WMO: Carbon Pollution Touched 800,000-Year Record in 2016

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
ph is just a measurement of the H ions or the OH ions in a substance.

specifically to ocean acidification: CO2 (aq) + H2O
046b918c43e05caf6624fe9b676c69ec9cd6b892
H2CO3
046b918c43e05caf6624fe9b676c69ec9cd6b892
HCO3− + H+
046b918c43e05caf6624fe9b676c69ec9cd6b892
CO32− + 2 H+.

any questions?
Then you should know .1 change is quite significant for biological processes.
We broke the planet for life as we know it... It freaking shows already for anyone paying the slightest of attention.
 

Gigus Fire

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
2,275
Then you should know .1 change is quite significant for biological processes.
We broke the planet for life as we know it... It freaking shows already for anyone paying the slightest of attention.
Such as?
I mean blood is between 7.45 and 7.35. So which biological processes are you talking about?
 

travisty

Gawd
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
815
Then you should know .1 change is quite significant for biological processes.
We broke the planet for life as we know it... It freaking shows already for anyone paying the slightest of attention.

To make your valid point harder to refute modify to, "We broke the planet for life faster than life could evolve for the changes."

Sure life can evolve over centuries but we've made it so life has to evolve in decades - which it can't without a mass extinction period.
 

CombatChrisNC

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
1,140
It's simple science. 7 is neutral, anything above is alkaline, anything below is acid.
Moving from a 8.2 to 8.1 on the ph scale does nothing chemically. In that range we went from 200ppm to 400ppm of co2. If we went to 600 ppm and the ocean became a ph of 8.0 it still won't change anything.

Your geologic timescale isn't quite accurate.
For example, the indistrial revolution started around 1750. So that would be around 270 years timeframe that man had an impact.

Comparing that to known climate changes in the past, the sahara desert turned from a lush forest to a desert in approximately a 300 year span of time:
https://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/how-earths-orbital-shift-shaped-the-sahara/


Thank you, so very much.

So, so, very much.

You believe that Astrobio link - as well you should, because it's well reasoned science. One of the contributors knows his shit. https://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/gschmidt/ Let's see what else he has to say.

No cherry picking.

Also it took 5,000 years for that change to happen in the Sahara. With humans throwing a blanket on this planet, imagine that happening in 1/10th the time.
 

travisty

Gawd
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
815
The only thing troubling is having to endure John Oliver's smarmy face and man made climate change alarmist nonsense.

So you instead say QQ "I'm not smart enough to rationalize how science works so i'll follow what my priest/Trump says like the brainless lemming I am."

Well done! You're more ignorant than this guy from 1958

 

Gigus Fire

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
2,275
Thank you, so very much.

So, so, very much.

You believe that Astrobio link - as well you should, because it's well reasoned science. One of the contributors knows his shit. https://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/gschmidt/ Let's see what else he has to say.

No cherry picking.

Also it took 5,000 years for that change to happen in the Sahara. With humans throwing a blanket on this planet, imagine that happening in 1/10th the time.

Read the article. It took 300 years for it to change from a forest with farm-able land to a desert in this past cycle.
 

Dead Parrot

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
2,831
Funny how all the warming from the last ice age until some magic point in recent history, 1970?, is considered good and normal and all of the warming since is considered harmful and evil. And is it also funny that many of the folks screaming the loudest about how the rest of us idiots need to cut back have some of the largest carbon footprints(offsets don't count, if you want me to cut back you need to set the good example first). Why don't worried climate scientists stay home and use Al Gore's Internet to meet via video conference instead of flying in large carbon burning jets to their yearly meetings?
 

travisty

Gawd
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
815
Over a 5-year period, the number of deaths attributed to the cold was twice as high as those attributed to heat.

Which points more toward wealth inequality than climate change.

It's easy to cool off - get naked/find shade (or wear middle eastern garb which insulates from the heat) - whereas it's much harder to stay warm as it requires proper clothing. A homeless person who only has a light jacket cannot hope to stay warm even in 30 degree (F) weather.
 
Last edited:

bbqrooster

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
207
I'm still trying to figure out what this has to do with hardware....... is this an overclocking experiment gone awry?



Another unrelated click-bait article.
This is another hardware "relevant" post from Megalith. I thought I can escape from these BS topics on HardOCP.
 

