Activist Thunberg completes intercontinental dash to Madrid climate summit

[Saint Nick]

On 12/7/2019 at 2:05 PM, Chazar said:

One of the best arguments  to raise taxes  easily  worldwide after all who is going to argue with "but its  to save the planet"

THAT is your biggest fear, when it comes to climate change?

That someone is raising taxes?

I don't know, where you are from, but I guess, you have no problem with paying taxes for military - spendings of your respective government?

You pay taxes, no matter what!

Some for sensible stuff like infrastructure, some for debatable stuff like "culture & art", some for tosh like new rockets and tanks!

So pray tell: what is wrong with a few more bucks to prevent the consequences of manmade (yes!) climate change?

[Saint Nick]

On 12/7/2019 at 4:29 PM, torturedsole said:

A picture paints a thousand words.

Just one small question, then I will let you slide back into your special little dreamworld: you do know, what ANTIFA stands for, right?!

Care to explain to me, what is wrong with being against fascism and fascists?

 

[rabas]

23 minutes ago, Saint Nick said:

Just one small question, then I will let you slide back into your special little dreamworld: you do know, what ANTIFA stands for, right?!

Care to explain to me, what is wrong with being against fascism and fascists?

 

Same thing that's wrong with believing the People's Republic of China and Democratic People's Republic of North Korea stand for democracy.

 

[Catoni]

6 minutes ago, Saint Nick said:

THAT is your biggest fear, when it comes to climate change?

That someone is raising taxes?

I don't know, where you are from, but I guess, you have no problem with paying taxes for military - spendings of your respective government?

You pay taxes, no matter what!

Some for sensible stuff like infrastructure, some for debatable stuff like "culture & art", some for tosh like new rockets and tanks!

So pray tell: what is wrong with a few more bucks to prevent the consequences of manmade (yes!) climate change?

     "...few more bucks.."       Do you have cites for your claim that it will cost only a few bucks?  

 

  A few bucks how often out of my pocket?   Every year?   Every month?  Every day ?    

 

    I bet you could shut down the whole economy of the U.S.       The U.S. could vanish off the face of the Earth.. and you could establish International Communism 

 

    And you might keep the temperature 0.35 of one degree cooler by the year 2100 than it would otherwise be. 

     But I wouldn't hold my breath...      China and India continue to build coal fired plants...

 

And now China is even going to export coal fired plants...  

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/29/716347646/why-is-china-placing-a-global-bet-on-coal

 

   https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/climate/china-energy-companies-coal-plants-climate-change.html

[Rimmer]

Off topic and troll posts removed

[Saint Nick]

1 hour ago, Catoni said:

So how exactly does Trump lean towards totalitarianism, when his government does not increase regulation over people’s lives, but instead gets RID of several regulations for each new regulation brought in ?

     The massive pile of government regulation is shrinking... not growing. The opposite of what you get in fascism and communism.

I guess, that is one way of looking at it!

A very "special" way, fitting to a "special" person like you...

[Catoholic]

How dare you !!! lol ... too funny...

[brokenbone]

36 minutes ago, stevenl said:

See the previous post from Saint Nick.

i recognize some of these predictions,

for example the lead NASA scientist 'the oracle' james hansen foresaw

that arctic would be ice free in summer no later then 2018,

yet here we are, arctic ice is 2 meter thick, same as it was 60 years ago.

and every single climate model so far was proven wrong,

as they attempted to 'hide the decline'

[Saint Nick]

4 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

i recognize some of these predictions,

for example the lead NASA scientist 'the oracle' james hansen foresaw

that arctic would be ice free in summer no later then 2018,

yet here we are, arctic ice is 2 meter thick, same as it was 60 years ago.

and every single climate model so far was proven wrong,

as they attempted to 'hide the decline'

Yet here we are, with polar bears not finding enough thick ice to go hunting and laying siege on Russian villages on a year round basis!

The arctic AND antarctic ice is melting, maybe not at the rate foreseen, but melting it sure is!

 We are on a very "good" way!

[torturedsole]

4 minutes ago, Saint Nick said:

... and join us on the fight against manmade climate change!

 

What precisely is going to stop manmade climate change and how do you separate out naturally occurring climate change from the supposed manmade climate change.  Thereafter, how do you know when you've achieved your goal of stopping manmade climate change in its tracks?

 

I'm genuinely interested.  

[Catoni]

33 minutes ago, Saint Nick said:

Yet here we are, with polar bears not finding enough thick ice to go hunting and laying siege on Russian villages on a year round basis!

The arctic AND antarctic ice is melting, maybe not at the rate foreseen, but melting it sure is!

 We are on a very "good" way!

There Is No Climate Emergency for Polar Bears. Numbers are up....  not down.  And they seemed to not have been wiped out by the Holocene Climatic Optimum.. the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm period.. or during any other warm period... including previous Inter-Glacial Periods.

 

     https://youtu.be/jQRle6pgBCY

 

 

[brokenbone]

46 minutes ago, Saint Nick said:

Yet here we are, with polar bears not finding enough thick ice to go hunting and laying siege on Russian villages on a year round basis!

The arctic AND antarctic ice is melting, maybe not at the rate foreseen, but melting it sure is!

 We are on a very "good" way!

yet here we are, with polar bears thriving in numbers like never before documented in human history, guess all life thrives with higher co2 & temperature.

most observers would say they are now overpopulated

and need to be decimated, at least those that has spread to civilization,

tho the opposite can also be stated, human population is thriving

and is overpopulated, and are now spreading into wild life habitat.

in fact everything seem to thrive these days,

it is confirmed that the increased co2 levels has increased biomass on earth

[torturedsole]

1 hour ago, torturedsole said:

What precisely is going to stop manmade climate change and how do you separate out naturally occurring climate change from the supposed manmade climate change.  Thereafter, how do you know when you've achieved your goal of stopping manmade climate change in its tracks?

 

I'm genuinely interested.  

No one wants to take on my question, stevenl.  While you're here?

[torturedsole]

44 minutes ago, Catoni said:

   Don't hold your breath waiting.   The socialist climate alarmist "comrades"  in this group are not going to answer you.     They lack the ability...  because the truth is not what they are about. 

We can continue with the I don't believe climate change is manmade versus the I believe climate change is manmade argument, but it's entirely reasonable to ask the question as to what will, once and for all, fix this supposed manmade climate change and how would one know how to separate out natural climate change versus manmade climate change.  

 

A response of taxing us to death doesn't answer the question either as how will taxation solve the issue?

 

I wait with bated breath, Catoni, though suspect I'll be waiting for some considerable time to come.  

[sunnyboy2018]

On 12/9/2019 at 8:25 AM, mauGR1 said:

Nope, i doesn't go over my head, perhaps you should read my posts again, slowly.

There are far worse things on this poor planet that Greta and their parents, i don't understand all this hate.

I wish the people with some knowledge and wisdom could stick to discussing the environmental issues and the feasible solutions instead of attacking a little girl and her parents.

The title of this thread has her name in it and she is now a world famous figure. Just because people disagree with her does not mean they hate her. However, her aggressive posturing has created a febrile atmosphere which caused chaos in cities such as London earlier this year. At her age she is classified as a young adult.

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, sunnyboy2018 said:

The title of this thread has her name in it and she is now a world famous figure. Just because people disagree with her does not mean they hate her. However, her aggressive posturing has created a febrile atmosphere which caused chaos in cities such as London earlier this year. At her age she is classified as a young adult.

Ok, i perceive the fanaticism, and i dislike it, still i would not put much of the blame on Greta, as i regard her as a pawn of greater powers.

A young adult, you say, i regard her as little more than a child, but feel free to disagree.

[yogi100]

The stupid little trout should come to Thailand and sort out the number of plastic bags in use or the carbon footprints of India and China. She might then be taken seriously.

[sunnyboy2018]

7 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Ok, i perceive the fanaticism, and i dislike it, still i would not put much of the blame on Greta, as i regard her as a pawn of greater powers.

A young adult, you say, i regard her as little more than a child, but feel free to disagree.

In the UK at her age she would be preparing to go to university or get a job, could leggally drink alcohol, have sexual relationships,  be prosecuted as an adult for committing  crimes. Your opinion or mine for that matter,  is irrelevant as the law determines her status. If  she were a child then she has no right preaching on a world stage to her elders and betters. You cant have it both ways.

