Climate change denial

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you want to walk back what you originally posted, go right ahead. It's fine with me; I won't penalize you for that.

Yeah, we understand it differently. So I will leave it as that.

 

[We Never Know]

But we well know what "science" overwhelmingly says. It's happening and they know most of why it's happening.

Duh!
I did say its happening in the other part of my post you edited out.

 

[metis]

Duh!
I did say its happening in the other part of my post you edited out.

It was a comment on the general theme, not a refutation of what you posted.

 

[We Never Know]

It was a comment on the general theme, not a refutation of what you posted.

Science isn't politics and politics isn't science.

Its isn't about denying or supporting climate change. It's a factual statement

 

[metis]

Science isn't politics and politics isn't science.

Its isn't about denying or supporting climate change. It's a factual statement

I go by the science, not the politics on such matters. I think you are misunderstanding where I'm coming from on this.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Not long ago, California was experiencing a mega-drought and water was running out. It was pointed to as an example of climate change. After about a decade, the rains returned and the lakes filled in and the wells were restored. So now the drought there is all-but-forgotten, and the fact that things balanced out didn't convince anyone of anything.

Anecdote. Data needs to be considered collectively over time to identify trends.

Just to clarify (for the US), "so many people in denial" refers to approximately 15% of the population (in the US).

It looks like about 54% of Americans don't accept the claims of the consensus of climate scientists. I don't see a distinction between "no solid evidence" and either "mostly due to natural patterns" and "not sure" and none are active denial as much as a failure to be convinced:

The truth is that no one is denying climate change. The claim that there are such individuals comes from propaganda being delivered by politicians, crony capitalists, celebrities, religious zealots, etc. It's nothing more than a strawman attack.

You're posting to people that have seen many counterexamples here on RF alone. Apparently, you've never seen them, or if you have, it didn't leave an imprint in your memory.

Why does this matter to you?

And not everybody is susceptible to indoctrination. One can develop the habit of thought wherein he understands why every claim needs to justified before being believed (skepticism) and how to do that (critical analysis). When I say habit of thought, I mean that he does it automatically, such as when he looks before crossing a street or says please and thank you. One can get to the place where he does all of those thinks without fail when appropriate.

 

[We Never Know]

I go by the science, not the politics on such matters.

Good. As it should be.

I think you are misunderstanding where I'm coming from on this.

Be it climate change, covid, etc... Too many go by the politics IMO

 

[I Am Hugh]

Yes, there is this attitude of those who cannot see how particularly inexorable the destruction of our planet is:

Nonsense.

through the disappearance of lakes, rivers, and forests, that used to exist even 30,000 years ago, and that now are the result of the overexploitation of our planet.

You believe this? You honestly believe that we are more destructive than nature itself? C'mon. We could fit every living human being in the state of Texas with 100 square meters per person. About the size of a large room. How much room do you need? The planet will be fine, it's only you that you have to worry about. If people who claim overpopulation of our planet is a problem keep at it, with eugenics, sterilization, etc. that will be the end of mankind. Not climate change.

More people on Earth= more human activities to produce all the electricity we need to support these people.

What did we do before electricity? What did the planet do before people? Are you suggesting we stop using electricity or we end mankind to save our planet?

It's undeniable. We are destroying our planet, and the climate has definitively changed.

The climate has always changed. Long before people and far more dramatically then.

Nothing's gonna be the same again.

Nothing is ever the same.

Why are so many people in denial?

Because it's fake stupid ideology and alarmism designed to tax the poor and suppress capitalism. It was made up by the oil industry and is believed by people due more to emotional fixation than reason. Do you see Al Gore cutting down his carbon footprint while preaching to everyone else they should? Is Barrack Obama and Maxine Water's multi-million-dollar mansions next to the ocean a good sign of their honest integrity in preaching this nonsense or making laws to that effect? Or the ignorant celebrity who gives a speech on carbon footprints and then hops in his private jet and flies across the country to get a cheeseburger to be taken seriously?

Certainly not by me.

 

[anotherneil]

You're posting to people that have seen many counterexamples here on RF alone.

Hence why I'm asking. This is how people get information - by asking.

Apparently, you've never seen them, or if you have, it didn't leave an imprint in your memory.

Why does this matter to you?

I'm not here to make this thread about me.

 

[wellwisher]

Correlation does not prove causation.

I don't deny climate change. We are currently in an interglacial period of an Ice Age, so yes, there will be climate change. I don't know if humans can tip the climate change towards a superinterglacial or if it will go back to a glacial period, and which one would be better for humans or the planet. What we can do is to clean things up and preserve ecosystems as the glacial cycle is associated with mass extinctions.

