Climate Change

[thaibeachlovers]

37 minutes ago, Menken said:

Population is peaking 9B and will decline back to less than where we are now.

 

My guess is fertility rates in N. America, EU and East Asia are plummeting. Many countries already offer substantial tax benefits for having children.

I doubt the human race will survive long enough for a lessening birth rate to save us.

Does a species that has polluted the entire ocean deserve to survive?

[Misab]

18 hours ago, Misab said:

 

I know there is a group of people who are of the belief that climate change has always existed and is not man-made. To this my answer is: Yes, climate change has always existed, but it happened over thousands of years, when flora and fauna had time to get used to the changes. What is happening now, it has happened over less than 100 years, and is in my eyes the greatest disaster of our time.
The oil industry continuously sends out propaganda material to undermine the danger of climate change.

Since you sound like someone who is connected to the oil Industry it will be difficult to discuss with you, because you will only believe in their propaganda.
You would like to see examples: They are found galore here coming headlines for them: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forgotten-oil-ads-dat-told-us-climate- Change-Was-Nothing

[Misab]

15 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

There also a group of people who are of the belief that the climate is always changing and will continue to change, and that man's activities contribute to that change. 

 

Fossil fuels have been improving lives for hundreds of years. People are living longer, with less hunger and poverty than at any time in the history of the world, which is in large part to the energy and products fossil fuels provides. 

 

The fossil fuel industry generally makes money, and they make a good bit of money from green energy. 

 

Would you please provide a few examples of the propaganda material the oil industry is sending out to undermine the danger of climate-change? 

 

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forgotten-oil-ads-that-told-us-climate-change-was-nothing

 

[Misab]

12 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

An argument that was debunked a long time ago. What you're referring to was a survey of selected scientists and the 97% figure was 97% of those who responded to that survey, that's all, not 97% of all the world's scientists.

Read here:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forgotten-oil-ads-that-told-us-climate-change-was-nothing

 

 

[Misab]

12 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

An argument that was debunked a long time ago. What you're referring to was a survey of selected scientists and the 97% figure was 97% of those who responded to that survey, that's all, not 97% of all the world's scientists.

Sorry I got a wrong link in, the right one comes here: https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/ 

[Liverpool Lou]

11 minutes ago, Misab said:

12 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

An argument that was debunked a long time ago. What you're referring to was a survey of selected scientists and the 97% figure was 97% of those who responded to that survey, that's all, not 97% of all the world's scientists.

Expand  

Read here:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forgotten-oil-ads-that-told-us-climate-change-was-nothing

What's that got to do with my comment which related to the usually inaccurately quoted  "97% of scientists" claim?   That's what I disputed, not necessarily whether climate change is a phenomenon.

[Misab]

48 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

What's that got to do with my comment which related to the usually inaccurately quoted  "97% of scientists" claim?   That's what I disputed, not necessarily whether climate change is a phenomenon.

 

48 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

What's that got to do with my comment which related to the usually inaccurately quoted  "97% of scientists" claim?   That's what I disputed, not necessarily whether climate change is a phenomenon.

Not 97% of the worlds scientist but 97 % of climate change scientist. If you don't understand it, I can't help you.

[Liverpool Lou]

7 minutes ago, Misab said:

12 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

An argument that was debunked a long time ago. What you're referring to was a survey of selected scientists and the 97% figure was 97% of those who responded to that survey, that's all, not 97% of all the world's scientists.

Expand  

Sorry I got a wrong link in, the right one comes here: https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/ 

Exactly, the right link that proves my point!  97% of a selected group, not "97% of all the worlds scientists"...

"Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change".

 

All of the worlds scientists are not "actively publishing climate scientists".

[Liverpool Lou]

3 minutes ago, Misab said:

Not 97% of the worlds scientist but 97 % of climate change scientist. If you don't understand it, I can't help you.

It's you that doesn't understand!  It was 97% of actively publishing climate scientists, not 97% of all climate scientists.

[placeholder]

31 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

It's you that doesn't understand!  It was 97% of actively publishing climate scientists, not 97% of all climate scientists.

Actually, it's an old figure now and it was 97% of all published climatological research papers that referenced climate change. The updated figure is 99.9%

[Liverpool Lou]

19 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Actually, it's an old figure now and it was 97% of all published climatological research papers that referenced climate change. The updated figure is 99.9%

Yes, I know, it's years old and something that is not usually brought up now because of the extremely biased group that were surveyed.

[placeholder]

 

 

7 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Yes, I know, it's years old and something that is not usually brought up now because of the extremely biased group that were surveyed.

Stop making things up. You have offered no proof that the latest survey was biased. The only bias I can see here is yours. And as is usually the case, bias thrives on lack of knowledge. Clearly, you are unacquainted with the actual facts.

Here's link to the latest research published in 2021.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

[Liverpool Lou]

51 minutes ago, placeholder said:

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Yes, I know, it's years old and something that is not usually brought up now because of the extremely biased group that were surveyed.

Stop making things up. You have offered no proof that the latest survey was biased.

No, I am not making anything up, that "survey" of selected scientists was years ago and the proof is  it's debunking that has been well publicised, that's the reason it's rarely brought up nowadays.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No, I am not making anything up, that "survey" of selected scientists was years ago and the proof is  it's debunking that has been well publicised, that's the reason it's rarely brought up nowadays.

As I noted in my previous post this study was published in 2021. October of 2021 to be exact. And where did you come up with the idea that even the original study, published in 2013, was rarely brought up in its time? Got any evidence of that. As expect it did elicit a lot of howls from the denialists.  Anyway the new study followed the protocol of the old study. Basically they gathered all the climatological studies they could. In this case that amounted to about 80,000 studies. They used abstracts that had the names of the authors deleted to eliminate personal bias.  Then they randomly chose 3000 of those articles and searched for any reference in them, either positive or negative, to the issue of human caused climate change.  And the result was that 99.9 percent of the citations were in support of climate change. In fact, only 4 articles were found with negatives.

In other words, you've got nothing.

[kwilco]

On 3/22/2023 at 3:03 AM, Misab said:

Yes, you are right the rising population is a big big problem.  We call us self for the most intelligent race on the planet and many are intelligent, unfortunately the majority are not. We could have had a clean planet with no rising CO2 in the atmosphere if we had used nuclear energy. But the majority of the population didn’t want it for various reasons and the Oil companies certainly didn't want it. So, the oil companies scratch the back of the politicians and what did the politicians do? 

 

"over population" is not a simple matter of numbers - it is when a population is consuming more resources than are being renewed.

It is also regional - many countries have a reduction in population.

THe negative effects of a large population are in reality directly linked to climate change as in areas where this is having a more profound affect, it puts greater strains on the population..

the term is often used by recisist to justify their opposition to immigration.

[placeholder]

48 minutes ago, kwilco said:

"over population" is not a simple matter of numbers - it is when a population is consuming more resources than are being renewed.

It is also regional - many countries have a reduction in population.

THe negative effects of a large population are in reality directly linked to climate change as in areas where this is having a more profound affect, it puts greater strains on the population..

the term is often used by recisist to justify their opposition to immigration.

It's not as simple as how many people there are. It's how much each person consumes:

Carbon emissions of richest 1 percent more than double the emissions of the poorest half of humanity

• The richest 10 percent accounted for over half (52 percent) of the emissions added to the atmosphere between 1990 and 2015. The richest one percent were responsible for 15 percent of emissions during this time – more than all the citizens of the EU and more than twice that of the poorest half of humanity (7 percent).
   
• During this time, the richest 10 percent blew one third of our remaining global 1.5C carbon budget, compared to just 4 percent for the poorest half of the population. The carbon budget is the amount of carbon dioxide that can be added to the atmosphere without causing global temperatures to rise above 1.5C – the goal set by governments in the Paris Agreement to avoid the very worst impacts of uncontrolled climate change.

https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity

  

[kwilco]

13 hours ago, kwilco said:

unfortunately the majority are not.

Seriously? And what criteria are you using to come to this conclusion?

[StayinThailand2much]

Hot in Thailand... Maybe it's the climate change.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, StayinThailand2much said:

Hot in Thailand... Maybe it's the climate change.