Ultima99

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 31, 2004
Messages
4,905
These global warming/climate change posts always bring out the wizards!
 

otherweeb

Gawd
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Messages
860
Funny how all the warming from the last ice age until some magic point in recent history, 1970?, is considered good and normal and all of the warming since is considered harmful and evil. And is it also funny that many of the folks screaming the loudest about how the rest of us idiots need to cut back have some of the largest carbon footprints(offsets don't count, if you want me to cut back you need to set the good example first). Why don't worried climate scientists stay home and use Al Gore's Internet to meet via video conference instead of flying in large carbon burning jets to their yearly meetings?

1970 ! good call

"The Cuyahoga River is a river in the United States, located in Northeast Ohio, that feeds into Lake Erie. The river is famous for having been so polluted that it "caught fire" in 1969. The event helped to spur the environmental movement in the US" -from wikipedia

https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/63

EPA formed December 2, 1970

Seems that's when people finally gave a damn and started official measurements of environmental things.

edit:https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/28/...ge-trump-public-popularity-bipartisan-support

"In fact, when the EPA was created in 1970 by Republican President Richard Nixon, there was broad bipartisan support for it. “Restoring nature to its natural state is a cause beyond party and beyond factions,” Nixon said in his 1970 State of the Union speech."
 
Last edited:

DocFaustus

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 22, 2002
Messages
2,830
This is another hardware "relevant" post from Megalith. I thought I can escape from these BS topics on HardOCP.

Yea its going downhill fast around here. There is still hope though. Montu seems to be doing a great job and posting interesting tech related news.
 

Croak

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 16, 2006
Messages
1,138
I'm still trying to figure out what this has to do with hardware....... is this an overclocking experiment gone awry?



Another unrelated click-bait article.

Site just needs a Megalith filter on the front page, and most if not all the click-bait would be invisible.
 

jedijeb13

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 15, 2017
Messages
302
There are no good solutions Monkey, except preparation, because the outcome is certain. There is no going back, there is no changing or reversing the damage, there is only living with the result. We need to put our collective efforts and resources into the fact that it is happening and there really is nothing we can do, unless aliens show up and lend us some space magics.

Climate change is natural and is going to happen no matter what humans do. Politicians want to look like they have control so they invent laws and taxes to "control" climate change, but it is only for appearances. When it doesn't work they will just blame the public for ignoring their laws and try to make more laws and taxes to "solve" the problem.

I know chemists and physicists who do not agree with the rank and file on climate change and have done research that refutes some of the claims made by climate change proponents, but they can not get any of the papers published because the journals will not publish anything that does not agree with the political talking points of climate change, even if the science of their work can not be proven wrong. Try to file for a grant to study climate change when your premise is to show something other than human activity is causing it, you won't be funded. The reason non-scientists so readily agree with the climate change agenda is because any work that shines doubt on it is suppressed or if it can't be suppressed it is called "denial" even if it can't be disproved. Climate change proponents are like the Wizard of Oz and tell everyone not to look behind the curtain.

Remember how the ozone got a big hole because of human-made chemicals and then we did something about it and things got better.... pretty amazing stuff that we did on a global scale.

Why stop now? Why make this a political position? It defies logic that this has become another argument to fuel tribalism.

There is still a hole in the ozone, just as there has always been. The hole grows and shrinks around the south pole, even though we have cut chlorofluorocarbon emissions to nearly nothing. Now they are targeting chlorocarbon emissions because, well, something has to still be causing it, even though in the past it was determined it was the combination of chlorine and fluorine in the hydrocarbons that was the catalyst.

My organic chemistry teacher in college put it simply when we had the class back in the late 80's early 90's. Ozone can only form when there is UV radiation present to cause O2 to become O3. What is missing at the south pole when it is winter there and the sun doesn't rise for months? No or minimal solar radiation, less Ozone, just a fact. Was there some problem with freon, yes there was, but it wasn't as large of an impact as the alarmists wanted it to be. They discovered the hole in the Ozone layer only when they could observe it from space, so there really wasn't accurate measurements of it going back millions of years to be able to say freon was the big cause of a hole they just happened to discover in the late 1960's or early 1970's. Alarmist will be alarmists, whether or not they can actually substantiate their claims or not. According to Al Gore half of NYC and New Orleans should already be under water, but they aren't, so they just keep moving the doomsday deadline farther out and keep the scare going. They never say we made a mistake, only that what they said would happen will still happen quickly. I guess a millions years is quick on a geologic time scale, but they never tell you the real time scale :)

Enjoy parsing through this:

Tabulated observations of the pH tolerance of marine and estuarine biota

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2014/mpo-dfo/Fs97-4-2857-eng.pdf

As a quick example, it appears Chrysochromulina simplex sees a 20% reduction in growth with a change in pH of .05.