 

[mauGR1]

32 minutes ago, sunnyboy2018 said:

In the UK at her age she would be preparing to go to university or get a job, could leggally drink alcohol, have sexual relationships,  be prosecuted as an adult for committing  crimes. Your opinion or mine for that matter,  is irrelevant as the law determines her status. If  she were a child then she has no right preaching on a world stage to her elders and betters. You cant have it both ways.

 

I am as baffled as you.

If you haven't got it yet, we are on the same page.

Where we disagree, is that you can never put the blame on 1 person, but rather on a group of powerful people who choose someone to face the spot lights.

The same happened in the past with powerful dictators. Do you really think that powerful dictators could have killed millions without the complicity of a powerful oligarchy ?

[sunnyboy2018]

7 hours ago, stevenl said:

Legally she is a child, in Sweden the age of adulthood is 18. Same as the age for a drivers license BTW.

But she is preaching on THE WORLD STAGE not just sweden. In many countries she is not just a young adult but an adult with full responsibilities. In a years time when she is an adult under swedish law her viewpoint will be just as wrong and her contempt for humanity will be as just disturbing.

[White Christmas13]

1 hour ago, sunnyboy2018 said:

The title of this thread has her name in it and she is now a world famous figure. Just because people disagree with her does not mean they hate her. However, her aggressive posturing has created a febrile atmosphere which caused chaos in cities such as London earlier this year. At her age she is classified as a young adult.

And a spoiled brat

[Saint Nick]

17 hours ago, torturedsole said:

 

What precisely is going to stop manmade climate change and how do you separate out naturally occurring climate change from the supposed manmade climate change.  Thereafter, how do you know when you've achieved your goal of stopping manmade climate change in its tracks?

 

I'm genuinely interested.  

I am no scientist, but I listen, when they speak!

Maybe you should do the same!

We need to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses- that could be achieved by putting more money and manpower behind renewable energies like solar- power, wind- power, hydro- power...you name it!

We need to make cars or planes more fuel efficient, we need to strengthen public transport over private transport, we need to get cargo of the roads and onto the rails , we need to make living "greener", by planting "city gardens", we need to make food production "greener" and...and...and...

But I guess, you know all of that and you are just trolling!

  

[brokenbone]

37 minutes ago, Saint Nick said:

I am no scientist, but I listen, when they speak!

Maybe you should do the same!

We need to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses- that could be achieved by putting more money and manpower behind renewable energies like solar- power, wind- power, hydro- power...you name it!

We need to make cars or planes more fuel efficient, we need to strengthen public transport over private transport, we need to get cargo of the roads and onto the rails , we need to make living "greener", by planting "city gardens", we need to make food production "greener" and...and...and...

But I guess, you know all of that and you are just trolling!

  

long term, we need to emit co2 back into the atmosphere,

without our interference, co2 is projected to fall below 150 ppm in 2-3 million years

due to sequestration of various forms of sea life forms that uses co2

as a building block for their shells. (150 ppm being the point where

plants die, its estimated that plants at higher altitude died off

at the end of the last ice age when we were so close to be wiped out,

at a record low of 180 ppm co2)

without man made re-admittance of co2 into the cycle,

life will extinguish itself.

plants and algae are already at starvation of co2,

commercial greenhouse operators know that plants thrive

at 1500+ ppm co2, that combined with higher temp is what caused the cambrian explosion of life, that is our origin, that is what we evolved to grow and evolve in

 

 

 

 

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, Saint Nick said:

I am no scientist, but I listen, when they speak!

Maybe you should do the same!

We need to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses- that could be achieved by putting more money and manpower behind renewable energies like solar- power, wind- power, hydro- power...you name it!

We need to make cars or planes more fuel efficient, we need to strengthen public transport over private transport, we need to get cargo of the roads and onto the rails , we need to make living "greener", by planting "city gardens", we need to make food production "greener" and...and...and...

But I guess, you know all of that and you are just trolling!

  

I think everybody can agree, but, unless you have some magic wand, you might consider the political- economical reality, which have billions of people involved.

A gradual change is feasible, but first, try to convince the head of states to agree on a common strategy, easy to say, but extremely difficult to achieve.

