The Entrepreneur Forum | Financial Freedom | Starting a Business | Motivation | Money | Success

Welcome to the only entrepreneur forum dedicated to building life-changing wealth.

Build a Fastlane business. Earn real financial freedom. Join free.

Join over 80,000 entrepreneurs who have rejected the paradigm of mediocrity and said "NO!" to underpaid jobs, ascetic frugality, and suffocating savings rituals— learn how to build a Fastlane business that pays both freedom and lifestyle affluence.

Free registration at the forum removes this block.

Should we combat climate change?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nick M.

Bronze Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
230%
Jul 13, 2018
175
403
I just saw @alexkuzmov 's thread also on climate change and it got me thinking about a question I've never seen discussed (and worthy of it's own thread):

If we successfully combat climate change, what will happen?

There's been debate (and research) about whether climate change exists, if it's manmade, what will happen if we don't fix it, etc. But I've never seen any discussion about what happens if we do combat climate change.

Instead, most people (if they believe climate change exists and is bad) will then start jumping into finding solutions. Why? Because everyone only looks at the cons of not combating climate change. A well thought-out decision needs to look at the pros and cons of both sides.

The effects of fixing climate change may seem obvious; things will go back to how they were. Except they can't.

Because there's already been lots of change. We are on the route to the fastest mass extinction of all time. Normally, the period for a mass extinction is 1 million years. As of now, we're on track to reach mass extinction status in 300 years. So it's clear the world is changing. Or more to the point, it already has changed. And species can't really become "unextinct".

The world is already out of old equilibrium and many changes are irreversible.
  • So what will happen if we successfully fix climate change?
  • Is that the kind of world we want to live in?
  • Or should we simply adapt?
To be clear: this thread is not about stopping pollution or any other destructive behavior. It's about trying to reverse the effects humans have already done (like carbon dioxide scrubbing).
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

AgainstAllOdds

Legendary Contributor
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
647%
Dec 26, 2014
2,274
14,724
32
Chicago, IL
screenhunter_160-nov-30-06-13.jpg


"Climate change" was originally called "global cooling". But the Earth stopped cooling down, so they called it "global warming".

But then it kind of stayed the same, so they rebranded it "Climate Change".

My opinion: "climate change" is an extremely young field of science, filled with biased theories that are based on huge extrapolations and logical jumps. The scientists that make most claims have a track record of continuously being wrong, and unnecessarily scaring people.

Until the science becomes more precise, and the predictions actually happen, then I'll choose to ignore "climate change" and the whole "end of the world" talk all together.

To answer your question directly, no, I don't think we should do anything about climate change. The Earth warming up is not necessarily bad. It'd be a lot worse if it was headed the opposite direction and we were all headed for an Ice Age.
 

Aurelius

Contributor
Read Fastlane!
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
185%
Oct 1, 2019
40
74
screenhunter_160-nov-30-06-13.jpg


"Climate change" was originally called "global cooling". But the Earth stopped cooling down, so they called it "global warming".

But then it kind of stayed the same, so they rebranded it "Climate Change".

My opinion: "climate change" is an extremely young field of science, filled with biased theories that are based on huge extrapolations and logical jumps. The scientists that make most claims have a track record of continuously being wrong, and unnecessarily scaring people.

Until the science becomes more precise, and the predictions actually happen, then I'll choose to ignore "climate change" and the whole "end of the world" talk all together.

To answer your question directly, no, I don't think we should do anything about climate change. The Earth warming up is not necessarily bad. It'd be a lot worse if it was headed the opposite direction and we were all headed for an Ice Age.

I don’t have a strong opinion about this but from what I heard is that the Earth is heating TOO fast than its normal cycle. The biodiversity doesn’t have the time to adapt to this change that occurs at an exponential speed.
 

Ernman

Gold Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Rat-Race Escape!
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
224%
Feb 8, 2019
969
2,168
64
Florida, USA
A very interesting discussion thread indeed. First my background and philosophy. I actually have some education that is relevant to this issue - masters degrees in oceanography and meteorology. I'm not a degreed "climatologist" but I have better than passing understanding of the science.

