Climate Change Discussion

intel-bank

Active member
Not a source to be found on that site, of course, and many things are obviously incorrect.
Want proof of climate change? Ask Lake Meed. You know, I can see the desert spreading when I cross the mountains to Seattle. Must be my imagination. After all, there's not enough humans there to be chopping down all the trees to make this happen!
Oh wait, forget, its just "natural process", humans arent doing THAT much. Except we are, and I have many reputable sources I could share. Of course, I'm sure they dont matter, its all lies cooked up by big lithium!
 

Obreid

Power Poster III
The question is not about does or is the climate changing. Answer is yeah it does and probably is.
Those observations you’ve listed probably are correct observations. Although lake mead probably has more to do with increased withdraws for growing urban centers.

Even if they are correct they in no way point to climate change do predominantly to human actions.

We had the mid-evil warming that helped with the renaissance growth.
Then there was the cooling in mid to late 1700’s that prevented the successful importation of grapes and wine industry in the New world because it was too cold.
We had the cooling 20000 years ago that dropped the interior temps of the continents up to 16 degrees.
Remember Duggerland parts of the submerged English Channel were home to a thriving human population. It was a lot colder then and Europe and NA was covered in ice. But humans soldiered on.

Earths climate is always changing.
It was a new ice age in the 70’s then
It was the coastal regions were going to be flooded by 2010.

It’s an old story with new characters.
That humans are polluting and killing the earth.

“The Gods are angry with us and we must make a sacrifice to appease them.”

Why is it always powerful people on high telling the little people we have transgressed, we have sinned, we must change. And that first we will make a sacrifice to the gods and hope they divert their wrath from us.

Well take it up with China and India.
Maybe we need a good unchecked pandemic to thin the herd. So many problems would be solved.
Who would we have to blame then? maybe the Fates.

Yeah we’ve progressed so far and are so rationalistic and logical today.
 

william

Power Poster
I agree that the climate is warming. I can see in the environment where I live. I do not believe that mankind is the major contributor of it though. I think mankind is rather insignificant to the course of geologic and environmental history. Sure we should reduce our carbon foot print and we have through technology to reduce co2 emissions from burning fossil fuels. The idea of eliminating the use of fossil fuels will not stop climate change because climate change has been happening since God brought the cosmos into existence eons ago.

A 40-million-year history of atmospheric CO2 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2013.0096

 

intel-bank

Active member
Please, explain to me, what exactly is the reason they would be lying to us about it? Because its agreed upon by the scientific community that humans have caused global warming at a more rapid pace than anytime in human history.
The thing is, we have known about human caused global warming since 1896. Some media scare in the 70's isn't the same as there being the scientific consensus of people a lot smarter than us.

We can affect the O-Zone, and it can recover when we stop using the products, but CO2, a provable greenhouse gas, cant raise the average temperature?

Can you point to me where in the link your point is? And what your point of the link is?

Theres all this evidence for humans causing most of the climate change since the begining of the industrial evolution, wheres the evidence we dont?
 

intel-bank

Active member
What are you referring to when you say 1700s cooling period? Do you mean the little ice age? It was still caused by something(volcanic eruptions, arctic ice shifts), it wasnt the earth just deciding to up and change. The earths climate doesnt change for fun. And it definately doesn't change so rapidly for fun.

quote from my link;
Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.
The earth doesn't do that for the lols.
 

william

Power Poster
" It is quite timely as relatively recent, but intentionally ignored, evidence has emerged that volcanic contribution to atmospheric CO2 has been enormously under-estimated.
Discovery of Massive Volcanic CO2 Emissions Puts Damper on Global Warming Theory "

Then again the EXPERTS did a U.S. Geological Survey that says this. "The world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors." https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/
 

intel-bank

Active member
" It is quite timely as relatively recent, but intentionally ignored, evidence has emerged that volcanic contribution to atmospheric CO2 has been enormously under-estimated.
Discovery of Massive Volcanic CO2 Emissions Puts Damper on Global Warming Theory "

Then again the EXPERTS did a U.S. Geological Survey that says this. "The world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors." https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/
Volcano have been putting CO2 in our atmosphere forever. That hasn't changed. And history actually suggests, if they were erupting more, we would be COOLING because of sulfur dioxide, water, and ash...
Also, your link has no sources, like you posted, and it is psudoscience according to
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/principia-scientific-international/
WHICH SPECIFICALLY STATES THIS ARTICLE AS A FAILED FACT CHECK.

