How Silly is Climate Change Denial?

[pixelsmith]

With all the so called proof of man made global warming it boggles my mind that not one of you "warmists" can back up your point of view with actual facts, observed data or the scientific method. You all go by hearsay and political blathering. Should I post the Greenpeace lady video again?

 

[pixelsmith]

What is really ironic is that you "warmists" who think you are saving the planet and polar bears are carbon based, CO2 AND methane emitters using fossil fuels and creating waste everyday.

 

[mike]

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

Keeping in mind we did just that in the 20th century, during the so called great wars, killed millions.

WW1, lowest estimate 15 million, highest estimate 65 million
WW2 lowest estimate 40 million, highest estimate 85 million

And yet here we are today with a population that is too big for the planet. As solutions go it didnt work.

Now we could kill more people in WW3, but as i said once one side kills a couple of million, the chances of Nukes being used become likely.
At which point, yes we will reduce the population, but prob destroy the biosphere in doing so (burn down the house to kill the mouse).

And even if we dont, as history shows we will likely just breed up again anyway.

On the flip side the argument can be made that in WW's I and II. they didnt have nukes are were free to go hell for leather no holds barred.
Having nukes may infact put the brakes on such massive conflicts, with smaller conventional weapons exchanges being the option (as we see today)

In either case war as a means of population regulation clearly isnt a solution.

It all comes back to growth in a finite biosphere. Thats the core of the problem. Fix that and you fix a lot of things.

Sadly the industrialists, and their financiers. Govt and religions all of whom rely on growth for their short sighted personal advantage , only think in terms of their individual profit/power. the big picture is the inconvenient truth.

Thats why we see the suits shaking hands and agreeing to emissions cuts on the TV, but in the boardroom voting to expand their markets and profits.

 

[pixelsmith]

Someone has a plan for the population according to the Georgia guide stones.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mike]

What is really ironic is that you "warmists" who think you are saving the planet and polar bears are carbon based, CO2 AND methane emitters using fossil fuels and creating waste everyday.

Which is why its so important to include population in this discussion

Children and Their Carbon Legacy: A Way to be an Eco-Hero? | Conservancy Talk

Rarely, however, does one see any discussion of what population growth means for our emissions challenge. This is why I took notice of a recently published analysis in the journal Global Environmental Change that combines data on per capita emissions with national patterns of birth and death to calculate the total emissions cost of deciding to have a child.

The scientists get their results via an elegant application of lineage analysis — a branch of mathematics that combines probability theory with demography. The mathematics is only a tool. It is the results that are compelling. The average lifetime emissions of people living in the United States is 1,644 tons of carbon. If you live in the United States and have a child, the average carbon legacy of that child will be 9,441 tons – that is how much extra carbon you are responsible for because you had that child, and it includes all of the carbon emitted by that child and his or her descendants before that lineage dies out given current birth and death rates in the United States. -

To put this another way, suppose you are committed to doing something about climate change and want to do everything possible to reduce emissions. Now assume you do all of the sorts of things we are told to do to cut down, and you do them for your entire life
.
Specifically: You switch from a car that gets 20 mpg to one that gets 30 mpg, and you reduce the miles driven per week from 231 to 155. And you replace single-glazed windows with energy efficient double-paned windows in your home. And you replace 10 75-watt light bulbs with 10 25-watt energy efficient light bulbs. And you replace your old refrigerator with a top-of-the-line new energy-efficient refrigerator.

And you religiously recycle all newspaper, glass, plastic, and aluminum and steel cans. If you did all the above, you would be an eco-hero — and over your lifetime, you would reduce your emissions by 388 metric tons. Not bad. Now suppose you decided to reduce by one the number of children you intend to have. You would save 9,441 metric tons of carbon emissions. But, especially in high-consumption societies like the United States, even the smallest reductions in birthrates can make a huge difference to carbon scenarios. In contrast, deciding to NOT have a child in Bangladesh saves 56 metric tons of carbon, which is roughly what you get for recycling all of your newspapers and bottles and cans and switching those 10 light bulbs from 75W to 25W energy efficient light bulbs.

Children's effect on carbon emissions and climate change | Crikey


Having a child increases your carbon emissions by a factor of about six throughout your lifetime, and no amount of cycling, turning off lights or veganism will offset it.

 

[mike]

Someone has a plan for the population according to the Georgia guide stones.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Planning To Make A Plan Is Not A Plan........

What works is this

The operative word is ACT.......

A plan without action is worthless

And that video, while depicting a small scale disaster, applies just as well to the problem being discussed. We can ignore it until it bites us on the arse........ or act and survive

 

[pixelsmith]

What emissions are you concerned about?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[manxman]

We can ignore it until it bites us on the arse........ or act and survive

jesus christ, mike you are the undisputed drama queen of the paracast.

