5) Do androids dream of electric sheep?
Is global warming man-made? Is it dangerous for nature or humans?
(286 posts, started )
I know, but I didn't see these sources from you. I was just a little surprised when I found literal confirmation of my words from scientists.
1-2) The smaller the company, the more price matters.
Because in this case, if company too small the price of equipment to combat climate change will fall on ordinary workers, through cuts in their salaries or staff reduction. I am for the fight against climate change not to lead to this. Large companies that produce a lot of emissions can and should pay more than others. Medium-sized companies can pay much less, small companies have very little or nothing (depending on the level of emissions) Unfortunately, this a bit conflict with my minarchic views, but apparently nothing can be done about it. The state must set standards for permissible emission standards for different levels of companies, and those standards should be stricter for companies in more densely populated areas. And this helps not only to combat global warming, but also simply helps people breathe cleaner air. And we’re not just talking about hydrocarbons, but primarily about harmful and toxic elements. This may sound like something obvious, but not for post-Soviet countries. People in Russia in many cities breathe dirty air, and the penalties for dumping toxic waste into nature are small fines. And in part, this politicized trend of fighting climate change helps these people.
3) Maybe I don’t quite understand the question, how can the costs of filtration systems or similar systems be returned? Of course it won't be profitable. This cannot be a market mechanism, it must be a state law.
4) Well, of course, the fight against environmental pollution should be a priority, but as I said answering on first two qiestions, the fight against one can help fight the other. It is extremely rare for a company to emit pure CO2. It is usually accompanied by all sorts of other gas impurities, many elements of which can be unhealthy. The main thing is that the fight against climate change does not harm ordinary people. Large companies can do this with little financial damage that will not affect employees by installing additional equipment, or changing things within the company so that there are fewer emissions from production, I see only positive things in this.
@Alexandr,
1-2:-I'm assuming that we're talking about a functioning (ha!) economy, so the cost is ultimately born by the citizenry. It doesn't matter if it's paid for through taxation or passed on to us through corporate regulation resulting in rising prices, the cost is always born by the consumer.
3:- Sorry, probably an Englishism. Return on investment (ROI) is a question of cost:benefit. Is the expense of an action justifiable because the benefit is measureable/tangible/positive. Eg: Paying £10 to feed a rescue animal has a greater ROI than paying £10 for a sign to put in my window, saying "I support rescuing animals". So the question is, will the money spent be effective in achieving the result you're paying to achieve?
4- I see constant conflation of measures to fight climate change and measures to reduce pollution. Given that CO2 is *not* a pollutant and is instead plant food which is crucial to the survival of all life on earth, this is a very important distinction. Measures to remove pollutants but not necessarily to impede the release of CO2 are, IMO, preferred.
Especially measures intended to recycle byproducts into non-contaminating and inert products. Since these byproducts can be recycled profitably, they are normally captured rather than released anyway. My point is really that fossil fuels are only polluting if they are not properly processed, and that investment should be focused on R&D into that process of recycling rather than the elimination of the fossil fuel itself.
[EDIT] I kinda missed my point, juxtaposing renewable energy sectors which ARE major polluters.
The main source of pollution at the moment comes from the mismanagement of waste, resulting in micro-plastics in waterways and oceans. This is urgent - IMO the most urgent issue - but requires substantially better management.
1-2:-I'm assuming that we're talking about a functioning (ha!) economy, so the cost is ultimately born by the citizenry. It doesn't matter if it's paid for through taxation or passed on to us through corporate regulation resulting in rising prices, the cost is always born by the consumer.
3:- Sorry, probably an Englishism. Return on investment (ROI) is a question of cost:benefit. Is the expense of an action justifiable because the benefit is measureable/tangible/positive. Eg: Paying £10 to feed a rescue animal has a greater ROI than paying £10 for a sign to put in my window, saying "I support rescuing animals". So the question is, will the money spent be effective in achieving the result you're paying to achieve?
4- I see constant conflation of measures to fight climate change and measures to reduce pollution. Given that CO2 is *not* a pollutant and is instead plant food which is crucial to the survival of all life on earth, this is a very important distinction. Measures to remove pollutants but not necessarily to impede the release of CO2 are, IMO, preferred.
Especially measures intended to recycle byproducts into non-contaminating and inert products. Since these byproducts can be recycled profitably, they are normally captured rather than released anyway. My point is really that fossil fuels are only polluting if they are not properly processed, and that investment should be focused on R&D into that process of recycling rather than the elimination of the fossil fuel itself.
