Climate change

[Federberg]

Thought I would post this thread here. This issue merits its own thread...

 

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/arnold-schwarzenegger-might-have-come-up-with-a-foolproof-argument-against-climate-change-deniers--by4N4bmrK9x?utm_source=indy&utm_medium=top5&utm_campaign=i100

 

go Arnie!

 

[britbox]

I'm not a climate change denier... because there has been constant climate change throughout history... but I certainly believe the impact of mankind on climate change is minimal.

Not sure how many cars were on the road during several ice ages and subsequent global warmings, but I'd hazard a guess that there were zero.

 

[Federberg]

Agreed. The global climate has evolved over time. But the scientific data suggests that the only times it has changed as rapidly as it is currently has been during global catastrophe's. There is evidence of a super volcano in the past, as well as meteorite hits, that have caused tremendous change. But this is new..

 

[britbox]

What's new?

 

[Federberg]

A species has created a catastrophic event. This is not a natural disaster causes global temperature change

 

[britbox]

Temperatures have been changing constantly thoughout history.  They'll change if no human species existed. Climate change is non-stop and my personal view is that the impact of mankind on temperature is negligible when compared with nature.

Let's look at Arnie's claims...

7 million have died of pollution... You won't find 7 million documents stating cause of death as pollution.  You probably won't find any. These claims are always suppositions.

Every day, 19,000 people die from pollution from fossil fuels.  Ditto above.  My grandfather was a coal miner.  His lungs were F***** but he would have been included in that statistic whatever age he would have lived to.  He could have lived until he was 120 and he'd still be in that statistic.

I'm in favour of green energy solutions, reducing pollution but most of these statistics you could just pull out of a hat.

 

[Moxie]

Temperatures have been changing constantly thoughout history. They’ll change if no human species existed. Climate change is non-stop and my personal view is that the impact of mankind on temperature is negligible when compared with nature. Let’s look at Arnie’s claims… 7 million have died of pollution… You won’t find 7 million documents stating cause of death as pollution. You probably won’t find any. These claims are always suppositions. Every day, 19,000 people die from pollution from fossil fuels. Ditto above. My grandfather was a coal miner. His lungs were F***** but he would have been included in that statistic whatever age he would have lived to. He could have lived until he was 120 and he’d still be in that statistic. I’m in favour of green energy solutions, reducing pollution but most of these statistics you could just pull out of a hat.

I'm really not clear what your POV is, BB.  You say that you don't deny climate change, but you do reject the human influence on it, while at the same time agreeing that we should find green solutions, and reduce pollution.  I guess what you're saying is that the warming of the planet is due to natural causes, and cannot be staunched, then?  That the glaciers are receding, the tides are rising, the El Niños becoming more frequent and stronger, like the hurricanes and superstorms that we've suffered in the US...and this is all something we should lay-down and take, because it's just nature.  The influence of man-made pollution, which contributes to the greenhouse gases, along with deforestation, would have nothing to do with the rather rapid warming effect on the earth, then, in your estimation.  You live in Australia, which has a huge hole in its ozone layer.  Is that just naturally-occuring?  If so, you're pretty much saying "tough shit" for the lower-lying areas of the world, and those of us who are suffering more frequent and violent storms.  Nothing we can do?  Then why bother with green energy solutions, which you're in favor of?

 

[britbox]

I'm not sure how I can make my point of view any clearer...

a) Yes, I agree there is climate change.  There always has been.  We've been through ice ages, mini ace ages, global warming throughout the history of the planet.

b) I think the influence of mankind in climate change is real but very minimal compared to mother nature.

c) The statistics bandied around as facts are impossible to prove.  Death certificates don't say Cause of Death: Pollution, because it's impossible to prove.  If you can't prove it for one person then how does a figure of 19,000 daily stack up?  It doesn't. Neither does 7 million.

d) I like Green Energy because it's clean and often renewable and oil and coal are limited resources... and yes, pollution does have an impact on the local area but IMO minimal impact on climate change (relatively speaking in relation to mother nature).

Regarding Ozone layer holes - you know it's size changes in relation to the seasons? Those seasons are governed by the planet orbiting the sun.

I am very wary taking many "statistics" relating to health or green issues literally. There are fanatics on some of these issues that have even called for people disputing climate change to be imprisoned.