I believe we humans must find balance in our use of our ecosystem. I'm no far left environmentalist that protests against global warming. But I'm also not a hard over capitalist who believes we can just abuse our planet forever. I believe in balance. That makes my position a very difficult one. Because balance is always hard to achieve. Hard line positions are so much easier to defend.

First things first - the climate is always changing. It's been changing since this rock came into existence and will keep changing long after humans have had our time and are gone.

Have humans contributed to climate change? Yes, that is undeniable. Sorry, but the science is clear. Those who deny it do so out of ignorance or political motivation. But please note that I say we have contributed. There are many contributions to climate change such as volcanic eruptions that have caused mini-ice ages, meteor strikes, etc. In their time, the dinosaurs contributed as well - they turned a lot of plants into methane producing piles of...

Can/should humans work to reverse climate change? We can't change what is always in motion. But, we can use our intelligence to lesson the negative consequences of our existence on the planet. I argue that it is in the long term best interest of our species to reduce, reuse, recycle and find ways to pollute less.

But there is our biggest challenge. Humans tend to be selfish and short-term thinkers. We want what we want and we want it now. For many, long term thinking is measured in months to years. A few think in decades. How many honestly consider our impacts in centuries? For instance, nuclear power is a short term clean energy source with century long consequences.

So my very long response to this question is not so much about reversing climate change as it is about preserving our planet for our human existence for as long as possible.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

Abrodos

Bronze Contributor
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
139%
Sep 25, 2019
193
268
34
Barcelona, Spain
I completely agree ith @Ernman .

Humanity as a species is no different from any other organism or system (even a business, or the whole capitalist system, even a communist system as well). It takes energy from the environment and consumes it in order to multiply itself so it can take more energy. The more energy there is (or the organism is able to extract from the environment) the more it can multiply and advance, so it can get more and more efficient in this energy extraction (resource consumption).
If there's no energy left, the organism (or part of it) reduces its population until the equilibrium is reached again. That's pure entropy and thermodynamics.

So I believe the only viable way to survive as a species and as a civilization is through use of solar energy and other renewables. Basically because fossil fuels are finite, nuclear energy is finite as well at the moment, and the sun's energy is way more than we can consume now as a civilization.

But we have something that most other organisms don't have: knowledge of our actions, moral values, collective sense of identity, and the ability to predict the outcomes of our actions and thing logically.

That allows us to reach that renewables-only point in a more progressive way.
It's like a car going straight to a wall at 80mph: we know for sure the car is going to stop at the wall, that's pure physics. You can push the brake before hitting it, or not.

So, what happens if we don't push the brake?

I don't think we'll go extinct. Humanity has survived pretty wild stuff like bubonic plague, ice ages and population bottlenecks. Things change and adapt. The music industry survived piracy by adapting, and the game-changing event (P2P networks) was much more sudden and less forecast.
So I believe we will indeed leave a lot behind, and end up with a far more barren world. Many ecosystems will disappear, and many people in the less developed countries will die as well.
We're watching the first steps of this in Europe with the Mediterranean refugee crisis. Hundreds of people are coming from Africa to drown in the coasts of Italy every day, there's just a small rescue boat trying to help all the migrants, and no government is doing anything. People share the stuff on FB but no one actually moves their a$$.
So probably the same will happen as more and more people suffer similar fates. Governments will adopt this defensive , wall-erecting attitude to protect their privileged position in the world.
Probably everyone in the first world countries will be "safe" from natural disasters.
And probably we'll be able to survive as well if foreign food stops coming to the supermarkets. Our grandparents survived with little food during the Civil War in Spain. There's also insect farming which hasn't been explored.
Probably first-world population will decrease because, as time passes, more and more people will decide not to have children. It will be something gradual, as depopulation of rural areas is.
The fact that there are no sudden catastrophic events doesn't mean that nothing is happening, as you stated, there's a mass extinction already going on.

That's why climate change denying is like denying diabetes because "hey, today I ate a sweet and I'm still feeling well", or denying chemo because you don't feel anything during the first stages of a cancer.
 
Last edited:

Azure

Perpetual Motion
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
189%
Mar 12, 2016
439
829
32
We are not in a mass extinction event.

