is global warming actually bad for the planet, or just us?

[Lower Nubia]

To the Nuclear war head “salesman” and the firefighter. It maintains business.

I believe most firefighters would prefer it if there weren’t fires, but hey.

Depends on the society and the time.

[Highever]

I believe most firefighters would prefer it if there weren’t fires, but hey.

Depends on the society and the time.

I think we can safely assume modern fore departments are a bit past the days of the Five Points and the Toronto Circus Riot.

[Vetalia]

Yikes, Grapasia was already ghosted...wonder what they did.

But the problem isn't global warming, it's how fast said warming is happening. The ecosystem can adapt to more gradual changes without difficulty but the problem is we view it on a human timescale...100 years for us is a long time, but on the scale of the evolutionary mechanisms that allow organisms to adapt to climate change it's a fraction of a second at best.

[Chan Island]

Yikes, Grapasia was already ghosted...wonder what they did.

But the problem isn't global warming, it's how fast said warming is happening. The ecosystem can adapt to more gradual changes without difficulty but the problem is we view it on a human timescale...100 years for us is a long time, but on the scale of the evolutionary mechanisms that allow organisms to adapt to climate change it's a fraction of a second at best.

They were having fun in that toxic hot mess that is that incel thread.

Anyway, that's a good point. And we are seeing how those rapid changes are killing flora and fauna all over the place too. There has been no way for them to adapt in such a short time.

[Auristania]

Global Warming is bad for MOST Humans, Mammals and Birds. Insects, Slime and Bacteria will feast on the plentiful corpses and flourish.

Planet's POV: no life at all versus Insects etc versus People etc? I doubt that she cares.

[Lower Nubia]

Depends on the society and the time.

I think we can safely assume modern fore departments are a bit past the days of the Five Points and the Toronto Circus Riot.

Of course.

[US-SSR]

A lot of people into climate change will tell you about the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum as an argument for why climate change is bad. However, this seems to be a pretty anthropocentric argument - Although a lot of damage was done, especially to the oceans, in the long run it's clear that very quickly heating up the Earth without completely cooking it actually forces life to innovate instead of kills it. The Eocene was basically world forest time anyway, there were redwoods and alligators in the arctic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene ... ximum#Life

The PETM is accompanied by a mass extinction of 35-50% of benthic foraminifera (especially in deeper waters) over the course of ~1,000 years – the group suffering more than during the dinosaur-slaying K-T extinction (e.g.,[37][38][39]). Contrarily, planktonic foraminifera diversified, and dinoflagellates bloomed. Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated extensively around this time.

It seems to me that global warming isn't actually destroying anything per se, just shaking it up, and that the results of the shaking up will appear only long after a human lifetime has commenced. We only care because WE (humans) exist in the now. How, therefore, are all arguments against global warming not anthropocentric butthurt? It is only humans that sentimentally value the less than 1% of species that are still around and haven't gone extinct. It is only humans that rely on fisheries and climate belts to sustain such a hugely over carrying capacity population. It is only humans and certain other organisms that would have gone extinct anyway that stand to suffer from extreme heat in the tropics. Isn't opposition to climate change completely anthropocentric? Shouldn't activists for the prevention of climate change embrace this and point out the negative effects (like mass starvation) it'll have on humans instead of looking like alarmist tree-huggers? Is this good praxis? Some food for thought.

The universe doesn't care whether Earth is inhabited by humans, intelligent cockroaches, stupid dinosaurs, hordes of trilobites...or at all. Global warming, meteorite strike, nearby supernova, it's all the same. My favorite is the Big Rip.

[Tornado Queendom]

A lot of people into climate change will tell you about the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum as an argument for why climate change is bad. However, this seems to be a pretty anthropocentric argument - Although a lot of damage was done, especially to the oceans, in the long run it's clear that very quickly heating up the Earth without completely cooking it actually forces life to innovate instead of kills it. The Eocene was basically world forest time anyway, there were redwoods and alligators in the arctic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene ... ximum#Life

The PETM is accompanied by a mass extinction of 35-50% of benthic foraminifera (especially in deeper waters) over the course of ~1,000 years – the group suffering more than during the dinosaur-slaying K-T extinction (e.g.,[37][38][39]). Contrarily, planktonic foraminifera diversified, and dinoflagellates bloomed. Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated extensively around this time.

It seems to me that global warming isn't actually destroying anything per se, just shaking it up, and that the results of the shaking up will appear only long after a human lifetime has commenced. We only care because WE (humans) exist in the now. How, therefore, are all arguments against global warming not anthropocentric butthurt? It is only humans that sentimentally value the less than 1% of species that are still around and haven't gone extinct. It is only humans that rely on fisheries and climate belts to sustain such a hugely over carrying capacity population. It is only humans and certain other organisms that would have gone extinct anyway that stand to suffer from extreme heat in the tropics. Isn't opposition to climate change completely anthropocentric? Shouldn't activists for the prevention of climate change embrace this and point out the negative effects (like mass starvation) it'll have on humans instead of looking like alarmist tree-huggers? Is this good praxis? Some food for thought.