As for now, it's just a pipe dream.

[Saint Nick]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

I think everybody can agree, but, unless you have some magic wand, you might consider the political- economical reality, which have billions of people involved.

A gradual change is feasible, but first, try to convince the head of states to agree on a common strategy, easy to say, but extremely difficult to achieve.

As for now, it's just a pipe dream.

I agree- but it is a "pipe dream" we MUST follow!

If not for us (I will be long dead, when the <deleted> hits the fan) but for future generations!

[Saint Nick]

2 hours ago, brokenbone said:

long term, we need to emit co2 back into the atmosphere,

without our interference, co2 is projected to fall below 150 ppm in 2-3 million years

due to sequestration of various forms of sea life forms that uses co2

as a building block for their shells. (150 ppm being the point where

plants die, its estimated that plants at higher altitude died off

at the end of the last ice age when we were so close to be wiped out,

at a record low of 180 ppm co2)

without man made re-admittance of co2 into the cycle,

life will extinguish itself.

plants and algae are already at starvation of co2,

commercial greenhouse operators know that plants thrive

at 1500+ ppm co2, that combined with higher temp is what caused the cambrian explosion of life, that is our origin, that is what we evolved to grow and evolve in

 

 

 

 

Is there anyone (A-N-Y-O-N-E) who says, we should get rid of Co2 in total?

Apart from the fact, that this is not possible...who has ever advocated for that?

Even the dumbest of the dumb KNOWS, that we need Co2 to survive!

But we sure don't need it in the quantity we produce it at the moment!

[brokenbone]

1 hour ago, Saint Nick said:

Is there anyone (A-N-Y-O-N-E) who says, we should get rid of Co2 in total?

Apart from the fact, that this is not possible...who has ever advocated for that?

Even the dumbest of the dumb KNOWS, that we need Co2 to survive!

But we sure don't need it in the quantity we produce it at the moment!

we dont, but the plants that are the basis of our existence do,

they have been at starvation diet for millions of years and it gradually gets worse,

save the past few decades when we, the humans, had the decency

to give them first aid breathing assistance.

its co2  that holds them back with current co2 levels.

its well known that they thrive at 1500+ ppm,

and if we can sustain 1500+ ppm, that is what we should do

 

also, its not only possible but inevitable that co2 will drop below 150 ppm

due to sequestration, it will happen without doubt in 2-3 million years

if man dont dig it up, and release it back into

the atmosphere where it belong

 

in addition in such a life critical matter, it would be unwise

to say the least, to linger at the brink of extinction (150 ppm),

we should have a good safety margin,

even more so as it is only ever good for nature to be at a healthy level of co2.

in construction, it is common to build with a safety factor of 10,

theres no reason to be cheaper with safety in this case,

when literally all life on earth hinge on it

[rabas]

1 hour ago, Saint Nick said:

Is there anyone (A-N-Y-O-N-E) who says, we should get rid of Co2 in total?

Apart from the fact, that this is not possible...who has ever advocated for that?

Even the dumbest of the dumb KNOWS, that we need Co2 to survive!

But we sure don't need it in the quantity we produce it at the moment!

You might be surprised how many people nowadays call CO₂ toxic or a pollutant, do you know Al Gore? Anyway submariners do just fine with 2000 - 5000 ppm in subs. They've even been tested at 15,000 ppm and seem to do fine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29789085

 

[Saint Nick]

11 minutes ago, rabas said:

You might be surprised how many people nowadays call CO₂ toxic or a pollutant, do you know Al Gore? Anyway submariners do just fine with 2000 - 5000 ppm in subs. They've even been tested at 15,000 ppm and seem to do fine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29789085

 

I am sure, you have the exact quote of Al Gore, where he says we have to get rid of ALL Co2....

And pray tell: which part of that submarine was melting or experiencing out of control hurricanes and bushfires, due to never before seen droughts?

[canuckamuck]

The benefits of increased CO2  outweigh the negatives of a warmer climate. And the increase in plant life acts as a natural feedback to the increase. Gobbling up the carbon and making lots organic material for us to use.

And since we are seeing normal rates of sea rise and normal rates of warming, it is very hard to determine what part of the warming if any, is actually CO2 related.