• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Biden Thinks Climate Change More Threating Than Nuclear War

Alien826

No religious beliefs
Biden could be right about this.
Great loss of land due to seas expanding,
coping with higher temperatures, massive
population relocation. Nuclear war, if it
happens, could be to a limited extent.
And then there's the question of certainty
vs likelihood.

And some things that we might not have considered fully. Like animal "pests" migrating north, and from a recent news item some kind of fungus disease being seen further north than before.

You are right about certainty vs likelihood. An all out nuclear war, we have been told, would cause a nuclear winter that would wipe out most life forms on the Earth. But that seems unlikely (not impossible) these days, and something like Iran nuking Israel and Israel responding is more worrying.

Climate change on the other hand is in my opinion almost certain to happen. Finally we have moved out of the denial stage, and are now applying the "lets see how much we can do and still get elected" method. It could have been handled by progressive steps years ago, maybe, but now it's got to the stage where really drastic measures are necessary, and given that the typical human can't think far beyond next week there will always be something else to worry about. Yes, we should not give up, but I fear we are f****d.
 

JDMS

Academic Workhorse
That's quite rough. I hope it doesn't happen again.

Where I live, 86°F indoors is very manageable without AC but still hot. I can't imagine what 95°F would be like in a place without a desert climate.

During August-October my bedroom was back in the 80's again and it was much better lol. No idea how much that 10 degree difference could make.

Fans become more harmful than helpful in the 90's.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
And some things that we might not have considered fully. Like animal "pests" migrating north, and from a recent news item some kind of fungus disease being seen further north than before.
I've been long wondering how soon we'll get some
of those southern benefits, eg, killer bees, fire ants,
Formosan termites, & lawyers.
Uh oh...that last pest is already endemic here.
You are right about certainty vs likelihood. An all out nuclear war, we have been told would cause a nuclear winter that would wipe out most life forms on the Earth. But that seems unlikely (not impossible) these days, and something like Iran nuking Israel and Israel responding is more worrying.
At least if Iran becomes a nuclear power, Israel
will likely stop trying to get USA to start a war
against Iran. Nukes are a kind of insurance.
Climate change on the other hand is in my opinion almost certain to happen. Finally we have moved out of the denial stage, and are now applying the "lets see how much we can do and still get elected" method. It could have been handled by progressive steps years ago, maybe, but now it's got to the stage where really drastic measures are necessary, and given that the typical human can't think far beyond next week there will always be something else to worry about. Yes, we should not give up, but I fear we are f****d.
Being well above sea level is one reason I
like Revoltistan. Also, no earthquakes, no
droughts, no flooding, no fires, & conveniently
located for engine shows throughout the best
half of the country.
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
No. We are not in danger because of climate change. Life adapts. It did in the past and will do so in the future with changing climate patterns.

Life itself will survive, certainly. What happens to individual species (like us) is less certain. I suggest a collapse in civilization and a dramatic reduction of the human population is not outside the bounds of possibility.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Life itself will survive, certainly. What happens to individual species (like us) is less certain. I suggest a collapse in civilization and a dramatic reduction of the human population is not outside the bounds of possibility.
That's true.

Climate changes threaten areas of the world in that respect, but not everyone is going to be in grave danger. Others will be.


Stephen Hawking: Earth Could Turn Into Hothouse Planet Like Venus

Even Hawkins was derided by his peers for being overly flamboyant on the issue, but essentially there is a threat nonetheless.

Yea. I agree there.

I just don't think it overrides the threat posed by nuclear arms.
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
I've been long wondering how soon we'll get some
of those southern benefits, eg, killer bees, fire ants,
Formosan termites, & lawyers.
Uh oh...that last pest is already endemic here.

:D

Yes, and the "nuisance" stuff is the least of it. How about a plant disease that wipes out a huge percentage of food production?

At least if Iran becomes a nuclear power, Israel
will likely stop trying to get USA to start a war
against Iran. Nukes are a kind of insurance.

I don't know. Did you see the interview with Netanyahu on CNN? According to him, the Iran push to develop a nuclear bomb is specifically aimed at Israel. We can't rely on common sense from Iran. They could just lob a bomb at Israel, and Israel already has countless bombs, I believe. I'm not sure we could rely on Israel sticking to conventional weapons if that happened. Just speculation of course. Incidentally, Israel is well aware of the threat and recently (?) raided an Iranian nuclear facility and set them back many years (he said).

Being well above sea level is one reason I
like Revoltistan. Also, no earthquakes, no
droughts, no flooding, no fires, & conveniently
located for engine shows throughout the best
half of the country.

Unfortunately that's why floods of refugees will head here.
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
That's true.

Climate changes threaten areas of the world in that respect, but not everyone is going to be in grave danger. Others will be.


Stephen Hawking: Earth Could Turn Into Hothouse Planet Like Venus

Even Hawkins was derided by his peers for being overly flamboyant on the issue, but essentially there is a threat nonetheless.

Yea. I agree there.