Greenpeace: "It's not communism, it's surprise environmental protection."

That's environmentalism in a nutshell

[Vetalia]

They were having fun in that toxic hot mess that is that incel thread.

Anyway, that's a good point. And we are seeing how those rapid changes are killing flora and fauna all over the place too. There has been no way for them to adapt in such a short time.

And that's the problem, we're not talking changes that happen over even a few hundred years like, say, the Medieval Warm Period, this is happening in less than a human lifetime. The climate and corresponding weather where I live is measurably different than it was 20 years ago...it never really rains or snows normally here anymore, the steady kind that you can handle and even enjoy. Instead, it's torrential rains and truly biting cold with blizzards as the polar vortex breaks out and heads south (the polar vortex is another term I never heard regarding our weather before 2014).

[Highever]

A lot of people into climate change will tell you about the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum as an argument for why climate change is bad. However, this seems to be a pretty anthropocentric argument - Although a lot of damage was done, especially to the oceans, in the long run it's clear that very quickly heating up the Earth without completely cooking it actually forces life to innovate instead of kills it. The Eocene was basically world forest time anyway, there were redwoods and alligators in the arctic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene ... ximum#Life



It seems to me that global warming isn't actually destroying anything per se, just shaking it up, and that the results of the shaking up will appear only long after a human lifetime has commenced. We only care because WE (humans) exist in the now. How, therefore, are all arguments against global warming not anthropocentric butthurt? It is only humans that sentimentally value the less than 1% of species that are still around and haven't gone extinct. It is only humans that rely on fisheries and climate belts to sustain such a hugely over carrying capacity population. It is only humans and certain other organisms that would have gone extinct anyway that stand to suffer from extreme heat in the tropics. Isn't opposition to climate change completely anthropocentric? Shouldn't activists for the prevention of climate change embrace this and point out the negative effects (like mass starvation) it'll have on humans instead of looking like alarmist tree-huggers? Is this good praxis? Some food for thought.

Greenpeace: "It's not communism, it's surprise environmental protection."

That's environmentalism in a nutshell

If the nutshell was completely artificial, misshapen, warped and not at all correct.

[Tornado Queendom]

Greenpeace: "It's not communism, it's surprise environmental protection."

That's environmentalism in a nutshell

If the nutshell was completely artificial, misshapen, warped and not at all correct.

[sarcasm]Oh boy, am I getting a sense of Pride and Accomplisment from that response of yours.[/sarcam]

Seriously though, I use memes for the purpose of my points. Next thing you know, you will tell me to "go back to 4chan".

[Vetalia]

Greenpeace: "It's not communism, it's surprise environmental protection."

That's environmentalism in a nutshell

Actually, Communist-party run states have the most horrifically bad environmental records of any nation on the planet.

[Chan Island]

They were having fun in that toxic hot mess that is that incel thread.

Anyway, that's a good point. And we are seeing how those rapid changes are killing flora and fauna all over the place too. There has been no way for them to adapt in such a short time.

And that's the problem, we're not talking changes that happen over even a few hundred years like, say, the Medieval Warm Period, this is happening in less than a human lifetime. The climate and corresponding weather where I live is measurably different than it was 20 years ago...it never really rains or snows normally here anymore, the steady kind that you can handle and even enjoy. Instead, it's torrential rains and truly biting cold with blizzards as the polar vortex breaks out and heads south (the polar vortex is another term I never heard regarding our weather before 2014).

It's been years since it's snowed back in Luxembourg, and yet it snowed every year reliably while I was a kid down there. Very sad and disturbing trend.

[Tornado Queendom]

Greenpeace: "It's not communism, it's surprise environmental protection."

That's environmentalism in a nutshell

Actually, communist-party run states have the most horrifically bad environmental records of any nation on the planet.

I know, but environmentalism basically wants an "equal-friendly" version of Communism. That's why I made that quote

[Vetalia]

It's been years since it's snowed back in Luxembourg, and yet it snowed every year reliably while I was a kid down there. Very sad and disturbing trend.

For us here in the USA along the Great Lakes in Ohio, we've had more and more bitter, brutal cold combined with heavy blizzards and winds during the winter; this winter, it was so cold I was almost locked out of my apartment because of the sheer cold brought south due to the polar vortex that froze my lock and door jamb into place. I sincerely hope and pray the homeless around here found shelter because that would kill anyone outside after too long.

This year, we've had so much rain we're 6 inches (15.24 cm) above average to date and all of the plants in my garden are struggling horribly. In many parts of the American Midwest crop failures are the norm due to so much rain.

