Gulf Stream

[homersapien 11,426]

6 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

Ah yes, that decision we all made, choosing to be born.  I guess it is my fault then!

It is what it is.  The world is over-populated - at least if one assumes that all of those people will strive to improve their standard of living.  Our ecosystem will be destroyed unless we act to mitigate the damage that is causing.

Your lack of foresight and abrogation of personal responsibility as a human does not change that one iota.

Curious - do you have children?  Do you take responsibility for their future?

[johnnyAU 3,637]

The world is not overpopulated. Culling the herd with famine, disease, energy, food and resource poverty, wars or genetic manipulation will not save the planet...because the planet isn't in danger. The constant doom and gloom propaganda from those who are trying for a global power grab under the guise of a global "common enemy" has become tiresome. Just wait until the WHO attains the power to mandate "climate lockdowns" because they have deemed it a "global health" emergency. If we owe our kids anything it's to fight back against willingly sliding into Oceania. 

[homersapien 11,426]

25 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

The world is not overpopulated. Culling the herd with famine, disease, energy, food and resource poverty, wars or genetic manipulation will not save the planet...because the planet isn't in danger. The constant doom and gloom propaganda from those who are trying for a global power grab under the guise of a global "common enemy" has become tiresome. Just wait until the WHO attains the power to mandate "climate lockdowns" because they have deemed it a "global health" emergency. If we owe our kids anything it's to fight back against willingly sliding into Oceania. 

It's not the planet that's in danger, it's our species.

"Culling the herd with famine, disease, energy, food and resource poverty, wars or genetic manipulation" is not a solution, it's the problem we face. Many would argue it's already started.

As for the "power grab" by WHO, I trust you take your tinfoil hat off before you stick your head up your ass.

[Leftfield 2,637]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

This is a good argument with the biggest climate grifter of all:

 

 

What's the good argument? He makes the same mistake you do....he looks at the short term and ignores the overall trend. Temperature increase since 2015 is indeed relatively flat, but 2015 was an extremely hot year. You're going to have peaks and valleys in the data - that's just the way it goes - but the overall trend is what's important. Temperatures in the years since 2015 are still higher than expected from the overall temperature trend since 1980.

He's right about CO2 levels being much higher and temperatures being much hotter millions of years ago, but that makes no difference at all to what's happening now. We don't have millions of years to adapt to the changes in temperature that we're talking about.

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,949]

14 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

What's the good argument? He makes the same mistake you do....he looks at the short term and ignores the overall trend. Temperature increase since 2015 is indeed relatively flat, but 2015 was an extremely hot year. You're going to have peaks and valleys in the data - that's just the way it goes - but the overall trend is what's important. Temperatures in the years since 2015 are still higher than expected from the overall temperature trend since 1980.

He's right about CO2 levels being much higher and temperatures being much hotter millions of years ago, but that makes no difference at all to what's happening now. We don't have millions of years to adapt to the changes in temperature that we're talking about.

 

 

The good point he brings up is going through Kerry’s history of talking about net zero by reducing emissions for years and then, recently, starts to promoting removing CO2 from the atmosphere at a tremendous cost.  Why would Kerry need to switch his story?  Could it be that he has tried to get Russia, China and India to fall in line and because they are *developing countries* they have no incentive to do anything?

What Kerry is saying is that the rest of the countries in the Paris Accord will have to pay the $1.6 quadrillion for this project.  Guess who would take on the bulk of this debt?

Kerry is a nutcase and most people are seeing that.  Why do the climate change advocates all have to be nutcase grifters?  Gore, AOC and Kerry all fit the bill in politics.  Too many public figures to name in Hollywood and the entertainment industry.

 

 

[Aufan59 78]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

It is what it is.  The world is over-populated - at least if one assumes that all of those people will strive to improve their standard of living.  Our ecosystem will be destroyed unless we act to mitigate the damage that is causing.

Your lack of foresight and abrogation of personal responsibility as a human does not change that one iota.

Curious - do you have children?  Do you take responsibility for their future?

I guess here I have to ask, you realize nobody chooses to be born, right?  Being born is not a lack of foresight.

Being born does not make you obligated to fix the world’s problems, especially those you cannot fix.  Where does your moral high ground end?  To what extent?
 

I have no children.  Maybe I am contributing to the solution more so than anyone who does have children?

 

I assume you are doing your part and not having kids?

[johnnyAU 3,637]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

It's not the planet that's in danger, it's our species.

Our species is thriving better now, than at any other time in history. Thank you affordable, reliable and available fossil fuels.

 

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

As for the "power grab" by WHO, I trust you take your tinfoil hat off before you stick your head up your ass.

Like many other sheep, your head's been stuck up your blind, ideological ass for the majority of your life. 

[Leftfield 2,637]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

The good point he brings up is going through Kerry’s history of talking about net zero by reducing emissions for years and then, recently, starts to promoting removing CO2 from the atmosphere at a tremendous cost.  Why would Kerry need to switch his story?  Could it be that he has tried to get Russia, China and India to fall in line and because they are *developing countries* they have no incentive to do anything?

What Kerry is saying is that the rest of the countries in the Paris Accord will have to pay the $1.6 quadrillion for this project.  Guess who would take on the bulk of this debt?

Kerry is a nutcase and most people are seeing that.  Why do the climate change advocates all have to be nutcase grifters?  Gore, AOC and Kerry all fit the bill in politics.  Too many public figures to name in Hollywood and the entertainment industry.

 

 

Did he change his story? Maybe. I don't know. I do know that CO2 removal has been seen as needed for quite some time now. There are small scale projects being brought online now to begin removing it. As with many things, the technology needs to improve to scale it up, but you have to start somewhere.

If we could get the world to net zero in the next five years, which of course is impossible, then we might not need carbon capture because the excess capacity of nature as a carbon sink might slowly bring the levels back down enough to stave off the major effects, but even that's in question.

You keep focusing on the cost, and of course cost has to be part of the conversation, but you have to realize two things: 1. That's the cost now, before the technology has matured, 2. Just because you can't afford to do it all at once doesn't mean you don't start.

Regardless of everything said here, you're never going to agree anything is worth it because you don't believe it's a problem. I still question if you've read any of the links I or anyone else have provided, because you continue to focus on "gotcha" moments from politicians and policy wonks, and the rare times you do post something science oriented it's easily refuted. 

Homer posted the link to Skeptical Science years ago. Have you ever used it to answer any questions you have? Or to see if there's a reason the things you're hearing from those who don't think it's happening or is a problem might be wrong? If you haven't, ask yourself why. You don't have to answer to me, of course. Just be honest with yourself.

Edited March 17 by Leftfield

[homersapien 11,426]

40 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

 

Being born does not make you obligated to fix the world’s problems, especially those you cannot fix.  Where does your moral high ground end?  To what extent?

Your lack of moral responsibility to our species is duly noted. It's no wonder you think I  am overly moral in that regard.

[homersapien 11,426]

42 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Like many other sheep, your head's been stuck up your blind, ideological ass for the majority of your life. 

Says the guy who rejects science in favor of self-serving denial.

[Leftfield 2,637]

45 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Our species is thriving better now, than at any other time in history. Thank you affordable, reliable and available fossil fuels.

And that means it will continue, right?

There's never been an instance of a person or society gaining huge benefits only to see a tragic cost later, right?

In case you didn't notice, as a society we've tackled problems with many pollutants over the decades, many fairly successfully. Leaded gasoline was phased out despite early protest from industry. The Montreal Protocols were a success. Yes, this is larger scale and  will require more investment and effort, but it's not impossible if we have mass buy-in. People who refuse to recognize it as a problem, or don't care because they'll never see the fallout, are actually the biggest obstacles.

[I_M4_AU 7,949]

4 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

1. That's the cost now, before the technology has matured, 2. Just because you can't afford to do it all at once doesn't mean you don't start.

We can’t wait until the technology matures or is that part of the grift.  We have to do something now because in 10 years it will be too late.  We can’t afford to wait.  This sounds like some kind of a scam to me. 

Yeah, I’ve read the links (not all of course) and just like you I don’t believe the other’s point of view.  If it worth the effort why rush it with dooms day prognosis?

 

[Aufan59 78]

20 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Your lack of moral responsibility to our species is duly noted. It's no wonder you think I  am overly moral in that regard.

You avoided all of my questions.

Where does the moral obligation end?  Are you morally obligated to spend your time, money and energy on every problem our species faces?  

Also, do you have children?  
 

 

[Leftfield 2,637]

56 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

We can’t wait until the technology matures or is that part of the grift.  We have to do something now because in 10 years it will be too late.  We can’t afford to wait.  This sounds like some kind of a scam to me. 

To a degree you're correct - we do need to make some expensive changes now, but nobody believes we can afford to put carbon capture in place on that type of scale in the next few years and it was ridiculous for Perry to imply that was the intent.

How is it a scam? Are all scientists involved in the grift? Are they all investing  in green energy and carbon capture companies to make themselves rich? Are they seeking out places that will pay them to produce research that says AGW is real, when they could just as easily be paid by fossil fuel companies to show that it isn't? What was the reason that Exxon's scientists, more than 40 years ago, produced a study that correctly predicted the temperature increases we've seen? 

If the scientists were in on grift, wouldn't it behoove them for a larger number to dispute AGW, so they could keep producing conflicting studies in perpetuity?

 

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yeah, I’ve read the links (not all of course) and just like you I don’t believe the other’s point of view.

Why? Do you have scientific reasons for disputing AGW? If so, what are they? You don't have to go through all of it, just give an example of something you dispute that any of those links pointed out. 

 

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

If it worth the effort why rush it with dooms day prognosis?

Well, maybe because on this track we're heading toward dramatic changes that will be disastrous for society? As already mentioned, if the oceans continue to warm and the ph continues to change, you're going to see a severe reduction in sea life, which will disrupt the food chain worldwide. Lower latitude areas will become extremely difficult to live in, if not uninhabitable, and lower lying areas will flood. All those people will need to go somewhere, which will lead to mass immigration and refugee crises. I think it's a no-brainer that conflicts will break out as countries get desperate to corral resources. When mankind goes into primal survival mode, it won't be pretty.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,949]

59 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

How is it a scam?

I said it sounded like a scam, you know “act now to avoid regret and future disappointment”.  When you put a deadline on anything you just have to think twice about it.

 

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

Are they all investing  in green energy and carbon capture companies to make themselves rich?

Scientists are beyond greed, right? What is Fauci worth?  Dr, Birx, Dr Collins?  I’m not saying they are all tainted, but they would like to see the climate crisis to be in the headlines so governments will keep funding them.

To the other questions, see above.  Why would a scientist join the fossil fuel crowd when they have enough scientists already?

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

Why?

I don’t know what lays ahead in life, all I have is my gut feelings after reading what I can about the problem.  The last world crisis was presented as a potential disaster that culled out several million people. The vaccine was to save millions and *the science* told us the vaccine will create herd immunity if we were vaccinated by 75% of the population, then it was 80% then 85%, but never included natural immunity?  We finally got herd immunity 3 years later.

You know what is interesting?  The 1918 Spanish flu reached herd immunity in 2.5 years without a vaccine and it was natural immunity.  It seems like *the science* never take into account the natural process that Mother Nature provides.  *The science* doesn’t trust anything other than what they have concocted.

COVID has really shook my faith in *the science* along with medical doctors acutally believing you can change sexes just because a person believes they can.  These are science people that doing this just for the money and no other reason.  A sex change operation has NEVER been successful.  Yes, I’m skeptical as I can be.

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

Well, maybe because on this track we're heading toward dramatic changes that will be disastrous for society?

Mmmm, sounds like the same reasoning used to institute a vaccine mandate that wasn’t needed by *the science* AKA Fauci.  Too many *emergencies* going on around here.  I wonder why?

[Leftfield 2,637]

43 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Scientists are beyond greed, right? What is Fauci worth?  Dr, Birx, Dr Collins?  I’m not saying they are all tainted, but they would like to see the climate crisis to be in the headlines so governments will keep funding them.

You actually took longer to jump to Covid than I figured you would. Congrats on your restraint, I guess?

Regardless, it's logical error to convey your emotions about one topic onto another. 

Also, I never said every scientist was beyond greed, but to say that's what motivates somewhere around 80-90% of them (in the case of AGW) is absurd.

 

45 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

To the other questions, see above.  Why would a scientist join the fossil fuel crowd when they have enough scientists already?

This doesn't even make sense. You seem to be saying there are enough scientists working for the fossil fuel industry, but the number of scientists that disagree with AGW is dwarfed by those that agree. So why wouldn't more join the fossil fuel side if their only motivation is greed?

 

47 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I don’t know what lays ahead in life, all I have is my gut feelings after reading what I can about the problem.  The last world crisis was presented as a potential disaster that culled out several million people. The vaccine was to save millions and *the science* told us the vaccine will create herd immunity if we were vaccinated by 75% of the population, then it was 80% then 85%, but never included natural immunity?  We finally got herd immunity 3 years later.

You know what is interesting?  The 1918 Spanish flu reached herd immunity in 2.5 years without a vaccine and it was natural immunity.  It seems like *the science* never take into account the natural process that Mother Nature provides.  *The science* doesn’t trust anything other than what they have concocted.

