The Climate Cult's New Goal: Degrowth

[flogger]

It can for example be possible to build local centers with middle / dense housing, shops and restaurants along commuter routes. There people in neighboring areas can have the opportunity to walk and cycle to those local centers. Leading to more convenience and less need to drive, even if people still also own cars.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2023/oct/11/culdesac-car-free-neighborhood-tempe-arizona

While also for example infills of middle housing in suburban areas and on unused parking lots. Leading to more affordable housing and more inclusive cities.

Please quantify what all this micromanagement and restriction of our hard won current freedoms will do to current global temperature ?

 

[tshade]

They state that human activity can cause the climate to change, not how sensitive the climate is to any particular human activity like CO2 emissions.

well----not exact down to the trillionth micro and all that, but they have good data..........

There is little scientific evidence that added CO2 does much beyond greening the earth.
Ideas like Net Zero emissions, target CO2 but without much in the way of evidence it will change the trend in the climate.

They know it will help, and as an added bonus it will help our environment too

 

[tshade]

Heads up the climate is always changing and todays climate is certainly not unnatural if one checks recent historical precedents for it.

Always check check and check again what the established facts are on this issue really are and don’t just fall for the hype

These agencies are not "hype"

 

[tshade]

As a person who makes knives, I authoritatively declare that they are sharp.
There is such a moment here... the climate has always changed... and it will always change. Millions of years ago, there was no ice at the poles of our planet and this did not interfere with life on the planet... yes, of course there were no polar bears and penguins... but nature, in principle, has no lyrics, what cannot adapt dies.
I may be telling you a terrible secret, but incredibly many species of animals and plants have become extinct due to climate change and man has nothing to do with it. The extinction of a species is normal, there is no tragedy in this for nature, it is a natural process.

My opinion on this issue is unequivocal. Humanity is still the only intelligent species on the planet and the issue of its survival is paramount. The earth is our cradle, but if we do not follow the path of progress, it will become our grave, sooner or later, life on the planet will become impossible and this is a fact, the term for biological life is limited. Will a meteorite destroy life or the aging process of the sun (it's not about evolution into a red giant, strong enough solar flares in the concept can sterilize the earth) the reasons for extinction are legion... or again, some Chinese will devour some flying rat and... well, you get it. So far, all the eggs are in one basket and it's very risky. All pandas, polar bears and other furry shit-eaters can safely die out for the sake of human survival. Humanity is more important.

The science says we are having a poor effect on the planet, beyond the natural history.

 

[longview]

well----not exact down to the trillionth micro and all that, but they have good data..........

They know it will help, and as an added bonus it will help our environment too

Actually they don’t know within several degrees C per doubling. The predictions depend upon which simulation they run, which assumptions of future emissions used, and how they apply the simulation results to the future emission assumptions.
Cutting CO2 emissions may not help the environment at all, most plants like a higher CO2 level than we currently have.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Timely piece by Stossel. These neo luddites are such morons!

Saw the title and I was like yep, it's gonna be a nonsense PoS thread.

 

[Fabiusbile]

The science says we are having a poor effect on the planet, beyond the natural history.

Hmm... science says a lot of things. But propagandists use it for their own purposes.
Of course, humans are an invasive species and we change the environment to suit ourselves, this is normal. The question is, why did you decide that it shouldn't be like this?
When coal was formed, the planet was littered with trees, some places were littered with tens of meters high, because there were no bacteria and microorganisms on the planet capable of processing wood, I think people with a mobile psyche would be horrified and hysterical from that picture... only for nature there was no drama in this.

And again, coming back to life... once again, one day, life in any of its manifestations will become impossible on this planet and how many years we have left is unknown, and it is humanity that can save a little and move from Earth... and here absolutely any price is acceptable.

 

[tshade]

Hmm... science says a lot of things. But propagandists use it for their own purposes.

conspiracies don't cut here ol' buddy

 

[flogger]

These agencies are not "hype"

So did you check what they have said against observed facts and data or is the MSM still your primary source of information ?

