How Silly is Climate Change Denial?

[pixelsmith]

So I assume I am on ignore because Tyger can't answer fundamental questions. This is very typical of a Liberal.

 

[pixelsmith]

Maybe Tyger did his homework on his favorite website SkepticalScience and its corrupt and deceitful owner John "cook the books" Cook. Tyger would you like to discuss the SS website and John Cook?

 

[Erno86]

pixelsmith --- "One simple way to make your way through the thicket is to ask yourself: What is the price of being wrong? If the doubters are wrong and the climate-change thesis is correct, the price is potentially catastrophic. The safe {and conservative} course is to assume the worst."

Quote: David Ignatus, Climate as a Moral Issue, OP-ED, Washington Post, Wednesday, November 19, 2014

 

[mike]

pixelsmith --- "One simple way to make your way through the thicket is to ask yourself: What is the price of being wrong? If the doubters are wrong and the climate-change thesis is correct, the price is potentially catastrophic. The safe {and conservative} course is to assume the worst."

Quote: David Ignatus, Climate as a Moral Issue, OP-ED, Washington Post, Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Thats my pov too, the climate change vs changing climate debate is a distraction.

Best practise, is best practise.

The environment , our air and water is like underwear and bedsheets, always better if its clean

 

[pixelsmith]

I agree but none if you seem to understand the very foundation of the CAGW scam that human generated CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming. It isn't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pixelsmith]

Stop deforestation, control water run off from fields, explore viable alternative energies, stop dumping waste into the oceans etc etc.
CO2 is beneficial and we need more of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pixelsmith]

Mike and Erno can you answer the questions I posed to Tyger?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mike]

I agree but none if you seem to understand the very foundation of the CAGW scam that human generated CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming. It isn't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Beat me to it, i was going to edit to add

To be fair Pixelsmith agrees with this aspect, his gripe is the aspect of this matter thats a blatant con.
And on that i agree with him

The Australian govt bought in a carbon tax, and set an emissions cap designed to reduce greenhouse emissions in industry. Sounds great until you see they also opened up 12 new coal mines for export to japan and china.

The people of Australia got increased electricity bills, the environment got nothing. Well it got even more emissions.

Another example China and the US shook hands over a carbon cap deal, but

HONG KONG — Under pressure to reduce smog and greenhouse gas emissions, the Chinese government is considering a mandatory cap on coal use, the main source of carbon pollution from fossil fuels. But it would be an adjustable ceiling that would allow coal consumption to grow for years, and policy makers are at odds on how long the nation’s emissions will rise.

With local media reporting this growth, will cancel out any emissions cuts made by australia.

The talking heads shake hands before the TV eyes of millions, but drill down and the devil is indeed in the detail.

The environment gets nothing, its all talk

Our road to hell, well and truly paved with good intentions

 

[technomage]

pixelsmith --- "One simple way to make your way through the thicket is to ask yourself: What is the price of being wrong? If the doubters are wrong and the climate-change thesis is correct, the price is potentially catastrophic. The safe {and conservative} course is to assume the worst."

Quote: David Ignatus, Climate as a Moral Issue, OP-ED, Washington Post, Wednesday, November 19, 2014

This doesn't weigh the probability of being wrong. If the chance of being wrong is 99%, one course of action makes the most sense. If the chance of being wrong is 1%, then another course of action is best and the same applies to the different probabilities in between. The implicit assumption in that quote is that there is a very small chance that the global warming proponents are wrong and therefore action is needed. Those that disagree argue that taking action has worse consequences than inaction. So regardless of which side of the issue you're on, that quote is problematic and asserts a hidden premise (i.e. the very issue that is being debated), as a high probability outcome.

 

[pixelsmith]

There is no proof to support the claims. All claims were based off climate models that are now known to be way off the predictions. No warming now for 18 years 1 month. Thus the name change to "climate change".
No one can dispute that the climate changes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mike]

For me there are actually two debates rolled into a single discussion and it muddys the water.

Is man causing climate change, or is the climate changing ?

Ive seen credible data that suggests the suns cycles may be causing changing climate. At the end of the day i still dont know.

And we can argue about this till the cows come home.

