et pet

To whom it may concern :

  A paper, https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_a1406e0143ac4c469196d3003bc1e687.pdf ,is published that says(to paraphrase) that by 2050, the affects of ACC on society will produce conditions that could lead to the destruction of Civilization - as MigL mentioned,  possibly killing ourselves off through war and greed for the few remaining resources ( land, food water, etc. ).

 CBS NEWS runs a piece on that Paper : https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-climate-change-report-human-civilization-at-risk-extinction-by-2050-new-australian-climate/ , where CBS NEWS states "A new report by Australian climate experts warns that "climate change now represents a near- to mid-term existential threat" to human civilization. In this grim forecast — which was endorsed by the former chief of the Australian Defense Force — human civilization could end by 2050 due to the destabilizing societal and environmental factors caused by a rapidly warming planet. " 

   Seemed to me that CBS NEWS was being kind of Hysterical in how they chose to (misre)present the report : quite a bit of difference between "by 2050, the affects of ACC on society will produce conditions that could lead to the destruction of Civilization"     and   "human civilization could end by 2050 due to the destabilizing societal and environmental factors caused by a rapidly warming planet. " 

  I then pondered, Just ain't no telling the lengths that Governments, Military's and the Media will go, eh?

   Because there is no telling the lengths that Governments, Military's and the Media will go to show such disregard for the intelligence and abilities Humankind.

     So, yeah, seemed kind of Hysterical to me how CBS NEWS changed could be on the road to the destruction of Civilization by 2050 to human civilization could end by 2050. 

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Not really. 

Concur.

2 hours ago, MigL said:

You guys are all pessimists.

The study doesn't say ACC will destroy civilization.
It says societal pressures will destroy civilization as a result of conditions caused by ACC.
IOW we will kill ourselves off through war and greed for the few remaining resources ( land, food water, etc. )

I happen to believe in people.
 

   Pessimist?  No. An Optimist sees a Donut, a Pessimist sees the Hole!

    Me I see a Calorie Laden Sweet Treat that I know I shouldn't be eating at all, so I will only Wolf Down 2 or 3...or

   Just a Realist.

   Just a Realist, MigL, posting an example of TMM espousing DOOM & GLOOM!

  Great, that you Actually Read the WHOLE POST!!

   Thought that CBS NEWS was being kind of Hysterical in how they chose to (misre)present the report " Existential climate-related security risk: A scenario approach "   https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_a1406e0143ac4c469196d3003bc1e687.pdf

   They actually published  that " human civilization could end by 2050 due to the destabilizing societal and environmental factors caused by a rapidly warming planet. " !!  

        https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-climate-change-report-human-civilization-at-risk-extinction-by-2050-new-australian-climate/

     Just ain't no telling the lengths that Governments, Military's and the Media will go, eh?

   Again, whether it is the MONEY SPENT to change the Literature and Exhibits at Glacier National Park or the MONEY SPENT on the Report or the MONEY SPENT by CBS NEWS to (misre)present the Report...I still cannot help but wonder how much better it would have been if that MONEY had been SPENT to actually COMBAT ACC!!!

   MigL, thanks for taking the time to read and fully comprehend what I actually Posted!  

On 1/11/2019 at 2:10 AM, nec209 said:

To join the military or be a doctor how high of IQ do you need?

The U.S. Military still uses the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) test. It is a Multiple Choice test.

Not really an Intelligence Quotient test.

More like a test that measures what abilities you have already acquired and tries to figure out how well you might do in different Occupational Specialties.

    found this : https://www.goarmy.com/learn/understanding-the-asvab.html

   " UNDERSTANDING THE ASVAB TEST AREAS

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If I don't get to see it, it really doesn't matter.

We weigh more coal over the Hunter river weighbridge at newcastle nsw in one month than the UK burns in a year. Thats just one line, so lots more where that comes from.

c'est la vie!

Some thoughts to ponder :

“Man, do not pride yourself on your superiority to the animals, for they are without sin, while you, with all your greatness, you defile the earth wherever you appear and leave an ignoble trail behind you -- and that is true, alas, for almost every one of us!”
― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov 

“The ultimate test of man’s conscience may be his willingness to sacrifice something today for future generations whose words of thanks will not be heard.”
—Gaylord Nelson

“No doubt, humans will do a lot of damage before we ultimately destroy ourselves. But life will continue without humans. New forms of intelligence will emerge long after this human experiment is over.” 
― Zeena Schreck, Beatdom #11: The Nature Issue 

“Like music and art, love of nature is a common language that can transcend political or social boundaries.”
—Jimmy Carter

“Let's stop fighting over who we believe created the planet, & work together against those that choose to destroy it.” 
― Jack Barker

“The Earth will not continue to offer its harvest, except with faithful stewardship. We cannot say we love the land and then take steps to destroy it for use by future generations.”
—John Paul II

"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."

