8
   

Is the world being destroyed?

 
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2021 02:21 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
If ONE reputable scientific organization was on record as predicting the collapse of human civilization, that would change my mind.


Reputable scientific organizations are loath to make specific predictions about complex future events or recommend specific types of mitigation. I thought you understood that. I've stated as much repeatedly in this thread. Studying the combined findings of many scientific organizations, perceiving worrying trends, and alerting people as to possible outcomes is an important, and necessary corollary to scientific discovery. Especially with the lag time that characterizes the acceptance of unwelcome news.
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2021 03:33 pm
@hightor,
Let's clarify here.... Are you are you not making the following claims.

1) Genetic Modification of crops has led to weeds that are resistant to herbicides?

2) The we are on the brink of an apocalyptic collapse of civilization where "not even bunkers" will save you.

If these aren't the arguments you are making (and they are ridiculous arguments) then let's stop arguing and we can move on.

My objection to this thread is that you are making hysterical exaggerated claims that are unsupported and unsupportable by science. When you make reasonable claims that are supported by science, I won't object.

You seem to have switched from the first to the second. If you don't actually believe that Genetically Modified crops are creating herbicide resistant weeds, then we are OK on that topic. (The claims you are making about the impending apocalypse are another matter).
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2021 04:36 pm
@hightor,
Quote:

Reputable scientific organizations are loath to make specific predictions about complex future events or recommend specific types of mitigation. I thought you understood that. I've stated as much repeatedly in this thread.


Yes. That is how Scientific organizations should be.

You are making ridiculous, apocalyptic predictions about complex future events and recommending types of mitigation that are unsupported by science.

In order to be useful, science must be objective. If you would just agree with this one point...
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2021 05:50 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Genetic Modification of crops has led to weeds that are resistant to herbicides?

No. The use of GMO's in combination with herbicides in industrial farming has. And I plainly stated that, "This doesn't mean that GMO's themselves are to blame."

Herbicides are losing the war — and agriculture might never be the same again.

Quote:
The claims you are making about the impending apocalypse are another matter.


Nowhere have I made that claim.

You've consistently misread, misinterpreted, and misstated what other people have said in the discussion.
maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2021 06:38 pm
@hightor,
It is complete hypocrisy. People who claim to believe that climate change is the single most important issue facing humanity can not oppose GM foods which science says is an important part of reducing atmospheric carbon.

You are going to have to choose your rather extreme one-sided political views, and a science based response to the real threat of climate change.

If everything is an existential crisis... then nothing is an existential crisis.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2021 07:06 pm
@maxdancona,
Are you sure those aren't scientists on some corporate payroll? I guess you didn't notice that I don't categorically oppose GM foods, I only suggest that they be coupled with better farming practices. And the use of GMO's alone does nothing to reduce atmospheric carbon unless it's coupled with land preservation and reforestation. You seem to take a rather extreme view on this subject. Telling people what they can not oppose seems a bit one-sided as well. You really haven't made any headway in 24 pages of repetitious ranting and your arguments remain just as unconvincing.



maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2021 07:14 pm
@hightor,
There we go with the science is a fraud conspiracy theories again. This is the same argument people give for

1. Denying the existing of climate change.
2. Saying that vaccines are dangerous.
3. Denying that a virus causes AIDS.

If you accept science... then you will accept it whether it fits your political ideology or not.

The fact is that reputable scientific institutions and scientist say that climate change is happening and is caused by human activity. Reputable scientific institutions say that covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective and necessary to combat a deadly viral pandemic.

And the same reputable scientific institutions say that GMOs are just as safe and conventional foods and an important way to lower the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

Now... do you believe science, or not (or just when it suits you)?
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2021 02:55 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
There we go with the science is a fraud conspiracy theories again.


There you go again, willfully misinterpreting other people's remarks to conform with your extreme ideology. There's no "conspiracy theory" implied. You talk about "science" as if it were some unified institutional purveyor of empirical facts. Yes, that's the ideal. It's not the way it works in real life.

In actuality, scientists are often in disagreement with one another, which is one of the many reasons we haven't managed to develop a global solution to climate change in thirty years. The other actuality is that scientists employed by the fossil fuel industry were often brought forward to deny the deleterious effect of atmospheric hydrocarbons.

Quote:
And the same reputable scientific institutions say that GMOs are just as safe and conventional foods and an important way to lower the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.


The "same reputable scientific institutions"? Really?

Look, how many times do I need to repeat myself? Did you even read the post previous to yours?

