The myth of melting ice and rising seas

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, oilinki said:

That's not due overpopulation, it's because a) war people are looking for better life.

 

The Rohingyas have been fleeing the mass killings by the Myanmar Buddhist for years. Some of them did come to Thailand, which had camps to contain them. This lead to different kind of human trafficking issues. 

 

I believe the real reason for Myanmar army to occupy the Rohingyas land was the natural resources found there. 

 

Greed, not the overpopulation. The obvious reason it often is. 

Greed goes hand in hand with overpopulation. It is not a cause of overpopulation, rather it is a result of overpopulation as people compete for scarce resources.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, oilinki said:

This is actually quite interesting. I'm far left when I talk with the people from USA. I'm also far right when I talk with the people from my European country. 

This has been the theme as long as I have remembered. 

The US left are not even close to the far right, what european people think of. 
 

What unites us is the liberal values. "Why should our country deny our rights to do what we individuals want". I thought the conservatives were supporting that very thought at some point?

 

What unites us is the liberal values. "Why should our country deny our rights to do what we individuals want".

Methinks you confuse libertarian with liberal.

Socialists are more likely to impose conformity on populations than conservatives. Mao and Stalin were left wing, not conservatives.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, pkspeaker said:

I don't believe in 'overpopulation' because you could have twice the current population of the world and twice as good land management.  I'm from Long Beach near LA, the entire Bangkok would fit between LA & Long Beach and not even stretch into Santa Monica.. and Bangkok is pretty sprawled, look at Hong Kong and how many people live in it, you can build UP like they do here in Bangkok and fit more people in a small area and then build subways all over the place, it's easier to get around.  In America they waste alot of land so they can build these suburban houses all over the place and then the only transportation is every one has to have their own car.  They could take the entire Southern California population and make LA & SD like Hong Kong and then there would be all this empty space for agriculture or even a nature reserve..  People can live much closer together than they do now.  Obviously in America they feel that they still have enough empty space so they can keep sprawling all over the place..  

Think about what you are saying, please.

The entire population of the planet could be squeezed into the USA, but there isn't enough water for the existing population.

Bangkok is sinking because they are pumping too much ground water.

 

Don't forget about the effluent. 7 billion people in a small area would pollute vast areas. Even little Pattaya can't dispose of it's sewage without polluting the sea.

 

I'm all for building up so cities don't use good agricultural land- certainly they should be build on wasteland, but that's not the same as having so many people it overwhelms resources.

[jmd8800]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What unites us is the liberal values. "Why should our country deny our rights to do what we individuals want".

Methinks you confuse libertarian with liberal.

Socialists are more likely to impose conformity on populations than conservatives. Mao and Stalin were left wing, not conservatives.

 

From the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

 

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality and international cooperation.

 

 

[canuckamuck]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

You will have to provide your own definition of "cultural Marxism" for me to reply to this post.  I suspect it's a definition that no Marxist would agree with. 

 

The Economist is a staunch defender of property rights, and consider it an essential element of an efficient free market.  That's not very Marxist in my book.

Well I'll say a little about it for you, but this is really not the thread for it. Basically Marxism failed to have a revolution and overthrow the Bourgeois when they had their best chance in world war 2. Marxist's from the Frankfurt School decided that Westerners would never overthrow their institutions because they were too firmly grounded in National pride, family, and religion, and of course the American dream.

So they drew up a new plan which was to be the long march to revolution. Beginning with eroding all the foundations of western society. Many members of the Frankfurt school moved to America after the war and found welcome home in the universities of the land. 

 

There are some good sites with information. I will give you a link and a small quotation.

Quote

The Frankfurt School thinkers were the cream of German philosophical society – which is to say the cream of the restive European intellectual society of the period – who had made international reputations for themselves at the University of Frankfurt and then received a warm welcome into the American Ivy League.
The work of the Frankfurt scholars —among them, Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Erich Fromm, Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse, and Wilhelm Reich—was grounded in an ideology that demanded (as Marx would say), for philosophical reasons, an unremitting assault on Western values and institutions, including Christianity, the family, conventional sexual morality, nationalistic patriotism, and adherence in general to any institution or set of beliefs that blocked the path of revolution. Literally nothing was sacred.

Link

 

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, jmd8800 said:

From the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

 

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality and international cooperation.