Not even remotely close. Over the last 400 years less than 500 species have went extinct out of over 100,000 documented species. Out of those few hundred, all but a handful were genetically isolated island dwelling animals.

Significant to their small local habitat, sure, but in the grand scheme of things very uneventful.

Documented species eextinctions peaked in the mid 1800s and have been on a steady downward trend since.

The "background rate" they use to compare is based off a fundamentally flawed metric called "species area relationship", which concludes a total loss of biodiversity with land use conversion. Anyone who has ever had a pet killed by a coyote, or their garbage torn up by skunks can validate the unreliability of such a calculation.
 

AgainstAllOdds

Legendary Contributor
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
647%
Dec 26, 2014
2,274
14,724
32
Chicago, IL
I've survived 5 "end of the world's" in my 27-year lifetime. Every few years there's another one.

Climate change might be a thing, but it's not something that I'll be investing much mental energy into. For me, that energy is better spent on making money and giving it to the right charitable causes that I know make the world a better place.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

Michael Burgess

Bronze Contributor
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
295%
Sep 30, 2014
155
457
29
Ontario, Canada
Climate change can definitely feel esoteric or impossible to "solve" as an individual, but here's some ideas I personally feel pretty strongly about:

- Clean rivers and oceans are a good thing
- We should try to preserve as much biological diversity as possible
- Pollution (nuclear, sewage, garbage, excess light, etc) sucks
- Renewable energies are preferable to fossil fuels, because of pollution... and the fact we'll eventually run out of oil
- Topsoil is important for healthy plants, animals, and people
- Creating systems to support 8+ billion people with a high quality of life makes sense

Call me a hippie, but even if we don't worry about "climate change", the principles above seem pretty reasonable to me.
 

lowtek

Legendary Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
332%
Oct 3, 2015
2,164
7,186
42
Phoenix, AZ
The idea that the planet, and indeed the whole ecosystem, has survived multiple die off events, at least one of which was from a couple mile wide asteroid slamming into us at tens of thousands of miles per hour, which basically set the entire planet on fire... but we'll be undone by cow farts and gas guzzlers... is absurd to me.

This is obviously a play by the powers that should not be to siphon off even more wealth, backed up by scientists who are locked into protecting their own self interest (no grant money if you're a "climate denier").

EVEN IF the claims are correct, the proposed solutions a) won't avert disaster and b) will only result in people dying right now. We know that they won't avert disaster because government has no interest in solving the problem. We know this for an absolute fact. If the problem were solved, then thousands of bureaucrats, who otherwise have no useful skills to offer, would be out of a cushy job with a guaranteed pension. Solving problems has never, and will never be, in the interest of government.

The proposed solutions are inevitably a wealth transfer, in the form of more taxation of wealthy western nations. This will result in higher energy prices, higher food prices, and higher prices overall. This taxes an otherwise already strained middle and lower class, many of whom have to choose between heating and cooling, food, shelter, and transportation. Given that people, often elderly, die in heat waves or blizzards, even with cheap energy, we know that deaths due to weather extremes will only go up in the short term. But hey, they're old so f&*( 'em right?
 

Everyman

Get To The Choppa!
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
178%
Dec 31, 2015
328
584
Ireland
My opinion: "climate change" is an extremely young field of science, filled with biased theories that are based on huge extrapolations and logical jumps. The scientists that make most claims have a track record of continuously being wrong, and unnecessarily scaring people.

Another 'ism' to earn money and control people. Countries that are developed, in theory*, can afford to invest in more environmental friendly energy sources (yeah solar energy is as friendly as ... take a look how much it costs to produce cells, same with windmills...). Poorer countries cannot.

*in theory because if someone spends more on 'ecology' he spends less on having more children and this directly leads to extinction now. Climate change may go this or that way and we don't even know what causes it directly (the sun activity etc...). But spending resources on stupid ideas will directly lead to depopulation now.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

Dan_Cardone

Losers make excuses. Winners find solutions.
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
360%
Jul 23, 2019
331
1,192
How I see it...

Global warming, real or not, is largely out of my control. I cant prevent companies all over the world from polluting and harming the environment. I cant force my next door neighbor to stop driving his Hummer.

