Climate Change

Nature........we humans do make a impact(nature/climate/evolution)...............and i am a big fan of not making it worse, but if this planet wiggles its ass...............



We dont matter?...........ants or parasites?(timeline)

Mzzls

 

You're much too gentle. I haven't read the book either, but I've read an earlier one by the same author: his "bestseller" The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels., heavily promoted by the fossil fuel industries and their minions. Let me explain my problems with Alex Epstein, the darling of the fossil fuel industry, and his earlier book. First his dubious qualifications. His educational grounding in climate science is, to say the least, remarkably thin. His highest degree is B.A., and it's in philosophy. True, Duke University is nothing to sneeze at, but still nothing to qualify him as an authority in this technical area. Second, his ideology is one which I regard as seriously suspect. He's a radical-right Libertarian and Objectivist--a fellow at the Ayn Rand (the "Prophet of Profit)" Institute and former adjunct scholar the Cato Institute. In other words, he's an extreme advocate of unbridled capitalism and growth as paramount values. Third, he has financial interests that raise questions about his objectivity. The Center of Industrial Progress, which he founded as (in his words) as "a for-profit think tank" , has clients which include the Kentucky Coal Association and a company tied to Alliance Coal. Nothing wrong with all that, but it's certainly understandable that a person with such a background would think economic growth and fossil fuel consumption are the greatest things for the environment and humanity since the wheel and sliced bread. Fourth, he makes no effort to hold back in using invective to characterize environmental scientists who disagree with him. So that's is why I'd be leery of any book on climate change by this author. But he does write well, and I can certainly understand why ChinaCatSunflower would recommend it !

 

Well if you question Alex Epstein’s financial incentives, please consider questioning Bill Gates’ financial incentives, because his latest message in many ways aligns with Alex Epstein’s, such as that we now need to focus on growth and prosperity. Again, I will mention, Gates is now heavily invested in AI which requires a lot of fossil fuel burning.

But here’s the catch, if you’re willing to now question Bill Gates’ financial motives, you then need to be willing to question his previous financial motives the past few decades regarding Climate Change. You then need to further be willing to question Al Gore’s motives, etc.

 

Bill Gates and his opinions on climate change aren't things I consider one way or another. I wouldn't think of taking a billionaire's or a politician's word for it--not even Al Gore's. There's plenty of other evidence out there to support my views on the subject. Anyone who is relying on Gates' (or Gore's) opinions to support their own can make their own decisions. It's a judgement call. If Gates is now heavily invested in A I, maybe we should take his current climate assessments less seriously and go by his older ones..

Once again we're presented with a false dilemma: either-or. Either we're all gonna die from global warming tomorrow or no problem. Gates says there will be "serious consequences" for climate change--especially for the poorer countries--but no imminent extinction for the rest of us. It will likely be a slower deterioration which may soon be irreversible--especially since the current administration is trying to take the brakes off. The effects of wildfires and floods are unpredictable but potentially deadly, and droughts cause famines. Had I been less nimble in my evacuation from a local wildfire, I might be extinct myself. Beyond survival, quality of life is something I consider--always in the context of risk-benefit calculations.

BTW, for a good detailed critical analysis of Epstein's The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, see https://www.eba-net.org/wp-content/...res serious and substantive counter-arguments.

 

I read what you have suggested clear through to it's conclusion. An excellent and reasonable presentation that to me--proves that Epstein must be making a PRETTY PENNY from the oil and gas industry.

The issue that really bugs me is the constant use and belief that GROWTH is the most important issue that humanity and the earth faces. We MUST have continued growth--as if the sought after, obtained and used natural resources of the planet are inexhaustible. People are still living in huts in places, with no electricity, no easily obtained water and myriad other issues/ problems. Are these areas to be brought into the 21st century? What does it matter to most of the world's people what is used for energy? As long as the lights come on when I flip the switch, water runs when I want a drink or a shower--and the oil and gas people control so much of modern society--all is good! Buy more. BUY MORE PLASTIC NOW.

 

Right on scratcho! Your post ought to be required reading for all the venture capitalists and wannabe oligarchs.

 

It's's a crazy world, eh? Like Carlin says-"we're barely out of the jungle." We live a pretty serene life here in the US compared to the wars, the slaughtering ,the torture , the incarcerations, on and on and on-----I'm certain we will be the cause of our own demise, one way or another. ( thanks for the compliment)

 

Yeah! Let’s cherry pick his views so we can stay asleep in our cognitive bias! Good idea.

 

There is a god. There's no god. Either it will or it won't . It's gonna happen. It's not gonna happen. We're gonna die--we'll be fine---All the same human bullshit. Extrapolation is all we have and some things are not to be known by humans. Yeah---tell that to the know-it-alls! They have all the answers. Always have. Always will.

 

The Law of Excluded Middle is one of the most fundamental aspects of Logic tracing all the way back to Aristotle. It’s one of the foundational three Laws of Thought. There is something called Fuzzy Logic which is worth looking into, but acting like either/or is itself a logical fallacy is pretty humorous.

 

Like…do you guys even realize that we’re supposed to be in an Ice Age right now?

Research the predictable cooling cycles of the Earth. The last one ended just before Human Civilization began. We’re supposed to be due for another Ice Age right now. That’s just fact.

And yet, we’re also apparently warming up the planet with Fossil Fuels.

Mysteriously, there hasn’t been another Ice Age since Human Civilization began.

Time to put 2+2 together. Could it be that Civilization itself, “Overpopulation”, and Fossil Fuels are literally SAVING us from another Ice Age by keeping the planet warmer, counterbalancing the natural tendency for another big cooling period?????

Swallow THAT with your Breakfast McMuffin

 

50,000 years is child’s play when it comes to these sorts of estimations.

For example, Archaeologists as well as Geologists use Carbon-14 dating, Potassium-Argon dating (the older method), and Argon-Argon dating (the newer method), and others to measure the dates of artifacts, rocks, stratification layers, fossils, bones, etc.

A typical example for a date of a fossil could be 1.5 million years ago *plus or minus 100,000 years*.

This is just factual. 50,000 years is give or take chump change. “50,000 years from now” might as well be *right now*. We are overdue for an Ice Age NOW.

 

If I may add a snippet of something I read a while back?

Apparently, the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere at the moment is approx 0.04%. All plant life dies at 0.03%, so we're just bumping along at the bottom of the barrel as far as plant life is concerned. Furthermore, I also read that during the time the Roman empire thrived (2,000 years ago), the world mean temperature was nearly 5 degrees higher than it is at the moment.

So if the world heats up to where it was when the Romans were around, there will be much more CO2 in the atmosphere and plant growth will be much greater than it is at the moment, i.e. Amazon type rainforests may develop all over the world, and food production will go through the roof, not the other way round. Furthermore, at the time of the Romans, the sea levels were around 300ft lower than they are at the moment, which is why divers are finding lost cities from that time sitting on the bottom of the Mediterranean sea about 300ft below the surface.

I suspect that all the climate scaring is for financial reasons, to make rich people richer at the expense of the poor.

Yes, the climate is changing, yes it is getting hotter than it has been of late, but people managed to live on the planet when it was considerably hotter than it is now, so all the doom stuff is just pure b*ll*xs. The human race is very adaptable, and humans will continue to thrive, although some of the people who are thriving at the moment won't be able to thrive if people don't need them in order to make a living. So it's in the interests of people like Gates, and companies like Monsanto, to keep things as they are, rather than let the ordinary people live their lives in a warmer and more lush world, where they won't be needed.

Oh, the other thing is that China is leading the way in adding CO2 to the atmosphere, seeing as it's responsible for more than 30% of all atmospheric pollution. So trying to reduce the carbon footprint of any other nation (including the US) is pretty pointless while China continues to warm the planet. This means that if you want to argue the toss about climate change, the Chinese internet is the place to do it.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've numbered the points you made, and I'll answer them in the same order below.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. That doesn't mean climate change is a 'hoax' | Fact check
I didn't say that climate change is a hoax, you mentioned it not me.

2. What are the financial reasons?
Massive investments in wind and solar power, that have pushed the cost of energy up in the UK to the highest in the world,i.e. costing the ordinary UK citizen lots more than it did less than 10 years ago, and for no benefit to us at all.

3. Are there any financial reasons for denying global warming?
I wouldn't know, as I'm not denying global warming.

4. Major financial firms steer millions in hidden funds to climate denial causes
I had no idea about that, that's news to me.