Native American Proverb

“One of the first conditions of happiness is that the link between man and nature shall not be broken.”
—Leo Tolstoy

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed.

Mahatma Gandhi

“The Earth is what we all have in common.”
—Wendell Berry

The Earth has a skin and that skin has diseases, one of its diseases is called man.     

Friedrich Nietzsche

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”
-George Bernard Shaw

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

That doesn't mean we'll see glaciers again.

Might not be any human civilization to see glaciers again : 

 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-climate-change-report-human-civilization-at-risk-extinction-by-2050-new-australian-climate/

  "A new report by Australian climate experts warns that "climate change now represents a near- to mid-term existential threat" to human civilization. In this grim forecast — which was endorsed by the former chief of the Australian Defense Force — human civilization could end by 2050 due to the destabilizing societal and environmental factors caused by a rapidly warming planet. The report, entitled "Existential climate-related security risk: A scenario approach," lays out a future where society could collapse due to instability set off by migration patterns of billions of people affected by drought, rising sea levels, and environmental destruction.

"Climate-change impacts on food and water systems, declining crop yields and rising food prices driven by drought, wildfire and harvest failures have already become catalysts for social breakdown and conflict across the Middle East, the Maghreb and the Sahel, contributing to the European migration crisis," the report said. 

  The report was written by David Spratt, research director for Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration in Melbourne, and Ian T. Dunlop, formerly an international oil, gas and coal industry executive and chair of the Australian Coal Association. Retired Admiral Chris Barrie, former defense forces chief of Australia, endorsed the report and wrote a forward to it. "

   https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_a1406e0143ac4c469196d3003bc1e687.pdf 

"     FOREWORD  - Admiral Chris Barrie, AC RAN Retired

   Admiral Chris Barrie, AC RAN Retired In 2017-18, the Australian Senate inquired into the implications of climate change for Australia’s national security. The Inquiry found that climate change is “a current and existential national security risk”, one that “threatens the premature extinction of Earthoriginating intelligent life or the permanent and drastic destruction of its potential for desirable future development”. I told the Inquiry that, after nuclear war, humaninduced global warming is the greatest threat to human life on the planet. Today’s 7.5 billion human beings are already the most predatory species that ever existed, yet the global population has yet to peak and may reach 10 billion people, with dire implications absent a fundamental change in human behaviour. This policy paper looks at the existential climate-related security risk through a scenario set thirty years into the future. David Spratt and Ian Dunlop have laid bare the unvarnished truth about the desperate situation humans, and our planet, are in, painting a disturbing picture of the real possibility that human life on earth may be on the way to extinction, in the most horrible way. In Australia recently we have seen and heard signals about the growing realisation of the seriousness of our plight. For example, young women speak of their decisions to not have children, and climate scientists admitting to depression as they consider the “inevitable” nature of a doomsday future and turn towards thinking more about family and relocation to “safer” places, rather than working on more research.

  Stronger signals still are coming from increasing civil disobedience, for example over the opening up of the Galilee Basin coal deposits and deepwater oil exploration in the Great Australian Bight, with the suicidal increase in carbon emissions they imply. And the outrage of schoolchildren over their parent’s irresponsibility in refusing to act on climate change. As my colleague Professor Will Steffen has said of the climate challenge: “It’s not a technological or a scientific problem, it’s a question of humanities’ socio-political values… We need a social tipping point that flips our thinking before we reach a tipping point in the climate system.” A doomsday future is not inevitable! But without immediate drastic action our prospects are poor. We must act collectively. We need strong, determined leadership in government, in business and in our communities to ensure a sustainable future for humankind. In particular, our intelligence and security services have a vital role to play, and a fiduciary responsibility, in accepting this existential climate threat, and the need for a fundamentally different approach to its risk management, as central to their considerations and their advice to government. The implications far outweigh conventional geopolitical threats. I commend this policy paper to you. Admiral Chris Barrie, AC RAN Retired, is Honorary Professor, Strategic & Defence Studies Centre, Coral Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs, Australian National University, Canberra. He is a member of the Global Military Advisory Council on Climate Change and was Chief of the Australian Defence Force from 1998 to 2002. "

The report :   https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_a1406e0143ac4c469196d3003bc1e687.pdf   

   You asked :

On 6/13/2019 at 8:59 PM, iNow said:

Is your assertion that the cycles will continue unchanged, or just that they will continue?

