General / Off-Topic Recycle or Die! (the elite environmental thread)

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

Six6VI

Six6VI
Zak Gordon said:
I'd take a good hard look in the mirror and decide which describes your conduct the most here?
Click to expand...
You might like to go back to the post you linked and take a good hard look at what I actually said in the rest of the conversation in between. I see lots of NEWS posts from the BBC, or the Guardian, which is at best a journalists interpretation of something they didn't understand, if they even bothered to check the source.

I don't see many scientific papers being linked or scientists at conferences presenting their own research.
 

Shinji Ikari

Shinji Ikari
Six6VI said:
Well, I think I've put more than enough time into patiently explaining it to you. Did you watch the video yet?
Click to expand...

No you haven't, you have only been throwing that insult around. There's an enormous difference between domatic belief (which science is all but that) and being a religious cult.
 
Last edited:

Six6VI

Six6VI
Gregg Rulz ok said:
No you haven't, you have only throwing that insult around. There's an enormous difference between domatic belief (which science is all but that) and being a religious cult.
Click to expand...
Are you attempting to dictate what I think as well now? I'm tired of explaining. Did you watch the video yet?
 

MaxG10

MaxG10
The global environmental hazard potential coming from products created (microplastics et al.) and Raw materials extracted is known since long, and currently there is an international trend that was described as "Greening of Machiavelli", with regulatory framworks and negotiations with stake holders insufficient to establish meaningful change.

I like to describe it with the analogy of slapping a bit of paint over a wall that is saturated with black mold. Looks good on the surface for a very short while, but...

Not long ago there was a push to privatize water in Europe, and it is far from over yet. It is rather astounding, first you have groups with vested interests polluting soil and water, then it reaches a serious stage where the pollution attaches significant cost to the state, and before you know it, the same vested interest groups are at the table as bidders in the game to privatise the water they polluted before themselves.

P.S.

I fully endorse what Zak said.

General / Off-Topic - Recycle or Die! (the elite environmental thread)

Eyeroll... You didn't watch the video then. If you did, you'd know it listed what J. Cook did with the papers. Remember, when pointing your finger at others, three more fingers are pointing back at you, the "denier". If public and scientific poles have shown anything is that climate change...
forums.frontier.co.uk

I too think that the handful of people acting destructively were easily identified, it was blatantly obvious, "Persistent Infringement", but I also have no time to write letters to Frontier, but if Moderators wish to get another angle on this, I am happy to spend half on hour on skype with you. Just PM me in case you wish to consider another perspective on how to handle obvious Astroturf / Troll distortions.

Long game non-blatant trolling might be harder for moderators to identify and act upon. The relentless challenging of validity of science is but one example, but it is usually combined with a patronizing arrogance and sowing seeds one pain in the butt. The Climate thread is full of textbook examples.


​
 
Last edited:

WeComeInPeace

WeComeInPeace
Six6VI said:
Ok, let's try this again, and I'm going to re-link the same video for you below, assuming you'll ignore it...

In the one camp we appear to have a bunch of people that believe the climate crisis mantra, and with their limited binary thinking have decided that ALL climate change is bad and that it's ALL the fault of the stupid humans that disagree, so they run around shrieking, scaring the children and gluing their hands to things.

In the other camp we have people that for the most part agree on almost every point raised by the crisis actors except one: Humans are probably causing SOME of the warming, but they're willing to admit they, and nobody else really knows exactly how much, and they'd like to examine the data for more information.

One camp exalts "settled consensus" dogma and refuses to budge (see denial), the other is still curious.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uma-w6caJhY&feature=emb_logo
Click to expand...
You have to learn about source criticism 666. You are using a video from The Heartland Institute. It says so under the video if you go to Youtube.

1575369291225.png


Next you should go 🤔 "I wonder who those people are?"

Try and google them, and read the Wikipedia article about them. It says:

"In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans.[3][4]:233–34[5] Since the 2000s, the Heartland Institute has been a leading promoter of climate change denial.[6][7] It rejects the scientific consensus on climate change,[8] and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy.[9] "

Now THIS should tickle your conspiracy alarm, or whatever it is that keeps you going. Could it possibly be, that the institute is in it for the money? That they were in it for the money back when you could still spread misinformation about "healthy cigarettes" etc? That once it became too obvious that cigarettes are NOT healthy, and that they are deadly, maybe the Heartland had to find a new group of imbeciles they could manipulate and went 🤔 "Who could that possibly be? Now let's see. Those stubborn deniers seem an easy target".

morris_33.jpg
 

WeComeInPeace

WeComeInPeace
Han_Zen said:
Graphs are better with numbers, I think.
Click to expand...

1575398633825.png

(Screendump without alpha channel)

That particular graph is interesting in several ways. The black line shows the yearly measurement, which is an average over a year. That number varies because of the weather, like El Niño's. However, those seem to follow a cyclic pattern, so if you increase the average from one year to five years, you reduce the noise of the signal. This gives us the red line, which behaves a lot more predictable than the yearly curve. If the global temperature was only about humans burning fossil fuels, producing CO2, then it would be strange, that the temperature dropped after the 2nd World War, when the rich energy consumers were getting refrigerators, freezers and those sweeet V8's. But climate change is not about it being cold today, yearly average temp or even over decades. It's the curve you get when you average the data over something like 30 years that makes the problem become clear (thick line):

1575397027586.png

Click to enlarge

That graph, has a much stronger signal because noise is statistically reduced. Therefore the intuitive understanding from visual perception is better. In this case you could linearise the curve and see that it's slope is upwards over time. You can do something similar by squinting your eyes while looking at the graph. That reduces the amount of visual information the brain gets from the eyes, and the brain is pretty good at filling in the blanks. Linearising the curve would remove too much information though. If you instead fit an exponential curve, then it correlates better to the actual data.
 
Last edited:

Arry

Arry
Six6VI said:
Ok, let's try this again, and I'm going to re-link the same video for you below, assuming you'll ignore it...

In the one camp we appear to have a bunch of people that believe the climate crisis mantra, and with their limited binary thinking have decided that ALL climate change is bad and that it's ALL the fault of the stupid humans that disagree, so they run around shrieking, scaring the children and gluing their hands to things.

In the other camp we have people that for the most part agree on almost every point raised by the crisis actors except one: Humans are probably causing SOME of the warming, but they're willing to admit they, and nobody else really knows exactly how much, and they'd like to examine the data for more information.

One camp exalts "settled consensus" dogma and refuses to budge (see denial), the other is still curious.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uma-w6caJhY&feature=emb_logo
Click to expand...
A nice balanced view point there.

So it is business as usual: Where we have, those on the one side, portrayed as seriously, deep thinking, intelligent people, who are right and on the opposite side. Those who oppose this view, are brain dead, brain washed with an inability to think freely and are obviously, inbred morons.
 

WeComeInPeace

WeComeInPeace
Here is another graph that clearly shows the human "footprint" on the planet:

1575400307405.png

Click to enlarge

Look at the area that we use for agriculture. That's 1/3 of the global land area and 1/2 of the habitable area. Now imagine that we became 12 billion instead of 8. Also look at the area of agriculture being larger than the area of forrest. The amount of carbon being captured by forrest is roughly 10 times higher per hectare than agriculture. That captured carbon is where energy enters the biosphere. Plants use some of the captured energy to respire at night etc. and some of the energy is chemically stored into sugar molecules, which is the building block of plants. That energy becomes available to the rest of the biosphere and is called NPP (Net primary production). Currently humans claim ~1/4 of that.

On top of that we use roughly the same amount of energy burning fuels. Summed we use ~50% of the energy entering the biosphere (Edit: After the plants have claimed their half of the total PP). No wonder the planet has a fewer.

amazon-rainforest.jpg
 
Last edited:

Arry

Arry
Six6VI said:
You might like to go back to the post you linked and take a good hard look at what I actually said in the rest of the conversation in between. I see lots of NEWS posts from the BBC, or the Guardian, which is at best a journalists interpretation of something they didn't understand, if they even bothered to check the source.

I don't see many scientific papers being linked or scientists at conferences presenting their own research.
Click to expand...
Errr... No. The BBC will at least fact check, before they make a definitive statement.
 

jasonbarron

jasonbarron
Arry said:
Errr... No. The BBC will at least fact check, before they make a definitive statement.
Click to expand...
I don't consider that a very good rebuttal, though. 666 is correct; the vast majority of what gets shared here as "evidence" are highly partisan news articles constituting little more than opinion pieces in an ever escalating war of "Your sources are junk, OURS are the real deal!!!"
 

WeComeInPeace

WeComeInPeace
jasonbarron said:
I don't consider that a very good rebuttal, though. 666 is correct; the vast majority of what gets shared here as "evidence" are highly partisan news articles constituting little more than opinion pieces in an ever escalating war of "Your sources are junk, OURS are the real deal!!!"
Click to expand...
If you want to read a peer reviewed scientific article from The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS):

www.pnas.org

Human domination of the biosphere: Rapid discharge of the earth-space battery foretells the future of humankind

Earth is a chemical battery where, over evolutionary time with a trickle-charge of photosynthesis using solar energy, billions of tons of living biomass were stored in forests and other ecosystems and in vast reserves of fossil fuels. In just the last few hundred years, humans extracted...
www.pnas.org www.pnas.org

"If H. sapiens does not go extinct, the human population will decline drastically as we will be forced to return to making a living as hunter‐gatherers or simple horticulturalists. Also, the earth after the collapse of human civilization will be a very different place than the biosphere that supported the rise of civilization. There will be a long-lasting legacy of altered climate, landscapes, and biogeochemical cycles, depleted and dispersed stocks of fossil fuels, metals, and nuclear ores, and diminished biodiversity. The most powerful species in the 3.5-billion-year history of life has transformed the earth and left a mark that will endure long after its passing."

I think that sound slightly "alarming" ;) I have even tried to calculate the numbers these people used, and using my own method I came up with the same results. When? Well, if you extrapolate the curve:

1575413405666.png


When that curve drops below zero then we're goners. As you can see it's slowly flattening out, but we went from ~2000 to ~1000 in 30 40 years, and that's 15 years ago. The curve shows "Omega" which is the amount of energy stored in all the biomass (P), including the forrests that we can't eat (divided by the number of humans on the planet (N) times the amount of energy needed to stay alive (joules/person per year)). It's all there in the article, and even though the authors claim this is a massive thread to human civilisation, it is not a political statement. It's a simple calculation that many school kids can do (using their smartphone):

1575413974447.png


Edit: 40 years not 30 years :)(y)
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom