Climate change discussion

[moon]

Go to Baotou, Inner Mongolia and see the huge toxic radioactive lakes caused by rare earth production. Or the inhumane conditions in the Congo for cobalt mining. You claim to care about Palestine yet don't give a fuck about Chinese or Congolese children.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth

You become more bizarre by the day, Vera. Seek professional help soon.

 

[cancel2 2022]

You become more bizarre by the day, Vera. Seek professional help soon.

Ignorant twat, it's clear you have no answer, shit for brains! It's precisely people like you who are the real problem, totally devoid of rational and intelligent thought.

 

[moon]

Ignorant twat, it's clear you have no answer, shit for brains! It's precisely people like you who are the real problem, totally devoid of rational and intelligent thought.

Of course, Vera. Now then , sit quietly and ponder on the new battery technologies while you play with your Chinese dollies.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Of course, Vera. Now then , sit quietly and ponder on the new battery technologies while you play with your Chinese dollies.

I am aware of alternative battery chemistries unlike you. I don't see anything replacing lithium ion for at least a decade.

 

[Into the Night]

I want the resident libs to respond to this with factual data if you have any

1. the climate of planet earth has been changing for hundreds of millions of years, ice cores and fossils prove that
2. man has never had anything to do with it
3. the sun and earth's tilt of its axis control our climate, not use of fossil fuels
4. solar and wind and hydro make up around 5% of our energy use, they will never be capable of producing 100%
5. The USA has drastically reduced pollution in the last 30 years
6. It takes massive amounts of fossil fuel to produce solar panels and windmills. they are made of plastics and plexiglass which are made from oil
7. electric cars require recharging after 200 miles or so. you will never be able to drive across the country in an electric car or truck
8. the electricity to recharge is produced mostly by fossil fuels
9. which of you will volunteer for the first night flight in a solar powered airplane?
10. If your goal is to stop pollution, why isn't that enough? why do you need an unproved link between pollution and climate?
11. everyone on earth supports reducing pollution, everyone
12. be honest, this is not about pollution or climate, its about finding a way to control everyone's actions and lives
13. Al Gore is a liar and hypocrite

A few corrections:
'Climate change' is a meaningless buzzword. Climate has no quantitative value. It is a subjective word describing an environment. There is no such thing as a global climate. There is no quantitative value that is 'changing'.
So question 1 is meaningless. You are asking a question about a buzzword.

There is no such thing as a 'fossil fuel'. Fossils do not burn. We do not use them for fuel. I assume you mean hydrocarbon based fuels such as oil and natural gas. These are not fossils. Neither is coal, though fossils may be found in it. Coal is carbon...an element. So question 3 is using another buzzword. Nothing controls a climate either. A climate simply is. A desert climate is always a desert climate. A tropical climate is always a tropical climate.

Oil is not a fossil, so questions 6 and 8 also is using a buzzword.

There is no such thing as 'factual data'. This is a buzzword. Data is simply data. I believe what you mean is that they can't use random numbers as 'data'.
A 'fact' is not a proof, nor a Universal Truth. A 'fact' is simply a shortcut in the English language, similar to how we use pronouns. A fact is simply an assumed predicate. The instant someone disagrees with that predicate, it ceased to be a fact. It becomes an argument.

Other than that, your questions are good questions to ask.

Resident libs, provide data. Not random numbers. You should provide the data, the information on who collected it and when, how it was collected, the raw data itself, and the data must be unbiased. It cannot be cooked. Only raw data is allowed in a statistical analysis. If a summary value is presented, the margin of error must accompany it. The declaration of variance and it's justification are necessary to calculate the margin of error value. If instrumentation is used to collect the data, the tolerance of that instrumentation must be known. The method of calibration must also be known.

 

[Into the Night]

It can be distilled down to this: our current habits and energy choices are not sustainable.

Define 'sustainable'. Both oil and natural gas are renewable fuels. Coal we don't know, but there is plenty of it. Who are YOU to dictate energy markets? You are not the king.

It's not really a big mystery. We're only about 200 years into the industrial revolution, and we've already lost significant habitat.

Earth is the same size it was 200 years ago.

We're in the middle of a mass extinction.

We're also in the middle of discovering new species everyday.

The oceanic food supply is closer to the brink than most know.

I enjoy fish, clams, crabs, etc. Did you know that many fish are farmed, including snapper, flounder, many clams and mussels, some crabs, trout, and even salmon?

Imagine another 200 years, without any changes?

There really is plenty of fish. May I suggest you learn to scuba dive and see for yourself?

I wish people would throw the AGW argument out the window. It's too polarizing, and ultimately, it doesn't even matter. We're making our planet unlivable.

Then why is our population increasing???

It's the biggest issue of our day, but I have no optimism on it.

Nah. It's the biggest issue for YOU. The rest of us manage quite well.

Many of us can't even be bothered to wear a mask to protect our fellow citizens.

