• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

New report on climate change released today

Why, I dare to ask, do you reject the evidence that has been consistently presented by something like 98% of climate scientists?

Scant evidence presented.

What a shock that you didn't actually read the OP or click on the link to the overwhelming evidence presented.

But more importantly, nobody gives a shit about your opinion on the matter. You aren't in any way qualified to comment regardless of how much or how little evidence is presented.
 
Why, I dare to ask, do you reject the evidence that has been consistently presented by something like 98% of climate scientists?

Scant evidence presented.

What a shock that you didn't actually read the OP or click on the link to the overwhelming evidence presented.

But more importantly, nobody gives a shit about your opinion on the matter. You aren't in any way qualified to comment regardless of how much or how little evidence is presented.

The ignorance and hubris required for a layperson to announce that "scant evidence" is sufficient to convince 99+% of all qualified scientists of something - ANYTHING, is simply staggering.
 
record wildfires in California

Zero evidence that CA wildfires are cause/made worse by "climate change". Wildfires in CA are a natural and necessary phenomenon and made worse because of poor forest management.. Most wildfires do not start naturally, they are started by human interactions. And do you know why so many died trying to escape the fires in Paradise. Because the fuckwit planners reduced a four lane highway to two lanes which severely impeded people fleeing the fire and fire trucks trying to get in to fight the fire.

- - - Updated - - -

Why, I dare to ask, do you reject the evidence that has been consistently presented by something like 98% of climate scientists?

Scant evidence presented.

What a shock that you didn't actually read the OP or click on the link to the overwhelming evidence presented.

But more importantly, nobody gives a shit about your opinion on the matter. You aren't in any way qualified to comment regardless of how much or how little evidence is presented.

The report has more rapture like rhetoric than evidence.
 
I'm baffled as to why people think the earth's climate should never fluctuate. These irresponsible proclamations of death and destruction are not based on science or evidence.
Your observation certainly is not based on science nor evidence.
 
I'm not saying it's a good thing. I think is a very bad thing, that could, in the worst case, end our civilization. I think working to reduce climate change and mitigate its effects should be a top priority, and it seems to me that it is not a major issue in any political election anywhere. And with Trump, the US (a major emissioner of greenhouse gases) is having four lost years, potentially eight lost years, of contributing to that work. Not that I think Clinton would have done enough, but it would at least have been something, and not blanket denial of scientific facts a la Trump.

It won't end our civilization. But it will cause massive economic correction, perhaps causing the largest depression in world history. It will kill millions of people. I believe that it will set back our civilization back substantially. The big crime that the republicans committed was delegitimizing the Paris accords and pulling us out of the international agreement. Our only hope is to come together and find a global solution. I hate to say it but there are very few republicans with the courage to speak out against Trump regarding this.

In worst case it would end human civilization. In the link below, it is listed what will happen at different degrees of warming. And the most extreme, a 5 to 6 degrees increase, if you read the description, how could human civilization as we know it be sustained?

A degree by degree explanation of what will happen when the earth warms

From what I understand, if current trends continue, we are heading for a 4 degrees increase during this century. And even that would put human civilization under great stress, with environmental collapses in large parts of the world.

It can still mostly be averted, and we can keep the global temperature increase under 2 degrees, or even under 1.5 degrees. But then action must be taken now. And there is nowhere nearly enough of that.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not saying it's a good thing. I think is a very bad thing, that could, in the worst case, end our civilization. I think working to reduce climate change and mitigate its effects should be a top priority, and it seems to me that it is not a major issue in any political election anywhere. And with Trump, the US (a major emissioner of greenhouse gases) is having four lost years, potentially eight lost years, of contributing to that work. Not that I think Clinton would have done enough, but it would at least have been something, and not blanket denial of scientific facts a la Trump.

It won't end our civilization. But it will cause massive economic correction, perhaps causing the largest depression in world history. It will kill millions of people. I believe that it will set back our civilization back substantially. The big crime that the republicans committed was delegitimizing the Paris accords and pulling us out of the international agreement. Our only hope is to come together and find a global solution. I hate to say it but there are very few republicans with the courage to speak out against Trump regarding this.