Maybe it is:

"Researchers have found that temperatures have increased in Thailand over the past half-century, though there is some variability in their assessments. Thailand's Department of Meteorology reported that the annual mean temperature in Thailand rose by one degree Celsius from 1981 to 2007.^[1]: 231 Another study found that average annual temperatures in Thailand increased by 0.95 °C between 1955 and 2009, more than the average world temperature increase of 0.69 °C. The annual highest temperature has increased by 0.86 °C and the annual lowest temperature has decreased by 1.45 °C over the past 55 years."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_Thailand

[ozimoron]

On 3/24/2023 at 7:12 PM, Yellowtail said:

There also a group of people who are of the belief that the climate is always changing and will continue to change, and that man's activities contribute to that change. 

Those people don't really understand the difference between 100,000 years and 100 years. Even 10 years for that matter. 

 

On 3/24/2023 at 7:12 PM, Yellowtail said:

 

Fossil fuels have been improving lives for hundreds of years. People are living longer, with less hunger and poverty than at any time in the history of the world, which is in large part to the energy and products fossil fuels provides. 

Fossil fuels are killing more people than they save. 

 

On 3/24/2023 at 7:12 PM, Yellowtail said:

 

The fossil fuel industry generally makes money, and they make a good bit of money from green energy. 

Not even close to the amount of money they make from fossil fuels. Think MacDonalds salad bar.

 

On 3/24/2023 at 7:12 PM, Yellowtail said:

 

Would you please provide a few examples of the propaganda material the oil industry is sending out to undermine the danger of climate-change?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forgotten-oil-ads-that-told-us-climate-change-was-nothing

 

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/fighting-climate-chaos/exxon-and-the-oil-industry-knew-about-climate-crisis/exxons-climate-denial-history-a-timeline/

 

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/09/oil-companies-discourage-climate-action-study-says/

 

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/27/1047583610/once-again-the-u-s-has-failed-to-take-sweeping-climate-action-heres-why

 

[Yellowtail]

On 3/25/2023 at 10:38 AM, Misab said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forgotten-oil-ads-that-told-us-climate-change-was-nothing

 

Ads that oil companies run praising alternative energy projects they are involved with is all you have, really? 

 

Weak

[placeholder]

11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Ads that oil companies run praising alternative energy projects they are involved with is all you have, really? 

 

Weak

Talk is cheap.

Shell, BP boost profit, sink investment in renewable energy

While the big five oil companies registered record profits on the back of the energy crisis, relatively little will be reinvested in renewables as climate goals are slashed.

https://www.dw.com/en/shell-bp-boost-profit-sink-investment-in-renewable-energy/a-64656800

 

[Yellowtail]

5 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Those people don't really understand the difference between 100,000 years and 100 years. Even 10 years for that matter. 

 

Fossil fuels are killing more people than they save. 

 

Not even close to the amount of money they make from fossil fuels. Think MacDonalds salad bar.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forgotten-oil-ads-that-told-us-climate-change-was-nothing

 

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/fighting-climate-chaos/exxon-and-the-oil-industry-knew-about-climate-crisis/exxons-climate-denial-history-a-timeline/

 

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/09/oil-companies-discourage-climate-action-study-says/

 

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/27/1047583610/once-again-the-u-s-has-failed-to-take-sweeping-climate-action-heres-why

 

So you do not have a single example of the propaganda material the oil industry is continuously sending out to undermine the danger of climate-change? Not even one? 

 

 

If the oil industry is continuously sending out propaganda to undermine the danger of climate-change, surely you should be able to come up with a few. 

 

Ads that oil companies run praising alternative energy projects they are involved with do not really qualify as "propaganda to undermine the danger of climate-change" do they? If anything, they highlight the danger and show what they are doing to "help".

 

Lawsuits against oil companies can hardly be considered "propaganda to undermine the danger of climate-change" can they? 

 

Again, please provide a few examples of the propaganda the oil industry is continuously sending out to undermine the danger of climate-change, surely you should be able to come up with a few. 

 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

So you do not have a single example of the propaganda material the oil industry is continuously sending out to undermine the danger of climate-change? Not even one? 

 

 

If the oil industry is continuously sending out propaganda to undermine the danger of climate-change, surely you should be able to come up with a few. 

 

Ads that oil companies run praising alternative energy projects they are involved with do not really qualify as "propaganda to undermine the danger of climate-change" do they? If anything, they highlight the danger and show what they are doing to "help".

 

Lawsuits against oil companies can hardly be considered "propaganda to undermine the danger of climate-change" can they? 

 

Again, please provide a few examples of the propaganda the oil industry is continuously sending out to undermine the danger of climate-change, surely you should be able to come up with a few. 

 

I just provided 4 links to prove my claim. What are you talking about?

[Yellowtail]

12 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Talk is cheap.

Shell, BP boost profit, sink investment in renewable energy

While the big five oil companies registered record profits on the back of the energy crisis, relatively little will be reinvested in renewables as climate goals are slashed.

https://www.dw.com/en/shell-bp-boost-profit-sink-investment-in-renewable-energy/a-64656800

 

You do not have an example either, yet we're to supposed to believe that the "...oil industry is continuously sending out propaganda to undermine the danger of climate-change." 

 

You understand what continuous means, yes? 

 

An article complaining about oil companies not spending enough on renewables is no such example. Oil companies not spending enough on renewable energy to satisfy the author, is not the same as continuously sending out propaganda to undermine the danger of climate-change.

 

Again, please provide a few examples of the propaganda the oil industry is continuously sending out to undermine the danger of climate-change, surely you should be able to come up with a few. 

[Yellowtail]

14 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I just provided 4 links to prove my claim. What are you talking about?

None of the links you provided included any examples of propaganda the oil industry is continuously sending out to undermine the danger of climate-change.

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

None of the links you provided included any examples of propaganda the oil industry is continuously sending out to undermine the danger of climate-change.

They proved the existence and use of such propaganda

[Yellowtail]

55 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

They proved the existence and use of such propaganda

As expected, you are not able to provide even a single example of to support the claim that the oil industry continuously sends out material to undermine the danger of climate change. That's what I thought.

 

If the claim that: "The oil industry continuously sends out propaganda material to undermine the danger of climate change." were actually true, it would be pretty easy for you to come up with an example, but you can't. 

[ozimoron]

32 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

As expected, you are not able to provide even a single example of to support the claim that the oil industry continuously sends out material to undermine the danger of climate change. That's what I thought.

 

If the claim that: "The oil industry continuously sends out propaganda material to undermine the danger of climate change." were actually true, it would be pretty easy for you to come up with an example, but you can't. 

I don't need to link to an example of garbage propaganda to establish the unrefutable fact that the fossil fuel companies have been engaging in promoting such propaganda, which is my claim.

 

You clearly haven't bothered to read the links which are replete with examples. I expect nothing less from climate change deniers.

[Yellowtail]

47 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I don't need to link to an example of garbage propaganda to establish the unrefutable fact that the fossil fuel companies have been engaging in promoting such propaganda, which is my claim.

That is correct. You do not have to provide any support for the claim "The oil industry continuously sends out propaganda material to undermine the danger of climate change."

 

Three people have posted links attempting to support the claim, no one has provided an example. Now you claim you don't need to provide an example, because it's an "unrefutable" fact that the fossil fuel companies have been engaging in promoting such propaganda. 

 

The claim was not that the fossil fuel companies have been engaging in promoting such propaganda, but rather that: "The oil industry continuously sends out propaganda material to undermine the danger of climate change."

 

This claim has gone unsubstantiated. If such propaganda is sent out continuously by the oil companies it should be easy to come up with something, but you can't. 

 

That you believe something is an "unrefutable" fact, does not make it so. 

 

47 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

You clearly haven't bothered to read the links which are replete with examples. I expect nothing less from climate change deniers.

I did not read them all the way through, but again, ads that oil companies run praising alternative energy projects they are involved with do not really qualify as "propaganda to undermine the danger of climate-change" do they? If anything, they highlight the danger and show what they are doing to "help".

 

Nor can lawsuits against oil companies be considered "propaganda to undermine the danger of climate-change". 

 

You claim there are examples in the links, but you refuse to show them. But again, this is something you are claiming happens continuously, why post links to stuff that's years old? 

 

Again, please provide a few examples of the propaganda the oil industry is continuously sending out to undermine the danger of climate-change, surely you should be able to come up with a few.