Why would they be lying? Why would they cover this up?! Big oil would never let that happen!
Is big lithium in on it? Or are the scientists all just wrong, and sites with no sources and multiple failed fact checks are all right?
I dont see your point in regards to the USGS? They are saying volcanos ARENT causing climate change?
 

intel-bank

Active member
Volcano have been putting CO2 in our atmosphere forever. That hasn't changed. And history actually suggests, if they were erupting more, we would be COOLING because of sulfur dioxide, water, and ash...
Also, your link has no sources, like you posted, and it is psudoscience according to
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/principia-scientific-international/
WHICH SPECIFICALLY STATES THIS ARTICLE AS A FAILED FACT CHECK.

Why would they be lying? Why would they cover this up?! Big oil would never let that happen!
Is big lithium in on it? Or are the scientists all just wrong, and sites with no sources and multiple failed fact checks are all right?
I dont see your point in regards to the USGS? They are saying volcanos ARENT causing climate change?
Heres the detailed fact check;
 
Z

Zoidberg

Guest
The question is not about does or is the climate changing. Answer is yeah it does and probably is.
Those observations you’ve listed probably are correct observations. Although lake mead probably has more to do with increased withdraws for growing urban centers.

Even if they are correct they in no way point to climate change do predominantly to human actions.

We had the mid-evil warming that helped with the renaissance growth.
Then there was the cooling in mid to late 1700’s that prevented the successful importation of grapes and wine industry in the New world because it was too cold.
We had the cooling 20000 years ago that dropped the interior temps of the continents up to 16 degrees.
Remember Duggerland parts of the submerged English Channel were home to a thriving human population. It was a lot colder then and Europe and NA was covered in ice. But humans soldiered on.

Earths climate is always changing.
It was a new ice age in the 70’s then
It was the coastal regions were going to be flooded by 2010.

It’s an old story with new characters.
That humans are polluting and killing the earth.

“The Gods are angry with us and we must make a sacrifice to appease them.”

Why is it always powerful people on high telling the little people we have transgressed, we have sinned, we must change. And that first we will make a sacrifice to the gods and hope they divert their wrath from us.

Well take it up with China and India.
Maybe we need a good unchecked pandemic to thin the herd. So many problems would be solved.
Who would we have to blame then? maybe the Fates.

Yeah we’ve progressed so far and are so rationalistic and logical today.
Lake Meed is drying up because of 100 year old water rights mismanagement
 

Obreid

Power Poster III
agreed upon by the scientific community that humans have caused global warming at a more rapid pace than anytime in human history.
It is not agreed upon in the scientific community. There is a public narrative that it is agreed upon. But there are many in the scientific community that don’t agree.
You can not like that, you can disagree with it but it does not make it an agreed upon scientific fact.

The Earth is an evolving dynamic system. Current changes in climate, sea level and ice are within variability. Atmospheric CO2 is the lowest for 500 million years. Climate has always been driven by the Sun, the Earth’s orbit and plate tectonics and the oceans, atmosphere and life respond. Humans have made their mark on the planet, thrived in warm times and struggled in cool times. The hypothesis tha humans can actually change climate is unsupported by evidence from geology, archaeology, history and astronomy. The hypothesis is rejected. A new ignorance fills the yawning spiritual gap in Western society. Climate change politics is religious fundamentalism masquerading as science. Its triumph is computer models unrelated to observations in nature. There has been no critical due diligence of the science of climate change, dogma dominates, sceptics are pilloried and 17th Century thinking promotes prophets of doom, guilt and penance. When plate tectonics ceases and the world runs out of new rocks, there will be a tipping point and irreversible climate change. Don’t wait up.
 

