Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Originally Posted by Backspin

Neo-Gramscianism ..... acquires its authority through ..............techniques of intellectual and cultural persuasion

Mother nature kicks ass.

Originally Posted by Backspin

Neo-Gramscianism ..... acquires its authority through ..............techniques of intellectual and cultural persuasion

OK let’s just pretend for a minute that you’re not a multinicker posting utter shite for attention...

Nope, still doesn’t matter what you believe because science.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

OK let’s just pretend for a minute that you’re not a multinicker posting utter shite for attention...

Nope, still doesn’t matter what you believe because science.

Nobody is denying that a rise in C02 causes temperature to rise. What climate changers have to do is prove that mother nature, does not have a natural self correction mechanism for this.

Because this isn't the first time that a branch of science has claimed that man has broken its covenant with the earth. Every other Malthusian claim of this, at least dealt with real poisons and pollutants. But since technology has cleaned up car exhaust so much, the Malthusians had to move onto something that isnt even a poison or pollutant.

But don't engage with the topic. Say some more about my alleged indiscretions. And ostracize.

Originally Posted by Backspin

Nobody is denying that a rise in C02 causes temperature to rise. What climate changers have to do is prove that mother nature, does not have a natural self correction mechanism for this.

Because this isn't the first time that a branch of science has claimed that man has broken its covenant with the earth. Every other Malthusian claim of this, at least dealt with real poisons and pollutants. But since technology has cleaned up car exhaust so much, the Malthusians had to move onto something that isnt even a poison or pollutant.

But don't engage with the topic. Say some more about my alleged indiscretions. And ostracize.

Alright tosspot, we get it, you learned a new word.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Alright tosspot, we get it, you learned a new word.

You need to learn a new word. You neo Gramscian supporting tommyrot

Originally Posted by Backspin

What climate changers have to do is prove that mother nature, does not have a natural self correction mechanism for this.

There is a teapot in orbit around the sun. Being a teapot it's naturally relatively small so it can't be seen by even the most powerful of telescopes. Inside said teapot is a slip of paper and upon that paper is printed the following:

"Backspin is the multi of banned fucktard socal and is back posting ever more utter shit".

Prove that it's not true or it is.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

"Backspin is the multi of banned fucktard socal and is back posting ever more utter shit".

Prove that it's not true or it is.

I have money on the fact he will implode in the next couple of weeks. You can see it coming.

Greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere, the main driver of climate change, hit a record high last year, the UN said Monday, calling for action to safeguard "the future welfare of mankind".

"There is no sign of a slowdown, let alone a decline, in greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere despite all the commitments under the Paris Agreement on Climate Change," the head of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Petteri Taalas said in a statement.

The WMO's main annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin listed the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 2018 at 407.8 parts per million (ppm), up from 405.5 ppm in 2017. That increase was just above the annual average increase over the past decade.

CO2 is responsible for roughly two-thirds of Earth's warming. The second most prevalent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is methane - emitted in part from cattle and fermentation from rice paddies - which is responsible for 17 percent of warming, according to WMO.

Nitrous oxide, the third major greenhouse gas, is caused largely by agricultural fertilisers, has caused about six percent of warming on Earth, the UN agency said.

Atmospheric concentration levels of both methane and nitrous oxide both hit record highs last year, the UN said.

"This continuing long-term trend means that future generations will be confronted with increasingly severe impacts of climate change, including rising temperatures, more extreme weather, water stress, sea level rise and disruption to marine and land ecosystems," WMO said.

Emissions are the main factor that determine the amount of greenhouse gas levels but concentration rates are a measure of what remains after a series of complex interactions between atmosphere, biosphere, lithosphere, cryosphere and the oceans.

Roughly 25 percent of all emissions are currently absorbed by the oceans and biosphere - a term that accounts for all ecosystems on Earth.

The lithosphere is the solid, outer part of the Earth while the cryosphere covers that part of the world covered by frozen water.

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said that in order to keep warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius, net CO2 emissions must be at net zero, meaning the amount being pumped into the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed, either though natural absorption or technological innovation.
While Taalas made clear that the world was not on track to meet UN targets, he did highlight some reasons for cautious optimism.

"The visibility of these issues is the highest (it has) ever been," he told reporters in Geneva, noting that the private sector was increasingly investing in green technology.

Even in the United States, where President Donald Trump's administration this month began the process of formally withdrawing from the Paris agreement, "plenty of positive things are happening," Taalas said.

While Washington may have renounced its Paris agreement commitments, "we have plenty of states and cities who are proceeding in the right direction," he added.

"Personally, I am more hopeful than I used to be 10 years ago but of course we have to speed up the process," Taalas said.

https://www.sciencealert.com/all-major-greenhouse-gases-reached-new-record-highs-last-year?perpetual=yes&limitstart=1

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...-is-wrong/amp/

Originally Posted by RPETER65

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...-is-wrong/amp/

Not a scientist. And thus as relevant as the people he's mocking, who aren't scientists either.

But they are correct that people are going to die because of climate change, and his whinge is "it doesn't count if you can't say how many".

Originally Posted by RPETER65

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...-is-wrong/amp/

Great article from Mike Shellenberger who is controversial because he is an environmentalist and not a closet Malthusian.

The Malthusian Roots of Climate Extremism


Michael Shellenberger,


The most doctrinaire and apocalyptic forms of modern “environmentalism” are simply a repackaging of the ideas of Thomas Malthus, the 19th-century British economist who thought that there were too many poor people out there—particularly poor Irish people—and that the ethical thing to do was let them die. “Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits,” he wrote, “and court the return of the plague.”


Unlike Swift, Malthus was no satirist. He was making a utilitarian argument: If we let the poor reproduce they would just end up creating more suffering in the future. (Indeed, the British government and media used Malthus’ ideas to justify the policies that led to mass starvation in Ireland from 1845 to 1849.) The LaRouchian protestor who spoke at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s thursday event channeled Malthus’ horrifying logic faithfully. And in a more polite form, environmentalists channel it themselves when they urge that poor countries shoot themselves in the foot economically so that the world might be a greener place.


Two decades later, the United Nations seemed to embrace elements of neo-Malthusianism in a report called Our Common Future. Rather than move to fossil fuels and nuclear, the UN experts opined, poor nations should instead use wood fuel more sustainably.
Malthusian hysteria has become embedded in all sorts of extremist sects. Indeed, two recent mass shooters—one in El Paso, Texas, and the other in Christchurch, NZ—echoed some version of the apocalyptic rhetoric of Malthusian environmentalists. Yet Malthusian environmentalists are preaching a debunked creed, for their prophet wrongly predicted that famines and resource scarcity would become common features.


If we are to believe Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s claim that humankind has only 12 years left to save civilization from climate change, then surely the truly more modest proposal of operating today’s nuclear plants while pursuing the French and Swedish model of building standardized nuclear power plants, would be warranted.

Humanity does not have the right to pollute the environment. It is both immoral and unethical. Nature has a way of reclaiming lost resources, or taking advantage of major causes of disruption. Natural or man made makes no difference. Nature wil continue to adapt, often too slow for our liking.
As a pragmatic conservationist, I understand that we cannot retreat to dark age policies, and uninvent the automobile. But we can help nature and speed up adaptation by polluting less, and improving those processes that we depend on, like the automobile.
It requires a concerted effort from individuals and state bodies, to achieve this. Nature can only provide limited long term solutions with the assistance of humanity, if you want sustainable answers.

Originally Posted by Switch

Humanity does not have the right to pollute the environment. It is both immoral and unethical. Nature has a way of reclaiming lost resources, or taking advantage of major causes of disruption. Natural or man made makes no difference. Nature wil continue to adapt, often too slow for our liking.
As a pragmatic conservationist, I understand that we cannot retreat to dark age policies, and uninvent the automobile. But we can help nature and speed up adaptation by polluting less, and improving those processes that we depend on, like the automobile.
It requires a concerted effort from individuals and state bodies, to achieve this. Nature can only provide limited long term solutions with the assistance of humanity, if you want sustainable answers.

It's very simple: 87% of man made CO2 emissions come from fossil fuels being used for energy.

Replace them with renewables.

The main obstacle to this is the sheer amount of money the fossil fuel industry puts into bribing politicians, and the geopolitical strength of those that produce and export them.

It is changing as renewables become cheaper, but it needs to change quicker.

Originally Posted by Backspin

Malthusian Malthusian Malthusian blah blah blah

Time to go and look up a new word, you've worn that one out.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-full-marxist/

Spamming links is only sticking your head further into the sands of denial, Repeater.

Angry old white man triggered by teenaged girl.

I'm sure there's something Freudian in there somewhere.

Brazil's president accuses actor DiCaprio of financing Amazon fires, offers no evidence

SAO PAULO (Reuters) - Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro claimed on Friday that Hollywood star Leonardo DiCaprio financed fires being set in the Amazon rainforest, without presenting any evidence, the right-wing leader’s latest broadside in casting blame over forest fires that have generated international concern.

Bolsonaro appeared to be commenting on social media postings claiming that the environmental organization the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) had paid for images taken by volunteer firefighters that it then supposedly used to solicit donations, including a $500,000 contribution from DiCaprio.

