[-1]. New thoughts from September 16th, 2011: It is easy to see the difference between older atmospheric compositon and current atmospheric components where greenhouse gasses are concerned. The levels of CO2, for example, appear greatly increased from decades and centuries past. This alone could cause global conditions that may already be too severe for humans to alter. But, why not try to tame the emissions from our century of industrial fossil-fuel burning and make an effort to stave off as much damage as possible? Nuclear power is obviously no solution as it is unstable.
Fracking destroys environments. Oil rigs pollute and destroy ecosystems in the oceans and coastal regions. The monied interests are denying the severity of the situation and only time will tell what will happen and it may be entirely dependent on human strategies. Germany, for instance, is producing mass quantities of Solar panels and new technologies are on the horizon the make it easier and more efficient to harvest solar power. It will probably never meet our current use of power but new technologies in lighting, heating, cooling, cold storage, etc. may allow us to live at much lower levels of Watts per hour.
What follows is older, more skeptical thoughts though I never say the situation is not real or is not happening at all. Rather, I question the expert's knowledge of the models that will predict specific outcomes over estimated times. There are many factors such as biological reactions on Earth that may absorb or even make worse the problem. There is the sun, volcanic and geothermal emissions, and other factors that must be taken into account. Large volcanic activity could naturally create this situation and a mega-volcanic erruption could emit more in a short time than all of human history's emissions of greenhouse gasses.
[0]. I don't doubt for a moment that humans are screwing things up royally on all fronts of the environment- in the air, water, and soil. We're even starting to trash space. I do have doubts about all things and what follows has some room for doubt about the exact nature of what we are doing and what has been called "global warming" and "climate change". I doubt this not because I do not think it is happening but because I think the complexity of how nature will handle such changes is beyond human understanding.
[1]. Absorption, perhaps, or extinction-level rectifying events could alter the way in which the planet handles the human-made alterations like greenhouse gas increases. Also, the looming fact that something will hit us from space or a super volcano will explode are a constant reminder that humans are hardly a match for what will inevitably happen quite naturally anyhow.
[2]. This is not by any means to suggest we should continue deliberately endangering our species and all others on Earth, but the planet and its inhabitants will face catastrophe, in time, with or without us. And, should we make the Earth barren, new species will evolve- if not here, somewhere else.
[3]. This is a special place and we should certainly try to preserve it but unless we can muster interstellar travel in good time, we are doomed to extinction no matter how careful and environmentally friendly we are. But, "doomed" is not the right word. Destined is perhaps better and we should take advantage of the time we have whilst keeping in mind that geologically and cosmologically, the planet is fucked. So, let's get going with grand theories of propulsion and bending space-time before we get hit by something or Yellowstone blows.
[4]. Weather as a weapon of war is a new frontier being experimented with on a massive scale; it is a technology that has been underway at least since the second world war in some sense. Don't doubt that humans can cause natural disasters with energy weapons, Tesla theorized it a century ago.
[5]. However, I have little doubt at all that it is happening; I simply find myself skeptical of all institutional certainty when so much is at stake. It does appear that the balance of gasses in the atmosphere has gone out of balance and humans are in for at least a bumpy ride if not extinction.
[6]. But we will never do anything about it, as a species, until it has gotten terrible- this I can guarantee because we are, as a whole species, dumber than shit. We may have some bright individuals, but when it comes to doing things as a unified whole, we're no more intelligent than a colony of ants.
[7]. I think humans are severely altering the atmospheric climate of Earth through the use of fossil fuels, through the weaponization of atmospheric structure (HAARP atmospheric weapon used to trigger weather and geological events like earthquakes), and other greenhouse gas emissions. To precisely what degree and what end, I don't know. And, I am skeptical of our leaders intentions with this theory because our leaders can't open their mouths without lying endlessly about almost everything.
[8]. I tend towards believing we are destroying the atmospheric conditions for existing species, like humans, to thrive in because if the question is "Are humans ruining it?" then the answer is almost always a strong "Yes they are". And, if the question is, "Are uneducated or brainwashed humans denying it?" Then, likewise, the answer is usually "Yes they are".
[9]. Thick propaganda from both sides of this issue and the potential monied interests everywhere are spewing propaganda. CO2 levels are increasing dramatically, but this increase does not necessarily equate to swift climate change because the variables involved in absorption, processing, and overall affect are not certain.
[10]. We are probably altering things, but NATO and the US government can easily cause atmospheric destructive forces and break off ice sheets with the HAARP weapon, which uses energetic waves and concentrates them on a specific part of the Earth's surface (somewhere like Iran for attack, Haiti for testing on independent governments, or an ice shelf to bolster climate change perceptions).
[11]. But even if you think it's not happening, what's the harm in living smaller, simpler, and using less energy derived from places where we are at war with? Perhaps we are at war in those places precisely because of our leader's desire for energy. We would not need so much energy if we were more comfortable living more simply and with less space to use and control the interior climate.
[12]. It is possible that climate change could be a hoax to hide NATO's and America's HAARP weapon use.
[13]. Here is my opinion of human civilization if future data proves atmospheric change: We should all begin to live in earth built or earthened insulated homes so that we need no heating or cooling. We should get used to being hot and being cold and living in a way that works with clothing, evaporative cooling, and, in general, we need to get used to being uncomfortable. We should all begin installing solar panels on our roofs and governments should buy and encourage this production.
[14]. We should be driving and using only electric vehicles. We should be investing in new energy sources that are safe, such as geothermal, wind, and water. Nuclear power can possibly be made safely but it is dangerous and risky at best to use. Given human nature and the number of disasters from Chernobyl to Three Mile Island to the Fukushima disaster that is unfolding as I write this sentence, perhaps nuclear power should be avoided all together and we should get used to less until we figure out something better- like fusion power.
[15]. How about we turn all of our nuclear weapons into fuel while we learn to live more simply, efficiently. Instead of plastic bags and toys, how about wood and earthen toys? We can learn to live smaller, simpler, and with less impact. We should be aware that a smaller population is better for our species and the other species on Earth.
[16]. We should look to incentivize sterilization, through voluntary pay systems and through public availability of medical care, until we have balanced the conditions on Earth. In other words, offer to pay for people to get sterilized rather than do it through deceptive means over populations. We are charging ahead more like a virus than an intelligent species. Greed driven, we are sure to extinguish ourselves. Driven by war and profit and bullying, we are never going to achieve a stable system of cooperation.
[17]. Everyone should be free to travel and speak and make money and marry and learn everything with everyone everywhere. There need not be this global lockdown on ideas and travel and freedom. We can ban war and nuclear weapons completely. Everyone can still have a gun, but, I have always thought a world where people focus on peace and keeping peace, would be better. Strict laws against violence from states and individuals would be needed, but all trading of all goods should be opened up.
[18]. Maybe, until there is a fundamental change in our nature, humans should only be allowed to have samurai swords. I think, so long as a single government army has guns, the people will need guns. The people of all nations must be capable of thwarting tyrannical governments and this is a historical problem. Maybe we should all focus and study peace.
[19]. Rather than have millions of people studying and training for war, why not have the same number of people training to determine how humans can ultimately gain a peaceful, cooperative, state. Perhaps we are doomed, forever, to destroy each other because greed and corruption will always eat away at any peace. Perhaps technology is becoming a monster. But, it does not have to.
[20]. I think there is a massive propaganda campaign on the side of big oil, gas, etc. to deflate the importance of this issue. I allow, as a rational skeptic, that the whole thing may be a politically driven hoax, but the equations are rather simple. Add warming gasses to a finite space without understanding how the oceans and forests can handle it, and things will likely be thrown out of balance and periods of extreme weather may ensue in terms of heat, winds, and other unforseen effects.
[21]. My doubt, in the past and in the present moment, is simply a reflection of my lack of trust in any particular organization or governmental institution. I think humans are altering the atmosphere negatively, but, if we are not, and this is all one big lie, it would not surprise me. Why? Because 911 and wars and economics are being lied about all the time here in America and in the west.
[22]. I tend towards believing humans are screwing things up, but I am also doubtful concerning the honesty and intentions of politicians. It is hard to find, on either side of this issue, those who are not fervently committed to a position. Like abortion, there seems little room for debate while, in reality, there is more room in the middle, balanced ground than on any doctrinal side.
