• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Trump and the Environment

I cannot get behind most of this post. The changes in the natural world that you seemingly casually dismiss are happening on a time scale never seen before. These changes should be viewed as canaries, especially the wildly rapid rise in species extinction rates exhibited in last ~300 years.

I was REALLY hoping you were about to give a fact about declining canary numbers or conditions to enforce that these are indeed "canaries". I'll take the missed opportunity as a sign that the canary community is doing well though, so that's good.
 
Last edited:
[/B]

Other than the disease part, the rest of this paragraph is not "scary" - it just suggests change in the natural world.

I consider myself pro-environment, but we can't get up in arms because butterflies change colors. That is just evolution. And different species have gone extinct throughout history. Similarly, new species have been and continue to be discovered and catalogued. The environmental movement, if it ever takes off, is going to take off only when you point to direct impacts on humans. I am not saying that is "right," I am just saying it is accurate.

It should scare you. The climate is clearly changing at a rapid pace. Even if it is a natural phenomenon(it isn't), humans have occupied or altered a vast majority of the globe, precluding earth's flora and fauna from evolving as they would without our presence.

Evolutionary changes at the species level take hundreds of thousands of years. Continuing down this path unchecked will result in an ever increasing extinction rate that will not be held in check by species evolution. What are those salmon going to do when the acceptable spawning temperature no longer exists in their habitat? Are we going to remove hydroelectric dams so they can move upstream unimpeded? What happens when the entire river system is too warm?

These scenarios are reality across the globe. The problem is that people don't care about it because they are more concerned with benghazi and rogue email servers and tax returns and the alt-right. IIRC, there were no questions about the environment during the debates which is frightening in itself. I guess it will only become a concern when it is too late to do anything about it. My kids kids will probably never get to see many of the mega fauna that exist in the wild today and that is depressing. It won't even matter though if we don't continue to work towards reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

I'm at work but I wanted to talk about ocean acidification a bit to close this post. Posting pictures from my phone with poor service is frustrating so more to come later tonight.
 
Ya don't think we can come up with the technology to cool the earth?
 
Ya don't think we can come up with the technology to cool the earth?
I'm not concerned about humans. I think we will survive no matter what. I do worry about the other living things on earth, though. For example, the permian-triassic extinct event saw 96% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial species go extinct. It is called the great dying for a good reason. It took millions of years for life to recover. Much of the evidence points to ocean acidification as a smoking gun - Something that is increasing in our present day oceans as we speak.


We don't have those time scales to work with and we don't have the technology to prevent most extinction events at the moment. If something were to happen in the next 50 years, we would probably just catalog DNA and clone when we were able to do so. We saw how that turned out in Jurassic Park.
 
I just think that if the message of the environmentalists is going to be about changes in butterfly colors, you are going to have a difficult time galvanizing enough support to make a difference. The permian-triassic event is associated with a huge uptick in volcanic eruptions, or an asteroid hitting the earth, or something along those lines. No question that the ramifications of whatever happened resulted in warming the earth and greenhouse issues, etc., but I don't think there is any suggestion that the primary cause of that event was anything other than a colossal event as opposed to a general warming trend. A similar event would be something like a true nuclear war, or an asteroid event, or a dramatic uptick in volcanic eruptions.

Again, I think global warming is undeniable. I think it is undeniable that it is caused, at least in significant part, by man. I think it is a bummer that the salmon may die off. However, anyone who wants to create sweeping change is going to have to demonstrably show the negative, objective impact warming will have on mankind as a whole (or at least the US population specifically). Some people don't give a fuck about the salmon, and certainly aren't going to prioritize their lives around making sure the salmon's spawning grounds stay at a consistent temperature. It just won't register with enough people.

And, as you indicated - you believe humans will survive regardless. If that is the conclusion of even an informed, passionate environmentalist, then the chances for any radical change in behavior in the foreseeable future are slim to none.
 
I just think that if the message of the environmentalists is going to be about changes in butterfly colors, you are going to have a difficult time galvanizing enough support to make a difference. The permian-triassic event is associated with a huge uptick in volcanic eruptions, or an asteroid hitting the earth, or something along those lines. No question that the ramifications of whatever happened resulted in warming the earth and greenhouse issues, etc., but I don't think there is any suggestion that the primary cause of that event was anything other than a colossal event as opposed to a general warming trend. A similar event would be something like a true nuclear war, or an asteroid event, or a dramatic uptick in volcanic eruptions.

Again, I think global warming is undeniable. I think it is undeniable that it is caused, at least in significant part, by man. I think it is a bummer that the salmon may die off. However, anyone who wants to create sweeping change is going to have to demonstrably show the negative, objective impact warming will have on mankind as a whole (or at least the US population specifically). Some people don't give a fuck about the salmon, and certainly aren't going to prioritize their lives around making sure the salmon's spawning grounds stay at a consistent temperature. It just won't register with enough people.

And, as you indicated - you believe humans will survive regardless. If that is the conclusion of even an informed, passionate environmentalist, then the chances for any radical change in behavior in the foreseeable future are slim to none.