 

 

Seems "liberals" aren't too hot on "freedom of speech" anymore.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Berkeley_protests

 

 

You may be technically correct, but as with many things "liberals" does not always mean "liberal" any more, just as "gay" no longer means "happy and free spirited".

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Well I'll say a little about it for you, but this is really not the thread for it. Basically Marxism failed to have a revolution and overthrow the Bourgeois when they had their best chance in world war 2. Marxist's from the Frankfurt School decided that Westerners would never overthrow their institutions because they were to firmly grounded in National pride, family, and religion, and of course the American dream.

So they drew up a new plan which was to be the long march to revolution. Beginning with eroding all the foundations of western society. Many members of the Frankfurt school moved to America after the war and found welcome home in the universities of the land. 

 

There are some good sites with information. I will give you a link and a small quotation.

 

They're winning!

Western society is so riven, greedy, fake, corrupt and selfish that it can't survive much longer. Unfortunately for the survivors, the next rulers will be rather unpleasant to spoiled western brats.

[heybruce]

14 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Well I'll say a little about it for you, but this is really not the thread for it. Basically Marxism failed to have a revolution and overthrow the Bourgeois when they had their best chance in world war 2. Marxist's from the Frankfurt School decided that Westerners would never overthrow their institutions because they were to firmly grounded in National pride, family, and religion, and of course the American dream.

So they drew up a new plan which was to be the long march to revolution. Beginning with eroding all the foundations of western society. Many members of the Frankfurt school moved to America after the war and found welcome home in the universities of the land. 

 

There are some good sites with information. I will give you a link and a small quotation.

 

Now try to tie that to your suggestion that the free-market, property rights obsessed Economist is a Marxist publication.  Or that it is promoting a climate change agenda for nefarious purposes.

[heybruce]

16 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Seems "liberals" aren't too hot on "freedom of speech" anymore.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Berkeley_protests

 

 

You may be technically correct, but as with many things "liberals" does not always mean "liberal" any more, just as "gay" no longer means "happy and free spirited".

Every large group has some *ssh*les and idiots.  Just as the alt-right doesn't represent all conservatives and Republicans, the "free speech is limited to speech I'm not offended by" idiots do not represent all liberals.

[canuckamuck]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Now try to tie that to your suggestion that the free-market, property rights obsessed Economist is a Marxist publication.  Or that it is promoting a climate change agenda for nefarious purposes.

Well let's remember that passage from wiki I provided.

Quote

"The Economist takes an editorial stance of classical and economic liberalism that supports free trade, globalisation, free immigration, and cultural liberalism (such as supporting legal recognition for same-sex marriage or drug liberalisation).^[2] The publication has described itself as "...a product of the Caledonian liberalism of Adam Smith and David Hume".^[15] It targets highly educated, cultured readers and claims an audience containing many influential executives and policy-makers.^[16] The publication's CEO described this recent global change, which was first noticed in the 1990s and accelerated in the beginning of the 21st century, as a "new age of Mass Intelligence".^[17][18]"

Now just remove the incredibly few economic terms in the first sentence, and you have a potpourri of cultural Marxist delights in there.

This of course is only wiki comments, not some sort of smoking gun. There might be much more obvious examples, who knows? But you asked me to connect The Economist to Marxism and I found it a simple task to do so. 

 

The climate change apocalypse bogeyman suits a lot of different agendas. The leftists want to redistribute wealth, the national governments want to tax carbon, The UN wants a central world government (what better impetus than a global threat which can only be beaten by global  regulation. And the Marxist's want the destabilization. 

Fear is the best  motivator. What could be better than a global threat.

 

 

[Thongkorn]

Having lived on the East coast of Britain for the last 45 years, I can honestly say the North sea has not risen one inch, How come when a bottle of milk freezes it expands and when thor's it goes back to its original level, So would it be safe to say the water will not rise.

[heybruce]

13 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Well let's remember that passage from wiki I provided.

Now just remove the incredibly few economic terms in the first sentence, and you have a potpourri of cultural Marxist delights in there.

This of course is only wiki comments, not some sort of smoking gun. There might be much more obvious examples, who knows? But you asked me to connect The Economist to Marxism and I found it a simple task to do so. 

 

The climate change apocalypse bogeyman suits a lot of different agendas. The leftists want to redistribute wealth, the national governments want to tax carbon, The UN wants a central world government (what better impetus than a global threat which can only be beaten by global  regulation. And the Marxist's want the destabilization. 

Fear is the best  motivator. What could be better than a global threat.

 

 

I see....

 

Even though communist countries tend to be closed, socially repressive, isolationist and opposed to the free exchange of goods and ideas (Communist China abandoned communism when it staked its economic future on free trade), you think Marxism espouses the ideas of free trade, globalization, free immigration and cultural liberalism. 

 

I don't think Marx or Marxists would agree with you, especially on cultural liberalism.  Communist/Marxist societies are not known for openness to dissent.

 

Your second paragraph shows that you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist (I hate to dignify them with the name "theorist", I think "conjecturist" is more accurate) who sees a bogeyman behind every idea that challenges your comfort zone.

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, Thongkorn said:

Having lived on the East coast of Britain for the last 45 years, I can honestly say the North sea has not risen one inch, How come when a bottle of milk freezes it expands and when thor's it goes back to its original level, So would it be safe to say the water will not rise.

Is that an attempt at humor?

[RickBradford]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

You will have to provide your own definition of "cultural Marxism" for me to reply to this post.  I suspect it's a definition that no Marxist would agree with. 

 

Marxism was essentially framed as a power struggle between the Victims (the proletariat) and the Oppressors (the bourgeoisie). There were no individuals, just warring groups. No negotiation, just opposition and struggle.

 

By the 1960s, even Marxists couldn't hide the piles of hundreds of millions of corpses created by Marxism in the hands of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and others. It could no longer be held up as the Utopia-to-be.

 

So they performed a sleight-of-hand, recasting Marxism — still as a power struggle between Victims and Oppressors -- but with new categories - white oppressor v black victim, male oppressor v female victim, Christian oppressor v Muslim victim, and so on in every grouping you could think of. This is what is known as identity politics, no individuals, but just opposed groups.

 

When this toxic attitude invades the culture, it is sometimes called Cultural Marxism.

 

This is the attitude the Green/Left brings to the climate issue. No debate or negotiation is possible, because they see this is simply a power struggle between the Oppressors (capitalists, white people, men, conservatives) versus the Victims (everybody else plus the biggest Victim of all, Gaia).

 

Their stance resembles Marxism in its rigidity — anyone who disagrees even slightly with the climate orthodoxy is branded as a  heretic (or, in their charming phrase, a "denier"), and is subject to harassment and sanction by the Cultural Marxists.

[Thongkorn]

Just now, heybruce said:

Is that an attempt at humor?

No fact the sea has not risen one inch , Freeze a bottle of water or milk then defrost it, the  contents expand then retracts to its original level,  the world was flooded years ago, so its reached its maximum level already.

[heybruce]

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

Marxism was essentially framed as a power struggle between the Victims (the proletariat) and the Oppressors (the bourgeoisie). There were no individuals, just warring groups. No negotiation, just opposition and struggle.

 

By the 1960s, even Marxists couldn't hide the piles of hundreds of millions of corpses created by Marxism in the hands of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others. It could no longer be held up as the Utopia-to-be.

 

So they performed a sleight-of-hand, recasting Marxism — still as a power struggle between Victims and Oppressors -- but with new categories - white oppressor v black victim, male oppressor v female victim, Christian oppressor v Muslim victim, and so on in every grouping you could think of. This is what is known as identity politics, no individuals, but just opposed groups.

 

When this toxic attitude invades the culture, it is sometimes called Cultural Marxism.

 

This is the attitude the Green/Left brings to the climate issue. No debate or negotiation is possible, because they see this is simply a power struggle between the Oppressors (capitalists, white people, men, conservatives) versus the Victims (everybody else plus the biggest Victim of all, Gaia).

 

Their stance resembles Marxism in its rigidity — anyone who disagrees even slightly with the climate orthodoxy is branded as a  heretic (or, in their charming phrase, a "denier"), and is subject to harassment and sanction by the Cultural Marxists.

It looks like you are attempting to take the science out of climate science and recast it as another front in a political struggle.  Sorry, I'm sticking with the science stuff.

[craigt3365]

12 minutes ago, Thongkorn said:

Having lived on the East coast of Britain for the last 45 years, I can honestly say the North sea has not risen one inch, How come when a bottle of milk freezes it expands and when thor's it goes back to its original level, So would it be safe to say the water will not rise.

But several island nations are having problems.  One, the Marshall Islands, has already lost 2 of their islands.  Rising seas.