 

[PoS]

Saw the title and I was like yep, it's gonna be a nonsense PoS thread.

and its the usual talking points from the eco warriors: shoot the messenger fallacy.

 

[longview]

conspiracies don't cut here ol' buddy

There is no global warming conspiracy, it is more a parade of the willing.
Who benefits from an alarmist position on AGW?
The scientists receiving an enormous inflow of grant money benefits research Universities.
Progressives in Governments like have an extra control tool for their populations.
The media always like a sensational story for headlines.
The Environmentalists think they are saving the planet.
They are all pushing the cart is the same general direction, but for different reasons.

 

[tshade]

There is no global warming conspiracy, it is more a parade of the willing.
Who benefits from an alarmist position on AGW?
The scientists receiving an enormous inflow of grant money benefits research Universities.
Progressives in Governments like have an extra control tool for their populations.
The media always like a sensational story for headlines.
The Environmentalists think they are saving the planet.
They are all pushing the cart is the same general direction, but for different reasons.

See???
As I said---conspiracies don't cut it

Go science...

 

[longview]

See???
As I said---conspiracies don't cut it

Go science...

The Scientific data shows that added CO2 is not much of an issue, if any at all.

 

[flogger]

See???
As I said---conspiracies don't cut it

Go science...

What science ?

 

[Glitch]

Hmm... science says a lot of things. But propagandists use it for their own purposes.
Of course, humans are an invasive species and we change the environment to suit ourselves, this is normal. The question is, why did you decide that it shouldn't be like this?
When coal was formed, the planet was littered with trees, some places were littered with tens of meters high, because there were no bacteria and microorganisms on the planet capable of processing wood, I think people with a mobile psyche would be horrified and hysterical from that picture... only for nature there was no drama in this.

And again, coming back to life... once again, one day, life in any of its manifestations will become impossible on this planet and how many years we have left is unknown, and it is humanity that can save a little and move from Earth... and here absolutely any price is acceptable.

You will also notice that they freely use the phrase "scientists say..." or "studies show..." without actually naming any scientists or studies. When the reality is that none of the scientists or studies ever say or show what those making the claim say they do. If at least one scientists said, or one study showed, what they were claiming they would at least provide the name, but they never do. Which is how you can tell that you can dismiss their bullshit out-of-hand. Mainstream media is notorious for this tactic.

 

[Glitch]

The Scientific data shows that added CO2 is not much of an issue, if any at all.

Actually, "scientific data" shows atmospheric CO2 has absolutely no effect on surface temperatures.

Source:

• Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III - Science, Volume 299, Issue 5613, pp. 1728-1731, 2003 (free preprint)
• Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination - Science, Volume 291, Issue 5501, pp. 112-114, 2001 (free preprint)
• The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka - Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 20, pp. 583-589, 2001 (PDF)
• Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations - Science, Volume 283, Issue 5408, pp. 1712-1714, 1999 (free preprint)

The above is my source of empirical evidence. Where is your so-called "scientific data?" Or did you actually mean "bogus climate models" when you accidentally typed "scientific data?"

 

[longview]

Actually, "scientific data" shows atmospheric CO2 has absolutely no effect on surface temperatures.

Source:

• Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III - Science, Volume 299, Issue 5613, pp. 1728-1731, 2003 (free preprint)
• Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination - Science, Volume 291, Issue 5501, pp. 112-114, 2001 (free preprint)
• The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka - Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 20, pp. 583-589, 2001 (PDF)
• Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations - Science, Volume 283, Issue 5408, pp. 1712-1714, 1999 (free preprint)

The above is my source of empirical evidence. Where is your so-called "scientific data?" Or did you actually mean "bogus climate models" when you accidentally typed "scientific data?"

I understand your position, I am speaking of the idea that there is a slight area under the curve remaining that could cause an energy imbalance.
It is run on the Hitran database so is theoretical, but could result in some slight warming.
The Greenhouse Effect, A Summary of Wijngaarden and Happer
What is important from this graph is that MOST (99%) of CO2's potential capability, has already happened.

 

[tshade]

What science ?

