"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

dense

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

He isn’t refusing to ration his emissions.

She/he consistently rejects the EPA's recommendations that individuals should monitor and try to reduce their carbon footprint because they say it won't make any difference.



The typical conscientious objector.

Niles Crane

dense wrote: »

She/he consistently rejects the EPA's recommendations that individuals should monitor and try to reduce their carbon footprint because they say it won't make any difference.



The typical conscientious objector.

I think they might be rejecting the idea that it will cure all rather rejecting the idea than not using as much energy will be a good thing.

There is a difference.

We can all do more but human beings are not to be trusted to do the right thing by themselves (as we have seen numerous times across history) and need to be forced into doing the right thing.

That one person saying it won't make any difference is what millions/billions of people around the world are saying and you won't change their minds on it by telling them to do the right thing people have to be forced to do the right thing.

To use another analogy , Do you honestly think that if all tax around the world was to be collected purely through self assessment and nobody would check up on you and whether you were paying the right amount of tax and punish you for not doing so that everyone would be 100% honest and pay the amount of tax they should?

Human being cannot be trusted to do the right thing by themselves , governments need to start getting round to that idea and finding ways forcing them to do the right thing.

dense

Niles Crane wrote: »

That one person saying it won't make any difference is what millions/billions of people around the world are saying and you won't change their minds on it by telling them to do the right thing people have to be forced to do the right thing.

Tell the conscientious objector that two wrongs don't make a right.


Because here you have the typical lefty who is claiming the high moral ground, banging on endlessly about humanity being destroyed by carbon emissions whilst simultaneously urging individuals NOT to take steps to reduce their carbon footprint.


Their hope is that individuals do not take action, because any reduction in emissions that came from it would damage their agenda, which is a political one, which is openly begging for a new global socialist regime.

You've just exposed their political agenda and they're hell bent on using junk science from the UN to have it implemented.


It's all very Mary Robinson too.


Someone who has been advising others about the benefits of not eating meat for years is now, at the age of 75, toying with the idea of it applying to herself.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

You're really going to have to reassess your attitude to your personal emissions.

Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require unprecedented

, life changing and "rapid and far-reaching" transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Nowhere is exempt.



It's going to take a collective effort, even from the deniers like you who say their emissions don't make a difference.



Every kilo of co2 you choose to put into the atmosphere is one kilo too much.


Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching 'net zero' around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air.

You're clearly not into being personally responsible for your own actions so you're calling for some fuzzy global action plan.

You'll be off the hook for a while so.

Emit as much co2 as you like.

But please stop going on about everyone else's need to reduce theirs.

And this is probably the most disingenuous post on Boards.ie

Niles Crane

dense wrote: »

Tell the conscientious objector that two wrongs don't make a right.


Because here you have the typical lefty who is claiming the high moral ground, banging on endlessly about humanity being destroyed by carbon emissions whilst simultaneously urging individuals NOT to take steps to reduce their carbon footprint.


Their hope is that individuals do not take action, because any reduction in emissions that came from it would damage their agenda, which is a political one, which is openly begging for a new global socialist regime.

You've just exposed their political agenda and they're hell bent on using junk science from the UN to have it implemented.


It's all very Mary Robinson too.


Someone who has been advising others about the benefits of not eating meat for years is now, at the age of 75, toying with the idea of it applying to herself.

I didn't say my emmissions didn't make a difference.

I said one person doing something won't make a difference unless the whole world goes along with it.

Honestly you seem to be deliberately misunderstanding the point being made eon purpose.

Based on some of your recent posts it looks like the username you chose is quite fitting.

Cienciano

dense wrote: »

The lefty political scientists who are on the United Nation's climate panel don't really mind so long as they can drum up a bit of hysteria amongst the easily led.

This is the bit I don't understand. Maybe because it's búll****. Who has more funding behind them, the UN climate panel or every oil company and major industry in the world? If it's the UN climate panel, they are the most influential group of people in the history of the world.

cnocbui

Cienciano wrote: »

This is the bit I don't understand. Maybe because it's búll****. Who has more funding behind them, the UN climate panel or every oil company and major industry in the world? If it's the UN climate panel, they are the most influential group of people in the history of the world.

The UN climate panel have the funding of world governments behind them, who's net worth makes oil companies et al, look impoverished.

2ndcoming

cnocbui wrote: »

The UN climate panel have the funding of world governments behind them, who's net worth makes oil companies et al, look impoverished.

