Houston-area school board votes to remove 13 chapters from state-approved science textbooks, citing controversial topics

[essentialsaltes]

My attitude is that there is no imminent threat but there are a lot of people who are trying to make money and gain power on the claim that there is an imminent threat.

Going back to your housefire example, there are people and equipment manufacturers that make money off our desire to be secure from the dangers of fire. They warn us of the dangers of fire. But hopefully you don't regret that you have paid them all those years even though your house has never caught fire. And certainly, when the danger is real, you don't regret it when your house is on fire.

The question of whether your house is on fire, or whether the climate is changing, is a matter of fact that you can determine by evaluating the evidence. You can decide later whether you want to pay anything to deal with it. But you can determine yourself whether the danger is real or imaginary.

 

[Bradskii]

If climate change is caused by human beings and is an "imminent threat" to all - wouldn't we expect some action against the countries that don't do anything?

Why are you avoiding the question? You said that some countries are doing nothing. And that is what you based your decision on. So you must have some examples. Please let us know what they are.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Fair enough.
There are a lot of ways increases in thr atmospheric nrg could be threats to people living in certain areas.

Which of the reported imminent threats do you take exception to and want to address first.


Sea level rise
Arctic stream collapse
Sea acidification
Localized heating trend
Localized drought trend
Localized increase in high energy weather output events or severity (lightening)

There's others but lets start with one of those.

I think part of the problem is that when you say "imminent threat", most people assume that it's something that will happen suddenly and very soon. However, when it comes to the climate, conditions change on a scale of tens or even hundreds of years. Geologically, that's practically instantaneous, but as individuals, we don't notice a significant difference day-to-day, month-to-month, or even year-to-year. The incremental changes in the short term seem insignificant to the layperson, who doesn't understand that we're reaching (or potentially even past) a point of no return where significant environmental and climatic impacts become unavoidable in the long term.

 

[Zaha Torte]

OK. Do you believe the seas are not rising, or that thr rise is not a threat, or something else?

I don't believe that sea levels are static, but I do not believe they are a threat.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Going back to your housefire example, there are people and equipment manufacturers that make money off our desire to be secure from the dangers of fire. They warn us of the dangers of fire. But hopefully you don't regret that you have paid them all those years even though your house has never caught fire. And certainly, when the danger is real, you don't regret it when your house is on fire.

The question of whether your house is on fire, or whether the climate is changing, is a matter of fact that you can determine by evaluating the evidence. You can decide later whether you want to pay anything to deal with it. But you can determine yourself whether the danger is real or imaginary.

No one doubts that the climate changes. What I doubt is there being an imminent threat.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Why are you avoiding the question? You said that some countries are doing nothing. And that is what you based your decision on. So you must have some examples. Please let us know what they are.

I don't recall claiming that any country is "doing nothing" - I said that the Accord has no enforcement and that no country is required to do anything.

If it were as big of a threat as those who fly in the private jets, sail the yachts, drive the biggest cars and purchase all the beach-front properties - then we wouldn't we see some action?

 

[Pommer]

I think part of the problem is that when you say "imminent threat", most people assume that it's something that will happen suddenly and very soon. However, when it comes to the climate, conditions change on a scale of tens or even hundreds of years. Geologically, that's practically instantaneous, but as individuals, we don't notice a significant difference day-to-day, month-to-month, or even year-to-year. The incremental changes in the short term seem insignificant to the layperson, who doesn't understand that we're reaching (or potentially even past) a point of no return where significant environmental and climatic impacts become unavoidable in the long term.

There are folks here who have the belief that in 100 years (or less) they’ll be In Eternal Bliss.
That’s a fine and good belief to hold onto. I wish them well. Oddly, though, this belief that they hold seems to make them careless about how we human beings take care of the planet we’re (all) on.
Like it doesn’t even matter.

 

[rambot]

I don't believe that sea levels are static, but I do not believe they are a threat.

