It’s not really an article, but a report from the Australian government. It was really surprising and good news for the GBR. You say conservationists get the credit? I had not heard that, but if that is true, it kind of supports my claim about ingenuity.The summary of that article is not as rosy as you seem to think. Viewed objectively, it describes an environment that still faces powerful adversaries, such as crown-of-thorns starfish and high temperature water.
And it’s just one example of an area where conservationists are trying hard to prevent catastrophic results. Coral reefs all over the earth are facing extinction. There is an endless list of situations all over the earth where humanity is negatively affecting the environment.
Threats to coral reefs:
Exploring Threats to Coral Reefs
The Reefs at Risk program at the World Resources Institute uses GIS to map and analyze threats to coral reefs while promoting reef conservation education.www.esri.com
My stance is that the unregulated growth of the human population is doing irreversible damage to our world, and that the only solution includes a radical reduction in our numbers. However, I’m extremely pessimistic that we, as a species, can stop the destruction.
Global Climate Changes
- Thread starter Caveman Catfan
- Start date
Yeah, that tells us a lot. Nice beach house Al. What a Dem Dick.
You don’t seem to want to look at the big picture of humanity’s effects on the planet. So, enjoy your myopia and your self-induced mirage of human ingenuity saving the earth. I’ll remain pessimistic with my big picture view.
Yea. You realize that means people starving and likely wars popping up right?
I get what you are trying to say but you just aren't. You are religious about this. You 'believe' in manmade climate change. I am just dubious of what the cause is for the miniscule amount of warming we've seen since 1997. If the experts are always right, then why aren't we in an ice age like the experts predicted in the 1970's? Why did we keep pushing forward stopping global warming when the experts said that going over 420ppm was a point of no return? If co2 in a driver of global warming, then how did we have several ice ages in era's with co2 levels 2x to 4x higher than now?
The actions your types are calling for will lead to very problems you brought up in your last paragraph. The EU predicted 200million people in hunger in early '22. With the Ukr/Rus war they moved that up to close to 500million people that eat less than 800 calories per day. Norwegian farmers protested all summer because climate rules will put many of the out of business... Norway is the largest food exporter in Europe. Nothing with climate is affecting their production but climate rules will reduce their production by a minimum of 30%. Sri Lanka signed on to climate rules and their agriculture collapsed to the point that the people ran their government out of the country on a helicopter.
Climate rules are going to lead to more war and more suffering, and I would argue that it's intended by the Bill Gates/Klaus Scwab types. You can ignore what those guys say but I'm not eating the bugs and living in a one room apartment with no vehicle and yard. I live in the country and I actually interact with nature. It's something you talk about online. Leave real life to those of us that have a real one.
I suggest you purposefully closely value the relatively normal time you have left with your family.
I don't want you to do anything with your economy or your money as grass roots strategy is great for long term issues such as having a cleaner healthier planet, but are virtually useless in the immediate "now" that we are in whether we like it or believe in it or not.
Green policies, or any other policies, that produce a healthier planet are good for you and your family. No difference between your body and your planet. You can take care of it or trash it but you've only got one so you may want to carefully consider your choices.
Greta is and was a massively stupid media concoction. By putting a child forward it trivializes the issue and makes it look naive. We have hundreds of the world's greatest scientists and scientific institutions that you should be paying attention to instead of this ridiculous little attention starved child. Same reason Al Gore was more harmful than good as it politicized a scientific issue that desperately needs scientific answers or at least mitigation, both of which have ran out of time.
Again, you call others close minded and myopic. Aren’t those who resort to name-calling when addressing an opposing view the real close-minded and myopic people?
Name calling? Man, you’re too sensitive. Oh, sorry, I did it again. Dang it.
? China has historically had a massive over population problem that has lead to poverty and starvation. they are finally getting a handle on it so I don't follow your logic, nor do I see why zero population growth is going to lead to wars. They certainly don't have a labor shortage.
That's great in the abstract or on a bumper sticker, but in the real world it's BS. For one, the assumption that "green policies" produce a healthier planet is a stretch. The cleanest, most efficient renewable energy is nuclear, yet "green policies" target nuclear plants for defunding or outright closure, forcing an increase in the use of fossil fuels. Solar panels are supposed to be better for the environment, but compare the environmental effects of Ivanpah vs Diablo Canyon in California. Ivanpah requires 450x the land area, yet produces only 3% of the energy per sq meter of Diablo Canyon, at best. And who do we rely on for the majority of our solar panels? China. And this isn't even getting into the disposal issues around solar panels or the batteries required to store the energy and achieve base load. Second, talk about "good for you and your family" to the vast majority of people around the world who rely on fossil fuels for anything approaching a "good life," not to mention survival. Tell it to the countries forced to trade geo-political autonomy and national security for Russian energy and Chinese solar panels thanks to the West's "green policies." If climate change was truly the existential threat that the climate doomsayers say, they wouldn't be wasting their time on windmills and solar panels; they would be throwing everything they can at nuclear.
You may not want me to do anything with my economy or my money, but what you want is irrelevant; what's relevant is what the wealthy virtue-signaling elitists jet-setting into Davos using the dirtiest mode of transportation per passenger per km known to man want.
Everything above aside, why do you care? Why are you spending your "relatively normal time you have left with your family" posting a bunch of climate-apocalypse garbage on an internet message board? If we're past the point of no return as a species on this planet, as you suggest, why embrace green policies, scientific answers, or mitigation strategies at all? If I have untreatable terminal cancer with 6 months to live, I'm not going to spend it eating healthy and working out. I respect your passion, but what are you trying to achieve? Nothing you've posted in this entire thread has ANY relevance to anything if our fate is sealed.
China has a population gap that is not “getting a handle.” It will cause the depleted workforce with a massive elderly population.