I like the cherry picking from this publication. Just reading the abstract shows how this quote is alarmist in nature considering this is the very first lines in the paper.

"Compared to the situation in fresh waters, pH in the marine environment is well-buffered and relatively stable between 7.5 and 8.4 pH units. Nevertheless, pH can be
altered outside this range by natural (e.g., photosynthesis) or anthropogenic (e.g. industrial) processes."

That right there shows there will be natural deviations in the pH that will affect this organism by quite a bit and that the stability of the oceans pH is much wider than the 0.1 pH unit that was being touted earlier in this thread as an indicator that humans were adversely altering the pH of the oceans. (8.2 to 8.1 being a dire change)

Another quote from just the abstract is this:

"This tabulation of the literature confirms that most pH-related impacts on survival, growth, photosynthesis, feeding and immune response occur at pH levels outside the recommended range. Some taxa, however, are notable for their tolerance of pH conditions well outside this range. Among the taxa tolerant of extremely high pH
levels (>10-11 pH units), and potentially contributing to or even causing elevated pH through their photosynthetic activity, are several macroalgae commonly associated with “nuisance” blooms, including the green algae Ulva lactuca and Enteromorpha sp."

This essentially says that there are extremes outside of the "normal" pH range of the ocean that many species can survive, and that some of those species are actually responsible for major shifts in pH in local ocean areas, outside of human causes.

One more quote from the abstract:

"A separate table was produced for the effects of acetic acid on biota as mortality from acetic acid exposure appears greater than that from other acids at the same pH, possibly because of the toxic effects of the acetate ion."

This is added because acetic acid ( which is the acid in vinegar) was used to adjust the pH for the experiments. What the author is saying is that even though the species listed above in may have a drastic change in growth due to a 0.05pH unit change it could also have been caused because of the acetate ion not just the pH change alone. The author did a great job of alerting the reader to the possible flaws in the data, other users should also qualify the usage of the data with these cautions.

Being a chemist who has been working with environmental monitoring for 26 years now, I do know how to look at data and interpret what it means. Some data from the climate change proponents looks valid and some does not, likewise with the data from the climate change proponents. The science is not yet settled even though the politicians want it to be. If true debate can not take place because one side is denied the ability to speak their opinions without being labeled "skeptic" or "denier", then the truth will never be known.

Rant over :)

How does this apply to a tech site. Well if the hard core climate change proponents have their way, it could cause restrictions on the power we use, or the equipment we are able to purchase in the future. If severe restrictions are put on power usage, then 1100 watt power supplies and the uber rigs that require them could become extinct or very very expensive to have. Techies won't worry about climate change until it restricts their hobby, car enthusiasts won't worry about it until high performance vehicles are banned for using too much fuel, and so on and so forth. We have to study everything with an open mind to make sure some government agency and politicians don't take away the things we like without true cause.
 

TwistedAegis

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
8,958
"A separate table was produced for the effects of acetic acid on biota as mortality from acetic acid exposure appears greater than that from other acids at the same pH, possibly because of the toxic effects of the acetate ion."

This is added because acetic acid ( which is the acid in vinegar) was used to adjust the pH for the experiments. What the author is saying is that even though the species listed above in may have a drastic change in growth due to a 0.05pH unit change it could also have been caused because of the acetate ion not just the pH change alone. The author did a great job of alerting the reader to the possible flaws in the data, other users should also qualify the usage of the data with these cautions.

Woof. All I was posting was a potential impact to an organism due to a change of .1 or less of pH, which was what was requested.

The science is not yet settled even though the politicians want it to be. If true debate can not take place because one side is denied the ability to speak their opinions without being labeled "skeptic" or "denier", then the truth will never be known.

You mean like EPA scientists not being allowed to attend climate change conferences or give talks on their research? The problem isn't that one side isn't being allowed to debate; it's that one side wants false equivalence given to random people's opinions over peer-reviewed research. The left (well, and some of the right) has the same issue with vaccines. It isn't stopping "debate" if we both pick up a rock and you, as a geologist, say it's a piece of granite and I, as a professional blogger, say that it's a piece of cheese, and I'm not given any credence.
 

Gigus Fire

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
2,275
Woof. All I was posting was a potential impact to an organism due to a change of .1 or less of pH, which was what was requested..
That wasn't what was requested.
I asked you to post any "life process" which would occur at 8.2 ph that won't occur at 8.1 ph
 

choppedliver

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Messages
479
[H]ardOCP morphed into Huffington Post: Tech so quickly I didn't even notice it!

Amen. I get enough of this shit on facebook, various news websites, don't need it here. As if by some chance someone hasn't heard about global warming/climate change whatever, and we need to read about it on our computer geek websites, because we were too busy putting our gaming rig together to have heard about the pending demise of civilization via carbon.
 

Mohonri

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
5,757
I was under the impression that CO2 emissions are actually down over the last 10-15 years. Was I misinformed?
 

cyclone3d

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
14,851

Trees and other plants still filter out carbon, even if algae is the biggest contributor of oxygen.

I would think that trees and other plants closer to the actual source of the CO2 emissions would have a bigger effect on CO2 levels than algae in water that is a long ways away.

I especially like these 2 points in the article:

  • Local effects on climate - planting forests can bring rainfall to desert regions and we can replant trees also to reverse desertification
  • CO2 sink. If you destroy forests this releases CO2 into the atmosphere which contributes to global warming. Grow more trees and you can counteract CO2 emissions.
 

TheCommander

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 2, 2003
Messages
2,999
As a veteran of "the evolution issue," I really don't log onto [H] to read how little many computer hardware enthusiasts know about science in general and this "controversial" science in particular.

I don't think you realize that everyone on [H] is a master of all topics. Google makes everyone a genius.
 

cyclone3d

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
14,851
1970 ! good call

"The Cuyahoga River is a river in the United States, located in Northeast Ohio, that feeds into Lake Erie. The river is famous for having been so polluted that it "caught fire" in 1969. The event helped to spur the environmental movement in the US" -from wikipedia

https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/63

EPA formed December 2, 1970

Seems that's when people finally gave a damn and started official measurements of environmental things.

edit:https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/28/...ge-trump-public-popularity-bipartisan-support

"In fact, when the EPA was created in 1970 by Republican President Richard Nixon, there was broad bipartisan support for it. “Restoring nature to its natural state is a cause beyond party and beyond factions,” Nixon said in his 1970 State of the Union speech."

The EPA may have been a good idea at first, but in recent years it has become an especially politicized organization and a home for zealots that want to push their agenda of reversing real progress.
 

ob1

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 17, 2000
Messages
2,274
I know chemists and physicists who do not agree with the rank and file on climate change and have done research that refutes some of the claims made by climate change proponents, but they can not get any of the papers published because the journals will not publish anything that does not agree with the political talking points of climate change, even if the science of their work can not be proven wrong. Try to file for a grant to study climate change when your premise is to show something other than human activity is causing it, you won't be funded. The reason non-scientists so readily agree with the climate change agenda is because any work that shines doubt on it is suppressed or if it can't be suppressed it is called "denial" even if it can't be disproved. Climate change proponents are like the Wizard of Oz and tell everyone not to look behind the curtain.

So your argument and basis of fact is that some people that YOU know say something different than the rest of the scientists and data out there, so obviously all of the 99% is wrong because it is a conspiracy. Show some proof from your friends or get the fuck out. You don't need a grant to study any climate change. All data from all public US satellites are free to the public. Do your own studies and come back here and show us. When 99% of the science community agrees, which isn't very often by the way, it should at least be considered the best opinion. Not some random people who supposedly studied something....

ps.. I have some friends that studied cancer and they say that people like you should eat cricket shit to cure your condition, true story...
 

jedijeb13

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 15, 2017
Messages
302
So your argument and basis of fact is that some people that YOU know say something different than the rest of the scientists and data out there, so obviously all of the 99% is wrong because it is a conspiracy. Show some proof from your friends or get the fuck out. You don't need a grant to study any climate change. All data from all public US satellites are free to the public. Do your own studies and come back here and show us. When 99% of the science community agrees, which isn't very often by the way, it should at least be considered the best opinion. Not some random people who supposedly studied something....

ps.. I have some friends that studied cancer and they say that people like you should eat cricket shit to cure your condition, true story...