[23]. This being said and before I continue criticizing the climate change debate, I must say that I am a radical, peaceful environmentalist who believes (a) humans should return most space to greenspace and build up, not out, (b) human populations are the central problem and this can be resolved peacefully by reducing the birth rate, and (c) we should err on the side of natural processes where possible.
[24]. I should note that the BP oil spill could have been stopped immediately as some dozen similar Russian oil volcanoes (this is not a spill, it is a geyser) with nuclear bombs at the base of the vent- this force crushes the earth's crust and caves in the drill hole. Yes, it is bad to detonate a nuclear bomb, but it is 100 times worse to flood the whole Gulf of Mexico with oil.
[25]. "Climate change" was once "global warming". Just the change in terms should lend some doubt to the issue. The climate always changes, warming would be a definite indicator of change, so why drop the term?
[26]. In fact, I do seriously lean towards believing this phenomenon is happening based on evidence of warming, glacial recession, and slightly rising waters. But, I do not believe that such a complex theory must be correct and I also see many interests on either side of the issue spewing subjective, unscientific propaganda.
[27]. And fuck the thought-police who act like questioning a scientific theory is the same as mass murder. Be aware of the money, power, and geopolitical means and ends this herding of liberals can cause.
[28]. Perhaps this theory is correct, but perhaps it exists to retard the societies that are becoming industrialized or technologically advanced. Perhaps this theory is an attempt to garner unyielding support for Democrats-who, in reality, only care about one thing- money. Just look at their profit, Al Gore's new mega mansion. And this guy is your profit? He is a greedy douchebag like all the rest, I assure you.
[29]. This is not to dismiss environmentalism or protecting the environment from man-made disasters like the spring 2010 gulf oil mega-disaster. But, this too may be the result of covert political or economic interests. I would be happy to leave most of the Earth in a virginal state and peacefully and slowly roll back human populations- these things, after all, are the only real solutions to the problem, if it exists, anyhow.
[30]. If 9-11 and most of American propaganda is a lie, then why not climate change too? What would be the purpose? Galvanization of government power and support of liberals who do not understand the underlying nature of scientific inquiry as falsifiable.
[31]. If the nobel peace prize can be awarded to Henry Kissinger and Barack Obama, while they drop bombs on civilians, then how great are the same people at seeing climate trends? I have spoken to a number of scientists who have tried to publish alternative theories only to be excommunicated. This is not science, it's the inquisition.
[32]. This is not as clear as evolutionary theory with fossil records and it is not as clear as the demolition of the world trade centers by Mossad and the Pentagon's compliance. But, there are objective statistics that will, without a doubt, prove or disprove the theory that CO2 is warming the Earth. There are so many variables it is hard to pin down the sun, plantlife processes, and human development.
[33]. The bottom line is we are pumping greenhouse gasses into the complex system that is Earth's atmosphere but the climate and temperature of the Earth are complex systems with factors such as the sun and biochemical processes that convert these gasses at difficult to measure rates. But it can not be argued that the world would be a better suited place for life if we stopped polluting it and changing the composition of its atmosphere in ways we do not understand.
[34]. The recession of glaciers, the melting of polar ice, and the rising of water are all clearly measurable and if these things are happening, then warming is happening. If these things are not happening, then this is bad science and propaganda. Bad science and propaganda is happening on both sides of the issue.
[35]. That CO2 and other gas levels have risen to unheard of before levels is verifiably true and that we don't have a clue how bad or subtly this could affect the planet is true. Some scientists have theorized that we staved off a global period of cooling with our added greenhouse gas emissions, but this only serves to show how much humans can potentially change the climate through human processes.
[36]. We should not forget the political and economic ends that this theory influences and we should be wary of such powerful religious-like ideas- no matter their truth. Thinking someone is a bad person for questioning climate science is one sign that this is not science but what I call sciligion- a mode of religious-like faith in something that must be, by definition, questionable.
[37]. Above all, scientists must cast off all of their political and their social concerns when presenting and arranging data sets. We must honor absolute objectivity in empirical pursuits or at least, the attempt towards it.
[38]. All of this being said, I think in matters of the environment, we should always err on the side of nature's balance and composition not on the side of human ignorance and ineptitude and in cases where vast sums of money and industry are founded- that is, on carbon processing.