Evidently she's on the Mel Turpin diet
Yep. The same as most of the developed world. I read that Canada is worse off than most know. They have huge government programs and most of their population are going to be old and retired while the few have to work to take care of them. That is where people predict unrest and wars popping up.
You're spending a lot of time trying to pick a fight with me because you don't like what I have to say.
You also are logically bankrupt. You can't attack any scientific positions I raise so just like your fellow political buddies that have flocked in here to ruin the discussion you choose to continuously attack the motive of others.
As always a conspiracy is your answer for uncomfortable things whether it be science you don't care for or ballots you don't agree with. Just find something baseless to say with flimsy or no evidence at all then cling to it even if you lost 80 court cases over it. Seems to be all you guys require to prop up your little make-believe world.
As for how I choose to spend my time, that of course is mine. I post as much to myself in here as I do for anyone else. Writing helps me work things out. Intelligence manifests itself in ways that are often not recognizable to the more modestly blessed. They mistake their incomprehension as a vast unified global conspiracy amongst every legitimate scientific institution on earth, no less. You've really got to be committed (or should be committed) to buy into that one.
I think we would all do well here to avoid challenging the motives or intelligence of others. Rather state your opinions, agree, disagree, debate, and as always if you have sources to back your thoughts provide links. Thanks!
Last edited:
And, as we look at Al Gore and others in the Climate Change world, we see greed for money and power is a powerful motivator, Greta.
They don't have a leg to stand on scientifically which is why they can't find JUST ONE scientific institution on earth with national or international standing to agree with them.
Thus, as this guy above demonstrates, they focus in on attacking the motives of Hollywood stars, children, and famous Oscar winning ex Vice Presidents. It's all they've got.
I realize fairly intelligent well read folks like you could certainly argue with my interpretation of the data in terms of how soon humans will be added to our ongoing extinction level event we are living in as that is really the only credible argument to be had here... how fast.
The only thing is all the science is moving towards faster and more severe as all the watered down IPCC reports are turning out to have been wildly too conservative. 2100 is now pie in the sky and almost everyone talks about 2050 and a lot of those are now thinking a lot closer to 2030. Of course then there's guys like me who doubt we'll see 2026 so if they want to argue, at least make it a supportable one like yes climate change is an existential threat to the planet but how long do we have is the question to be honestly debated here.
Anthropogenic Climate Change in the Anthropocene amidst the 6th mass extinction event in biological history is ongoing reality whether people believe in it or not because it certainly believes in them. How bad and how fast are our only questions.
Obama’s expert:
podcasts.apple.com
Steven Koonin – Climate Science’s Unsettled Questions
Podcast Episode · The Glenn Show · 01/20/2023 · 58m
podcasts.apple.com
Well Caveman found an Apple Podcast so I guess all the scientific peer reviewed work by the collective scientific body of the entire world is null and void.Obama’s expert:
Steven Koonin – Climate Science’s Unsettled Questions
Podcast Episode · The Glenn Show · 01/20/2023 · 58m
Good job and thank you for your effort. From now on we'll use Apple Podcasts to present our scientific theories to then whichever one gets the most likes is what we go with. Much better process as you just can't trust all this liberal money that all the helpless Big Energy companies just don't have the money to combat.
At least you used collective to show us what you really care about. The collective said the vax was safe and effective. The collective said flouride in our water was good for us. The collective said that kulaks were to blame for their problems.
History man... read it.
The climate crazies should utterly hate Albot Gore.
Climate crazies? We are crazy for loving our planet? Do you take good care of your house or dwelling?
-do you get your air ducts cleaned?
-do you check radon levels in your dwelling?
-radon causes over 10 different cancers, and mental health issues
-do you let mold grow in your dwelling?
-do you have a clean air machine for house?
Most good machines remove 99% of shit in the air.
If you spilled a quart of oil in your place would you leave it or remediate?
If a tree branch punctures your roof, do you leave it or remediate to prevent mold?
Last edited:
I'll say it again: when these people start acting like there is an actual crisis, then I'll start getting concerned. Words mean nothing. Actions mean everything.
When a politician acts a certain way, then you will act? Politicians are all liars, but none of them are scientists
I took you for easily triggered.
Look at you calling people names. Like to dish it but can’t take it? LOL
When I'm judging the veracity of the argument, the speaker's actions weigh much more than their words.
It's disappointing that you don't have more intellectual integrity than this. I expected better. You clutch your pearls when your motives or politics are questioned, but are perfectly comfortable with assigning them to others when challenged. Just re-read the red highlights above. You not only assume that you know my political affiliation, but you go so far as to assume I "always" embrace conspiracies. Then, to put the final touch on your strawman, you lump me in with the whole stolen election crowd, saying "I" lost 80 court cases over ballots. How did you reach these conclusions from my post? As a matter of fact, my post hardly even attacked your general position. I was simply questioning what I perceive as an inconsistency in saying that any climate remediation efforts are futile while also championing green policies and mitigation strategies regardless of their costs. Unavoidable extinction of the human species is an extreme position. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it is extreme. If you were the intellectual giant you claim to be, you could handle questions about your logic and associated conclusions. I would expect the same from someone who held the opposing extreme position that climate change is a myth. Copying and pasting articles you agree with and then getting butthurt when even mildly challenged isn't intelligence - it's laziness. Someone posted a link to an Apple podcast that challenged your position. You didn't address the content of the podcast, but rather dismissed the whole thing out of hand because for some reason a podcast isn't worthy of your consideration. Again, laziness. Why would anyone want to "attack any scientific positions [you] raise" when you so clearly are only interested in this being your own little echo chamber? I didn't take you for a Paddock version of Extinction Rebellion. Disappointing.
