patrick.net

The climate is dynamic, it's always changing, has been doing that for a billion years. There are many factors that affect the earth's climate MANY. The left's focus on ONLY a human element is the problem and why most people are skeptical. Not to mention the hilarious urgency, we only have 10 years before the earth is destroyed , which to most normal people is a tell that it's all bullshit. Everyone knows the left's ultimate goal is human control a la communism/socialism and that climate change is just another mechanism to achieve that goal.

It's largely fiction or if its true, it's vastly exaggerated by ignorant people like Al Gore.

Incidentally "carbon footprint" and "carbon emission" are both misnomers; CO2 is a gas, carbon is of course coal or a diamond depending on which you get a hold of.

Two gigantic incorrect assumptions are prevalent; 1. the sun's energy output is NOT a constant; it varies. 2. the earth is full of plant life on land and in the oceans, and plants may uptake excess nutrients when present (CO2 is an essential plant nutrient)

A third assumption is less discussed; why isn't a colder earth considered worse than a warmer one? A colder earth is much worse for life on it.

Al Gore isn't ignorant, he's a shill for George Soros et al. Where does one get the money and desire to make not one, but two movies with alarmist messages so wrong they are laughable? "The planet will be underwater in 12 years!!" Confirmation bias plays a big role here. Once you have started the path toward the unconscious filtering of only one type of "truth" it turns into blind faith. You don't want new facts that could cloud your absolute belief. Al Gore is exactly like the worst type of religious zealot. Except instead of asking for your money via telescams, he wants entire countries to sign on to expensive policies that are designed to hamstring high performing economies and allow others with globalist and socialist policies to flourish. Why would he do this? To promote Soro's agenda, of course.

https://business.financialpost.com/news/how-al-gore-amassed-a-200-million-fortune-after-presidential-defeat

It's hard to be a scientific observer, and accept that facts can change, and you might have to change your mind about a long-held belief. For example, our parents thought "Housing always appreciates." Until it doesn't.

I am absolutely ready to accept that man-made activities are causing the overall temperature of the earth to increase. But based on my own (limited, flawed) research into the actual data, I remain unconvinced. Climate Models cannot be accurate 100 years in the future - you can't accurately model a chaotic system. (Look up the simplest chaotic system: the three-body problem.) At best, you can predict the system boundaries. We already know a good bit about those boundaries concerning climate: we are currently In an Ice age, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age) which has large temperature fluctuations about every 15-25,000 years. And we are overdue for a cold spell. The rest of the climate perturbations are the natural excursions of the system. Is Man adding to these perturbations? Possibly. Is the solution to eliminate man? I think not.

We had several centuries of a mild climate, and perhaps now we are entering a phase of wilder climate. Get used to it. In 100,000 years, the earth will still be rotating around the sun, and climate will march along regardless. Mankind might still be around. If George Soros has his way, that will be in a propaganda-controlled future run entirely by the state that mandates every aspect of your daily life. We're halfway there already.

I think we do have an effect on climate change but think it’s exaggerated. I think we need to do a lot better job with emissions just to have cleaner air to breath and that is something that can always be improved I don’t think anybody is going to object to that. We should be a lot more careful with plastic use maybe even restrict its use in third world countries that dump everything into the ocean. Population growth needs to be stopped and reduced in the third world I see this as a major quality of life issue especially for first world countries that have stabilized populations and are being invaded by third world overpopulation. Third world population growth is the main driver of all present and future environmental problems since it is driving up populations all around the world while also dividing them to the point of not being able to address major problems that require consensus.

GreaterNYCDude says

Personally I don't think that setting aggressive emission targets is a bad thing in and of itself

Actually, things like this are my main reason for disliking the climate change alarmists. Is the climate changing? Of course! Is man made CO2 the primary driver of climate change? I'm less certain, it's only been shown in models, but lets assume the models are correct for the sake of argument.

Doing things like setting impossible emissions targets only distorts the market and causes un-expected, sometimes far worse consequences then doing nothing.

Case in point emission targets. In order to meet these targets, cars have all sorts of gimmics, which break easily, so now instead of your car lasting 15+ years you need to replace it every 8. Means we are producing 2x as many cars as we used to, and car production is very dirty.

I think the tendency is to freak out about climate change, and because there are no good solutions, just make a law saying "Do it" without knowing what will be the consequences of that law beforehand.

Actually there is one good solution, nuclear power, but even then I think you need to do a cost benefit analysis. If we spend 10T dollars to switch the US to nuclear, how big of a disaster are we actually preventing. If it's OMG END OF THE WORLD! level disaster then sure I guess its worth it. If it's just going to be a few people need to move their beach houses, and there are actually good benefits to a warmer climate, it seems kind of selfish to spend 10T on power plants when 50K people per year still die of malaria.

I'd be more inclined to believe it if the politicians weren't so ardently for it. Politicians only care about something if it benefits them, and only them, in some grand way. They've found a way to use this issue as a fear tactic for voters, and that should be by itself a reason to not believe.