[39]. As of late 2009, a meaningful reduction in greenhouse gas emissions does not seem likely before catastrophic results arise, as the atmospheric conditions created by humans may have already become too severe and efforts to change world policy have largely failed across the board. Self interested, wealthy government and corporate influences are more powerful at shaping world opinion through media than scientists and activists.
[40]. And, emerging economies around the world are set to increase emissions many times over from their current rates. The Copenhagen conference in late 2009 is a good indication that nothing of any serious consequence will be done in time to prevent serious problems. It seems consistently true throughout history that humans only act in times of great necessity.
[41]. Further population increases worldwide and the increased wealth of many of these people will result in an increase in emissions even if every human severely reduces their individual output of greenhouse gasses. My belief is that technological means must be employed, at least in the next 50-150 years, to reduce concentrations of greenhouse gasses or, in the worst case, reduce the light of the sun from space, while humanity catches up with what science has known for some time.
[42]. I would not advocate using the partial sun blocking system before first also asking whether or not this will interrupt photosynthetic processes in plant life to a degree that would cause changes in the food chain.
[43]. Also, I would only advocate such a radical solution if we were facing perhaps hundreds of feet of water globally, or, in other words, the necessary migration of billions of people. Of course, we should have multiple layers of safety with a sun-blocking system including many ways to unblock the sun.
[44]. If you think real estate values have become depressing now, wait until every structure at sea level is thought of as unsafe. Everything and every city built below or at sea level will eventually be covered by water if the icecaps melt and the waters rise.
[45]. Prices for structures in the interior of the world will skyrocket while prices for structures on coasts will reach zero. The first major places that will be affected by climate change are all of the low-lying island nations, Bangladesh, Florida, New Orleans, and Amsterdam.
[46]. Conservation and reduction of emissions is, in the long term, the best possible solution to global warming and an exodus from fossil fuels will ensure this.
[47]. But, in the meantime, the money behind the old energy industry will continue to push against science and progress. Geothermal, wind, water, and solar energy sources should be completely exhausted before turning to nuclear energy and all forms of energy from coal, oil, and natural gas should be completely abandoned and made illegal worldwide.
[48]. It is unfortunate that many of those who are activists in the climate change debate see using technology as anathema to their cause when technology may be the only hope we have of reversing the damage that has already been done.
[49]. Perhaps the largest human works project of all time could be enacted in which massive atmospheric cleaners return the balance of greenhouse gasses to acceptable levels.
[50]. Massive atmospheric scrubbers, perhaps, could safely and completely correct the problem while we have time to catch up. I can imagine that we could make these scrubbers environmentally safe. |
|
|
[51]. If there is no doubt about climate change, then it is religion and not science. So, allow doubt about global warming, but look at the evidence. It is a simple situation. Certain gasses trap heat and we have been pumping them into the atmosphere for a century.
[52]. When the waters rise, there will be no more doubt and, from what I have seen, the waters are rising. There is money to be had for deniers and those who accept it alike. But the entrenched interests are deniers because the entrenched interests are heavily interested in oil.
[53]. For the immediate situation with climate change, a carbon tax, wherever possible, will influence people to immediately change because economic interests are the only things that will fundamentally move people. Putting people to work building solution-related power plants and solution-related vehicles seems sensible given the need for these things and the need for jobs.
[54]. I can not stress the potential importance of safe, solution-related technology, such as atmospheric cleansers or biological carbon-eaters, that quickly reverse the situation. Conservation will not, in my opinion of scientific data, stop the problem. That is, unless like 911, it is an illusion meant to herd people to "war" for the environment.
[55]. Putting more money and time into fusion would make sense also because fusion is the best source of energy without waste that we could possibly utilize. I have also heard that there are problems with geothermal energy in that, the pressures released from geothermal conduits can cause geological disturbances.
[56].I would say that a capitalistic democracy seems the absolute worst type of government and economic system to have when we need to stop using fossil fuels and clean up the atmosphere. For this type of problem, a benevolent and removable dictator would be best but this is not to say that such a system of government should be attempted, though it was in ancient Athens.
[57]. Democracies are largely incapable of swift change and that was purposely built into our separation of powers in the United States. This is a great system to have as a buttress against tyranny, though it doesn't always work, and, in cases where economic and social action is necessary, the free market will rebel if it means less profit for established corporate interests.