This reply just proves what I said above. If I say something that goes against your view of climate change you will just spew profanity and show a total lack of willingness to discuss a topic.

I never denied that climate change exists, but I do disagree with the statement that 99% of all scientists are in agreement with the cause. I work with scientists from many countries and at best 50% would even begin to say that what is the popular stance on climate change is true, probably less. Who published the 99% of scientist are in consensus? Where did you arrive at that number? Did you do the survey to find that number? You tell me to do my own research to prove my point, but did you get on the phone and call 10,000 scientists and find that 9,900 of them agree? Or did you just repeat what some news show reported?

The climate is changing, that is known. The temperatures are rising, but at what rate and for what reason, that is still in question. The outcome of what a small change in temperature will do to the environment is also in question. Twenty years ago the popular belief was that the temperature would rise enough by now that the sea levels would be 10 feet or more higher than they were then. None of this has happened, so what else were they wrong about, and possibly still wrong about. Some of the popular theories do not even agree with the laws of physics and some of the raw data does not correspond with the conclusions put forth. I have looked at some of the data and trends and come to conclusions that do not agree with what is being said. One major difference is that when you look at a graph of temperature versus year, and CO2 concentration versus year, it is apparent that temperature begins to rise decades before the CO2 concentrations begin to rise, yet the common belief is that rising CO2 causes rising temperature. Any scientist would realize that an effect can not happen before the cause. In one presentation I attended I even watched a presenter show the graphs right on the screen, show the timelines and results and make the very claim that is not possible.

I am willing to sit down and have an open discussion about the topic, and if you can make a scientifically valid explanation using data that has not been run through so many statistical filters that it is no longer representative of the true results and do it in a civil way, I could be persuaded to see your point of view.
 

ob1

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 17, 2000
Messages
2,274
This reply just proves what I said above. If I say something that goes against your view of climate change you will just spew profanity and show a total lack of willingness to discuss a topic.

I never denied that climate change exists, but I do disagree with the statement that 99% of all scientists are in agreement with the cause. I work with scientists from many countries and at best 50% would even begin to say that what is the popular stance on climate change is true, probably less. Who published the 99% of scientist are in consensus? Where did you arrive at that number? Did you do the survey to find that number? You tell me to do my own research to prove my point, but did you get on the phone and call 10,000 scientists and find that 9,900 of them agree? Or did you just repeat what some news show reported?

The climate is changing, that is known. The temperatures are rising, but at what rate and for what reason, that is still in question. The outcome of what a small change in temperature will do to the environment is also in question. Twenty years ago the popular belief was that the temperature would rise enough by now that the sea levels would be 10 feet or more higher than they were then. None of this has happened, so what else were they wrong about, and possibly still wrong about. Some of the popular theories do not even agree with the laws of physics and some of the raw data does not correspond with the conclusions put forth. I have looked at some of the data and trends and come to conclusions that do not agree with what is being said. One major difference is that when you look at a graph of temperature versus year, and CO2 concentration versus year, it is apparent that temperature begins to rise decades before the CO2 concentrations begin to rise, yet the common belief is that rising CO2 causes rising temperature. Any scientist would realize that an effect can not happen before the cause. In one presentation I attended I even watched a presenter show the graphs right on the screen, show the timelines and results and make the very claim that is not possible.

I am willing to sit down and have an open discussion about the topic, and if you can make a scientifically valid explanation using data that has not been run through so many statistical filters that it is no longer representative of the true results and do it in a civil way, I could be persuaded to see your point of view.

Climate change is a fact. There is no more discussion. Humans adding to climate change is a fact. There is no more discussion. The science is there. I have, over and over again across many threads, shown all legitimate science sites and papers while you "flat Earthers" keep just saying that it is not fact. You say you have all these scientists, which by the way would be tens of thousands of people that show that climate change isn't happening, and that humans cannot possibly add to the change but you never ever show any proof. You never show one scientist, and not places like skepticalscience.com and stuff that is run by economists (their head of science works and studies economy not climate), but you keep saying it over and over. Show the math, show the models, show the measurements. NOAA has. NASA has. The world weather organization has. MIT.edu has. ETC. But it is all a conspiracy so you will just continue to ignore it and point the finger back.

I'm also going to assume you believe the Earth is flat, evolution isn't real and water is not wet. Because at the end of the day, it is the same. You personally are taking a non fact, and propagating that non fact as a fact to others. I'm not going to argue and hand hold the information exchange, because it has been done a thousand times or more. I guess lets just agree to disagree because you obviously will not do the due diligence on something you obviously feel passionate about.
 

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
This reply just proves what I said above. If I say something that goes against your view of climate change you will just spew profanity and show a total lack of willingness to discuss a topic.

I never denied that climate change exists, but I do disagree with the statement that 99% of all scientists are in agreement with the cause. I work with scientists from many countries and at best 50% would even begin to say that what is the popular stance on climate change is true, probably less. Who published the 99% of scientist are in consensus? Where did you arrive at that number? Did you do the survey to find that number? You tell me to do my own research to prove my point, but did you get on the phone and call 10,000 scientists and find that 9,900 of them agree? Or did you just repeat what some news show reported?

The climate is changing, that is known. The temperatures are rising, but at what rate and for what reason, that is still in question. The outcome of what a small change in temperature will do to the environment is also in question. Twenty years ago the popular belief was that the temperature would rise enough by now that the sea levels would be 10 feet or more higher than they were then. None of this has happened, so what else were they wrong about, and possibly still wrong about. Some of the popular theories do not even agree with the laws of physics and some of the raw data does not correspond with the conclusions put forth. I have looked at some of the data and trends and come to conclusions that do not agree with what is being said. One major difference is that when you look at a graph of temperature versus year, and CO2 concentration versus year, it is apparent that temperature begins to rise decades before the CO2 concentrations begin to rise, yet the common belief is that rising CO2 causes rising temperature. Any scientist would realize that an effect can not happen before the cause. In one presentation I attended I even watched a presenter show the graphs right on the screen, show the timelines and results and make the very claim that is not possible.

I am willing to sit down and have an open discussion about the topic, and if you can make a scientifically valid explanation using data that has not been run through so many statistical filters that it is no longer representative of the true results and do it in a civil way, I could be persuaded to see your point of view.
Im sure these two will not be enough for you to really believe there is very real consensus, but here goes:
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf
https://arstechnica.com/science/201...ies-finds-strong-agreement-on-climate-change/

I don't know about the other poster, but I did call 10000 climate-scientists and 9758 are in consensus that we are fucked it we don't do anything and humans caused it.
Is that good enough?
 

Dr. Righteous

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Messages
3,163
If climate change deniers are right, then we're fine. If they're wrong, then we're not fine. How about erring on the side of caution. You know, just in case.

And this is the mantra you hear. BUT WHAT IF?!!?? So the ANSWER is a world wide oppressive taxation system of CARBON CREDITS. You have to ask yourself WHY that is the solution? That will have 0% effect if this problem is as they describe. What gets me is the arrogance behinds this. You are a "climate change denier" if you have the temerity to disagree with them. Just like if you are against open borders, you are a racist. If you are against the welfare state, you hate poor people, etc.

I remember in the 1970s BOGUS SCIENCE proclaimed we were on the edge of another ice age. And by their models show by the 2000s half of north America should be a solid sheet of ice year round. ALL BOGUS SCIENCE. Then it was GLOBAL WARMING was going to melt the ice caps. UNTIL it was exposed for the fraud it was and emails were leaked on how to further the campaign of disinformation. So RENAME IT. Now it is Climate Change. Give us a break. WE ARE NOT DRINKING THE COOL-AID!
There are few serious minded people that denies the climate of the Earth changes. History has shown that in ancient times the deserts were lush rain forests, the hottest places were cooler and the coldest places were warmer.
But REAL SCIENCE tied this to hot and cold solar cycles that last hundreds of years. All NATURAL processes, not man made. We can do nothing about it.
The big picture is that communist, socialist radical types that decried the abject failure of globalism and communism have immigrated to the environmentalist movement because they are leftist allies. Here they raise alarmist flags to frighten people of some impending doom unless something is done. OF COURSE they have all the answers and it just happens to be a scheme of oppressive, freedom robbing world wide taxation system that only THEY and other elitist will benefit from. Why do their answers always remove the freedoms on individuals? Because simply that is their goal from the beginning. Control over all aspects of our lives. What is unfortunate most of these globalist, communist, leftist, environmentalist voices operate off of government grants (tax dollars) in universities and non profit so they have to double down on climate change rhetoric and bogus science to keep the grant money in the pipe line.
 