 

 

 

[Federberg]

By the way it's really funny, I'm starting to get a sense that some on these boards are reading me as some sort of lefty liberal hippie. Which would be hilarious. I'll have to tell my friends and family that some people perceive me as such. They'll choke with laughter. It couldn't be further from the truth!

 

Personally I believe in the rule of law, small government which does not interfere in either my financial or social life. I am a libertarian if you will (very different from liberal! Don't get me started on central banks B-) ). I also strongly believe that individuals and corporates should be held responsible for their actions. So, for example, if companies pollute they should pay for it. I find it highly unsatisfactory that companies are effectively being subsidised because the environmental cost of their activities are not being taxed properly. If that was done this planet would be much greener!

 

[Federberg]

I’m not sure how I can make my point of view any clearer… a) Yes, I agree there is climate change. There always has been. We’ve been through ice ages, mini ace ages, global warming throughout the history of the planet. b) I think the influence of mankind in climate change is real but very minimal compared to mother nature. c) The statistics bandied around as facts are impossible to prove. Death certificates don’t say Cause of Death: Pollution, because it’s impossible to prove. If you can’t prove it for one person then how does a figure of 19,000 daily stack up? It doesn’t. Neither does 7 million. d) I like Green Energy because it’s clean and often renewable and oil and coal are limited resources… and yes, pollution does have an impact on the local area but IMO minimal impact on climate change (relatively speaking in relation to mother nature). Regarding Ozone layer holes – you know it’s size changes in relation to the seasons? Those seasons are governed by the planet orbiting the sun. I am very wary taking many “statistics” relating to health or green issues literally. There are fanatics on some of these issues that have even called for people disputing climate change to be imprisoned.

I have a lot of sympathy for your view BB. But the cost of being wrong is too high

 

[britbox]

Well, one stat I have total confidence in @federberg is that everybody dies and the average life expectancy is increasing year on year. @Moxie, regardless of Ozone Holes, Australia has the joint second highest life expectancy on the planet. History tells us that disease and war are by far the biggest killers of mankind.

Resources are decreasing, People are increasing. I'm more interested in if the two are compatible?

 

 

[Federberg]

Well, one stat I have total confidence in @federberg is that everybody dies and the average life expectancy is increasing year on year. @Moxie, regardless of Ozone Holes, Australia has the joint second highest life expectancy on the planet. History tells us that disease and war are by far the biggest killers of mankind. Resources are decreasing, People are increasing. I’m more interested in if the two are compatible?

That doesn't disprove climate change brought on by humans mate. As an aside I do worry about unfettered population growth. The best way to solve that problem is for poorer countries to be helped to advance economically. It seems the richer the country the lower the population growth

 

[britbox]

britbox wrote:
Well, one stat I have total confidence in @federberg is that everybody dies and the average life expectancy is increasing year on year. @Moxie, regardless of Ozone Holes, Australia has the joint second highest life expectancy on the planet. History tells us that disease and war are by far the biggest killers of mankind. Resources are decreasing, People are increasing. I’m more interested in if the two are compatible?

That doesn’t disprove climate change brought on by humans mate. As an aside I do worry about unfettered population growth. The best way to solve that problem is for poorer countries to be helped to advance economically. It seems the richer the country the lower the population growth

It wasn't intended to (kind of a different discussion), but can we agree that their is climate change with or without humans? and the biggest climate changes throughout history have not been related to humans at all?

 

[Federberg]

Federberg wrote:
<blockquote>
britbox wrote:
Well, one stat I have total confidence in @federberg is that everybody dies and the average life expectancy is increasing year on year. @Moxie, regardless of Ozone Holes, Australia has the joint second highest life expectancy on the planet. History tells us that disease and war are by far the biggest killers of mankind. Resources are decreasing, People are increasing. I’m more interested in if the two are compatible?

That doesn’t disprove climate change brought on by humans mate. As an aside I do worry about unfettered population growth. The best way to solve that problem is for poorer countries to be helped to advance economically. It seems the richer the country the lower the population growth</blockquote>
It wasn’t intended to (kind of a different discussion), but can we agree that their is climate change with or without humans? and the biggest climate changes throughout history have not been related to humans at all?