I wrote:
I guess you didn't notice that I don't categorically oppose GM foods, I only suggest that they be coupled with better farming practices. And the use of GMO's alone does nothing to reduce atmospheric carbon unless it's coupled with land preservation and reforestation.


What's going on here is that your extreme position makes it impossible for you to allow anyone to express their doubts about the trajectory of current environmental trends through this century and how they may affect different species of life, including humans. That's very narrow-minded of you. Well, despite your objections, I will continue to collect and post articles and studies about the topic, and yes, some will be speculative. That's what the thread is about. If it upsets you so much, simply exercise a little self-control and don't click on the topic.

0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2021 03:27 am
The Middle East is running out of water, and parts of it are becoming uninhabitable

Quote:
The ferries that once shuttled tourists to and from the little islets in Iran's Lake Urmia sit rusty, unable to move, on what is rapidly becoming a salt plain. Just two decades ago, Urmia was the Middle East's biggest lake, its local economy a thriving tourist center of hotels and restaurants.

"People would come here for swimming and would use the mud for therapeutic purposes. They would stay here at least for a few days," said Ahad Ahmed, a journalist in the former port town of Sharafkhaneh as he showed CNN photos of people enjoying the lake in 1995.

Lake Urmia's demise has been fast. It has more than halved in size -- from 5,400 square kilometers (2,085 square miles) in the 1990s to just 2,500 square kilometers (965 square miles) today -- according to the Department of Environmental Protection of West Azerbaijan, one of the Iranian provinces where the lake is located. There are now concerns it will disappear entirely.

Such problems are familiar in many parts of the Middle East -- where water is simply running out.

The region has witnessed persistent drought and temperatures so high that they are barely fit for human life. Add climate change to water mismanagement and overuse, and projections for the future of water here are grim.

Some Middle Eastern countries, including Iran, Iraq and Jordan, are pumping huge amounts of water from the ground for irrigation as they seek to improve their food self-sufficiency, Charles Iceland, the global director of water at the World Resources Institute (WRI), told CNN. That's happening as they experience a decrease in rainfall.

"They're using more water than is available routinely through rain. And so groundwater levels are consequently falling because you're taking water out faster than it's being replenished by the rainfall," he said.

That's what's happening in Iran, where a vast network of dams sustains an agricultural sector that drinks up about 90% of the water the country uses.

"Both declining rainfall and increasing demand in these countries are causing many rivers, lakes, and wetlands to dry up," Iceland said.

The consequences of water becoming even scarcer are dire: Areas could become uninhabitable; tensions over how to share and manage water resources like rivers and lakes could worsen; more political violence could erupt.

In Iran, Urmia has shrunk largely because so many people have exploited it, and some of the dams built in its basin mainly for irrigation have reduced the flow of water into the lake.

Iran's water woes are already a deadly issue. In one week in July, at least three protesters were killed in clashes with security officers in demonstrations against water shortages in the country's southwest.

The country is experiencing some of the driest conditions in five decades, according to the country's meteorological service.

The Middle East's winters are projected to get drier the more the world warms, and while the summers will be wetter, the heat is expected to offset its water gains, according to scientists' latest projections published earlier this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change report.

"The problem is, with this whole temperature rise, whatever rainfall will come will evaporate because it is so hot," Mansour Almazroui, director at the Center of Excellence for Climate Change Research at Saudi Arabia's King Abdulaziz University, told CNN.

"The other thing is, "This rain is not necessarily going to be usual rain. There's going to be extreme rainfall, meaning that floods like those happening in China, in Germany, in Belgium, these floods will be a big problem for the Middle East. This is really a big climate change issue."

A study by the Iranian Energy Ministry found the demise of the lake was more than 30% attributable to climate change.

These changes are not only having an impact on the amount of water available, they are also affecting quality.

Lake Urmia is hypersaline, meaning it's very salty. As it has shrunk, the salt concentration has increased and gotten so extreme, using it for irrigation is damaging farmers' crops.

Kiomars Poujebeli, who farms tomatoes, sunflowers, sugar beet, eggplant and walnuts near the lake, told CNN that the salty water has been disastrous.

"The day the soil will become unfarmable is not far away," he said.

A vicious cycle

In Jordan, one of the most water stressed countries in the world, people have become used to living with very little water.

A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showed that Jordanians will have to halve their per capita use of water by the end of the century. Most Jordanians on lower incomes will live on 40 liters a day, for all their needs -- drinking, bathing and washing clothes and dishes, for example. The average American today uses around 10 times that amount.

In many Jordanian homes, water isn't necessarily available every day, said Daniel Rosenfeld, a professor with the Program of Atmospheric Sciences at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

"Jordan now has a critical shortage of water -- water reaches the houses in Jordan once or twice a week, even in the capital Amman," Daniel Rosenfeld, a professor with the Program of Atmospheric Sciences at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The capital actually has existential problems right now, already," Rosenfeld said.