What I can do is grow my company and my money so that both myself and my family will always have the resources to overcome any major obstacles that would prevent us from living a decent life. That is in my control.

The tides rise and make the coast uninhabitable? I better have the financial resources to move us elsehwere. The water becomes polluted? Good thing I spent time growing my money so I can afford to get clean water.

You get the point.
 

StrikingViper69

Shredding scales and making sales
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
167%
Dec 3, 2018
1,451
2,419
UK
The idea that the planet, and indeed the whole ecosystem, has survived multiple die off events, at least one of which was from a couple mile wide asteroid slamming into us at tens of thousands of miles per hour, which basically set the entire planet on fire... but we'll be undone by cow farts and gas guzzlers... is absurd to me.

This is obviously a play by the powers that should not be to siphon off even more wealth, backed up by scientists who are locked into protecting their own self interest (no grant money if you're a "climate denier").

EVEN IF the claims are correct, the proposed solutions a) won't avert disaster and b) will only result in people dying right now. We know that they won't avert disaster because government has no interest in solving the problem. We know this for an absolute fact. If the problem were solved, then thousands of bureaucrats, who otherwise have no useful skills to offer, would be out of a cushy job with a guaranteed pension. Solving problems has never, and will never be, in the interest of government.

The proposed solutions are inevitably a wealth transfer, in the form of more taxation of wealthy western nations. This will result in higher energy prices, higher food prices, and higher prices overall. This taxes an otherwise already strained middle and lower class, many of whom have to choose between heating and cooling, food, shelter, and transportation. Given that people, often elderly, die in heat waves or blizzards, even with cheap energy, we know that deaths due to weather extremes will only go up in the short term. But hey, they're old so f&*( 'em right?

Totally agreed.

The "environmentalists" don't want to protect the environment, they hate mankind for existing. They want to see mankind scrabbling around in the mud living in a cave.
 

AgainstAllOdds

Legendary Contributor
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
647%
Dec 26, 2014
2,274
14,724
32
Chicago, IL
Another 'ism' to earn money and control people. Countries that are developed, in theory*, can afford to invest in more environmental friendly energy sources (yeah solar energy is as friendly as ... take a look how much it costs to produce cells, same with windmills...). Poorer countries cannot.

An interesting example of this - the large shipping companies pushing for "clean" ships. They know that the small companies can't afford to retrofit their ships, so they're pushing for regulation that will allow them to consolidate the market and create a monopoly.

Personally I think clean ships are a good thing, but the way that it's being approached is extremely capitalistically unfair.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

Thoelt53

Gold Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
293%
Dec 8, 2016
826
2,419
Boston, MA
Climate change is real. Anthropogenic climate change is bullshit.

Climate change activists, governments, environmental panels, supporting politicians, the IPCC, etc. all have one thing in common: they are all anti-capitalism. Listen to what they preach. Read the 2018 report from the IPCC. It’s not some hidden secret that they detest capitalism and want nationalized economies.

The next red flag is the cult-like allegiance to belief in anthropogenic climate change. The scientific method has been thrown out the window. It’s heresy to discuss other potential causes of climate change.


Climate “scientists” are too arrogant to even consider that they’re wrong, their models are wrong, and what they call “sound science” is wrong. Let’s not even use the word “wrong”. It’s not even possible to discuss that they might be off by a few marks, or to explore other causes of climate change. Arrogant scientists cannot fathom that there may be forces at play that we don’t yet understand.

In classic political fashion, never let a crisis go to waste. Anthropogenic climate change is the perfect excuse to further extract wealth through taxation (read: theft), lawsuits, and to further anti-capitalist agendas. It’s a little too convenient that the biggest political supporters of climate change are also self proclaimed socialists.
 

StrikingViper69

Shredding scales and making sales
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
167%
Dec 3, 2018
1,451
2,419
UK
An interesting example of this - the large shipping companies pushing for "clean" ships. They know that the small companies can't afford to retrofit their ships, so they're pushing for regulation that will allow them to consolidate the market and create a monopoly.

Personally I think clean ships are a good thing, but the way that it's being approached is extremely capitalistically unfair.

Using legislation to put the competition out of business is about anti-capitalism as its possible to get...
 

broswoodwork

Intermediate User of the Flying Guillotine
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
313%
Oct 16, 2015
890
2,790
I know not to attribute to malice what can be explained by any other cause, but is anyone else raising an eyebrow at all of the climate change threads popping up? Not saying it's an astroturf deal, but...
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

alexkuzmov

Gold Contributor
Read Rat-Race Escape!
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
130%
Sep 20, 2019
1,014
1,318
Bulgaria
I just saw @alexkuzmov 's thread also on climate change and it got me thinking about a question I've never seen discussed (and worthy of it's own thread):

If we successfully combat climate change, what will happen?

There's been debate (and research) about whether climate change exists, if it's manmade, what will happen if we don't fix it, etc. But I've never seen any discussion about what happens if we do combat climate change.

Instead, most people (if they believe climate change exists and is bad) will then start jumping into finding solutions. Why? Because everyone only looks at the cons of not combating climate change. A well thought-out decision needs to look at the pros and cons of both sides.

The effects of fixing climate change may seem obvious; things will go back to how they were. Except they can't.

Because there's already been lots of change. We are on the route to the fastest mass extinction of all time. Normally, the period for a mass extinction is 1 million years. As of now, we're on track to reach mass extinction status in 300 years. So it's clear the world is changing. Or more to the point, it already has changed. And species can't really become "unextinct".

The world is already out of old equilibrium and many changes are irreversible.
  • So what will happen if we successfully fix climate change?
  • Is that the kind of world we want to live in?
  • Or should we simply adapt?
To be clear: this thread is not about stopping pollution or any other destructive behavior. It's about trying to reverse the effects humans have already done (like carbon dioxide scrubbing).
  • So what will happen if we successfully fix climate change?
Well cleaner air I supose?
Maybe sustaineable energy sources?
  • Is that the kind of world we want to live in?
Probobly, but I dont see myself living long enough to see it.
  • Or should we simply adapt?
Maybe, but then again, we might not have a choice other than adapt, who knows.
 

Matt Sun

Gold Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
252%
Oct 21, 2017
572
1,442
Argentina
The solution to the weather "problem" is more taxes... hmmm i wonder who benefits...

Yesterday speaking to my parents they told me oil was suposed to be totally over by before the year 2000...
 

msufan

Gold Contributor
Read Rat-Race Escape!
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
202%
Mar 13, 2013
550
1,109
I love to take trends like this and consider if there are ways to capitalize on them.

Everyone's abuzz about combating climate change? Invest in solar.

Everyone's eating vegan now? Create a vegan-themed facebook group and profit.

And so on, and so on. Step outside the debate and see these trends as opportunities.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

AFMKelvin

Some Profound Quote Goes Here
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
199%
Jan 26, 2016
733
1,456
31
Rice, Texas
The climate has been changing since the beginning of time. Sometimes we go through cool and hot climates for hundreds of years. Humans always find a way to adapt.

First it was climate cooling, than climate warming, now climate change. Don't forget about that acid rain that going to kill all life.

There's hundreds of ancient cities in what is now our coastlines.

We should take better care of our eco system. But the powers that be are making climate change political. The "taxes" they want to impose on everyone for climate change is just another trick up their sleeves to enslave the population. One inch at a time.

Another reason why this is a hot topic is because those that "deny" climate change are automatically branded as people who dont care about our environment.

Only first world countries are been forced fed climate change propaganda. Even though they already have regulations and are the cleanest countries on Earth. But no one mentions China and India which are the worst culprits.

tl;dr - Climate change is propaganda to control you through business and financial bureaucracy.
 

ZF Lee

Legendary Contributor
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Rat-Race Escape!
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
180%
Jul 27, 2016
2,840
5,113
25
Malaysia
The proposed solutions are inevitably a wealth transfer, in the form of more taxation of wealthy western nations. This will result in higher energy prices, higher food prices, and higher prices overall. This taxes an otherwise already strained middle and lower class, many of whom have to choose between heating and cooling, food, shelter, and transportation. Given that people, often elderly, die in heat waves or blizzards, even with cheap energy, we know that deaths due to weather extremes will only go up in the short term. But hey, they're old so f&*( 'em right?
For some reasons, the environmentalist organisations and the other folks aren't at least declaring financials as a way to say, 'Look, your money isn't going to waste!'

I would see it on equal status with charities, which generally also aren't great with reporting financials and up-keeping them with proper activities.

tl;dr - Climate change is propaganda to control you through business and financial bureaucracy.
If you wanna go down the rabbit hole with the one world government paradigm, yup, there's that. :)

I'd not worry about climate change, but pollution? Yeah.
I know not to attribute to malice what can be explained by any other cause, but is anyone else raising an eyebrow at all of the climate change threads popping up? Not saying it's an astroturf deal, but...
I did hear about the Green Deal proposal by the Democrats, but looking at some parts of the write-up....some of the objectives feel really general in terms of execution and benchmarking. Still felt doubtful after reading.

And there was the recent talk by Greta Thunberg in the UN.

I would have liked a data scientist or engineer to discuss the issue, as it gives good content for a UN speech, but it didn't sit well with me to have yet another 'promoter of awareness' to grace the stage.

If the folks really want to tackle the environment issue, if any, wouldn't they get the more technical plans and people (or speakers)?
 

Azure

Perpetual Motion
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
189%
Mar 12, 2016
439
829
32
Do you have a source for your claims? This disagrees with you:


Yes, Ceballos et al 2015 and 2017 are actually the studies that use the SAR metric and get referenced the most by media in support of the "mass extinction" idea. Well, there is another infamous etymology study with fundamental flaws that people love to quote as well because supports the narrative.

When assessing Ceballos two bodies of work, you'll note a few things.


* The background rate is estimated using the E/MSY found in Pimms 1995. The problem with this is that the formula doesn't account for species average longevity, thus interspecies comparisons will always be biased against species that have been on earth for lesser time - mammals obviously being much lower time scales than other past species.
* Barnosky et al 2011 and MacLeod 2013 note an adjusted estimate of approximately 0.5 extinctions per year in the Pleistocene. Using this range as a reference point, contrasted with the UICN Red List 2014 of recorded extinctions, we see a noted 338 terrestrial vertebrate species since 1500. A background rate of 0.5 per year would suggest 250 extinctions naturally, without human interventions.
* We are now looking at a remaining 88 terrestrial vertebrate species that can be attributed as being directly caused by anthropogenic fingerprinting. Loehle and Essenbach 2012 noted that of those 500 years of extinctions, over 95% are noted to be genetically isolated island dwelling species. Only 6/128 documented bird species, and 3/61 mammalian species are noted as being continental inhabitants. Note this study includes Australia as a genetically isolated island.
* Using vertebrates as a surrogate for extant species biodiversity presents another critical problem. The majority of the earths biomass is made up of insect species, who are far less documented. Of the estimated 2.6-7.8 million insect species, about 30,000 are documented as per Stork et al 2015.
* Of these 30,000, the vast majority are of 4 main groups, butterflies, tiger beetles, damselfly, dragonfly. 66 extinctions have been documented, although the data is quite deficient in this group. Even if we extrapolate the rates of vertebrates noted above to insects, we come to a figure of about 1.5 species per year, which is consistent with Coope 2014 who has noted a distinct lack of Pleistocene insect extinction.
* Ceballos fully ignores the biodiversity gains via speciation and new species discovery. MacLeod 2013, Sax and Gaines 2008, Ellis, Antil and Kreft 2012, De Vos et al 2014 and Dornelas et al 2014 all note gains in biodiversity over contemporary time scales, which are ignored by Ceballos. Dornelas 2014 in particular notes no net loss in biodiversity over substantial tropical regions throughout the late 1900s.
* Even if we were to ignore all the issues with the Ceballos study as a conclusion of a mass extinction event, the rate evidenced in the study is not even remotely close to the rates of extinction during past mass extinctions. Even at the accelerated rates projected by Ceballos and Payne 2014, it would take almost 40,000 years to reach the tipping points that were seen during the least severe mass extinction events of the past(Briggs 2017).
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

csalvato

Legendary Contributor
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
297%
May 5, 2014
2,058
6,106
39
Rocky Mountain West
@lowtek you identify as a physicist and don’t believe there is ample evidence for human-caused global warming...?