[EDIT] I kinda missed my point, juxtaposing renewable energy sectors which ARE major polluters.
The main source of pollution at the moment comes from the mismanagement of waste, resulting in micro-plastics in waterways and oceans. This is urgent - IMO the most urgent issue - but requires substantially better management.
This thread is a Phoenix 
If you're interested in the subject, it's interesting
1-2. Well, it doesn't have to be that way. Large companies have super profits and can cover production costs with these profits, but if a large company does not have super profits, it can really affect the cost of goods. Why is that a bad thing? I'm only talking about large companies. If the cost of their goods goes up, their competitors have a better chance of capturing more of the market at a lower price. It's a tool for demonopolization of large companies.
3. Again, it is difficult for me to answer how effective these systems are in reducing emissions, and I am not an expert in this field. But if they are effective, especially in terms of pollution, that's good enough for me.
4. Because this mixing of CO2 and pollution literally happens during production. It is almost never the case that pure CO2 is the emission, and if it is, I have no problem with it. I have a feeling that we are too much coming from the contexts of our own countries so we don't understand each other. I think UK has no problem with pollution compared to Russia so much so that the issue of microplastics is of paramount importance to you. We're not at that level yet. People in many Russian cities have to breathe smog from industrial emissions, toxic waste is poured into rivers, from which people in neighboring communities then draw water. But unfortunately the system in Russia is set up in such a way that you as a company can do what you want as long as it is not visible from the Kremlin, and the topic of fighting climate change is often raised in the Kremlin, and in this regard there are laws to limit emissions, so companies are inspected and checked not only for CO2 emissions but also for other harmful emissions. However, in Russia there are other nuances such as widespread corruption, and these measures may not have a result, but this is another conversation.
No-one denies that both natural and anthropogenic factors cause warming. But the increase in excessive CO2 causing the warming since industrialisation is mainly due to man made emissions.
The observed warming is close to predictions.
All models have shortcomings, some are better than others and the climate models have proved very accurate regarding warming.
Absurd argument. Should a fat person deliberately try to find ways to eat more food than they ever did before, simply because food is essential for life? There is no reason to think that plants now suddenly need 50% more CO2 in the atmosphere than they used to. Not a single climate scientist advocates the total removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. On the contrary, it is required, to keep the earth warm and as you say for plant food. But to suggest that it should be increased no matter the consequences is just stupid.
Have a look at all the records being broken and all the destruction by extreme weather events. Don't just deny what is happening.
It should respect reality. Economic policies should respect reality. But that doesn't mean we should go all in to sell and burn whatever we have to sell and burn, just to make the most money possible in the short term, without regard to future life on earth. Should the economy serve us, or should we destroy our future to boost the economy now?
As I understand, your comments above starting "Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming" and "CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth" are the exact definition of Straw Man arguments.
I think the whole thing is about whether you think we should only think 5 years ahead, or if you have concern for the long term future even after you are gone. Are you concerned about regions or of the planet becoming intolerable and the people who live there being forced to move in order to survive? Apparently some people think it is rational to only care about their own immediate future. Others feel it would be nice to imagine a very long term future for life on Earth for humans, animals and plants. I guess it's all about where your concerns lie. If the main thing is our immediate wealth within 5 years, let's dig up everything and burn it. Who knows, you might be dead in 4 years anyway, right? Or maybe you think it is rational to want our children, grand children and great-grand children to have a good life, not polluted, crowded and struggling to survive during a global famine.
This is asserted but it isn't established. The attempts to assert this (eg "97% of climate scientists agree...") have been broadly debunked. It simply isn't true that the current collective opinion of climate scientists is either that the majority of the warming is anthropogenic, NOR is there any agreement or popular acceptance that the rate of warming is catastrophic.
This is only true now that the predictions have been significantly revised downwards.
This is absolutely NOT the case. Climate models have a long established history of consistently running hot. But worse than that, while the range of estimates from models has been extremely wide, only the WORST case scenarios have been used by the IPCC in their SPMs to inform WG3 policy recommendations while at the same time pointing to BEST case scenario model runs to show that model error bars were within the range of observations. This is unacceptable data abuse, and statistical torture.
Remember, 10 years ago we only had 14 months to prevent the earth experiencing 4.5 degrees of warming above pre-industrial levels by 2100. Today, the same people are arguing that we must prevent the earth seeing just 1.5 degrees of warming over pre-industrial levels.
Not a single prediction from climate scientist activists since the 70s has come to pass, be it temperature increase or sea level rise, or anything between. You might just as well lean in on Nostradamus or Mother Shipton predictions as believe these doomsday climate predictions.
Biologists are quite clear that the earth today is CO2-starved compared with the paleobiological record. Your premise that the earth is fat on CO2 is diametrically opposed to the truth.
A recent post in this thread declared 2023 to be the hottest on record, based on a MSM report, based on a claim made by a media-hungry group of climatologists. The truth is that we will not have collected, collated, corrected and disseminated 2023 weather station data until mid next year at the earliest. NASA GISS scientists/activists Jim Hansen, and now Gavin Schmidt, are notorious for making claims about [current year] record temperatures, only to quietly revise down the numbers through the process of collation and correction, and subsequently declare subsequent new [current year] record temperatures. This pattern of "pre-publication" riding the preliminary data crest of the wave is good for grabbing Daily Express headlines but it's not good for the integrity of science.
We've spent $21 trillion in taxes so far on slowing the increase in atmospheric CO2, and so far we've delayed its release to the tune of about 2 weeks behind what it would have been by 2100. That's an abject and inordinate waste of money. I can think of a lot of good that we could have done with that money.
95% of all warming is caused by atmospheric water vapour. CO2 is the strawman argument.
This is mostly comprised of MSM headline claims, which are clickbaity creative interpretations of press releases from media hungry political advocates. There's not much really to address rationally.
I'm not sure you understand what I'm talking about, I'm quoting a declaration from over 1600 scientists including two Nobel laureates and professionals that said - There is no climate emergency. Part of text with bold text headings, there are links there and you can see it for yourself. That's why the quotation marks were there. But you started arguing with it as if it were my quotes. But they're not. Although I did say the same things before, but it was not literally the same words.
I don't want to defend someone else's words, so I will proceed from my own positions. And since we have started this argument, I hope it will be without rhetorical tricks and stay within the laws of logic.
Is analogy a good argument for you?
Let's take a look. Analogy is the comparison of any two things (A, B) by one or more properties. Does it follow that thing A is similar to thing B? No. Does it follow that all the properties of thing A are the same as thing B? No. Let's look at an example. There's an ass and a finger, you can compare them too. The ass and the finger have skin, sweat cells, muscle tissue, etc. Does that mean you can shit out of your finger? No. Does that mean you can grow nails on your ass? No.
Same thing with a fat person. Although it's even a double analogy. Fat person is compared to nature and humans and CO2 is compared to food. There are so many things wrong here, I don't even know where to start. First of all, by what property are we comparing these objects? A fat person consumes food. And nature and humans emits carbon dioxide. There's no common property. What common properties do carbon dioxide and food have in common? I've lost the point...Even if this analogy worked and there were common properties, it doesn't mean that a fat person is nature and people, and food is carbon dioxide, in a huge number of ways. Then what does the analogy prove? Nothing.
Analogy is a direct violation of the law of identity. If we're talking about subject A and its properties. We should be talking about subject A and its properties. And not substitute it for something else. Instead, it is better to use a regular thesis statement.
The analogy is also bad because it's not clear what you're trying to say.
Why did you make that analogy? To show what? That nature and humans will die if they emit more carbon dioxide? How?
I don't know how much percent plants need more carbon dioxide for better growth because I'm not an expert, but you are now literally arguing with the thesis of the climate scientists who signed this declaration. And I know that plants grow better in greenhouses than out of them, although there temperature and humidity are probably more important.
I have attached two graphs, the increase in carbon dioxide, and the number of deaths associated with climate change. Let's look at the consequences together.
All right, let's see. In January this year -73°C was recorded in Evenki village. Just a week ago they were talking about record frosts -42°C in the Krasnoyarsk region. Record frosts for the last 100 years have been recorded in the regions of Western Siberia. The thermometer dropped to minus -49°C. Due to the cold weather in Siberia, there was an increase in frostbite, as well as flight delays, road accidents and canceled bus flights.
But if we are serious, local temperature records mean not much, because they are formed mainly by cyclones and anticyclones, which are formed by ocean currents. You have to look at temperature changes on average to understand the real dynamics of warming, and it is there, I did not deny it. Over the last 100 years, the temperature has increased by 1.1 degrees.
