• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Climate change denial

We Never Know

No Slack
yes and after we decimate out population, and the CO2 goes up we will achieve the environment that was responsible for the biomass that we are now returning to the atmosphere.
Still no response to....

We not only destroy forest that help remove CO2, we also create heat islands/sinks(cities, concrete, asphalt) that absorb and retain more heat.
That can been seen when comparing the temps of those areas to other areas.

"Working with satellite data, scientists measured that surface temperatures in cities were sometimes up to 10-15°C higher than in their rural surroundings. The study also estimated that the temperature in extreme heat islands in cities around the world has risen on average by 1°C in since 2003."



So we are..
-destroying more areas that remove CO2
-building more areas that retain more heat
-then complain about earth getting hotter
 
Last edited:

Pogo

Well-Known Member
We will not destroy earth or life on earth.
Ourselves and some other species with us?
That is most likely going to happen eventually.
I'm sorry you feel that way, I may be an evil atheist, but I was brought up to nurture and sustain our children and their environment for the future, it is important to me. That you and many others take the attitude that it doesn't matter whether out of laziness or some vague hope that something or somebody else will come along to save you or you are more depressed than I and just don't care.

Others will do their best for you anyway, just stay out of our way.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
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.

Glacials-and-Interglacials-.png



The more the earth tilts the more the same solar heat affects the poles and melts the ice.
I totally agree with you about defoliation, and the need to plant more trees and plants.

I was doing some research regarding the last super-interglacial, MIS 11, and it seems the CO2 level was mitigated by lots of marine life with calcium carbonate shells.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
We could revert to the carboniferous when the dinosaurs reigned and all of the carbon from the thousands of ppm in the atmosphere produced the biomass that we mine as fossil fuels, the problem would be that the cooler parts of the landmass, think Alaska, would be like the jungles of southeast Asia, Yes we do destroy what we have now, but we can move and transplant palm trees to Alaska so no worries if we have the money to move and the other displaced persons don't get uppity.
If I remember correctly, the carboniferous was prior to the dinosaurs--the main animal life was giant cockroaches. There were also rampant forest fires during this time.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
If I remember correctly, the carboniferous was prior to the dinosaurs--the main animal life was giant cockroaches. There were also rampant forest fires during this time.
Thanks for the correction and the reminder of the fires, anyhow, I don't think we want to intentionally or otherwise go back to that climate.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Alright, I've been convinced about atmospheric CO2 and the need to regulate it in order to maintain it below a specific level. However, I don't agree with calling it a pollutant, just as H2O is not a pollutant.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
I'm sorry you feel that way, I may be an evil atheist, but I was brought up to nurture and sustain our children and their environment for the future, it is important to me. That you and many others take the attitude that it doesn't matter whether out of laziness or some vague hope that something or somebody else will come along to save you or you are more depressed than I and just don't care.

Others will do their best for you anyway, just stay out of our way.
I'm not depressed. But you might be because of the reality of it all.

Being religious or atheist has nothing to do with it. Though some hope a god will save them, others hope science will save them.
At least both have hope and faith in something.

The climate changes. It drives evolution. Species either adapt, evolve or die out. Been that way for 100's of millions of years.

Many times in the past it wasn't good for human life. Its has been for a bit now.

That will change and neither you nor your others can stop what happens with the cycles of the changing earth.

We are able to reduce our adding to the speed of the change but we cant stop it from changing.

If it was another ice age coming on(instead of still coming out of one), we would be trying to figure out ways to warm the climate to stop that and we would be unsuccessful there too.

Just image what another ice age would do.
People and other species would be dying from starvation, the glaciers would be cutting across the earth destroying cities and everything in their path, people would freeze to death, etc etc.

There is always a doomsday hovering over us. Be it heat, cold, asteroid, etc etc we can't stop them.
 
Last edited:

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The biggest thing I disagree with in our dealing with it is treating CO2 as a pollutant.
It can be considered a pollutant, but not a toxin like the poisons in our air, water, and land, which impair health directly. "Pollutants" like CO2 and chlorofluorocarbons affect our health indirectly. The direct threats from these are radiation from above the ozone layer and heat.
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.
The climate there changed, and then changed right back to the way it was again, and that was before electric cars were much of a thing.
So would you say that the climate scientists are wrong about anthropogenic global warming?
The climate has always changed. Long before people and far more dramatically then.
How about you? Would you say that the climate scientists are wrong about anthropogenic global warming?
Studies have been done that can conclusively show that plants grow faster under higher CO2 levels.
And you? Also hoax? @anotherneil hasn't seen climate deniers before now. Hopefully, he's gotten an eyeful here.
Back in the age of the dinosaurs, high CO2 levels is what made everything so warm, green, lush and large.
Which was not a problem for creatures that evolved in that environment. Our ancestors didn't.
The more the earth tilts the more the same solar heat affects the poles and melts the ice.
So you see this as the cause for the abrupt changes in global climate over the last century or so?
Hence why I'm asking.
Well now you have your answer. See above. Or maybe you done call that climate denial. If you're still not agreeing with the climate scientists, you're in denial. Climate change is already here in a big way.
This is how people get information - by asking.
So if I ask you a question, you'll answer it? OK:
Why does this matter to you?
I'm not here to make this thread about me.
I guess not.
 
