Extinction Rebellion

[Gary Childress]

the climate changes...man ain't drivin' those changes...relax...support real science

Someone recently linked me this YouTube video to look at. It's pretty easy to follow, even for someone like me, and it seems to give reasons to believe that human activity is driving the climate right now.

It's a fairly long video but very well presented by a professor at the University of Central Florida. I've watched it twice so far and if you don't have the time to devote to the whole thing, jump to about 45:00 into the video and it will sum things up more or less in the following way:

That it appears we are currently in what should be an ice age (according to solar factors such as eccentricity, procession and tilt) but we are in fact getting much warmer temperatures than we should. The reason for the warmer temperatures is human carbon emissions starting way before the industrial revolution (at about 8000 years ago). Before the industrial revolution, it was slash and burn clearing of forests for purposes of agriculture that drove carbon emissions. Since then carbon emissions have gone up exponentially due to fossil fuels and industrialization. What it seems to all mean is that sea level will increase somewhere between 2.5 to 6.5 feet by the year 2100, with the most pronounced rate of increase toward the end of that time period.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/

I can provide other less snarky, more somber, sites, if you like.

Can you point me to a specific video or article that explains why climate change isn't man-made? I think that's the point we have in contention at the moment.

[henry quirk]

Someone recently linked me this YouTube video to look at. It's pretty easy to follow, even for someone like me, and it seems to give reasons to believe that human activity is driving the climate right now.

It's a fairly long video but very well presented by a professor at the University of Central Florida. I've watched it twice so far and if you don't have the time to devote to the whole thing, jump to about 45:00 into the video and it will sum things up more or less in the following way:

That it appears we are currently in what should be an ice age (according to solar factors such as eccentricity, procession and tilt) but we are in fact getting much warmer temperatures than we should. The reason for the warmer temperatures is human carbon emissions starting way before the industrial revolution (at about 8000 years ago). Before the industrial revolution, it was slash and burn clearing of forests for purposes of agriculture that drove carbon emissions. Since then carbon emissions have gone up exponentially due to fossil fuels and industrialization. What it seems to all mean is that sea level will increase somewhere between 2.5 to 6.5 feet by the year 2100, with the most pronounced rate of increase toward the end of that time period.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/

I can provide other less snarky, more somber, sites, if you like.

Can you point me to a specific video or article that explains why climate change isn't man-made? I think that's the point we have in contention at the moment.

since the world ain't endin' tonight or tomorrow, and since this thread is rather low key, why don't you take your time, as you will, and browse the site...there's a lot there, all of it related, in way or another, to disputin' the notion of human-driven climate change

[Gary Childress]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/

I can provide other less snarky, more somber, sites, if you like.

Can you point me to a specific video or article that explains why climate change isn't man-made? I think that's the point we have in contention at the moment.

since the world ain't endin' tonight or tomorrow, and since this thread is rather low key, why don't you take your time, as you will, and browse the site...there's a lot there, all of it related, in way or another, to disputin' the notion of human-driven climate change

Then could you summarize why you think it isn't man-made? I'm not going to sift through all that just to find a needle in a haystack. So far I see articles with headings of just about everything except why climate change isn't man-made.

[henry quirk]

very short version: cuz it don't make no damn sense

and, if rising co2 and ocean toxicity really are an issue: plant trees, repopulate clam colonies

do that and leave economies alone

[Immanuel Can]

Then could you summarize why you think it isn't man-made? I'm not going to sift through all that just to find a needle in a haystack. So far I see articles with headings of just about everything except why climate change isn't man-made.

But Gary, even if we accept that it is man-made (let's not even contest that), then why is the proposed solution to it always unrelated to the two most populous regions of the earth, and their super-fast attempts to industrialize to Western levels?

If China and India are not involved in a solution, there simply IS no solution to global climate change, even if we shut down all the industry, consumption and cars in America and Europe tomorrow. So, if climate activists are really serious about doing something, why are they completely uninterested in recognizing that elephant-in-the-room?

It make you think they're not actually interested in climate change at all, but in something else...like the power they can seize in the West through that means, perhaps.

[Sculptor]

Then could you summarize why you think it isn't man-made? I'm not going to sift through all that just to find a needle in a haystack. So far I see articles with headings of just about everything except why climate change isn't man-made.

But Gary, even if we accept that it is man-made (let's not even contest that), then why is the proposed solution to it always unrelated to the two most populous regions of the earth, and their super-fast attempts to industrialize to Western levels?.

It's always someone else's fault but your own.
The worst of it is that the West is way way way in the lead when it comes to resource burning, polluting, consumption, and destruction. Not content to leave desolation in our own lands we export that desolation to poor countries.
You talk of India and China as pariahs, yet the bulk of their products are bought and exported to the West for our consumption.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/ ... ootprints/

[Immanuel Can]

Then could you summarize why you think it isn't man-made? I'm not going to sift through all that just to find a needle in a haystack. So far I see articles with headings of just about everything except why climate change isn't man-made.

But Gary, even if we accept that it is man-made (let's not even contest that), then why is the proposed solution to it always unrelated to the two most populous regions of the earth, and their super-fast attempts to industrialize to Western levels?.

It's always someone else's fault but your own.

You're being silly again.

China and India have the majority of the world's population. If they decide to industrialize in the same way the West did over the last 200 years or so, and to do it in a period of, say 30 years, you don't need to be a genius -- or even very smart -- to realize that nothing the West does from here on in will change anything.

So nobody needs to "blame" China or India for making the same errors we did. But if they do as we did, there is no saving the climate by anything the West does.

[Sculptor]

But Gary, even if we accept that it is man-made (let's not even contest that), then why is the proposed solution to it always unrelated to the two most populous regions of the earth, and their super-fast attempts to industrialize to Western levels?.

It's always someone else's fault but your own.

You're being silly again.

China and India have the majority of the world's population.

Not relevant. As a proportion Chinese people's Carbon footprint about average. Indians are way below. In other words China's use of carbon is balanced as a proportion that they represent in the world population. Where China exceeds carbon use is due to the fact that people like you and me in the West keep demanding goods from them.

On the other hand, places like US, Canada and S Korea abuse their place on the planet. Each American uses three times the carbon of a Chinese or British person.
The people that need to change is the people who use the most. USA being the richest country in the world is best placed to invent and discover means by which standards of living can be improved by investing in innovations. The UK has managed its Carbon use, why not the USA?
When the US and Canada begin to take this seriously Chinese levels will lower through lower demand.

[Immanuel Can]

China and India have the majority of the world's population.

Not relevant.

Hugely relevant.

If those countries industrialize as we did, there will be at least 4 cars and trucks for every 1 we have now. There will be rapid industrialization using coal and other such "dirty" fuels. There will be no pollution controls, no carbon taxes, and no restrictions. Meanwhile, there will be 4 consumers for every 1 we have now. And there is no way that making any cuts in the West will prevent anything happening.

If you've never been to a country without pollution controls (I have been to several), then you will not have any idea how bad things get when a country industrializes. It's far worse than you can imagine.

Thus, a person who does not want to talk about southeast Asia does not want to talk about human efforts at climate change prevention. They aren't serious.

[Gary Childress]

China and India have the majority of the world's population.

Not relevant.

Hugely relevant.

If those countries industrialize as we did, there will be at least 4 cars and trucks for every 1 we have now. There will be rapid industrialization using coal and other such "dirty" fuels. There will be no pollution controls, no carbon taxes, and no restrictions. Meanwhile, there will be 4 consumers for every 1 we have now. And there is no way that making any cuts in the West will prevent anything happening.

If you've never been to a country without pollution controls (I have been to several), then you will not have any idea how bad things get when a country industrializes. It's far worse than you can imagine.

Thus, a person who does not want to talk about southeast Asia does not want to talk about human efforts at climate change prevention. They aren't serious.

Presumably, that's the point of global climate talks, to get all nations to reach an agreement and cooperate with each other, including countries in Southeast Asia. I don't think many are overlooking Southeast Asia. But I doubt Southeast Asia is going to do anything at all about their emissions if we continue to boycott climate talks and stuff like that.

[Immanuel Can]

Presumably, that's the point of global climate talks, to get all nations to reach an agreement and cooperate with each other, including countries in Southeast Asia.

But how, Gary?