Scientific Consensus

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...

science.nasa.gov

 

[longview]

Scientific Consensus

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...

science.nasa.gov

The scientific consensus is about Human activity having an effect on the climate, but does not qualify how much of an effect.
Nothing in the scientific consensus say that if we cut CO2 emissions we will "fix" the climate.
Remember Earth's temperature is still well within the normal range, cycling through glacial and interglacial periods.

 

[tshade]

The scientific consensus is about Human activity having an effect on the climate, but does not qualify how much of an effect.
Nothing in the scientific consensus say that if we cut CO2 emissions we will "fix" the climate.

never did say that-------but it helps climate and other issues

Remember Earth's temperature is still well within the normal range, cycling through glacial and interglacial periods.

 

[flogger]

Scientific Consensus

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...

science.nasa.gov

Corrupted opinion is not science. If it was the world would still be flat

Nobody denies the world has modestly warmed just like it has dozens of times since the last ice age. It’s mankind’s culpability for it that’s the point at issue here. Current warming is well within normal natural variability and a recovery from one of the coldest periods of the last 10k years. All the rest is just money and politics sadly

 

[longview]

never did say that-------but it helps climate and other issues

What climate issues would be helped by cutting CO2 emissions?
I think CO2 emissions will fall on their own as we move towards energy sustainability, but
that is a result not a goal.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Corrupted opinion is not science. If it was the world would still be flat

Nobody denies the world has modestly warmed just like it has dozens of times since the last ice age. It’s mankind’s culpability for it that’s the point at issue here. Current warming is well within normal natural variability and a recovery from one of the coldest periods of the last 10k years. All the rest is just money and politics sadly

Republican politicians have a very close and profitable relationship with fossil fuel companies and fossil fuel dictatorships.

Oil and gas industry spent $124.4 million on federal lobbying amid record profits in 2022 - OpenSecrets News

The oil and gas industry spent about $124.4 million lobbying the federal government in 2022, according to an OpenSecrets analysis of lobbying disclosures.

www.opensecrets.org

10 Ways Andrew Wheeler Has Decimated EPA Protections in Just One Year

If Wheeler truly cared about transparency, he would petition the Trump administration to change the name of his agency to “Every Polluter’s Ally.”

blog.ucsusa.org

Report: Jared Kushner’s $2 Billion Saudi Check Appears Even More Comically Corrupt Than Previously Thought

“The reason this smells so bad is that there is all sorts of evidence he did not receive this on the merits.”

www.vanityfair.com

Still this report was published during Trump's presidency because the evidence is so overwhelming.

Fourth National Climate Assessment: Summary Findings

This report is an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States. It represents the second of two volumes of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990.

nca2018.globalchange.gov

 

[flogger]

Republican politicians have a very close and profitable relationship with fossil fuel companies and fossil fuel dictatorships.

Oil and gas industry spent $124.4 million on federal lobbying amid record profits in 2022 - OpenSecrets News

The oil and gas industry spent about $124.4 million lobbying the federal government in 2022, according to an OpenSecrets analysis of lobbying disclosures.

www.opensecrets.org

10 Ways Andrew Wheeler Has Decimated EPA Protections in Just One Year

If Wheeler truly cared about transparency, he would petition the Trump administration to change the name of his agency to “Every Polluter’s Ally.”

blog.ucsusa.org

Report: Jared Kushner’s $2 Billion Saudi Check Appears Even More Comically Corrupt Than Previously Thought

“The reason this smells so bad is that there is all sorts of evidence he did not receive this on the merits.”

www.vanityfair.com

Still this report was published during Trump's presidency because the evidence is so overwhelming.

Fourth National Climate Assessment: Summary Findings

This report is an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States. It represents the second of two volumes of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990.

nca2018.globalchange.gov

I couldn’t care less about Republicans or fossil fuel companies.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the climate which is well within the normal natural variability of recent millennia all the rest is a load of anti western claptrap

 

[rhinefire]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/texas-faces-

explosive-2024-hurricane-season-scientists-say/ar-BB1kI4jh