Quote:
Originally Posted by MadBlaster
 . Yes, that is what the thread is about. Taxation/regulation on production/activities/behaviors/etc. to transfer/redistribute wealth and take away/limit freedom on a global scale. Climate change being the driver. Watch the video of the first post of the thread. Some would argue the foundation for new world order. I think this is plausible. |
Oooooh. You mean because climate change costs, and other counties can't afford those cost yet or are too egocentric to take the responsebility, it is socialism?
Edit: kay, I just watched the video. wtf?
Irony, sarcasm, funny music, this thing sounds and looks like a Michael Moore production. What has concentration of the green house gases have to do with their effectiveness if there is no context to compare it too? What have cathedrals to do with the warmth period? Vine yards have been here forever? The show did not present one hard fact, it just threw one semifact in there after the, without any sources or references to check it up?
That aside, what is all that fear mongering about? This show looks like it was done by fascists countering arguments by communists (or vice versa), instead of an intelligent debate by pros.
You are actually basing your stances on shows like this?
So, let's get that right.
Climates over earth's history have sometimes warmed, sometimes cooled. Sometimes that change was faster, sometimes lower. Sometimes it was caused by Co2, sometimes by Methan, sometimes by changes in the earth rotation axis, sometimes by vulcanic activity, sometimes by meteors. Sometimes that caused massive ice ages, sometimes it caused massive warming periods. With other words, it is an utterly chatotic and unpredictable system. What the show got right was, for example, the little ice age and the warmth period preceeding that one.
That makes any "definities" pretty much impossible.
Added to that, the problem is not nessecarily global warming, but "climate change". Some areas become hotter, some colder. While the arctic ice shield has been shrinking over the last couple decades (
), and countries bordering that region are trying to secure shipping rights through formerly impassable lanes (North Western Passage, for example) the antarctic ice shield has not changed much at all. That has to do with the oceanic current system, which transports different climates all over the globe. Best example for that is the gulf stream.
Nevertheless, we do have some facts that the climate actually is changing. The video about the arctic ice shield just one example.
Is that casued by humans or not? I actually do not know. Nobody really does.
What we do know, however, is that CO2 is a gas that has some influence on that. It may weaken a cool down effect or strenghen a warming effect.
So the question really is not, did we cause that or not, but rather, do we want to strenghen that development or not.
But let's take a step back first and look at what climate change actually means. Does it mean the end of the earth? Most certainly not. There have been much warmer periods in earth's history and live nevertheless flourished.
However, these effects
a) took a while to establish, sudden changes caused by meteors or vulcanic activity beeing the exceptions.
b) nevertheless and regulary caused a whole lot of species to go into extinction because they specialized on certain climates. You just have the check the end of the last Ice age and the changes in Flora and Fauna it caused.
How does this effect us, IF climate change actually occurs?
Well, it won't cause us dying off. Some areas will even profit from this development, especially the northern hemisphere. Other areas will suffer, especially areas that already are covered in deserts. China actually is aware of this effect, Beijing gets more and sand storms every year, that is one reason why they invest so heavily in renewable energy. For the western world this means not nessecarily direct environmental consequences.
BUT, climate change in human history has often triggered mass migrations. The danger here is that millions of people will try to move to areas more hospitable, which in return may cause tensions, unrest and connected to that, economic turbulences. The world balance as it is now could be seriously disturbed.
Also, what happens once tempreturs in certain areias, like Siberia, rise over a certain threshhold, may be the release of massive amounts of methan, now frozen barely under the steppes soil. Methan is a much more effective Gas then CO2 when it comes to climate change.
Bottomline thus is:
Climate change may or may not occur, but the amounts of CO2 we put into the atmosphere "DOES" have an effect. Maybe a small one, maybe a large one, that is up for speculation.
But the whole system is so unpredictable and inherently unstable that even small amounts "may" have larger consequences further down the road. Butterfly effect is the keyword here. It is this unpredicability that causes countries like Germany to think "kay, better invest and spend a bit more today, even if it is for naught (still has positive effects like energy independence, so it is a winner whatever way you look at it), then to just go on into the unkown with unpredictable risks involved.
Thing is, we simply do not know enough about long term climate effects to take that risk.