It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Question - If Climate warming/change isn't anthropogenic, what do we do?

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: FyreByrd

Birth control. Set a goal for negative population growth. Across the board. I'm not interested in 1 child per secular couple more than cancelled out by 6 children per religious fundie couple.

With global warming comes less inhabitable land and less agricultural land. Population will decrease. Steady planned decrease seems better to me than rapid catastrophic.


Excellent first step - I concur.




posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
Begin stopping planned obsolescence.
Promote repair and renewing old products instead of the next greatest/newest cellphone or car.
The target SHOULD be wasteful materialism here so manufacturing would only need to produce durable goods and a renewed pollution campaign to begin TRAPPING carbons and pollutants.
The sun has the most say.


Ralph Nadar would be proud. Thank you.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Black_Fox

I see what u did there D:



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: melatonin
I like your thinking. An awesome question (:

Firstly assuming warming will continue at current rate - not anthropogenic warming would likely require a human intervention. Perhaps as noted, salt water to disperse solar radiation. Alternatively, sulphate particles to produce the same outcome.

However, interventions which ameliorate human-based carbon induced effects would also be helpful. But I assume you aim to remove that from the equation D:

Why bother? Because modern human society will negatively impacted by rapid changes in climate. Easy to fall into self-satisfactory thinking that nature is red in tooth and claw while we convince ourselves that others will be the victims (:

However, unlikely the 'current rate' argument holds water assuming solar etc influences.





Question - All things remaining the same - why wouldn't the current 'trend' continue?



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Obviously the core of your question is that 'things remain the same'.

Depends what the cause would be. Perhaps it remains the same, perhaps it doesn't.

All down to randomness without a mechanical causation (:



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Why does Mankind need to "do" something, to fix nature?
It seems so many of the things we do, just mess everything up.
We try to solve any perceived problems, by doing something.

We are not Human Doings: We are Human Beings.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: FyreByrd

Why does Mankind need to "do" something, to fix nature?


Perhaps the OP doesn't see the deeper issue underlying the question they pose?

Do we act, or do we not?

Either could be justifiable, really...

Expanding on the above - it depends on your perspective, lol D:
edit on 2-9-2017 by melatonin because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Global warming is a broad category. How many more Houston's can we stand until the financial infrastructure collapses.


Answer.....none



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


If climate change isn't man-made, then there is nothing we could do about it.

WRONG! The warmista congregation found that huge amount of cash can be extorted from the situation. Lot of job created out of thin air.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   
All the above energy policy. We will need heat if going ice age. We will need cooling if warming up. The key is to prepare to adapt, not point fingers of blame. The climate has, and will, always change. Either we adapt or we die.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: melatonin
a reply to: FyreByrd

Obviously the core of your question is that 'things remain the same'.

Depends what the cause would be. Perhaps it remains the same, perhaps it doesn't.

All down to randomness without a mechanical causation (:





No - 'things remain the same' is not the 'core' of my question.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Not really I HATE plastic compact cars so I REPRESENT the duality of man...



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: FyreByrd

Why does Mankind need to "do" something, to fix nature?
It seems so many of the things we do, just mess everything up.
We try to solve any perceived problems, by doing something.

We are not Human Doings: We are Human Beings.


I guess if life is all about ME, then there is no need to do anything. I'm not doing so bad and won't live that much longer.

But, if life is about the good we do in relationship, then there is a biological imperative to ensure the continuance of the species.

So I guess that is the question: Is it all about ME or all about the OTHER.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Message boards can really struggle with hypothetical questions. I feel like there is something to explore there, but its not the topic.

In a lot of ways, I think that the actions would be similar to if things are human caused. Arguably, they would even be the same if its all just natural, relatively minor fluctuations.

I think that the first area to address would be food production. There are quite a few approaches, but I am partial to a decentralized, automated system based on aquaponics and similar techniques. It can be done year round, is largely immune to inclement weather, and has immense stability.

The second is energy production. Barring any massive, revolutionary advances, it might be most effective to address energy efficiency so that whatever energy is produced can go further. I have my own specific ideas, but I don't think we should be adverse to complete overhauls to systems we take for granted. Things like HVAC, lighting, and even refrigeration could be changed to better take advantage of newer perspectives, ideologies, and technology.

