• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Hawking warns: We must recognise the catastrophic dangers of climate change

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,257
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
From a figure whose genius ranks right up there with Albert Einstein, and who is probably the greatest physicist of the latter 20th and 21 century:

Climate change stands alongside the use of nuclear weapons as one of the greatest threats posed to the future of the world,
Click to expand...

As Steven Hawking said those words, other scientists were moving the doomsday clock up to 5 minutes before midnight.

"As in past deliberations, we have examined other human-made threats to civilisation. We have concluded the dangers posed by climate change are nearly as dire as those posed by nuclear weapons. The effects may be less dramatic in the short term than the destruction that could be wrought by nuclear explosions, but over the next three to four decades climate change could cause drastic harm."
Click to expand...

Article is here.
 
danarhea said:
From a figure whose genius ranks right up there with Albert Einstein, and who is probably the greatest physicist of the latter 20th and 21 century:



As Steven Hawking said those words, other scientists were moving the doomsday clock up to 5 minutes before midnight.



Article is here.
Click to expand...
Climate change is a far more serious threat than many ppl think. This is not chicken little crying the sky is falling, this is the real deal and it would indeed effect everyone.
 
Nothing in Nature stands still, nature itself is in a constantly change mode.
It is true that mankinds use of fossil fuels may be adding to the problems affecting change as caused by nature, as for instance, the amount of toxic material emitted from a volcano or the amount of gas released due to a shifting of the tectonic plates.
Simply put mankind and all those scientists, that put forward the theory that mankind is solely responsible are doing so, because it sells their various tomes on this subject to the uninformed and ill educated masses, who will believe the words of almost anyone with a few letters after their names.
Having said that, we have not the slightest idea as to what the substantial amount of open air testing of nuclear weapons has done, nor do we know what effect the detonation of nuclear bombs over Japan will or have had on the planets weather, worse still, the so called Chernobyl incident which released well over 100 times the quantity of radiation over a far longer period of time than did those bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ever did.
Mankind will almost certainly be blamed for whatever climate change occurs, to some degree the release of all the various toxic gases that man has and continues to release will have some effect.
Certainly nature will also play it's role, can mankind be blamed for when a volcano erupts?
The so called ring of fire around the pacific rim is almost certainly in a contunuous state of action, because we are unable to observe (directly sighted) eruptions that are constantly occuring, does not mean that they do not occur nor that they do not release gases (toxic) into the atmosphere as well as acids into the ocean.
Hawking is undoubtedly a genius in his field, but he is also an author who wants to supplement his retiement pension with additional revenue from his prophetic and probably accurate books.
 
jfuh said:
Climate change is a far more serious threat than many ppl think. This is not chicken little crying the sky is falling, this is the real deal and it would indeed effect everyone.
Click to expand...

So if terrorists blow us up with nuclear weapons how does that affect the climate?
 
PrimBabUB said:
So if terrorists blow us up with nuclear weapons how does that affect the climate?
Click to expand...
The key word you have here is "if". Climate change is not a matter of if, but "when".
 
jfuh said:
The key word you have here is "if". Climate change is not a matter of if, but "when".
Click to expand...

And you think terrorists blowing us up is not a matter of when? With the dimwitocrats in charge?
 
PrimBabUB said:
And you think terrorists blowing us up is not a matter of when? With the dimwitocrats in charge?
Click to expand...
No, I don't think so, I do think that you're trying to derail the thread. It's clear that you don't acknowledge climate change to be a serious threat. the level to which terrorists compare to the damage and deaths as a result of climate change would be completely insignificant. How many ppl can a terrorist even with nukes kill? At most let's give them a million or two. How many deaths would result from climate change? square that.
Climate change is not some joke or moot point, this is a real serious threat with real serious consequences.
let me know when your through with high school adolescent name calling and irrelevancies and have some capacity to participate in a constructive debate on this topic. Then we will have something to discuss. Until then please control yourself of temper tantrums and postings of irrelevancies.
 
jfuh said:
No, I don't think so, I do think that you're trying to derail the thread. It's clear that you don't acknowledge climate change to be a serious threat. the level to which terrorists compare to the damage and deaths as a result of climate change would be completely insignificant. How many ppl can a terrorist even with nukes kill? At most let's give them a million or two. How many deaths would result from climate change? square that.
Climate change is not some joke or moot point, this is a real serious threat with real serious consequences.
let me know when your through with high school adolescent name calling and irrelevancies and have some capacity to participate in a constructive debate on this topic. Then we will have something to discuss. Until then please control yourself of temper tantrums and postings of irrelevancies.
Click to expand...

Just do what I did. Put the flame baiter on ignore. And thanx for your input.
 
jfuh said:
How many ppl can a terrorist even with nukes kill? At most let's give them a million or two. How many deaths would result from climate change? square that.
Click to expand...

1,000,000 X 1,000,000 = 1,000,000,000,000 people?;)
 
Climate changing is a fact, it has throughout the history of this planet been and is continuing to change.
My point is is this change caused by mankinds activities the major cause of the radical changes experienced recently, or merely an ongoing speeding up of nature's actions.
Neither you nor I know the answer to this, in my opinion neither do these (distinguished) scientists know? I somehow doubt it.
With regard to pollution killing our oceans, then I would agree that mankind has dumped and continues to dump so much of his waste into the seas, undoubtedly in my mind, mankind is the majority responsible for this.
 
jfuh said:
No, I don't think so, I do think that you're trying to derail the thread. It's clear that you don't acknowledge climate change to be a serious threat. the level to which terrorists compare to the damage and deaths as a result of climate change would be completely insignificant. How many ppl can a terrorist even with nukes kill? At most let's give them a million or two. How many deaths would result from climate change? square that.
Climate change is not some joke or moot point, this is a real serious threat with real serious consequences.
let me know when your through with high school adolescent name calling and irrelevancies and have some capacity to participate in a constructive debate on this topic. Then we will have something to discuss. Until then please control yourself of temper tantrums and postings of irrelevancies.
Click to expand...

Let's see, here...... If my question of:

So if terrorists blow us up with nuclear weapons how does that affect the climate?
Click to expand...

is irrelevant, does not have the capacity to particpate in a contructive debate on this topic, is high school adolescent and I am throwing a temper tantrum, then what are you doing?

I am not trying to derail the thread. I am simply asking a question about what will happen to our climate due to the result of a nuclear attack. A question that, you, apparently have no capacity or facility of mind to address.

I don't think my one simple question that you got so upset over and could not answer deserves such condemnation on your part. I didn't ask how many people terrorists could kill with a nuclear attack, I asked what the effect on the climate would be. You don't seem to have the answer.

I did not, as you accused, or as anyone wants to review, do any name calling when I asked the question. An example of name calling would be if I said you were a tree hugging, bark eating, PETA pond scuming idiot. But I didn't say that, did I? I only asked a question which you can't answer.
 
Quote
(I am simply asking a question about what will happen to our climate due to the result of a nuclear attack.)
An answer to yuor qestion would have to be supposition.
Would this be an isolated attack by some terrorist group or person?
Would it be a ground or an air attack?
At what height if delivered by air?
It would (one may safely assume) contaminate the ground area for some indeterminate distance and area, it would possibly contaminate water supplies, as any radiation is driven underground both by force of explosion as well as rainfall.
It would contaminate any foodstuffs grown on that land.
It would irradiate to some extent anyone in line of sight of the blast within the immediate area.
It would ultimately irradiate others further away.
Would it cause climate change?
It should have some effect on the rate of change, but as to what extent, I have no idea.
The above assumes a local attack.
But if the world became embroiled in a worldwide nuclear war, I doubt very much that many of us would survive to care about climate change and those few that did survive would probably wish they had not.
 
danarhea said:
Just do what I did. Put the flame baiter on ignore. And thanx for your input.
Click to expand...

