General / Off-Topic Recycle or Die! (the elite environmental thread)

I read the articles - all are in the context of locations with increased rainfall. I completely agree that in those areas, mosquito vectored diseases will spread. Mosquito born diseases are also spreading due to evolutionary adaptations in the mosquitos themselves. In areas projected to have increased temperatures with decreased rainfall, we will not see an increase in mosquito vector diseases.

With respect to the rate. Are you suggesting that the current rate of carbon addition by humans will continue without restriction (even without carbon taxes on peanutbutter sandwiches)? Of course it will not.

As populations industrialize, inflection points occur with birth rates and the need for the dirtiest energy producing fuels. During this time progression efficiency and cleaner energy technologies will develop, and replace older dirtier technologies. The atmosphere is going to get a whole lot more CO2 until central and south america, africa, india, and asia indulstrialize. That process will not be stopped. The rate will increase, but it is going to inflect.

If you extend your logic about not having children because of the terrible awful world we will leave them, then I suppose no one should have reproduced during the dark ages when things were actually bad, or the younger dryas when we had ridiculous mega fauna and human die offs. Irrespective of the current environmental circumstances, organisms that care about their line do reproduce.

And yeah - there are nutjobs that are going childless in the US to reduce their carbon footprint. I guess that's a good thing, because they will wipe themselves out.
How's that a bad thing? Why are you so concerned about others not having kids?
 
Speaking to driving people away" when left wing loons or sjw's or assorted activists promote that the world is going to be unsaveable in the next twelve years or less, or that Montana is a toxic wasteland or that people who eat hamburgers are the reason the planet is dying, plenty of folks take one look at that extremism, shake their heads and walk away in the opposite direction. In short, to people such as myself, almost every environmental activist out their are so crackpot crazy and snake in the grass mean that there's no way in Hell we're ever going to agree with you on jack poopoo. In short, you guys are preaching to the choir, but in the process driving reasonable people who happen to be skeptical further and further away.
What they say, "we have twelve years to limit global average temperature increase to 1.5C and if we don't these actually bad things are actually going to happen", and you read "the world is going to be unsavable in the next twelve years", you are indulging in such an extreme degree of hyperbole that you've distorted the actual statement beyond recognition.

Others can only control what they say, not what you hear. When most of the people you're criticizing look at what you claim to be criticizing them for and don't recognize it as something they've said, the issue is probably you.

I read the articles - all are in the context of locations with increased rainfall. I completely agree that in those areas, mosquito vectored diseases will spread. Mosquito born diseases are also spreading due to evolutionary adaptations in the mosquitos themselves. In areas projected to have increased temperatures with decreased rainfall, we will not see an increase in mosquito vector diseases.
Yes, and most predictions have the balance of such changes resulting in more transmission to more humans, with all the resulting problems that would entail.

The whole crux of the argument for climate change being an issue are problems like these and the issues they excaserbate. Things that will have the net effect of increased mortality and decreased economic production. Human problems. The ancient or far future history of the biosphere is not really of concern to policy makers and the fact that Earth wouldn't even have been habitable for humans for the first several billion years of it's history is neither here nor there.

With respect to the rate. Are you suggesting that the current rate of carbon addition by humans will continue without restriction (even without carbon taxes on peanutbutter sandwiches)?
I didn't even come close to addressing such a topic.

I was talking about how you seemed to arrived at the conclusion that cyanobacteria had a greater impact on our atmosphere than humanity, which is only accurate if you are talking about events hundreds of millions of years past that took dozens of millions of years to play out. If you went back in time to 1900 or so and could remove either cyanobacteria or humanity, removing the later would result in a far larger impact on today's atmosphere. This is not to say that cyanobacteria did not radically reshape Earth's earlier atmosphere, or that their total contribution over the course of the history of the planet isn't far greater than humanity's, but the rate at which they respirate is no match for the rate at which we can burn stuff or transform land. As the conclusion to every serious report on question of anthropomorphic climate change states, we are the dominant force driving current warming trends...and the largest single reason for that is the extreme rate at which we have been dumping CO2 in to the atmosphere.

