Jump to content
RememberSchiff

Naturalist-Environmentalist divide

Recommended Posts

I bet that Al Gore could make another few million this week if he could actually produce some of the predictions made by 'An Inconvenient Truth'.  

"Snow will cease to exist.”

Uh huh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am old enough to recall the late 70s when the prediction was that air pollution would bring on another Ice Age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/21/2017 at 10:31 AM, RememberSchiff said:

We seem to have a surplus of deer and turkey  in New England where the top predator may be a car bumper but the coyotes are coming back.

How large a human population can the world's environment and economy sustain?

In regard to the question about the human population, there is an interesting essay on this. You just need to search on the following: Eating Fossil Fuel

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2018 at 8:08 PM, TAHAWK said:

I am old enough to recall the late 70s when the prediction was that air pollution would bring on another Ice Age.

That prediction was held by a very small minority of scientists who were basically attempting to play the 'devils advocate'. They were obviously wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, packsaddle said:

That prediction was held by a very small minority of scientists who were basically attempting to play the 'devils advocate'. They were obviously wrong.

Actually there is something called global dimming.  It is the impact of aerosols in the air reflecting our the sun’s energy back into space.  It actually can help offset global warming impacts but the trend is reversing as countries get more strict about particulate pollution.  There is is even some belief that contrails actually help lower earth temp.  Some limited studies of this occurred during the days post 911 when commercial aircraft were grounded.  

I’m not sure if that is what the 70’s scientists were talking about.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global dimming: True. I don't know the basis for the speculations of the 70s but I suspect they were aware of the effect that this has on albedo. It's just really difficult to make predictions about their dynamics. I guess a good supervolcano could be just the thing we need, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 4:29 PM, LeCastor said:

  

I think it comes down to a philosophy of how to live your life in such a way that you are leaving the Earth better than when you got here

 

Yes, leave things better than they were when you got there. That's a good philosophy.

The problem with the climate change hoaxers is that they don't want the climate to change, however slightly, even if that change is for the better. They claim that any change is bad. Some of them claim that any change will be catastrophic. 

My college Ecology professor was absolutely certain that the world today would be a dystopic wind-swept wilderness, like the Mad Max movies.  His class was more Science Fiction than Science. He was entertaining, though, if you didn't take him seriously.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks David. I guess I've become somewhat of an accidental participant this time. I got a message out of the blue and I was curious. But then I discovered this thread. Interesting. 

I actually teach ecology courses, among others. While I agree that there are what I term, 'true believers' who call  themselves 'ecologists' and probably quite a few who claim to teach (preach) it, the ones I know and with whom I interact are probably more skeptical about their own field of study than most of the forum members here. The 'true believers' can claim to be whatever they want to but I will suggest that as long as they do not carefully cast a critical eye at their own field of study, they are not 'scientists', at least not very good ones. 

This is a source of frustration to me because I do interact with good scientists who are climate change skeptics. They are mostly skeptical about proposed 'solutions' and about those persons who think they know what the consequences will be. But what I find so disappointing is that objective discourse about this and so many other issues that strongly depend on scientific evidence seems to be totally absent from public forums. I do not find our public discussions to be a source of abundant optimism. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×