Not going to rehash all the ways you were wrong about Covid, but I'll point out that your comment about the Spanish flu is absolutely moronic. 50 million people died before that herd immunity you boast about was achieved. But I guess that's a small price to pay for being able to do whatever you want without regard to anyone else's safety, right? Freedumb, indeed.

 

50 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

COVID has really shook my faith in *the science* along with medical doctors acutally believing you can change sexes just because a person believes they can. 

DING DING DING!!!

There's the other argument I was waiting for. Congratulations - with climate denial, anit-vax, and trans hysteria, you've now hit the trifecta.

 

52 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

These are science people that doing this just for the money and no other reason. 

Your opinion.

 

53 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

A sex change operation has NEVER been successful.

Ummm.....what?

Only possible thing you can be talking about here is chromosomes.

 

Lot of crazy in your post. Figured we'd be getting there eventually.

I_M4_LITHIUM.

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,949]

13 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Only possible thing you can be talking about here is chromosomes.

Really, how is you biology.  Can any surgery from one sex to another produce a child?  You are not a fully functional man or woman unless you have the ability to reproduce as that is the purpose of opposite sexes.  Now don’t go into the anomalies that exist in nature, it is a poor argument.

To the rest; *the science* has taken a hit over the years.  The motivation has switched and should be questioned more than ever.  Unfortunately, people like you just follow along.

ETA: this whole subject is an example of science not respecting Mother Nature and how it works.  *The science* would rather go around nature as they are arrogant enough to think they can improve on the human body.

Edited March 17 by I_M4_AU

[I_M4_AU 7,949]

 

 

[arein0 974]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

You are not a fully functional man or woman unless you have the ability to reproduce as that is the purpose of opposite sexes.

Oof I'd like to be there when you tell that to the men or women that have never been able to or are no longer able to reproduce. How would you classify those individuals?

[I_M4_AU 7,949]

2 hours ago, arein0 said:

Oof I'd like to be there when you tell that to the men or women that have never been able to or are no longer able to reproduce. How would you classify those individuals?

Read the whole post:

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Now don’t go into the anomalies that exist in nature, it is a poor argument.

If a child was born with only one arm, the child is still human even though that child is not perfect.

[arein0 974]

35 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Read the whole post:

If a child was born with only one arm, the child is still human even though that child is not perfect.

I don't consider 1 in 6 having infertility issues an anomaly.

https://www.who.int/news/item/04-04-2023-1-in-6-people-globally-affected-by-infertility

Also, any women over the age of 35 has a drastically lower chance of reproducing and at 51 basically all females are unable to reproduce.

So no, what you are saying is not an anomaly like your example of a child born with one arm.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,949]

9 hours ago, arein0 said:

I don't consider 1 in 6 having infertility issues an anomaly.

https://www.who.int/news/item/04-04-2023-1-in-6-people-globally-affected-by-infertility

Also, any women over the age of 35 has a drastically lower chance of reproducing and at 51 basically all females are unable to reproduce.

So no, what you are saying is not an anomaly like your example of a child born with one arm.

 

So, what do you believe makes a person a woman?  A man?

[I_M4_AU 7,949]

Not all scientists agree CO2 is the cause, but this guy is probably a quack:

 

 

[johnnyAU 3,637]

19 hours ago, Leftfield said:

And that means it will continue, right?

There's never been an instance of a person or society gaining huge benefits only to see a tragic cost later, right?

In case you didn't notice, as a society we've tackled problems with many pollutants over the decades, many fairly successfully. Leaded gasoline was phased out despite early protest from industry. The Montreal Protocols were a success. Yes, this is larger scale and  will require more investment and effort, but it's not impossible if we have mass buy-in. People who refuse to recognize it as a problem, or don't care because they'll never see the fallout, are actually the biggest obstacles.

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a vital food for plant life, thus animal life. If it gets too low, there won't be life. It isn't now, nor has it ever been a "control knob" for the climate. 

[johnnyAU 3,637]

19 hours ago, homersapien said:

Says the guy who rejects science in favor of self-serving denial.

I follow actual, repeatable science rather than falling at the feet of the politically driven pseudoscience cult like yourself. Humanity has greatly benefitted from the availability, reliability and affordability of energy sources like oil, natural gas and nuclear. That has not only fostered the greatest era of technological advancements in history, but also all world and space exploration, leaps in large and small scale agriculture and medical care and believe it or not, forecasting and preparation for weather events. We are safer now from the Earth's climate than we have ever been in history. All great things not just for 1st world countries, but especially for developing countries. Thank you science, CO2 and fossil fuels.