5. No credible scientist has claimed that climate change will lead to the extinction of the human race.
Funny, I thought that most of the arguments I've been reading on this thread were about supposedly credible scientists and how they've argued over whether the human race can survive the climate changes now in progress. As to which ones are credible and which ones aren't, I'll leave you to decide, as you obviously know more about them than I do.

6. Just becasue one country is producing more pollution than others doesn't mean every other country in the world should also produce more pollution
I agree, but it does annoy me that here in the UK we have such climate zealots as Ed Milliband trying to drive us to a net zero future when we produce less than 1% of all the global atmospheric pollution. Meanwhile China goes its merry way, opening new coal mines every month and adding to the stuff it's already put up there, yet no-one tells the Chinese to stop what they're doing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So when I see you posting on the Chinese government website that they must stop adding to the global climate changes I'll believe you are serious about what you say. I'll also be interested to read what they reply to you (if they bother) about your arguments for them stopping their pollution.

As for me, I welcome the warmth, as it means I won't have to shell out more of my meagre state pension on keeping myself warm each winter.

 

Ask the taxpayers in places like Canada and sounds like the UK as well. The FEDS are sucking their citizens dry with carbon taxes.

It’s not much different of a vibe than Federal Student Loans. Why did the Government take this over? Well, because the populace is going to pay the insane fees, that’s why.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Not that it's a hoax, just not a problem?
It was an MP in the UK parliament who stated that plant life dies at 0.03% CO2. I happened to be watching the parliamentary stream when he said it.

2. The UK works by allowing the most expensive energy source to set the price for the entire market. The most expense source is imported natural gas.
There is a government agency called Ofgen who determine the maximum price that can be charged for both gas and electric. The supplier I'm with (Octopus Energy) state that they are the cheapest, as they always stay below the maximum. Everyone else seems to charge as much as they can. It's a horrible system, but as an old age pensioner I have no control over such things.

3. No, only one or two participants in this thread contend that those who agree that global warming is due to human actions are saying that scientists are saying global warming will lead to the extinction of the human race.
Like I said before, "I thought that most of the arguments I've been reading on this thread were about supposedly credible scientists and how they've argued over whether the human race can survive the climate changes now in progress. As to which ones are credible and which ones aren't, I'll leave you to decide, as you obviously know more about them than I do."

4. Apparently China is doing something to reduce emissions.
About time too is all I can say.

5. The UK is aiming at 2050.
According to the Milliband fan club, yes, but I see no point in taxing the ordinary man in the street into abject poverty just so the the government can virtue signal to other government leaders. As it is we have the highest energy prices in the world. If you had the same costs as us I think you'd be having second thoughts about 'net zero' as well.

For instance, I don't know how much you pay for your electricity, but it costs me 25.27p per kWh, and a daily standing charge of a further 45p.
Gas costs me 5.92p per kWh and a daily standing charge of 31.15p.
a) As I use at present around 13 - 15 kWh of electric per day, that's a cost of £4 per day on average, and that figure will increase as winter draws in.
b) Add to that the 1.5 Cu Ft of gas I use per day at present, with the standing charge added that's £3 per day on average, and that will increase as winter draws in.

So for a month's energy it's costing me around £200 at present, and that will increase to around £300 in the mid winter. Tell me, how much does your monthly energy bill come to?

6. So you think global warming is not a problem? If so why are you worried about China's CO2 emissions?
No I don't think global warming is a problem because I said earlier that humans are an adaptable species (look at the Inuit to see what I mean), and they will adapt to the changing conditions. However, I do think that China's atmospheric pollution is a problem, remember acid rain? Also, I didn't mention China's CO2 output, only atmospheric pollution, which is not quite the same thing.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Humans will be extinct in 100 years says eminent scientist.

(PhysOrg.com) -- Eminent Australian scientist Professor Frank Fenner, who helped to wipe out smallpox, predicts humans will probably be extinct within 100 years, because of overpopulation, environmental destruction and climate change.

Fenner told The Australian he tries not to express his pessimism because people are trying to do something, but keep putting it off. He said he believes the situation is irreversible, and it is too late because the effects we have had on Earth since industrialization (a period now known to scientists unofficially as the Anthropocene) rivals any effects of ice ages or comet impacts.

Fenner said that climate change is only at its beginning, but is likely to be the cause of our extinction. “We’ll undergo the same fate as the people on Easter Island,” he said. More people means fewer resources, and Fenner predicts “there will be a lot more wars over food.”