The other aspect is , Is man polluting the environment at an ever increasing rate doing damage to the biosphere and should we be putting a stop to it.

On that i have a firm hell yes answer, runaway growth population and otherwise is a snowballing disaster in the making. It has to stop and be scaled back.

Whether or not that activity is causing climate change is irrelevant imo.

If we address that the other issue becomes a moot point

 

[mike]

Stop deforestation, control water run off from fields, explore viable alternative energies, stop dumping waste into the oceans etc etc.
CO2 is beneficial and we need more of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We dont need any more C02, than that which is naturally produced by the biosphere.

The earth is a self regulating system, lets just leave it as we found it.

Its balanced itself, lets not throw a spanner into the works

 

[pixelsmith]

I disagree about the runaway growth population but that's another discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pixelsmith]

I am not saying to artificially introduce more. I am saying we were CO2 starved only a few hundred years ago. IMO 500-700 ppm would be ideal for crop yields.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mike]

I disagree about the runaway growth population but that's another discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From my pov its the core of the problem

Human Population Growth and Climate Change

Population is a Cause of Climate Change


The dangers facing the Earth’s ecosystems are well known and the subject of great concern at all levels. Climate change is high on the list. But there is an underlying and associated cause — population growth.
Indeed, in Sir David Attenborough’s view, there is no major problem facing our planet that would not be easier to solve if there were fewer people and no problem that does not become harder — and ultimately impossible to solve — with ever more. And yet there seems to be a taboo on bringing the subject into the open.


David Attenborough talk on population « Population Matters




One of the world's leading naturalists Sir David Attenborough has cautioned Australia against pursuing further population growth, labelling an unlimited expansion a kind of madness.
Speaking before touring Australia next month, Sir David questioned why the country still found itself actively debating whether it needed to grow its population.
''Why would you want to do that? I don't understand that. The notion that you could continue to expand and increase and grow in an infinite way on a planet which is finite, is a kind of lunacy. You can see how mad that is by the expression that you can't believe that you can grow infinitely in a finite place - unless of course you're an economist,'' he said


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/attenborough-endless-growth-lunacy-20130525-2n3pg.html#ixzz3Je0BmWw9


Bingo, unless you are an economist..........

Growth, we love it. More people is more customers, more demand, increased supply (consumption) more profit. More damage to the biosphere, more habitat and species loss.


More more more, and none of it positive except from an economists limited pov

 

[pixelsmith]

Populations of all living things tend to also self regulate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mike]

I am not saying to artificially introduce more. I am saying we were CO2 starved only a few hundred years ago. IMO 500-700 ppm would be ideal for crop yields.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But we are artificially introducing more, and as our population grows we will introduce more and more and more.

Now thats not to say your argument hasnt got merit, we adjust our environments , thats an essential aspect of being human its what we do.

And if that were what we were doing, a controlled release of C02 to bring it to a ideal level, that would be different. But thats not whats happening is it.

Its not a planned controlled release, its an out of control ever growing monster, putting the brakes on it is damned near if not totally impossible now

 

[mike]

Populations of all living things tend to also self regulate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not man, hes above and beyond nature now. nature doesnt allow for us to fly, we do it. to stay submerged for a year in the sea, we do it. To orbit the earth in a vacume we do it. Nature no longer regulates us, and sadly we dont do it ourselves.

The math is simple you cant have unlimited growth in a finate space. but still we hear phrases like "sustainable growth" the money makers need growth.

Its a classic monkey trap.

The monkey trap: Take a 20 litre petrol can, half fill it with gravel and stones to make it heavy, add a hand ful of peanuts. leave the cap off and place in monkeys habitat.

Monkey smells peanuts, puts hand in and grabs nuts, but now his fist wont pass through the hole, he will hang onto those nuts even as the hunter walks up with a club and kills him.

All he has to do is let go the nuts and he can escape.

We are the monkey, and Growth is the peanuts...............................

 

[pixelsmith]

Man has a tendency to kill massive numbers of its own species quite often. The more crowded we get the more we will kill. It will probably work itself out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mike]

Surely it would be better to avoid that solution, rather than rely on it ?

But lets assume thats the fix, what are the chances it will be accomplished with Nukes ?

the "solution" would be to burn down the hosue to kill the mouse.