Science Discussion

[Mjohn1988]

Why is it now called climate change, instead of global warming?

The other issue I ponder is, the United States left the Paris accords, our numbers have dropped, as far as our contributions, the main contributors are China and India. What are the realistic expectations that people have to hold other countries accountable?

Not every location is going to get warmer but most every location is going to go through some changes in climate. And the earth does go through cycles but evidence points to an anthropogenic nature for lots of what we are seeing now. As the climates changes the air circulation changes and that may cool some places. Most of what I have read is predicting hotter hots but also some colder colds.

Holding other countries accountable: Needs to be written into trade agreements as a start. We got rid of a lot of child labor in this country (some still exists). First we moved production to the US south where unions are weak and labor standards tend to be lacking and as not as enforced. Then we moved overseas and to third world countries. As consumers we are still propping up a lot of chattel slavery, but even more wage slavery. Lots of little kids make our shoes and garments we wear. We could have trade agreements that enforced better laws, but the power structure that makes those agreements pushes those concerns to the side. A lot of our modern life is on the backs of people with jobs that I would like to think no one in the US would want. I don't think we should get a pass if we are still buying the stuff made under terrible working conditions.

The same things has happened to the environment. Lots of heavy industry has moved over wages, but a lot was over environmental rules and such. We could make our trade agreements address environmental concerns but those that write those laws do not do so and we don't hold them accountable. (And to many of us don't give an F' about working conditions or the environment as long as it keeps more money in their own pocket.)

In both cases those two countries have a lot more people than us. I have yet to see any study that showed China or India using more resources than the US on a per capita basis. They do need to look at population controls in India in my view. The real question I have is how much finger pointing do we have a right to point to those two countries when so much of what they are doing is being exported to the US and other industrialized countries. That should come back to the consumers and the countries that are consuming. Some of that is China and India themselves but a lot of that is the US and western Europe.

TL;DR We need better trade agreements that address environmental concerns.

Wow, “population controls”, that gets scary in a hurry. That’s some fence to straddle, liberalism and authoritarianism. But I guess eliminating children would also eliminate child labor.

[huskie3]

It is not necessarily sea rise as part of problem is land mass eroding where people have built too close. Also the tilt of earth is changing and gravitational pull of moon causes sea level to appear higher.

[AppStFan1]

Why is it now called climate change, instead of global warming?

The other issue I ponder is, the United States left the Paris accords, our numbers have dropped, as far as our contributions, the main contributors are China and India. What are the realistic expectations that people have to hold other countries accountable?

Not every location is going to get warmer but most every location is going to go through some changes in climate. And the earth does go through cycles but evidence points to an anthropogenic nature for lots of what we are seeing now. As the climates changes the air circulation changes and that may cool some places. Most of what I have read is predicting hotter hots but also some colder colds.

Holding other countries accountable: Needs to be written into trade agreements as a start. We got rid of a lot of child labor in this country (some still exists). First we moved production to the US south where unions are weak and labor standards tend to be lacking and as not as enforced. Then we moved overseas and to third world countries. As consumers we are still propping up a lot of chattel slavery, but even more wage slavery. Lots of little kids make our shoes and garments we wear. We could have trade agreements that enforced better laws, but the power structure that makes those agreements pushes those concerns to the side. A lot of our modern life is on the backs of people with jobs that I would like to think no one in the US would want. I don't think we should get a pass if we are still buying the stuff made under terrible working conditions.

The same things has happened to the environment. Lots of heavy industry has moved over wages, but a lot was over environmental rules and such. We could make our trade agreements address environmental concerns but those that write those laws do not do so and we don't hold them accountable. (And to many of us don't give an F' about working conditions or the environment as long as it keeps more money in their own pocket.)

In both cases those two countries have a lot more people than us. I have yet to see any study that showed China or India using more resources than the US on a per capita basis. They do need to look at population controls in India in my view. The real question I have is how much finger pointing do we have a right to point to those two countries when so much of what they are doing is being exported to the US and other industrialized countries. That should come back to the consumers and the countries that are consuming. Some of that is China and India themselves but a lot of that is the US and western Europe.

TL;DR We need better trade agreements that address environmental concerns.

Wow, “pollution controls”, that gets scary in a hurry. That’s some fence to straddle, liberalism and authoritarianism.

A lot of it is about control. You won't catch those in charge lowering their carbon footprint though. They will still fly private jets to these meetings that could be done virtually and save the carbon footprint but they won't do it. Stuff like that proves they are just about control because if it was saving the environment they would lower their carbon footprint, eat less meat, do most things virtually, etc but that is not the case.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

Why is it now called climate change, instead of global warming?