But do you think its a threat because they are NOT increasing? Or why not a threat?

 

[Bradskii]

I don't recall claiming that any country is "doing nothing" - I said that the Accord has no enforcement and that no country is required to do anything.

I asked: 'Maybe you can point to any country who has done literally nothing.'

Your only response, using an analogy: '...yet they don't decide to really do anything about it...'

So we go to: 'So you think that some countries aren't doing enough, so therefore there can't be a problem.' And I asked you for the third time for some examples.

You have ignored the question. And I'll save you answering because I know why. You don't know of any countries that are literally doing nothing. You are basing an opinion on the stated position that 'they don't decide to really do anything' without examining the science behind the decision of every single country on the planet (bar 3) agreeing that a problem exists (you are being stepped through that as the thread proceeds and you show no indication that you are ahead of the curve in this matter).

But hey, it's probably not affecting you directly at this moment. So why bother.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If it were as big of a threat as those who ... purchase all the beach-front properties - then we wouldn't we see some action?

For those with beach-front properties on the leading edge of where climate change is making them unlivable, they're sometimes getting handouts from We The People to save them from total losses.

These houses are at risk of falling into the sea. The U.S. government [National Park Service] bought them.​

The two houses at the end of East Beacon Road in Rodanthe, N.C., sit precariously at the edge of the pounding surf.

After spending more than $700,000 for the salt-sprayed vacation homes, the federal government plans to promptly tear them down and turn the area into a public beach access.
The move marks a unique and possibly groundbreaking chapter in the deepening dilemma of what to do with imperiled coastal homes, which are becoming only more vulnerable amid rising seas, more intense storms and unceasing erosion.

“It will be a safer beach,” Hallac said, adding that once the homes are demolished, he plans to explore the possibility of scaling up this type of approach in nearby areas where shifting sands have left houses at the brink of collapse.

It slightly boggles my mind that both houses were bought by families in 2021. [at least the previous owners got out when the getting was good] One house is currently livable, and the owner made ~$100,000 on the sale (though with the money he sank into the place, he says he broke even). The other house isn't safe, and the owners lost $100,000 on the sale price in addition to money sunk into the house, including relocating a washed out septic system that later washed out again.

 

[BCP1928]

What I don't get is why AGW has become a hot-button Christian issue. It is apparently important to Christians that climate change, to whatever degree it is happening, is not being contributed to by humans. I don't see the doctrinal basis for that position.

 

[Desk trauma]

If climate change is caused by human beings and is an "imminent threat" to all - wouldn't we expect some action against the countries that don't do anything?

Good thing people always respond rationally at the national level, we can always depend upon that. It’s them individuals that act irrationally, good thing countries are not made up of them!

 

[Hans Blaster]

What I don't get is why AGW has become a hot-button Christian issue. It is apparently important to Christians that climate change, to whatever degree it is happening, is not being contributed to by humans. I don't see the doctrinal basis for that position.

It's really not that surprising. The oil barons have been contributing to evangelical and right wing causes long before the GW threat appeared. When it was time fight against climate change by attacking it, they used the vectors they already knew. They exploited the "science is anti-god" lines from the evolution-creation battles and help force the current, but odd, alignment of politics we have.

 

[Zaha Torte]

But do you think its a threat because they are NOT increasing? Or why not a threat?

I don't believe that any change in sea level is a threat because we will notice the trend and apply mitigators to loss of life and property.

 

[Zaha Torte]

There are folks here who have the belief that in 100 years (or less) they’ll be In Eternal Bliss.
That’s a fine and good belief to hold onto. I wish them well. Oddly, though, this belief that they hold seems to make them careless about how we human beings take care of the planet we’re (all) on.
Like it doesn’t even matter.

I can't speak for all "Eternal Bliss" seekers - but those I know of tend to be more Conservative and enjoy things like hiking, camping, hunting, fishing etc - making them some of the most conservationist-minded people I know.

Not to mention their love of God and His Creation.

