Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Are humans really responsible for climate change?


Recommended Posts

Why do people always assume that an eco-fascist government which takes drastic measures to combat climate change is going to be some green socialist open borders government?

After all, immigration from low carbon footprint countries into high ones is definitely not a good policy. A future eco-fascist government could be one to shoot everyone who attempts to enter the country without permission.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 830
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Let me clearly answer the question of this thread. Yes. Anything else call me.

Humans are responsible for pollution and other problems which we are gradually eliminating, but generally they are not responsible for earth's changing climate, nor can they do anything to stop it.   

Your sure pretty good at insults and name calling,   it says... make Canada Trudeauless again.       And the sooner the better we get rid of that vacuos narcissist.     

Posted Images

9 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

Why do people always assume that an eco-fascist government which takes drastic measures to combat climate change is going to be some green socialist open borders government?

After all, immigration from low carbon footprint countries into high ones is definitely not a good policy. A future eco-fascist government could be one to shoot everyone who attempts to enter the country without permission.

I'd say it's because they don't actually understand who the fascists were and where they came from.  

Mussolini the Socialist,  and Hitler the Environmentalist, militarized and nationalized.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So what are you actually comparing here? A few thousand people in each case (7 or so sunk by earthquake/tsunami) over thousands of years to hundreds of cities and billions of human beings within a hundred years. It's so silly its silly

 

It's not silly...human migrations involved millions not just thousands...through interglacial periods.   Entire civilizations in the old and new worlds rose and fell long before the IPCC declared a pending doom in just 12 years.    Get a grip....

 

Quote

 

Speaking of longer views I've been told the Sahara will one day be our next bread basket given all the plant food we're pumping out - I'm assuming that'll just be in a little nick of time too so maybe no need to adapt, put the pedal to the metal in the short term.

 

As was the Arctic region....the earth doesn't care about your silly notions of what is permanent, because nothing ever was or ever will be.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Yes, they have, and adjusted their mistaken estimates and models accordingly.

Why worry about Trump's NOAA anyway ?

They only pretend to be Trump's NOAA.  Secretly,  they keep good data in an old coffee tin under the back porch, in readiness for the day someone sane takes over.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

They only pretend to be Trump's NOAA.  Secretly,  they keep good data in an old coffee tin under the back porch, in readiness for the day someone sane takes over.

 

The NOAA modified data and models to correct errors and assumptions long before Trump became president.

Nice try.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

It's not silly...human migrations involved millions not just thousands...through interglacial periods.   Entire civilizations in the old and new worlds rose and fell long before the IPCC declared a pending doom in just 12 years.    Get a grip... 

 Oh so you do get it.

Speaking of getting a grip, the collapse of our civilization is all anyone means when they say the end of the world is coming.  It doesn't mean that our planet will actually be physically obliterated or something.

Quote

As was the Arctic region....the earth doesn't care about your silly notions of what is permanent, because nothing ever was or ever will be.

So much for the conservative value of resisting change or conserving that which is good for us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eyeball said:

the collapse of our civilization is all anyone means when they say the end of the world is coming.  It doesn't mean that our planet will actually be physically obliterated or something.

Some degree of climate change is implicated in civilization collapse throughout history.  

And:

"CLIMATIC CHANGE: When climatic stability changes, the results can be disastrous, resulting in crop failure, starvation and desertification. The collapse of the Anasazi, the Tiwanaku civilisation, the Akkadians, the Mayan, the Roman Empire, and many others have all coincided with abrupt climatic changes, usually droughts."

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Some degree of climate change is implicated in civilization collapse throughout history.  

Yes but what about the implication of the nihilistic conservatism BC is putting on display here.

He makes it seem as if every collapse of a civilization was attended by cheering conservatives celebrating how normal it all was.  It's silly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yes but what about the implication of the nihilistic conservatism BC is putting on display here.

Honestly, could care less about BC.  In my opinion he's only here to troll and represents the worst of American "culture". 

Deniers are no longer really denying; they've now moved to "not our fault"; "completely natural"; "nothing we can do" and "not gonna be that bad."  Progress, of a sort, is happening but I think we're pretty screwed.  I hope all the climate scientists and models are dead wrong, but when I see predicted things happening, it's difficult to believe they could be.  Humans probably do need a restart, anyway, and 3,000 years from now maybe it'll be another myth along the lines of the flood and Noah's Ark.  Hope the next crew does better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Yes but what about the implication of the nihilistic conservatism BC is putting on display here.

He makes it seem as if every collapse of a civilization was attended by cheering conservatives celebrating how normal it all was.  It's silly. 

 

No more silly than the full participation in fisheries and marine environments destruction by the very people who depended on them, be they liberal or conservative....didn't/doesn't matter.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dialamah said:

Some degree of climate change is implicated in civilization collapse throughout history.  