Of course, it's the world governments who want to destroy the planet for future generations, it's so much more important to them than poor oil companies who only want to make a fair living.

Seriously if some people stopped to consider human motivation for a second...

Who stands to gain? How fundamental to their continued success is it? How much are they willing to do to make sure that gain happens?

xckjoo

cnocbui wrote: »

The UN climate panel have the funding of world governments behind them, who's net worth makes oil companies et al, look impoverished.

Ah here. There's a difference between state wealth and individual/corporate wealth. Most politicians can't just pocket the states money, but they might be happy to have money funneled to their private accounts from outside sources with vested interests.

twinytwo

For people who think man cant change the climate... the worlds volcanos produce approx 200 million tons of co2 a year. Man made yearly production of co2 is 25 billion tons.

All the people on here kicking and screaming about there is no possible way man can affect the climate, seem to have no understanding of science.

Remember the tobacco companies said smoking didnt cause cancer.

Remember the nfl said that cte is not caused by impacts to the head.

Remember monsanto say there is nothing wrong with GM foods.

All of this is backed by reports etc produced by them.... i wonder what the oil companies are saying.

cnocbui

xckjoo wrote: »

Ah here. There's a difference between state wealth and individual/corporate wealth. Most politicians can't just pocket the states money, but they might be happy to have money funneled to their private accounts from outside sources with vested interests.

Who funded all the scientists who have performed the research the UN Climate Panel has based it's findings on?

The wealth of the oil companies is irrelevant as it does not and has not had any influence on the IPCC findings and recommendations. Postulating governments kowtowing to big oil is conspiracy nonsense, given the Paris accord and all the other acknowledgements of Global Warming coming from governments.

cnocbui

twinytwo wrote: »

For people who think man cant change the climate... the worlds volcanos produce approx 200 million tons of co2 a year. Man made yearly production of co2 is 25 billion tons.

All the people on here kicking and screaming about there is no possible way man can affect the climate, seem to have no understanding of science.

Remember the tobacco companies said smoking didnt cause cancer.

Remember the nfl said that cte is not caused by impacts to the head.

Remember monsanto say there is nothing wrong with GM foods.

All of this is backed by reports etc produced by them.... i wonder what the oil companies are saying.

The contribution of humans to the greenhouse effect is 0.28% Spouting stuff about volcanoes and CO2 is meaningless without context.

Akrasia

cnocbui wrote: »

What percentage of the Earth's annual heat budget can be attributed to the CO2 produced by humans?

This question doesn't make sense. Are you talking about the entire heat content of the planet, ie everything above absolute zero including geothermal heat generated at the earths core?

It's a poorly framed question.

What percentage of the energy imbalance is caused by humans? This is a much better question, and the best evidence we have now, is that it's currently more than 100%. The earth is in a naturally cooling phase at the moment. If the human signal is removed, todays temperatures would be slightly cooler than they were 30 years ago

xckjoo

cnocbui wrote: »

Who funded all the scientists who have performed the research the UN Climate Panel has based it's findings on?

The wealth of the oil companies is irrelevant as it does not and has not had any influence on the IPCC findings and recommendations. Postulating governments kowtowing to big oil is conspiracy nonsense, given the Paris accord and all the other acknowledgements of Global Warming coming from governments.

I'm completely confused as to what your point is. Are you implying that world governments might be pushing researchers to find links between Global Warming and fossil fuels where there isn't one?
Are you also saying there's no link between lobbyists and political decision making?

Doctor Jimbob

xckjoo wrote: »

I'm completely confused as to what your point is. Are you implying that world governments might be pushing researchers to find links between Global Warming and fossil fuels where there isn't one?
Are you also saying there's no link between lobbyists and political decision making?

I see you haven't been keeping up with the thread. See, what's happening is all the world's governments are banding together in a grand socialist conspiracy. For some reason, they have decided the best way to implement this is to make up a climate crisis, because reasons. The poor oil companies are innocent bystanders in all this.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Of course, but now we have virtue signalling hypocrisy to contend with as well.


Your rationing analogy is a good one actually.



How would you describe someone calling for the rationing of co2 emissions whilst refusing to ration their own co2 emissions?

You are in one single post decrying 'virtue signalling' while in the same breath, saying that someone refuses to say they are reducing their own emissions.

You don't understand what virtue signalling is.

Virtue signalling would be if someone was constantly going on about how great they are and how much they are personally doing to cut emissions in order to impress a target audience, while telling everyone else that they are bad people because they're not doing as much as they can.

