• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Climate Change Alarmism

Vendrah

Never-retiring Millenial
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,810
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
The truth of the matter is that you have no interest in having an honest discussion on the matter (as with anything else) and just want to bitch about "the left" and the "Democrat party". Let me know that you're actually interested in learning more about any of this stuff, and then we can talk.

I didnt want to mention it, but now that you bring that to the table, like 80% or more of this thread is about bitching about "the left" and some people from the left coming for a defense. I have the impression that after page 1 or page 2, only me and [MENTION=4347]Virtual ghost[/MENTION] were seriously discussing the issue.
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
16,055
I didnt want to mention it, but now that you bring that to the table, like 80% or more of this thread is about bitching about "the left" and some people from the left coming for a defense. I have the impression that after page 1 or page 2, only me and [MENTION=4347]Virtual ghost[/MENTION] were seriously discussing the issue.



Of course we are. Since this thread is designed to be empty bitching about American left.
We are both "imposters" here.
 

тень

Regenerating
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
649
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
The best approach to energy, is diversity. A little bit of everything, reduces the demand for everything. Also since not all forms of energy are viable everywhere.

Enviromentalists also blatantly ignore why we need fossil fuels to begin with, and demand change without providing effective alternatives. Do we have electric farming tractors and lorry/semi's yet? That are as cost effective and as efficient as fossil fuel ones? What about planes? Those machines produce most of the CO2 in the atmosphere, not cars. Also, carbon emmissions tend to stay close to the ground. They don't dispense evenly. That is why we have smog.

Also, the overdemand of electric vehicles causes enviromental damage in others ways. Such as strip mining in Africa. Everyone touts that you can just pull it from the ocean, but what will happen if every beach is laden with processing plants due to higher demand? There is always a downside to every energy source when it is the sole provider. That is why diversity of energy reduces the overally severaty of the impact, and provides the enviroment a chance to recover.

What we should also focus on is cleaning the ocean, and rivers in nations like China, India, and Africa. Ocean currents have more of an impact on weather than anything else. Then preventing desertification by planting DIVERSE forests. Forests produce their own weather, and create rain. Which also helps CO2 in the air. Though it is a misconception forests provide oxygen to the world. In reality, it doesnt go far from the forest.
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Guardian of Ga'Hoole
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
16,702
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Damn “radical leftist” Biden

I wish Biden was a radical leftist. I'd be much more interested in voting for him if that were so. Too bad he has a history of taking GOP stances on things at the most crucial moments.
 

Tellenbach

in dreamland
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
6,088
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w5
I'd consider the dumping of trash in our oceans a much bigger problem than "climate change". Shellenberger is also correct about the loss of habitats to various animal species; that's also much more important than climate change.

See, if the people who genuinely cared about the environment would come up with real solutions instead of phoney, stupid ones like carbon credits and banning meat, a lot more people would be on board.

Let me offer several real solutions:

1) Plant more trees, a lot more trees. If the problem is excessive CO2, why not remove some of that CO2 with plants?
2) Taller and stronger levees. If the concern is elevated sea levels and flooding, why not just build more and taller levees?
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,636
I'd consider the dumping of trash in our oceans a much bigger problem than "climate change". Shellenberger is also correct about the loss of habitats to various animal species; that's also much more important than climate change.

See, if the people who genuinely cared about the environment would come up with real solutions instead of phoney, stupid ones like carbon credits and banning meat, a lot more people would be on board.

Let me offer several real solutions:

1) Plant more trees, a lot more trees. If the problem is excessive CO2, why not remove some of that CO2 with plants?
2) Taller and stronger levees. If the concern is elevated sea levels and flooding, why not just build more and taller levees?

Its all part and parcel of the same thing to be honest.

Pollutions and plastics is probably killing people and destroying eco-systems as fast or as much as climate change but climate change results in the big destructive storms and disruptive weather that's like weapon strikes of old/war time.

You could kill thousands in slow motion by poisoning or disease pandemic and it'll not panic "the herd" so much as the sudden deaths of much smaller numbers, its why people worry about crime and terrorism more than they do the environment and market failure.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,636
I wish Biden was a radical leftist. I'd be much more interested in voting for him if that were so. Too bad he has a history of taking GOP stances on things at the most crucial moments.

To be honest, I think the centre ground of politics has been moved so, so far right, with the only possible exceptions being lifestyle, drugs or civil libertarian causes, it wont be long before the public do regard any second thoughts or skepticism any longer about the far right's agenda to be so called "radical leftism".
 

Tellenbach

in dreamland
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
6,088
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Lark said:
but climate change results in the big destructive storms and disruptive weather that's like weapon strikes of old/war time.