How is this relevant? If we reach this consensus, what does it do for us / what question does it answer / what problem does it solve?

In other words, who cares?

   I answered :

21 hours ago, et pet said:

I said that the Glacial–Interglacial Cycles will still continue.

Relevance? How about : arguments should cease / can we reach agreement / inability to Successfully unite to achieve a common goal

Who cares?  Maybe : anyone seriously interested in completely eliminating Mankind's deleterious affect on Earth's Climate!

iNow, I answered your questions, the first time you asked(21 hours ago!). So would you Please Clarify this :

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Thank you for finally answering my question (even if you did so only inadvertently). 

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

A 'cycle' is a repetition of what came before i.e there is a sameness. 

I was referring to the Glacial/Inter-Glacial Cycles. 

   See :   https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change/Glacial-Interglacial Cycles

Yes, StringJunky, you could possibly say that there is a "sameness" in that there is a Glacial Period, and then an Inter-Glacial Period, and then a Glacial Period, and then an Inter-Glacial period, and then a Glacial...(you see where this is going...) We are currently in an Inter-Glacial Period.

But, like I said before, from what I have been taught, these Glacial/Inter-Glacial Cycles will never repeat exactly the same. Neither in severity nor duration, there are just too many variables involved for that to ever happen.

50 minutes ago, iNow said:

So, when I asked: 

You replied: 

So, I'll put you down for the second option. Is that fair and reasonable to your actual stance here?

NO! 

NO! I did not assert : "that the cycles will continue unchanged".

NO! I did not assert : "just that they will continue"

The Fact that they are described as Cycles should make it abundantly clear that they will always be changing.  

I have repeatedly told you that I said the Glacial–Interglacial Cycles will still continue.

From what I have been taught, these Glacial/Inter-Glacial Cycles will never repeat exactly the same. Neither in severity nor duration, there are just too many variables involved for that to ever happen.

iNow, there is no reason to try to introduce any Dilemma or Dichotomy that does not exist.

In debate clubs in high-school and college, they had a name for what you seem to be trying to force upon me. It was referred to as a Fake or False Dilemma or Dichotomy or something along those lines.

PLEASE, Please just read my Posts!

Maybe watch the Video at the Link that MigL provided.

BTW - I cannot seem to find any of your Posts where you "asked" me "to clarify" anything. 

38 minutes ago, iNow said:

Maybe you could stop being evasive and trollish and instead answer my simple direct question. 

4th time asking:

Is your assertion that the cycles will continue unchanged?

OR

Is your assertion just that they will continue?

Maybe you could stop accusing me of being "evasive and trollish" and actually read my responses.

I addressed All 4 of these questions :

12 hours ago, et pet said:

Is your assertion that the cycles will continue unchanged, or just that they will continue?

How is this relevant? If we reach this consensus, what does it do for us / what question does it answer / what problem does it solve?

In other words, who cares?

I answered all four(4) of those questions 15 Posts(11 hours) back.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Why not? Surely, on a long enough time frame, this is absolutely possible, yet you're suggesting otherwise. What detail am I missing that makes such  runaway greenhouse problem as we see on Venus impossible here on Earth given the right circumstances? That makes no sense to me.

Maybe you could attempt doing a little research for yourself on what "makes such runaway greenhouse problem as we see on Venus impossible here on Earth given the right circumstances", maybe?

iNow, with nearly 20,000 Posts, surely you have learned how to do a little research for yourself, have you not?

1 hour ago, MigL said:

If Et Pet is using the fact that the signs are incorrect and have been removed to argue against ACC, I don't agree with that either.
( although I do agree that the cyclic nature of climate change will continue, but may be modified by ACC )

   MigL, I have never argued against Anthropogenic Climate Change.

  I only Posted the article in my Original Post, : http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3796-glacier-national-park-quietly-removes-its-gone-by-2020-signs , I did not Author that article.

I clearly stated what I thought about the Park Officials changing or removing Literature and Exhibits when I Posted:

  " I found it interesting that the Officials at Glacier National Park were even going to the trouble of changing or removing anything. A majority of visitors to the Park would probably never even notice the things that the Officials were changing or removing. Why not leave the Literature and Interactive exhibits as they were? Personally, I am quite sure that the funds that were used could have been put to much better use."

20 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

I was reading a thread which explained why it would be difficult and pointless to dump nuclear waste into the sun

Was it a thread here on  https://www.scienceforums.net/  ? Can you Link to it?