[heybruce]

1 minute ago, Thongkorn said:

No fact the sea has not risen one inch , Freeze a bottle of water or milk then defrost it, the  contents expand then retracts to its original level,  the world was flooded years ago, so its reached its maximum level already.

Yes, water expands when it freezes.  I know.

 

Here's an experiment for you; put several ice cubes in a shallow dish and let them melt.  Watch the water overflow from the dish.  That is what happens when the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melt.

 

Regarding your experience at the coast, you must have been taking very accurate measurements for 45 years to know the sea level hasn't risen one inch.  However it is possible.  There are land areas in the northern latitudes that are still slowing rising after having sunk under the weight of the ice sheets during the last ice age.  In addition, due to gravitational effects (gravity isn't perfectly uniform over the earth's surface), temperature differences, geography and other factors, sea levels aren't rising uniformly all over the globe.  Scientists haven't said sea levels are rising uniformly all over the globe.  They have measured and concluded that average sea levels are rising.

[RickBradford]

14 minutes ago, heybruce said:

It looks like you are attempting to take the science out of climate science and recast it as another front in a political struggle. 

That's exactly what it is.

 

They admit it themselves — publicly. In fact, they seem proud of it.

 

Here's Ottmar Edenhofer, a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), being interviewed a few years back.

 

But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

 

The policy is taking money from Oppressors ("the owners of coal and oil") and sending it to the Victims (everyone else).

 

I could provide many more sources of politicians and bureaucrats saying that this has essentially nothing to do with climate science, but everything to do with political agenda.

 

The science is used as a convenient figleaf for political action.

 

If climate were a mainly scientific question, it would be conducted in a much more polite fashion. The vitriol and abuse routinely thrown around demonstrate that it is a political power struggle.

[Thongkorn]

Just now, heybruce said:

Yes, water expands when it freezes.  I know.

 

Here's an experiment for you; put several ice cubes in a shallow dish and let them melt.  Watch the water overflow from the dish.  That is what happens when the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melt.

 

Regarding your experience at the coast, you must have been taking very accurate measurements for 45 years to know the sea level hasn't risen one inch.  However it is possible.  There are land areas in the northern latitudes that are still slowing rising after having sunk under the weight of the ice sheets during the last ice age.  In addition, due to gravitational effects (gravity isn't perfectly uniform over the earth's surface), temperature differences, geography and other factors, sea levels aren't rising uniformly all over the globe.  Scientists haven't said sea levels are rising uniformly all over the globe.  They have measured and concluded that average sea levels are rising.

 The North sea never existed a few years ago,  it was flooded , there is a finite amount of water on this planet on land or in vapour,  Global warming is a myth the world is actually cooling. all about Money and taxes,

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, Thongkorn said:

 The North sea never existed a few years ago,  it was flooded , there is a finite amount of water on this planet on land or in vapour,  Global warming is a myth the world is actually cooling. all about Money and taxes,

I've been around for more than a few years and the North Sea was around all that time.

[Thongkorn]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

I've been around for more than a few years and the North Sea was around all that time.

 Get real   in near History a few hundred years ago,

 

[heybruce]

6 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

That's exactly what it is.

 

They admit it themselves — publicly. In fact, they seem proud of it.

 

Here's Ottmar Edenhofer, a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), being interviewed a few years back.

 

But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

 

The policy is taking money from Oppressors ("the owners of coal and oil") and sending it to the Victims (everyone else).

 

I could provide many more sources of politicians and bureaucrats saying that this has essentially nothing to do with climate science, but everything to do with political agenda.

 

The science is used as a convenient figleaf for political action.

I don't know who Ottmar Edenhofer is, but the statements of individuals with individual agenda's don't reflect the stated policies of the UN.  Also, you can quote as many politicians and bureaucrats as you want, their words don't change the science.

[heybruce]

Just now, Thongkorn said:

 Get real   in near History a few hundred years ago,

 

So the Vikings were hiking to Britain, not taking ships?

[thaibeachlovers]

19 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Yes, water expands when it freezes.  I know.

 

Here's an experiment for you; put several ice cubes in a shallow dish and let them melt.  Watch the water overflow from the dish.  That is what happens when the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melt.