Unfortunately, in regulated countries, the economy is run by politics and politics does not reflect reality. In unregulated countries, the economy is run by the rules of the market. And I'm not saying that's always a good thing. As we have already said in this thread, direct pollution is bad and it should be fought first and foremost.
You misunderstand this, I made no such direct statements. Rather, I asked questions about these topics. All I have done in this thread is ask for evidence that there will be some catastrophic threat to humanity. I see no existential threat to humanity from global warming. And I've explained my position. As I see it, in the worst unlikely scenario, some people will be forced to move off the coasts to inland. Which, of course, is something to avoid. But I am told that catostrafic consequences are already inevitable, it is amazing to me how people know what will happen in the future. I can understand the nature of the existential threat from global cooling because almost all plants and animals will die out and there will be no sources of food and electricity. But I cannot understand the existential threat of global warming. Perhaps I am wrong and an exostential threat to humanity exists, all I ask is that you demonstrate the mechanism of its emergence.
I don't want to defend someone else's words, so I will proceed from my own positions. And since we have started this argument, I hope it will be without rhetorical tricks and stay within the laws of logic.
Is analogy a good argument for you?
Let's take a look. Analogy is the comparison of any two things (A, B) by one or more properties. Does it follow that thing A is similar to thing B? No. Does it follow that all the properties of thing A are the same as thing B? No. Let's look at an example. There's an ass and a finger, you can compare them too. The ass and the finger have skin, sweat cells, muscle tissue, etc. Does that mean you can shit out of your finger? No. Does that mean you can grow nails on your ass? No.
Same thing with a fat person. Although it's even a double analogy. Fat person is compared to nature and humans and CO2 is compared to food. There are so many things wrong here, I don't even know where to start. First of all, by what property are we comparing these objects? A fat person consumes food. And nature and humans emits carbon dioxide. There's no common property. What common properties do carbon dioxide and food have in common? I've lost the point...Even if this analogy worked and there were common properties, it doesn't mean that a fat person is nature and people, and food is carbon dioxide, in a huge number of ways. Then what does the analogy prove? Nothing.
Analogy is a direct violation of the law of identity. If we're talking about subject A and its properties. We should be talking about subject A and its properties. And not substitute it for something else. Instead, it is better to use a regular thesis statement.
The analogy is also bad because it's not clear what you're trying to say.
Why did you make that analogy? To show what? That nature and humans will die if they emit more carbon dioxide? How?
I don't know how much percent plants need more carbon dioxide for better growth because I'm not an expert, but you are now literally arguing with the thesis of the climate scientists who signed this declaration. And I know that plants grow better in greenhouses than out of them, although there temperature and humidity are probably more important.
I have attached two graphs, the increase in carbon dioxide, and the number of deaths associated with climate change. Let's look at the consequences together.
All right, let's see. In January this year -73°C was recorded in Evenki village. Just a week ago they were talking about record frosts -42°C in the Krasnoyarsk region. Record frosts for the last 100 years have been recorded in the regions of Western Siberia. The thermometer dropped to minus -49°C. Due to the cold weather in Siberia, there was an increase in frostbite, as well as flight delays, road accidents and canceled bus flights.
But if we are serious, local temperature records mean not much, because they are formed mainly by cyclones and anticyclones, which are formed by ocean currents. You have to look at temperature changes on average to understand the real dynamics of warming, and it is there, I did not deny it. Over the last 100 years, the temperature has increased by 1.1 degrees.
Unfortunately, in regulated countries, the economy is run by politics and politics does not reflect reality. In unregulated countries, the economy is run by the rules of the market. And I'm not saying that's always a good thing. As we have already said in this thread, direct pollution is bad and it should be fought first and foremost.
You misunderstand this, I made no such direct statements. Rather, I asked questions about these topics. All I have done in this thread is ask for evidence that there will be some catastrophic threat to humanity. I see no existential threat to humanity from global warming. And I've explained my position. As I see it, in the worst unlikely scenario, some people will be forced to move off the coasts to inland. Which, of course, is something to avoid. But I am told that catostrafic consequences are already inevitable, it is amazing to me how people know what will happen in the future. I can understand the nature of the existential threat from global cooling because almost all plants and animals will die out and there will be no sources of food and electricity. But I cannot understand the existential threat of global warming. Perhaps I am wrong and an exostential threat to humanity exists, all I ask is that you demonstrate the mechanism of its emergence.
I agree it doesn't have to be that way, I'm simply making the point that it is and always will be that way. Large companies accumulate power and influence, and use it to protect their profits and monopolies. I think we in the west like to delude ourselves that our system is not as corrupt as, say, Russia or China. But we are. We just hide it better.
Of course. But you agree in principle, I presume, that if you ARE going to spend money to achieve a goal, it's important that you spend that money in a way that ensures that your goal is achieved. Spend money to DO good rather than spend money to LOOK good.
I completely agree with you here. But it's important to understand that our western countries' "net zero" targets are just trickery. Profitable trickery.
We aren't reducing manufacturing emissions at all, we're just moving them to (for example) China, in exactly the same way our electric cars are not at all clean if they are truthfully fuelled by coal-fired and CCGT power stations - which they have to be, for grid stability and reliability, since all "renewable" sources must be matched 1:1 because the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow.
Carbon offsetting to countries that don't care about cleaner fossil fuel emissions is worse than manufacturing more responsibly at home. But this cannot be accidental, since it's so obviously the case. It's an illusion that depends on mid-wittery (western population masses who are ignorant or stupid) and virtuousness, and keen to "do the right thing" to succeed. But it's profitable, and that's why we do it.
So, long story short, Aleksandr_124(Alexey) always force politics discussion by any means. Blah-blah-blah, Russia, blah-blah. Thats very cute, but noone gonna buy what ur trying to sell here, lol
I don't care what you gonna buy. If you think it has something to do with you, then It's clearly related self esteem issues. I didn't talk to you because it doesn't make sense, since you are incapable of maintaining a meaningful discussion on any issue that we've been discussing.
And if you don't have anything meaningful to say, don't post here. Or go again report to Sсawen, like he's got nothing better to do. At least that's what you're good at.
Report?
Yes, and as I said, such regulations can serve as a good demonapolisation tool.
Yes, that's my point
Of course, the state will always be a corrupt tool and no matter for what, enrichment, monopoly for violence, power in itself. This is the nature of the state and because the state needs minarchical mechanisms. The best state is a weak state, in terms of the number of institutions, and regulations. In the US, decentralisation, the first two amendments, the system of checks and balances, and the two-term president law are partly responsible for this. But even there, it's not enough. And I'm not even talking about other countries.
Technically, moving the production infrastructure to China reduces emissions in the UK, and for the citizens of your country it may be important, in terms of pollution, most of it settling in the country of its production. But of course, globally it does not matter where the emissions are produced. People in China breathe harmful smog even more than in Russia. And it's the most polluting country in the world. I remember how the western media was disturbed during the 2008 Beijing Olympics noticed it as if for the first time. But people live under these conditions every day.
And again if you are talking about the production of electric cars, then in that case any production requires the emissions necessary for that production. Electric cars are not unique here.
As a car enthusiast, I don't like electric cars. But as a pedestrian, I am interested in increasing the percentage of electric cars of all cars so that I can breathe cleaner air in cities. Cars still produce quite a lot of exhaust gases in which nitrogen oxides and other toxic substances are the most dangerous.
I'm not sure I fully understand you. Can you give examples of both the first and the second case you are talking about?
most based comment in this thread.
btw Scawen, is there a way to block certain people in this forum so I don't need to read their propaganda bullshit?
Just do not click on a thread where you see that person you want blocked posted on the topic you beleive is propaganda. It's really simple
More appropriate name is an undead
This post has two objectives:
1- avoid this forum being identified as an asylum for climate deniers who peddle hoaxes.
2- reassure those who find the “arguments” of the “World Climate Declaration” completely stupid.
The arguments in the “World Climate Declaration” are stupid. It's obvious. This is easily explained. Notably by the fact that what is brandished here as a petition from authoritative scientists is in reality nothing but a known hoax which has resurfaced since 2019. The imbecilities and lies which make up this well-known hoax of the “World Declaration on climate” are also very easy to demonstrate, as we will see. All this has been deciphered by fact checking journalists and the scientific community.
Knowledge Base on CLINTEL and it's “World Climate Declaration”:
CLINTEL is financed to the tune of $700,000 by Dutch billionaire Niek Sandmann, a notorious climate skeptic.
Only a tiny minority of the signatories of this petition are real scientists. An insignificant percentage of them work (or have worked) on climate.
For example, “Christopher The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Peer of the Realm and Author of several reviewed papers on Climate,WCD Ambassador” (signatory page 38) is not a scientist. He was convicted of falsely claiming to be a Nobel laureate and a member of the House of Lords.
Most signatories of the “World Climate Declaration” have ties to the oil industry and climate skeptic organizations, the other signatories are fisherman, airline pilot, sommelier, musician, lawyer, linguist, retired teacher, urologist, psychoanalyst and at least three representatives of energy workers' unions.
To say that the “World Climate Declaration” is the work of scientists is a lie.
(you will see this in detail on the attached links and documents).
In addition to the absurdity of its unfounded assertions, what some interpret as “the scientific confirmation of their words” is in reality the propaganda of a disinformation company created and financed by the coalition of the biggest polluters on the planet: i.e. the 1 % of the richest who emit as much CO2 as two thirds of humanity and fossil fuel producers who are responsible for 75% of CO2 emissions.
Some links for complete and objective information on CLINTEL’s “World Climate Declaration” and the deconstruction of the imbecile and false statements that make it up. Everyone will easily find references to this subject in their language.
Here is a complete article from Belgian Radio-Television (RTBF) of the French Community of Belgium (Wallonia and Brussels). Those who do not speak this barbaric language will be able to translate the articles with their favorite tools and access the links present in the text, some of which are in English.
https://www.rtbf.be/article/une-declaration-mondiale-sur-le-climat-qui-nie-lurgence-climatique-vehicule-des-affirmations-trompeuses-11063843
Other sources
https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.32HG6HR
https://www.desmog.com/2019/09/06/climate-science-deniers-planning-coordinated-european-misinformation-campaign-leaked-documents-reveal/
https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1402070/lettre-500-scientifiques-urgence-climatique
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/11/lords-climate-christopher-monckton
This stupid attempt at disinformation is an identified and debunked hoax which was also the subject of a detailed article on Wikipedia.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Intelligence_Foundation
It is of course and fortunately not necessary to have the right information on CLINTEL to understand that the “arguments” put forward in the “World Climate Declaration” are fallacious. You just need to know how to read and understand what you read. As an example, the extract below is perfectly stupid:
Clintel quote:
"CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide."
It's just an accumulation of sophisms identifiable for a 5 year old.
CO2 is not “nature’s food”. Nature absorbs CO2 with varying consequences. The oceans, for example, are absorbing increasing amounts of CO2 because of global warming. This leads to the death of marine organisms and some fish, with repercussions on food chains. Including for humans. Ocean acidification caused by global warming and its consequences are an undisputed scientific reality.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/acc085
Stated in kindergarten language, the fact that A is beneficial to B (in certain circumstances and proportions) does not make A beneficial to C (as a general rule) as well as to all the other letters of the alphabet, a fortiori if this fact is contrary to all known scientific realities.
If CO2 is “essential to life on earth”, its increase here is deadly for oceans. Nature is not only made up of green plants and depends on fragile balances directly threatened by global warming. And oceans cover ONLY 70% of the earth's surface.
By presenting CO2 as "non-polluting" and beneficial for nature, this reasoning confuses also biological CO2 and CO2 which results from human activities.
Biological CO2 is a so-called “natural” gas, like water vapor, emitted by living organisms. Nothing to do with the combustion of fossil fuels which releases an additional supply of CO2 into the atmosphere for hundreds, even thousands of years, and acts as a greenhouse gas.
I recommend this experience to those who struggle the most to understand the difference here.
Fill a basin with vodka. Dip a sugar in it. Let this sugar melt on your tongue. Then immerse your head in the basin with your eyes open and count to 1000. You will perhaps understand that the same substance can have different effects.
Pretending that the increase in CO2 is "favorable for nature", or that the "earth lacks CO2" is not only completely idiotic because it is contrary to scientific realities, but completely irresponsible.
Here reasoning behind Clintel's argument would be worth a grade below zero for an elementary school student. I am surprised that those who are so quick to give lessons in logic are not moved by it. But this too must have an explanation accessible to reason.
The other “arguments” in this petition are of the same level and have all been deconstructed by real scientists (see links above).
The graph of deaths from natural disasters over the past centuryand and the comment below are worse.
Clintel quote:
“Climate related deaths (floods, droughts, storms, wildfires, extreme temperatures) have declined precipitously because richer and more resilient societies reduce disaster deaths and swamp any potential climate signal.