The other issue I ponder is, the United States left the Paris accords, our numbers have dropped, as far as our contributions, the main contributors are China and India. What are the realistic expectations that people have to hold other countries accountable?

Not every location is going to get warmer but most every location is going to go through some changes in climate. And the earth does go through cycles but evidence points to an anthropogenic nature for lots of what we are seeing now. As the climates changes the air circulation changes and that may cool some places. Most of what I have read is predicting hotter hots but also some colder colds.

Holding other countries accountable: Needs to be written into trade agreements as a start. We got rid of a lot of child labor in this country (some still exists). First we moved production to the US south where unions are weak and labor standards tend to be lacking and as not as enforced. Then we moved overseas and to third world countries. As consumers we are still propping up a lot of chattel slavery, but even more wage slavery. Lots of little kids make our shoes and garments we wear. We could have trade agreements that enforced better laws, but the power structure that makes those agreements pushes those concerns to the side. A lot of our modern life is on the backs of people with jobs that I would like to think no one in the US would want. I don't think we should get a pass if we are still buying the stuff made under terrible working conditions.

The same things has happened to the environment. Lots of heavy industry has moved over wages, but a lot was over environmental rules and such. We could make our trade agreements address environmental concerns but those that write those laws do not do so and we don't hold them accountable. (And to many of us don't give an F' about working conditions or the environment as long as it keeps more money in their own pocket.)



In both cases those two countries have a lot more people than us. I have yet to see any study that showed China or India using more resources than the US on a per capita basis. They do need to look at population controls in India in my view. The real question I have is how much finger pointing do we have a right to point to those two countries when so much of what they are doing is being exported to the US and other industrialized countries. That should come back to the consumers and the countries that are consuming. Some of that is China and India themselves but a lot of that is the US and western Europe.

TL;DR We need better trade agreements that address environmental concerns.

Wow, “pollution controls”, that gets scary in a hurry. That’s some fence to straddle, liberalism and authoritarianism.

Authoritarianism would require population controls. China did that with their one child policy. I am not suggesting that and no where in my statement did I suggest that. You are misreading, possibly intentionally or maybe I just was not clear enough. Hopefully this post clarifies.

I am not suggesting anything be mandatory but the reality is that India and China and a few other places could use some birth control. I don't begrudge anyone the pleasures of sex, but there are ways to have some fun but not add to the population count. Now if everyone is those countries are indeed happy with the population density and in many cases lack of drinking water and clean air and others things then more power to them, but I also think cutting back on the number of kids would not be a bad thing either, but voluntary of course.

That would take a shift in their cultural and possibly religious views, but I would not be upset if that were to happen. I don't think the earth has anywhere near the level of resources available for all 8 billion humans and then add more to live the way the US and western Europe (and other countries as well) live. Traditionally as those countries develop that will happen, without the need for mandatory forced policies, and hopefully pattern continues and China does not revert to what they used to do. Given Cina's population trends I don't see them going back to a one-child policy in my lifetime.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

It is not necessarily sea rise as part of problem is land mass eroding where people have built too close. Also the tilt of earth is changing and gravitational pull of moon causes sea level to appear higher.

I need to see some published papers on this claim.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

Can we bring this back to answering the question. What is the deal with what makes sea level increase happen?

[appstate24]

Clearly the only answer to the problem is more taxes and bigger government. That always fixes things right?

[Mjohn1988]

Why is it now called climate change, instead of global warming?

The other issue I ponder is, the United States left the Paris accords, our numbers have dropped, as far as our contributions, the main contributors are China and India. What are the realistic expectations that people have to hold other countries accountable?

Not every location is going to get warmer but most every location is going to go through some changes in climate. And the earth does go through cycles but evidence points to an anthropogenic nature for lots of what we are seeing now. As the climates changes the air circulation changes and that may cool some places. Most of what I have read is predicting hotter hots but also some colder colds.

Holding other countries accountable: Needs to be written into trade agreements as a start. We got rid of a lot of child labor in this country (some still exists). First we moved production to the US south where unions are weak and labor standards tend to be lacking and as not as enforced. Then we moved overseas and to third world countries. As consumers we are still propping up a lot of chattel slavery, but even more wage slavery. Lots of little kids make our shoes and garments we wear. We could have trade agreements that enforced better laws, but the power structure that makes those agreements pushes those concerns to the side. A lot of our modern life is on the backs of people with jobs that I would like to think no one in the US would want. I don't think we should get a pass if we are still buying the stuff made under terrible working conditions.

The same things has happened to the environment. Lots of heavy industry has moved over wages, but a lot was over environmental rules and such. We could make our trade agreements address environmental concerns but those that write those laws do not do so and we don't hold them accountable. (And to many of us don't give an F' about working conditions or the environment as long as it keeps more money in their own pocket.)