It will help to reduce fossil fuel use, reduce ocean and other habitat pollution, and reduce other greenhouse gases. Plants are the basis of our ecosystems, and you don't want to smother the respiration of the basis of our ecosystems.

In other words, I'm more concerned with the mass extinctions than anything else.

Studies have been done that can conclusively show that plants grow faster under higher CO2 levels. This technique is used in greenhouses all over the world. They add more CO2 to the greenhouse and increase profits. This plant-phobia behavior of the Left needs to stop. It is ironical that Liberals are more often vegetarians yet are plant-phobic when it comes to feeding the plants more of their main food source; CO2 and H2O.

Rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere drive an increase in plant photosynthesis—an effect known as the carbon fertilization effect. New research has found that between 1982 and 2020, global plant photosynthesis grew 12 percent, tracking CO2 levels in the atmosphere as they rose 17 percent. The vast majority of this increase in photosynthesis was due to carbon dioxide fertilization.

How Climate Change Will Affect Plants

Back in the age of the dinosaurs, high CO2 levels is what made everything so warm, green, lush and large.

This is part of a natural self correcting response by nature. More CO2 means more and faster growing plants which not only fixate CO2 but also fixate water. This plant water adds a natural cooling effect to forests. The real man made problem has to do with defoliation to accommodate the growing world population. The removal of plants; rain forests, and the lowering of plant density everywhere to accommodate humans and subdivision, has caused the surface of the earth to heat faster and absorb less CO2.

This extra heating of the surface is caused by the beach sand effect. If you go to the beach on a sunny day, the dry sand gets much hotter than the wet sand. The wet sand has water, like plants, which has a higher heat capacity than dry sand alone. The dry sand and the developed land both have lower heat capacity than water and plants, and these man made surfaces get hotter with the same heat. Go walk on the grass barefooted and then walk on the road barefooted. The difference is more than 1.5C. You can fry an egg on the asphalt.

Since 1800 the world population grew from about 1 billion and now we have 8 billion. The Liberal driven world trade agreements, that sent jobs overseas, have helped poor countries to develop and have given cheap labor to Big Business. These are positive but have a price. The DNC has helped transformed the world from an agricultural and plant lifestyle to an industrial and urban complex, where the living water surface of the earth is being replaced with low heat capacity building materials, that heat up faster. Now the same people are plant-phobic, blaming the food of plants, which can allow plant to reverse this trend. I guess they live for creating disasters.

Besides this heat capacity effect, water is the main player when it comes to weather and climate. Plants are one of water's many control system tricks. Another trick of water that is also related to current climate change is the conversion of ice to liquid water; melting the glaciers and poles. Ice reflects solar energy and has a cooling effect beyond just being cold. Liquid and gas phase of water are greenhouse gases, while ice has the opposite effect.

This unique water trick needed for glacial cycles, only works because water expands when it freezes. This is one of 70 anomalous properties of water. If water did what most material in nature do; contract when it freezes, the oceans would never freeze at the surface. The ice would sink and build up from the bottom of the oceans, up. It would be hard to have an ice age. But with ice floating on liquid water, even the earth's water surface can become ice and the ice can reflect heat back into space, so ice ages appear in a cyclic fashion. This can be seen in the graph below. We have been heating naturally since about 18,000 year ago and are near the top of a natural water based heating cycle. About 18,000 years ago the oceans were 120 meter lower with all that liquid water in the form of ice reflecting heat and keeping the surface cold.

What causes glaciation? Glaciation is caused by what is described in the three Milankovitch Cycles. They refer to cyclical changes in the earth's orbit from circular to elliptical, the angle of tilt of the earth's axis, and the direction of the tilt of the axis. Earth's axis is currently tilted 23.4 degrees, or about half way between its extremes, and this angle is very slowly decreasing in a cycle that spans about 41,000 years. It was last at its maximum tilt about 10,000 years ago and will reach its minimum tilt about 10,000 years from now.

The more the earth tilts the more the same solar heat affects the poles and melts the ice.

Enormous changes in the global climate were occurring about 10,000 years ago. The great North American ice sheets began to melt rapidly about 14,000 years ago and by 7,000 years ago they were gone. As the glaciers melted the summers became much warmer, creating very different conditions for plants and animals.

 

[Kathryn]

Studies have been done that can conclusively show that plants grow faster under higher CO2 levels. This technique is used in greenhouses all over the world. They add more CO2 to the greenhouse and increase profits. This plant-phobia behavior of the Left needs to stop. It is ironical that Liberals are more often vegetarians yet are plant-phobic when it comes to feeding the plants more of their main food source; CO2 and H2O.



How Climate Change Will Affect Plants

Back in the age of the dinosaurs, high CO2 levels is what made everything so warm, green, lush and large.