Groundwater levels in parts of the country are dropping by well over one meter a year, studies show, and waves of refugees from many countries in the region have put extra pressure on the already stressed resource.

The secretary-general of Jordan's Water Authority, Bashar Batayneh, told CNN that the country needs more funding from the rest of the world to deal with this increased demand for water.

"Jordan bore the heavy load of the Syrian refugee crises on behalf of the international community and was deeply impacted regarding water. Refugees cost the water sector over $600 million per year while Jordan received a fraction of this amount from the international community," he said.

He added that Jordan had much less rain in 2020 than it did the previous year, putting more than a quarter of water resources at risk and halving drinking water sources.

But it's not only climate change. The country relies on the Jordan River system, which also runs through Israel, the West Bank, Syria and Lebanon, and dams building along the rivers have severely cut the flow of water flow to Jordan. Jordan, too, uses canals to redirect the river's waters for irrigation. Conflict has flared several times around the river system in the past.

It's a transboundary problem also seen in other parts of the region along the Euphrates and Tigris rivers, as well as in northern Africa along the Nile.

Jordan, Israel and Syria have gotten better at coordinating management of the river system they rely on, but tensions often erupt. Experts have long warned that water scarcity worsened by climate change could lead to more conflict.

Jordan has little choice but to buy large amounts of water from Israel, which has an enormous desalination program, in which it removes salt from seawater to make it fit for human consumption. But desalination is energy-intensive -- using up huge amounts of energy; energy that is not yet green and renewable, and only adds to global warming, a major driver of water scarcity in the first place.

As the climate continues to warm and water runs scarce, part of the solution in the Middle East will have to involve reducing water use in agriculture. That can also mean changing the kind of food farmers grow and export, Rosenfeld said.

"In Israel, for example, we used to grow a lot of oranges, but at some point, we realized that we are exporting water that we don't have," he said, adding that crops could also be engineered to be more resilient to heat and dryness.

And Almazroui, from King Abdulaziz University, said that dams could be better organized to consider changing rain patterns. Coordination on managing rivers that flow across countries also has to improve.

But that's not going to help a farmer whose family has owned land for generations and can't necessarily move to wetter climes, or has little control over where a neighboring country might build a dam.

Raad al-Tamami, a 54-year-old father of five who lives in Diyala province northeast of Baghdad, relies on the Diyal River, a tributary to the Tigris River, for water. The Diyal has been drying up for years and has forced al-Tamami to halve his fruit production across his three farms.

He and his fellow farmers are working on a water rationing schedule, and he sometimes waits up to a month for the water to come.

This dependence on more water to ensure food security could ironically put the availability of food at risk -- farmers are only going to keep farming under these difficult conditions for so long.

That's what plagues al-Tamami's mind all the time.

"Many farmers, including me, are seriously considering leaving this profession, which is inherited from father, from grandfather, and to start looking for more profitable jobs that guarantee a better future for our children."

cnn
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2021 03:30 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:


Quote:
Let me ask you here: Just how many "reputable scientific organizations that predict climate change will be serious enough to collapse civilization" before you acknowledged that MUCH more has to be done to mitigate the damage to the environment being done by humans?


I have no problem answering your questions Frank. Maybe I am missing them. It is difficult to answer hypothetical questions, but we should be realistic. There is a difference between science and science fiction... and if you want me to answer about science fiction, at least explain to me the rules you are making up.

The answer to this question is ONE.

If ONE reputable scientific organization was on record as predicting the collapse of human civilization, that would change my mind.



I've NEVER asked you to answer about science fiction. I've asked straight forward question both about Covid (in the other thread) and about "the seriousness of climate change" here.

And you are not "missing them" because I've repeated them several times to you. You simply have refused to answer the former...and seem to be hedging here. Here, you change the nature of the question to avoid actually answering what I asked.

I did not ask about reputable organizations "predicting the collapse of human civilization." I asked about reputable organizations "that predict climate change will be serious enough to collapse civilization."

I used "will" because I cut and pasted from your comments. It probably should have been "might"...which is a more scientific way of looking at things. No reputable scientific organization will predict with certain that climate change will be serious enough to collapse civilization...but what difference would that make. Many already HAVE predicted that climate change MAY BE serious enough to collapse civilization...or come close enough to collapsing civilization...for it to be taken a lot more seriously than you seem to advocate taking it.

So allow me to reword the question, and see how you deal with it:

Just how many MORE "reputable scientific organizations that predict climate change might be serious enough to collapse civilization" would have to come forward, before you acknowledged that MUCH more has to be done to mitigate the damage to the environment being done by humans?
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2021 05:05 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

maxdancona wrote:


Quote:
Let me ask you here: Just how many "reputable scientific organizations that predict climate change will be serious enough to collapse civilization" before you acknowledged that MUCH more has to be done to mitigate the damage to the environment being done by humans?


I have no problem answering your questions Frank. Maybe I am missing them. It is difficult to answer hypothetical questions, but we should be realistic. There is a difference between science and science fiction... and if you want me to answer about science fiction, at least explain to me the rules you are making up.

The answer to this question is ONE.

If ONE reputable scientific organization was on record as predicting the collapse of human civilization, that would change my mind.



I've NEVER asked you to answer about science fiction. I've asked straight forward question both about Covid (in the other thread) and about "the seriousness of climate change" here.

And you are not "missing them" because I've repeated them several times to you. You simply have refused to answer the former...and seem to be hedging here. Here, you change the nature of the question to avoid actually answering what I asked.

I did not ask about reputable organizations "predicting the collapse of human civilization." I asked about reputable organizations "that predict climate change will be serious enough to collapse civilization."

I used "will" because I cut and pasted from your comments. It probably should have been "might"...which is a more scientific way of looking at things. No reputable scientific organization will predict with certain that climate change will be serious enough to collapse civilization...but what difference would that make. Many already HAVE predicted that climate change MAY BE serious enough to collapse civilization...or come close enough to collapsing civilization...for it to be taken a lot more seriously than you seem to advocate taking it.

So allow me to reword the question, and see how you deal with it:

Just how many MORE "reputable scientific organizations that predict climate change might be serious enough to collapse civilization" would have to come forward, before you acknowledged that MUCH more has to be done to mitigate the damage to the environment being done by humans?



Huh? If you ask an intelligible question I will answer it directly. This is a rather unintelligible set of questions, I will still try to answer it.

The issue with this silly thread is Extremism

1. I believe that Climate change is a serious problem which is already having serious consequences.

2. I believe that "MUCH more has to be done to mitigate the damage....".

3. I don't believe there is any real danger of the collapse of human civilization.

I based these beliefs on the findings of the scientific institutions. They are say that climate change is serious, that it is caused by human activity and that much more needs to be done. They are not saying that human civilization is at risk of collapsing.

Science says what science says. When you push further than that and promote extreme ideas that are not supported by science... that is science fiction.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2021 05:11 am
This thread is about extremism on every front.... it starts with a rather dire premise (that the world is being destroyed) and then googles for the most scary articles, ignoring every fact of human progress.

If you are pointing out real problems and advocating for sensible changes then I am with you 100%.

If you are shouting "The End is Nigh" while pounding away on plastic keys about the deadly effects of plastic and talking about people hiding in bunkers.... you lose me.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2021 05:18 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:


Frank Apisa wrote:

maxdancona wrote:


Quote:
Let me ask you here: Just how many "reputable scientific organizations that predict climate change will be serious enough to collapse civilization" before you acknowledged that MUCH more has to be done to mitigate the damage to the environment being done by humans?


I have no problem answering your questions Frank. Maybe I am missing them. It is difficult to answer hypothetical questions, but we should be realistic. There is a difference between science and science fiction... and if you want me to answer about science fiction, at least explain to me the rules you are making up.

The answer to this question is ONE.

If ONE reputable scientific organization was on record as predicting the collapse of human civilization, that would change my mind.



I've NEVER asked you to answer about science fiction. I've asked straight forward question both about Covid (in the other thread) and about "the seriousness of climate change" here.

And you are not "missing them" because I've repeated them several times to you. You simply have refused to answer the former...and seem to be hedging here. Here, you change the nature of the question to avoid actually answering what I asked.

I did not ask about reputable organizations "predicting the collapse of human civilization." I asked about reputable organizations "that predict climate change will be serious enough to collapse civilization."

I used "will" because I cut and pasted from your comments. It probably should have been "might"...which is a more scientific way of looking at things. No reputable scientific organization will predict with certain that climate change will be serious enough to collapse civilization...but what difference would that make. Many already HAVE predicted that climate change MAY BE serious enough to collapse civilization...or come close enough to collapsing civilization...for it to be taken a lot more seriously than you seem to advocate taking it.

So allow me to reword the question, and see how you deal with it:

Just how many MORE "reputable scientific organizations that predict climate change might be serious enough to collapse civilization" would have to come forward, before you acknowledged that MUCH more has to be done to mitigate the damage to the environment being done by humans?



Huh? If you ask an intelligible question I will answer it directly. This is a rather unintelligible set of questions, I will still try to answer it.

The issue with this silly thread is Extremism

1. I believe that Climate change is a serious problem which is already having serious consequences.

2. I believe that "MUCH more has to be done to mitigate the damage....".

3. I don't believe there is any real danger of the collapse of human civilization.

I based these beliefs on the findings of the scientific institutions. They are say that climate change is serious, that it is caused by human activity and that much more needs to be done. They are not saying that human civilization is at risk of collapsing.

Science says what science says. When you push further than that and promote extreme ideas that are not supported by science... that is science fiction.


Questioning whether the impact of climate change might be serious enough to cause the collapse of civilization IS NOT science fiction. There already are organizations who speculate if that might not be right where we are heading...especially with so many people like you pretending the notion is absurd.

Here is an article from National Geographic that proposes such a scenario:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/earth-tipping-point

There are many, many others. You just want to be blind about it.

AND YOU STILL DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION. Here is the question in a more condensed form.

How bad would things have to get before you get your head out of ass and recognize that the problem already is a lot worse than you seem willing to acknowledge?

Just wondering.
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2021 05:22 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Here is an article....


This is argument by google. You start with a point to prove, then you sit to google and sift through articles that say what you want to say. So you found an article where a Journalist says what you believe. Big deal. You ignore the articles that say the contrary.

I am looking for a reputable scientific organization that makes a scientific statement about science that supports your apocalyptic view.

If you find one of those, I will be impressed. [Now run away back to Google]
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2021 05:26 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
Here is an article....


This is argument by google. You start with a point to prove, then you sit to google and sift through articles that say what you want to say. So you found an article where a Journalist says what you believe. Big deal. You ignore the articles that say the contrary.

I am looking for a reputable scientific organization that makes a scientific statement about science that supports your apocalyptic view.

If you find one of those, I will be impressed. [Now run away back to Google]


Just gave you one...there are dozens more. Anyone discussing this issue has seen them all over the place.

You are a dishonest poster, Max. I musta missed that back in the old days. I saw others suggesting it, but I just missed it.

I no longer am missing it.
maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2021 05:33 am
@Frank Apisa,
That is a lie Frank. You have not given me a scientific statement from a reputable scientific organization. You gave me an opinion from a journalist.

Go stomping off muttering about dishonesty if you like.... but you are still full of crap.

0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2021 05:40 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

maxdancona wrote:


You are a dishonest poster, Max. I musta missed that back in the old days. I saw others suggesting it, but I just missed it.

I no longer am missing it.


It took you long enough, but I’m pleased the scales have finally fallen from your eyes.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2021 05:41 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

maxdancona wrote:


You are a dishonest poster, Max. I musta missed that back in the old days. I saw others suggesting it, but I just missed it.

I no longer am missing it.


It took you long enough, but I’m pleased the scales have finally fallen from your eyes.


He is a piece of work!

Oh, well...I am pretty sure he is happy is his private space.

That's good.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2021 05:45 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
...it starts with a rather dire premise (that the world is being destroyed)...

No, it actually starts with a question – there's even a question mark in the header to verify this point. (And the OP has never even made a subsequent post.)
Quote:
...ignoring every fact of human progress.

No, it's about human progress, and its consequences.
Quote:

If you are shouting "The End is Nigh" while pounding away on plastic keys about the deadly effects of plastic and talking about people hiding in bunkers....

First thing, no one is shouting "The End is Nigh". Secondly, no one is talking about people "hiding in bunkers". Thirdly, using articles made of plastic is impossible to avoid but in most cases it's not the use of plastic which is deadly or people would be dropping dead right and left from plastic poisoning. The toxicity of plastic is primarily its effects in the waste stream and the likelihood that certain (not all) plastics are endocrine disruptors. Studies which describe this have been posted in this thread.
Quote:
...you lose me.

If only.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2021 05:49 am
@Frank Apisa,
I don’t think it’s possible to have a happy place when you’re like that.

He’s self obsessed and a control freak, not much room for a happy place there.
 

Related Topics

Israel Proves the Desalination Era is Here - Discussion by Robert Gentel
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
What does water taste like? - Question by Fiona368
California and its greentard/water problems - Discussion by gungasnake
Water is dry. - Discussion by izzythepush
Let's talk about... - Question by tontoiam
Water - Question by Cyracuz
Evaporation of Water - Question by gollum
What is your favorite bottled water? - Discussion by tsarstepan
water - Question by cissylxf
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/16/2024 at 03:22:03