Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[turbobloke]

Nature's way. Too many organisms, not enough resources (space, nutrients...) the inevitable will occur.

We're part of nature and therefore interact / tamper with the rest of nature nature routinely, but won't ever control it absolutely.

Even our own wonderful and wise politicians, trying to do so via a mix of arrogance, ignorance, tax and control, are doomed to fail.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Randy Winkman said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

robinessex said:

Record number of polluters set CO2 emissions targets

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61414133#comme...

A record number of big polluters are committing to cutting CO2 emissions, a UN-backed report has said.

But firms in Asia, Africa and Latin America are lagging behind Europe, the US and Japan, the Science-Based Targets Initiative said.

Separately, a report cast doubt on whether oil companies can all deliver carbon cuts they've promised.

Big oil firms are relying on unproven technologies, a think tank said.

The headline says one thing. The first three sentences say er, maybe.

If we will insist on swamping the planet with billions more resource consuming, waste and emissions producing numbers of `Man' (You know the `very' thing the eco nutters keep telling has ALREADY affected the planet and its climate) then we will deserve, and must expect to pay the environmental price for doing this.
it matters not a jot, if we use coal, oil, timber, nuclear, wind and solar power, chip fat, or even fairy dust to supply, and power our societies with fuel and products, it is the sheer scale of `whatever' we use, that does the damage to the planet.
Even this does not take into account the damage being done to the rest of the planet (which we were supposed to be sharing with other species) in our search for viable living space, materials for buildings, metals, materials for batteries, materials for furniture or fuels other than fossil fuels. etc.
The mistake that has been made in the use of fossil fuels, is that we have used them to grow the global population, too large, and in too short a time frame for the Earth to be able to cope with, When oil is gone, unless another viable alternative (available in the volume needed to meet the demands of even just todays global population) will have to be found,
If it is not, the result will be the collapse of the global population, to a level that (whatever) resources remain are able to cope with.
I dont believe we have any global control over what we are doing, and that we will carry on (Lemming like) growing the population, beyond the environment's ability to support our numbers.
If we are doing what we `appear' to be choosing to do, then that is fine, But we cannot whine when we are asked to pay the environmental price for doing this.

I could be wrong but haven't you acknowledged that there isn't a solution to the population problem?

I have indeed acknowledged that there is no solution to the population problem. We normally get the f*ckwitted who start making comments about culling, suicide, killing the old etc, but my view is that every person who has landed on the planet, has at the very least, the right to live out their lives as fully and for as long as possible, so the f*ckwit comments are `not' an answer.
Not a single person, out of the countless billions who have been, and are on the planet, asked to be born, that is always in the control? of those who came before them.
We will (like lemmings) simply grow the population, to the point where it outstrips the planets ability to supply and sustain our numbers.
Humans do not have the solution, but nature will come up with one. The problem with this, is that nature, by its very nature, means that the solution it comes up with, will not necessarily be humane.

[GroundZero]

Pan Pan Pan said:

I have indeed acknowledged that there is no solution to the population problem. We normally get the f*ckwitted who start making comments about culling, suicide, killing the old etc, but my view is that every person who has landed on the planet, has at the very least, the right to live out their lives as fully and for as long as possible, so the f*ckwit comments are `not' an answer.
Not a single person, out of the countless billions who have been, and are on the planet, asked to be born, that is always in the control? of those who came before them.
We will (like lemmings) simply grow the population, to the point where it outstrips the planets ability to supply and sustain our numbers.
Humans do not have the solution, but nature will come up with one. The problem with this, is that nature, by its very nature, means that the solution it comes up with, will not necessarily be humane.

Agree with that.
I've always said one of the fundamental elephant in the room issues with what much of this 'climate change' hype is all about is more to do with over-population rather than much else. But instead the blame is being put on to CO2.
It also ties in to the narrative of "endless growth in a finite world", which is an obvious unsustainable outlook.

Western nations are unlikely to take the route of controlling birth rates, and instead are starting to ignore the obvious and look purely at yet more growth, in that economists are claiming a population crisis in terms of not enough people of working age to support the old.
I don't see the point of growing the ponzi pyramid even more knowing that, as you elude to, nature will not be kind in its solution, which will come in the form of mass starvation, military conflicts for resources, mass migration (which can be argued to have already started), along with ongoing damage to the environment. And still with all the calls for yet more people, those advocating for a colder planet will never see their dream come true, if all is to be believed as per their typical narratives and CO2 from more billions of human activity is to feed in to the atmosphere.

Regarding the likely conflicts for resources, I can't see the Chinese communist party (with its nuclear arsenal and military might) being so kind to others when their 1.45billion person (mandate) demand eventually means it has to take from others when its own borders can not supply.
I guess the same can be said for the USA.
Any way, the future is looking a bit bleak.