Yingyang

Power Poster
Just like humans have survived through apocalyptic events . The earth has also gone through several natural climate changes well before humans. Climate change is a natural process and humans have only affected that by the smallest of margins. Our governments want us to believe it's our fault so they can do what they want. Common sense is yes all our tiled and tinned roofs , concrete ,bitumen , destruction of natural bushland and forests ,emissions from industry and vehicles etc blah blah blah means shit at the end of the day simply because the bigger picture suggests we have sped up a natural process of the planet by a huge lets say 7% at most bringing the process let's say 300 yrs earlier. Now 7% and 300 yrs earlier may not be spot on estimation, but let's say naturally occurring before humans was every 10,000 yrs and now its every 5000yrs that is a massive difference yeah. 5000yrs is still so far away that no-one today truly gives a shit about.The kicker is those preaching this shit, still drive vehicles or use public transport or ride push-bike. Still live in houses,still wear clothes , still add to the issue no-matter what sacrifice they have made they will still be part of the cause of the issue regardless . We all know there is sea where land was , land where sea was, desert where rain forest was and rainforest where deserts were. Humans played no part in that. And that is it in a nutshell.
No-one is truly willing to stop anything and go without everything. And those beating this drum are far far far from willing too. Scientists today wouldn't know this if it wasn’t for the technology and natural resources they are so dependent on to come up with this. Now they know what are they giving up? Nothing it's in the name of science and future humanity. 🤣😂🤣🙄🥱😴
 

intel-bank

Active member
It is not agreed upon in the scientific community. There is a public narrative that it is agreed upon. But there are many in the scientific community that don’t agree.
You can not like that, you can disagree with it but it does not make it an agreed upon scientific fact.

The Earth is an evolving dynamic system. Current changes in climate, sea level and ice are within variability. Atmospheric CO2 is the lowest for 500 million years. Climate has always been driven by the Sun, the Earth’s orbit and plate tectonics and the oceans, atmosphere and life respond. Humans have made their mark on the planet, thrived in warm times and struggled in cool times. The hypothesis tha humans can actually change climate is unsupported by evidence from geology, archaeology, history and astronomy. The hypothesis is rejected. A new ignorance fills the yawning spiritual gap in Western society. Climate change politics is religious fundamentalism masquerading as science. Its triumph is computer models unrelated to observations in nature. There has been no critical due diligence of the science of climate change, dogma dominates, sceptics are pilloried and 17th Century thinking promotes prophets of doom, guilt and penance. When plate tectonics ceases and the world runs out of new rocks, there will be a tipping point and irreversible climate change. Don’t wait up.
Thank you for the reputable source.
When I say its an agreed upon scientific fact, I mean 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change, and 97% of publishing climate scientists agree on human cause of climate change.

Heres a forbes article which states it is actually 84%, according to ONE study.

Seems like a consensus to me. Even 84% (which is according to one study, versus the multiple others)
 

Obreid

Power Poster III
You comments about volcanos are relevant and it does and will continue to happen. But when you consider that right now we’re at a 500 year high of co2 ppm after 140 years of industrialization.
500 yr high.... still equivalent to the mid-evil warming period. That co2 warming period interestingly had some beneficial effects upon human life and educational growth.
So co2 is a bane upon human existence.
You recognize that right there with sunlight water and nitrogen, plant growth and flourishing hinges upon CO2
That in 2000 there was more forest cover over the northern hemisphere than in 1900.

And in fact, the IPCC says that. It’s says that compared to other forces, demographics, technology, regulation, trade and so on, climate is a relatively small impact on the economy.


My main concern though is this blanket acceptance of climate change as some sacrosanct pronouncement of truth that can not be argued or challenged.
That to do so your dismissed as a backwards fool or a shill for global oil.
That climate change models are accepted as fact when in reality we’ve already seen the weaknesses of some of them.

Do humans effect the environment sure, can they effect it to the point the climate will be irreversibly challenged and human life will be put at risk? I think not.
And as the now famous IPCC statement. Itself points out. There will be several other components to human existence that will impact humans in the next century way more than the climate.
 

intel-bank

Active member
Do humans effect the environment sure, can they effect it to the point the climate will be irreversibly challenged and human life will be put at risk? I think not.
i never stated that. The climate will recover, but we can't just keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and think we aren't just pulling the rubber band back.
Humans are cockroaches, and the planet has been hotter, and it made certain areas less habitable than others. But yes, nature is excellent at adjusting.
The biggest issues will be climate refugees, Biome change (dry areas turn into flood plains, rain forests turn into deserts.), severe weather, and new pandemics.