Another is to eliminate planned obsolescence in favor of systems that not only last as long as possible, but can be upgraded and improved without replacing everything, every time. This could even be leveraged with an open source type approach to facilitate faster advancement and greater diversity of needs/wants met.

The last might be reducing the energy footprint created by the transportation of goods. There would be a lot of facets to something like this, but one could be a reformation/return of a manufacturing base through tech like multi-material 3d printers.

Overall, I don't think the current methodology of minor, yet expensive improvements to existing platforms will get the results we want or need even if there is no actual threat from climate change (anthropogenic or otherwise).

ETA: I also think it would be extremely beneficial to embrace the concept that technology and nature can not only co-exist, but be complementary, if we design it to be that way. Seems straightforward, but I'd argue it has a lot of subtlety and that many operate from the premise that they are mutually exclusive paradigms.
edit on 2-9-2017 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: FyreByrd

Why does Mankind need to "do" something, to fix nature?
It seems so many of the things we do, just mess everything up.
We try to solve any perceived problems, by doing something.

We are not Human Doings: We are Human Beings.


I guess if life is all about ME, then there is no need to do anything. I'm not doing so bad and won't live that much longer.

But, if life is about the good we do in relationship, then there is a biological imperative to ensure the continuance of the species.

So I guess that is the question: Is it all about ME or all about the OTHER.



Our human arrogance, so often makes it about "ME".
We have the arrogance to think that we can control GW.

Under the guise(using fear), of AGW, the agenda once again shows it's ugly head:
By raising the question of trying to meddle with Nature, to ensure the continuance of the human species, we simply reconfirm what George Carlin called: "Narrow, unenlightened, self-interest".



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Stop over populating our species to the point where we can't keep up resource wise.

Stop wasting so many resources on pointless activities.

Prepare to move to another location if you're in a zone of possible big changes.

(Too late or Improbable that any of those are possible however. Except that last one maybe.)

Take only what you need. Use what you take. Give back when you can. Hope for the best. Plan for the worst. Don't be a dick.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: FyreByrd
If climate change isn't man-made, then there is nothing we could do about it.





That's like not quitting smoking because your asthma is a genetic condition.



No.

It is an interesting question though.

It's almost a back-handed way to argue FOR man-made climate change.

If man has the ability to influence the climate, then it'd support the assertion that man has been influencing the climate.

Sneaky sneaky.



I admit, that is a good question. I should have spoken to your whole post instead of taking it out of context.

I guess that answers why it's difficult to deprogram people from insisting it's a political issue.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: FyreByrd
If climate change isn't man-made, then there is nothing we could do about it.





That's like not quitting smoking because your asthma is a genetic condition.



No.

It is an interesting question though.

It's almost a back-handed way to argue FOR man-made climate change.

If man has the ability to influence the climate, then it'd support the assertion that man has been influencing the climate.

Sneaky sneaky.



I admit, that is a good question. I should have spoken to your whole post instead of taking it out of context.

I guess that answers why it's difficult to deprogram people from insisting it's a political issue.


I think it's even worse when the climate is used as a cudgel for political ideologies.

The "science" is far from settled.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I think it is very telling in how this whole situation is presented.

Instead of focusing and advertising actual, real solutions, we talk about nebulous concepts and moral superiority. Instead of just looking at it in terms of general technological advancement that most people wont just support but will get excited about, we talk about taxes and simply spending more money.

It makes me deeply suspicious when someone like Gore doesn't do a movie about "technology that will save the world!" and instead puts out not one, but two Inconvenient Truths. Hell, instead of a movie, he could organize something like a Science Fair for Grown-ups. Do one in each major city with some sort of prize that will be dwarfed by advertising revenue, sponsors, etc.

Its sad that our collective advancement itself is not only politicized, but framed in a way that will actually impede and obfuscate the very tools that would fix the proposed problem.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam

Man-made climate change theories are just a means to an end.

It's not about the climate, it's about control. It's about controlling other nations. It is globalism writ large.

The science is deliberately flawed.

A much smarter person than me said something once about the Paris Accords, but it extends outwards.


He/she said, "This is about poor people in wealthy nations giving money to wealthy people in poor nations."



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join