 

[mike]

What emissions are you concerned about?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thats a good question, im concerned about all the byproducts of industrial growth, be they direct things like pollutants gases, fertiliser runoff into the ocean, any of the waste products that damage the biosphere. The more of us there are, the more of them there are, and the more damage done.
Im also concerned about the indirect aspects, deforestation, depletion of aquifers, soil fertility and fish stocks.

All of it comes down to unchecked growth, fix that and the whole C02 debate becomes irrelevant.

And on that i agree with you, the debate about c02 and climate change is pointless, its a small slice of a larger problem, focusing on that is blinkered and pointless.

Its the bigger picture that is indeed the inconvienient truth

 

[mike]

Another significant impact humans have had on the coral reef ecosystems in the Great Barrier Reef is its pollution problem. There are numerous ways humans have added harmful pollutants into our oceans that can cause serious damage to the fragile ecosystems of the coral reefs. Deforestation, although not directly involved in coral reef destruction, has many indirect effects that cause many issues. Sediment runoff will bring with it many natural and toxic components that can cause harm to the coral ecosystems. There is also sedimentation buildup that occurs at the mouth of the rivers that lead into the oceans. (Coral Reefs, 2004) Another major pollutant is runoff from mining and farming where the minerals get into rivers that flow into the ocean. Farming has specific negative effects with this type of pollution because of the nutrient runoff from the fertilizers used. These fertilizers add nitrogen and phosphorous into the oceanic ecosystem. These nutrients cause massive algae growth that leads to depletion in oxygen available for other creatures and decreasing the biodiversity in those affected areas. (Bell RPF, 1992)

Human Impact on the Great Barrier Reef: Pollution

This type of pollution includes fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, human derived sewage, and large amounts of sedimentation from costal land development. These pollutants have many serious direct impacts on our coral reef’s ecosystem such as altering the species composition by fauna shifting from phototrophic to heterotrophic. Largely impart to the corals inability to obtain necessary energy from light because of the increased turbidity of the water due to the pollution process. There is very high nutrient enrichment effecting the Great Barrier Reefs such as nitrogen and phosphorous. Other pollutants also have a great effect on the coral such as heavy metals.
It is noted that 80% of the land adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef is farmland that supports agricultural production, intensive cropping of sugar cane, and major beef cattle grazing. (GBR, 2007) These types of agriculture and cattle production pose large threats to the Great Barrier Reef close by.


Drill down and the root cause is ?

Human growth

Overall there is major issues that occur with human pollution to our reef ecosystem and changes need to be made in order to save such a diverse and important part of the earth’s ecosystem.

 

[manxman]

Thats a good question, im concerned about all the byproducts of industrial growth, be they direct things like pollutants gases, fertiliser runoff into the ocean, any of the waste products that damage the biosphere. The more of us there are, the more of them there are, and the more damage done.
Im also concerned about the indirect aspects, deforestation, depletion of aquifers, soil fertility and fish stocks.

All of it comes down to unchecked growth, fix that and the whole C02 debate becomes irrelevant.

And on that i agree with you, the debate about c02 and climate change is pointless, its a small slice of a larger problem, focusing on that is blinkered and pointless.

Its the bigger picture that is indeed the inconvienient truth

You just redeemed yourself, mike, pixel, myself and a few others were actually discussing catastrophic warming due to man made CO2 emissions.

No-one in their right mind disagrees with the damage pollutants cause, and the need to clean our act up..

 

[manxman]

Lets be clear.

This sums up whats gone on here.


...........
In the climate debate, the supposed “Defenders of Science” much prefer painting skeptics as beyond the bounds of polite society and therefore unworthy of response to actually debating the difficult points.
..............


The reason tyger burnt state et al, are spitting the dummy, is because they have spent weeks tying to paint pixel and myself as lunatic fringe, denialists of global warming, we are not, we both know there has been a 0.7 degree rise in global tempertures this centuary.

Thats not denial, thats acceptance of proven fact, i do not accept the rise was due to co2, and i do not accept catastrophic global temperature rises will occure due to man made co2 levels in our atmospher either, and neither does pixel.

Not being able to shift the goal posts away from catastrophic co2 level predictions, is what frustrates them, and causes the dummy spits.
Because i have no arguement against the pollution angle, and the green ethos, its all very laudable.
It tugs my heart strings to see animals suffering, fish kills, etc etc, but nature does what nature does, your only king of the mountain for as long as the mountain is there.