ob1

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 17, 2000
Messages
2,274
Keep bringing politics into this, because that helps. No one is arguing about the politics of this, and the "carbon tax" and stuff. That is shit we can change. It isn't to spread fear, that is the job of politicians and politics which you keep bringing into the discussion. Why does climate science always have to be communist, socialist, leftist, etc? You are so concerned about the money from grants, (climate science is one of the lowest tax payer burdens in our entire government), when we continue to pay out flood damages with tax payer money to people and buildings that we know are going to flood. We spend significantly more to rebuild peoples homes and businesses in known coastal flood planes to the effect that some of those places are constantly getting your tax payer money for a place they don't even live in at the time. If you want to complain about politics and government, start there, because I guarantee you the flooding will not slow down or stop happening.
 

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
And this is the mantra you hear. BUT WHAT IF?!!?? So the ANSWER is a world wide oppressive taxation system of CARBON CREDITS. You have to ask yourself WHY that is the solution? That will have 0% effect if this problem is as they describe. What gets me is the arrogance behinds this. You are a "climate change denier" if you have the temerity to disagree with them. Just like if you are against open borders, you are a racist. If you are against the welfare state, you hate poor people, etc.

I remember in the 1970s BOGUS SCIENCE proclaimed we were on the edge of another ice age. And by their models show by the 2000s half of north America should be a solid sheet of ice year round. ALL BOGUS SCIENCE. Then it was GLOBAL WARMING was going to melt the ice caps. UNTIL it was exposed for the fraud it was and emails were leaked on how to further the campaign of disinformation. So RENAME IT. Now it is Climate Change. Give us a break. WE ARE NOT DRINKING THE COOL-AID!
There are few serious minded people that denies the climate of the Earth changes. History has shown that in ancient times the deserts were lush rain forests, the hottest places were cooler and the coldest places were warmer.
But REAL SCIENCE tied this to hot and cold solar cycles that last hundreds of years. All NATURAL processes, not man made. We can do nothing about it.
The big picture is that communist, socialist radical types that decried the abject failure of globalism and communism have immigrated to the environmentalist movement because they are leftist allies. Here they raise alarmist flags to frighten people of some impending doom unless something is done. OF COURSE they have all the answers and it just happens to be a scheme of oppressive, freedom robbing world wide taxation system that only THEY and other elitist will benefit from. Why do their answers always remove the freedoms on individuals? Because simply that is their goal from the beginning. Control over all aspects of our lives. What is unfortunate most of these globalist, communist, leftist, environmentalist voices operate off of government grants (tax dollars) in universities and non profit so they have to double down on climate change rhetoric and bogus science to keep the grant money in the pipe line.
Shits sake bro the ice age crap in the 70 was media hysteria.
https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm
Even if you don't understand a single thing i think its easy enough to see that burning shit on massive industrial at incredible speeds in what amounts to a large closed room would have an effect.
Oohh ahh carbon taxes so dangerous.. and the mystery of carbon credit and creating a carbon market.. the horror.
 

Dr. Righteous

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Messages
3,163
Shits sake bro the ice age crap in the 70 was media hysteria.
I'll agree. The media at the time went bonkers. It was on the front page of every magazine, it was sensational, scary, etc, etc. The media loved it because it sold magazines and newspapers.
Is the current hysteria over climate change any less sensationalized by the media? There have been a slew of movies and TV shows based on the oceans rising and swallowing up coastal cities. Countless news articles featuring the words "scientist predict" and showing maps of parts of the country under water. And land lock areas are suddenly beach front. But that isn't media hysteria is it? That is very useful to push and agenda to combat climate change. And the answer is to "pay your fair share" or OFFSET your carbon footprint by buying carbon credits. This is as onerous as taxing the air you breath.
Even if you don't understand a single thing i think its easy enough to see that burning shit on massive industrial at incredible speeds in what amounts to a large closed room would have an effect.

Here is something to ponder. It is well documented that the gross polluters on the planet are not the USA, Germany, or other European countries it is the 3rd world and China. Since their activity is the major source of this pollution why are they exempted from the mandates of the agreements like the Paris climate accord? Because you can't get any MONEY out of them. Modern countries with well developed commerce and economies are more than happy to fork over the tax payers dollars to such schemes. (That is before Trump squashed it )
Oohh ahh carbon taxes so dangerous.. and the mystery of carbon credit and creating a carbon market.. the horror.