My understanding of the fundamental physics (along with everyone else I know who identifies as a hard scientist) believes there is more than enough basic science pointing to human caused effects on rapid planet warming.

With that in mind, I’d be more interested in your perspective.

——

IMO I find this thread disturbing. There’s plenty of evidence showing that global warming is a major consideration for our species, and as entrepreneurs we wield great power in solving this problem for the world. .. and at a great profit.

To see so many people who strive for power and influence to scoff at a major threat to our existence is both saddening and alarming.

EDIT: to answer the OP we simply have no choice. Either we figure out a way to manipulate our planet’s climate within the next 50-300 years or life as we know it is over. We will need to live in habs or be forced to relocate to another planet. If we are able to learn how to manipulate a planetary environment, however, we will be able to do so on multiple planets, including terraforming Mars and/or Venus, making our species more resistant to an extinction event. The only thing that would make the species even more resistant is inter-galactic colonization after that.
 
Last edited:

lowtek

Legendary Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
332%
Oct 3, 2015
2,164
7,186
42
Phoenix, AZ
@lowtek you identify as a physicist and don’t believe there is ample evidence for human-caused global warming...?

My understanding of the fundamental physics (along with everyone else I know who identifies as a hard scientist) believes there is more than enough basic science pointing to human caused effects on rapid planet warming.

With that in mind, I’d be more interested in your perspective.

——

IMO I find this thread disturbing. There’s plenty of evidence showing that global warming is a major consideration for our species, and as entrepreneurs we wield great power in solving this problem for the world. .. and at a great profit.

To see so many people who strive for power and influence to scoff at a major threat to our existence is both saddening and alarming.

EDIT: to answer the OP we simply have no choice. Either we figure out a way to manipulate our planet’s climate within the next 50-300 years or life as we know it is over. We will need to live in habs or be forced to relocate to another planet. If we are able to learn how to manipulate a planetary environment, however, we will be able to do so on multiple planets, including terraforming Mars and/or Venus, making our species more resistant to an extinction event. The only thing that would make the species even more resistant is inter-galactic colonization after that.

Great question. The fact that CO2 is a green house gas is certainly not in doubt. The extent to which the models calling for doom and gloom are accurate, is a huge question mark.

The idea that we should make policy changes that are guaranteed to cause upheaval and more deaths right now, in the hopes it will have an impact 50 - 100 years in the future, based on models whose predictive power is questionable at best (i.e. only treating water vapor as a greenhouse gas while ignoring the fact that clouds are white), is where it falls apart.

The best solution to the problem of climate change, regardless of the source, is to develop fusion power. With fusion we would have enough (cheap) energy to just recapture the carbon from the atmosphere and turn it back into hydrocarbons. Then it's a total non issue. We could all drive V12 RWD sport sedans that get 10 mpg and it wouldn't matter in the slightest.

Beyond that, schemes to manipulate the climate will certainly backfire. We simply cannot predict the outcome of manipulating such a complex system. Such proposals are literally insane and should be dismissed out of hand.
 

msufan

Gold Contributor
Read Rat-Race Escape!
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
202%
Mar 13, 2013
550
1,109
EDIT: to answer the OP we simply have no choice. Either we figure out a way to manipulate our planet’s climate within the next 50-300 years or life as we know it is over.

You are dramatically overshooting reality here. Or else "life as we know it" doesn't mean what it literally says.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

luniac

Platinum Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
158%
Dec 7, 2012
1,781
2,811
33
brooklyn
I heard the Carbon Tax is just another illuminati one world order conspiracy to screw people over.
 

csalvato

Legendary Contributor
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
297%
May 5, 2014
2,058
6,106
39
Rocky Mountain West
Great question. The fact that CO2 is a green house gas is certainly not in doubt. The extent to which the models calling for doom and gloom are accurate, is a huge question mark.

The idea that we should make policy changes that are guaranteed to cause upheaval and more deaths right now, in the hopes it will have an impact 50 - 100 years in the future, based on models whose predictive power is questionable at best (i.e. only treating water vapor as a greenhouse gas while ignoring the fact that clouds are white), is where it falls apart.

