The Status Quo & Nature

  Blackhat 23:49 20 Dec 2009

I would love to travel into the future about 500 years to see what actually became of the climate debate. What do you think we would find?

The climate debate seems to have 2 main sides, a). Those who think humans are responsible for global warming. b). Those who think we are not.

What gets me is what does each side actually want in the long term?

Nature has shown us that our climate fluctuates, in the past is has done so quite dramatically and over varying time scales, one thing that is fundamental is that Nature is bigger than all of us.

If side a thinks that we are responsible and wants us to rectify the situation then they are implicating that there is a point in time, maybe recently, where things seemed to be just right and that is what we must work towards achieving, but Nature does not do Status Quo! You cannot take a snap shot of just right and keep it that way.

The climate will and always has changed one way or another over time.

If side b thinks that we can ignore our influences and allow Nature to prevail then what are they worrying about? Nature wins.

We (humans) have been here for such a short period of time that it is a bit big headed of us to think that we can control Nature the way we want, without consequences.

Time machine please.

  GANDALF <|:-)> 08:22 21 Dec 2009

The Governments of the world seem to be unable to agree as shown by the recent Copenhagen farce, so we have no hope.


  Quickbeam 08:32 21 Dec 2009

I've stopped listening to it because each side provides decisive and conclusive proof that they are right. Time will tell... about a million years.

  Quickbeam 08:43 21 Dec 2009

But in 500 years I'm sure Status Quo will still be doing the Town Hall circuit...

  Kevscar1 11:33 21 Dec 2009

and still be the band with more top tens than anyone else

  Condom 12:27 21 Dec 2009

I'd pay a lot more interest if say a UK map was relaeased showing what parts of the coiuntry would vanish under water if the seas rose 2 ft.

If this map was then accompanied by an order banning all future development in those areas it would show people that this was a series problem and not just an excuse to tax us more.

  GANDALF <|:-)> 13:20 21 Dec 2009

The half-wits that organised the laughable Copenhagen summit even got the size of the hall wrong...and you think that they are going to sort out the 'supposed' damage to the climate by mankind...I really think not.


  donki 15:10 21 Dec 2009

Strangly I find myself aggreeign with G, the problem and causes of it can only really be resolved at a much higher level than us minions on the ground. Yes we can try and reduce our carbon footprint but the more damaging factors to the climate are out of our hands.

Personally I think climate change is inevitable, not simply due to the actions of the earths inhabatants but because the earth has always changed in cycles. We try to understand everything and throw science at everything but there are simply somethings we dont really have a clue about.

  Input Overload 15:24 21 Dec 2009

I noticed last night the AC voltage was down to 215 Volts here, I have a meter that chart various readings over time. I wonder if the Electric grid are struggling to keep pace with demand. Back up to 230 today.

  Quickbeam 08:40 22 Dec 2009

They were probably being extra cautious because of your name;)

  gigagiggles 07:45 24 Dec 2009

When politicians (leaders) are frightened, they're not suppose to reveal their fears. They're suppose to tackle the threat with solutions, weak as their solutions may be.

Scientists are in the same predicament. They know of the cyclical climate changes. But they also know, based on the indices they use, that the world's temperature as a whole has risen gradually unabated for several decades. Their super-computer simulations of various climate change models suggest a high probability that, given status quo, the earth's landscape will change and those inhabitants affected will suffer economically. And that will have a reverberating effect throughout the globe.

So scientists offer solutions, which are then modified by politicians, who are influenced by capitalists, into pragmatic solutions, which are then seen as weak from any side.

What are the scientists afraid of? They are afraid they don't know what the tipping point is. Use snow avalanches or rock landslides. One can foresee the danger, but can't predict when they will slide. Once the slide occurs, all one can do is survive it, however long that may take.

Black Cat. 500 years. Maybe we should check with scientists and find out how long these climate change cycles, hot and cold, have lasted in the past. Possible scenarios: a balmy 25 C 12/25/2509, London, or a bombed out shelter not unlike blitzkrieg.

And that's only superficially predicated on sea-level rise. Imagine the temperature change on the billions and billions of non-human organisms. They will adapt, some into more infectious, lethal virulents humanity would not be able to deal with. The scientists are scared!

HEY! Happy Holidays! Cheerio and all. :-}

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

The Evil Within 2 review-in-progress

Photoshop CC 2018 released with new Curvature Pen and better brush tools

Camera tips to take better iPhone photos

Les meilleures applications de covoiturage 2017