How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Climate Change is Normal and Welcome in My Opinion



  • You don't need to be a climatologist to see how fudged the numbers are

  • So a physicist then or perhaps a meteorologist eh? Climatology is a real science go ask nasa. Economics is not a science and nobody ever claimed it was.

  • You have yet to answer the questions I put to you in a previous post. Do you agree that humans are pumping millions of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere?

    Your assertion that nature is a perfect balanced system goes along way towards explaining your world view. You seem set on the assumption that nature if left will sort out this mess. However what you fail to grasp or deliberately ignore is that nature cannot adapt to this specific scenario as fast as we are creating it. We are destroying the means that nature would employ to scrub co2 from the atmosphere while we emit GHG.

    I must remind you that perfect symbiotic systems are in fact more prone to destruction as they are so finely tuned. Nature can go off balance, the Permian-Triassic as a classic case in point. A volcano in Siberia belched millions of tons of this "harmless and inert" Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere.

    This harmless and inert gas then acidified the oceans causing a mass extinction of marine life. It took nature millions of years to rebound from this great dying. Are you noticing a similarity here?

    There is plenty of proof about the correlation of co2 levels and temperature increases. This is an extremely well understood relationship.

    Pumping co2 into this delicately balanced system must have an effect, if not climate change then what? By your own logic It can't remain static as it is perfect.

    Also in relation to the proliferation of humans not damaging this perfect harmony you seem to thing nature has. On every continent that humans have expanded to, our ancestors he driven to extinction nearly all the megafauna that lived alongside them. This is a salient example of how humans can proliferate to the throw a system off balance.

    I wouldn't be bothered watching such propaganda as that.

  • as the saying goes; chemists defer to physicists, physicists defer to mathematicians, and mathematicians defer only to god (but good luck finding a mathematician humble enough to admit that)

  • At the end of the day, these arguments could go around in circles for the next 30 years. The fact that there is an argument in the first place is indictive of the real possiblity that man made climate change is a real issue.

    If there is no contingency planning for this possibly, your argument falls very short. If you are wrong, the consequences will be horrific and possibly irreversible.

  • Advertisement

  • The only propaganda here is the climate alarmism. We never hear any opposition to this so how is the video propaganda?

    Yes, I believe humans are emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Why shouldn't we? You talk as though humans are an alien life form destroying a planet that would have been otherwise great without us. Whether the earth likes us or not, we are part of it no matter what. We came from the earth, we use materials that come from the earth and then we go back to the earth at the end. There is nothing we can do that can irreversibly damage the system that we are part of.

    What about animals, they emit carbon dioxide too? And natural forest fires, and volcanoes and the oceans themselves emit carbon dioxide at an enormous rate. Human impact is a drop in the ocean.

  • This question is called "The Precautionary Principle" and has been more than adequately addressed in the video I posted in the op that you naturally didn't bother watching (see 1:07:00).

    It details how climate change policies only serve to harm the most vulnerable people in the world, not help. So with the benefit of hindsight now - we would have been much better off not doing anything in the last 20 years.

  • Other animals don’t burn fossil fuels, unless youve seen a badger driving around in a hiace and not reported it. Frankly this latest post by you shows your limited understanding of the universe and basic science.

  • That's funny coming from someone who thinks we're irreparably damaging the earth to the point of causing some kind of apocalyptic scenario in the near future

  • Advertisement

  • I don't see anything funny in what's coming in the future. Will the world end? No the world will be around for another 4 billion years when finally the Sun expands and consumes Earth, this will be around the same time the Andromeda Galaxy merges with Milkyway so who knows what will happen. In the meantime however the question is will human activities have disrupted the equilibrium that allows life as we know it to exist, unless we change yes.

  • Why shouldn't we? Because we are changing the climate it's as simple as that.

    There is plenty humanity has done to the irreversibly alter the earth. Mass extinction, deforestation, habitat destruction etc I need not list these things again. If we have driven a species to extinction by our actions then we have altered the system. Follow this to it's logical conclusion and you will find that we are more than capable of irreversibly changing the game.

    Again you misunderstand the impact humanity are making. We are not a drop in the ocean especially since we are also diminishing natural sequestration through our clearance of forests etc.

    You can't hand wave away these effects by saying animals and the oceans emit CO2. The main difference between these entirely natural effects and humanities efforts is that humans are doing it faster than nature can cope.

    I'm an not acting as if humans are an alien lifeform. We alone on the planet have the ability to shape our environment to suit us. We can alter the environment to a staggering degree and we have. We alone have the ability to pump billions of tonnes of co2 into the atmosphere far above the ability of the earth to sequester it. What we are seeing now is the effect of this imbalance.

    As a point of interest what would it take for you to reverse your view? What action or effect would need to occur for you to consider that climate change is real?

  • Please keep it civil. Me not bothering is me with a busy schedule with limited time. I'll try and watch the whole video when I get a chance.

    I had a look at that section on the precautionary principle. It's point is valid but doesn't mention anything about needless consumption in the western world on non essentials. New fitted kitchens, replacing instead of repair behaviours like binning old clothes that could be repaired, heating the whole house when spending the evening watching TV in 1 room, needless car journeys when walking an option etc. It appears the richer we are, the more we consume but that section of the video dooesn't address this.

    I think there are certain behaviours that we could adopt that wouldn't kill us that could help the envoironment. Does this needless consumption make us any happier? Some psychologists say no, due in part to the novelty factor wearing off most purchases and the fact that its making us work longer hours with more stress.

  • Who knows what archaeological remains lie scattered under the Irish and North Seas, for example.The human race has already witnessed and survived MASSIVE climate change over thousands of years, without the technology to help us adapt.

    It is not normal for the Earth's climate to remain constant for any prolonged length of time. It will change one way or the other, and back again, as it moves in and out of various long-term cycles.

    As a species we need to be pragmatic and adaptable to whatever surprises the Climate will bring, manmade or natural alike. Global warming will instantly be forgotten about if we had a cataclysmic volcanic eruption that cooled the planet, for example.

  • In order for me to change my view we would need to see sustained abnormalities in both weather and chemistry of the atmosphere i.e. outside the normal ranges of the past 5000 years at least. We're simply not seeing this.

    This bizarre trend of highlighting every weather event as being "because of human induced climate change" is as tiresome as it is pathetic. Everyone knows that statistics is a tool used to conclude whatever you want. You can come out with statements like "15 of the hottest years of the last century happened in the last 20 years". So what if this is true? We're approaching the peak of a warming cycle, I'd be far more worried if this wasn't the case.

    People's houses are not getting flooded or falling off cliffs because if climate change, they're getting flooded because of bad planning for one and also because of the luxury of most people owning cars nowadays allowing them to build in more remote locations where nobody built before.

    The planet is perfectly fine, there is no need to worry. Get out and enjoy the nice hot weather!

  • I love how all my previous statements and questions are ignored and statistical analysis is just washed away like it doesn't matter. Despite the fact that it an essential and rigourously scrutinized discipline.

    So we have established the following facts from your posts:

    Volcanoes belching co2 can alter the environment. Humans emitting the same gas on a similar scale can't.

    Nature is a perfectly balanced system that cannot be altered by human activities. Except when we drive animals extinct alter the land and poison the seas.

    Carbon dioxide is inert and harmless except that was the driver for the Permian-Triassic extinction event.

    Here is a silly question for argument's sake:

    Imagine humanity mined out all the coal/oil and natural gas there is on the planet at present and just burned it all in one evening. Would there be an effect then? You say this is a perfectly balanced system so either there would be no effect (unlikely in my opinion but what do I know) or would there be some disturbance? If so what would this be?

    Is this true? You think the space program is faked. Why this specific program? I mean why not fake the Manhattan project ? I have yet to see a nuclear missile laying waste to a city therefore it must be faked. All I have to go on is the images of Bikina atoll and Hiroshima. I mean how real could these weapons be if people are living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today.

  • The same user thinks that Newton got his physics wrong. Yeah, that Newton. not a user to be taken seriously at all.

  • That's a downright lie. I said he got some of his physics wrong that has been proven such for the last 150 years. You clearly think everything he has published is 100% correct. Ha! the ignorance. It's no wonder people swallow the climate change agenda so easily.

    Funny how the conspiracy theory weirdos come out of the cave to mount a smear of my character rather than debate fairly using facts and figures. A common tool of the desperate.

  • Advertisement

  • What makes you think humans are burning fossil fuels at a rate that's equivalent to volcanoes? That's an outrageous assumption. There have been many studies of ice samples cut from glaciers that show carbon levels twice as high as they are now prior to the industrial revolution.

    Secondly, I never said that volcanoes alter the climate, you are simply twisting my words now to suit your argument. I brought up volcanoes and natural forest fires as an example of how burning fossil fuels has absolutely no impact on the climate.

    You assume humans are like a virus that have depleted the earths resources, cut down the majority of the forests and are destroying the planet. This is simply not the case. The earth is so much bigger than you think.

  • what facts and figures? you never posted anything. you just said he was wrong. you never even specified how.

  • Yes but the plan to combat climate change will also be horrific: monitoring/surveillance, banning or strongly limiting cars, banning meat consumption, possible rolling blackouts, possible 'climate lockdowns', turning the country into a tax farm, scapegoating of 'deniers' and general insane viscous political demagoguery.

  • You can literally see the ISS and satellites if you look up during the night. How could someone possibly believe that they aren't real?

  • How do you think we should drastically reduce Co2 output? I mean there isn't going to be any easy way without any sacrifice.

  • The problem is that the sacrifice is draconian and disproportionately affects people without any real idea of how it will benefit anything.

  • well even if climate change isn't influenced by man, the rate we're consuming at has to stop eventually or the planet will be stripped bare. We need to stop being governed by short term politics that are heavily influenced by business.

  • Either the largest industrial polluters should be hit at the source or why even talk about the issue?

    Subjecting individual people to total bureaucratic micro-control is transparently and laughably wrong. We see this 'Sovietisation' justified from multiple angles now - 'health', 'gender relations' etc.

    Also wrong is people committing genetic suicide, pledging not to have children basically, because they are so demoralised. Darwin award winners in fact though they don't of themselves in those terms I'm sure.

  • Advertisement

  • But we are burning millions of tonnes of fossil fuels and emitting carbon at a rate comparable to a volcano.

    Volcanoes and forest fires will absolutely effect climate. here is an example of a volcanic eruption directly effecting the climate of Europe in not 2 centuries ago. This is also an example of the fragility of the earth. You seemed to think that the earth is a vast limitless space for humans to expand upon and consume from. To think that we cannot have a marked difference upon the earth in spite of all the evidence to the contrary is startling.

    What do you think will happen of we continue to release carbon into the atmosphere?

    Edited for clarity