Nothing that hasn't happened before. But again, that doesn't mean we can just keep pumping the shit into the atmosphere - even if climate change really is caused less by humans, ocean acidifcation isn't.

Climate change is no big deal for the earth as a life giving planet. Rapid climate change is hard for nature to keep up with, though.

I'm not going to debate the rest right now, I'm not going to change your mind. Ive heard all these arguments before. I just wanted to clarify I'm not all doom and gloom about this. But I am well aware we cant ignore the issue forever. Might as well do something NOW. Besides that, green energy undeniably kills the least people out of any energy source, by miles, and why not have renewable electricity? We on here long enough, we will find they are far cheaper than extracting fossil fuels, as easily accessible fossil fuels become more and more depleated
 

Obreid

Power Poster III
Please, explain to me, what exactly is the reason they would be lying to us about it? Because its agreed upon by the scientific community that humans have caused global warming at a more rapid pace than anytime in human history.
You know this statement in and of itself might be true.
But it is an incomplete statement regarding climate change and its impacts.
So humans have cause a fractional warming over the course or of 140 years.
Does that statement in and of itself actually say or imply the climate has or will be so altered that there will be mass extinctions or that coastal areas will be flooded.
It doesn’t It’s an emotionally charged statement that implies humans have done something cosmically wrong and that it will so alter life on earth we won’t recognize it in a 100 years.

It speaks to the whole pseudo religious character of the climate change doctrine.
“The majority of scientist agree”

Now sincerely I mean this your not doing this here your discussing.
But in the norm of public discussion it’s not discussed. People who have questions are dismissed as crack-pots or shills or god forbid “non-believers”. The apostate!

Pollution of any form should be fought against full stop end of story.
But has co2 emissions brought or will in the near term bring humans to their knees. I don’t believe it will. And when I see the vast sums of money and regulations thrown at greenhouse emissions and cow farts I become suspect.
There is a push’s to limit the amount of beef cattle because methane from cow shit is going to contribute to the end of the modern world. Well how much methane do they think 30 million 2000 lb American Buffalo added to the environmental? There is just no common sense to the argument.
Fracking is bad but the natural gas derived over the last 20 year due to fracking exploration is responsible for the continued improvement of North American air quality.
 

Obreid

Power Poster III
i never stated that. The climate will recover, but we can't just keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and think we aren't just pulling the rubber band back.
Humans are cockroaches, and the planet has been hotter, and it made certain areas less habitable than others.
Well which is it it won’t be the end of the world and it will balance out, or we can’t keep pumping out CO2? You do remember co2 is a vitally important gas necessary for the existence of all life on earth except anerobic bacteria.

I to am all for reducing air pollution a d pollution in general. And the United States in the last 30-40 years has done a great job at improving air quality here. Why don’t we look at making those improvements were the worst of the problem exist. You won’t find it in the Western Hemisphere though.

I’m not however for taxing economical viable energy sources out of business to help a still non proven renewable energy sources. And by non-proven I mean their ability to produce enough energy to scale for a modern industrialize society.
Keep adding and encouraging renewables, but not at the expense of driving proven energy sources out of business.
 

intel-bank

Active member
You know this statement in and of itself might be true.
But it is an incomplete statement regarding climate change and its impacts.
So humans have cause a fractional warming over the course or of 140 years.
Does that statement in and of itself actually say or imply the climate has or will be so altered that there will be mass extinctions or that coastal areas will be flooded.
It doesn’t It’s an emotionally charged statement that implies humans have done something cosmically wrong and that it will so alter life on earth we won’t recognize it in a 100 years.