And:

"CLIMATIC CHANGE: When climatic stability changes, the results can be disastrous, resulting in crop failure, starvation and desertification. The collapse of the Anasazi, the Tiwanaku civilisation, the Akkadians, the Mayan, the Roman Empire, and many others have all coincided with abrupt climatic changes, usually droughts."

In the past, people lived hand to mouth, barely getting enough to eat. Starvation was a regular feature of life. It didn't take much to throw things into chaos.

We are considerably more stable now. At least, we in the West are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dialamah said:

Some degree of climate change is implicated in civilization collapse throughout history.  

And:

"CLIMATIC CHANGE: When climatic stability changes, the results can be disastrous, resulting in crop failure, starvation and desertification. The collapse of the Anasazi, the Tiwanaku civilisation, the Akkadians, the Mayan, the Roman Empire, and many others have all coincided with abrupt climatic changes, usually droughts."

Just so I'm clear when you say climate change played a role in these civilizations collapsing, are you saying that these a natural events and if so why is our climate change not natural occurrence. 

what was the chief cause of these climate changes, not much industry or man made events back in those times, so what was the cause ? ..

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

Just so I'm clear when you say climate change played a role in these civilizations collapsing, are you saying that these a natural events and if so why is our climate change not natural occurrence. 

what was the chief cause of these climate changes, not much industry or man made events back in those times, so what was the cause ? ..

Here:

"Currently, the Earth is in an icehouse climate state. About 34 million years ago, ice sheets began to form in Antarctica; the ice sheets in the Arctic did not start forming until 2 million years ago.[7] Some processes that may have led to our current icehouse may be connected to the development of the Himalayan Mountains and the opening of the Drake Passage between South America and Antarctica. Scientists have been attempting to compare the past transitions between icehouse and greenhouse, and vice versa to understand where our planet is now heading.

Without the human influence on the greenhouse gas concentration, the Earth would be heading toward a glacial period. Predicted changes in orbital forcing suggest that in absence of human-made global warming the next glacial period would begin at least 50,000 years from now[20] (see Milankovitch cycles).

But due to the ongoing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, the Earth is instead heading toward a greenhouse Earth period.[7] Permanent ice is actually a rare phenomenon in the history of the Earth, occurring only in coincidence with the icehouse effect, which has affected about 20% of Earth's history."

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

Just so I'm clear when you say climate change played a role in these civilizations collapsing, are you saying that these a natural events and if so why is our climate change not natural occurrence. 

what was the chief cause of these climate changes, not much industry or man made events back in those times, so what was the cause ? ..

Also, bickering about natural vs. man made doesn't change the fact that we're in for a tough time and we need to make effort to mitigate and adjust, instead of throwing our hands in air the and giving up.

Edited by dialamah
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Just so I'm clear when you say climate change played a role in these civilizations collapsing, are you saying that these a natural events and if so why is our climate change not natural occurrence. 

what was the chief cause of these climate changes, not much industry or man made events back in those times, so what was the cause ? ..

In most of the cases dialamah cites climate changes appear more coincidental to the collapse of these civilizations than causal. What seems more even common amongst these is that most of the small and fairly localized civilizations listed above were facing other various social, economic, political and military pressures.  It seems likelier these left them vulnerable and unable to adapt to other problems like sudden albeit short climate changes in their region.

We are poised on a similar sort of cusp these civilizations found themselves except our civilization and climate change are global not regional. So too are many of the social, economic, political and military pressures we're facing and appear to be worsening.  But what the hey it happens all the time.  Civilizations come and go like the weather and everything will be as right as rain in no time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, eyeball said:

... But what the hey it happens all the time.  Civilizations come and go like the weather and everything will be as right as rain in no time.

 

Sure has....what's so special about this time around ?

Economics trumps virtue...and scared climate change alarmists.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, dialamah said:

Also, bickering about natural vs. man made doesn't change the fact that we're in for a tough time and we need to make effort to mitigate and adjust, instead of throwing our hands in air the and giving up.

I've been saying that for some time. Mitigate and adjust is what we should be doing. A report I posted earlier suggested the western industrialized countries would feel the least impact from global warming, and would be best positioned to adjust to it due to their wealth. I don't believe in giving our wealth away by downsizing our resource industry or running up huge loans in order to accomplish social justice theories on income redistribution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, dialamah said:

Also, bickering about natural vs. man made doesn't change the fact that we're in for a tough time and we need to make effort to mitigate and adjust, instead of throwing our hands in air the and giving up.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not bickering, I was asking a question, second it was you that brought up that thousands of years ago climate change played a large role in collapsing some of the worlds renown nations. all I did was point out it was hardly due to human causes , due to lake of industry or pollution at the time but rather it was a natural occurrence...which goes against the grain of what your saying now...which is we have created this beast called climate change that is  so serious that we need to declare an emergency.......and it is not a natural occurrence but man made...perhaps my understanding of an emergency is flashing lights, sirens , life or death, that sort of things....not a situation that our government creates a plan of action , in the toilet stall on some shit paper... because that is the optics they want you to see...the want panic, they want confusion, lots of that when you get 300,000 Canadians in the streets of Montreal protesting...they barely got that when the Quebec referendum was being held...and yet Canada's plan hinges on some taxes on fossil fuels, those taxes will not even get us to 1/2 way point in our Paris accord agreements...….does that look like a response to an emergency....does it feel like an emergence to you ?...

I do agree the planet is involved in some sort of climate changed , perhaps made stronger by mans interference...but what I do not agree is we have to hide under our beds because in 10 years the world is going to end like a lot of people ....we have already been burned by one so called climate expert, and I use his example once again, the father of all this fringe climate change theories AL gore....remember all the panic he caused... and as far as human induced panic , lets not forget Y2K when government made a lot of to do about computers and the end of everything we take for granted....another farce....so we have established we are not immune to farces, or what I call bullshit with a little science sprinkled in...You want me to believe in the science, when our own government is not really convinced either, when their actions say other wise...

Then go on line, and there are lots of sites that explain all the science and do it convincedly, and then there is the other side lots of sites out there telling us the opposite....and finally we look at the actions of other nations around the world...are they into emergency mode...no they are not... sorry I'm going to wait for the other bus on this one... 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2019 at 1:33 PM, Argus said:

500 scientists send a letter to the UN denouncing the idea there is a "climate emergency".

A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors.

The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose. Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions on the basis of results from such immature models. Current climate policies pointlessly, grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, continuous electrical power.

We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation. We ask you to place the Declaration on the agenda of your imminent New York session.

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/five-hundred-scientists-send-letter-to-un-saying-there-is-no-climate-change-crisis/

1. How many of the 500 were actually scientists? 

2. How many were climate scientists? 

Here’s some commentary on that letter:

Quote

While reviewing the claims related to agriculture, I noted that only 26 out of the 506 signatories (5%) were professionals in biology, ecology, or environmental science. I suspect that the vast majority of signatories had little direct knowledge or understanding of this part of the petition that they signed. This made me curious to delve more deeply into the makeup of the signatory list.

I usually try to steer clear of any ad hominem tactics, and instead evaluate claims solely on their own merits. However, the fact that this group is vocally promoting themselves as “knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields” made me wonder if that claim is actually supported by the signatories’ credentials. In a word, the answer is no.

I categorized all 506 signatories according to their self-identified field of expertise. Only 10 identified as climate scientists, and 4 identified as meteorologists. (Together, that’s 2.8% of the total.) Signatories in totally unrelated academic fields (for example, psychology, philosophy, archaeology, and law) outnumbered climate scientists by two to one.

The most prevalent groups of signatories were geologists (19%) and engineers (21%)—many of whom were implicitly or explicitly involved in fossil energy extraction. Most of the rest were physicists, chemists, and mathematicians. A large fraction of the signatories were not scientists, but rather business executives, writers, activists, and lobbyists (totaling 11.3%).

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-scientists-relies-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




  • Similar Content

    • By Regina
      The Canadian Government is planning to waste at least $235 million for a project, The Thirty Meter Telescope, which won't even be built on Canadian soil.  The Thirty Meter Telescope most likely will employ few Canadians.  To make matters worse, the telescope will be built in Hawaii, USA on land which is both environmentally and religiously sensitive to the indigenous Hawaiians.  I hope everybody will protest against the waste of tax money and human rights abuses.  Please sign the petition to stop the injustice happening within the USA at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.  I am posting a link to an online petition against the Thirty Meter Telescope and waste of taxpayer money: https://www.change.org/p/justin-trudeau-a-call-to-divest-canada-s-research-funding-for-the-thirty-meter-telescope-on-mauna-kea
      Please tell your friends to sign the petition too.  Thank you for your time.
    • By Canuck100
      A great source of information on the ‘Climate Model’ used by politicians to scam us! Should we be surprised how the wool was pulled over our eyes? 
       