As populations industrialize, inflection points occur with birth rates and the need for the dirtiest energy producing fuels. During this time progression efficiency and cleaner energy technologies will develop, and replace older dirtier technologies. The atmosphere is going to get a whole lot more CO2 until central and south america, africa, india, and asia indulstrialize. That process will not be stopped. The rate will increase, but it is going to inflect.
Not in dispute.

If you extend your logic about not having children because of the terrible awful world we will leave them, then I suppose no one should have reproduced during the dark ages when things were actually bad, or the younger dryas when we had ridiculous mega fauna and human die offs.
It's not my place to tell anyone if they should have children or not.

Irrespective of the current environmental circumstances, organisms that care about their line do reproduce.
Reproduction for most humans, and essentially everything else, is hardly as deliberate as you make this sound. Most people aren't terribly focused on lineage and humans are, as far as we know, the only species with members even capable of grasping the concept.
 
I guess I'm one of the crackpot crazies. That kind of depends on the perspective. If science is right, and science is normally mostly right, then we have a major problem. In that case, ignoring the problem seems crazy to me. I live in Denmark, and recently a politician here introduced the term "klimatosse", which can be roughly translated into "climate crackpot", thereby creating a whole new prosperous market:

142475
 
@Greg Rulz ok relevance of your last post, please? I know you guys like to accuse me of talking about stuff that has no bearing but come on mate, that's just silly.
Well, if two independent people accused you several times of the same thing you should probably consider being wrong and correcting it, and no, pointing out fallacies isn't silly, if anything, we are showing your mistakes which is something valuable that is if you know how to act.

About the last post, it's just for fun.
 
Well, if two independent people accused you several times of the same thing you should probably consider being wrong and correcting it, and no, pointing out fallacies isn't silly, if anything, we are showing your mistakes which is something valuable that is if you know how to act.

About the last post, it's just for fun.
You and Patrick accusing me of being wrong let's me know I'm on the right track. And I'm just waiting for Zak to lecture you two on how off topic you constantly go with your personal attacks of me, but I guess he has a double standard:)
 
You and Patrick accusing me of being wrong let's me know I'm on the right track. And I'm just waiting for Zak to lecture you two on how off topic you constantly go with your personal attacks of me, but I guess he has a double standard:)
Pointing out logical mistakes and factual errors is not attaking, if anything, I'm providing you the oportunity to improve and learn which is more of an altruistic action.
 
A sign of the new normal for many of us going forward:

'Summer heatwaves in France killed 1,500, says health minister':


Two heatwaves that hit France this summer claimed more than 1,500 more lives, health minister Agnes Buzyn has said.

The toll was significantly lower than the disastrous summer of 2003, when an estimated 15,000 people died during an August heatwave.

“We have 1,500 deaths recorded more than the average for these months, so that’s 10 times fewer deaths than the 2003 heatwave,” Buzyn told French radio.

This year’s heatwaves hit France in June and July, with a new record temperature of 46 degrees Celsius (114.8 degrees Fahrenheit) recorded in the south on 28 June.

While the 2003 heatwave lasted 20 days in all, this year’s lasted for 18, in two separate heatwaves, the second covering a large part of France, Buzyn added.

The authorities’ preventive measures helped keep the death rate well below the high numbers experienced in 2003, she added.

The 2003 heatwave was the deadliest recorded in France, with the central and Paris regions hardest hit.
I was on holiday in Brittany at the time and experienced that 46 degrees C and you could feel the heat in the air temp that had apparently been blown up from the Sahara. I certainly would not have wanted to be an outdoor worker (or working full-stop!) or either sick, very young or very old in that heat. Without the air-con in the car (and holiday rental home luckily) it would have been a very uncomfortable holiday indeed.

I had experienced about the same heat in the arabian deserts before, and also have experience of tropical heat-waves (about 40 degrees in Indonesia over a decade ago), but really it was the jump from northern european normal (so about 27 degrees C) to hot desert temps pretty much overnight and the discomfort in the body having to adjust so rapidly. These are not normal weather events. AGW is real and happening right before our eyes, and this is just the beginning (least severe!) of AGW climate change events.

Spare a thought for those 1500 souls and their families they leave behind please.
 
