Are humans really responsible for climate change?

[-TSS-]

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.

[Dougie93]

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.

[bush_cheney2004]

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 October 1, 2019 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

40 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I wonder if the NOAA have considered that...

 

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

Why worry about Trump's NOAA anyway ?

[Guest]

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.

[bush_cheney2004]

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.....

[eyeball]

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.

[dialamah]

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."

[eyeball]

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. 

[dialamah]

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.

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

 

[Argus]

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.

[Army Guy]

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 ? ..

[dialamah]

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."

[dialamah]

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 October 1, 2019 by dialamah

[eyeball]

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.

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

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

The zeal for it kinda stands out a bit but Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah otherwise.

[Argus]

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.

[Army Guy]

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... 

 

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

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/

 

 

 

[egghead]

Don't know, may be AOC's supporter is right, we need to eat our babies to fight climate change 

 

[Dougie93]

[cannuck]

just some food for thought.

agenda 21:   

 

[eyeball]

Back to dusting off the olde religion of anthropogenic global warming meme?  

Maybe you guys should get 500 signatures from professionals and experts from other religions denouncing the Church of AGW.