World at risk of heading towards irreversible 'hothouse' state

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The amount of plastic in the Pacific would be too much for 2 thousand ships, and the most destructive particles are too small to be collected. However, large enough for fish to eat and die.

Mankind has tried to kill the oceans because no one in a position to do anything about it cared enough to do anything to stop it.

And your point is?

[thaibeachlovers]

7 minutes ago, JCauto said:

Does acknowledging that human activity is having major detrimental results on the planet something that disturbs you? It's so obvious that it calls into question your previous judgments and sincerity in engaging in discussion. 

 

I have no problem acknowledging that human activity may have had some impact on climate, but I have yet to be convinced that it is a primary cause of destructive climate change. I'm more convinced by the science that promotes increased atmospheric CO2 as a result of heat than of Gore's proposition that CO2 causes heat. I also think that the sun's activity far outweighs anything man does.

 

I'll certainly agree that by destroying the forests of the planet, humans have released vast amounts of CO2 and prevented the capture of CO2 by tree growth. A classic case of humanity shooting itself in the foot, yet NOTHING has been done to  reverse the destruction of forests.

I'll agree that aeroplanes are a MAJOR cause of CO2 pollution in the atmosphere, yet far from limiting air travel, every government in the world is doing all they can to INCREASE it.

Nuclear power is the only non polluting ( CO2 ) power source that can actually meet demand ( other than hydro, and that is limited to certain countries ), yet countries like Germany and Japan are trying to do away with it, while other countries ban it outright.

 

All I can gain from the information that is available to me, is that humans are very stupid when it comes to preserving the environment, and governments are very bad at deciding priorities. Probably the worst model of development, ever increasing productivity, is the one most in use on the planet, yet it is suicidal for the future of humanity. Enough studies have been done with rats to know what happens when populations increase beyond the ability of their environment to support them, yet humans continue to overpopulate themselves without any restraint, especially now China revoked it's one child policy.

What is crystal, is that too many humans inhabit the planet, and till that is reversed, we are doomed as a species.

[JCauto]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I have no problem acknowledging that human activity may have had some impact on climate, but I have yet to be convinced that it is a primary cause of destructive climate change. I'm more convinced by the science that promotes increased atmospheric CO2 as a result of heat than of Gore's proposition that CO2 causes heat. I also think that the sun's activity far outweighs anything man does.

 

I'll certainly agree that by destroying the forests of the planet, humans have released vast amounts of CO2 and prevented the capture of CO2 by tree growth. A classic case of humanity shooting itself in the foot, yet NOTHING has been done to  reverse the destruction of forests.

I'll agree that aeroplanes are a MAJOR cause of CO2 pollution in the atmosphere, yet far from limiting air travel, every government in the world is doing all they can to INCREASE it.

Nuclear power is the only non polluting ( CO2 ) power source that can actually meet demand ( other than hydro, and that is limited to certain countries ), yet countries like Germany and Japan are trying to do away with it, while other countries ban it outright.

 

All I can gain from the information that is available to me, is that humans are very stupid when it comes to preserving the environment, and governments are very bad at deciding priorities. Probably the worst model of development, ever increasing productivity, is the one most in use on the planet, yet it is suicidal for the future of humanity. Enough studies have been done with rats to know what happens when populations increase beyond the ability of their environment to support them, yet humans continue to overpopulate themselves without any restraint, especially now China revoked it's one child policy.

What is crystal, is that too many humans inhabit the planet, and till that is reversed, we are doomed as a species.

Sorry, "debating" the scientific consensus puts you in the position of those not vaccinating their children because they believe it causes autism even though there's no evidence for that, it's been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked, and the overwhelming if not unanimous consensus among the experts who study and understand the science and medicine is that these are safe and necessary. You are welcome to join fellow cranks in pissing on everything the professionals and scientists are doing but it's pointless to discuss further.

[BritManToo]

50 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Will ‘over 97%’ of published climate science do

Not really as they're all paid to prove the same thing and produce papers proving the same thing.

As Rick stated, you are on the 'victim', 'social justice' side of the equation, as demonstrated in every post you make and every 'like' you give, no thinking required on your part, just follow SJW policy.

Edited August 14, 2018 by BritManToo

[thaibeachlovers]

25 minutes ago, JCauto said:

Sorry, "debating" the scientific consensus puts you in the position of those not vaccinating their children because they believe it causes autism even though there's no evidence for that, it's been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked, and the overwhelming if not unanimous consensus among the experts who study and understand the science and medicine is that these are safe and necessary. You are welcome to join fellow cranks in pissing on everything the professionals and scientists are doing but it's pointless to discuss further.

You can refuse to discuss anything with me, further, but it's not going to change my mind, and I guess nothing I can say will change yours.

 

BTW, the argument that vaccination produced autism only related to the 3 in 1, far as I know, and had they allowed individual vaccinations to be given it would have prevented a lot of stress. However, as always the bureaucrats had to try and force their opinion on everyone. IMO bureaucracy causes more harm to society than any other organisation, and we have to pay for it!

 

The only people I tend to "piss on" to use your terminology, are those that seek to ram something down my throat because other people think one way about something. I've known enough "scientists" in my life to know that having a degree doesn't make them any more right than anyone else. In fact, some have been absolute tossers, and I'd have been remiss to believe them if they said it was raining, without first looking out the window.

Edited August 14, 2018 by thaibeachlovers

[BritManToo]

32 minutes ago, JCauto said:

Sorry, "debating" the scientific consensus puts you in the position of those not vaccinating their children because they believe it causes autism even though there's no evidence for that, it's been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked,

Yep, didn't vaccinate my English kids, but you feel free to damage yours.

Thai hospital vaccinated my Thai kids (no choice), and one was damaged (mild vaccine-induced autism), but seemed to recover a couple of years later.

 

Edited August 14, 2018 by BritManToo

[owl sees all]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You can refuse to discuss anything with me, further, but it's not going to change my mind, and I guess nothing I can say will change yours.

 

BTW, the argument that vaccination produced autism only related to the 3 in 1, far as I know, and had they allowed individual vaccinations to be given it would have prevented a lot of stress. However, as always the bureaucrats had to try and force their opinion on everyone. IMO bureaucracy causes more harm to society than any other organisation, and we have to pay for it!

 

The only people I tend to "piss on" to use your terminology, are those that seek to ram something down my throat because other people think one way about something. I've known enough "scientists" in my life to know that having a degree doesn't make them any more right than anyone else. In fact, some have been absolute tossers, and I'd have been remiss to believe them if they said it was raining, without first looking out the window.

Back in the 1970s in UK, we were being warned about the new ice age  

[bristolboy]

10 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Back in the 1970s in UK, we were being warned about the new ice age  

A few scientists said that and it made headlines. It was hardly an unchallenged belief in the scientific community. But even if that were the cae, that thesis was discarded in the face of new evidence and the new powerful technologies that made analysis of huge amounts of data possible.

And if you may recall, it wasn't so long ago that the notion that the continents were moving was considered an outlandish theory. Maybe you should let geologists know that plate tectonics is not a valid theory because scientists once believed that the continents were stationery.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

A few scientists said that and it made headlines. It was hardly an unchallenged belief in the scientific community. But even if that were the cae, that thesis was discarded in the face of new evidence and the new powerful technologies that made analysis of huge amounts of data possible.

And if you may recall, it wasn't so long ago that the notion that the continents were moving was considered an outlandish theory. Maybe you should let geologists know that plate tectonics is not a valid theory because scientists once believed that the continents were stationery.

Years ago, scientists thought sugar was good for us, or at least the ones being paid to promote that belief did. Rather like the ones being paid to promote man induced climate change.

 

As recently as WW2, people smoked as a matter of course, and continue to do so even though they were known as cancer sticks by the 60s.

Things change all the time, and fashions make some things have more importance than they deserve. At the moment, man made C C is in fashion, but in 20 years it may no longer be so.

[owl sees all]

12 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

A few scientists said that and it made headlines. It was hardly an unchallenged belief in the scientific community. But even if that were the cae, that thesis was discarded in the face of new evidence and the new powerful technologies that made analysis of huge amounts of data possible.

And if you may recall, it wasn't so long ago that the notion that the continents were moving was considered an outlandish theory. Maybe you should let geologists know that plate tectonics is not a valid theory because scientists once believed that the continents were stationery.

I'm not a scientist and I don't know any geologists. I was simply stating what was widely promoted 50 odd years ago.

 

As for the plates moving; well I've just worked out that California will shortly crash into Japan.

[JCauto]

44 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Yep, didn't vaccinate my English kids, but you feel free to damage yours.

Thai hospital vaccinated my Thai kids (no choice), and one was damaged (mild vaccine-induced autism), but seemed to recover a couple of years later.

 

5555! Yes, you're a classic case. It's called the "backfire effect", where people's beliefs are actually reinforced by facts that directly contradict them and then they see evidence of their views everywhere they look ("confirmation  bias"). These are symptoms of what is known as the "Dunning-Kruger Effect".

 

Dunning-Kruger Effects occur when individuals’ lack of knowledge about a particular subject leads them to inaccurately gauge their expertise on that subject. Ignorance of one’s own ignorance can lead people who lack knowledge on a subject think of themselves as more expert than those who are comparatively better informed.

 

 

 

 

[ivor bigun]

To be honest i really do not think climate change is going to be the major ptoblem,as the worlds poor and uneducated breed ,faster and faster and as their food and water runs out,the tide of humanity running to countrys that have these things will be a tsunami, barriers will go up to try to stem the flood and wars will ensue,God help the population in the time to come and i just thank the sky fairy i was born when i was.

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[JCauto]

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

Not really as they're all paid to prove the same thing and produce papers proving the same thing.

As Rick stated, you are on the 'victim', 'social justice' side of the equation, as demonstrated in every post you make and every 'like' you give, no thinking required on your part, just follow SJW policy.

So your point is that if they're being paid to research something, then they will come to the conclusions of the paymasters because that is in their best economic interest in order to keep their jobs. It's a great point. For those of us who understand science, that is.

 

You see, someone working for ClimateChangeRUs who discovered that the books were cooked, that the conclusions were wrong, that the actual evidence points to no man-made impacts, that there are perfectly valid natural explanations for the warming of the earth and its impacts, would become instantly wealthy and famous. They would have their own private Climate Research Institute funded by the Koch Bros. as soon as they could put their signature on the contract. They would have Exxon and the Carbon Energy Giants lining up to give them money to propagate more research to prove that anthropogenic climate change is bunkum.

 

Yet they can't get a single credible scientist to accept these riches, this fame, these powers. Wonder why that is? It's the best possible rebuttal to the anti-science crowd - anyone with scientific credibility willing to twist the results to achieve an end would get whatever they wanted, yet nobody will sell out their principles to make fake research.

 

 

[BritManToo]

53 minutes ago, JCauto said:

Dunning-Kruger Effects occur when individuals’ lack of knowledge about a particular subject

You assume I'm the ignorant one and you're the informed one.

 

Edited August 14, 2018 by BritManToo

[JCauto]

46 minutes ago, ivor bigun said:

To be honest i really do not think climate change is going to be the major ptoblem,as the worlds poor and uneducated breed ,faster and faster and as their food and water runs out,the tide of humanity running to countrys that have these things will be a tsunami, barriers will go up to try to stem the flood and wars will ensue,God help the population in the time to come and i just thank the sky fairy i was born when i was.

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

So you don't see a link to the poor running out of food, water and land and their eventual migration and Climate Change? Hint - it's what will result in the running out of the food, water and land.

[JCauto]

Just now, BritManToo said:

You assume I'm the ignorant one and you're the informed one.

Yes, that's true. My basis for assessment is my work as an engineer and scientist in natural resources management issues including forestry. As a result of my many years of experience, I have had to read numerous scientific studies, become familiar with the different aspects of natural resources management and the issues that impact them, and engage in scientific analysis of complex issues such as hydrology of sub-tropical catchments to determine potential maximum flood flows. What's yours?

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

Yep, didn't vaccinate my English kids, but you feel free to damage yours.

Thai hospital vaccinated my Thai kids (no choice), and one was damaged (mild vaccine-induced autism), but seemed to recover a couple of years later.

 

On the one hand you claim to be a scientist and on the other you state as an absolute fact that a vaccination induced autism in your child. How do you square your assertion with the scientific method? Or with the CDC's massive study to determine whether or not there is a link between autism and vaccination?

[BritManToo]

8 minutes ago, JCauto said:

So you don't see a link to the poor running out of food, water and land and their eventual migration and Climate Change? Hint - it's what will result in the running out of the food, water and land.

I don't see any limit to the food, water and land possible in the short term (500 years).

But the people who grow the food, process the water and own the land don't give it away free of charge, which is the only reason the poor will have a problem. If the west was run the way it used to be run, with armed guards at borders with 'shoot-to-kill' orders, there wouldn't be a problem with 'humanity' moving around. But it suits the globalists current agenda to allow invaders into the west.

 

Back on topic,

If I were to try and predict the future, I would say an ice age is more likely than a hothouse.

But I've only got about ten years life, so don't really give a damn, and don't need to plan either way.

Edited August 14, 2018 by BritManToo

[Becker]

3 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I don't see any limit to the food, water and land possible in the short term (500 years).

But the people who grow the food, process the water and own the land don't give it away free of charge, which is the only reason the poor will have a problem. If the west was run the way it used to be run, with armed guards at borders with 'shoot-to-kill' orders, there wouldn't be a problem with 'humanity' moving around. But it suits the globalists current agenda to allow invaders into the west.

 

Back on topic,

If I were to try and predict the future, I would say an ice age is more likely than a hothouse.

Well, almost all of the scientists that are studying this issue says we're heading the other way. Guess who I chose to believe...

[JCauto]

3 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I don't see any limit to the food, water and land possible in the short term (500 years).

But the people who grow the food, process the water and own the land don't give it away free of charge, which is the only reason the poor will have a problem. If the west was run the way it used to be run, with armed guards at borders with 'shoot-to-kill' orders, there wouldn't be a problem with 'humanity' moving around. But it suits the globalists current agenda to allow invaders into the west.

500 years, eh? Well then, what was I worried about! You will publish a link to your research I hope so that we ignorant folk who have estimated that we're going to lose an awful lot of that highly productive land to sea level rise and salinization, and a lot of the food production to disruptive storms, changes in temperature and rainfall patterns and other knock-on effects will feel so much better about this new lease on life. Why have the media been trying to silence you and your amazing and unique research?

[BritManToo]

7 minutes ago, JCauto said:

 Well then, what was I worried about! You will publish a link to your research I hope so that we ignorant folk who have estimated that we're going to lose an awful lot of that highly productive land to sea level rise

 

I don't really care what happens to you and if I had a master plan that could save the future world, I wouldn't bother, you can all die.

As I previously stated, I only have 10 years left.

Edited August 14, 2018 by BritManToo

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Not really as they're all paid to prove the same thing and produce papers proving the same thing.

As Rick stated, you are on the 'victim', 'social justice' side of the equation, as demonstrated in every post you make and every 'like' you give, no thinking required on your part, just follow SJW policy.

OK science evades you.

 

Perhaps you can explain what ‘victim’ and ‘social’ justice have to do with climate change?

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, BritManToo said:

I don't really care what happens to you and if I had a master plan that could save the future world, I wouldn't bother, you can all die.

As I previously stated, I only have 10 years left.

You hope.

[JCauto]

14 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I don't really care what happens to you and if I had a master plan that could save the future world, I wouldn't bother, you can all die.

As I previously stated, I only have 10 years left.

Well aren't you a fun guy! I hope you'll pardon our attempting to do something for others, didn't mean to disturb your angry descent into death.

[ivor bigun]

So you don't see a link to the poor running out of food, water and land and their eventual migration and Climate Change? Hint - it's what will result in the running out of the food, water and land.

No its just far to many for the land to sustain its been happening all through time,drought and famine,but its going to be ten times worse this time as thete are far to many people.

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[JCauto]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

On the one hand you claim to be a scientist and on the other you state as an absolute fact that a vaccination induced autism in your child. How do you square your assertion with the scientific method? Or with the CDC's massive study to determine whether or not there is a link between autism and vaccination?

Good and relevant one from Reddit today.

 

Why was the 3-year old child of Anti-Vaxxer parents crying?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

She was having a mid-life crisis.