That's an easy thing to agree mate. But again it still doesn't speak to the fact that those were natural phenomena. What is happening now is being compounded by the fact that we are not changing our ways and as you've mentioned the human population is rising which is putting ever greater strain on the planets resources. If you are happy with that then that's fine. I'm not. Nor am I happy that we have destroyed the habitats of species which have now become extinct. This is one of the main issues for me. Scientists are already calling the last 5 decades one of the great periods of mass extinction the planet has ever seen. And that has nothing to do with climate change. What treasures are we losing (or lost already) without even comprehending. It is utterly depressing. I can appreciate your position, even though I don't agree with it, because at least I don't believe there is any self interest attached to it. But there are people out there with access to better information than we have, who are selfishly putting their narrow self interest ahead of future generations. I can only hope that there's a special hell designed specifically for those type of people

 

[britbox]

britbox wrote:
<blockquote>
Federberg wrote:
<blockquote>
britbox wrote:
Well, one stat I have total confidence in @federberg is that everybody dies and the average life expectancy is increasing year on year. @Moxie, regardless of Ozone Holes, Australia has the joint second highest life expectancy on the planet. History tells us that disease and war are by far the biggest killers of mankind. Resources are decreasing, People are increasing. I’m more interested in if the two are compatible?

That doesn’t disprove climate change brought on by humans mate. As an aside I do worry about unfettered population growth. The best way to solve that problem is for poorer countries to be helped to advance economically. It seems the richer the country the lower the population growth</blockquote>
It wasn’t intended to (kind of a different discussion), but can we agree that their is climate change with or without humans? and the biggest climate changes throughout history have not been related to humans at all?</blockquote>
That’s an easy thing to agree mate. But again it still doesn’t speak to the fact that those were natural phenomena. What is happening now is being compounded by the fact that we are not changing our ways and as you’ve mentioned the human population is rising which is putting ever greater strain on the planets resources. If you are happy with that then that’s fine. I’m not. Nor am I happy that we have destroyed the habitats of species which have now become extinct. This is one of the main issues for me. Scientists are already calling the last 5 decades one of the great periods of mass extinction the planet has ever seen. And that has nothing to do with climate change. What treasures are we losing (or lost already) without even comprehending. It is utterly depressing. I can appreciate your position, even though I don’t agree with it, because at least I don’t believe there is any self interest attached to it. But there are people out there with access to better information than we have, who are selfishly putting their narrow self interest ahead of future generations. I can only hope that there’s a special hell designed specifically for those type of people

Well my point is that climate change even now is more about natural phenomena than humans.  If we're agreed that climate change throughout the ages has been natural based on solar and lunar movements, together with natural eruptions and that the Earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 4.6 billion years old depending on your view, then I don't buy that during the last century alone everything stood still and we can put all this stuff down to human custody of the planet.

Also extinction of species has happened throughout the ages without human intervention. But I take your point on this issue to a degree.

Mankind overrates itself IMO in relation to mother nature.

 

 

[Federberg]

Federberg wrote:
<blockquote>
britbox wrote:
<blockquote>
Federberg wrote:
<blockquote>
britbox wrote:
Well, one stat I have total confidence in @federberg is that everybody dies and the average life expectancy is increasing year on year. @Moxie, regardless of Ozone Holes, Australia has the joint second highest life expectancy on the planet. History tells us that disease and war are by far the biggest killers of mankind. Resources are decreasing, People are increasing. I’m more interested in if the two are compatible?

That doesn’t disprove climate change brought on by humans mate. As an aside I do worry about unfettered population growth. The best way to solve that problem is for poorer countries to be helped to advance economically. It seems the richer the country the lower the population growth</blockquote>
It wasn’t intended to (kind of a different discussion), but can we agree that their is climate change with or without humans? and the biggest climate changes throughout history have not been related to humans at all?</blockquote>
That’s an easy thing to agree mate. But again it still doesn’t speak to the fact that those were natural phenomena. What is happening now is being compounded by the fact that we are not changing our ways and as you’ve mentioned the human population is rising which is putting ever greater strain on the planets resources. If you are happy with that then that’s fine. I’m not. Nor am I happy that we have destroyed the habitats of species which have now become extinct. This is one of the main issues for me. Scientists are already calling the last 5 decades one of the great periods of mass extinction the planet has ever seen. And that has nothing to do with climate change. What treasures are we losing (or lost already) without even comprehending. It is utterly depressing. I can appreciate your position, even though I don’t agree with it, because at least I don’t believe there is any self interest attached to it. But there are people out there with access to better information than we have, who are selfishly putting their narrow self interest ahead of future generations. I can only hope that there’s a special hell designed specifically for those type of people</blockquote>
Well my point is that climate change even now is more about natural phenomena than humans. If we’re agreed that climate change throughout the ages has been natural based on solar and lunar movements, together with natural eruptions and that the Earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 4.6 billion years old depending on your view, then I don’t buy that during the last century alone everything stood still and we can put all this stuff down to human custody of the planet. Also extinction of species has happened throughout the ages without human intervention. But I take your point on this issue to a degree. Mankind overrates itself IMO in relation to mother nature.