The best solution to the problem of climate change, regardless of the source, is to develop fusion power. With fusion we would have enough (cheap) energy to just recapture the carbon from the atmosphere and turn it back into hydrocarbons. Then it's a total non issue. We could all drive V12 RWD sport sedans that get 10 mpg and it wouldn't matter in the slightest.

Beyond that, schemes to manipulate the climate will certainly backfire. We simply cannot predict the outcome of manipulating such a complex system. Such proposals are literally insane and should be dismissed out of hand.

I think where you originally lost me is that your response (this one, and your previous one), read to me like you don't believe climate change is happening. I am re-reading, and it's a bit ambiguous to me still.

It sounds like maybe you're saying that climate change is real, and it is happening, but most of the proposed methods of resolving it (i.e. through worldwide legislature and policy) are not the best way to deal with it.

If that's the case, I think we're actually in complete agreement. Here's the points where I think we agree. Please correct me if I'm wrong:

  • Global climate change is definitely happening.
  • At the highest level, rising concentrations of greenhouse gasses are the biggest contributor.
  • Humans are absolutely contributing to the rising greenhouse gasses within our atmosphere.
  • There's a very logical set of falling dominos occurring on our planet (e.g. we are adding more CO2 to our atmosphere, while actively removing our natural means of converting CO2 to O2 through deforestation – one is amplifying the other)
  • The predictive models on when things will ultimately fall apart and our planet are mostly guesses and wildly unreliable.
  • Government policy (e.g. carbon taxes and emissions regulations) is likely not the way to solve the problem that threatens our species.
Are we in agreement on all of these?

If so, I think that there may be a conflation of points happening. The OP was originally asking these questions:
  1. If we successfully combat climate change, what will happen?
  2. So what will happen if we successfully fix climate change?
  3. Is that the kind of world we want to live in?
  4. Or should we simply adapt?
From my read, it seems like you believe that these questions are not worth answering because there is no solution and the threat is largely overblown. I guess my read was wrong there?

It now seems to me that you think this is a problem worth solving through innovation, just not through government policies (seems totally reasonable and correct to me, too...)

You are dramatically overshooting reality here. Or else "life as we know it" doesn't mean what it literally says.

No. Go visit Venus and tell me if I'm overblowing things - because Venus is what happens when greenhouse gasses cross the point of no return within an atmosphere.
 

csalvato

Legendary Contributor
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
297%
May 5, 2014
2,058
6,106
39
Rocky Mountain West
Tacking on to the previous post...

To answer OP's questions:

If we successfully combat climate change, what will happen? So what will happen if we successfully fix climate change?

We will lengthen the window of time that we can actually inhabit this planet.

If you exclude the event where our sun dies out by turning into a Red Giant, that window is somewhere between 50 and 500M years, depending on how you look at things.

Combatting climate change would give us more time to figure out how to extend our time beyond the inevitable event of our planet being uninhabitable.

And, as I said in a previous post, would give us great power to wield in adapting planetary environments.

Is that the kind of world we want to live in? Or should we simply adapt?

If we don't extend the inhabitable window, you definitely don't want to live in that world. If the choice is between living in space suits and never going outside OR keeping our greenhouse gasses in check, you would prefer the latter 100% of the time.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

csalvato

Legendary Contributor
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
297%
May 5, 2014
2,058
6,106
39
Rocky Mountain West
I've survived 5 "end of the world's" in my 27-year lifetime. Every few years there's another one.

Climate change might be a thing, but it's not something that I'll be investing much mental energy into. For me, that energy is better spent on making money and giving it to the right charitable causes that I know make the world a better place.

How will you know what charitable organizations (or even for profit organizations) are doing things that are worthwhile if you don’t understand what the worlds biggest problems are?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Post New Topic

Please SEARCH before posting.
Please select the BEST category.

Post new topic

Guest post submissions offered HERE.

Latest Posts

New Topics

Fastlane Insiders

View the forum AD FREE.
Private, unindexed content
Detailed process/execution threads
Ideas needing execution, more!

Join Fastlane Insiders.

Top