Science Three Years to the Brink: Climate Scientists Warn of Imminent 1.5C Breach

[wavodavo]

15 hours ago, Zapitapi said:

since 40 years i hear these phrases in slight different ways... 

 

Believe it or not they were growing bananas , papaya and pineapples in Greenland thousands of years ago. Thats how it got it's name Greenland. Now theres 100 feet of ice. Just natural climate cycles.

[wavodavo]

13 hours ago, BangkokHank said:

To be able to convince people to accept a dystopian, unelected, one-world global government, there needs to be the appearance of there being a global problem that can only be solved by a global government. "Climate change" was chosen for that purpose - precisely because it is easy to fool people about, as most people can't distinguish between climate and weather. There is no climate emergency.

Here HERE !! Well said.

[koolkarl]

18 hours ago, Taboo2 said:

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh.  

 

I guess it is the "last of Us"....55555.

Why don't you educate yourself and watch 2 Degrees the Point of No Return and then you wouldn't make such a ridiculous comment.

[BangkokReady]

Where's the data for the effect of the covid year long shut down?  That should show how much of a difference cutting CO2 dramatically can have.

[Harrisfan]

3 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Where's the data for the effect of the covid year long shut down?  That should show how much of a difference cutting CO2 dramatically can have.

But there are natural variations. Most co2 is natural.

 

Cutting co2 a lot makes 0.0004% differnce to temps basically.

[Harrisfan]

40 minutes ago, koolkarl said:

Why don't you educate yourself and watch 2 Degrees the Point of No Return and then you wouldn't make such a ridiculous comment.

More bs. 

[kevozman1]

15 hours ago, WDSmart said:

Yes, in my book, I propose a one-woman, one-child policy. But even if persistently implemented, it would take about 360 years to reduce the human population to about 10% of what it is now. I think such a population size could exist on Earth, employing all our technology to provide everyone with a "comfortable" lifestyle. But, I don't think we have that long, so even that will not work.

In my book, I say we are already "over the cliff" on this degradation of the Earth, and even if we were to try to reduce our pollution and destruction, which we've shown no intention of doing, we will not succeed in preventing the eventual and now inevitable extinction of most of Earth's lifeforms, including, hopefully, our own. 

 

If you truly believe that last sentence then you can do the right thing by reducing the burden on earth by one.

[WDSmart]

12 hours ago, blaze master said:

 

Over 95 percent of all species that have ever existed are already extinct.

 

All of human activity covers a mere 1 percent of the earth's surface. We are headed for a population collapse.

 

I wouldn't pump your book sounds like nonsense.

I agree with your sentences 1 and 2 above.

As far as number 3 goes, I'm not "pumping" my book for my financial benefit. I give it away for free online. I'm just referencing it to show that I have done a lot of research on this subject and have made my conclusions public for all to see.

[blaze master]

Just now, WDSmart said:

I agree with your sentences 1 and 2 above.

As far as number 3 goes, I'm not "pumping" my book for my financial benefit. I give it away for free online. I'm just referencing it to show that I have done a lot of research on this subject and have made my conclusions public for all to see.

 

You've never sold a single copy of your book ?

 

Impressive.

[WDSmart]

4 minutes ago, kevozman1 said:

16 hours ago, WDSmart said:

In my book, I say we are already "over the cliff" on this degradation of the Earth, and even if we were to try to reduce our pollution and destruction, which we've shown no intention of doing, we will not succeed in preventing the eventual and now inevitable extinction of most of Earth's lifeforms, including, hopefully, our own. 

 

If you truly believe that last sentence then you can do the right thing by reducing the burden on earth by one.

By writing and publishing my book, I believe I have done "the right thing," and doing that is far more valuable than my death, which will eventually happen. 

[Harrisfan]

6 minutes ago, blaze master said:

 

You've never sold a single copy of your book ?

 

Impressive.

Who would pay for crap? 

[Harrisfan]

2 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

By writing and publishing my book, I believe I have done "the right thing," and doing that is far more valuable than my death, which will eventually happen. 

People in China and India don't care about your silly book.

[WDSmart]

4 minutes ago, blaze master said:

6 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

As far as number 3 goes, I'm not "pumping" my book for my financial benefit. I give it away for free online. I'm just referencing it to show that I have done a lot of research on this subject and have made my conclusions public for all to see.

 

You've never sold a single copy of your book ?

 

Impressive.

I've sold many copies of my book, both print and e-books, on the online publisher's bookstore site, but I've also given out many more e-books than that online myself for free. I just checked the site, and the number of free books downloaded is now 773.  I also give out the print book to people I meet now and then. I've never sold a print book myself.

[blaze master]

2 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I've sold many copies of my book, both print and e-books, on the online publisher's bookstore site, but I've also given out many more e-books than that online myself for free. I just checked the site, and the number of free books downloaded is now 773.  I also give out the print book to people I meet now and then. I've never sold a print book myself.