Last edited:

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Thanks for the correction and the reminder of the fires, anyhow, I don't think we want to intentionally or otherwise go back to that climate.
I forgot to ask you: If we could nudge the change towards a super-interglacial or back towards a glacial period, which way should we go?
 

I Am Hugh

Researcher
How about you? Would you say that the climate scientists are wrong about anthropogenic global warming?

No, I wouldn't. I'm of the opinion that that sort of discussion is best left to scientists to sort out, and they don't all agree. They do debate. That's science. That they all agree or that our casual discussion has any bearing on the question seems ridiculous to me. So, whatever I say - what anyone else says here. ETA: Not that our discussion is a bad thing, it's just not relevant or helpful. In my case it is definitely not informed. It's political, ideological.
 
Last edited:

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Well, the exaggerations and hyperbole is part of the problem and there's some of that in the very opening post. And while I personally think over-the-top rhetoric is more than warranted for these issues, it is also prone to creating denialism and backlash. It also isn't necessary.

Claiming there is any feasibility of the "destruction of our planet" is ludicrous nonsense. The Earth will still be here long, long after humans go extinct. Humans have absolutely no capability whatsoever of destroying the planet. Period. Full stop. It is dire enough to understand humans have precipitated a sixth mass extinction event. That is not "destruction of our planet" but it is basically several hundred orders of magnitude worse than genocide, at minimum. Climate change isn't even the main driver of this, it's symptomatic of the driver - humans. If you have a deep love of the world, the recognition is enough to want you to end yourself dozen times over because you know the world is better off without you in it. Yet the question is asked why the denial happens? Hmph. There are days I'd be happy to count myself among them.
Well, I'm sure we can play with words all we want, but really, when a mere human like myself speaks of the "destruction of our planet," it's really just short form for "impair our planet's ecosystems from supporting our life form, and that of many other life forms." The next major mass extinction could very well include us.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Well, I'm sure we can play with words all we want, but really, when a mere human like myself speaks of the "destruction of our planet," it's really just short form for "impair our planet's ecosystems from supporting our life form, and that of many other life forms." The next major mass extinction could very well include us.
"The next major mass extinction could very well include us"

If it is, so be it. Many more species have gone extinct than those that are currently alive.

They have said something like around 98/99% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct.

Like it or not, we humans are just another species on this rock waiting on time to deliver us our fate as it has to more than 98% of other species.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
I forgot to ask you: If we could nudge the change towards a super-interglacial or back towards a glacial period, which way should we go?
Remember that 1975 kerfuffle about the coming ice age? that was about the time that we recognized this cycle of many years and recognized that we were at a peak and would probably decline from there. It wasn't baloney, we are currently just taking off from that peak and that cycle will eventually bring the earth back but relevant to our society, we should nudge ourselves back toward the interglacial so as to avoid difficulty for us. We will however have a strategy for mitigating the next glacial advance. :)
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
No, I wouldn't. I'm of the opinion that that sort of discussion is best left to scientists to sort out, and they don't all agree. They do debate. That's science. That they all agree or that our casual discussion has any bearing on the question seems ridiculous to me. So, whatever I say - what anyone else says here. ETA: Not that our discussion is a bad thing, it's just not relevant or helpful. In my case it is definitely not informed. It's political, ideological.
Most of the people reading these posts are going to vote (or are at least eligible to vote). Actions on climate change are done by governments, governments are elected by people. So, what I have to say may nudge some people to vote one way or another, depending on how good my arguments are. Will it be "drill baby, drill" or sensible reduction of CO2?
Politicians don't listen to scientists, they listen to voters (and, in the US, donors). So we have to listen to scientists and vote accordingly. I don't have the illusion that my voice here is flipping any votes directly, but it contributes. That's why I don't see the discussion as "just not relevant or helpful".
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Most of the people reading these posts are going to vote (or are at least eligible to vote). Actions on climate change are done by governments, governments are elected by people. So, what I have to say may nudge some people to vote one way or another, depending on how good my arguments are. Will it be "drill baby, drill" or sensible reduction of CO2?

If we don't drill for our supply, we import it. Oil is oil. Better to drill our own than buy it IMO.
Btw we are up to using around 20.4 million barrels per day.(just the US) That's an average of 1 barrel per 16 people.
Politicians don't listen to scientists, they listen to voters (and, in the US, donors). So we have to listen to scientists and vote accordingly. I don't have the illusion that my voice here is flipping any votes directly, but it contributes. That's why I don't see the discussion as "just not relevant or helpful".

Politicians listen to politicians. What voters want only matter during election years. Many wants are forgotten once elected.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
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?
How about something like this:
Give every woman who reaches menopause having had zero kids, a $500k retirement bonus
Give every woman who reaches menopause having had one kid and $250k bonus
 

We Never Know

No Slack
How about something like this:
Give every woman who reaches menopause having had zero kids, a $500k retirement bonus
Give every woman who reaches menopause having had one kid and $250k bonus
You presented this before.

So again I ask....
What about men who haven't fathered children?
What about men who only fathered one child?
What do they get?
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
You presented this before.

So again I ask....
What about men who haven't fathered children?
What about men who only fathered one child?
What do they get?
I think it's time to empower women. It's also a tad harder to determine fatherhood ;)
 
Top