peoples (plural) there from annihilation.

My solutions to problems are practical not idealistic. Fighting climate change is idealistic and a flawed strategy.

My solutions result from my Romantic Philosophy of the God Of Philosophy -- the Prime Mover of Aristotle and the First Cause of Aquinas.

The warming scenario that we are presently within is simply the other side of the Ice Age coin. — hks

Except that it isn't. What would be normal is a much, much smaller and slower rise in CO2, and a consequent smaller and slower rise in global warming.

Has the earth ever gotten very hot before quite quickly? Apparently, but the cause was geological: massive volcanism. Have their been mass extinctions before? There have - 5 of them. They were the result of rare cosmic events (the big asteroid that landed in the oily swamp of the Yucatan peninsula, started toxic burns, and eventually killed off the dinosaurs or volcanism (the acidity of the oceans became very extreme and just about everything swimming in it died). The 6th extinction is our fault, and if things go very badly, will include us. This cycle of global warming wasn't unavoidable (still may be reducible).

If you are going to reference the earth as god's footstool (OT imagery) then mention another OT reference: People are directed by god to be stewards of the earth.

I think saying it is as God wills it is an excuse to not change the way things are, an excuse to not change what we believe is out of our control. But a lot that was believed impossible turned out to be possible, so I don't believe man is unable to have an impact on the climate.

There is a lot we can do practically to live in harmony with the ecosystem, in a sustainable way, that's not idealistic. Maybe we are little responsible for the recent global warming, maybe we are a lot responsible, in any case there is a lot we can change about our ways if we don't want to go extinct one way or the other.

One thing is for certain, the climate is forever changing and always has been, it's never static, it's a dynamic system so it's impossible for it not to change. Human beings have an influence on that change as does every other species but to what extent we just don't know... yet.

(In response to @hks) Except that it isn't. What would be normal is a much, much smaller and slower rise in CO2, and a consequent smaller and slower rise in global warming. — Bitter Crank

What would be normal, I think, is a very slow drop in atmospheric CO2 concentration. What primarily drove the alternation between the glacial and interglacial periods over the last few million years were the Milankovitch cycles. CO2 concentration goes along for the ride (as well as ice-albedo, also providing a feedback, and hysteresis, to the climate system). The last glacial period ended about 14 millennia ago, and the global temperature peaked around 7 millennia ago, during the Holocene Climate Optimum. Since then, the global temperature slowly fell down until roughly one and a half century ago. During the last few decades, the global temperature rose up very fast as much as it had fallen over the previous seven millennia (about 1°C). This occurred at the same time when we increased the atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than 40% and is explained by it, and also, to a lesser degree, by the increase in concentration of other non-condensable greenhouse gases such a methane, CFCs and nitrous oxide. The recent warming is thus, indeed, quite unnatural.

Human beings have an influence on that change as does every other species but to what extent we just don't know... yet. — TWI

We don't now exactly, which is why the IPCC, for instance, provides a probability density function for climate sensitivity to greenhouse gas forcing. The warming that we can expect to occur as a consequence of doubling the concentration of atmospheric CO2 concentration (and thus generating a forcing of 4W/m^2) thus is likely to be between 1.5°C to 4.5°C.

What would be normal, I think, is a very slow drop in atmospheric CO2 concentration. — Pierre-Normand

Or maybe a very small rise over the next few centuries.



The atmospheric CO2 concetration rose from about 260ppm, ten millennia ago, to about 275ppm, two centuries ago. It then shot up to over 400ppm following a curve that matches the global anthropogenic emmissions with an almost perfect correlation.

But for some reason the God Of Philosophy has put humans in charge — hks

Ah, the God of Philosophy. I believe his name is Loki, otherwise known as the Trickster...;)

I too love Native American philosophy.

The most fundamental principle of it is "No man can tell another what to do." This is way different than anything that has come out of Europe or Asia in philosophy.

You cannot change it. Neither can the insects change it. Nor any other creature on the Earth can change it.

Trying to change something that cannot be changed is an exercise in futility.

In response to your response with Romantic Philosophy, I concur in your comment that humankind (male and female) is responsible to be stewards of the Earth. This is the Biblical message from the Tenakh where Moses states God had said He placed Adam and Eve in the Garden Earth to dress and keep it.

Futilely wasting precious resources on reversing climate change is a terrible waste not conservation.

Futilely wasting precious resources on reversing climate change is a terrible waste not conservation. — hks

Mankind currently is actively reversing the natural trend in climate change (from slow cooling to fast greenhouse warming) through wasting non-renewable fossil fuel reserves.

You believe it cannot be changed, that doesn't mean it cannot

taking the ultra deterministic approach I see.

@leo you believe it can be changed. That dos not mean it can. Touche'.

@pierra you are changing the subject however. The subject is not about consumerism. But that is the economic theory that you have now introduced. It is a non sequitur. Also known as a red herring. Fallacy.

pierra you are changing the subject however. The subject is not about consumerism. But that is the economic theory that you have now introduced. It is a non sequitur. Also known as a red herring. Fallacy. — hks

I was replying to your claim that reversing climate change is a waste of precious resources. You are claiming this because you also seemingly believe that mankind doesn't have the power to prevent climate change. But, as I've argued, it is our massive consumption of fossil fuels that currently drives the unnaturally fast rate of global warming (in opposition to the natural Holocene cooling trend that had taken place since the Climatic Optimum, about seven millennia ago, up until the industrial revolution). Taking this fact into account directly refutes the main premise of your argument.

you believe it can be changed. That dos not mean it can — hks

I don't believe it can, I believe you cannot know it can't. I am keeping an open mind, you are not. If we were to destroy all trees and vegetation on Earth, I believe that would have quite an impact on a lot of things. I believe that what we do has an impact on things, and I believe that what we believe has an impact on what we do and what we don't do. And I believe that a lot of things that were believed impossible turned out to be possible.

If we all believe we can't change it, then we will interpret all changes as not originating from us, believing we have no control over our fate, that we are just the toy of some higher power. Whereas if we believe we can change it, we will actively try to understand how the climate changes and what is it that make it change, and then maybe it will turn out that we can change it. But in a self-fulfilling prophecy, if we believe like you that we can't change it then we will just do whatever, and maybe go extinct as we 'see' that it was the will of some higher power and that we couldn't change it anyway. You are promoting the belief that we are powerless and that's just an excuse to remain powerless about whatever happens.

No.
It is better, that our planet is warming up, then cooling.
Because heat could be transfered into electricity.
Also tress grow faster if we have more C02 and heat.
I am not bothering with warming climate at all.

The economy is the weakest link in the chain. It may collapse for purely internal reasons (economic meltdown) or it may collapse because of natural disaster, war, over population, soil erosion* etc or a combination of these things.

*Saw a documentary last night on soil erosion and the extermination of all life in the soil due to pesticides. Serious stuff.