Hello there, why not take a few seconds to register on our forums and become part of the community? Just click here.

Centipedes and climate change: will they survive?

Discussion in 'Myriapods' started by patrick nimbs, Oct 8, 2019.

  1. Scoly

    Scoly Arachnobaron Active Member

    Advertisement
    And multiple studies show that the petition signed by those 500 scientists denying climate science is itself based on incorrect science.

    So which do we believe?
    1. By numbers of scientists on each side? Climate change deniers lose.
    2. By numbers of studies on each side? Climate change deniers lose.
    3. By the scientific credentials of the scientists on either side? Climate change deniers lose.
    4. By the credibility and integrity of motives behind funding? Climate change deniers lose.
    5. By the credibility and integrity of which politicians and public figures flock to which side? Climate change deniers lose.
    What really irks me is this. What if climate science is wrong? What if scientists get their way, and:
    1. Replace our reliance of fossil fuels with renewable energy which will run till the end of time. Thereby bring down costs for everyone and vastly improving air quality, and eliminating millions of cases of cancer and other respiratory illnesses caused by city pollution.
    2. Force oil companies to fix all their oil spillages, thereby restoring environments back to their pristine natural habitat.
    3. Pay back to all the native communities who've had their land destroyed, thereby undoing a small but no insignificant part of the injustice which has been inflicted upon these people.
    4. Force oil companies to pay for treatment of all city dwellers who developer respiratory diseases?
    5. Bring to justice all the companies who publicly lied about emissions, who funded demonstrably fake science to cover up the risk of emissions, who paid to mislead the public (all of which has most definitely happened, whether climate science is true or false, they are guilty of this much and more - you remember the VW scandal) and bring laws to prevent any corporation from ever doing the public over like that again, in any industry.
    and then, decades later, we find out that the projections and models were wrong, and emissions are in fact, not heating up the planet, and the climate science deniers were right. What's would be so bad about that?! What harm would be done? A handful of billion dollar companies lose revenue? Those same companies who not only don't pay tax but actually pay negative tax because they receive government subsidies, who lie to us, who poison us, who give us cancer and try to deny it?

    This is what its all about: protecting the revenue of a handful of parasitic corporations so their billionaire shareholders can make even more millions. 20 years ago they use to need to pay scientists to publish fake studies that put climate science in question, they now have an army of internet conspiracists doing the work for them for free!!!
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. Chris LXXIX

    Chris LXXIX ArachnoGod Active Member

    Climate change is a thing for Greta and the Gretins - let's hope She will join this site for school us, ih ih :pompous:
     
  3. Nicholas Rothstein

    Nicholas Rothstein Arachnosquire Active Member

    Woah buddy, I am for all of those things you listed (except the small communities thing, reparations don't solve anything.)

    I was just pointing out the fact that people on both sides disagree and then a few statistics stated were found to be incorrect by one side.

    And no, they are not climate deniers, and no they are not all climate scientists. Diversity with unity is our greatest strength. They were pointing out the fact that what was said there was rushed and could lead to damage.

    Oh and this caused me to look up more about climate change history. Turns out since the early 19's people have been saying the world will end in 10-30 years
     
  4. Scoly

    Scoly Arachnobaron Active Member

    Well if you are for those things, why would you add your voice to the side of the argument which is being pushed by those who are doing everything to prevent that because it threatens their profits. You cannot simultaneously be in favour of cleaner air while pushing the climate scepticism agenda.

    Native habitats which get destroyed can recover. But for that the land needs to be protected from further exploitation. To make this happen requires money - at the very least in the form of lawyers to represent the people. Corporations found guilty of any breaches should pay the full costs of this, both that incurred by the people raising the case, and the costs to the country for running these courts.

    There have indeed been lies on both sides, and the same goes for a lot of similar debates, such as the WHO excluding studies which did not find evidence of carcinogenicity in Glyphosate because it didn't fit with their view. However the weight is heavily, heavily skewed in one direction.

    The science which forms the basis of that petition was flawed, which is not to say there are no valid points in there. Scepticism is essential for science, as is pause for consideration. Personally I find it a bit rich of people petitioning the world governments to hold out and wait a bit before taking action, when this is exactly what they have already been doing for decades, and it's not going so well.

    People have been prophesying the end of the world since the dawn of time. In the last two decades we've had people lose their minds over predictions from everything Nostradamus to the Bible Code to the Mayan calendar. In the 70's we thought we were heading for another ice age.

    The difference between those forecasts and the current one on global warming is that this one is based on millions of data points, from a wide range of different fields, observed independently and thoroughly cross examined and verified by the most professional sceptics. And they are not predicting any kind of apocalypse, but rather saying that many things are going to change very rapidly, and we're not quite sure of all the effects bar a few (such as mass humanitarian crises in many corners of the globe as a result of food shortages). And yes, we have the full whack of alarmists and conspiracy theorists jumping on the bandwagon.

    The thing is that no one can tell just how bad its going to be, and therefore how far on the alarmist scale to sit. And yes, there is a cost in taking action, so we need to be careful with that. But frankly, the cost is negligible compared to the potential risk of doing nothing. And the rationale behind makes a lot of false assumptions. I'm talking about the idea that the money we spend tackling climate change could be spent fighting famine, or things like that. We don't live in that kind of world. Money stays where it is. The billionaires of this world could easily fix world hunger and unemployment a few times over. Which means the governments of this world could easily unite to make that happen. It's not going to happen, so "the money could be used for xyz" arguments are fantasy as far as I'm concerned.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. MintyWood826

    MintyWood826 Arachnobaron

    USA
    Without getting into everything else--no. Not being convinced that humans are what is causing the climate to change has zero to do with what anyone thinks about wanting to care for our planet.

    I don't understand the phrases "climate deniers" and "climate skepticism" because of course people who are skeptical that it's humans causing the climate to change know climates exist.
     
  6. hecklad

    hecklad Arachnosquire Active Member

    @Scoly
    So yeah, I made some pretty poor arguments and at this point I don't care to try to rebutt everything you've said (not to be disrespectful but I do have quite a bit on my plate atm). Also before you got to it, I already specifically renounced the "too much budget" argument I was attempting to make as it was pretty bad.
    But anyhow, there is one major point that I absolutely agree with you on. If climate change is truly severe then something needs to be done, but if it is not, putting limitations on corporations about how much waste they can produce won't hurt anyone or anything aside from a few millionaire's wallets. Even if we are or are not facing a global emergency, conservation and becoming more enviornmentally friendly should always be a high priority. Although if you ask me, pollution is a far greater threat to wildlife and ecosystems than cc; I hear a whole lot more about sea turtles choking on straws and birds and fish dying in oil spills than dying from warming oceans (although maybe I have just missed those, idk). Holding polluters accountable and having them clean up their messes would also be fantastic.
    The only thing that concerns me about the process of becoming increasingly "enviornmentally friendly" is that it requires more government control and could easily result in the establishment of a communist/fascist state in which no one has any rights anymore. In the US for example, the Green New Deal was the latest attempt at instituting such a government in the name of "going green". And while it may seem selfish, that is more worrisome to me than actual climate change.
    (Although I guess this could also go into the "alarmist" folder)

    Sorry to quote you, but I also second this.
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  7. The Seraph

    The Seraph Arachnolord Active Member

    USA
    Just wanted to say about the reefs; they are 100% dying. Islands in the Caribbean that my father and father's brothers fished and speared on are desolate, destroyed wastes with fields of coral skeletons. Shorelines and sandbags my father grew up on no longer exist, having been swallowed by the relentless tide. We are being devastated by hurricanes, year after year. This was not common In my father's or my mother'stime. In Colorado, where I grew up, our forest were being destroyed and devoured by pine beetles who had never been a problem before. They only proliferated because of the warmer weather leading to less of their eggs dying. The forests are dying, no longer fields of green but instead increasingly brown. You may not see any evidence of climate change where you are, but in the right places it is very, very real.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Helpful Helpful x 1
  8. Nicholas Rothstein

    Nicholas Rothstein Arachnosquire Active Member

    I agree with Mintywood826. I am all for renewable energy, conservation, restoration and all that good stuff. I have the same goal as you but not the same reason (climate change). If you looked for what we have in common instead of lumping me into the fake science nutjobs a lot more things in this world could be done. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. patrick nimbs

    patrick nimbs Arachnosquire Active Member

    I live in Australia which is actually also experiencing climate change, and for your part, Australia has very harsh temperatures and climate, and three quarters of the continent is bone dry desert!! And I use my MTB as a car for exactly that purpose, to stop climate change and we all use all natural chemicals etc..etc..
     
  10. patrick nimbs

    patrick nimbs Arachnosquire Active Member

    I 250% agree with you Mr Rothstein!! Excellent point!!!!
     
  11. MoranDisciple

    MoranDisciple Arachnosquire

    PA
    Who pays more: research institutes or multibillion dollar oil companies? I rest my case.
     
  12. Nicholas Rothstein

    Nicholas Rothstein Arachnosquire Active Member

    Ah see but where do research institutes get their funding? :)
     
  13. Scoly

    Scoly Arachnobaron Active Member

    Funnily enough, they get a substantial amount their funding from corporations. The rest is mainly from government. Neither of those have any vested interest in proving that climate change is real - quite the opposite actually!

    The world's governments have been pathetically slow at taking any kind of action climate change, and there is not that much industry which benefits from proving it either, except solar panels and wind farm manufacturers, and none of those fund climate scientists, yet the fossil fuel industry has poured millions if not billions into paid research and misinformation campaigns. The people who did are even coming out and owning up to it. The only seed of doubt came from research that was funded by the fossil fuel industry to protect their profits, and they have owned up to that.

    It's simple: 95% of scientist believe it is happening (based on 100's studies recreated independently several times over, with 100,000s of data points, with the findings of one area corroborating finding from other branches) and 95% of those have zero vested interest in coming to their conclusions, while the remaining 5% are split between some who refuse to agree or disagree, and a small core who say its not happening, but who are predominantly funded by the wealthiest industry in the world, whose profits are threatened by these findings, who left a paper trail proving they spent millions on misinformation campaigns in the media, producing fake studies, squashing the findings of their own studies, silencing people, and now in some cases coming clean about what they did. How can anyone look at that and come out believing that it must be the tiny amount of bribed scientists who are right about this? HOW?

    It's as smoking a smokedy smoking gun that you could ever have. In other words: its over. Case closed. Climate change is entirely real. Anyone who thinks otherwise is completely and utterly deluded, and should frankly keep their mouthes shut as it harms the efforts of the rest of us who are trying to do something about it!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Galapoheros

    Galapoheros ArachnoGod Old Timer

    Centipedes should be fine. The planet has been through much worse as has been mentioned, yet has always come to a well enough balanced state. This is why I'm not a believer of a tipping point of no return that has been thrown out there. I've never jumped on the climate change worry wagon. Being several decades old, I've witnessed dooms day after dooms day claims with deadlines, few if any ever came true. Here's one example of examples Earth Day: Not a Single Environmental Prediction of the Last 50 Years Has Come True One might find where some claims are wrong though. Type in "environmental predictions that never happened" and you'll find the source of my skepticism. Science has improved since those days but I still see a horrible track record in predictions. Despite real threats of climate change and those that aren't so real, it has caused people to clean up a bit, that's a good thing. What's worse to me in the short term is environmental devastation, clear-cutting, and it's impact on species. From Google Maps/Earth or from an airplane, it just looks horrible. We have to eat of course but looking down at all the sterile looking farmland and irrigated acreage where animals used to roam, just gives me a bad feeling. We could have designed that better, maybe we could have created something like net-like contiguous acreage bordering farmland. But even so, hypothetically, if man stopped clear cutting and farming, plants and trees would take over and you probably wouldn't recognize those areas in a relatively few decades. The earth is a dynamic place, always changing whether we're here or not, continents slowly moving closer and further away, moving north, moving south, vegetation changing over 100 of 1000s of years as they move to different climates. I don't worry so much, go walk the dog and pick up that can somebody threw out the window. At least one good thing the US has done, it owns a preserves about 640 million acres or 28% of US land, that's not too shabby.
     
  15. The Seraph

    The Seraph Arachnolord Active Member

    USA
    Regarding the slash and burn farming you mentioned; it is indeed incredibly devastating and happens very frequently in the Amazon. Entire swathes of trees are burned down to make land for farms. Worst of all, the soul is very infertile and that means they will just have to burn more forest again so that they may be able to grow more crops. This could be avoided by choosing to pursue something other than commercial farming in a place very unsuited to it or perhaps growing things in warehouses or maybe just practicing soul conservation and enrichment instead of burning down massive swathes of rainforests. Humans have always fomented desertification and this is increasing as our population increases. There is good news though! In Africa, they are planting a "Great Green Wall", a massive stretch of forest from East to West at the border between the Sahel and the ever increasing Sahara. They hope this will stop the expansion of the Sahara and preserve the farmlands of the Sahel and thus save dozens of nations from destruction and starvation. 15% of the wall is complete as of March of this year, mostly in Senegal, Ethiopia and Nigeria. The latter two have reclaimed a combined 49 million acres from the Sahara.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  16. Galapoheros

    Galapoheros ArachnoGod Old Timer

    Cool!, that's good news. Interesting, I may keep an eye on that.
     
  17. I really don't understand why people perrenially believe this. Solving climate change doesn't involve taking away rights from ordinary individuals, unless the type of fuel in your car is something that's really important to you... it involves taking away the rights of big corporations to do whatever they want. Currently, they control the world. They have been lobbying politicians and spreading propaganda with budgets unlike anything seen in a government agency or any organization devoted to fighting climate change. If climate change was a hoax, if it wasn't obvious for scientists all over the world to see, they would have crushed and buried it ages ago.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Nicholas Rothstein

    Nicholas Rothstein Arachnosquire Active Member

    Telling people to shut their mouths in the opposite of progress. Having a controversial opinion is the reason why we progress.

    The church told Galileo to shut his mouth because he was wrong. And look at his work now.
     
  19. Nicholas Rothstein

    Nicholas Rothstein Arachnosquire Active Member

    See now, this is logic I can get behind. Conservation and restoration I almost always support. Hook in people who hold skepticism of climate change and put it under the guise of environmental conservation and restoration and boom compromise. Vice versa.

    The Brazilian government (they own a large portion of the Amazon) has been trying to enforce and create laws protecting the environment. The problem is they need help and when they ask for it no one helps them. I was skeptical of the U.S. pull out of the Paris Agreement but this was one of the points. The U.S. was one of the only countries holding up their end of the bargain. America told Brazil that is they need help then to work it out through something else because the system wasn't working.

    It is hard to stop deforestation of the Amazon when it fills their lively hood. That is a sad thing. Immediately putting a halt to these kinds of things (like what the UN proposes) could literally destroy millions of lives. Progress should be constant but gradual.
     
  20. MoranDisciple

    MoranDisciple Arachnosquire

    PA
    Progress should be as fast as possible. What's worse: some south american farmers losing their jobs, or tens of millions of refugees pouring over the border because they can no longer survive the conditions in their homeland?
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.