Leftfield 2,643 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 (edited) 12 hours ago, johnnyAU said: 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. Too much of anything is a pollutant. We need oxygen, but too much kills us. We aren't talking about getting rid of all CO2, we're talking about getting it to a level consistent where the climate changes at a much more gradual pace, allowing us to adapt. You have yet to post any research confirming your final sentence. Edited March 19 by Leftfield 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leftfield 2,643 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 4 minutes ago, johnnyAU said: I follow actual, repeatable science... Examples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,427 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 20 hours ago, Aufan59 said: 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? It doesn't. Yes. No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_M4_AU 7,951 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 Do you want to know why there are so many *Climate Change* skeptics? Listen to John Kerry: How has Biden lived for 81 years breathing this air? The guy is a nut job. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auburnatl1 5,007 Posted March 18 Author Share Posted March 18 1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said: Do you want to know why there are so many *Climate Change* skeptics? Listen to John Kerry: How has Biden lived for 81 years breathing this air? The guy is a nut job. I do think Kerry’s trying to create urgency but instead runs to constant melodrama - making him an easy “ nut job” target . This discussion must be purely statistical/fact based - or those than smirk at any change of any kind on any subject get the ammo they need to attack and mock the messenger (constant technique used) and deflect from the subject itself. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_M4_AU 7,951 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 47 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said: I do think Kerry’s trying to create urgency but instead runs to constant melodrama - making him an easy “ nut job” target . This discussion must be purely statistical/fact based - or those than smirk at any change of any kind on any subject get the ammo they need to attack and mock the messenger (constant technique used) and deflect from the subject itself. Whose fault would that be? Greta didn’t help. It’s been 50 years of doom and gloom. The subject is tainted and will forever be tainted. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auburnatl1 5,007 Posted March 18 Author Share Posted March 18 3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said: Whose fault would that be? Greta didn’t help. It’s been 50 years of doom and gloom. The subject is tainted and will forever be tainted. Well if its forever the scientist were wrong. But I’ve read enough white papers with empirical data that suggests they’re not. In fact it’s pretty obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_M4_AU 7,951 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 1 minute ago, auburnatl1 said: Well if its forever the scientist were wrong. But I’ve read enough white papers with empirical data that suggests they’re not. In fact it’s pretty obvious. Again, the subject is tainted. I lived those 50 years and made decision based on poor guesses. As we old people fade away there maybe hope for governments to gain complete control over the population because of the fear and the belief only the government can solve this problem. I hope nature will prevail. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leftfield 2,643 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 18 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said: As we old people fade away there maybe hope for governments to gain complete control over the population because of the fear and the belief only the government can solve this problem. Honest question: aside from government, who do you suggest has the power and resources to solve the problem? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_M4_AU 7,951 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 1 hour ago, Leftfield said: Honest question: aside from government, who do you suggest has the power and resources to solve the problem? Nature will solve the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leftfield 2,643 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said: Nature will solve the problem. You said you hoped it would. The implication from your post was that society would only be looking for government to solve it. If you're wrong, who besides government could? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aufan59 80 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 (edited) 7 hours ago, homersapien said: It doesn't. Yes. No. You must be very busy and broke to be spending time and money on all of the world’s problems. How do you have time to post on this forum, which is not solving any problems? Seems immoral. Edited March 18 by Aufan59 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_M4_AU 7,951 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 21 minutes ago, Leftfield said: You said you hoped it would. The implication from your post was that society would only be looking for government to solve it. If you're wrong, who besides government could? I said *hope* to placate you non believers. Yes, society would look for government to solve the problem, government has conditioned society to believe it can solve our problems (it never has). If the climate changes to a point nature can’t handle it I believe nature will correct whatever issue there might be to lessen that impact. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leftfield 2,643 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 41 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said: I said *hope* to placate you non believers. Non-believers in....what exactly? 41 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said: Yes, society would look for government to solve the problem, government has conditioned society to believe it can solve our problems (it never has). Hyperbolic. And incorrect. You're also evading. Don't you think government should step in when a problem is too big for individuals or private enterprise to handle? If not, I ask again, who do you suggest has the power and resources? 