Fair enough. Don't think that localized problems will stay localized though. Imagine Mexico and countries south of there becoming essentially uninhabitable. Don't you think that starving hordes will move north? Do you think they will wait patiently at the US border for visas? A doomsday scenario certainly and there's nothing I would like more than to be wrong.

I just don't think it overrides the threat posed by nuclear arms.

Both are serious. Fortunately we can address both at the same time. Unfortunately, we probably won't.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Tell me where I outright denied it.
No it isn't in terms of being more dangerous.
The threat of nukes is in storage, disposal, and MUF (Material Unaccounted For). The dangers of global warming are happening now, all around us, claim it's a no in your own area but any idiot can fact check that claim (it's false by the way and warming there too as well).
Climate in New York
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The threat of nukes is in storage, disposal, and MUF (Material Unaccounted For). The dangers of global warming are happening now, all around us, claim it's a no in your own area but any idiot can fact check that claim (it's false by the way and warming there too as well).
Climate in New York
I lived here since the 70s. I believe it when I see it. In my opinion of course.

For the record, I can regard climate change as being third on the list of priorities to address in terms of the danger scale.
 

The Hammer

Wyrd Wide Web
Premium Member
Appears someone is whispering in Joe's ear again since he said "If we don’t stay under 1.5 degrees Celsius, we’re going to have a real problem. It’s the single-most existential threat to humanity we’ve ever faced, including nuclear weapons," Biden said. "And so we have a real big problem."
Now the last time I read anything about the use of nuclear weapons in a global war seems the aftermath of a all out nuclear war is pretty devestaing. Yes we could recover in 10 or 15 years from such an event maybe, but what would be left of the human race. We know that science is eventually going to solve the problems that humans may or may not (depending on your beliefs) be causing. But eventually new technology will be forthcomming. Now if there was total nuclear war I don't think we could recover in my opinion. So if a leader of a country thinks nuclear weapons are not threating armageddon?????
However if we go back to Oct of 2022 Biden said ""I don’t think there is any such a thing as the ability to easily use a tactical weapon and not end up with Armageddon"
So, I guess comes down to who plugs the USB drive into Biden.
Biden says climate change is bigger threat to humanity than nuclear war: 'We’re going to have a real problem'


They are both major problems.

One is actually occuring currently (climate change) and one is a possibility, but hasn't occured, yet (nuclear war).

I prefer to focus on problems that are occurring currently.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Fair enough. Don't think that localized problems will stay localized though. Imagine Mexico and countries south of there becoming essentially uninhabitable. Don't you think that starving hordes will move north? Do you think they will wait patiently at the US border for visas? A doomsday scenario certainly and there's nothing I would like more than to be wrong.



Both are serious. Fortunately we can address both at the same time. Unfortunately, we probably won't.
I'm not against green technology. Just want to see it on par with tech it wants to replace. If that happens, the world will beat a path to its door. Problems solved. I think...

Ironically, perhaps paradoxically, nuclear is one of the cleanest forms of energy on earth, while at the same time, among the biggest threats. Rock and a hard place.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I'm not against green technology. Just want to see it on par with tech it wants to replace. If that happens, the world will beat a path to its door. Problems solved. I think...

Ironically, perhaps paradoxically, nuclear is one of the cleanest forms of energy on earth, while at the same time, among the biggest threats. Rock and a hard place.
Except for the whole storage and disposal problem.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
So, it appears that the majority here does not think science can not advance to a point that the major factors affecting the earth can be solved. Yet think that a rogue nation or leader could not use nuclear weapons in a first strike scenario.
Well I'm facisinated by the idea of the majority of you not trusting science but trusting leaders of a country.
If so I think we are doomed.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I really say that!
Premium Member
So, it appears that the majority here does not think science can not advance to a point that the major factors affecting the earth can be solved. Yet think that a rogue nation or leader could not use nuclear weapons in a first strike scenario.
Well I'm facisinated by the idea of the majority of you not trusting science but trusting leaders of a country.
If so I think we are doomed.
Well, the nations often not being able to agree as to plans, and sticking to them, rather says more about our current state of affairs than any science, and religious differences are hardly helping here.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Good I hope you do. Just keep in mind the experts can be divided.

You choose yours, I'll choose mine.
You have no experts. Do you know what it takes to be an expert in a scientific field? One must be willing to put one's ideas to the test. And peer review is how ideas are tested today. Make an argument support it with facts and evidence and see how others react. Your "experts" probably do not even try. Just like creation "scientists". I used to argue against AGW years and years ago. But I have a rare bad habit. I actually read the articles that others use against me in a debate. I could see that I was losing point by point There are a couple of particularly strong arguments that got to me. One was the Arctic sea ice death spiral graph, And another was the arguments of Lord Monckton. Monckton openly lies in many of his arguments. He distorts data and does not even try that hard to cover it up. He knows his audience too well. I had to ask myself: Why is he using such dishonest debating techniques if he really believes in his cause? Te man is either a liar or an idiot. He knows that his followers will not fact check him.

Do you have kids? If not I can understand your attitude. I can't respect it but I can see how someone might have an "I got mine" attitude.
 
Top