      The scientists who believe in the carbon dioxide theory of global warming do so essentially because of the application of “basic physics” to climate, by a model that is ubiquitous and traditional in climate science. This model is rarely named, but is sometimes referred to as the “forcing-feedback framework or paradigm.” Explicitly called the “forcing-feedback model” (FFM) here, this pen-and-paper model estimates the sensitivity of the global temperature to increasing carbon dioxide.
      The FFM has serious architectural errors. Fixing the architecture, while keeping the physics, shows that future warming due to increasing carbon dioxide will be a fifth to a tenth of current official estimates. Less than 20% of the global warming since 1973 was due to increasing carbon dioxide.
      The large computerized climate models (GCMs) are indirectly tailored to compute the same sensitivity to carbon dioxide as the FFM. Both explain 20th century warming as driven mostly by increasing carbon dioxide.
      Increasing carbon dioxide traps more heat. But that heat mainly just reroutes to space from water vapor instead. This all happens high in the atmosphere, so it has little effect on the Earth’s surface, where we live. Current climate models omit this rerouting. Rerouting cannot occur in the FFM, due to its architecture—rerouting is in its blindspot.
      http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html
      http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-science-1-pushing-the-edge-of-climate-research-back-to-the-new-old-way-of-doing-science/
    • By Scott Mayers
      For those that argue against 'taxes' as though they are a burden, I thought of this analogy when responding to something Betsy here said in her blog space here.
      Taxi services are business entities meant to get people from one place to another and its name is derived from the nature of one to be charged for a ride. However, because one cannot know how far a trip is, often many pay AFTER they reach their destination. One against taxes is often one who reverses how they pay for their 'ride': UP FRONT. Because one can afford the expense, they are confident of paying for the trip ahead of time. For the rich, instead of paying for a cab AFTER they reach the destiny, they are better off hiring their own PRIVATE cab exclusively or buy their own car if they like the control of driving. Then they CAN afford to pay for the trip prior to getting to where they want to go, right?
      So a "taxi" is to 'taxes' in that those using them both HAVE to have money prior to paying but don't pay UNTIL later...your destiny. By contrast, if you can afford to pay up front, this is fine too. But to think that the poor bastards requiring to pay AFTER the trip is having a "FREE RIDE" ignores that they pay IF and WHEN they get to their destination. The ignorance amiss is to those who simply believe that you should pay the cab driver up front as a form of assurance you have the money and then trust the driver to pay the customer back once you get there.
      Regardless, the anti-tax conservative arguers are actually like those who can afford their own cars or private limos and so demand there is no need for taxi cabs UNLESS the customer is able to default to blindly trusting those taxi cab OWNERS of putting down a deposit up front and then allow the power be transferred to the trust of the cab driver to give you back at the destiny any unused worth. This requires one trust the cab drivers, either as owners or representatives of the owners, to SERVE those taxing with priority.
      The idiocy of the anti-tax arguers misses this point. There certainly ARE customers who will rip off the cab driver. But those taxis would not exist if this behavior WAS the norm of service behavior by most. In fact, taxi owners also act deceptive in equal measure to the population of those ripping them off. However, the wealthier ones demanding NO taxes are like saying this service altogether should NOT even exist! It tells you more about HOW well off they are by contrast: they have their own cars they drive or they hire private limo services that they have complete power over.
      If NO one should require taxes nor taxis, these more privileged travellers who by default have their own means to 'freely' drive from one place to the next both have control over who gets the privilege to get to their destiny quickly AND are the ones setting the BURDEN of those disempowered by virtue of their lack of power of owning the 'taxis' (let alone their own car or limo) to requiring the FEE of whatever the demands of the wealthy want to set non-competitively!
      In essence, the wealthy do not need taxis and yet demand THEY should be empowered to tax (ie, 'burden') the masses by controlling how people travel. They control WHO gets to travel....who gets permit to pass to their own destination 'freely' while they alone have 'free' capacity to create their own destinies AND reach them!
    • By Exegesisme
      15 Citizen Community Globally, Political Philosophy for Human Future
      By Exegesisme
      1 I just reflected the possible foreign policy of US tea party, for it might take more power of US in future.
      2 basically its goals are lower debts and lower taxes.
      3 positive and effective foreign policy on these two goals could only be citizen community globally.
      4 by the phrase citizen community globally, I mean US successful private citizens would play larger role internationally, and US foreign policy would at least encourage this tendency to partially replace the function of governmental foreign relationship.
      5 the tendency of citizen community globally would be a strong force for global peace, for the private citizens do not have the power to use troop for their goals.
      6 as an example, maybe an US entrepreneur would teach entrepreneurs of other nations how to deal with the relationships with their governments, and force the change of government with more rational and prepared power.
      7 this is a good way of more peaceful, more effective, and less expensive for a good national and international order.
      8 I believe there are few US entrepreneurs having been preparing to get job done this way.
      9 if US politics develops along the way, it would be benefits both to US and the whole world.
      10 Cruz is a person prepared to play a role on the way.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...