I'm not an Earth scientist, but I am an engineer that has learned over the years not to extrapolate too early. We've been hearing gloom and doom since the early 1910s and every one of those predictions has been wrong. Why are they so frighteningly correct now?

fiction

they've so far used it to:
- sell more solar panels from companies which they invest into.
- tell white people to have less children.
- increased their own usage of fossil fuels for comforts.
- science stated that there is no proof of "global warming"

GreaterNYCDude says

Throwing it out there to see what you all think.

Of course the climate is changing.

But it's changing less than the screeching GHG chicken-littles are claiming. The bigger problem is that with an ever-increasing population and ever-increasing wealth and ever-increasing government safety net, people are living in places that put them at more risk from mother nature. For example, who in their right mind would live below water level behind a dirt embankment (levee) in a flooding-prone part of New Orleans? Did you notice that the oldest part of that city did just fine after Katrina? It was only the "new" areas of sprawl built to accommodate excessive population. And when you build dense housing, you don't give the water anywhere.

Another problem is that we put huge reliance on modern infrastructure. People live in a hot swamps in Florida or the scorching deserts of Arizona because they can rely on air conditioning. What happens when a natural storm takes out that infrastructure. If people lived in temperate climate they would be more resilient.

In 2008, ABC News had this to say about what the climate would be like in 2015:

https://710wor.iheart.com/featured/mark-simone/content/2018-05-04-watch-abc-news-in-2008-predicting-that-nyc-will-be-underwater-by-2015/?fbclid=IwAR0uT6-N8cMMnT5GnAQZS4Nx-A_XdjGjtBVbNWlihqzzG_VjD2bjYhIoDKU#.XZFDpqD_R1E.facebook

GreaterNYCDude says

Personally I don't think that setting aggressive emission targets is a bad thing in and of itself,

Emissions of what? Harmful gases or particular matter causing diseases? Sure. CO2? Stupid and unnecessary. It's a good scheme to additionally tax the population though.

rocketjoe79 says

Climate Models cannot be accurate 100 years in the future - you can't accurately model a chaotic system.

Climate models are not a prediction. They are a projection based on quantitative knowledge.
Instead of focusing on models, just focus on empirical data coming out now.

RC2006 says

I think we do have an effect on climate change but think it’s exaggerated.

The media exaggerate it because they are trying to justify short term actions to prevent something 100yrs down the road.
Things are not bad now, or even 20yrs from now. They will get really bad 100 yrs from now if we do nothing.
And it takes a huge amount of time to turn around this oil tanker and change infrastructures.
So there is a gap between perceived problem and required action.

Heraclitusstudent says

So there is a gap between perceived problem and required action.

Now we have a world obesity crisis.

Extrapolation with imperfect information = useless at best, dangerous at worst.

Iranian_Oil_Burse says

CO2? Stupid and unnecessary. It's a good scheme to additionally tax the population though.

So we tax income earned through work instead? That sounds like the worst thing to tax. I'd rather tax something that comes from a foreign country that hates us regardless of the CO2 problem (or non-problem). Sort of like tariffs; you know, the thing that funded the entire federal government for the first hundred years. The biggest problem with the CO2 alarmists is that they then propose really dumb ideas.

jazz_music says

Food prices rising.

LOL.

jazz_music says

I see what you did there, you changed the subject to obesity. And then added a LOL. Way to troll.

Now go shopping and see what happens over every month.

I think it's safe to safe obese people aren't starving to death.

Food prices don't impact obesity? hahahaha

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-food/venezuelans-report-big-weight-losses-in-2017-as-hunger-hits-idUSKCN1G52HA

Demonstrate the predictions made by the climate "model" is accurate in global climate change.

If this cannot be done, global climate change isn't even a scientific theory, and this does indeed seem to be the case.

SunnyvaleCA says

Iranian_Oil_Burse says

CO2? Stupid and unnecessary. It's a good scheme to additionally tax the population though.

So we tax income earned through work instead?

What do you mean 'instead'? They want to tax us in addition to what they squeeze now. Not "instead", silly.

jazz_music says

NoCoupForYou says

jazz_music says

Food prices rising.

I see what you did there, you changed the subject to obesity. And then added a LOL. Way to troll.

Now go shopping and see what happens over every month.

Are you trying to say that despite the rising food prices the incomes raise so fast that people have more than enough money not only to feed themselves but to actually stuff their faces until they barely fit through your average door? No disagreement from me, buddy. Don't forget an iPhone in every pocket too.

NoCoupForYou says

Extrapolation with imperfect information = useless at best, dangerous at worst.

Projection is not just extrapolation.
The point about chaotic systems is worthless. You could take a box containing gas with cool atoms on 1 side and hot atoms on the other side and let them mix.
You couldn't predict where 1 atom will move 5 minutes from now because the Brownian movement is chaotic in nature.
However if you look global variables like equilibrium temperature and pressure, you know exactly where it's going to be.

The same goes for earth. If you know less heat gets out. You know it will get warmer somewhere.

The point about chaotic systems is worthless.

Fundamental lack of understanding of the science.

The point is there are aggregates vars that are not chaotic. Even in the 3 bodies system.