We agree to disagree on this. There is no evidence that bigger or more destructive storms are the result of "climate change".
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Guardian of Ga'Hoole
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
16,702
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
To be honest, I think the centre ground of politics has been moved so, so far right, with the only possible exceptions being lifestyle, drugs or civil libertarian causes, it wont be long before the public do regard any second thoughts or skepticism any longer about the far right's agenda to be so called "radical leftism".

Basically that's already been happening for quite some. Fortunately we have actual socialists making waves on the national scene now, so now we're seeing Republicans embrace the "liberal" label. During the Bush years, it was "liberalism" that was destroying America (usually they'd say this in the same breath with a rant about how people are intolerant of conservatism).
 
Last edited:

Mad Hatter

Head Pigeon
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
1,087
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
-1w
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx

тень

Regenerating
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
649
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Birds are stupid too, can't forget that. They fly down shit like chimneys and die of CO2, fire, or being unable to get back out.
 

Tellenbach

in dreamland
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
6,088
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w5
wind farms killed approximately seven thousand birds in the United States in 2006 but nuclear plants killed about 327,000 and fossil-fuelled power plants 14.5 million.

I see the abstract but there is no study that I can tell. The numbers are based entirely on estimates but the author does not state his methodology. Therefore, it's nonsense. I want numbers that are based on actual counts of bird bodies on the ground.
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Guardian of Ga'Hoole
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
16,702
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I see the abstract but there is no study that I can tell. The numbers are based entirely on estimates but the author does not state his methodology. Therefore, it's nonsense. I want numbers that are based on actual counts of bird bodies on the ground.

Yeah, hold up guys, Tellenbach says the study isn't true. They didn't use the rigor they used when they determined that windmills caused a bird holocaust. Trump had people camped outside of windfarms to count all the dead birds.

A Spanish study involved daily inspections of the ground around 20 wind farms with 252 turbines from 2005 to 2008. It found 596 dead birds.

Obviously this is nonsense and these guys didn't have the professionalism of Trump's bird counting teams. Let's not forget hat we obviously can't trust the Mexican government to have an unbiased opinion of Trump.
 

Tellenbach

in dreamland
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
6,088
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Julius_Van_Der_Beak said:
Yeah, hold up guys, Tellenbach says the study isn't true.

No I didn't. It may very well be true, but all I see on the link to the study was the abstract, which said the numbers are based on estimates. As we've learned from the Covid-19 nonsense, estimates could be off by a factor of 10 or more.
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
16,055
Meanwhile in the Arctic we have a record, the 2020 has taken the lead in ice extent through the melting season. Therefore what this graph shows is that this is clearly the lowest July 6th on the record for the Arctic ice extend, which started back in 1979. Plus it is worth to mention that new years are collectively down when compared with those that were a few decades back. It isn't totally linear from year to year but the general trend is clearly towards ice free.







While here is how that looks like in the form of a map.


 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
16,055
The best approach to energy, is diversity. A little bit of everything, reduces the demand for everything. Also since not all forms of energy are viable everywhere.

Enviromentalists also blatantly ignore why we need fossil fuels to begin with, and demand change without providing effective alternatives. Do we have electric farming tractors and lorry/semi's yet? That are as cost effective and as efficient as fossil fuel ones? What about planes? Those machines produce most of the CO2 in the atmosphere, not cars. Also, carbon emmissions tend to stay close to the ground. They don't dispense evenly. That is why we have smog.

Also, the overdemand of electric vehicles causes enviromental damage in others ways. Such as strip mining in Africa. Everyone touts that you can just pull it from the ocean, but what will happen if every beach is laden with processing plants due to higher demand? There is always a downside to every energy source when it is the sole provider. That is why diversity of energy reduces the overally severaty of the impact, and provides the enviroment a chance to recover.

What we should also focus on is cleaning the ocean, and rivers in nations like China, India, and Africa. Ocean currents have more of an impact on weather than anything else. Then preventing desertification by planting DIVERSE forests. Forests produce their own weather, and create rain. Which also helps CO2 in the air. Though it is a misconception forests provide oxygen to the world. In reality, it doesnt go far from the forest.



I am sorry but this is full of cheap propaganda.


1. Here the hidden premise is that the electric cars are polluting but the normal ones don't and therefore they are OK. Energy diversity will need to be the solution, nuclear power included (as a backup system).



2. Environmental groups are pushing for changes since CO2 emissions are a threat to stability of the world order and economy. It is true that we don't have everything sorted out by now but that doesn't mean we don't have a serious physical problem. Actually in the case we constantly have to return to the level "Is there a problem?" we would have proper funding and more stuff would be sorted out by now. The environment debate started over 50 years ago and someone is constantly trying to disrupt honest debate. What only creates problems down the road. While real life data is showing the problem since in the end green house gasses are green house gasses. Therefore not solving this one is basically driving a car of the cliff, there is no going back and the damage will be impossible to even measure since the world as we know it will be gone.