Masks don't protect fellow citizens. Masks do not stop any virus. Neither will two masks. Neither will three masks. Neither will a whole package of masks.

We'll never make the sacrifices or changes that need to be made for sustainable living.

You don't allow sustainable living. You want to kill jobs...lock people up in their homes...prevent people from fishing, farming, or managing our forests. You are a fascist. You want to dictate control of markets. That's what fascism is.

 

[Into the Night]

I think we all agree with you in general. But in the 1970s you libs were telling us that all the oil would be gone by the year 2000. Also in the 70s you told us that we were beginning a new ice age.

Europe has tried solar and wind and it has left them starving for energy. Nuclear works and is clean and safe when done right, why not push that?

It's not practical to stick one in a mobile vehicle such as a car, truck, tractor, or aircraft. It can work on some ships, but the fuel is expensive. It's best use on ships is for submarines, which can't use internal combustion engines effectively while submerged.
Also, design of safe plants is expensive. The used fuel is still radioactive. It can be put in a different type of reactor to extract energy from it, leaving the waste from THAT reactor no more dangerous than any landfill.

 

[Into the Night]

Why?

No matter how much is offered, documentation provided, you are going to respond with some obscure contrarian or singular study as if what they offer invalidates the preponderance of actual scientific evidence

Pointless, you are attempting to sell a false paradigm

Science isn't evidence. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. There is no such thing as 'scientific evidence'. Buzzword fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm very torn on nuclear. There are some long-term ramifications that no one has really addressed - with waste, and with the possibility of unmanned plants w/ a worse pandemic or global catastrophe. But I agree it's clean and is ready to expand now, unlike wind & solar.

Wind & solar - and other natural sources - can't be rushed. I support accelerated R&D for those, but they're not nearly ready to replace fossil fuels at the moment.

I really don't have any answers on this one. I just know what the problem is.

Well, here's the thing:

You don't get a choice. You don't get to dictate energy markets. People will buy the energy sources the figure is worth the cost and is best suited to their purposes. It is like any market. If oil is cheap and usable, people will buy it. If coal is cheap, people will buy that. If the price of nuclear is acceptable to someone, they will buy that.

 

[Into the Night]

Hello redfish,



Excellent. Thank you. My pleasure. Here goes:



Agreed. They also show that mass scale events can trigger climate change. The great oxygenation event which created the breathable atmosphere we take for granted was likely caused by an explosion of life forms which consumed CO2 and produced O2.



Cannot agree. Humans are over-populating the Earth and changing much of it, including the climate. Every life-form which expands it's numbers to the extent of it's habitat affects that habitat.



Disagree. The atmosphere is a big factor in the climate. We put things into the atmosphere, it affects the climate.



No, I don't think they make up 55% at all. Nowhere near that. Agreed that will never do 100% for the current population level. We need safe nuclear and we need to control our population growth.



Agreed and disagreed. Air and water pollution have been decreased. Plastic and chemical pollution has increased.



Agreed. We should further the science and look for more sustainable ways to get energy.



Current limitations prevent long distance electric car travel, and also trailer towing. We need more science and engineering to solve those issues.



Agreed. Current technology offers no ready replacement for fossil fuels.



Point well made.



That's not the goal at all. The goal is to create a more sustainable way to have our modern lives without destroying our habitat. It doesn't seem to be possible. Really, it would be a lot better if there were simply far fewer humans on the planet. Since we have no solution, we should agree to reduce our own numbers. Nobody has to die. All we have to do is drastically reduce the number of births. There has to be more meaning to life than simply reproducing. Religion is not the answer. Nearly all religions were created in ancient times when none of our current problems were a concern. Mostly they say go forth and multiply. Well, we did that. Now we have new issues we have to deal with. We should think about what the big picture is. We would like to leave the planet a better place for the next generation, but we are not really doing that. The more we try to advance, the worse it seems to get.

I have no problem with people believing anything they want about the cosmos and a creator. Everyone should be free to have their own faith. But we must agree that what we are doing is not workable, and that we have to change. We appear to be doomed if we keep doing what we are doing. Religions accept that, but I do not see why that has to be.

I think we need a powerful world government focused on human longevity and improving the human condition. We humans have a lot in common. We all have the same basic needs. Food, water, protection, security, social interaction. We have everything we need to address all of our concerns. We could eliminate starvation and poverty. We could raise the standard of living for every human on Earth, make everyone comfortable. Why all the fighting? It's just because people get attitudes. If we all simply recognize basic logic we could transform our existence and that of every human to come after us. If we created a world where everyone had what they needed there would be no reason for crime. Most of our problems come from people who really just need mental counseling. So, let's provide it! We have everything we need to solve the climate crisis, war, poverty, disease, species destruction, pollution, everything.

We live in such dark ages.

It's time for us to get advanced.



That's fine, but people need to really open their eyes to the possibilities. We can do so much more.



Well, sort of. We humans need to get far better organized. We could do so much more if we did. It would improve the world, and everyone's lives, if we did. Problem is: We are limited by those minds which cannot envision a fantastic future, and are way too obsessed with their own daily lives to see the possibilities.



Agreed.

Don't see a lick of data here at all. Did you miss the question posed in the OP?

 

[Into the Night]

"Resident libs" was already a bad sign, bud.

So you are not a liberal??

There is nothing to discuss anyway.

Cliche fallacy.

You will splay out the orthodox climate science

Climate is not a science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is not a subjective descriptive word.

and he will offer some sophistry cherry picked misapplication at best or disreputable oil commissioned blog sourced heterodoxy.

Random word generator must've been used here!

In the end you have all the expert science,

What theory of science are you using? Please state the theory of science you are referring to. You may use the equation form.

he has none, and you win.

No science here from anyone...move along...move along...

Why talk to trolls or idiots? You are agreeing to have a civil debate over the general contour of planet earth and he says it's flat.

The OP never mentioned the shape of the Earth. I don't think he's ever said the Earth is flat.

 

[Into the Night]

Again, we agree that the earth is very close, if not over, its population limit.

Why would Earth HAVE a population limit?

I think that education is the answer to that, not abortion on demand, or mandatory sterilization as they are doing in China.

You have to define the problem first. You have to define it specifically. Vague references to 'population limits' are really quite meaningless.

We also need to understand that the one of the basic tenets of the muslim jihad is to reproduce and indoctrinate children faster than the other ideologies and religions. The Islamic countries don't care about the things we care about, all they care about is dominating the world and destroying the other religions. That is what they are taught from birth. I know what I am talking about on this because I lived and worked in several muslim countries.

Humans are polluting the air and water.

Define 'pollution'.

BUT, there is no proven link between pollution and climate.

You have to define 'pollution' and 'climate change' first. Go ahead.

the CO2 level in our atmosphere is virtually that same as it was 10,000 years ago and besides, CO2 is not a pollutant.

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. We don't have anywhere near enough stations. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. NO station measurements are available from 10,000 years ago.

Without it there would be no plant live on earth, and without plant life there would be no animal life (humna life).

True. Just as we need oxygen to breath and produce carbon dioxide when he exhale, plants need carbon dioxide to 'breath' and produce oxygen as a waste product. One of those circle of life kind of things.

My issue here is that the so-called climate change agenda is not the most important issue facing humanity today, its not even in the top 20. But yet, one political party is using it in an attempt to control human activity via mandates and intimidation. that is wrong.

Because it's not about climate, weather, temperature, or anything else. It's about power and control.

 

[moon]

I am aware of alternative battery chemistries unlike you. I don't see anything replacing lithium ion for at least a decade.

Of course you are, dear. Do some drawings to show the nice doctor when he does his rounds.

 

[Into the Night]

Hello moon,



Thanks. I really have no idea what you're talking about.

Neither does he.

 

[Into the Night]

first you need tp post proof positive that global warming exists today, then you must prove that man directly caused it. When you do those two things we can talk, until then you are wasting everyone's time.

its very easy to prove that man has polluted the air and water, but to prove that that pollution caused the climate to change is a stretch. But give it a try, I'll wait.

Okay. First, you have to define 'pollution'. Then you have to try to conduct a proof in an open functional system. (Hint: not possible)

 

[moon]

Into the Night Soil;

There is no such thing as 'scientific evidence'.

 

[Into the Night]

The Dems would love to do a lot about global warming.

Define 'global warming'. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. When was this 'warming'? From when to when? Why are those two points in time significant? Why are any other two points in time NOT significant?

The reds have blocked it as hard as they can since they work for corporations and the wealthy.

Your usual crap about profit being EVIL. You're an idiot.

It getting worse on not a talking point but scientific fact.

Science is not facts. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. There is no such thing as a 'scientific fact'. Buzzword fallacy.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Of course, Vera. Now then , sit quietly and ponder on the new battery technologies while you play with your Chinese dollies.

If- as they believe- CO2 is the life-or-death issue then why should they tolerate any time-wasting, self-serving and spurious opposition to survival ?

Do you really believe that the condemned man should listen to the hangman's reasons for pulling the lever ?

Who's they?

 

[Into the Night]

That is the religious component. Do you, as say AOC and her cohorts, believe that we're doomed in about 9 years because of Gorebal Warming? That is what the crazies on the Left are telling us.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/n...eo-AOC-believes-world-end-climate-change.html

That doesn't mean just because a Jehovah's Witness comes to my door I'm supposed to believe them. It amounts to the same thing.

The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion. It denies science and mathematics; specifically the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and statistical and probability mathematics.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
You cannot create energy out of nothing.
You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You cannot reduce entropy in any system.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

 

[moon]

Who's they?

The entities mentioned by the member I was addressing , Vera. Don't fret- the nurse won't let them get you.

Have a little look in your grammar book too, where it says that ' they ' is plural.


Haw, haw.............................haw.