We may be able to assist you if we know the principle that is being applied. 

3 hours ago, MigL said:

For those of us who do care...

This video from PBS Digital Studios does an excellent job of describing the three cycles that affect the climate of our planet.
And gives some insight as to how human activity ( ACC ) may modify the cyclic nature of the expected climate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztninkgZ0ws

You can watch it if you are interested.
If not, who cares.

Good find, MigL!  There is a lot of Real Science presented in less than 1000 seconds!   

Thanks for Link.

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Is your assertion that the cycles will continue unchanged, or just that they will continue?

How is this relevant? If we reach this consensus, what does it do for us / what question does it answer / what problem does it solve?

In other words, who cares?

I said that the Glacial–Interglacial Cycles will still continue.

Relevance? How about : arguments should cease / can we reach agreement / inability to Successfully unite to achieve a common goal

Who cares?  Maybe : anyone seriously interested in completely eliminating Mankind's deleterious affect on Earth's Climate!

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

To provide an overview of the situation paraphrased as "meh, glaciers come and go, nothing to see here", is either being willfully ignorant or is indicative of an agenda such as FUD regarding ACC.

11 hours ago, iNow said:

What, pray tell, do you recommend one do when said offered benefit is repeatedly and consistently squandered?

I doubt you’re suggesting we emulate Charlie Brown continuing to blindly kick at Lucy’s football. So, what then?

In a vacuum, one would be silly to pushback against your point. In general terms and as an isolated point, you’re absolutely correct.  

In context and in respect to the history of this poster, however, pushback against this platitude is the only choice demonstrating any integrity. 

It’s about arguing in good faith, MigL. I have no quarrel with you, but I benefit from enough knowledge of our OP to doubt their sincerity and to lack faith in the goodness of their motives. 

   iNow, including this one, I have made less than 130 post here, 14 in this thread alone. A good amount of my posts have been in defense of repeated and consistent negative posts directed toward me.                                                            You claim to have offered me the benefit of the doubt "repeatedly" and that I "repeatedly and consistently squandered" those overtures. Were you offering me the benefit of the doubt, in this thread, when your first post was  -         

           " iNow - Posted yesterday at 08:13 AM

 That’s like saying an ice cube will continue to be an ice cube, always in a state of flux, continuing to be a cube even in response to temperature changes. 

Perhaps you’ve never encountered an actual ice cube in your travels, but anyone who has encountered ice cubes can quickly agree that such a claim is rather ignorant."

   Is that your idea of giving me the benefit of the doubt? Attributing a claim to me, by putting words in my mouth, that I never made and then stating that "such a claim is rather ignorant"?

   On to my history, iNow. A history of less than 115 posts(prior to this thread), again, with a good amount those posts being me defending myself from repeated and consistent negative posts directed toward me. Is that the history that you are referring to, iNow? And what about this "platitude"?                                                                                                                                                                                                   What true statement have I repeated so often that it is meaningless?    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/platitude   

  Arguing in good faith, iNow? Once again, let us refer to your first post in this thread. Is attributing a claim to me, by putting words in my mouth, that I never made and then stating that "such a claim is rather ignorant", your idea of arguing in good faith?

  You claim to "benefit from enough knowledge of our OP to doubt their sincerity and to lack faith in the goodness of their motives." This is a really odd statement to try to parse!                                                                                                                                                                             Only one person started this thread, me. I am the Original Poster only me. Yet for some reason, you "doubt their sincerity and lack faith in the goodness of their motives."?  You seem to state that that reason is because you "benefit from enough knowledge of our OP".   

     How did you accrue that knowledge, iNow?

    I posted the OP - http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3796-glacier-national-park-quietly-removes-its-gone-by-2020-signs , because I thought that some might find it interesting, like I did.

    I found it interesting that the Officials at Glacier National Park were even going to the trouble of changing or removing anything. A majority of visitors to the Park would probably never even notice the things that the Officials were changing or removing. Why not leave the Literature and Interactive exhibits as they were? Personally, I am quite sure that the funds that were used could have been put to much better use. 

   I also found it odd that the Author of "Glacier National Park Quietly Removes Its ‘Gone by 2020’ Signs", Roger I. Roots, took issue because "local Montana news sources such as The Missoulian, Billings Gazette and Bozeman Daily Chronicle have remained utterly silent regarding this story." 

    Why must any news outlet, local or whatever, be notified of any changes to the Parks Literature, Interactive exhibits or the results of any Universities studies of the Park?

