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

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.

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?

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 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 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

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 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?

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.

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.

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 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.

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.