Why wouldn't ending our civilization be a good thing? Hey, a few generations of declining human population, war, disease and general mayhem might be just what the doctor ordered. Get the global population down to a half billion or so, and everyone could be happy. :)

What about the massive human and animal suffering that would take place if it was to happen?
 
For all you do gooders who thinks the US can solve the worlds problems.

I'm not saying it's a good thing. I think is a very bad thing, that could, in the worst case, end our civilization. I think working to reduce climate change and mitigate its effects should be a top priority, and it seems to me that it is not a major issue in any political election anywhere. And with Trump, the US (a major emissioner of greenhouse gases) is having four lost years, potentially eight lost years, of contributing to that work. Not that I think Clinton would have done enough, but it would at least have been something, and not blanket denial of scientific facts a la Trump.

It won't end our civilization. But it will cause massive economic correction, perhaps causing the largest depression in world history. It will kill millions of people. I believe that it will set back our civilization back substantially. The big crime that the republicans committed was delegitimizing the Paris accords and pulling us out of the international agreement. Our only hope is to come together and find a global solution. I hate to say it but there are very few republicans with the courage to speak out against Trump regarding this.

The US is broke now. Asking the US to be the leader in climate change is like asking Sears and Roebuck to be the worlds leader of retail sales.

And for all you Trump bashers who think it is all his fault.....its really all YOUR fault for having too many kids.
 
I'm not saying it's a good thing. I think is a very bad thing, that could, in the worst case, end our civilization. I think working to reduce climate change and mitigate its effects should be a top priority, and it seems to me that it is not a major issue in any political election anywhere. And with Trump, the US (a major emissioner of greenhouse gases) is having four lost years, potentially eight lost years, of contributing to that work. Not that I think Clinton would have done enough, but it would at least have been something, and not blanket denial of scientific facts a la Trump.

It won't end our civilization. But it will cause massive economic correction, perhaps causing the largest depression in world history. It will kill millions of people. I believe that it will set back our civilization back substantially. The big crime that the republicans committed was delegitimizing the Paris accords and pulling us out of the international agreement. Our only hope is to come together and find a global solution. I hate to say it but there are very few republicans with the courage to speak out against Trump regarding this.

The US is broke now. Asking the US to be the leader in climate change is like asking Sears and Roebuck to be the worlds leader of retail sales.
Your response is based on the faulty assumption that taking the lead in climate change would necessarily be very costly.
[
And for all you Trump bashers who think it is all his fault.....its really all YOUR fault for having too many kids.
Trump has changed course that will increase the US's contribution to climate change. Climate change is not a single person's fault. In fact, fault-finding is unproductive at this juncture in time. What is needed is thoughtful and realistic assessments of what is possible, and then action to move to both ameliorate and mitigate the effects of climate change.

One final note, what does the number of children that Trump bashers have to do with anything about climate change?
 
I'm baffled as to why people think the earth's climate should never fluctuate. These irresponsible proclamations of death and destruction are not based on science or evidence.

Of course it fluctuates. That doesn't mean all fluctuations are natural or that all fluctuations don't matter. The extremes of natural fluctuations of Earth's climate (admittedly far in the past) are catastrophic. On the cold side it would have been an extinction event.
 
I'm baffled as to why people think the earth's climate should never fluctuate. These irresponsible proclamations of death and destruction are not based on science or evidence.
I’m equally as baffled how someone can make such a stupid remark despite such a statement having been repeatedly debunked.
 
I'm not saying it's a good thing. I think is a very bad thing, that could, in the worst case, end our civilization. I think working to reduce climate change and mitigate its effects should be a top priority, and it seems to me that it is not a major issue in any political election anywhere. And with Trump, the US (a major emissioner of greenhouse gases) is having four lost years, potentially eight lost years, of contributing to that work. Not that I think Clinton would have done enough, but it would at least have been something, and not blanket denial of scientific facts a la Trump.

It won't end our civilization. But it will cause massive economic correction, perhaps causing the largest depression in world history. It will kill millions of people. I believe that it will set back our civilization back substantially. The big crime that the republicans committed was delegitimizing the Paris accords and pulling us out of the international agreement. Our only hope is to come together and find a global solution. I hate to say it but there are very few republicans with the courage to speak out against Trump regarding this.

The US is broke now. Asking the US to be the leader in climate change is like asking Sears and Roebuck to be the worlds leader of retail sales.

And for all you Trump bashers who think it is all his fault.....its really all YOUR fault for having too many kids.
I’m just so bloody sick of these stupid, ignorant as fuck statements. Trump obviously isn’t responsible for the Industrial Revolution. He’d never have managed to have been so successful.

If nothing else, Trump will likely help with climate change by bringing on an inflation driven recession which will be followed by a drop in domestic emissions.
 
Gee. It would be really nice if we could discuss this like adults, instead of slinging insults. Okay. I know that's not going to happen, so how do we get the world to cut back on using coal? Anyone?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/24/climate/coal-global-warming.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage


Coal, the fuel that powered the industrial age, has led the planet to the brink of catastrophic climate change.

Scientists have repeatedly warned of its looming dangers, most recently on Friday, when a major scientific report issued by 13 United States government agencies warned that the damage from climate change could knock as much as 10 percent off the size of the American economy by century’s end if significant steps aren’t taken to rein in warming.

An October report from the United Nations’ scientific panel on global warming found that avoiding the worst devastation would require a radical transformation of the world economy in just a few years.

Central to that transformation: Getting out of coal, and fast.

And yet, three years after the Paris agreement, when world leaders promised action, coal shows no sign of disappearing. While coal use looks certain to eventually wane worldwide, according to the latest assessment by the International Energy Agency, it is not on track to happen anywhere fast enough to avert the worst effects of climate change. Last year, in fact, global production and consumption increased after two years of decline.

It does seem pretty hopeless.
 
And, I just learned about the damage that palm oil is causing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/magazine/palm-oil-borneo-climate-catastrophe.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage


Our driver, a 44-year-old island native and whistle-blower named Gusti Gelambong, had brought us here to show us the incredible destruction wrought by the growing demand for palm oil. The oldest male among nine siblings, he was modestly built but exuded a wiry strength. His father, he told us, was a king of one of Borneo’s dozens of Dayak tribes, the sixth descendant of the sultan of Old Kotawaringin, and his mother came from a line of warriors who served in the Indonesian special forces. In 2001, he said, he took part in a brutal ethnic cleansing of Indonesians who had moved in from the nearby island of Madura. He macheted his way through the nearby town of Pangkalan Bun, slaughtering dozens of people. He felt no remorse about the violence. But the palm-oil companies, Gelambong said, were much stronger than the Madurese. As we approached an intersection, we could see two plantation guards lying back in a shack, rifles propped against their knees. He sped past the guards, averting his eyes.

Most of the plantations around us were new, their rise a direct consequence of policy decisions made half a world away. In the mid-2000s, Western nations, led by the United States, began drafting environmental laws that encouraged the use of vegetable oil in fuels — an ambitious move to reduce carbon dioxide and curb global warming. But these laws were drawn up based on an incomplete accounting of the true environmental costs. Despite warnings that the policies could have the opposite of their intended effect, they were implemented anyway, producing what now appears to be a calamity with global consequences.

The tropical rain forests of Indonesia, and in particular the peatland regions of Borneo, have large amounts of carbon trapped within their trees and soil. Slashing and burning the existing forests to make way for oil-palm cultivation had a perverse effect: It released more carbon. A lot more carbon. NASA researchers say the accelerated destruction of Borneo’s forests contributed to the largest single-year global increase in carbon emissions in two millenniums, an explosion that transformed Indonesia into the world’s fourth-largest source of such emissions. Instead of creating a clever technocratic fix to reduce American’s carbon footprint, lawmakers had lit the fuse on a powerful carbon bomb that, as the forests were cleared and burned, produced more carbon than the entire continent of Europe. The unprecedented palm-oil boom, meanwhile, has enriched and emboldened many of the region’s largest corporations, which have begun using their newfound power and wealth to suppress critics, abuse workers and acquire more land to produce oil.
Editors’ Picks

The article is very long, but if you don't have the patience to read it, it basically says that when palm oil was first presented as a way to cut down on carbon, by using it as a biofuel, the Western world thought we were going to make progress regarding climate change. But, the resulting deforestation, as a result of replacing old forests with trees that produce the palm oil has created an immense amount of carbon being released into the air. The more I read, the less hopeful I am that nations will be able to stop the warming of the globe.