   The icing on the cake, though, for me at least, was the Authors (Note) at the end of the article, and to a much lesser extent, the "EDITOR'S NOTE:". 

   There was no intent on my part to "sow" any "FUD"(not HUD) about any "ACC".

   Whether or not any of the absolutely honest truth in this Post will be accepted by you, iNow, or any others?                           Well, I have no control over that, you and all others will believe whatever you choose.No need for me to fret about it.  

    My FINAL thoughts on this matter are that there seems to be quite a bit of dishonesty, negativity and acrimony being repeatedly and consistently directed towards me for no good reason.

     Those do not seem like the kind of tactics, actions, methods or whatever that should be allowed in any real science discussion on any real science site.

35 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Yes.

32 minutes ago, iNow said:

^what he said

Correct, and as best I can tell, nobody here other than you is discussing censorship. 

Wow!  Not even close!

I knew there were a few people here that seemed severely "biased(?)" and quick to misinterpret(at times even intentionally, it seems!), but...

   ...did you read the OP Link in it's entirety ?

55 minutes ago, iNow said:

Sowing FUD about ACC

40 minutes ago, iNow said:

Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt. 

Anthropogenic Climate Change

    So now, let me get this straight...you think that my intent for Posting the OP was so I could be :  "sowing fear uncertainty and doubt about Anthropogenic Climate Change"?

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Sowing FUD about ACC

   Forgive my ignorance, iNow, I understand 'sowing' , I think - as in "sowing seeds", maybe?  But I have no idea about what the FUD and ACC mean. 

    Any chance that you might assist me in overcoming my ignorance, please? 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Wasn’t me 

Totally agree 

Precisely, though that’s hardly the intent of our OP. 

  I never thought it was.

  Agree.

  Heartily agree.  -   Incidentally, just what do you perceive as the "intent of our OP"?

50 minutes ago, MigL said:

If I may...

Peppering Et Pet with numerous negative points is totally inappropriate.
He is correct !

There have been numerous changes in the climate of this little blue planet over the preceding aeons.
Climate change HAS occurred, and will continue to occur; and glaciers will come and go ( as they did in my area of the world 12000 yrs ago ).
And he has provided support for his assertions that the causal factors are due to the changes of the Earth's orbit, and the combined effects of three cycles with some secondary factors like albedo, currents, and even volcanic/asteroid activity.

What we should be discussing instead is ANTHROPOGENIC climate change, and how to alleviate that problem.
We have no control over the Earth's orbit, but man-made climate change is a different topic

   Thanks, MigL, for another breath of fresh air!!!

34 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

Some glaciers will still be glaciers. Some will be in deep valleys at high latitudes that never get direct sunlight - and would take more warming than we are expecting to melt. A bit like 'ice free Arctic Ocean' will still have some ice in inlets that never see the sun ("ice free" being a term that includes the presence of such ice). Predictions from leading glaciologists and specialist science agencies (rather than secondary re-interpretations and media reports) of how rapidly global warming causes glaciers to retreat and when they ultimately stop being glaciers have never been precise and have included a lot of clearly stated uncertainty. And considering a 'worst case' scenario will always give a very different answer to 'most likely' - and worst case outcomes are more likely to get the attention once the discussion moves outside the realms of experts talking with experts.

    Thanks, Ken Fabian, for the breath of fresh air!!!

   From what I have learned, the Glacial/Interglacial Cycles are part of our Earth.

5 hours ago, iNow said:

Gone forever. Once it melts, it's gone. This remains true even if in future glacial periods new glaciers happen to form.

     There seems to be some kind of misunderstanding going on here...

     Yes, iNow, the Glacier that melts completely away is gone.

     Any Glacier that forms in that same spot in any future glacial period, even if it is in THAT EXACT SAME PLACE, will not be THAT EXACT SAME GLACIER. I concur with that.

     Now, what I would like to ask of you is this : Do you suppose that any Glaciers will ever again form in any of the the same places as the ~125 that have melted, in any future Glacial Periods?   
     If you can say yes, then you may possibly be able to understand that that is what I meant, and still mean, when I say glaciers will continue to be glaciers, always in a state of flux, continuing to advance or recede in response to climate changes. If you can say yes, then we are in agreement, albeit we expressed ourselves differently.

      If you can honestly state that a Glacier will never ever again form in any of those ~125 places in any future Glacial Period, then I cannot concur with that.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Nobody disputes this.

   Good.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Except, no. It’s not. Sometimes they melt entirely and are gone forever, like what’s happening at an increasing rate today due to increases in global average annual temperatures. 

Please read :