In both cases those two countries have a lot more people than us. I have yet to see any study that showed China or India using more resources than the US on a per capita basis. They do need to look at population controls in India in my view. The real question I have is how much finger pointing do we have a right to point to those two countries when so much of what they are doing is being exported to the US and other industrialized countries. That should come back to the consumers and the countries that are consuming. Some of that is China and India themselves but a lot of that is the US and western Europe.

TL;DR We need better trade agreements that address environmental concerns.

Wow, “pollution controls”, that gets scary in a hurry. That’s some fence to straddle, liberalism and authoritarianism.

Authoritarianism would require population controls. China did that with their one child policy. I am not suggesting that and no where in my statement did I suggest that. You are misreading, possibly intentionally or maybe I just was not clear enough. Hopefully this post clarifies.

I am not suggesting anything be mandatory but the reality is that India and China and a few other places could use some birth control. I don't begrudge anyone the pleasures of sex, but there are ways to have some fun but not add to the population count. Now if everyone is those countries are indeed happy with the population density and in many cases lack of drinking water and clean air and others things then more power to them, but I also think cutting back on the number of kids would not be a bad thing either, but voluntary of course.

That would take a shift in their cultural and possibly religious views, but I would not be upset if that were to happen. I don't think the earth has anywhere near the level of resources available for all 8 billion humans and then add more to live the way the US and western Europe (and other countries as well) live. Traditionally as those countries develop that will happen, without the need for mandatory forced policies, and hopefully pattern continues and China does not revert to what they used to do. Given Cina's population trends I don't see them going back to a one-child policy in my lifetime.

Sure, voluntary, right. But wait Bill Clinton just told us our birth rates are too low and that’s why we need mass migration. I get so confused, more people, less people, no people. Can we just go back to rising sea levels and science ?

[Saint3333]

I hate bye weeks.

[AppinVA]

Can I mute a topic? I don’t care to be “educated” on YC.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

Can I mute a topic? I don’t care to be “educated” on YC.

Just don't read it. I don't read every post and thread on YC. It can be done.

[Yosefus]

Can I mute a topic? I don’t care to be “educated” on YC.

Just don't read it. I don't read every post and thread on YC. It can be done.

Yeah it needs muted or deleted. I'll start a new topic about the ice age that we were expecting in the 70's. Next week's discussion will be on nuclear winter and causes of both

[Mjohn1988]

Actually this thread is a perfect example of why the topic of climate change and or global warming can’t be discussed at all. It took absolutely no time for us to go from “science” to politics. Fact is anybody with an ounce of integrity and or objectivity must admit that the whole issue has become tainted by politics and money. Many scientists and politicians have become so invested in the issue that even if it was proven to be completely wrong they would never admit it. What really sux is that the way it has become political will keep many of us from ever believing it’s true, even if it is true.

[AppinVA]

Can I mute a topic? I don’t care to be “educated” on YC.

Just don't read it. I don't read every post and thread on YC. It can be done.

Ah, YC Left. Always bringing their “knowledge” to the unwashed masses.

[AppfaninCAALand]

Question 1: What is the largest contributor to sea level ocean rise?

I'm going with a solar flair, volcanic eruption, metorite strike or whatever massive thing happened 12,000 years ago to cause the Younger Dryas at the end of the Pleistocene Epoch, with melting of the Northern Hemisphere ice caps, 3000 ft sea level rise, the origin of all the ancient flood myths, extinction of the megafauna, etc

[NattyBumppo'sRevenge]

The answer is obviously hurricane making machines owned by the government and cancer causing wind turbines.

[Yosefus]

Methane from Chupachabra farts!

[mike87]

Serious answer. Science is rarely settled, especially on a question as vague as what causes the ocean to rise. I don't know that it's settled that the ocean, worldwide, is rising. Scientific opinions are amplified or muted depending on political whims. Which is unfortunate. Human activity certainly impacts climate but to say we are warming or cooling the earth probably gives humans more credit than deserved and who is to say if the change is good or bad. Kind of like child labor. It's bad right. But the child that does exist and has no other way to survive depends on child labor. In his world it's necessary. I don't support child labor. I'm just saying before some authority eliminates it from the earth you better explain it to the child laborer who depends on it. Same way that before you eliminate whatever it is you want gone, because it's warming the climate, study the consequences of your action. Univeral morals would benefit us all. But those authoritarians who want to ban this and that also don't favor Christianity, so morality is unlikely as well.

I hate bye weeks.

[ASUTodd]

Am I the only one amazed that Newapp hasn't commented on this yet?

[appstate24]

Am I the only one amazed that Newapp hasn't commented on this yet?

Wait for the thread to die, then 8 months later he will revive it for no reason