The holocene extinction is in full swing and is already approaching late devonian extinction levels. Oceans are acidifying without any mass volcanism or impactors. We are filling in for those at the moment. We are bound by probability to have a large volcanic event or get hit by an asteroid at some point in the future and will that be enough to tip the scales? Or will we have been able to do enough to protect our ecosystem from disaster?

The messaging is key but we have billions of years of history to inform where we could be going. As a result, there is a mountain of evidence regarding the potential impact on humanity and the rest of earth's species but it is largely ignored.

I'm not concerned about humanity and its continued existence. If we go extinct it is because of the path we have chosen. Unfortunately, our furry friends never had a say in the matter.
 
I just think that if the message of the environmentalists is going to be about changes in butterfly colors, you are going to have a difficult time galvanizing enough support to make a difference. The permian-triassic event is associated with a huge uptick in volcanic eruptions, or an asteroid hitting the earth, or something along those lines. No question that the ramifications of whatever happened resulted in warming the earth and greenhouse issues, etc., but I don't think there is any suggestion that the primary cause of that event was anything other than a colossal event as opposed to a general warming trend. A similar event would be something like a true nuclear war, or an asteroid event, or a dramatic uptick in volcanic eruptions.

Again, I think global warming is undeniable. I think it is undeniable that it is caused, at least in significant part, by man. I think it is a bummer that the salmon may die off. However, anyone who wants to create sweeping change is going to have to demonstrably show the negative, objective impact warming will have on mankind as a whole (or at least the US population specifically). Some people don't give a fuck about the salmon, and certainly aren't going to prioritize their lives around making sure the salmon's spawning grounds stay at a consistent temperature. It just won't register with enough people.

And, as you indicated - you believe humans will survive regardless. If that is the conclusion of even an informed, passionate environmentalist, then the chances for any radical change in behavior in the foreseeable future are slim to none.

44% of the global human population lives in coastal zones. 7 billion X 0.44 = 3,080,000,000 people who's homes and communities will potentially be fundamentally altered by sea level rise. So there is something for people to worry about. Where the fuck are all the millions of people in Miami going to live in 100 years? What about Hustonians? How my version of New Orleans can we sustain on our coasts?

The point about butterfly wing coloration, Salmon spawning and spatial distributions of southern flying squirrels is that these are harbingers of the massive change that is underway. They are presented as evidence that things are changing and changing quickly, many hundreds of times faster than these systems normally change. The real issues is how much rapid change can these systems sustain and how quickly can they absorb the changes without collapsing. I am frankly worried about the future of humanity, at least the future that my kids are going to suffer through as we transition to a new climate and new way of living.
 
The holocene extinction is in full swing and is already approaching late devonian extinction levels. Oceans are acidifying without any mass volcanism or impactors. We are filling in for those at the moment. We are bound by probability to have a large volcanic event or get hit by an asteroid at some point in the future and will that be enough to tip the scales? Or will we have been able to do enough to protect our ecosystem from disaster?

The messaging is key but we have billions of years of history to inform where we could be going. As a result, there is a mountain of evidence regarding the potential impact on humanity and the rest of earth's species but it is largely ignored.

I'm not concerned about humanity and its continued existence. If we go extinct it is because of the path we have chosen. Unfortunately, our furry friends never had a say in the matter.

not every organism on this planet has fur. Did you not learn that in your fancy schools?
 
Who gives a fuck about our furry friends? If they had evolved faster, they could be the ones fucking up the planet and not us. Survival of the fittest my friend. Just like Darwin described it.
 
Who gives a fuck about our furry friends? If they had evolved faster, they could be the ones fucking up the planet and not us. Survival of the fittest my friend. Just like Darwin described it.
But that's what happened, isn't it?
 
Saw an article today about Peter Thiel's interest in fusion as an investor in Helion(FRC fusion). Wouldn't it be something if Trump funneled yuge amounts of funding into fusion research as an FU to Obama(wind and solar) and they had a breakthrough? Several privately held companies are poised to push the envelope in the next several years. We all know he loves big, expensive, and flashy projects. What fits that bill more than fusion energy?
 
the only reason you want fusion is because it was the best power plant in sim city 2000

images
 
Last edited:
So progressives are going to stick with "not being a CO2 alarmist" = "climate denier" rhetoric, eh? LOL. If progressives can't be honest about the opinions of others, why should anyone believe anything else they say on the topic?

He called climate change "a bunch of bunk". Looks to me like the variables in your equation are wrong.
 
Trump has his work cut out for him to finance more fossil fuel programs than our current administration.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...l-fuels-us-export-import-bank-energy-projects
Notice anything about these countries? We have enough problems with getting away from fossil fuels in the most technologically advanced nation in the world, what do you expect developing countries to do? Fossil fuels are cheap. Developing countries can't afford to waste valuable funds on developing or implementing renewable energy sources that will not provide cheap energy and most importantly, economic growth to their citizens and economy. It is unfortunate, but our longtime reliance of fossil fuels has hamstrung our renewable energy progress and hence, our ability to deploy technology in these situations. In 15-20 years, we would be able to provide the technology to developing nations to pop up a fusion plant or solar farm, but it isn't feasible. That is why I am concerned about Trump, we are poised to continue leading the world in renewable energy development, but Trump is a known climate change denier and is surrounding himself with a like minded cabinet.
 
Back
Top