The Climate Change thread - news about the changing climate and the effects on reef ecosystems.

[The_Paradox]

Lol. That could work. Maybe sooner kind of "hunger games" situation. That way, at least, everyone has a chance..

Work smarter not harder. Just turn off the internet. So much energy saved and a lot of the problem people would put themselves in the forever box.

 

[Northern Flicker]

I doubt it. I’m not picking but most people do not properly calculate loads or bother to clamp them. Just because a light is 40w does not mean it is 0.3a at 120v.

You win, darn I’m a big wasteful dummy. Perhaps you could enjoy your victory in a thread where that’s the purpose?

 

[Northern Flicker]

I have seen a few post that X, Y, or Z are far bigger problems than climate change. I think this is a valuable perspective, and perspective in of it self is valuable, but I don't think X, Y, Z, and climate change need to be mutually excusing.

I don't think it's as simple as I am about to say, but I am not a good enough writer to convey it better haha

IMHO we should just do our best with the resources we have (the earth) without being dogmatic and while maintaining a sense of normalcy/satisfaction in our lives. Lets do all the things, not pollute, try to lower our emissions, etc. on a micro scale (while remaining pragmatic), vote for policies you believe will reflect the aforementioned attitude on a macro scale.

Sorry. . . sounds a bit "tree-huggery". . . haha

How dare you

 

[The_Paradox]

Hey MN, Paradox and the rest of the team - you guys are right. Maybe you guys could start a thread to take your victory slap and give each other high fives while posting Greta memes, and those of us who want to discuss the thread topic could do so?

what the heck did I do? I think everyone here has good intent and have not said any thing negative. I have no horse in this race. As stated earlier I 100% believe none of this matter one way or another. We are not that important.

 

[MnFish1]

I think it would be hard to say exactly without knowing how the climate would be behaving without human interaction. That said, and given the scope of temperature extremes the earth has gone through, probably not a lot. That's not to say that small changes can't have big effects. For me the fear is more about throwing off equilibrium that the earth and it's "compensatory mechanisms" can't over come. I alluded to it earlier, but I don't think these means the earth becomes a fireball and we all die in a matter of moments, rather that we could set in motion events the earth and the life on it, would struggle with. . .

an example, while flawed, I have used in the past is: a blood alcohol level of 0.30% to 0.40% can be fatal. That's a change of less than 1% (not accounting for other fluids/"things" that make up your body) and it has fatal consequences.

This is kind of silly from a medical perspective - i.e. .3 - .4 is a huge percentage. Let me rephrase the question - do you think - we can decrease (pick your variable - as to what is affecting coral) - by .4 - .3. (i..e a huge percent)? If so how? Perhaps people should no longer be moving to the desert or CA - using huge amounts of water - and affecting that area? IDK - do you?

 

[The_Paradox]

You win, darn I’m a big wasteful dummy. Perhaps you could enjoy your victory in a thread where that’s the purpose?

I was doing my best not to take sides and enjoying both sides of the conversation. But since you decided to name names, I prefer to do my D touching and high-fives here. </frat_boy>.

 

[Northern Flicker]

what the heck did I do? I think everyone here has good intent and have not said any thing negative. I have no horse in this race. As stated earlier I 100% none of this matter one way or another. We are not that important.

You 100% took part in derailing and encouraging others to do so. You and your gang have won a wonderful victory here today, hopefully your crew will leave us to chat about the thread subject soon.1

 

[MnFish1]

Really, we both know nothing is 100% certain…What I said was meant to be just that; prejudiced and sarcastic. Things are getting so bad and divisive that its assumed if you believe in “this” you also believe in “that”
…… so sure not 100% of Newsmax viewers are against Climate Change ….. But if you knew someone only watched Fox or Newsmax how much would you bet on it?

OK glad you said it - your posts are prejudiced and sarcastic. As to your question - No clue. I haven't taken a scientific poll - nor have I seen a huge news article based on climate change and coral (which is the topic) (on fox or the other station) - nor do I watch them

 

[The_Paradox]

You 100% took part in derailing and encouraging others to do so. You and your gang have won a wonderful victory here today, hopefully your crew will leave us to chat about the thread subject soon.1

Yes. I did this.

@MnFish1 highfive?

 

[MnFish1]

You 100% took part in derailing and encouraging others to do so. You and your gang have won a wonderful victory here today, hopefully your crew will leave us to chat about the thread subject soon.1

Seemingly, there are not a ton of people that want to discuss what you bolded - in your initial post. I will say my perspective again - Climate change is real. what percent is man made is debatable. What percent of coral damage is man made - relates more to pollution that climate change. My opinion. It's a discussion board - if you want to discuss something else - to go a blog site? No one here has insulted you or your views.

 

[MnFish1]

Yes. I did this.

@MnFish1 highfive?

No - I don't think you or I derailed anything - The OP derailed his own post with the bold titles - suggesting that anything that disagreed with his own agenda (whether right or wrong). - was disallowed

 

[Reefering1]

Hey MN, Paradox and the rest of the team - you guys are right. Maybe you guys could start a thread to take your victory slap and give each other high fives while posting Greta memes, and those of us who want to discuss the thread topic could do so?