 

Oh so you do sell it.

[Harrisfan]

5 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I've sold many copies of my book, both print and e-books, on the online publisher's bookstore site, but I've also given out many more e-books than that online myself for free. I just checked the site, and the number of free books downloaded is now 773.  I also give out the print book to people I meet now and then. I've never sold a print book myself.

Internet produces co2

As do books

 

You seem a bit thick

[WDSmart]

9 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

People in China and India don't care about your silly book.

Most people in China and India can't read English, so, yes, they don't care about my "silly" book.

However, IMO, the people who are doing the most harm to the environment do read English and should care about my book, but, unfortunately, extending your comment above, I believe most of them don't care about my book, either, and do think it is "silly" to worry about things like destroying the Earth's biosphere. They think they're so smart that soon they'll invent some new, whiz-bang technology that will provide them with unlimited non-polluting power. They already have names for that, such as "green" and "renewable." There will never be a technology that produces "green" or "renewable" power. That's just a dream of theirs that makes them feel comfortable while they are destroying life and living conditions on this planet. 

[blaze master]

3 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

However, IMO, the people who are doing the most harm to the environment do read English

 

Your opinion is wrong though 

 

[WDSmart]

6 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

Internet produces co2

As do books

 

You seem a bit thick

Yes, all technology and the products of technology pollute.

The book is not thick. It's only 75 pages, and that includes the multiple indexes (or indices. 

[radiochaser]

[WDSmart]

5 minutes ago, blaze master said:

 

Your opinion is wrong though 

 

CO₂ is not the only pollutant. From what I've read, it is the most important pollutant regarding Climate Change, but it's certainly not the only pollutant as far as the destruction of the entire biosphere is concerned. I'd say the most destructive pollutant in that respect is heat, which is a byproduct of all technology, especially "energy" technologies.

[James105]

5 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

There will never be a technology that produces "green" or "renewable" power. That's just a dream of theirs that makes them feel comfortable while they are destroying life and living conditions on this planet

 

Yawn.  People 100 years ago didn't imagine that anyone would be able to make a phone call without being tethered to a wire that connects to something.  

 

That giant ball of flames that is 13 million times the size of earth you see in the daytime when you look up has unlimited power that can be harnessed and isn't due to go out for at least several billion years.   I imagine in 100 years or so then that power will be used a lot more efficiently than it does now to produce energy.   Going back to the dark ages as the climate doom mongers desire is not going to enable the research to take place to do that now is it?  Also, since humans make such a teeny tiny impact to the climate then if people listened to the likes of you then all we would do is hasten our extinction as we would not be able to carry out the research needed to tackle climate change caused by the natural cycle of climate change on this planet and/or find other planets to relocate to when needed.   

[James105]

14 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Yes, all technology and the products of technology pollute.

The book is not thick. It's only 75 pages, and that includes the multiple indexes (or indices. 

 

Nobody cares about reading 75 pages of "the end of the world is nigh".   Nobody.  Greta is your target audience but has moved onto the Palestine bandwagon now.

[WDSmart]

7 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

Yawn.  People 100 years ago didn't imagine that anyone would be able to make a phone call without being tethered to a wire that connects to something.  

 

That giant ball of flames that is 13 million times the size of earth you see in the daytime when you look up has unlimited power that can be harnessed and isn't due to go out for at least several billion years.   I imagine in 100 years or so then that power will be used a lot more efficiently than it does now to produce energy.   Going back to the dark ages as the climate doom mongers desire is not going to enable the research to take place to do that now is it?  Also, since humans make such a teeny tiny impact to the climate then if people listened to the likes of you then all we would do is hasten our extinction as we would not be able to carry out the research needed to tackle climate change caused by the natural cycle of climate change on this planet and/or find other planets to relocate to when needed.   

Wake up! It is NOW!

My book features a detailed examination of solar power technology and shows how the result is more pollution (mostly heat, but there are a lot of others) than usable power (electricity). 

My book does not suggest that we should stop producing more energy-efficient technologies that would reduce pollution and prolong life on this planet. In fact, I end my book addressing this issue by quoting "The Starfish Story" by P. Straube. I won't quote that here, but you can look up the very short story online if you're interested.

[WDSmart]

14 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

Nobody cares about reading 75 pages of "the end of the world is nigh".   Nobody.  Greta is your target audience but has moved onto the Palestine bandwagon now.

The emphasis of my book is not "the end of the world is nigh." The emphasis is "quit believing we will be saved by some super-technology that will give us free and clean energy." 

Everyone is my target because it will take everyone to properly understand and address this. 

[Terrance8812]

2 hours ago, Harrisfan said:

More bs. 

???

[Patong2021]

21 hours ago, Photoguy21 said:

No it means I don't believe the BS that is being spouted. If you want to believe be my guest but it is a load of BS

 

Oh look, another person who can not comprehend basic science.