Hahaha! That's too funny. Do you really believe that scientists are making these statements without normalising for natural climate change? Speaking as an engineer by training I don't believe that to be the case. The academic research I've read on this subject is compelling. There is no question that there has been some data that's been corrupted by the Greens, but the pure science is incontrovertible. When humanity has decimated huge swathes of forest in the past few decades, and flares vast amouts of natural gas for decades, I can't understand how anyone would question that there is evidence of a global impact. And that's the least of what we've done in the industrial age

 

[britbox]

britbox wrote:
<blockquote>
Federberg wrote:
<blockquote>
britbox wrote:
<blockquote>
Federberg wrote:
<blockquote>
britbox wrote:
Well, one stat I have total confidence in @federberg is that everybody dies and the average life expectancy is increasing year on year. @Moxie, regardless of Ozone Holes, Australia has the joint second highest life expectancy on the planet. History tells us that disease and war are by far the biggest killers of mankind. Resources are decreasing, People are increasing. I’m more interested in if the two are compatible?

That doesn’t disprove climate change brought on by humans mate. As an aside I do worry about unfettered population growth. The best way to solve that problem is for poorer countries to be helped to advance economically. It seems the richer the country the lower the population growth</blockquote>
It wasn’t intended to (kind of a different discussion), but can we agree that their is climate change with or without humans? and the biggest climate changes throughout history have not been related to humans at all?</blockquote>
That’s an easy thing to agree mate. But again it still doesn’t speak to the fact that those were natural phenomena. What is happening now is being compounded by the fact that we are not changing our ways and as you’ve mentioned the human population is rising which is putting ever greater strain on the planets resources. If you are happy with that then that’s fine. I’m not. Nor am I happy that we have destroyed the habitats of species which have now become extinct. This is one of the main issues for me. Scientists are already calling the last 5 decades one of the great periods of mass extinction the planet has ever seen. And that has nothing to do with climate change. What treasures are we losing (or lost already) without even comprehending. It is utterly depressing. I can appreciate your position, even though I don’t agree with it, because at least I don’t believe there is any self interest attached to it. But there are people out there with access to better information than we have, who are selfishly putting their narrow self interest ahead of future generations. I can only hope that there’s a special hell designed specifically for those type of people</blockquote>
Well my point is that climate change even now is more about natural phenomena than humans. If we’re agreed that climate change throughout the ages has been natural based on solar and lunar movements, together with natural eruptions and that the Earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 4.6 billion years old depending on your view, then I don’t buy that during the last century alone everything stood still and we can put all this stuff down to human custody of the planet. Also extinction of species has happened throughout the ages without human intervention. But I take your point on this issue to a degree. Mankind overrates itself IMO in relation to mother nature.</blockquote>
Hahaha! That’s too funny. Do you really believe that scientists are making these statements without normalising for natural climate change? Speaking as an engineer by training I don’t believe that to be the case. The academic research I’ve read on this subject is compelling. There is no question that there has been some data that’s been corrupted by the Greens, but the pure science is incontrovertible. When humanity has decimated huge swathes of forest in the past few decades, and flares vast amouts of natural gas for decades, I can’t understand how anyone would question that there is evidence of a global impact. And that’s the least of what we’ve done in the industrial age

Science is never exact unless it's binary. Mainly it's about a journey of discovery and the data changes all the time.  The world was once flat right?

Scientists usually have agendas too - they have to secure funding to carry out the research in the first place.

Are you aware that the biggest ever study into passive smoking - 118,000 Californians over a twenty period revealed that the difference in life expectancy was virtually zero between partners of smokers and non-smokers of a similar demographic and socio-economic background? Yet, that data is dismissed by the World Health Organization who insist x amounts of passive smokers die each year because they've lived in that environment? Again, you won't find a death certificate with Death: Caused by Passive Smoking ever... because you can't prove it and never will be able to.

Are you also aware that the data collected by the University in Anglia regarding climate change was "lost" because it refuted a lot of claims relating to climate change?

Be as wary of scientists as you are of politicians my friend... money doesn't only make the world of lawmakers revolve....

 

[britbox]

britbox wrote:
<blockquote>
Federberg wrote:
<blockquote>
britbox wrote:
<blockquote>
Federberg wrote:
<blockquote>
britbox wrote:
Well, one stat I have total confidence in @federberg is that everybody dies and the average life expectancy is increasing year on year. @Moxie, regardless of Ozone Holes, Australia has the joint second highest life expectancy on the planet. History tells us that disease and war are by far the biggest killers of mankind. Resources are decreasing, People are increasing. I’m more interested in if the two are compatible?

That doesn’t disprove climate change brought on by humans mate. As an aside I do worry about unfettered population growth. The best way to solve that problem is for poorer countries to be helped to advance economically. It seems the richer the country the lower the population growth</blockquote>
It wasn’t intended to (kind of a different discussion), but can we agree that their is climate change with or without humans? and the biggest climate changes throughout history have not been related to humans at all?</blockquote>
That’s an easy thing to agree mate. But again it still doesn’t speak to the fact that those were natural phenomena. What is happening now is being compounded by the fact that we are not changing our ways and as you’ve mentioned the human population is rising which is putting ever greater strain on the planets resources. If you are happy with that then that’s fine. I’m not. Nor am I happy that we have destroyed the habitats of species which have now become extinct. This is one of the main issues for me. Scientists are already calling the last 5 decades one of the great periods of mass extinction the planet has ever seen. And that has nothing to do with climate change. What treasures are we losing (or lost already) without even comprehending. It is utterly depressing. I can appreciate your position, even though I don’t agree with it, because at least I don’t believe there is any self interest attached to it. But there are people out there with access to better information than we have, who are selfishly putting their narrow self interest ahead of future generations. I can only hope that there’s a special hell designed specifically for those type of people</blockquote>
Well my point is that climate change even now is more about natural phenomena than humans. If we’re agreed that climate change throughout the ages has been natural based on solar and lunar movements, together with natural eruptions and that the Earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 4.6 billion years old depending on your view, then I don’t buy that during the last century alone everything stood still and we can put all this stuff down to human custody of the planet. Also extinction of species has happened throughout the ages without human intervention. But I take your point on this issue to a degree. Mankind overrates itself IMO in relation to mother nature.</blockquote>
Hahaha! That’s too funny. Do you really believe that scientists are making these statements without normalising for natural climate change? Speaking as an engineer by training I don’t believe that to be the case. The academic research I’ve read on this subject is compelling. There is no question that there has been some data that’s been corrupted by the Greens, but the pure science is incontrovertible. When humanity has decimated huge swathes of forest in the past few decades, and flares vast amouts of natural gas for decades, I can’t understand how anyone would question that there is evidence of a global impact. And that’s the least of what we’ve done in the industrial age

Scientists don't know enough about climate change to even start... we can't even predict the weather and when we do it's reactive to what's happening already.

 

[Federberg]

I'm as cynical as the next person. And I do agree that scientist also have agendas. But, again, I repeat... even if there is uncertainty surrounding the veracity of these claims, the cost is too high if the claims are correct. Ask yourself this question... why are the vastly more scientists arguing the case of climate change rather than the opposite? Particularly when you consider that there are many self serving companies that would love to have scientific backing giving them license to pollute.

 

As to the lack of knowledge about weather forecasting, that's an entirely different issue. That doesn't refute evidence of human impact on our environment

 

[britbox]

I’m as cynical as the next person. And I do agree that scientist also have agendas. But, again, I repeat… even if there is uncertainty surrounding the veracity of these claims, the cost is too high if the claims are correct. Ask yourself this question… why are the vastly more scientists arguing the case of climate change rather than the opposite? Particularly when you consider that there are many self serving companies that would love to have scientific backing giving them license to pollute. As to the lack of knowledge about weather forecasting, that’s an entirely different issue. That doesn’t refute evidence of human impact on our environment

Well mate, life is about uncertainty... if you live on the premise that you can't do something because "it may have detrimental blowback" then you wouldn't do a damn thing.

I take issue with the "vastly" interpretation... people are sheeple... most go with the flow. As I mentioned earlier, there are groups in society who want "climate change" deniers imprisoned. As I also said from the "get go", people do impact the environment, but the environment impact them more. The term lunacy came from somewhere.