Edited by GroundZero on Thursday 12th May 14:46

[turbobloke]

Politician-climatologist (everybody else is): “weakening warming trend of the last 40 years is apparent”
Dr Fritz Vahrenholt, 'Green energy Transition and Warming Fade-Out', 07 May 2022
https://kaltesonne.de/fritz-vahrenholt-die-energie...

Dr V said:

During the energy crisis that has become visible in Germany and Europe over the past few months, the allegedly impending climate emergency has become quieter. On the one hand, energy prices and security of supply have pushed the climate issue into the background. On the other hand, there is a weakening of the warming trend of the last 40 years.

He'll need to be looking over his shoulder for the Climate Inquisition, nobody expects it.


Poll: US voters more concerned about gas prices than climate change
52% of voters believe Biden should focus more on increasing oil and gas drilling.
Just 34% think the policy focus should be on limiting climate change.

Rasmussen Reports, 09 May, 2022

[Randy Winkman]

So the conclusion is that it's a population problem which we cant do anything about so let's just carry on as we are?

[turbobloke]

Randy Winkman said:

So the conclusion is that it's a population problem which we cant do anything about so let's just carry on as we are?

No, the conclusion is it's not an emergency so don't abandon quality of life and cost of living to a false religion.

Any notion that politicians can control a complex coupled non-linear chaotic planetary climate system via tax and hair-shirtism is foolish, ludicrous and more dangerous than the non-emergency.

[turbobloke]

While agw central won't be pleased to see or hear heresy, this (below) presents material not available from the msm on what the science says and doesn't say alongside what politicians claim it says.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Tz1MiX1p5I

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

While agw central won't be pleased to see or hear heresy, this (below) presents material not available from the msm on what the science says and doesn't say alongside what politicians claim it says.

<link>

To save you a click, this is the GWPF's annual lecture from November last year.

It's up to you if you want to get your science from fringe political lobby groups with shady funding and a history of spreading misinformation that benefits the fossil fuel industry, or you could get your science from literally any credible, established science organisation in the world.

[robinessex]

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

While agw central won't be pleased to see or hear heresy, this (below) presents material not available from the msm on what the science says and doesn't say alongside what politicians claim it says.

<link>

To save you a click, this is the GWPF's annual lecture from November last year.

It's up to you if you want to get your science from fringe political lobby groups with shady funding and a history of spreading misinformation that benefits the fossil fuel industry, or you could get your science from literally any credible, established science organisation in the world.

Durbster mode

[durbster]

robinessex said:

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

While agw central won't be pleased to see or hear heresy, this (below) presents material not available from the msm on what the science says and doesn't say alongside what politicians claim it says.

<link>

To save you a click, this is the GWPF's annual lecture from November last year.

It's up to you if you want to get your science from fringe political lobby groups with shady funding and a history of spreading misinformation that benefits the fossil fuel industry, or you could get your science from literally any credible, established science organisation in the world.

Durbster mode

That might have made sense if I hadn't I said the exact opposite.

I suggested people either go to the primary source, or have it relayed by any established and credible scientific institute in the world.

Getting your science through the filter of the GWPF or Heartland Institute is the very definition of putting your head in the sand.

[Diderot]

durbster said:

robinessex said:

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

While agw central won't be pleased to see or hear heresy, this (below) presents material not available from the msm on what the science says and doesn't say alongside what politicians claim it says.

<link>

To save you a click, this is the GWPF's annual lecture from November last year.

It's up to you if you want to get your science from fringe political lobby groups with shady funding and a history of spreading misinformation that benefits the fossil fuel industry, or you could get your science from literally any credible, established science organisation in the world.

Durbster mode

That might have made sense if I hadn't I said the exact opposite.

I suggested people either go to the primary source, or have it relayed by any established and credible scientific institute in the world.

Getting your science through the filter of the GWPF or Heartland Institute is the very definition of putting your head in the sand.

The BBC is always a good source of misinformation.

[durbster]

Diderot said:

durbster said:

robinessex said:

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

While agw central won't be pleased to see or hear heresy, this (below) presents material not available from the msm on what the science says and doesn't say alongside what politicians claim it says.

<link>

To save you a click, this is the GWPF's annual lecture from November last year.

It's up to you if you want to get your science from fringe political lobby groups with shady funding and a history of spreading misinformation that benefits the fossil fuel industry, or you could get your science from literally any credible, established science organisation in the world.

Durbster mode

That might have made sense if I hadn't I said the exact opposite.

I suggested people either go to the primary source, or have it relayed by any established and credible scientific institute in the world.