If any of you have read Jared Diamond's book, "Collapse" you probably already know a lot about the perpetual habit of humans destroying their own habitat. It seems that we're now moving to destroy the environment at an ever increasing pace.

And, or course Trump didn't cause this. It's just that his getting rid of regulations that protect the air, water etc. and his adamant denial that global warming is taking place are just hastening global climate change. But, the US isn't the only country responsible for this.
 
Watch this video: Climate scientists reveal their fears for the future

They interview climate scientists in Australia, but of course it applies to all of us. Very interesting, definitely worth 9 minutes of your time.

If in 2020 the US doesn't elect a president serious about climate change, or even worse, re-elects the Donald, then the future looks very grim (it already does). The US, and by extension the world, are already wasting years that should be used to fight this serious threat to humanity and the planet.
 
I have a question that is worth a full thread of its own somewhere.

Even if almost all (99.99%) of people disappeared in an instant and the remaining used all available methods to get CO2 back to below 300 ppm, could it be done?

Could even an alien race turn the wheel fast enough?

It would require what?

- Using crops to make charcoal that would be buried.

- Grinding up rocks like olivine to turbo-weather out carbonic acid.

- Finding some way to get plankton to get collected and deposited to sequester their carbon.

- Pushing the equilibrium in the ocean to make sure that more limestone (two types?) gets made and not dissolved. This would be very difficult.

All the while the tundra and arctic ocean shelves may soon be releasing huge stores of carbon.
 
You are on the right track here

I have a question that is worth a full thread of its own somewhere.

Even if almost all (99.99%) of people disappeared in an instant and the remaining used all available methods to get CO2 back to below 300 ppm, could it be done?

Could even an alien race turn the wheel fast enough?

It would require what?

- Using crops to make charcoal that would be buried.

- Grinding up rocks like olivine to turbo-weather out carbonic acid.

- Finding some way to get plankton to get collected and deposited to sequester their carbon.

- Pushing the equilibrium in the ocean to make sure that more limestone (two types?) gets made and not dissolved. This would be very difficult.

All the while the tundra and arctic ocean shelves may soon be releasing huge stores of carbon.

All of these ideas are worth trying. And more solutions may be out there of course. We are intelligent enough...we have to at least try.

But first and foremost is LESS people in the first place. That does not mean kill everyone off the planet but it does mean some serious global population control.

And a close second to the aforementioned is learning how to put people other places than this planet. The Elon Musk style of doing things.

But blaming Trump and the US as the evil bad villians according to the OP is a complete and utter waste of time! Trump isnt going to fix a global problem nor should he be expected to. Expecially when 99.99% of this problem is TOO MANY FUCKING PEOPLE on this planet.
 
But first and foremost is LESS people in the first place.

TOTAL fucking horseshit. It isn't the number of people; it's the waste they produce as a direct one-to-one correlation of conservative-run corporations and their systemic reliance on profit over sustainability. As Trump's election proves, Republicans (and a small percentage of Dem white males without college degrees) are fucking morons that will do anything they are told to do. But they first have to be told to do it. Forced to do it in fact (and yes that will in fact mean at gun point eventually if they don't do it in response to their programmers telling them what to believe and do and how to behave like good little nazis).

The central problem is in fact that Trump and the US is "the evil" in that those in majority power are NOT forcing corporations to do as they are told by the scientists. Billions of dollars are instead being funneled into telling people to pay no attention to the scientists; that SCIENCE itself is wrong and bad and flawed and lies.

If Trump told his nazis to stop buying gas--hell, to fuck their mothers--they would. Without hesitation. "LESS people" isn't the issue; Dunning-Kruger is the issue.

So, actually, strike that. You're right, less people is the issue. And every fucking one of them spouts bullshit like you do, so less of people like you trying at every step to undermine a unified population against science-deniers and we all win, just people like you in spite of yourselves.
 
Back
Top Bottom