Since we already polluted, what incentive do they have to hold back their Industrial Revolution? More importantly, if we're not even talking about the problem in Asia -- let alone even trying to negotiate some better route with Asia -- then how on earth are we going to avoid wrecking the Earth?

I don't think many are overlooking Southeast Asia.

I do.

In all the talk about poor little Greta, the environmentalists supporting her and using her as their puppet staunchly refused to discuss any such problems. They don't want to do so, because their real goals are not environmental protection, but a power grab in the West. They don't care what Asia does, even if it kills the planet...because they presently have no ambitions in Asia.

For anybody who cares, providing Asia with reasons not to do what we did is the very first order of business. If that doesn't get done, nothing else will.

The present climate talks have been a joke, in this regard. If participating in them means accepting the environmentalists propaganda as if it were true first, then it's actually better we stay away from those things. No good will be done by them, and we'll find our sovereignty taken away, and our economies ruined, while Asia proceeds on its disastrous course unaddressed.

[Gary Childress]

Presumably, that's the point of global climate talks, to get all nations to reach an agreement and cooperate with each other, including countries in Southeast Asia.

But how, Gary?

Since we already polluted, what incentive do they have to hold back their Industrial Revolution? More importantly, if we're not even talking about the problem in Asia -- let alone even trying to negotiate some better route with Asia -- then how on earth are we going to avoid wrecking the Earth?

Hopefully, there are ways to develop and reduce carbon emissions at the same time, by investing in sustainable energy alternatives, for example.

I don't think many are overlooking Southeast Asia.

I do.

In all the talk about poor little Greta, the environmentalists supporting her and using her as their puppet staunchly refused to discuss any such problems. They don't want to do so, because their real goals are not environmental protection, but a power grab in the West. They don't care what Asia does, even if it kills the planet...because they presently have no ambitions in Asia.

For anybody who cares, providing Asia with reasons not to do what we did is the very first order of business. If that doesn't get done, nothing else will.

The present climate talks have been a joke, in this regard. If participating in them means accepting the environmentalists propaganda as if it were true first, then it's actually better we stay away from those things. No good will be done by them, and we'll find our sovereignty taken away, and our economies ruined, while Asia proceeds on its disastrous course unaddressed.

Greta Thunberg is one little girl. I don't think it all revolves around her. People are taking all over the world about climate change, including people in Southeast Asia.

[Sculptor]

China and India have the majority of the world's population.

Not relevant.

Hugely relevant.

If those countries industrialize as we did, there will be at least 4 cars and trucks for every 1 we have now.

There are limits to the world's oil reserves.
I see no reason to change my initial comments I made above.
You are just responding with racism.

[Immanuel Can]

Since we already polluted, what incentive do they have to hold back their Industrial Revolution? More importantly, if we're not even talking about the problem in Asia -- let alone even trying to negotiate some better route with Asia -- then how on earth are we going to avoid wrecking the Earth?

Hopefully, there are ways to develop and reduce carbon emissions at the same time, by investing in sustainable energy alternatives, for example.

The lobby's not talking about sustainable energy for China or India. Nobody seems to care about that...least of all, their governments, but even the environmentalists don't care about that.

Greta Thunberg is one little girl.

Yes: one sad, exploited, mentally-ill little girl, trotted out like a show pony by the environmentalists.

Have they no shame?

People are taking all over the world about climate change, including people in Southeast Asia.

You overestimate how much the Developing World cares about climate. And I don't blame them. If it comes to a question of feeding their families, improving their health, providing for their education, or getting your own folks ahead in the world, on the one hand, or pleasing the rich in the West, on the other, why should they care? We wouldn't. And that's exactly what they're facing.

What's more, all that we want them NOT to do is exactly what we already HAVE done. So they have every right to ask us why we want to hold them back and cripple their economies, when we had no hesitation about getting ourselves ahead by any means necessary.

Good question. We don't hold the moral high ground here.

[Immanuel Can]

You are just responding with racism.

Super cowardly. The "R" card is the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt. What's more, if you had any real idea, you'd be ashamed of that claim.

But in point of fact, I'm advocating FOR Asia here. They have a right to their industrialization...and if we don't help out, we have no right to complain at them.