The WWF has denied receiving a donation from DiCaprio or obtaining photos from the firefighters.

“This Leonardo DiCaprio is a cool guy, right? Giving money to torch the Amazon,” Bolsonaro said on Friday during brief remarks in front of the presidential residence.

DiCaprio denied having donated to the WWF. In a statement, the actor lauded “the people of Brazil working to save their natural and cultural heritage.” But, he said, “While worthy of support, we did not fund the organizations targeted.”

DiCaprio has been an outspoken advocate on behalf of combating climate change, speaking frequently about environmental issues including the Amazon forest fires. His Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation, which is focused on projects that “protect vulnerable wildlife from extinction,” is part of the Earth Alliance.

Four members of the nongovernmental organization Alter do Chão Fire Brigade were arrested on Tuesday with police accusing them of purposefully setting fires in order to document them and drum up more donations. They were released on Thursday on a judge’s order.

Politicians and other NGOs fiercely criticized the arrest, saying it was part of a concerted attempt by Bolsonaro’s government to harass environmental groups.

Scientists and activists blame land speculators, farmers and ranchers for setting the fires to clear land for agricultural use, saying that deforesters are being emboldened by Bolsonaro’s rhetoric of promoting development and farming over preservation.

The Amazon rainforest is considered a bulwark against global climate change.

Bolsonaro has repeatedly lashed out at various factions in casting blame for the forest fires.

In a Facebook live post on Aug. 21, he said, “Everything indicates” that NGOs were going to the Amazon to “set fire” to the forest. When asked then if he had evidence to back up his claims, Bolsonaro said he had “no written plan,” adding, “that’s not how it’s done.”

One day later he admitted that farmers could be illegally setting the rainforest ablaze, but roughly a month later he attacked the “lying media” for saying that the rainforest was being devastated by the fires.

Bolsonaro talked about DiCaprio on Thursday during a live webcast. The president said the WWF paid the firefighting NGO to take pictures of forest fires in the Amazon.

“So what did the NGO do? What is the easiest thing? Set fire to the forest. Take pictures, make a video,” the president said. “(WWF) makes a campaign against Brazil, it contacts Leonardo DiCaprio, he donates $500,000.”

“A part of that went to the people that were setting fires. Leonardo DiCaprio, you are contributing to the fire in the Amazon, that won’t do,” Bolsonaro said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-b...-idUSKBN1Y32HD

WAR ON WHEELS Jeremy Clarkson claims Greta Thunberg has killed motor shows by making young people hate cars

26 Nov 2019
GRETA Thunberg has done the impossible – and overtaken cyclists at the top of Jeremy Clarkson’s Most Hated list.

The motoring show host has accused the 16-year-old climate change activist of being a big reason why young people today hate cars.

Jeremy Clarkson believes he knows what killed his hit motoring show - blaming 16-year-old climate change activist Greta Thunberg

Jeremy Clarkson believes he knows what killed his hit motoring show - blaming 16-year-old climate change activist Greta Thunberg
Speaking exclusively to The Sun, Jeremy, 59, ranted: “Everyone I know under 25 isn’t the slightest bit interested in cars — Greta Thunberg has killed the car show.

“They’re taught at school, before they say ‘Mummy and Daddy’, that cars are evil, and it’s in their heads.”

His long-term sidekick Richard Hammond, 49, agrees: “I hate to say it, but I think Jeremy is right.

“Young people don’t care about cars. How many kids now are growing up with posters of cars on their bedroom wall?”

Read more
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbi...lled-car-show/

^

Possibly the trend of using Uber type travel has stopped car buyers and hence, the back seat shenanigans some grew up with and still have fond memories of.

Such luck that in Thailand there are paddy fields and jungles to nip off to, with the Mia Noi.

https://spectator.org/the-paris-clim...es-withdrawal/

Originally Posted by bsnub

^ You fucking moron you will never learn will you? Lets read about the author of your shit article...

He's incapable of thinking for himself.

It's the dementia.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

It's very simple: 87% of man made CO2 emissions come from fossil fuels being used for energy.

Replace them with renewables.

The main obstacle to this is the sheer amount of money the fossil fuel industry puts into bribing politicians, and the geopolitical strength of those that produce and export them.

It is changing as renewables become cheaper, but it needs to change quicker.

Renewables can be used for specific things on the margins. But they cannot and will not replace fossil fuels.

If we could only use as much energy as renewables can produce, it would retard the human race. And that's just the effect that the Malthusians are looking for. Nuclear is their biggest fear. Not because of the accidents. But because nuclear produces such cheap and pollution free energy.

Big oil supports renewables. Its a diversion. From what ? The real competition. Nuclear.

^bp??? Didn't it mean something different than a "beyond ..."?