What I see happening is they believe that God gave the Earth to Man for His purposes and that there is nothing that Man can do to frustrate or destroy those purposes.

I personally believe that anyone who believes that Man can destroy the Earth is someone infected with hubris or some level of delusion - thinking that we could destroy God's plan for His children.

Then when we get into how political the whole thing has become - it leaves many doubting the claims made - about how imminent or large the threat actually is.

I see it as a vehicle that people are using to make money and to gain power.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I don't believe that any change in sea level is a threat because we will notice the trend and apply mitigators to loss of life and property.

If doing nothing about a situation would result in loss of life or property, then that situation is, by definition, a threat.

 

[Nithavela]

I can't speak for all "Eternal Bliss" seekers - but those I know of tend to be more Conservative and enjoy things like hiking, camping, hunting, fishing etc - making them some of the most conservationist-minded people I know.

Not to mention their love of God and His Creation.

What I see happening is they believe that God gave the Earth to Man for His purposes and that there is nothing that Man can do to frustrate or destroy those purposes.

I personally believe that anyone who believes that Man can destroy the Earth is someone infected with hubris or some level of delusion - thinking that we could destroy God's plan for His children.

Then when we get into how political the whole thing has become - it leaves many doubting the claims made - about how imminent or large the threat actually is.

I see it as a vehicle that people are using to make money and to gain power.

Do you think that there would be no serious repercussions to mankind detonating all their nuclear warheads simultaneously?

 

[essentialsaltes]

No one doubts that the climate changes. What I doubt is there being an imminent threat.

"Imminent" depends a lot on the nature of the situation.

Suppose you're in a car travelling at 50 mph, and a child suddenly dashes into the street 200 feet in front of you. If no action is taken, there will be an accident in a little over 2 seconds. Fairly imminent.

But with a normal reaction time, the stopping distance is about 175 feet.

So disaster can be avoided.

But suppose you're the engineer of a cargo train travelling at 50 mph, and a child suddenly dashes onto the tracks half a mile in front of you.

Disaster is 30 seconds away, but in fact it is unavoidable. Because of its greater weight and inertia, it takes a mile for such a train to stop.

If we're talking a ship, the stopping distance might be a couple nautical miles, and the time it takes to stop might be 12 minutes.

The overall climate has even greater inertia. It may not seem to be moving 'fast' at less than a degree per decade. But the time it takes to stop it (much less reverse it) is also measured in decades. And some significant effects are decades away. And billions are already being spent to ameliorate them. The opportunity is now to start applying the brakes. We've already used up our "reaction time".

Sea levels are starting to rise faster. Here’s how much South Florida is expecting​

“Presently, sea level is tracking in the intermediate-high to high, the two fastest [future scenarios],” said Randall Parkinson, a coastal geologist with Florida International University. “The other three scenarios, you might not even think about because we’re already rising faster than that.”

Two feet of sea rise by 2060, compared to present-day levels, would be a shock to the system for Miami, where the average elevation is three feet. That’s why local governments — and the state — are spending billions to keep streets dry.

 

[rambot]

I don't believe that any change in sea level is a threat because we will notice the trend and apply mitigators to loss of life and property.

Well. Are you aware of the country of thr Netherlands? Or perhaps thr situation in Bangladesh?

Netherlands has been fighting the ocean for centuries but it cannot win the speed of the changes brought by global warming. And in terms of hydrology, damning and water moving, nobody, and I mean NOBODY bests the Dutch.

And Bangladesh, well they are simply too poor.

In which case we need to consider whether something like the displacement of 20 million people is considered an event we should try to mitigate.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't believe that any change in sea level is a threat because we will notice the trend and apply mitigators to loss of life and property.

Sea level change is largely driven by melting of polar ice caps. The amount of melting in the future based on future temperature increases in the polar region. A collapse of an ice sheet could cause several meters or more of ocean rise. You can't mitigate against that. Cities will be just lost at that point.