I'm doing the opposite. I'm explicitly refusing to talk about my own carbon footprint or criticise the carbon footprint of other individuals. I am not talking about virtue at all. I am saying that collective action is required, not individuals acting on their own. The only virtue I want from people, is that they accept the evidence that is overwhelming, accept the need to act, and support the required political action to introduce carbon reducing policies.

2ndcoming

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I see you haven't been keeping up with the thread. See, what's happening is all the world's governments are banding together in a grand socialist conspiracy. For some reason, they have decided the best way to implement this is to make up a climate crisis, because reasons. The poor oil companies are innocent bystanders in all this.

Oh dear.

Akrasia

Roger_007 wrote: »

I find it reassuring that the IPCC are confident that we humans have the ability to determine what the world's temperature will be in 50 or 100 years time.
We can do this, apparently, by simply controlling the amount of CO2 we put in to the atmosphere.
It's a wonderful thing that after 5 billion years of having a climate which has fluctuated from one extreme to the other, we humans came along and discovered the key to controlling the whole system.
So instead of worrying about our climate changing, we should rejoice in the fact that we can control it to suit our needs. All we have to do is turn that big CO2 knob up or down.

It is wonderful isn't it. Really lucky actually, that we have actually identified the cause of the problem, and already know the solutions to the problem.

The only thing stopping us from acting are vested interests protecting their own industries from regulation, and an ignorant public who have been conned by those same vested interests into thinking that the worlds scientific community don't know what they're talking about.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

She/he consistently rejects the EPA's recommendations that individuals should monitor and try to reduce their carbon footprint because they say it won't make any difference.



The typical conscientious objector.

Individual actions are not the solution. Political action is the solution.

Here's an example. We are being told to eat less meat. Grand. Except some meats are a lot better than others, even some meats are better than some fruits and vegetables.

If you have Club sandwich, the Tomato has a higher carbon footprint than the Chicken

Why? Because in Ireland and the UK, a lot of our vegetables are grown using artificially lit and heated horticulture.

So people who switch from a diet that includes chicken, but replaces them with tomato, cucumber, peppers etc could be doing more harm than good (especially when you think about what percent of these vegetables are never eaten and are either thrown out by supermarkets or the end user)

For all your bleating against socialism, the actual solution proposed by almost every climate change advocacy group is to use market mechanisms to alter behaviour of consumers and producers.

If the Tomatoes were grown in facilities lit and heated by electric power from a carbon neutral source, then Tomato consumption by consumers would be perfectly fine, but the farmers aren't going to switch to these sources unless it's economically worthwhile, and the electricity producers won't generate renewable energy unless there's a demand for it, and transport companies won't switch to electric or biogas fleets unless it's cheaper for them to do so than to use their existing fleets... So carbon taxes need to be properly introduced to fully account for the cost of the carbon pollution.

Consumers should be paying the actual cost of the production of their goods and services, not one subsidised by future generations in terms of us dumping waste products into the air that alter their climate.

When consumers pay the actual cost, then market forces drive change. When technology is slow to roll out, market forces will drive innovation and investment to take advantage of the latent demand.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Because here you have the typical lefty who is claiming the high moral ground, banging on endlessly about humanity being destroyed by carbon emissions whilst simultaneously urging individuals NOT to take steps to reduce their carbon footprint.

Where did I ever say to not reduce your own carbon footprint?

(hint, the answer is never)
I have consistently said that individuals can reduce their carbon footprint to zero, and it won't make a difference unless there is also global collective action.

Their hope is that individuals do not take action, because any reduction in emissions that came from it would damage their agenda, which is a political one, which is openly begging for a new global socialist regime.

Wrong. My hope is that people support collective action, and shout down all the 'skeptics' who object to imaginary global conspiracies, and the NIMBYs who don't like wind farms near their house, and the Laissez faire capitalist types who have become the 'useful idiot' online troll army promoting the interests of the most polluting industries despite the fact that these industries benefit hugely from market failures (including government subsidies)

You've just exposed their political agenda and they're hell bent on using junk science from the UN to have it implemented.

UN 'Junk science' which is basically a comprehensive review of all the published science in the relevant fields by all the global scientific community is bad, but proven fraudsters with blogs who regularly fabricate data and fake graphs, they're good
Gotcha

Akrasia

cnocbui wrote: »

The UN climate panel have the funding of world governments behind them, who's net worth makes oil companies et al, look impoverished.

So the worlds governments are going to put all of their resources into oppressing the poor downtrodden fossil fuel industry?
Wow.