NoCoupForYou says

Population growth remains the worse problem we have, at least as long as most of humanity is stuck on this planet.

People talk of the good old time when we were more in 'balance with nature'. But being in balance with nature, for most of history meant that the population was regulated by famine, epidemics or wars. Most kids died before 5. That's what balance with nature is all about. Escaping that condition will always be under the threat of catastrophic failure.

Heraclitusstudent says

Population growth remains the worse problem we have, at least as long as most of humanity is stuck on this planet.

Disagreed. As more investment in fewer children is deemed more important and lifestyle improves, as well as Pervert "Lifestyle" Acceptance, the numbers of children per woman decline. This has been a trend that was first seen in the West, it's fullest form is in East Asia (inc. Japan, Taiwan, South Korea where no one-child policy was enforced), and is now spreading to the developing world.

The trend is also pronounced in developing countries like Brazil and Thailand, not just developed service economies.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-46118103

Alot of what neoliberalism is, is landlords and cheap labor dependent enterprises fighting against a population decline, which is already felt in the form of smaller successive generations of young people.

In a frontier environment, like extraterrestial colonies, this might likely be altered as small, more isolated and closed groups tend to have more children, but will fall when lifestyle improves, the economy diversifies, and living space becomes more constrained.

The two Bugimen of Malthus, used by Ehrlich and others extensively, to prove we're all doomed!

Soylent Green ain't gonna happen.



If we don't eat the babies we're all DOOMED. DOOMED!

www.youtube.com/embed/potlDrRI01A

Iranian_Oil_Burse says

Emissions of what? Harmful gases or particular matter causing diseases? Sure. CO2?

For what it's worth I've designed and commissioned many pollution control systems for a wide range of nasty stuff... CO2 gets all the press

So I'm all for clean air (and water). Aa much as I like the idea of solar / geothermal combination systems rather than heating oil, mining the metals that go into the panels is a dirty process... green energy is a bit of a misnomer in my book...

Heraclitusstudent says

NoCoupForYou says

Wait. Lake Erie was dead?

NoCoupForYou says

the numbers of children per woman decline.

Not fast enough in areas like Africa. Like Nigeria.
We are already far beyond what the earth can provide in the long terms in terms of energy and other resources. We are now in a race toward using less, and stabilizing population at the same time before we hit the wall.
And there is a wall.

Contrived Chicken Little panics have always been good business and guaranteed robust sales. No need to abandon the strategy now. Just look at all the staring-into-the-distance LibbyFuck Global Warming subscribers they were able to garner in a few short years, and actually make them feel smart while they're being snake oiled and conned.

Heraclitusstudent says

And there is a wall.

Perhaps, but nobody knows where the wall is. Thomas Robert Malthus died in 1834.

Heraclitusstudent says

Not fast enough in areas like Africa. Like Nigeria.

The world population growth rate has been falling since the 1950's.

The world population growth rate has been falling since the 1950's.

World population growth is a tangential issue. It is 1st World population that matters. We cannot sustain a 1st World lifestyle if the 1st World population doubles, regardless of numbers games with "rate decreases."

HeadSet says

The world population growth rate has been falling since the 1950's.

World population growth is a tangential issue. It is 1st World population that matters. We cannot sustain a 1st World lifestyle if the 1st World population doubles, regardless of numbers games with "rate decreases."

Most First World States have negative replacement population rates.

Why are Euro states promoting immigration? Because there are no workers to replace retiring Polish and other "Second World" state workers. Germany, France, etc., need more cheap labor. They were getting these people from the failed USSR breakup "-stan" states for a while. Where are they getting them from now? Muslim refugees. And without cultural acclimatization, they are instead allowing Muslim ghetto cities, where Sharia law rules.

Immigration without Acculturation is Invasion. The same goes for the USA.

rocketjoe79 says

Why are Euro states promoting immigration? Because there are no workers to replace retiring Polish and other "Second World" state workers. Germany, France, etc., need more cheap labor. They were getting these people from the failed USSR breakup "-stan" states for a while. Where are they getting them from now? Muslim refugees. And without cultural acclimatization, they are instead allowing Muslim ghetto cities, where Sharia law rules.

Assuming they work. Many do not. If the US, which is certainly tougher than Europe, has 90% of refugees still on public assistance in two years, I can't imagine what it's like for Syrian/African refugees in Germany or Sweden.

There's also the "I'm entitled to live well off the rental properties I inherited" problem. Those who depend on such income, as many established wealthy families do, are threatened by a shrinking population as this creates the need to offer more living space and/or cheaper rents. It also makes Labor more scarce relative to Capital, another threat to landlords and firms.

It's a long noted point of cognitive dissonance that the people who scream we need immigrants, were the same ones flipping out when Hungary introduced low interest loans for married couples with children as "Fascism". Apparently it's okay to bring in people from the far side of the world, but not okay to encourage your own to have more children.

I can only imagine the Leftist reaction if Trump offered $20k at 2.5% interest to any married couple having a second child. "BREEDERS! FASCISTS! ... but bring in more Syrian Refugees and pay them $30k/year or more outright in Social Welfare Benefits."