If you do not understand that this is the ultimate goal of those behind all this climate hysteria then you are woefully misinformed or just another one of the cool-aid drinkers.
A advise you to please. Don't Drink the Cool-Aid.
 

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
I'll agree. The media at the time went bonkers. It was on the front page of every magazine, it was sensational, scary, etc, etc. The media loved it because it sold magazines and newspapers.
Is the current hysteria over climate change any less sensationalized by the media? There have been a slew of movies and TV shows based on the oceans rising and swallowing up coastal cities. Countless news articles featuring the words "scientist predict" and showing maps of parts of the country under water. And land lock areas are suddenly beach front. But that isn't media hysteria is it? That is very useful to push and agenda to combat climate change. And the answer is to "pay your fair share" or OFFSET your carbon footprint by buying carbon credits. This is as onerous as taxing the air you breath.


Here is something to ponder. It is well documented that the gross polluters on the planet are not the USA, Germany, or other European countries it is the 3rd world and China. Since their activity is the major source of this pollution why are they exempted from the mandates of the agreements like the Paris climate accord? Because you can't get any MONEY out of them. Modern countries with well developed commerce and economies are more than happy to fork over the tax payers dollars to such schemes. (That is before Trump squashed it )


If you do not understand that this is the ultimate goal of those behind all this climate hysteria then you are woefully misinformed or just another one of the cool-aid drinkers.
A advise you to please. Don't Drink the Cool-Aid.
Uh huh. Theres a lot less hysteria than what we need thats for sure. However the link i gave points out the lack of preponderance of evidence with regards to the ice age theory.
 

TwistedAegis

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
8,958
Here is something to ponder. It is well documented that the gross polluters on the planet are not the USA, Germany, or other European countries it is the 3rd world and China. Since their activity is the major source of this pollution why are they exempted from the mandates of the agreements like the Paris climate accord? Because you can't get any MONEY out of them. Modern countries with well developed commerce and economies are more than happy to fork over the tax payers dollars to such schemes. (That is before Trump squashed it ).

On a per-capita basis it is in fact Canada, the USA, Germany, etc.

And you can't get blood from a stone - you want a country that can't even feed all its people to somehow find the money to build a modern green infrastructure? It's pretty simple, it isn't some crazy conspiracy to bleed out rich countries - we're the worst offenders per capita, and we have the resources to actually do something about it.
 

Dr. Righteous

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Messages
3,163
On a per-capita basis it is in fact Canada, the USA, Germany, etc.

And you can't get blood from a stone - you want a country that can't even feed all its people to somehow find the money to build a modern green infrastructure? It's pretty simple, it isn't some crazy conspiracy to bleed out rich countries - we're the worst offenders per capita, and we have the resources to actually do something about it.

Sorry but the people are on to you and your type. You can pass the cool-aid jug all you want, nobody wants it. You might as well finish it yourself. Drink up.
 

John Ransom

Weaksauce
Joined
Aug 16, 2017
Messages
65
If climate change deniers are right, then we're fine. If they're wrong, then we're not fine. How about erring on the side of caution. You know, just in case.
because there is no real fix today. So instead of trying to do things that won't work and merely raise costs, how about the solution be we start spending money to research something that will work and agree that we should basically get insurance just in case.
 

Old_Way

Gawd
Joined
Jan 8, 2003
Messages
665
Energy / carbon emissions have been going down (per capita) in the USA for a decade and will continue to go down going forward. The question isn't about the US or the industrialized world cutting back on carbon. The question is the 'emerging market' world. The west became powerful because we used and burned whatever we needed to make it happen. Now we're cutting back because we can afford to do so and because natural gas is now cheaper than coal for power plants. All those emerging market countries still want their chance at the apple... and that means higher energy and resources use for most of the planet. All the carbon taxes you want to throw at the Americans and Europeans isn't going to convince anyone in Africa, India, SE Asia, etc. to stop trying to make their lives better. For every ton of carbon we save, the developing world is going to be adding 10... or more. I don't see any solution to that.... Especially considering population growth in those areas and the fact that they'll need masses of fertilizer, trucks and farming equipment growth just to continue feeding their people.
 
Top