Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada wrote:dohboi two things to keep in mind. First my point about inland and high altitude climates is, we do not know because those environments do not favor fossil formation and preservation.
As for the very emotionally charged and non scientific terminology 'weed species', seems how I have to spell it out for you humans are amongst the weediest of weed species.
Newfie wrote:Ibon,
These are possibilities we will never see realized. Not you and I.
Our job, if you accept the premis of our genetic programming, is simple. It is to see to our DNA's survival. That narrows the view to something more manageable, something one can actually work toward.
vtsnowedin wrote:But measuring the use of words like "Ever more "faster than" and "warmer than" and "dryer than" expected."is not a valid way to determine the truth.
Ibon wrote:
During this whole dialogue we haven't been discussing yet those other clams you mention here, the climate change deniers. But their presence has always been here. They frame the polarity that still at this late date hold some of us hostage. It would seem. After all,, Cid accused me of using the same tactics as the climate change deniers, and there is this confusion by many here on my positions because I am obviously not a climate change denier and yet I have been politically incorrect in challenging a number of sacred cows that the extremists here hold so dear.
When I suggested external consequences will be the engine of cultural transition this was perceived as threatening to those who still hold on to using the social and environmental justice meme as the ideological fight required against the climate change deniers. My theory breaks the polarity and this is threatening to those who are still driven by ideology. My suggestion that there is a possibility that we may culturally adapt and persevere after human overshoot and self regulate was also met with vigorous opposition for the same reason.
When I suggested that humans in overshoot are more vulnerable at this point than the remaining natural ecosystems this also is taboo because our focus must remain singularly on the threats to our biosphere and biodiversity and suggesting that humans are at the moment less resilient is contrarian and does not serve the ideological struggle against the climate change deniers.
It has been very fascinating to observe the underlying narratives that still frame the thinking of even those most convinced that they are interpreting data from a purely objective place.
The fact that they are so certain of this and also so certain of our upcoming extinction should of course provide the most obvious clue.
These discussions have been most enjoyable and enlightening and I appreciate the lively discussion.
Regarding Dohboi's claim that I haven't produced any evidence to support my views, this is simply not true. I have from the beginning spoken of possibilities and explored pathways. Some of my ideas are admittedly unorthodox. Some of my ideas are original and do not come from copying and pasting links. Some of my ideas are most likely due for some revision and modification, partially from comments here refuting them and partially waiting for future events to fine tune some of these ideas. By the way, the onus is not on me to give evidence against certainty of extinction. The vast majority of climate change scientists who present alarming data regarding tipping points do not speak of extinction as a certainty.
That is what is great about these discussions, there is exchange and learning going on. For some of us anyway...
ennui2 wrote:vtsnowedin wrote:But measuring the use of words like "Ever more "faster than" and "warmer than" and "dryer than" expected."is not a valid way to determine the truth.
Yes it is, because they are being issued by scientists!
.........
............
It's only ever going to be some form of fuzzy logic like this, with lots of seemingly plausible alternate explanations.
ralfy wrote:
As for extinction, I think many dying is as bad as extinction, especially when they will include loved ones.
vtsnowedin wrote: So skip the consensus BS and move on to the facts and data of the research. There is where the truth lies.
ennui2 wrote:vtsnowedin wrote: So skip the consensus BS and move on to the facts and data of the research. There is where the truth lies.
You're not interested in truth. ....
......., we're permanently stuck trying to prove it's happening to people who can never be convinced and not being able to move on to mitigation and adaptation strategies.
Ibon wrote:
Work on this Ralfy, most of human history happened with mortality rates whereby most folks alive dealt with the untimely passing of their loved ones.
I know we have become soft as a culture in this regard and there really is no way to prep for this except in deeply understanding that we are moving into the corrective phase of human overshoot where even the most compassionate and enlightened ideology will not spare you the impacts of our species experiencing an accelerated die-off.
Know the deeper ecological movement behind this correction and understand its power to possibly guide ideology in a direction that improves the long term resiliency of our species.
vtsnowedin wrote:...There are no plausible or viable mitigation strategies
clif wrote:Everything since then has essentially been trying to undo that historical mistake.
Both economically and environmentally.
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 118 guests