This is part of a natural self correcting response by nature. More CO2 means more and faster growing plants which not only fixate CO2 but also fixate water. This plant water adds a natural cooling effect to forests. The real man made problem has to do with defoliation to accommodate the growing world population. The removal of plants; rain forests, and the lowering of plant density everywhere to accommodate humans and subdivision, has caused the surface of the earth to heat faster and absorb less CO2.

This extra heating of the surface is caused by the beach sand effect. If you go to the beach on a sunny day, the dry sand gets much hotter than the wet sand. The wet sand has water, like plants, which has a higher heat capacity than dry sand alone. The dry sand and the developed land both have lower heat capacity than water and plants, and these man made surfaces get hotter with the same heat. Go walk on the grass barefooted and then walk on the road barefooted. The difference is more than 1.5C. You can fry an egg on the asphalt.

Since 1800 the world population grew from about 1 billion and now we have 8 billion. The Liberal driven world trade agreements, that sent jobs overseas, have helped poor countries to develop and have given cheap labor to Big Business. These are positive but have a price. The DNC has helped transformed the world from an agricultural and plant lifestyle to an industrial and urban complex, where the living water surface of the earth is being replaced with low heat capacity building materials, that heat up faster. Now the same people are plant-phobic, blaming the food of plants, which can allow plant to reverse this trend. I guess they live for creating disasters.

Besides this heat capacity effect, water is the main player when it comes to weather and climate. Plants are one of water's many control system tricks. Another trick of water that is also related to current climate change is the conversion of ice to liquid water; melting the glaciers and poles. Ice reflects solar energy and has a cooling effect beyond just being cold. Liquid and gas phase of water are greenhouse gases, while ice has the opposite effect.

This unique water trick needed for glacial cycles, only works because water expands when it freezes. This is one of 70 anomalous properties of water. If water did what most material in nature do; contract when it freezes, the oceans would never freeze at the surface. The ice would sink and build up from the bottom of the oceans, up. It would be hard to have an ice age. But with ice floating on liquid water, even the earth's water surface can become ice and the ice can reflect heat back into space, so ice ages appear in a cyclic fashion. This can be seen in the graph below. We have been heating naturally since about 18,000 year ago and are near the top of a natural water based heating cycle. About 18,000 years ago the oceans were 120 meter lower with all that liquid water in the form of ice reflecting heat and keeping the surface cold.

The more the earth tilts the more the same solar heat affects the poles and melts the ice.

I don't recommend wasting your time or energy.

 

[Estro Felino]

Nonsense.



You believe this? You honestly believe that we are more destructive than nature itself? C'mon. We could fit every living human being in the state of Texas with 100 square meters per person. About the size of a large room. How much room do you need? The planet will be fine, it's only you that you have to worry about. If people who claim overpopulation of our planet is a problem keep at it, with eugenics, sterilization, etc. that will be the end of mankind. Not climate change.



What did we do before electricity? What did the planet do before people? Are you suggesting we stop using electricity or we end mankind to save our planet?



The climate has always changed. Long before people and far more dramatically then.



Nothing is ever the same.



Because it's fake stupid ideology and alarmism designed to tax the poor and suppress capitalism. It was made up by the oil industry and is believed by people due more to emotional fixation than reason. Do you see Al Gore cutting down his carbon footprint while preaching to everyone else they should? Is Barrack Obama and Maxine Water's multi-million-dollar mansions next to the ocean a good sign of their honest integrity in preaching this nonsense or making laws to that effect? Or the ignorant celebrity who gives a speech on carbon footprints and then hops in his private jet and flies across the country to get a cheeseburger to be taken seriously?

Certainly not by me.

Jordan Peterson...a guy from Canada, a gigantic empty country...who has probably no idea of what the British population is like: 60 million people jammed in a tiny island called Britain.

 

[I Am Hugh]

Jordan Peterson...a guy from Canada, a gigantic empty country...who has probably no idea of what the British population is like: 60 million people jammed in a tiny island called Britain.

Well, I, uh . . . don't know what to say to that. I knew beforehand that you would have something to say about Peterson. They always do. But as far as Britain being jammed I would suggest, maybe, uh, move to Canada? Texas?

 

[Estro Felino]

Well, I, uh . . . don't know what to say to that. I knew beforehand that you would have something to say about Peterson. They always do. But as far as Britain being jammed I would suggest, maybe, uh, move to Canada? Texas?

It was a way to say that in the eighties we were 4 billion. Now we are 8 billion. The double.
Earth cannot sustain this growth at exponential rate...you know... 2 4 16....

 

[Kathryn]

It was a way to say that in the eighties we were 4 billion. Now we are 8 billion. The double.
Earth cannot sustain this growth at exponential rate...you know... 2 4 16....