A sign of the new normal for many of us going forward:

'Summer heatwaves in France killed 1,500, says health minister':




I was on holiday in Brittany at the time and experienced that 46 degrees C and you could feel the heat in the air temp that had apparently been blown up from the Sahara. I certainly would not have wanted to be an outdoor worker (or working full-stop!) or either sick, very young or very old in that heat. Without the air-con in the car (and holiday rental home luckily) it would have been a very uncomfortable holiday indeed.

I had experienced about the same heat in the arabian deserts before, and also have experience of tropical heat-waves (about 40 degrees in Indonesia over a decade ago), but really it was the jump from northern european normal (so about 27 degrees C) to hot desert temps pretty much overnight and the discomfort in the body having to adjust so rapidly. These are not normal weather events. AGW is real and happening right before our eyes, and this is just the beginning (least severe!) of AGW climate change events.

Spare a thought for those 1500 souls and their families they leave behind please.
And the minister is happy that there are "only" 1500 deaths compared to the 15000 deaths in France during the heat wave of 2003.

Our rulers are truly incompetent. They should take drastic action against global warming, instead of mitigating human disasters.
 
This!


(Btw. No one will stop pretending. We would be "gently caressed" without our illusions.)
An excellent reading.

If the humanity is not able to react seriously, the nature will take the responsibility for eradicating us.

A few billion less humans will allow a regeneration of our beautiful planet with its flora and fauna.


But we must keep the hope of an immense awareness of the current problems at the global level.
 
An excellent reading.

If the humanity is not able to react seriously, the nature will take the responsibility for eradicating us.

A few billion less humans will allow a regeneration of our beautiful planet with its flora and fauna.


But we must keep the hope of an immense awareness of the current problems at the global level.
Judging from the reactions on Twitter et al, Franzen really stepped on a sore toe with this one.

Source: https://twitter.com/NewYorker/status/1170730567610093568


It might not come as a big surprise that I personally believe that a collapse of the Earth system is inevitable. Not that we can't fix global warming. Hypothetically we could all reduce our carbon footprint to 1.5 T per capita. That's the average carbon footprint in India, and many people in India survive like that. However, I find it highly unlikely. Some call it human nature. Personally I see the Earth as a system, which resembles an Imperial Cutter with very weak thrusters (and no shield generator). It continues going in the current direction until it smashes into something.
 
Somewhat related to the environment but more so conservation.... A local farmer to my inlaws has come up with a novel way of getting rid of their animal waste after meat processing...... and also helping some indangered animals.

They have various pure breed crocodiles, some of which are very rare, and they are fed purely on the animal offal etc. If i am honest I question their claim that it helps the environment - due to it being difficult to dispose of the waste apparently - however it must take a LOT of energy to heat their giant Vivarium which i reckon any environmental savings will be lost here.

but it will be a +1 for rearing endangered animals.....

If nothing else however it is a great afternoon out with the kids, free entry and they have the most amazing farm shop (great marketing too, we spent over £60 there what with the farmshop, and having lunch there at their tea room..... They have a steak house too.

The above is really just a bit of fun rather than me really thinking it will help much..... but definitely worth a visit if you are in the area and have kids at the preschool/early school age. (say 3-6)
 
This!


(Btw. No one will stop pretending. We would be "gently caressed" without our illusions.)
This is a decent summation of everything that is wrong in this topic. The second paragraph is suggesting cataclysmic climate-related outcomes within ~ 20 years of now - which is complete and utter balderdash and simply can not be substantiated.

@Morbad - take note for the next time you say that these claims aren't being made. Because they patently are.
 
Thanks Wecomeinpeace, that article pretty much made my case that I've been arguing for the last three weeks or so, every since you guys started promoting thought policing as a means to combat climate change. I especially like the part where he calls those who are either skeptical or moderate in their beliefs "evil R-words." The climate change narrative thrives on casting blame castigating bad guys and promoting a "doomsday-ish" approach, doesn't it?

Anyway, thanks for the share.
 
Last edited:
@Talarin

Where exactly is it that you read "cataclysmic climate-related outcomes within ~ 20 years of now "?!?

Cataclysm:
A sudden, violent event.
A sudden and violent change in the earth's crust.
A great flood.

The paragraph mentions "massive crop failures, apocalyptic fires, imploding economies, epic flooding, hundreds of millions of refugees fleeing regions made uninhabitable by extreme heat or permanent drought":







 
Top Bottom