Some decades the sun is hotter than others, some decades the earth is hotter than others, is it any surprise that the temperature of earth follows the energy patterns of our sun, no cant be that obvious, has to be that bastard trace gas, that we can tax..


edit on reread.
bastard as in illegitimate.

 

[mike]

I have the luxury of not knowing the answer.

There is no consensus here or in the larger social discussion.
Both sides of the debate have what they consider good evidence to support their respective premises.

Since i dont know for sure, my stance is this

IF its climate change caused by man rather than natural changing climate cycles, then the cause is human growth.

We know growth is having all sorts of deleterious impacts on the biosphere.

So we need to act now to stop that. we cant just ignore it and let it continue.

In solving the obvious and real problems associated with growth, we will be doing the right thing.
It may or it may not (depending on the real cause) fix Climate change.

But that would be a bonus, we need to do it for reasons other than that, but if it fixes that as well, wonderful.

If climate change is man made, adressing our growth will fix it, if its not, adressing our growth will fix a whole raft of other problems

So lets just get on with it

 

[manxman]

Mike your over-crowding posts got my interest, i checked alittle, first thing i learned is we are 18% carbon, second was our eating and breathing is carbon neutral, thirdly if every obese american [about 108 million] dieted down to their correct body mass in a year, the carbon released would exceed the whole of the UKs co2 reductions effort for that year.

 

[manxman]

Im glad youve joined in mike, cos your one stubborn man.

So what do you think about the deciet involved in the whole mess.

Take this chart for example, to the alarmist's, news commentators etc etc its definitive.


Thats it, thats definitively an upward trend right ?.

Now that was gathered from sites all around the US, but a number of those stations are new, and have only 20/30 years worth of measurements, leave those stations out completely, and using 100yrs of data from the many long term stations and this is what you get.

Do you see the deception mike, alarmists say its quite legitimate to take only a 30 year measure from a new station and extrapolate [guess] the temps back for the other 70 years, people like me dont agree, the data should be ignored, and only complete data sets should be used.



I think the world is warming slightly.

America is cooling, as all americans know, the bottom chart from the 100yr+ stations shows them the real picture, yet they still argue the top chart is right, whilst sat snowed in, in autumn or spring..

What do you think.

 

[mike]

You are on my ignore list manx, because of your tendancy to attack the person and not the data.
I wont be answering you because imo its wasted on your mental capacity

 

[Constance]

Funny that Constance, you have the polar opposite view of scientists when the majority dis-agree with your views on the after-life, esp, ghosts and aliens, but you have spent many years researching those subjects, so you feel your entitled to an educated dis-agreement.

Yet even with your deeper knowledge of american departments propaganda, spin, and downright dis-honesty, cover-ups, and political influences, and most importantly funding, you still swallow the scientific consensus nonsense.

Apples and oranges, manx. The scientific majority recognizing climate issues and human contributions to them is an international majority.

You might not have noticed that, since you seem to spend most of your time here disgorging your obsessive contempt for the US and its entire population. It wears thin, manx, even for an unpatriotic critic of US policies like myself. I doubt that the Great British Empire, still attempting to control and exploit half the planet less than four generations ago, experienced a fraction of the citizen protest and resistance to its rapacious colonialism that the US government has experienced. I might listen to more of what you have to say if you weren't so bloody compulsive about showing your ass to our side of the pond every chance you get.

 

[pixelsmith]

You are so wrong Constance there is no scientific majority as you state. It is a made up consensus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pixelsmith]

People who put people on ignore just show they are unable to defend their positions which is every single liberal here.

 

[boomerang]

I see. So were I to open up the blocked posts I'd see intelligent discourse? Mature, respectful, fully fleshed out points of view? Somehow I doubt it. A series of one-liners (to bolster post count) and very lame ad hominems - dollars to donuts, I bet.

I had yet to see it. I really doubt I am missing much. Generally the same nonsense about CO2 gets repeated endlessly. You'll notice I've put up some interesting counters to those views, but I'll wager there has been no comprehensive answer (because I doubt the posts are actually read, and if by sheer chance they are, I have begun to doubt they are really understood - no real scientific understanding has been demonstrated by the spammers). Let me guess - use my ESP to suss out what might have been a response. The website Skeptical Science has been denigrated? Bingo! Bet I'm right!

Since when is such 'inevitable'? Amongst the intellectually limited perhaps?

On this chat site they do because of one particular poster, and another who follows along with 'the fun'. Follow-the-leader stuff.

Anyway, I am happy to be out of it, but I refuse to be bullied off the thread. As best as I can make out the intention is to actually shut down the conversation, and the tactics do work, because most posters have long since exited, unwilling to deal with such.

Heavy sigh...what can I say? Verily, you hit the nail bang on.