Oh, right. I am a 'flame baiter'. Braaaaaahaaaahaaaaaa........
And of course I call people like you cowards that have no answers. Of course since you put me on ignore you won't know that I said that. Heeee.......heee....heeee...........
 
jujuman13 said:
Quote
(I am simply asking a question about what will happen to our climate due to the result of a nuclear attack.)
An answer to yuor qestion would have to be supposition.
Would this be an isolated attack by some terrorist group or person?
Would it be a ground or an air attack?
At what height if delivered by air?
It would (one may safely assume) contaminate the ground area for some indeterminate distance and area, it would possibly contaminate water supplies, as any radiation is driven underground both by force of explosion as well as rainfall.
It would contaminate any foodstuffs grown on that land.
It would irradiate to some extent anyone in line of sight of the blast within the immediate area.
It would ultimately irradiate others further away.
Would it cause climate change?
It should have some effect on the rate of change, but as to what extent, I have no idea.
The above assumes a local attack.
But if the world became embroiled in a worldwide nuclear war, I doubt very much that many of us would survive to care about climate change and those few that did survive would probably wish they had not.
Click to expand...

As if your comments are not supposition also?.......................

Get a life.
 
PrimBabUB said:
And you think terrorists blowing us up is not a matter of when? With the dimwitocrats in charge?
Click to expand...

Keep it on topic, please. As far as I can tell, this has nothing to do with climate change.
 
jfuh said:
let me know when your through with high school adolescent name calling and irrelevancies and have some capacity to participate in a constructive debate on this topic. Then we will have something to discuss. Until then please control yourself of temper tantrums and postings of irrelevancies.
Click to expand...
Pot, meet kettle!
 
jujuman13 said:
Nothing in Nature stands still, nature itself is in a constantly change mode.
It is true that mankinds use of fossil fuels may be adding to the problems affecting change as caused by nature, as for instance, the amount of toxic material emitted from a volcano or the amount of gas released due to a shifting of the tectonic plates.
Simply put mankind and all those scientists, that put forward the theory that mankind is solely responsible are doing so, because it sells their various tomes on this subject to the uninformed and ill educated masses, who will believe the words of almost anyone with a few letters after their names.
Having said that, we have not the slightest idea as to what the substantial amount of open air testing of nuclear weapons has done, nor do we know what effect the detonation of nuclear bombs over Japan will or have had on the planets weather, worse still, the so called Chernobyl incident which released well over 100 times the quantity of radiation over a far longer period of time than did those bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ever did.
Mankind will almost certainly be blamed for whatever climate change occurs, to some degree the release of all the various toxic gases that man has and continues to release will have some effect.
Certainly nature will also play it's role, can mankind be blamed for when a volcano erupts?
The so called ring of fire around the pacific rim is almost certainly in a contunuous state of action, because we are unable to observe (directly sighted) eruptions that are constantly occuring, does not mean that they do not occur nor that they do not release gases (toxic) into the atmosphere as well as acids into the ocean.
Hawking is undoubtedly a genius in his field, but he is also an author who wants to supplement his retiement pension with additional revenue from his prophetic and probably accurate books.
Click to expand...

Of course, man has no control over when a volcano erupts, but he can control the carbons he himself emits, which happen to be much greater, and therefore the most serious part of the problem.
 
jfuh said:
The key word you have here is "if". Climate change is not a matter of if, but "when".
Click to expand...

Really, climate has never changed in the history of the earth?
 
Stace said:
Unnecessary. Has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Click to expand...

sorry, but he's the last person that should be complaining about namecalling and personal attacks....the very last.
 
Stinger said:
Really, climate has never changed in the history of the earth?
Click to expand...

Pah, yes what do scientists know? they think the eath revolves around the sun for god sake.:roll:

Care to shows us where Mr Hawking went wrong?
 
Red_Dave said:
Pah, yes what do scientists know? they think the eath revolves around the sun for god sake.:roll:

Care to shows us where Mr Hawking went wrong?
Click to expand...

And it isn't just Hawking either. Those at the meeting represent the mainstream scientific community. Of course, those who argue against global warming do have a few scientists on their side - paid by the oil companies, and whose credibility within the scientific community rank right there with Velikovsky. LOL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom