Rich countries ‘must do more’ for climate

[lvr181]

6 hours ago, DM07 said:

I don't seem to understand the question!

Protecting the environment by reducing plastic-waste (f.e.) is discriminating against the poor?

Having measures in place, that prohibit factories from spilling their sewage everywhere and actually enforcing these laws, is disciminating the poor?

Trying to look for alternative form of energy, that might provide jobs in a country like Thailand, that has an average of 365 sunny days a year...is discriminating against the poor?

 

We are talking emissions (climate change) NOT pollution.

[Catoni]

On 9/14/2018 at 12:06 AM, DM07 said:

If there were intelligent people with actual facts to reply to, I would be happy to do so!

But fact free climate change deniers and conspiracy theorists, who think, 98% of climate scientists are in the pocket of big money fro...oh, I know...George Sorros...don't deserve intelligent answers.

They most likely couldn't deal with them anyways!

Who denies that climate changes? I’ve met brainwashed people who think climate never changed before about the 1970’s and that it’s “all our fault”, and “it’s worse than we thought.” 

  Apparently they’ve never heard of the Holocene Climate Optimum, the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period and all the intervening colder periods. 

     Do you realize that civilization has always made its greatest advances during the warmer times? 

    Did you know what much of North America and Europe and Asia looked like 25,000 years ago? (Where cities like Toronto and Montreal are today, was a continental sized sheet of ice a mile thick! ! !)

    And yes.. billionaire socialist George Soros funds much of the leftist alarmism. 

     You have to keep the alarm level high. You MUST have a serious problem. 

   Because the result of there being no problem or of solving the problem is to see your funding cut and your lab closed down.

   So much for your Gore Bull Warming/Climate Change Alarmism paranoia. 

   Climate has been changing on this planet ever since it got water and an atmosphere. Climate changes sometimes fast, sometimes slow, sometimes a lot, sometimes a little. 

    Leftists/socialists are making use of it for their politico-economic agenda. 

[Catoni]

On 9/14/2018 at 12:09 AM, DM07 said:

Ooooooh green leafy things eat CO2!

I guess, when they taught that in elementary school, that was the last time you actually to anything resembling science, right!?

 

Just let me put it this way: you drink water in the same way "green leafy things" "eat" CO2.

So there should be no harm, if I shove a tube down your throat and pump some 10 liters of water "down there" every 30 minutes, right?!

Maybe you could enlighten us on why the flowers and vegetable greenhouse industry boosts their CO2 levels to between 800ppm -1300ppm . 

    My home is close to one of the largest greenhouse industries in the world in southern Ontario, Canada. 

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

[DM07]

1 hour ago, Catoni said:

Maybe you could enlighten us on why the flowers and vegetable greenhouse industry boosts their CO2 levels to between 800ppm -1300ppm . 

    My home is close to one of the largest greenhouse industries in the world in southern Ontario, Canada. 

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

Oh...you have a source!

Guess what: I see your source and I raise you mine!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/sep/19/new-study-undercuts-favorite-climate-myth-more-co2-is-good-for-plants

[DM07]

1 hour ago, Catoni said:

Who denies that climate changes? I’ve met brainwashed people who think climate never changed before about the 1970’s and that it’s “all our fault”, and “it’s worse than we thought.” 

  Apparently they’ve never heard of the Holocene Climate Optimum, the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period and all the intervening colder periods. 

     Do you realize that civilization has always made its greatest advances during the warmer times? 

    Did you know what much of North America and Europe and Asia looked like 25,000 years ago? (Where cities like Toronto and Montreal are today, was a continental sized sheet of ice a mile thick! ! !)

    And yes.. billionaire socialist George Soros funds much of the leftist alarmism. 

     You have to keep the alarm level high. You MUST have a serious problem. 

   Because the result of there being no problem or of solving the problem is to see your funding cut and your lab closed down.

   So much for your Gore Bull Warming/Climate Change Alarmism paranoia. 

   Climate has been changing on this planet ever since it got water and an atmosphere. Climate changes sometimes fast, sometimes slow, sometimes a lot, sometimes a little. 

    Leftists/socialists are making use of it for their politico-economic agenda. 

?  I have some tinfoil, if you need it!

 

[VincentRJ]

5 hours ago, DM07 said:

Oh...you have a source!

Guess what: I see your source and I raise you mine!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/sep/19/new-study-undercuts-favorite-climate-myth-more-co2-is-good-for-plants

Interesting opposing argument, but it is seriously flawed in the sense it is based upon an assertion, or belief, that the current increase in CO2 levels have negative consequences, such as warming the planet and increasing the occurrence of extreme weather events.

 

That the current increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is responsible for the current, slight, average global warming that has taken place during the past 150 years, which is claimed to be in the order of 0.8 to 1 degrees centigrade, cannot be scientifically verified, because there are so many variables and complexities.

 

Clicking on the links in the above Guardian article, I get the following summary of the carbon fertilization effect:

 

"It's true that when all else is held relatively constant, for example in a greenhouse, adding CO2 to the environment tends to increase plant growth. However, when we add more CO2 to the atmosphere, it changes the climate. More extreme weather events result, like heat waves, bush fires, droughts, and floods - conditions which are obviously not favorable to plant growth. And as John Mason recently noted:
 

"A key constraint of the carbon fertilization effect on the ground (and not in the controlled conditions of a greenhouse or laboratory) is that it would be operating in situations where other variables, essential to plant growth, may not play ball. It's a long list when one includes all the various minerals and trace-elements but key factors are major nutrients such as phosphorus, potassium, nitrogen and so on. CO2 is plant-food but so are these elements and they are essential, as any serious vegetable-grower will tell you."

 

Now some of the above statements have an element of truth. Plants cannot survive on CO2 alone. They cannot survive on water alone, or Phosphorous alone, or Nitrogen alone. However, we can prove, scientifically, that most plants in the presence of the essential elements such as water, sunlight and numerous minerals, will increase their growth when CO2 levels are increased; just as we can prove that adding more water, and/or more nitrogen fertilizers and other minerals, will also increase plant growth.

 

The addition of CO2 to the atmosphere, from the burning of fossil fuels, is in effect like a free fertilizer, or a free, additional water supply.
In fact, it can be scientifically proved without a shadow of a doubt, that increased CO2 levels help plants to grow better with reduced water supply, provided everything else remains the same. This is because the increased CO2 causes the spores on the plants' leaves to reduce in size, resulting in less evaporation. The plants therefore need less water. Of course, it's quite reasonable to suggest that increased temperatures, whatever the cause, will nullify such increased growth benefits in water stressed conditions.

 

I have no objection to someone expressing doubts about the net effects of increased CO2 on plant growth in the natural environment because other essential factors are always at play that might have counteractive effects.

 

However, I find it very odd that such a person would not apply the same reasoning to the argument that increased CO2 levels are causing bad changes to the world climate. The complexity of the causes of climate change, and the positive versus negative effects of a warming climate, which vary from region to region, and from time to time (climate is always changing, whatever the reason), should be understood and not denied.
 

[sirineou]

On 9/10/2018 at 7:30 PM, jimmyyy said:

Nice Try, we are not paying one dime for this crap.  The USA owes you all nothing, and that is what you will receive. 

How about if rich countries pooled their resources and bought huge air conditioners?

Edited September 16, 2018 by sirineou
typo

[Catoni]

9 hours ago, DM07 said:

Oh...you have a source!

Guess what: I see your source and I raise you mine!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/sep/19/new-study-undercuts-favorite-climate-myth-more-co2-is-good-for-plants

        The Guardian....  Britain's greatest socialist rag. LOL...   I would be embarrassed if I were you.

         The very fact that producers who have been running the greenhouse industry, since it really got underway, are willing to spend the money to purchase CO2 generators and boost CO2 levels to between 800 - 1300ppm is evidence that it works.  And the government scientists who don't have their fingers in the leftist/socialist Warming Alarmism money trough support it as outlined in the Government of the Province of Ontario document. 

   I wouldn't trust the leftist university professors these days who are grubbing for grants to push their politico-economic agenda and are looking for reasons to keep their labs open. 

    We all know that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. They HAVE to keep the Alamism level high in order to justify their position. 

     In the last 500 - 600 million years.... we have almost NEVER been this low in CO2.    And we almost came to planet wide disaster in Glacial Periods when we reached a low of 180ppm CO2.   We were only 31 or 32 ppm from disaster.

 

  Historical levels of atmospheric CO2 have ranged from 180ppm to about 7000 ppm....  On that scale, at 400 or 405 ppm we are still at a very low level of CO2.  

          The current Ice Age we are in began about 2.6 million years ago.  Why do you wish to stay in it?  

 

Tell us... since you are so worried about Global Warming/Climate Change... then why do you live in or travel to the hot tropics ?  

      Or have you moved to the beautiful shores of the Arctic Ocean were it is nice and cool ? ? 

  

      

   I 

Edited September 16, 2018 by Catoni

[Catoni]

9 hours ago, DM07 said:

?  I have some tinfoil, if you need it!

 

 I see that you failed to rebut even one of my points... and instead simply threw out an insult statement.  So typical of the socialist left.....   Pathetic. 

CO2 and Temperature over Time: 

Edited September 16, 2018 by Catoni
Addition

[Catoni]

9 hours ago, DM07 said:

Oh...you have a source!

Guess what: I see your source and I raise you mine!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/sep/19/new-study-undercuts-favorite-climate-myth-more-co2-is-good-for-plants

 What very well might be the largest Greenhouse Industry business in the world beats your British  "The Guardian" socialist rag and leftist university Alarmist "professors" grubbing for taxpayer funded grants and making attempts to justify their positions.

    You should try the greenhouse grown tomatoes and sweet peppers and lettuce and eggplant and other vegetables and see the flowers grown in greenhouses in this region.  Delicious and amazing..  

    There's nothing like proof that you can see and eat for yourself in person...  

     

[The manic]

China and India need to do more.

[goatfarmer]

On 9/14/2018 at 11:06 AM, DM07 said:

If there were intelligent people with actual facts to reply to, I would be happy to do so!

.... 98% of climate scientists ....

Actual facts?

Dunning Kruger strikes again.

[lvr181]

This is like religion - we only believe in what suits us? Despite "blinkered dyed in the wool" believers and contrarians on either side. 

[james1995]

france needs to stop bothering my country about this climate hoax stuff.  we are not going to pay for a theory that hasn't even been proven.  if france wants to change the climate, they can tax themselves to pay for it all.  we are not going to pay for france's unproven theories!

[DM07]

1 hour ago, goatfarmer said:

Actual facts?

Dunning Kruger strikes again.

Oh...is it only 95 or 93?

That really derails my point completely!

[DM07]

10 hours ago, Catoni said:

 What very well might be the largest Greenhouse Industry business in the world beats your British  "The Guardian" socialist rag and leftist university Alarmist "professors" grubbing for taxpayer funded grants and making attempts to justify their positions.

    You should try the greenhouse grown tomatoes and sweet peppers and lettuce and eggplant and other vegetables and see the flowers grown in greenhouses in this region.  Delicious and amazing..  

    There's nothing like proof that you can see and eat for yourself in person...  

     

Oh dear!

[DM07]

10 hours ago, Catoni said:

 I see that you failed to rebut even one of my points... and instead simply threw out an insult statement.  So typical of the socialist left.....   Pathetic. 

CO2 and Temperature over Time: 

What the #@$% does this prove?

Couldn't you find any graph with an even bigger time range?

No one is disputing, that some hundred million years ago, the climate on planet Earth was different!

What are you trying to prove?

You know what: I don't need this BS!

I'd rather stick with the VAST majority of leftist, George Sorros- funded scientists!

Something tells me, that is way better, than discussing stuff with a guy, who knows the astonishing fact, that 500 Million years ago, Earth was a different place!

[DM07]

11 hours ago, Catoni said:

        The Guardian....  Britain's greatest socialist rag. LOL...   I would be embarrassed if I were you.

         The very fact that producers who have been running the greenhouse industry, since it really got underway, are willing to spend the money to purchase CO2 generators and boost CO2 levels to between 800 - 1300ppm is evidence that it works.  And the government scientists who don't have their fingers in the leftist/socialist Warming Alarmism money trough support it as outlined in the Government of the Province of Ontario document. 

   I wouldn't trust the leftist university professors these days who are grubbing for grants to push their politico-economic agenda and are looking for reasons to keep their labs open. 

    We all know that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. They HAVE to keep the Alamism level high in order to justify their position. 

     In the last 500 - 600 million years.... we have almost NEVER been this low in CO2.    And we almost came to planet wide disaster in Glacial Periods when we reached a low of 180ppm CO2.   We were only 31 or 32 ppm from disaster.

 

  Historical levels of atmospheric CO2 have ranged from 180ppm to about 7000 ppm....  On that scale, at 400 or 405 ppm we are still at a very low level of CO2.  

          The current Ice Age we are in began about 2.6 million years ago.  Why do you wish to stay in it?  

 

Tell us... since you are so worried about Global Warming/Climate Change... then why do you live in or travel to the hot tropics ?  

      Or have you moved to the beautiful shores of the Arctic Ocean were it is nice and cool ? ? 

  

      

   I 

You know some difficult words!

You must be very clever!

Mind you: this is not about your fantastic CO2 induced plant life!

This is about climate change.

You know: the stuff that makes every recent year, the hottest year on record!

The stuff that brings extreme weather patterns like longer drought- periods, warmer ocean water, more and heavier storms!

I guess, the fact that the US is on fire for 50% of the year or on evacuation alert from hurricanes for the other 50%, doesn't ring a bell, does it!?

 

I tell you: I moved to the tropics to work!

Guess what: some of us have to do things, they'd rather not do, but somehow are "forced" to do!

And for the Arctic Ocean, that is nice and cool: I couldn't stand the sight of starving polar bears anymore!

 

Have a good day, sir!

[goatfarmer]

44 minutes ago, DM07 said:

Oh...is it only 95 or 93?

That really derails my point completely!

One doesn't save a point from derailment by moving the rails. But before you can save a point, you have to have a point. What, exactly, is your point?

[geriatrickid]

Germany is doing its part. The coal company with support of  the Merkel regime has been trying to  destroy an old growth forest to allow low grade quality coal strip mining. This is the same country which has been lecturing the world on global warming and  respect for the environment.

[DM07]

4 minutes ago, goatfarmer said:

One doesn't save a point from derailment by moving the rails. But before you can save a point, you have to have a point. What, exactly, is your point?

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

Just read the first paragraph, right under the graph!

I can't be arsed to explain anymore!

I stick with the 97(!)% of climate scientists who say, that climate change is most likely man made!

As soon as 97% of them state the opposite, I will gladly bow my head to climate change -deniers!

[DM07]

3 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

Germany is doing its part. The coal company with support of  the Merkel regime has been trying to  destroy an old growth forest to allow low grade quality coal strip mining. This is the same country which has been lecturing the world on global warming and  respect for the environment.

And still they do more, then a bunch of other developed nations, most of all 'Murica!

[Catoni]

1 hour ago, DM07 said:

You know some difficult words!

You must be very clever!

Mind you: this is not about your fantastic CO2 induced plant life!

This is about climate change.

You know: the stuff that makes every recent year, the hottest year on record!

The stuff that brings extreme weather patterns like longer drought- periods, warmer ocean water, more and heavier storms!

I guess, the fact that the US is on fire for 50% of the year or on evacuation alert from hurricanes for the other 50%, doesn't ring a bell, does it!?

 

I tell you: I moved to the tropics to work!

Guess what: some of us have to do things, they'd rather not do, but somehow are "forced" to do!