[dick dasterdly]

4 hours ago, JCauto said:

Sorry, "debating" the scientific consensus puts you in the position of those not vaccinating their children because they believe it causes autism even though there's no evidence for that, it's been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked, and the overwhelming if not unanimous consensus among the experts who study and understand the science and medicine is that these are safe and necessary. <snip>

 

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

<snip> BTW, the argument that vaccination produced autism only related to the 3 in 1, far as I know, and had they allowed individual vaccinations to be given it would have prevented a lot of stress. However, as always the bureaucrats had to try and force their opinion on everyone. IMO bureaucracy causes more harm to society than any other organisation, and we have to pay for it!

<snip>

If we're moving on to the MMR vaccine - then I agree with thaibeachlovers on this issue.

 

There is some evidence that the MMR vaccine could possibly cause autism in a few children, so understandably many parents preferred to give their children the vaccines individually.

 

The authorities tried very hard to stop this, and their argument (IIRC) was that the delay in administering the individual vaccines could cause an increase in the number of these (already very low....) diseases.....

 

One of the worst examples of the 'establishments' determination to enforce their rules on everyone, even when there was no reason to do so.  The three separate vaccinations had worked extremely well for decades.

[JCauto]

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

If we're moving on to the MMR vaccine - then I agree with thaibeachlovers on this issue.

 

There is some evidence that the MMR vaccine could possibly cause autism in a few children, so understandably many parents preferred to give their children the vaccines individually.

 

The authorities tried very hard to stop this, and their argument (IIRC) was that the delay in administering the individual vaccines could cause an increase in the number of these (already very low....) diseases.....

 

One of the worst examples of the 'establishments' determination to enforce their rules on everyone, even when there was no reason to do so.  The three separate vaccinations had worked extremely well for decades.

Right, so because there were possibly but not at all proven to be a few cases where the MMR vaccine could possibly cause autism, then it's permissible and understandable for parents to mitigate that practically non-existent risk in exchange for weakening the herd because you haven't vaccinated your little one. That you are weakening community immunity (herd immunity) is indisputable, and we are already observing how measles and mumps are making a comeback because of this. This is not theory, there is no doubt.

 

Similar to the Climate Change debate, there is a massive and reviewed body of scientific study and evidence on one side, and the "feelings" of some uninformed and untrained people on the other who "believe" they understand the issues better than these professionals have spent their lives training and gaining actual experience in dealing with the real world consequences of applying their knowledge. This is the Dunning-Kruger Effect in its most obvious and pervasive form. It's no wonder that those who believe this are also those who are the most hopeless about our future and least willing to commit to doing anything personally about it. Like the blindly religious, they give up their reasoning faculties in favour of faith in something that confirms their bias.

[dick dasterdly]

46 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

If we're moving on to the MMR vaccine - then I agree with thaibeachlovers on this issue.

 

There is some evidence that the MMR vaccine could possibly cause autism in a few children, so understandably many parents preferred to give their children the vaccines individually.

 

The authorities tried very hard to stop this, and their argument (IIRC) was that the delay in administering the individual vaccines could cause an increase in the number of these (already very low....) diseases.....

 

One of the worst examples of the 'establishments' determination to enforce their rules on everyone, even when there was no reason to do so.  The three separate vaccinations had worked extremely well for decades.

 

31 minutes ago, JCauto said:

Right, so because there were possibly but not at all proven to be a few cases where the MMR vaccine could possibly cause autism, then it's permissible and understandable for parents to mitigate that practically non-existent risk in exchange for weakening the herd because you haven't vaccinated your little one. That you are weakening community immunity (herd immunity) is indisputable, and we are already observing how measles and mumps are making a comeback because of this. This is not theory, there is no doubt.

 

<snip>

That's not what I said at all...  I was pointing out that some parents were worried about possible autism concerns connected to the MMR vaccine, and so preferred to give the vaccinations individually - but this was made very difficult by the authorities.

 

Why did you change this to parents preferring to not vaccinate their children at all?

Edited August 14, 2018 by dick dasterdly

[JCauto]

Just now, dick dasterdly said:

 

That's not what I said at all...  I was pointing out that some parents were worried about possible autism concerns connected to the MMR vaccine, and so preferred to give the vaccinations individually - but this was made very difficult by the authorities.

 

Why did you change this to parents deciding to not vaccinate their children at all?

Oh, sorry, completely misread that. Carry on then.