 

Regarding your experience at the coast, you must have been taking very accurate measurements for 45 years to know the sea level hasn't risen one inch.  However it is possible.  There are land areas in the northern latitudes that are still slowing rising after having sunk under the weight of the ice sheets during the last ice age.  In addition, due to gravitational effects (gravity isn't perfectly uniform over the earth's surface), temperature differences, geography and other factors, sea levels aren't rising uniformly all over the globe.  Scientists haven't said sea levels are rising uniformly all over the globe.  They have measured and concluded that average sea levels are rising.

The ice cap theory only applies to ice that was formed on land. Sea ice that thaws does not add depth. The ice around Antarctica is mainly sea ice. Some of it is from glaciers, but so far not much of that has moved into the sea.

Should the Antarctic warm up, it will start to snow there, which would remove water from a liquid state and retain it as new ice.

 

There are explanations for island or land loss other than sea level rise.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 minutes ago, Thongkorn said:

 Get real   in near History a few hundred years ago,

 

Try millennia ago.

[RickBradford]

10 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I don't know who Ottmar Edenhofer is, but the statements of individuals with individual agenda's don't reflect the stated policies of the UN.  Also, you can quote as many politicians and bureaucrats as you want, their words don't change the science.

Edenhofer is not an "individual" with an individual agenda. He was at the time, co-chairman of the UN's IPCC, and an important policy setter for the IPCC. Not only do his views reflect the policies of the UN, in many cases his views created the policy of the UN.

 

The words don't change the science, but they completely dominate what policies are enacted on the basis of that science. And without government policy, climate science is irrelevant. That's why they hold these enormous gabfests every year (Conference of Parties) to try and thrash out global climate policy.

 

If you think that climate matters are unrelated to politics, then you are being very naive.

 

 

[thaihome]

15 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

That's exactly what it is.

 

They admit it themselves — publicly. In fact, they seem proud of it.

 

Here's Ottmar Edenhofer, a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), being interviewed a few years back.

 

But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

 

The policy is taking money from Oppressors ("the owners of coal and oil") and sending it to the Victims (everyone else).

 

I could provide many more sources of politicians and bureaucrats saying that this has essentially nothing to do with climate science, but everything to do with political agenda.

 

The science is used as a convenient figleaf for political action.

 

If climate were a mainly scientific question, it would be conducted in a much more polite fashion. The vitriol and abuse routinely thrown around demonstrate that it is a political power struggle.

You are putting Ottmar Edenhofer's quote in an inaccurate context. He was saying that climate policy will redistribute the value of various assets such as oil reserves current value in an oil based economic systems versus a high wind swept plateau in a wind powered system. If you read the entire quote it is obvious he was not speaking in a Marxist political fashion.

 

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Ottmar-Edenhofer-the-UN-IPCC-official-say-We-redistribute-de-facto-the-worlds-wealth-by-climate-policy-”-when-discussing-climate-change

TH 

[canuckamuck]

29 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I see....

 

Even though communist countries tend to be closed, socially repressive, isolationist and opposed to the free exchange of goods and ideas (Communist China abandoned communism when it staked its economic future on free trade), you think Marxism espouses the ideas of free trade, globalization, free immigration and cultural liberalism. 

 

I don't think Marx or Marxists would agree with you, especially on cultural liberalism.  Communist/Marxist societies are not known for openness to dissent.

 

Your second paragraph shows that you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist (I hate to dignify them with the name "theorist", I think "conjecturist" is more accurate) who sees a bogeyman behind every idea that challenges your comfort zone.

Marxism is at its root an ideology of jealousy and ingratitude. All Marxism is good for is revolution. Once that is accomplished the pipe dreams of the Communist manifesto are immediately pulled from the grasp of the useful idiots who fought for it. What happens instead is a tightfisted super controlling paranoid elite that turn the country into a police state.

 

Ordinary Marxists don't intend this effect, it is simply the nature of humanity that once stripped of any moral compass a power group will appear and quickly subdue the weak.

 

For your second point,  I do believe that men of great power are continually engaged in conspiracy. I believe it has always been this way. A brief survey of history will show the rise and fall of many empires, and the machinations of greedy men behind the scenes. It is what humans do.

[thaibeachlovers]

38 minutes ago, Thongkorn said:

No fact the sea has not risen one inch , Freeze a bottle of water or milk then defrost it, the  contents expand then retracts to its original level,  the world was flooded years ago, so its reached its maximum level already.

Um. Unfortunately for your theory it's all about the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps. If they melted, the sea level would rise significantly.

However, that may never happen during human existence.