Thankfully the birth rate is falling below the replacement rate in many countries.

 

[Pogo]

The moon? More is needed than an optimal temp on the moon for life to thrive lol

Yes average temperature is only one minor detail, on earth it generally varies by less than 30 deg. day to night in most areas, in some places, maybe 50-60 deg.
That minimal variation is due to our atmosphere and its composition. Change it and you could have day night swings of hundreds of degrees.

We are talking about earth.

The average global temp has now hit 62.88°F

Yes global warming is real, but the problem is not that we are close to 68, but that more places will hit 130+ at which temp humans can barely survive.
Further, the range in any given place is becoming wider.

The optimal global temp for life to thrive is 68°F(some can do colder, some can do warmer)

This article is basically garbage from what I can tell, it had no reference to any paper I could read but it appears to be some sort of a survey that is probably as logical as asking 1000 people how much change they have in their pockets and calculating an average and implying somehow that whatever number is a good thing. I worked with a plant cell that had maximum growth around 77, common human bacteria like about 100, and so on.

I find 62 much more comfortable than 68 for sleeping and most people are cold at that temp. A 60 degree day with high humidity feels cold, but a 60 degree day in January with low humidity is very comfotable. I really can't even guess what the point of that 68 number is.

Its said that if temperatures increase by 2°C by 2100, about 18% of all species on land will face a high risk of going extinct.

Yes this is very possibly true in that evolution will fill the niches, but the present populations will not be able to adapt or evolve fast enough to maintain the same species. The earth varies very slowly, one degree average change would normally take thousands of years with bumps in the slope. We are looking at doing 5 times that in 100 years.

As the link I posted said, "All species on Earth appear to thrive at an “optimal” 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit), according to a new study, which suggests land species may struggle more to adapt to changing climate."

This doesn't even actually make sense even if you think of preindustrial humans living from the desert to the Arctic. As I said, I could find no link to an actual paper so my conclusion is that a rather clueless in terms of biology newspaper writer got a piece of misinterpretation published that never should have been.

 

[I Am Hugh]

Hence why I'm asking. This is how people get information - by asking.

BLASHPEMER! [sarcasm]

I'm not here to make this thread about me.

Don't fool yourself. It's always about you. No matter the subject. It's never about the subject. It's always ideology. A class struggle where world views are either united or divided. Take up thy soap box and talk. That's the game. Fun stuff. Bad stuff. Powerful stuff. Nonsense.

 

[I Am Hugh]

It was a way to say that in the eighties we were 4 billion. Now we are 8 billion. The double.
Earth cannot sustain this growth at exponential rate...you know... 2 4 16....

Let's say you're right. How do we fix it? Post (virtue signal) on public forums with our computers. Stop shagging? Make abortion mandatory? What?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, there is this attitude of those who cannot see how particularly inexorable the destruction of our planet is: through the disappearance of lakes, rivers, and forests, that used to exist even 30,000 years ago, and that now are the result of the overexploitation of our planet.
More people on Earth= more human activities to produce all the electricity we need to support these people.
It's undeniable. We are destroying our planet, and the climate has definitively changed.
Nothing's gonna be the same again.

Why are so many people in denial?

What if climate change isn't real...just a conspiracy
by elite bankers who want to keep the economies
of the world expanding?

 

[Pogo]

Nonsense.



You believe this? You honestly believe that we are more destructive than nature itself? C'mon. We could fit every living human being in the state of Texas with 100 square meters per person. About the size of a large room. How much room do you need? The planet will be fine, it's only you that you have to worry about. If people who claim overpopulation of our planet is a problem keep at it, with eugenics, sterilization, etc. that will be the end of mankind. Not climate change.



What did we do before electricity? What did the planet do before people? Are you suggesting we stop using electricity or we end mankind to save our planet?



The climate has always changed. Long before people and far more dramatically then.



Nothing is ever the same.



Because it's fake stupid ideology and alarmism designed to tax the poor and suppress capitalism. It was made up by the oil industry and is believed by people due more to emotional fixation than reason. Do you see Al Gore cutting down his carbon footprint while preaching to everyone else they should? Is Barrack Obama and Maxine Water's multi-million-dollar mansions next to the ocean a good sign of their honest integrity in preaching this nonsense or making laws to that effect? Or the ignorant celebrity who gives a speech on carbon footprints and then hops in his private jet and flies across the country to get a cheeseburger to be taken seriously?

Certainly not by me.

Hugh, nothing in your post is even rational, yes we could fit everyone on earth into Texas for about the two weeks it would take them to starve to death after most of them died of dehydration long before that.

Hey, @anotherneil , this is a response to the post you were looking for.