Harming Future People

[Goonie]

That's debatable. And to equate co2 with climate change is a huge leap. Warm climates lead to prosperity. co2 is good for the planet.

CO2 is great for the planet, it has kept us from being a freezing rock for billions of years, along with oxygen it is a building block of life on Earth. The issue is the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere,

How do we know that this increase is man made, and not natural?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ncreases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

Why is the increase a bad thing?
Well as co2 is a greenhouse gas, the more co2 in the atmosphere the warmer the planet will get, but not uniformly, the result is climate change and the chaotic weather patterns that are being observed.

 

[bhsmte]

That's debatable. And to equate co2 with climate change is a huge leap. Warm climates lead to prosperity. co2 is good for the planet.

Certain levels of co2 are good for the planet.

Sort of like vitamins for your health. Adequate levels of vitamins are essential for your health, but, excessive amounts of vitamins, can be toxic.

 

[PapaZoom]

CO2 is great for the planet, it has kept us from being a freezing rock for billions of years, along with oxygen it is a building block of life on Earth. The issue is the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere,
View attachment 167910
How do we know that this increase is man made, and not natural?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ncreases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

Why is the increase a bad thing?
Well as co2 is a greenhouse gas, the more co2 in the atmosphere the warmer the planet will get, but not uniformly, the result is climate change and the chaotic weather patterns that are being observed.

There's a lot of science to the question of the increase in co2. Sure man contributes. The question isn't is man the cause for the increase in co2, the question relates to co2 increases being the cause of climate change. I say no. The planet is dynamic and co2 rises will have minimal effect on climate. The sun is the big culprit. Climate wise, we'll be fine. We'll simply cycle through this climate change and experience a new one (like we did when we had global cooling in the 70s). Meanwhile, we look for alternative and affordable forms of renewable energy. We take care of our planet and do what we can to minimize pollution. But we do so responsibly.

The sense of urgency to do something about climate change is political and it's because of the $$. It's a highly politicized issue and many of the spokesperson's for AGW don't actually have a clue. Obama certainly doesn't. He takes his cues from the scientists that the government funds to study climate change. If a scientist isn't on board with the climate change narrative, he/she won't get research funding. It's too political to trust.

I have sources I read, scientists, who respond to the climate change scientists "findings." I want to know boths sides of the argument. And what I see is an issue that is highly politicized, that involves lots of money for those that play along, and a vilification of those that don't. My trust level of climate scientists and their level of honesty regarding this issue is near zero. There are too many factors that bring me to the conclusion that the "science" of AGW can't be trusted.

 

[stevevw]

There's a lot of science to the question of the increase in co2. Sure man contributes. The question isn't is man the cause for the increase in co2, the question relates to co2 increases being the cause of climate change. I say no. The planet is dynamic and co2 rises will have minimal effect on climate. The sun is the big culprit. Climate wise, we'll be fine. We'll simply cycle through this climate change and experience a new one (like we did when we had global cooling in the 70s). Meanwhile, we look for alternative and affordable forms of renewable energy. We take care of our planet and do what we can to minimize pollution. But we do so responsibly.

Problem is pollution and co2 is increasing and not decreasing. Countries sell coal quite happily because its a great source on income. Industry uses coal because there's no other alternative that will supply the level of power needed. 3rd world countries will use it as they have no options and have an ever growing appetite for energy supplies.

The sense of urgency to do something about climate change is political and it's because of the $$. It's a highly politicized issue and many of the spokesperson's for AGW don't actually have a clue. Obama certainly doesn't. He takes his cues from the scientists that the government funds to study climate change. If a scientist isn't on board with the climate change narrative, he/she won't get research funding. It's too political to trust

I would think that it was the opposite and there is a lack of urgency to do something about climate change because it will cost $$ to deal with changing our ways from fossil fuels. I know the government in Australia likes to promote that there isn't any problem because they want to avoid a carbon tax which would destroy business and the economy. So they are always disputing the evidence and look for scientists who say there isn't a problem and that the data is wrong.

I have sources I read, scientists, who respond to the climate change scientists "findings." I want to know boths sides of the argument. And what I see is an issue that is highly politicized, that involves lots of money for those that play along, and a vilification of those that don't. My trust level of climate scientists and their level of honesty regarding this issue is near zero. There are too many factors that bring me to the conclusion that the "science" of AGW can't be trusted.

Not all scientists have a vested interest. In fact I would say there could be motivations for both sides financially as I pointed out with the Australian Government. But there are too many scientists now including the best in the world who are all saying similar things and some of those are independent and are just concerned about our future. Most of the scientists in the world agree that humans have contributed to climate change through polluting the earth in one way or another. Its not just about air pollution but also the land and oceans. The point is the weather patterns may be natural but the contribution of extra pollutants is making it more extreme than it should be.

The science can separate the natural and unnatural causes and effects on the climate. The models that just include natural causes dont fit with what is happening and its not until all the factors of man made pollution are included does it reflect what is actually happening. So there are ways they can tell and indicate what effects this will have. So its not rocket science to match the increase in pollutants with the increase in extreme weather events and climate change.

It is also possible to distinguish the effects of different human and natural influences on climate by studying particular characteristics of their effects. For example, it was predicted more than a century ago that increases in CO2 would trap more heat near the surface and also make the stratosphere colder. In recent years, satellite and other measurements have provided strong evidence that the upper atmosphere has cooled and the lower atmosphere has warmed significantly—the predicted consequence of extra greenhouse gases. This supports the inference that the observed near surface warming is due primarily to an enhanced greenhouse effect rather than, say, an increase in the brightness of the Sun. - See more at: https://www.science.org.au/learning...human-activities-causing#sthash.pXMZW9Po.dpuf

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...uman-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#.VoIIaU-LW19

 

[durangodawood]

Do you think that there's a moral difference?

One difference is that my action harming a person living here and now is harming a real, living person. An action that harms a person 100 years from now only harms a hypothetical person at the time that I commit the action. This may or may not constitute a moral difference. What do you think?

I dont see how the timing of the action makes a difference, morally.
Harm someone now.
Harm someone later.
Whats the difference?
The difference is the time, not the harm. And harm is a moral issue. Time isnt.