Actually, the IPCC, which is funded by members of the UN, has an annual operating budget of between 5 and 8 million dollars a year

This is a tiny tiny percentage of the global GDP and very cheap considering that the IPCC has to coordinate thousands of researchers and administrators and hold global conferences and plenary sessions.

On the other hand, there are dozens of 'think tanks' and 'institutes' that receive millions of dollars in funding every year, not to produce any research or add any knowledge to the pool of human understanding, no, it's to muddy the water, foment doubt and uncertainty, and try to delay action on climate change

The oil industry has known since the 1970s from their own internal scientific investigation and studies that climate change is real, and they buried those studies.

Akrasia

cnocbui wrote: »

Who funded all the scientists who have performed the research the UN Climate Panel has based it's findings on?

The oil companies funded some of those scientists. They ended up suppressing the findings when they didn't like what they said, but the oil industry conducts its own research and their own scientists were telling them about climate change for decades.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

The wealth of the oil companies is irrelevant as it does not and has not had any influence on the IPCC findings and recommendations. Postulating governments kowtowing to big oil is conspiracy nonsense, given the Paris accord and all the other acknowledgements of Global Warming coming from governments.

The oil companies themselves use words all the time promising to be green and sustainable and state that they believe in climate change. And then they use actions and lobbying and build infrastructure that does the exact opposite

The Oil industry have absolutely been lobbying heavily to water down commitments to reduce climate change.

As far as they're concerned, Paris was a massive win. They got words promising things, but no actual sanctions for any countries that don't meet the commitments.

What we need are global treaties that include penalties for countries who fail to follow through. We need treaties limiting exploration and drilling, and committing to phasing out fossil fuel use while Mandating much more stringent carbon capture and storage at all parts of the fossil fuel life cycle

Cienciano

cnocbui wrote: »

The UN climate panel have the funding of world governments behind them, who's net worth makes oil companies et al, look impoverished.

And who lobbies governments from a local level right the way up? Solar panel manufacturers?

dense

Niles Crane wrote: »

I didn't say my emmissions didn't make a difference.

Are you now saying they do make a difference??

If so, you might be good enough explain what it is that you think they are making a difference to.

I will take it, unless otherwise advised, that you, unlike others here, fully endorse the following , from NUI Galway, about the need to not only take individual action, but also to try to persuade your mates to reign in their carbon footprint too:

Quote:

As members of the public, we need to develop discernment in what we read and hear about climate change, and to take individual action to reduce our carbon – and water – footprints, as well as educating our peers and superiors.

http://www.nuigalway.ie/about-us/new...i-galway-.html

Niles Crane wrote: »

I said one person doing something won't make a difference unless the whole world goes along with it.

Seems like all the alarmed environmentalists use that line nowadays.

I'm not saying you are, because you know your emissions really do make a difference.

Niles Crane wrote: »

Based on some of your recent posts it looks like the username you chose is quite fitting.

Ok, Niles.

Water John

When the boss of Shell is saying, there's a problem, I think you really have a problem.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/oct/09/shell-ben-van-beurden-mass-reforestation-un-climate-change-target

dense

Cienciano wrote: »

This is the bit I don't understand. Maybe because it's búll****. Who has more funding behind them, the UN climate panel or every oil company and major industry in the world? If it's the UN climate panel, they are the most influential group of people in the history of the world.

You may not be influenced by the UN's talk of global warming, but it would appear that some people here and elsewhere are.



Their influence has ensured the promise of funding for various climate projects (aptly named as Shifting the Trillions) from many countries, and public and private institutions.



https://www.carbonbrief.org/climate-finance-challenge-shifting-trillions

dense

Water John wrote: »

When the boss of Shell is saying, there's a problem, I think you really have a problem.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/oct/09/shell-ben-van-beurden-mass-reforestation-un-climate-change-target

One minute "big oil" is the demon and can't be trusted, the next minute your hanging on their every word.


I've seen more flip flopping here today than I've seen in a long time.

maccored

we're too late, basically

Water John

You could really fill Sarah Huckaby Sanders shoes. A remote connection to the truth. Your trying the same twist as before. Touch of heads I win, tails you lose.

xckjoo

dense wrote: »

One minute "big oil" is the demon and can't be trusted, the next minute your hanging on their every word.


I've seen more flip flopping here today than I've seen in a long time.

LOL


Defendant: "Your honour, I'd like to change my plea from not guilty to guilty"
Judge: "No way! You lied about being not guilty so you're probably lying about being guilty too"