And for the Arctic Ocean, that is nice and cool: I couldn't stand the sight of starving polar bears anymore!

 

Have a good day, sir!

>"This is about climate change."

           Which is nothing new.... and has been going on ever since the planet got water and an atmosphere.  Sometimes fast climate change... sometimes slow.  Sometimes a lot of climate change... sometimes a little. 

   Isn't our planet a fascinating place ?   So interesting and always changing. The only "permanent" thing..... is impermanence. 

 

>"You know: the stuff that makes every recent year, the hottest year on record!"   

           Since you fail to define "...record "    your statement is less than honest. 

 

>"The stuff that brings extreme weather patterns like longer drought- periods, warmer ocean water, more and heavier storms!"

           There has always been bad storms....  just ask the Spanish who lost whole fleets of ships and also towns and cities to devastating hurricanes, and typhoons in the Caribbean and Atlantic, and Pacific during the 16th, 17th, and 18th and 19th centurys.    Just ask me.... I lived through Hurricane Hazel in 1954 that even hit Canada and killed people in Ontario. 

   Was that Climate Change also ? ?   Trump's fault perhaps... 5555 ?  

 

>"I guess, the fact that the US is on fire for 50% of the year or on evacuation alert from hurricanes for the other 50%, doesn't ring a bell, does it!?"

              Why is it that socialist/leftist Climate Alarmists find it so necessary to deceive, exaggerate and lie ? ?  

 

 > "...starving polar bears..."

 

   Where?  So tell us... did they also starve during the Holocene Climate Optimum?   How about during the Minoan Warm Period...did they starve then also ? ? 

  Maybe during the Roman Warm Period?  Or Medieval Warm Period ? ?  Did they starve then ? 

  

If you don't like it that warm and want it cooler, there are lots of jobs in Canada or Alaska, U.S.A.  

     Barrow, Alaska, or perhaps Inuvik, Canada might be to your liking. Probably good deals on apartments.   

Edited September 17, 2018 by Catoni
Addition....

[DM07]

Deflection and what about'isms!

Good day, sir!

[goatfarmer]

44 minutes ago, DM07 said:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

Just read the first paragraph, right under the graph!

I can't be arsed to explain anymore!

I stick with the 97(!)% of climate scientists who say, that climate change is most likely man made!

As soon as 97% of them state the opposite, I will gladly bow my head to climate change -deniers!

I'll go with Roy Spencer's interpretation:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/ill-see-your-97-percent-and-raise-you-3-percent/

Edited September 17, 2018 by goatfarmer
added link

[lvr181]

5 hours ago, DM07 said:

Deflection and what about'isms!

Good day, sir!

The "scientists" have only claimed "most likely man made". NOT is man made. 

 

Climate change has been happening since Earth became Earth. Mankind maybe contributing, but I would doubt causing. 

 

Did mankind cause this?

 

[DM07]

The "scientists" have only claimed "most likely man made". NOT is man made. 
 
Climate change has been happening since Earth became Earth. Mankind maybe contributing, but I would doubt causing. [emoji106]
 
Did mankind cause this?
 

And if you were half as clever, as you think you are, you would know, that most scientists would never talk about absolute certainty!
That' s the ting about science: it is willing to take into account, that things that are well accepted consensus today, might be challenged tomorrow!
No like you guys, where " the climate always changed so that is that"!

Sent from my RNE-L22 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[nausea]

The sooner we get off this planet and start ruining a few other biospheres the better.

[lvr181]

12 hours ago, DM07 said:

That' s the ting about science: it is willing to take into account, that things that are well accepted consensus today, might be challenged tomorrow!

And it is being challenged! Seemingly, you don't like it. 

[Catoni]

44 minutes ago, lvr181 said:

And it is being challenged! Seemingly, you don't like it. 

Consensus is not science. As a kid in elementary school it was still the “scientific consensus” that the continents were fixed in place and did not move. Plate tectonics and continental drift did not finally become well accepted until the early 1960’s.