43 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said: If the climate changes to a point nature can’t handle it I believe nature will correct whatever issue there might be to lessen that impact. Great Scott. Please think about what you just wrote. "If the climate changes to a point nature can't handle it, I believe nature will handle it." The absurdity of that sentence notwithstanding, what natural mechanism are you counting on? Is this something you've read about in your research on the topic? Something a dissenting scientist has posited? Or do you just have faith that everything will work out because it always has for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,427 Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 (edited) 3 hours ago, Aufan59 said: You must be very busy and broke to be spending time and money on all of the world’s problems. How do you have time to post on this forum, which is not solving any problems? Seems immoral. I don't spend all my "time and money" on "all of the world's problems" - that would be irrational. I make time for a lot of different things. (I don't focus all my time on myself.) It's not. It's empathetic, thoughtful and responsible Edited March 19 by homersapien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_M4_AU 7,951 Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 (edited) 2 hours ago, Leftfield said: The absurdity of that sentence notwithstanding, what natural mechanism are you counting on? Let me ask; CO2 is the problem as you see it and that problem started with the Industrial Revolution is this correct? Another phenomenon that started about then is a population explosion. Do you agree with these statements? Edited March 19 by I_M4_AU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,427 Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 "If the climate changes to a point nature can’t handle it I believe nature will correct...." Brilliant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_M4_AU 7,951 Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 It has up until now. Now the scientists are so arrogant they believe they can control our environment. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leftfield 2,643 Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 44 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said: Let me ask; CO2 is the problem as you see it and that problem started with the Industrial Revolution is this correct? Another phenomenon that started about then is a population explosion. Do you agree with these statements? Give or take, yes, both started to pick up around then, but the major rise in levels of both began in the middle of the 20th century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leftfield 2,643 Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 44 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said: It has up until now. Explain. 45 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said: Now the scientists are so arrogant they believe they can control our environment. Only in the sense of getting everyone to stop throwing their trash everywhere at the campsite, and then picking up what they've already tossed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_M4_AU 7,951 Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 1 hour ago, Leftfield said: Give or take, yes, both started to pick up around then, but the major rise in levels of both began in the middle of the 20th century. Could nature reduce the population by a plague, sever drought, another pandemic etc? It would acutally fall in line with what the threat of higher temps on earth brings. When the population is at the right level the climate returns to normal. Our resources of oil and natural gas could be exhausted and we would be forced to find other ways to exist. That was the threat during Carter’s admin (it wasn’t true) and i still remember the lines to get gas. We just went through a pandemic and lost several milllion people and nations are not reproducing at a level that sustains that nation’s population. Are we mitigating now through population? Just food for thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_M4_AU 7,951 Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 1 hour ago, Leftfield said: Explain Really? Everytime there was an ice age/mini ice age or heat wave the climate corrected, did it not? And without human input. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leftfield 2,643 Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 19 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said: Could nature reduce the population by a plague, sever drought, another pandemic etc? It would acutally fall in line with what the threat of higher temps on earth brings. When the population is at the right level the climate returns to normal. Our resources of oil and natural gas could be exhausted and we would be forced to find other ways to exist. That was the threat during Carter’s admin (it wasn’t true) and i still remember the lines to get gas. We just went through a pandemic and lost several milllion people and nations are not reproducing at a level that sustains that nation’s population. Are we mitigating now through population? Just food for thought. Are you seriously saying that your hopes for averting climate catastrophe rest on a worldwide population cull to get back to pre-Industrial Revolution levels? Wow. Guess your kids and grandkids just have to hope they're some of the lucky ones, eh? Against abortion but all for an extinction level event. Makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leftfield 2,643 Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 (edited) 31 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said: Really? Everytime there was an ice age/mini ice age or heat wave the climate corrected, did it not? And without human input. *sigh* TIME. SCALE. Once again, those changes were over, at a minimum, thousands and thousands of years. The climate is heating up too quickly for us to adapt to it. Why can't you figure this out? Would you please figure this out? My God I'm sick of saying the same thing over and over again. Edited March 19 by Leftfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_M4_AU 7,951 Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 9 hours ago, Leftfield said: Are you seriously saying that your hopes for averting climate catastrophe rest on a worldwide population cull to get back to pre-Industrial Revolution levels? Wow. Guess your kids and grandkids just have to hope they're some of the lucky ones, eh? Against abortion but all for an extinction level event. Makes sense. No, I’m not saying that. Your premise is CO2 is killing us and I am working on that premise. I believe you have been taken by *the science* and can’t get you head out of your a$$. You can’t see beyond *the science* because you believe it so fervently that nothing else enters you thought. You are amoung the minority of the population of the world that believe *the science*. I put up exactly what *the science* states will happen and you argue that. If you look at it as the earth will save itself, this is what might happen as *the science* states. It is the fear mongering you consider the truth. Ugly, isn’t it? If what you and *the science* says is true (and I don’t agree with *the science*) conditions are not drastic enough for people to acquiesce. Sorry you don’t like the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now