Getting your science through the filter of the GWPF or Heartland Institute is the very definition of putting your head in the sand.

The BBC is always a good source of misinformation.

Devastating comment.

Where do you get your information from Diderot?

[GroundZero]

turbobloke said:

While agw central won't be pleased to see or hear heresy, this (below) presents material not available from the msm on what the science says and doesn't say alongside what politicians claim it says.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Tz1MiX1p5I

Revealing video (but contains a lot of which has already been put forward in this thread), which should be watched by all in the discussion.
But as the introduction mentions, its like those who interpreted the bible, there will be those that simply dismiss and deny what is in the reports because it opposed their view of the religion, and importantly may oppose their 'vehicle' for political gain.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Randy Winkman said:

So the conclusion is that it's a population problem which we cant do anything about so let's just carry on as we are?

That is one interpretation, but if we dont know how to stabilize the global population, then what you have printed above, seems to be the most likely scenario for the planet.

[anonymous-user]

GroundZero said:

turbobloke said:

While agw central won't be pleased to see or hear heresy, this (below) presents material not available from the msm on what the science says and doesn't say alongside what politicians claim it says.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Tz1MiX1p5I

Revealing video (but contains a lot of which has already been put forward in this thread), which should be watched by all in the discussion.
But as the introduction mentions, its like those who interpreted the bible, there will be those that simply dismiss and deny what is in the reports because it opposed their view of the religion, and importantly may oppose their 'vehicle' for political gain.

Hardly a surprise when it’s the same old GWPF propaganda that TBs been endlessly parroting and trying to indoctrinate simpletons with for years on here.

No It should not be watched by all.

Why not get your facts from reputable scientific sources and associated journals and publications instead of something which is obviously a politically motivated advocacy group.

[GroundZero]

El stovey said:

Hardly a surprise when it’s the same old GWPF propaganda that TBs been endlessly parroting and trying to indoctrinate simpletons with for years on here.

No It should not be watched by all.

Why not get your facts from reputable scientific sources and associated journals and publications instead of something which is obviously a politically motivated advocacy group.

The 'facts' as you put it. in that video, are coming from the IPCC reports themselves. So, not sure why you would have a complaint with that if you are signed up to the IPCC narratives?

So yes, I'd say if anyone looking in on this discussion wants to see what the IPCC reports say (or do not say), for the 'facts', then please watch the video.

[dickymint]

GroundZero said:

El stovey said:

Hardly a surprise when it’s the same old GWPF propaganda that TBs been endlessly parroting and trying to indoctrinate simpletons with for years on here.

No It should not be watched by all.

Why not get your facts from reputable scientific sources and associated journals and publications instead of something which is obviously a politically motivated advocacy group.

The 'facts' as you put it. in that video, are coming from the IPCC reports themselves. So, not sure why you would have a complaint with that if you are signed up to the IPCC narratives?

So yes, I'd say if anyone looking in on this discussion wants to see what the IPCC reports say (or do not say), for the 'facts', then please watch the video.

He wont, he has no interest in the actual topic itself.

[anonymous-user]

dickymint said:

GroundZero said:

El stovey said:

Hardly a surprise when it’s the same old GWPF propaganda that TBs been endlessly parroting and trying to indoctrinate simpletons with for years on here.

No It should not be watched by all.

Why not get your facts from reputable scientific sources and associated journals and publications instead of something which is obviously a politically motivated advocacy group.

The 'facts' as you put it. in that video, are coming from the IPCC reports themselves. So, not sure why you would have a complaint with that if you are signed up to the IPCC narratives?

So yes, I'd say if anyone looking in on this discussion wants to see what the IPCC reports say (or do not say), for the 'facts', then please watch the video.

He wont, he has no interest in the actual topic itself.

As if by magic.

Classic examples above of the sort who get (and even start threads asking for) their facts from TB rather than reputable scientific sources.

[GroundZero]

El stovey said:

As if by magic.

Classic examples above of the sort who get (and even start threads asking for) their facts from TB rather than reputable scientific sources.

Seems like you are acknowledging that the IPCC is not a reputable source?

[durbster]

GroundZero said:

The 'facts' as you put it. in that video, are coming from the IPCC reports themselves. So, not sure why you would have a complaint with that if you are signed up to the IPCC narratives?

So yes, I'd say if anyone looking in on this discussion wants to see what the IPCC reports say (or do not say), for the 'facts', then please watch the video.

Incredible logic there. If you want to find out what the IPCC says, you must ignore what the IPCC says and instead only listen the GWPF's version of what the IPCC says.

In the same way that the best way to find out what's going on in Ukraine is to only watch Russian state media.