[Vetalia]

I know, but environmentalism basically wants an "equal-friendly" version of Communism. That's why I made that quote

Communism is an "equal-friendly" movement combined with the most insanely, fanatical, even religiously fanatical version of anthropocentric ideology ever imagined on this planet.

Environmentalism may go to the opposite extreme and place mankind at the expense of nature but there is no overlap between the two.

[Highever]

If the nutshell was completely artificial, misshapen, warped and not at all correct.

[sarcasm]Oh boy, am I getting a sense of Pride and Accomplisment from that response of yours.[/sarcam]

Seriously though, I use memes for the purpose of my points. Next thing you know, you will tell me to "go back to 4chan".

I dont care how you present the points but when you're point is that environmentalism is the same as communism it is blatantly false.

[Former Citizens of the Nimbus System]

Something that I haven't seen mentioned yet: positive feedback loops. As the world's ice melts, its albedo (the amount of energy from the Sun reflected back out into space) decreases and the methane currently held in permafrost and in Arctic seas is released more quickly. The result is that global warming accelerates; if we were to halt all man-made emissions tomorrow, the Earth would continue to warm (certainly more slowly than doing as we are now but it would continue). I don't know enough about climate science to say whether the temperature would stabilise over time or if the cycle would get more and more powerful but scientists do speak of a 'tipping point' for runaway warming that we may or may not have already crossed. If so, global warming is definitely bad for the planet, or, at least, its ecosystems, since, by the very nature of positive feedback, warming would at some point theoretically reach a pace that evolution is simply unable to keep up.

I know, but environmentalism basically wants an "equal-friendly" version of Communism. That's why I made that quote

Communism is an "equal-friendly" movement combined with the most insanely, fanatical, even religiously fanatical version of anthropocentric ideology ever imagined on this planet.

I see that someone has been reading Bonhoeffer!

[Vetalia]

I see that someone has been reading Bonhoeffer!

No, this is solely devised from my Catholic faith, but from what I read of him he is a truly godly man, far more than myself.

Just look at Chernobyl, the Aral Sea, Magnitogorsk, Norilsk...

[Bombadil]

There's quite a good initiative here - https://showyourstripes.info - where you can select your country and see the heat shift over the past 150 years. Add in desertification and pollution and one can well imagine a lifeless planet, which is technically not good even for an unfeeling planet.

[Cekoviu]

There's quite a good initiative here - https://showyourstripes.info - where you can select your country and see the heat shift over the past 150 years. Add in desertification and pollution and one can well imagine a lifeless planet, which is technically not good even for an unfeeling planet.

I mean, most of the planets in our solar system - and probably the galaxy - are lifeless and they seem to be doing relatively well for themselves. Maybe it's time we take a page from their book.

[Bombadil]

There's quite a good initiative here - https://showyourstripes.info - where you can select your country and see the heat shift over the past 150 years. Add in desertification and pollution and one can well imagine a lifeless planet, which is technically not good even for an unfeeling planet.

I mean, most of the planets in our solar system - and probably the galaxy - are lifeless and they seem to be doing relatively well for themselves. Maybe it's time we take a page from their book.

There's also the possibility that Earth is the only planet in the universe to have sentient life, and I think it would be a shame if that ended is self-destruction.

In relation to another thread I was pondering on the idea of millennia ahead where Earth is known as the Genesis planet and within our timeframe the first man had left earth's confines. A small step for man, a giant leap for mankind.

It would be a hallowed planet.

I'd rather that future than one where aliens come across a dead planet and pity the senseless lifeforms that destroyed it.

[Cekoviu]

I mean, most of the planets in our solar system - and probably the galaxy - are lifeless and they seem to be doing relatively well for themselves. Maybe it's time we take a page from their book.

There's also the possibility that Earth is the only planet in the universe to have sentient life, and I think it would be a shame if that ended is self-destruction.

In relation to another thread I was pondering on the idea of millennia ahead where Earth is known as the Genesis planet and within our timeframe the first man had left earth's confines. A small step for man, a giant leap for mankind.

It would be a hallowed planet.

I'd rather that future than one where aliens come across a dead planet and pity the senseless lifeforms that destroyed it.

I bet said aliens probably destroyed their own planet and that's why they were exploring space to begin with. Happened once with us.

[Bluelight-R006]

No — some species will suffer for a while, before they likely adapt to the rising temperature. If they can’t adapt, then they may become extinct over a period of time. It doesn’t hurt just us, it hurts them too.

[WayNeacTia]

We’re certainly big contributors to it.

While we may contribute, I don't believe it is as much as people believe we do. It is a proven fact that the Earth goes through periods of heating and cooling, as our orbit nutates around the barycentre of the solar system. We are in fact about to start a cooling trend if the models hold true, which will glaciate most of the Northern Hemisphere just like the last ice age from 17000 years ago. Nature is pretty good at fixing things on her own.