Pollution of any form should be fought against full stop end of story.
But has co2 emissions brought or will in the near term bring humans to their knees. I don’t believe it will. And when I see the vast sums of money and regulations thrown at greenhouse emissions and cow farts I become suspect.
There is a push’s to limit the amount of beef cattle because methane from cow shit is going to contribute to the end of the modern world. Well how much methane do they think 30 million 2000 lb American Buffalo added to the environmental? There is just no common sense to the argument.
Fracking is bad but the natural gas derived over the last 20 year due to fracking exploration is responsible for the continued improvement of North American air quality.
Mass extinctions have already begun (millennia ago), but they are a product of all human activity not just climate change, that one is hard to gauge.
Coastal areas will eventually be under water. Regardless of who caused it, sea rise will slowly eat coastal areas. But thats no big deal and I dont know why people act like its some world ending event, no.

Seems we are mostly in agreement, except when it comes to this;

I think we should be throwing money at the issue. Its gonna take money to transition off fossil fuels, an inevitable event, so we might as well get it over with.

As for the beef cow thing, I would say the much more popular view is to eat less meat in general.
(which isnt a bad idea imo, it contributes to deforestation, environmental destruction, water shortages, and really, we use way too much good land (for human food) on feed grain. It also is carbon intensive in other ways.)
Some idiots think banning beef for X will help, of course not, that ridiculous, but eating less meat likely would mean cheaper and more abundant food. Now, of course, humans need some, and its a huge supplement of needed things, but we could certainly eat it maybe not every single day? And of course, some land is not suitable for other agriculture, and it can be an immense benefit to people where "dead land" is used to raise cattle.

Personally, I think most of the things that we do to combat climate change have secondary benefits even if climate change isn't likely to end us.

Likely, we will experience about the same issues as during the little ice age, regardless of the cause of climate change. Famines, droughts, plagues, war, death, indeed, things that have all happened before and will happen again.
 

intel-bank

Active member
Well which is it it won’t be the end of the world and it will balance out, or we can’t keep pumping out CO2? You do remember co2 is a vitally important gas necessary for the existence of all life on earth except anerobic bacteria.

I to am all for reducing air pollution a d pollution in general. And the United States in the last 30-40 years has done a great job at improving air quality here. Why don’t we look at making those improvements were the worst of the problem exist. You won’t find it in the Western Hemisphere though.

I’m not however for taxing economical viable energy sources out of business to help a still non proven renewable energy sources. And by non-proven I mean their ability to produce enough energy to scale for a modern industrialize society.
Keep adding and encouraging renewables, but not at the expense of driving proven energy sources out of business.
"Well which is it it won’t be the end of the world and it will balance out, or we can’t keep pumping out CO2?" that's not contradictory.
"You do remember co2 is a vitally important gas necessary for the existence of all life on earth except anerobic bacteria." Yea, and breathing pure oxygen can kill you.
" Why don’t we look at making those improvements were the worst of the problem exist. You won’t find it in the Western Hemisphere though." I agree, but someones got to invest in the shit to make it cheap enough for widespread use.

Heres the thing, rooftop solar with nuclear enegery baseload is guarenteed to produce all our electricity needs, and the ocean constantly replenishes Uranium. I think, we can stop building new fossil fuel power plants, and only a bunch of massively rich oil executives are going to have a problem. Thats not to say I support banishing oil, blowing up power plants and freezing to death in winter. Its simply to say, we need more energy? Great, how about we build something that doesn't require making deals with shady countries who can then use it to blackmail us, if for no other reason.

Because these things are viable. They cost a little more, but if youve ever been poor, or better yet, if youve ever stopped being poor - you would know its better to pay the extra cash for the benefits that will save lives and money.
 

Obreid

Power Poster III
I can agree with quite a bit of that.
The thing we are already spending a lot of money and research at renewable.

I do not however believe “we are five years before it’s all irreversible “
I know your not saying that. But that is a standard mantra to push limiting this or switching an entire nations energy production with in five years or were doomed.
Closing down hydrocarbon before we have perfected renewable.
Which in turn drives up the cost of electricity and gas. Where is the logic in that.

There saving the planet while unnecessarily paying elevated prices of fuel. And that is some how perfectly ok and justified thing to do to fixed income people.
Or as some in the White House are fond of saying “we have to increase energy prices to save democracy”

The climate problem can no longer be depoliticized
Climate change is now a political tool to transform societies, yeah well no thank you.

decarbonize, democratize, decommodify and decolonize.




 
Top