It's no victory slap. You're discussing "climate change" effects on reefs. The only proven fact is that the climate has been changing from the beginning of time and will continue to do so- with no regard for what life survives or evolves. A conversation you may be more willing to hear is "how humans effect the reefs". Then people would be more likely to discuss pollution, physical destruction of land and sea, and what we can do about it. But I'm pleasantly surprised with how politely everyone is discussing/debating OPINIONS. My(limited) understanding is that threads are open for discussion. Why try to exclude countering views?

 

[Doctorgori]

Personally sometimes I’m a skeptic of the whole “green movement”…

I want to save the reefs/stop the world from becoming a microwave but if the average Malaysians, Indians, Chinese and others in emerging countries can’t currently afford solar powered Priuses, who’s giving up their pickup truck?

I want to save rhinos but if you can’t convince a nation it has no medicinal value and a single horn feeds a 3rd world village for a year, its almost a lost cause….

@Lebowski_ we can discuss impact and probably shouldn’t debate cause/effect but maybe it might be more productive if we discuss what we can or should do about it….

 

[MoshJosh]

This is kind of silly from a medical perspective - i.e. .3 - .4 is a huge percentage. Let me rephrase the question - do you think - we can decrease (pick your variable - as to what is affecting coral) - by .4 - .3. (i..e a huge percent)? If so how? Perhaps people should no longer be moving to the desert or CA - using huge amounts of water - and affecting that area? IDK - do you?

I think most people would consider less than 1% small/insignificant (I would not consider 0.4/100 to be a "huge" percent), that was more the point I was trying to illustrate.

And to your question, I don't know. Certainty I do not think it would be one solitary thing/change. That said, even with a multifactorial approach (reducing emission, more reliance on renewables, using more energy efficient products (on the small and large scale). It may not be enough soon enough. I'm still willing to try though.

Unfortunately I don't know much about your latter point. People gotta have places to live (over population is a topic for another thread I suppose).

 

[BeanAnimal]

Maybe, although I wild argue total consumption should be the calculation that matters, rather than per item usage.

Trust me, I’m Canadian, I wouldn’t live here if I was worried about getting dinged for buying things or using services lol.

Who decides what consumption is acceptable, too much, or so low to be commended. What is the scale and how is it applied? By income, age, need, means, personality, history, etc?

You want the "rich" to be dinged and you to be commended or accepted for using less than you used to... you want to make a difference, but a difference in juxtaposition to what, your own prior consumption, your rich neighbor, your poor neighbor, or the guy who has PTSD and uses the tank as therapy?

You want to have a feel good discussion about climate change, but only with people who agree with (whatever it is) your opinion.

You want to spend people's money on grants and other resources to fix the "climate", even if the models you follow tell you that it will make no difference and you are not sure if mother nature will laugh at your efforts anyway.

This whole thing is a feel good exercise for you, but to make it feel good you have to both ignore a lot of inconvenient facts and somewhat blissfully ignore your own existence all while making sure the responders are like minded.

Honestly - I am kind of lost here... Are we talking about thinning population to save the reefs, or all of us turning off our TVs? You appear to think the problem is "man"; what is it that you propose is the solution?

 

[MnFish1]

I think most people would consider less than 1% small/insignificant (I would not consider 0.4/100 to be a "huge" percent), that was more the point I was trying to illustrate.

And to your question, I don't know. Certainty I do not think it would be one solitary thing/change. That said, even with a multifactorial approach (reducing emission, more reliance on renewables, using more energy efficient products (on the small and large scale). It may not be enough soon enough. I'm still willing to try though.

Unfortunately I don't know much about your latter point. People gotta have places to live (over population is a topic for another thread I suppose).

I agree - However, isn't part of the problem people in the third world (Im still not sure of the definition) - wanting to move up - i.e. so there is no more 3rd world - but everyone is living in the same world (with which I agree)

 

[Townes_Van_Camp]

I'm old enough to remember when we dodged an ice age. Then as it is now the answer was turn your liberties into the government so we can fix the climate...

They can't even balance a budget.
Thanks for this warning Spock.


Spock was a paid government shill.

 

[HomebroodExotics]

Corporations are not good or evil - as well, most politicians don't give a hoot about you, me or any other cause that does not generate wealth or power.

What cracks me up about most of this is that the same people who think the government is bad, keep looking to government to provide a solution.

As for pollution - that is complex, but you can't blame corporations. It is simple a contribution from each consumer and their means and desires. I am not sure how you fix that in a free society and the regulation to control it certainly is the opposite of freedom. I am not sure where the happy medium is either.

I hate this argument because people that say this then go and vote for the politicians who literally campaign on rolling back epa mandates and then say oh wow politicians are all bad I guess. So ridiculous.

 

[The_Paradox]

I want to save rhinos but if you can’t convince a nation it has no medicinal value and a single horn feeds a 3rd world village for a year, its almost a lost cause….

Off topic but in the mid 2000s I was in Africa with a government program designed to get villages solar ovens to curb deforestation. Upon revisit we found all the ovens turned on their side with the doors off being used as fire pits. Turns out the indigenous people did not like the lack of flavour. What’s worse is they were cooking an endangered primate with it. At the end of the day though who are we to judge a dude living in a mud brick hut with malaria, 15 other family members, and war raging around him.

 

[Reefing Madness]

Just keep it civil guys.