Is The World Getting Better Or Worse?

If those solutions work and don't create worse problems great. That's all I'm asking.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Since I asked AZ about possible chemical controls on Methane, I looked it up and found there is something called
"The Oxygen Activation Chemistry of Methane ..." The title sounds promising to me but of course I have no idea what it's all about.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's all I was saying, Trees and other plants would remove some of the CO2 and replenish some of the O2. You say it's not enough. OK, it's not enough. But it's something, and the more plants the better. No plants will get us nothing.Besides, greenery is lovely, we can always use lots more of it. It breaks down and makes organic food for more plants, and trees could bring back the birds. If we get rid of the windmills and the solar panels that kill them and do something to keep the plate glass window and the housecats from killing them. Educating about the problems, getting people working on them, producing inventions and methods.And nothing is stopping anyone from proposing or working on other kinds of solutions to the carbon emissions as well.But scientists don't know everything and motivating the average person is probably not their forte. I think that focusing so emphatically on the global problems of climate change and the Extinction is counterproductive. Most people can't follow the science, but there are plenty of consequences related to these larger problems that we CAN get across to people along with proposals for practical solutions. People love to cooperate on good projects, we don't need to hammer on the heavier kinds of science. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You're already said you have no hope for anything to change so I assume you have no hope for these proposals either. I'm looking for something we could make work. Even your proposals could work if those who believe in them put in the necessary commitment to persuade people or whatever else it takes. Without the browbeating and the scientific rankpulling and the disdain.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh of course it's all Trump's fault. So let's all lie down and die.

I'm trying to address more than one issue that has come up. The bird population is a different problem. I'm assuming we'd like to bring them back, and any other species that are depopulating, whatever we do about the other problems.

I don't want to focus on climate change per se, I want to identify problems we can recognize that may or may not be related to climate change, and on a level the average person might be able to care about. Too much carbon dioxide for instance. The depopulation or extinction of various species for instance.I was just watching a documentary on the Sixth or Holocene Extinction and of course it gives me an epistemological headache as it were, because of my belief in the Biblical view of history. I can certainly accept that people are causing extinctions but I can do without the historical framework about the supposed previous extinction events that just makes me roll my eyes so hard they threaten to pop out of my head.We don't need to care what Trump or anyone thinks of climate change, but surely we can understand if there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere, or the fact that there is an enormous decrease in the bird population or any other population. Or that the ice caps are smaller than they used to be, and so on and so forth. (My own view is that we are MOSTLY seeing the recession of the ONE ice age that was caused by the Flood but my opinion isn't relevant either as i'm thinking about all this. Again I think the average person needs to focus on separate events and given some role to play on our everyday level, whatever that role might be because that's the level we'll get motivated on. Saving the whole planet is a little beyond our mental range.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I disagree. We can do a lot without any input from government.

Conspiracy theories about entities such as "Big Carbon" characterized as having no concern at all for the future of the planet, aren't persuasive to me. You can't just point to "Science" to justify such accusations since there are too many other possible ways of thinking about all the effects you are talking about. I know you'll just say this is the science and the other science isn't science and it really is just unconscionable Big Carbon that is killing the Earth, but that can only leave me mystified and without any basis for action.While there are plenty of environmental problems that should be addressed, the overarching Climate Change analysis just sounds like hysteria and the usual blame game. That's why I was hoping to stay away from the climate change bogey. I don't know what to believe about it and I'm aware that there are different scientific assessments of it, none of which I'm in a position to judge.I think we need a lessening of the hysteria though. I really don't see that predictions of a sooncoming dire future do us any good. All they do is upset teenagers, though they could also do worse and lead to the imposition of economically and socially crippling policies when there really is no need, all because the analysis may be seriously flawed. I believe THIS is a serious concern and that the conspiracy theory may be very wrong.Since I'm amazed I've lived as long as I have I'm not expecting to be around in the dozen or so years the Hysteria gives us before the world goes Poof, but who knows, I may be, and I'm not expecting it to go Poof due to global warming due to greenhouse gases. What I think is unconscionable is scaring the next generation when we really can't know enough about the causes of any given natural phenomenon to predict the future with such certainty.I'd rather continue to focus on the level of saving the bird population qwhich is a real problem and within the grasp of ordinary people.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

A fine defense of the Hysteria plus the usual personal attack. You Lefties MUST have somebody to blame, right?. You are very good at saying nothing and blaming me for your illusions.And I don't hate science at all, what I hate is ambiguous scientific analyses that claim to understand gigantic complex phenomena with so many variables it makes the claim arrogantly ridiculous. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It keeps bothering me that according to the climate change view enormously drastic solutions are the only possible solutions, utterly destroying our hard-won way of life, and yet we are accused of merely being selfish, greedy, stupid and so on if we can't grasp all the reasoning that supports destroying our lives. There is a mystifying total lack of sympathy for what you want to impose on us based on a science that we are not in a position to appreciate. Where is the serious and respectful consideration of our natural and understandable reaction to the horrific deprivations you are asking of us based only on an abstract science? Where is the sympathy, the respect, the concern for poor humanity on THIS side of the issue? Why are we called names for our perfectly natural skepticism and doubt? How is it those on your side of this aren't just as horrified at what is asked of all of us? There is a weird attitude of unreality in how all of this is being talked about.Why is there this talk by the Democrats of forcing a massive deprivation on us of everything we depend upon without any appreciation of our perfectly natural human reactions and human needs? There is a huge gap here. It makes this supposed reality sound even more fantastic. We're told the world is going to burn up unless we accept such extreme strictures on our ordinary life we might rightly prefer to die in such a holocaust.At the very least, given the serious nature of the problem why isn't there a huge ongoing effort to explain over and over again why we should cut back on our familiar lifestyle along the lines recommended? Where are the proposals for how to do it on a human scale in phases perhaps? But no, we get a list of things that are necessary and no respect for how hard that would be on us and no effort to try to help us ease into it. None of this makes sense if we really are facing so serious a problem.There is really a level of mystification here I can't fathom. If such a threat is real why the lack of serious, really serious, attempts to prepare for it and prepare people for it? Instead we're threatened with a social holocaust that sounds like it can't be any less horrible than the natural events it supposedly would protect us from."Big Carbon" makes its money by serving our accustomed needs. It's not some monolithic evil entity, it keeps the whole world functioning at a level of prosperity and comfort it took centuries to achieve, and just as we've achieved it now we hear we are going to have to give it up and go back to living like the wild tribes we evolved from. There is something truly mystifying about this whole mental set, and all the more suspicious when we recognize its political roots in the Left.But this never seems to get addressed. It's always just this huge threat of natural destruction that brings a teenager to tears over her supposedly stolen future, the shaming of everyone who dares to doubt the scenario, and the threat of political tyranny by the Left to take away essentially our whole lives on what sounds to some of us like nothing but hysteria or possibly even a political excuse.One thing you suggest we'll have to do is move to electricity, but electricity is powered by fossil fuels and the more we become dependent on electricity the more fossil fuel it's going to require. I haven't seen this addressed.And the wind and solar farms kill birds and the more such farms we have the fewer and fewer birds we're going to have. (It also occurs to me that if the solar farms radiate so much heat they instanteously fry to a crisp any birds passing overhead, they must also be putting an enormous amount of heat into our atmosphere that we certainly don't need if we're talking about global warming.) I don't see that addressed either. Nevertheless these alternative forms of energy continue to be touted as better than fossil fuels for the sake of the environment. Mystification.And why is it always the US that is targeted when other nations are far worse offenders than we are? We've gone farther than any of them toward minimizing the worst environmental effects, not that more is not needed but it's hard to avoid noticing the unfair fingerpointing.Forgive me but there is something fishy about all this. If the problem is really real, there is something drastically wrong with how it is being approached, talked about, presented to us etc etc etc.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thank you, that's the kind of thing I was hoping could be done, although I don't know about the feasibility of all the particulars. I particularly appreciate the water reserve and the hydroponic agriculture suggestions. What I've found out about the dangers of wind and solar farms to birds and probably even to increasing the temperature of the atmosphere leads me to reject that part of the list. But thanks, that's definitely in the right direction. We can't just suddenly give up everything that's dependent on fossil fuels, change has to be gradual-- or should be if we want to avoid violent reactions.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What do we do about it? Maybe a better job of persuading people for starters? I mean cut out the arrogant hysterical rhetoric and the accusations of greed, selfishness and stupidity, understand the reasonableness of the resistance people have to such ideas. Stop accusing big business of evil motives when they are concerned basically with producing what society has needed to function. They will naturally change their focus in response to changes in lifestyle. Think up ways to bring about the necessary changes that are enticing rather than tyrannical? LURE people away from the coasts? LURE people to the northern regions? (Tell ringo to make room for us on his Frozen Wasteland. With an enterprising spirit he and his family and friends could even turn a profit from us.) Increase hydroponic agriculture (I like that one from jar's list). Think in terms of solutions that can have capitalistic benefits. Keep in mind the needs of all the rest of the living creatures. Find reasonable ways of minimizing predators and increasing birds and fish and etc.Tell the Democrats who threaten to deprive us of everything all at once (although not themselves I'm sure) to shut up and get to work accomplishing something. If you want to eliminate 20% of fossil fuel production/use come up with enticing -- feasible and not prohibitively expensive -- alternatives instead of just legislating the death of the industry.Just a few thoughts. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Fear is not an option. And wind and solar are going to cause more problems than they solve.

We should be afraid you say, it may be too late you say. But here is the weird unreality I was talking about. Even all you who are supposedly complete believers in this coming catastrophe don't ACT LIKE you believe it. AZ chides us for being concerned about our cold chardonnay but I bet he is too. He's worried about what his grandchildren are going to be facing but is he doing anything about it or does it not matter they're going to be dead anyway or what? I'm not in a position to do much, no money, physical problems, but those who don't have such problems should have some options and yet where is the massive change in lifestyle we should expect of them?Taq says there are millions of people who believe in this coming catastrophe but my guess is that most of them are acting like they don't believe it either, just going on with life as usual, getting their Starbucks fix or hanging out at the bar, buying a new car, fixing up their house that isn't designed to handle intense weather, taking a cruise, taking a vacation, or whatever.If you're all going to criticize those who aren't totally on board with the climate change idea, you might get farther with us if you were acting like it mattered to YOU. Instead you're all on threads about all kinds of other things as if life is going to go on forever and this topic gets brought up as just another little side issue.Cognitive dissonance I'd call it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.