ADVERTISEMENT

Protect against climate change, instead of preventing it.....

Aegon_Targaryen

HB All-American
Gold Member
Apr 19, 2014
4,113
416
83
...because you can't stop it. The only solution, if it's real, is to prepare for it.
The intellectuals should be smart enough to know that it can't be stopped, so why focus on that?
At this point you must simply prep for it, and adapt to it. If what the doomsday types say is true, then the battle is lost.
 
This is like telling cigarette smokers that you "can't stop lung cancer" so the "only solution is to prepare for it"....
 
This is like telling cigarette smokers that you "can't stop lung cancer" so the "only solution is to prepare for it"....
Not really. The climate will change no matter what we do. Regardless of your stance on our role, you cannot ignore history. The earth's climate has never been static.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strummingram
Not really. The climate will change no matter what we do. Regardless of your stance on our role, you cannot ignore history. The earth's climate has never been static.

Over the course of 100's of thousands of years, no, it has not been 'static'; but over a few thousand years (2x human history), it's been very stable.

The argument that "it's changed in the past" is irrelevant to the fact that human activity is creating an imbalance and causing significant warming now. It changed in the past due to variations in solar output, volcanic activity and Milankovitch (orbital) cycles. None of those variables is currently contribution anything significant to the changes we are presently observing.
 
giphy.gif
 
This is like telling cigarette smokers that you "can't stop lung cancer" so the "only solution is to prepare for it"....
Actually, it's like telling cigarette smokers that "you can't stop lung cancer so the only solution is to prepare for it - AND MEANWHILE KEEP ON SMOKING!"

This is an incredibly stupid but entirely predictable next step in the denier campaign. Why stupid? Because it embodies a truth - that it's too late to stop significant climate change that we will have to deal with whether we like it or not - but acts as if the already-baked-in climate changes are all we have to worry about.

If we don't take preventative action NOW, the negative consequences will continue to pile up.

We have squandered decades when modest action could have prevented or significantly ameliorated global warming. We no longer have that option. Fortunately we still have the option of aggressive action that could prevent much harm. BUT if we don't get moving NOW, we will have fewer (and worse) choices ahead. The timid and mostly symbolic promises by Obama and other leader (who won' tbe in office when it's time to deliver) are better than nothing, but not by much. We need to get much more serious.

The idea of preparing to accept the inevitable makes sense. But the idea of doing nothing else - which is implicit in the OP's setup - guarantees that things will get worse and climate change will not settle at the level of harm we have already insured by prior inaction.
 
I agree. Which is why it's also idiotic with regard to human-driven climate change.
I was of course referring to your statement. There may be some correct analogy between lung cancer and climate change, but I can't imagine what it would be.

Having said that, I was not at all surprised to see the attempt to draw a red herring across the discussion, because this is a point that I and others have been making for years on this subject, and AGW extremists refuse to address. I don't know why. I think it may be because to you, the only thing that matters is that people who disagree with you be proven wrong, so you can feel superior to somebody. The fate of humanity is a secondary issue with you.
 
Over the course of 100's of thousands of years, no, it has not been 'static'; but over a few thousand years (2x human history), it's been very stable.

The argument that "it's changed in the past" is irrelevant to the fact that human activity is creating an imbalance and causing significant warming now. It changed in the past due to variations in solar output, volcanic activity and Milankovitch (orbital) cycles. None of those variables is currently contribution anything significant to the changes we are presently observing.
Tell that to the Atlantians, and every other abandoned city in the mountains, desert, and underwater.
 
Actually, it's like telling cigarette smokers that "you can't stop lung cancer so the only solution is to prepare for it - AND MEANWHILE KEEP ON SMOKING!"

This is an incredibly stupid but entirely predictable next step in the denier campaign. Why stupid? Because it embodies a truth - that it's too late to stop significant climate change that we will have to deal with whether we like it or not - but acts as if the already-baked-in climate changes are all we have to worry about.

If we don't take preventative action NOW, the negative consequences will continue to pile up.

We have squandered decades when modest action could have prevented or significantly ameliorated global warming. We no longer have that option. Fortunately we still have the option of aggressive action that could prevent much harm. BUT if we don't get moving NOW, we will have fewer (and worse) choices ahead. The timid and mostly symbolic promises by Obama and other leader (who won' tbe in office when it's time to deliver) are better than nothing, but not by much. We need to get much more serious.

The idea of preparing to accept the inevitable makes sense. But the idea of doing nothing else - which is implicit in the OP's setup - guarantees that things will get worse and climate change will not settle at the level of harm we have already insured by prior inaction.
Cue the scary lights and sounds.
 
Even in the best scenario given to us by the climate change advocates, it's not enough according to what they say needs to be done.
 
Even in the best scenario given to us by the climate change advocates, it's not enough according to what they say needs to be done.
What's really ironic about the analogy is that if you were going to insist on using it, it works vastly better for the other side. Just compare how much time, effort and money is devoted to dealing with the effects of cancer compared to what is devoted to preventing it from happening.

What Joe and his ilk want to do is ignore the need to improve treatment and cures, and concentrate entirely on preventing anyone from getting cancer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aegon_Targaryen
What's really ironic about the analogy is that if you were going to insist on using it, it works vastly better for the other side. Just compare how much time, effort and money is devoted to dealing with the effects of cancer compared to what is devoted to preventing it from happening.

What Joe and his ilk want to do is ignore the need to improve treatment and cures, and concentrate entirely on preventing anyone from getting cancer.
What makes me sick is that the science is practically a stranger to the so called advocates, yet they spew their BS, as if they are the data collectors themselves. The data collected is not collected by every group PAID to predict. It's collected by a very few, who then share those models with their peers. No one ever asks if the models are 100% valid or not. Which is the first mistake that many of them make.
Again, where are all the disasters at? According to older data, we should already be in near Armageddon mode. We should already be seeing flooded coasts and we should already be victim to super storms at a monthly rate. Yet here we are, with one of the more mild summers in recent history.

I agree by the way, fixing what is already broken is not nearly as effective as preventing things from breaking.
 
Not really. The climate will change no matter what we do. Regardless of your stance on our role, you cannot ignore history. The earth's climate has never been static.
You mean to say that climate change is the norm for the entirety of this planets history? Color me shocked
 
Tell that to the Atlantians, and every other abandoned city in the mountains, desert, and underwater.

'Regional' climate change is peanuts compared with altering the planet globally. And that HAS been a reason for civilizations dying out, wars, famines, etc; they were unable to 'adapt' to the regional changes. So, if those past events concern you, then human-driven global climate alteration should be a priority, to prevent it from happening, not waiting to 'adapt'.
 
The human race is incapable of working together in the manner necessary to repair this problem. Buckle up, enjoy the ride.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbq hawk 32
Not really. The climate will change no matter what we do. Regardless of your stance on our role, you cannot ignore history. The earth's climate has never been static.
Something tells me that you don't understand what Climate Change is.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT