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

dense · 09-10-2018 09:30PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Thats true. If you were the only one producing CO2, there wouldn't be a problem. It's because there are billions of us producing these emissions (some more wastefully than others) that we have a problem.

Individual action can not be the solution to this problem. It requires global collective action.

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.

Niles Crane · 09-10-2018 09:34PM

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.

He used the word "Us " in his post.

Us would include himself I imagine.

Water John · 09-10-2018 09:35PM

You're attempt to somersault what Akrasia is saying, reaches Trumpian levels.
It's quite clear he/she is saying it requires much more than individual optional action. This doesn't lessen our each individual responsibility.

dense · 09-10-2018 09:40PM

Niles Crane wrote: »

You fail to understand the point I was making.

If during the second world war when they had brought in rationing in the UK in order to help the war effort but essentially it was up to you whether you consumed less meat,sugar, fruit ,electricity and all the other stuff that was restricted and there was no regulations over what you did and no enforcement of anything do you think

A) people would have done the right thing and consumed less or

people would have carried on as they were because they saw their neighbours weren't making the effort so why the hell should they suffer if no-one else was.

I suspect that option B is what would have happened and it's what happens in all cases when it's left up to individuals by themselves without enforcement to do "the right thing" (whatever that my be).

If governments don't bring in regulations or change the way the world works and accept it has to change and regulations have to be brought in to change it then people will not be making any changes regardless of whether it is the right thing to do or not.

People are inherently selfish always have been and always will be.

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?

Franz Von Peppercorn · 09-10-2018 09:44PM

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?

He isn’t refusing to ration his emissions.

SEPT 23 1989 · 09-10-2018 09:45PM

A terrible thing not to have faith in your children and grandchildren that they cant find a way

cnocbui · 09-10-2018 09:46PM

Akrasia wrote: »

We have a good enough understanding for the purposes of using this as a reference point.

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

Water John · 09-10-2018 09:48PM

But we are borrowing the finite resources of the earth from those next generations. Our use rates are not sustainable.

Austria! · 09-10-2018 11:44PM

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.

A compelling thesis

Roger_007 · 10-10-2018 12:10AM

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.

Dohnjoe · 10-10-2018 12:46AM

Roger_007 wrote: »

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.

Pretty much yeah, we also discovered we could put a whopping great hole in the Ozone layer in a relatively short space of time

Thankfully we did something about that

dense · 10-10-2018 01:04AM

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 · 10-10-2018 04:32AM

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 · 10-10-2018 06:43AM

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 · 10-10-2018 06:45AM

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 · 10-10-2018 07:20AM

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 · 10-10-2018 08:15AM

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 · 10-10-2018 09:49AM

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 · 10-10-2018 10:08AM

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 · 10-10-2018 10:14AM

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 · 10-10-2018 10:27AM

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 · 10-10-2018 10:35AM

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 · 10-10-2018 10:50AM

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 · 10-10-2018 10:51AM

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 · 10-10-2018 10:51AM

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?

Akrasia · 10-10-2018 10:59AM

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 · 10-10-2018 10:59AM

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 · 10-10-2018 11:02AM

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 · 10-10-2018 11:18AM

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 · 10-10-2018 11:26AM

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

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

Comments