General / Off-Topic Is man made climate change real or not? Prove your belief here.
- Thread starter Zak Gordon
- Start date
- Status
In any case, rich or poor, I will not want to live in the world of tomorrow as it is currently imagined.
That’s why it’s always a good idea to be self sustainable, you don’t need to be rich to do that, it’s also a good idea to be armed
?
TBH only a bunker is really tough to break through, otherwise you can bomb virtually any settlement though both will be suceptible to a siege.
Of course is man made, we are evolution oddity, a invasive species that does not fit the Earth ecosystem - not contributing to it in any positive way. I know that we are tha cause and eventually we will pay a gruesome price if we dont stop acting against common sense.
You might have missed my explanation earlier for the choice of wording? It boils down to this, both sides of the AGW debate (to be frank there really does not need to be one, the science has spoken!) often accuse the other of following some occult belief in their fervent desire to influence the other.
I find this highly amusing in general as the science behind AGW is concrete (so erm not actually a 'belief' but fact!), but that does not stop the other side (the denial of AGW side) from accusing those that don't follow their belief (and theirs is actually just that, as no science backs it up) as being 'cultists' or 'fanatics' or spouting zealot ideology etc. So i chose the topic title 'very' carefully to include all parties and all outlooks, and poke a bit of fun at those that deny the science.
I know you are basically here to 'troll' these kind of threads (you have never contributed anything substantial, just opinion that seems to come from Fox News!), i get it, but just to make it 100% clear to everyone else, you accused my of hypocrisy over my stances re AGW. I then gave you a quick few examples of how i've changed my lifestyle to reduce my impacts on AGW as i became aware of the issue and it's importance. You then proceeded to ignore my question re your own efforts and proceeded to call me a hypocrite. Just so that is clear to all.
I won't respond to further posts by you in general (as a rule i don't like to feed trolls), just so you understand why you are not worth time wasting in a debate with ok?
If you actually come up with a solid contribution to (these) the thread i will off course be open for discussion. It's just about not wasting peoples time mostly. I try to respect peoples time most of the time.
------------
So here is a bunch of stuff from the recent IPCC's findings, and it is pretty indepth looking at why the 1.5 degrees C above pre-industrial levels of CO2 is so important etc:
In-depth Q&A: The IPCC’s special report on climate change at 1.5C - Carbon Brief
Earlier today in South Korea, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its long-awaited special report on 1.5C.
www.carbonbrief.org
saying that climate change is man-made or that mankind is the reason for climate change is factually wrong. the climate has always changed and will always be changing. the water level had swings of >200m in the history of earth.
saying we can stop climate change is like saying that we can stop the earth from rotating.
saying we can stop climate change is like saying that we can stop the earth from rotating.
Go it Zak. Thanks!
Thing is, while politcos continue to stall and protect powerful fossil fuel interests, the public is fed with plenty of paid for attacks on science, paid for by the big wallets of Exxon and the likes.
This article is from 2013!
www.scientificamerican.com
Thing is, while politcos continue to stall and protect powerful fossil fuel interests, the public is fed with plenty of paid for attacks on science, paid for by the big wallets of Exxon and the likes.
This article is from 2013!
"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort
A Drexel University study finds that a large slice of donations to organizations that deny global warming are funneled through third-party pass-through organizations that conceal the original funder
www.scientificamerican.com
Uh dude! go back and read the thread. You making a colossal embarrassment off yourself with that statement.
(pst! no one is saying the climate never changes! pst! it is ALL about the speed of change currently that IS the problem, re-read the thread, the info is here!)
okay so to get this straight. you say im right, that climate change always happened and will always happen.
then you say that this time its relatively fast, which is a problem. and the next thing all these idiots say is: hey lets waste trillions of $ and basically everything we have to TRY and STOP climate change (which cant work and wont work) so that in the end, when you see that we cant stop it, there is no more resources of any kind (e.g. money) left to fight the consequences?
wouldnt it be a lot smarter to just use the money we would waste now to try and fight the consequences now, as they are inevitable going to happen anyway? or do you just want to buy yourself a green conscience so you can die in peace while future generations will die because of your waste of money for useless ?
btw. id be interested in hearing about your stance about nuclear power.
No it won't be a switch. It will be an accelerating decline, leading to more and more parts of the system breaking down, further accelerating the decline until it becomes so fast that it can be seen as a collapse. There will be several crucial "points" along the way though and some of those might go pretty fast. When (not if) the financial system collapses, the banks will close in a matter of days (or weeks).
The human population seems to pretty much follow the way bacteria grow on a medium in a Petri dish:
After a lag phase, the population grows exponentially. The lag phase is partly explained by the exponential growth being perceived as close to nothing at the beginning, similar to the growth of the human population for many millennia before 1900. After the exponential growth phase, follows the stationary phase, where cells dying (mortality rate) balances cell division (birth rate). Bacteria doesn't die that quickly when starved, and the exponential growth phase is typically a matter of days, but humans do not survive long without food (we can't sporulate or switch metabolism like yeast), so the stationary phase of the human population will be short. We already see a slight increase in global hunger and malnutrition, indicating that the stationary phase is "over".
The human population seems to pretty much follow the way bacteria grow on a medium in a Petri dish:
After a lag phase, the population grows exponentially. The lag phase is partly explained by the exponential growth being perceived as close to nothing at the beginning, similar to the growth of the human population for many millennia before 1900. After the exponential growth phase, follows the stationary phase, where cells dying (mortality rate) balances cell division (birth rate). Bacteria doesn't die that quickly when starved, and the exponential growth phase is typically a matter of days, but humans do not survive long without food (we can't sporulate or switch metabolism like yeast), so the stationary phase of the human population will be short. We already see a slight increase in global hunger and malnutrition, indicating that the stationary phase is "over".
Last edited:
Figures can't lie, but liars can figure, thus one can only believe what they will. Dare to view this:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNy7tTY0Vek
That is probably true, but being described as an invasive species, is a thought that most people simply can't accept. I personally find it hard, and I've been called a misanthrope more often than I remember. But you're right and the lack of accepting our influence of the biosphere makes it hard to make changes.
Tony Heller/Steven Goddard has been debunked more times than I have been called a misanthrope. He's so full of it, that he almost takes the price. Just one example, to "help" you understand how full of it he and his arguments are, using his own video: He states that the old graph was made using "several hundred high quality stations". High quality stations in 1880? Then he argues that the stations used in 2019 are "very low quality". Yeah right...
Heller-Goddard is obviously not stupid, which, considering his misinformation, potentially makes him a jerk, somewhat backed up by his misuse of Feynman. You just don't do that!!!
Whenever you deniers read anything from people like Keller-Goddard, try to read the contra arguments based on science. You can find them all on this page, including the 10 most common misconceptions:
Pointing out that the climate crisis movement is a Trojan horse for socialism and dramatically increased governmental control over our lives doesn't make one a "troll," my dear picommander. I'll take the uncertainty of the climate changing and my descendants being forced to adapt any day of the week over the iron clad certainty that the population control party takes over completely. If that makes me a "troll" then that's a sword I'll fall on gladly.
Don't worry socialism is dead. Even China has converted to old fashioned despotism. Modern totalitarianism needs to be economically competitive.
When the system breaks down, the only 'defence' worthwhile, would be to disappear. I say this because, the only weapons you have access to, would be the ones inside your own defences. The bad guys have an unlimited supply, outside your fortress. Bigger and better weapons. If the world, does not know where you are, they cannot come and steal your stuff.That’s why it’s always a good idea to be self sustainable, you don’t need to be rich to do that, it’s also a good idea to be armed
- Status