Thirty years of climate summits have had no discernible effect on the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. These summits cost an enormous amount of money. Money which can be better spent on adaptation measures”.
Death is unfortunately neither the only nor the worst consequence of climate disasters. The fact that rich and polluting societies are more likely to survive the consequences of global warming is an elliptical “argument” that is absolutely unworthy and unbearable.
What is the reasoning here? Global warming is nothing. Because the rich have polluted the planet but will survive, unlike the poor who have not been able to adapt: It is the harsh law of evolution ! survival of the fittest? Climate denial and its fallacious arguments is actually one of the too many avatars of Social Darwinism ambiant.
The international summits have failed, it’s true. They will systematically fail, as long as lobbies like CLINTEL infiltrate and pollute social networks and the media with their absurdities. The solution to global warming depends on profound political changes for a more just society. It is in reality against these changes that lobbies like CLINTEL are fighting. They don't care at all about climate change and its societal consequences for the rest of the world. CLINTEL doesn't even bother to give credible arguments. CLINTEL is in a purely cynical position because this association of evildoers knows that it speaks to imbeciles. Let's not be one of those!
I love it when left-liberals threaten others with blocking or cancellation for their opinions and, in the same sentence, accuse others of propaganda. How I love this Western society with freedom of speech and common sense.
I'm a supporter of free speech, and I wouldn't want you or anyone else here to be blocked. But I wonder what would happen to you and with your people if they voice their views publicly and people like you came to power in your country.
Who are "climate deniers"? Do they deny the existence of climate? And where are they? Uh...are they in the same room with you? And that includes even if you mean climate change deniers. Because I haven't seen them posting in this thread.
Well this at least looks like a meaningful discussion, although I certainly don't expect any objectivity from you. Because you obviously don't need to analyze any new information, you have one goal, you need to prove that "World Climate Declaration completely stupid".
But like I said, I'm not interested in defending someone else's words. So I'll just go through your thesis.
That's interesting, and how many climate scientists are there, if there are so few can you list them all?
And who said that? You made up a thesis and you debunked it yourself. It happens again and again. Classic example of a straw man arument.
I said:
Scientists and professionals. And this is written in the declaration itself.
You make up a thesis for your opponents, and break it down yourself, I understand that you find it more convenient to do this than to argue with the actual theses of your interlocutors. But does it bring you pleasure instead of having a real discussion with your interlocutor and his theses?
What is sophism? And how to distinguish it from argument? A sophism is a fallacious reasoning, an incorrect argument based on a deliberate, conscious violation of the rules of logic. If it is a sophism, then demonstrate what rules of logic this sophism violates. That's what I did with the Scawen analogy. I didn't just demonstrate the rule it violates, but I showed in detail how it violates it. Are you capable of this?
I do not exclude that this declaration is a counter-propaganda to the climate change propaganda. I am not you to consider all sources that I like automythically true and those that I don't like false. I don't know that, and I don't have the time and desire to check these leaked documents, because they could also be fake and like I said, I'm not that interested in this topic. But it is interesting that neither you nor the western media are doing the same about the hot topic of global warming. You're just assuming it's all true, and all I'm doing is encouraging you to think critically about any source and question it.
And it’s interesting how you selectively decided to break down the theses of the declaration... So do you agree with the others? What about the bias and politicization of this topic. And articles on this topic that I wrote about?
You publish their literature and support the same thesis. Be honest for once.
I know my English is bad. Here, there is only one word missing and you have understood the meaning. This attack is ... weak.
The “World Climate Declaration” is a hoax known and already deciphered by all serious journalists and scientists on this planet. You are the only one who discovers things here.
Unlike you, I do not pose far-fetched theses opposed to scientific realities. I inform myself and I only relay information verified and attested by competent scientists.
Professional journalists from major media who have investigated this subject include less than 1% of scientists competent in climatology among the signatories. I posted links about this.
My baker is a professional. His opinion on global warming is not authoritative. This is the same as for the 99% of signatories to the “World Climate Declaration”.
If this statement were honest it would be written: "signed by ordinary people including 1% of climate scientists paid by fossil fuel producers, John F. Clauser & Ivan Giaever Nobel Prize in geophysics (nothing to do with climate sciences) and a few counterfeiters.
FYI, in 2015, 36 Nobel Prize winners called for urgent action against climate change.
I did it. Read the posts instead of stupidly covering them with your empty prose.