3. Also CO2 isn't a smog, they are generally coming from the same source but they are not the same thing. Smog is basically a cloud of micro particles that are created in burning of fossil fuels. However with stronger winds they can pass a decent distance. While CO2 is invisible gas that piles up in the atmosphere and through global weather system is moving all around the planet constantly. Actually it even dissolves in water, causing it's acidification. What threatens marine eco-systems and therefore enter global food supply. However from where the both are coming is irrelevant on the long run since the whole practice needs to stop completely in the end.



4. We are burning fossil fuels and therefore we are releasing plenty of new carbon atom in the system. Which were in the ground for hundreds of millions of years and therefore the further this show goes the further we will get from what we consider "normal". You can restore all the forest bio mass on the world but that still wouldn't quite turn things to normal since we are adding new carbon into the the system. What is is a genie that is basically impossible to return back into the bottle. Therefore this has to end as soon as possible since bigger and bigger changes will become more and more permanent due to this practice.
 

тень

Regenerating
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
649
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I am sorry but this is full of cheap propaganda.


1. Here the hidden premise is that the electric cars are polluting but the normal ones don't and therefore they are OK. Energy diversity will need to be the solution, nuclear power included (as a backup system).



2. Environmental groups are pushing for changes since CO2 emissions are a threat to stability of the world order and economy. It is true that we don't have everything sorted out by now but that doesn't mean we don't have a serious physical problem. Actually in the case we constantly have to return to the level "Is there a problem?" we would have proper funding and more stuff would be sorted out by now. The environment debate started over 50 years ago and someone is constantly trying to disrupt honest debate. What only creates problems down the road. While real life data is showing the problem since in the end green house gasses are green house gasses. Therefore not solving this one is basically driving a car of the cliff, there is no going back and the damage will be impossible to even measure since the world as we know it will be gone.


3. Also CO2 isn't a smog, they are generally coming from the same source but they are not the same thing. Smog is basically a cloud of micro particles that are created in burning of fossil fuels. However with stronger winds they can pass a decent distance. While CO2 is invisible gas that piles up in the atmosphere and through global weather system is moving all around the planet constantly. Actually it even dissolves in water, causing it's acidification. What threatens marine eco-systems and therefore enter global food supply. However from where the both are coming is irrelevant on the long run since the whole practice needs to stop completely in the end.



4. We are burning fossil fuels and therefore we are releasing plenty of new carbon atom in the system. Which were in the ground for hundreds of millions of years and therefore the further this show goes the further we will get from what we consider "normal". You can restore all the forest bio mass on the world but that still wouldn't quite turn things to normal since we are adding new carbon into the the system. What is is a genie that is basically impossible to return back into the bottle. Therefore this has to end as soon as possible since bigger and bigger changes will become more and more permanent due to this practice.

1) No one said fossil fuel cars are not polluting. I said they don't pollute that much, NOT in comparison to electric cars.

2) I don't think anyone truly denies the climate is changing, they deny the solutions will do anything to help it. At what point do you except its happening, and aim to decrease the damage instead of trying tobstop it? I think its way beyond the point of no return. Humans are not gonna stop reproducing and developing their nations.

3)C02 also used to exist before humans, and marine wildlife has died off many times throughout eath"s history. I think cleaning up the ocean is still a more effective method for helping marine life to survive, than stopping the natural disaster that is humanity. I've always considered by us polluting the enviroment etc, that nature will return to punish us and wipe us out. Life will return, after we are gone. Like an algea bloom in the ocean. Life doesn't remain static and unchanged, never has.

4) What is normal to you?

Climate change isn't going away as long as humans are alive, simple as that. So to actually stop hyper climate change, we have to stop humans from existing. My method was to decrease, not to stop. Because I recognize the importance it has to human survival because there are no alternatives, for our increasing populations as of yet. This is how we maintain the first world. I don't see places like Africa or China using all green energy in the next hundered years. Do you? That is where this falls apart. The West isn't enough to slow down climate change, even if we somehow managed to go all green. It is purely idealistic to think we can even have an impact on it to reverse it. As we don't know and or understand the climate completely either. Lets say the entire world gets rid of C02, and earths population goes up. What if humans simply being alive starts causing climate change again? There is a finite amount of space on earth. The proverbial genie has been out of the bottle before we were born.

Also, talking about your opinions isn't propaganda. It's that kind of talk that has polarized people to begin with.
 
Top