No one here needs a lesson in critical thinking from you. Your superiority complex, totally unjustified, blinds you to your abilities and those of others. No one blindly believes nonsense here except SamH and you.
In this debate, there is on the one hand a scientific reality of global warming (which you partly deny) and its political consequences which are open to criticism. On the other hand, there is the propaganda of the polluters that you promote. These two things are not equal and cannot be considered as the same value.
No one here will tell you that the political decisions taken in the face of the climate challenge are good. But that's not the point.
You publish this lamentable disinformation out of provocation and because it flatters your ego. You say it yourself. You see there “the confirmation of your words by the scientific world”! You also publish this misinformation because this type of deception comes from the same biases and relies on the same methodology that you consistently use. Panglossian reasoning + Reversal of the burden of proof + Ignoratio elenchi. This has been said to you before by different people, in different ways and on different topics. This particularity that you share with SamH makes your relationship fascinating (to be observed by a psychiatrist), but unfortunately also makes any communication with you completely useless. Except (I've already said it) to avoid this forum being identified as an antechamber of climate CHANGE denial or anti-abortion extremism.
You know that your interlocutors will become discouraged. This gives you the illusion of being right. Since that’s what interests you, you manage to be satisfied with it. So, everything is perfect for you. But contrary to what you think, things aren't true just because no one has the patience to explain to you why you're wrong. And no one is obligated to do it.
I don't care what you write and I don't want stopping you from speaking. I just ask that you have enough respect for this forum to clarify things when you relay stupid propaganda.
I have already said what I had to say about the political cause of global warming. The politicization of this subject is only the consequence. The theses that you support are those of the far right, on this subject and others. Nothing else.
Please note that none of this is a personal attack. Your words describe you. Take responsibility for yourself.Happy end of the year.
So when I say there is global warming and it's probably man-made and we need to fight the emissions of the large companies that means I'm a "climate change denier".... This is how it usually happens with narrow-minded people, instead of treating a unfamiliar person with an open mind, they just put labels that will be convenient for them that would not strain their head much.
Can you give an example of at least one my "far-fetched theses opposed to scientific realities" or are you talking bullshit. Although, it doesn't matter, it's not the first time.
You haven't said a word about the laws of logic. Another lie or not knowing, first is not surprising, I've obviously forgotten who I'm talking to. When a sentences is laced with lies, it's hard to demand a void of rhetorical tricks.
And if its second option then not knowing what the laws of logic are is another indication of lack of knowledge of philosophy. I don't even know what's better.
Superiority complex
Oh, so you're also a psychologist. What a talented man. Well, if so let's describe to me a psych profile based on forum posts, it will at least be fun to read.From time to time the pendulum of views in the world swings from left to right, and the extreme positions of this pendulum always bring destabilization and devastation. Both systems on extreme degree showed their failure to in the 20th century. I'm all in favor of balance. Now the pendulum of views in the world has swung to the left, and this creates a huge number of talking heads who can repeat mainstream, but cannot think.
When I say that I'm in favor fighting emissions from large companies because is a good tool for demonopolization, is that a far-right thesis? When I'm in favor of renewable energy, is that a far-right thesis? When I stand for freedom of speech and freedom of the press, is that a far-right thesis? When I stand for the equality of all before the law is far-right thesis? I don't consider myself right or left because that is an outdated belief system. I'm for what works best.
Anything that doesn't fit into your imaginary world about your interlocutor is simply ignored and a convenient image is painted that is easy to argue with.... this level of discourse is pathetic.
I don't even know how to respond to this caricatured example of Sharikov, who attributes everything bad to you to make himself seem good. I will not expose you for every lie you write about me, I am already very tired of sinking to your level. I have promised too often not to have dialog with you anymore, and now I remember the reason why. It's impossible to have an intelligent conversation here. And that's a shame.
you're in wrong forum dude.
Superiority complex Oh, so you're also a psychologist. What a talented man. Well, if so let's describe to me a psych profile based on forum posts, it will at least be fun to read.[/quote]
Remember u since 2014 (my first days online in a crаcked LFS)
Fire when ready?
Oh, so you're also a psychologist. What a talented man. Well, if so let's describe to me a psych profile based on forum posts, it will at least be fun to read.[/quote]Remember u since 2014 (my first days online in a crаcked LFS)
Fire when ready?
What?
Is global warming man-made? Is it dangerous for nature or humans?
(286 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG