The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[All Darc]

Science improoved life. You can't start relativism to reduce the harm made by horrible people. If I spread a virus that would kill 2000.000 people, but the science in 10 years of evolution reduced the mortality overal, despite the deads caused of virus, I'm still guilty of terrorism.

People who kill rivers, politicians that took money to allow companies destroy florests, these sort of thing...

Industry made a revolution, cars and trucks too. But science, the kind of one used for good of mankind, only get a little fraction of investment, since most come to army, to foolish, consumism.

Future populations will face reduced space. Reduced green areas. Reduced air quality, reduced water or reduced clean water per citizen. Food can be a serious problem in Africa (it's already). Overpopulation...
Moral decline...

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Conjecture.Standard of living has been improving for most people fairly consistently for quite a long time, especially since fossil fuels have been put to work. I see no evidence that suggests future generations will have it worse than us. Some people will be displaced, but that will occur relatively slowly over generations.

Causing real and immediate suffering for current people under the assumption they will cause imagined suffering for people who don't yet exist does not make sense.

[oil pan 4]

Science, blind faith, eh what's the difference.

Here is another one.
Last quarters climate temperature report. The theme is disappearing cold.
https://youtu.be/SVsRn00Hx2U

Explain how that is valid?
Oil company conspiracy right?
As long as they can say 2017-2018 winter is the warmest on record that's all that matters.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by All Darc

Science improoved life. You can't start relativism to reduce the harm made by horrible people. If I spread a virus that would kill 2000.000 people, but the science in 10 years of evolution reduced the mortality overal, despite the deads caused of virus, I'm still guilty of terrorism.

People who kill rivers, politicians that took money to allow companies destroy florests, these sort of thing...

Industry made a revolution, cars and trucks too. But science, the kind of one used for good of mankind, only get a little fraction of investment, since most come to army, to foolish, consumism.

Future populations will face reduced space. Reduced green areas. Reduced air quality, reduced water or reduced clean water per citizen. Food can be a serious problem in Africa (it's already). Overpopulation...
Moral decline...

It's not that simple. Science doesn't exist without excess resources. If we spend all our time hunting and gathering for subsistence living, we have no time or resources to learn how the world works. The major advances in science and technology are largely due to exploiting fossil fuel resources.

Science and technology is neither good or bad. We can use knowledge of atomic energy to build power plants or to bomb people. It's impossible to develop technical prowess without risk of using it for harmful purposes.

It is not accurate to call someone a terrorist when they do not intend harm towards anyone. Africans who use slash and burn practices to clear rainforests do great environmental damage, but their intention is economic prosperity, not to terrorize humanity.

Name calling is counter-productive to environmental conservation. People are not inclined to listen to reason when confronted out of hostility.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by freebeard

It happened again! ...on Internet. Put on your skepticals and take a look a this:

0:48 to 1:20sec.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

... Here is another one.
Last quarters climate temperature report. The theme is disappearing cold.
https://youtu.be/SVsRn00Hx2U ...

It is the same one.

I like to fact check what I see. Didn't take long to find the maps:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-p...01814?products
You can select the year and month.

AFAIK the guy in the vid compares maps that don't show the same data selection, like mixing up monthly and accumulative data; but he skillfully hid the header and footer which contain the selection parameters etc.
Who's hiding data again?
Add solar wind and exoplanets because of what?

I cannot take that seriously.
Anyone can make a vid like that and say whatever they want. It means less than nothing.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by All Darc

I wish we could reurrect evil people to put on jail, in a very suffering jail.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Name calling is counter-productive to environmental conservation. People are not inclined to listen to reason when confronted out of hostility.

All Darc is coming from a very dark place. Heed the words of John Prine

She was a level-headed dancer on the road to alcohol
And I was just a soldier on my way to Montreal
Well, she pressed her chest against me
About the time the juke box broke
Yeah, she gave me a peck on the back of the neck
And these are the words she spoke

Blow up your TV, throw away your paper
Go to the country, build you a home
Plant a little garden, eat a lot of peaches
Try an' find Jesus on your own

John Prine - Spanish Pipedream Lyrics | MetroLyrics

"I knew that topless dancer had something up her sleeve..."

edit:

AFAIK the guy in the vid compares maps that don't show the same data selection, like mixing up monthly and accumulative data; but he skillfully hid the header and footer which contain the selection parameters etc.
Who's hiding data again?

He's zooming into regions of a map that he provides a link to. To make exactly that point. ???

What's obfuscated for me is that he assumes the 'publicly distributed' version without naming which one that is.

I cannot take that seriously.
Anyone can make a vid like that and say whatever they want. It means less than nothing.

Anyone can throw everything into a mobile observatory and host conferences and post a daily space weather at 4:30AM local time. Sure.

But to do it you'd need a wife who is a help-mate, like Ben Davidson's.

[All Darc]

Take easy. I gave a Example of terrorist using myself in a fictional way (creator of a killing virus). I didn't tried to offend anyone here.

The ecologic impact would always exist, but could be much lower with some care, with investment on reasearch, alternatives. But greed refuses it on behalf of extra profit.

You can have a industry who treat the waste to avoid much pollution on rivers. But for extra profit it's refused.
You can have cars with a lot less pollution, but extra profit refuses it...
You can have alternative plastics, but again high profit refuses it...

And so on...

Originally Posted by redpoint5

It's not that simple. Science doesn't exist without excess resources. If we spend all our time hunting and gathering for subsistence living, we have no time or resources to learn how the world works. The major advances in science and technology are largely due to exploiting fossil fuel resources.

Science and technology is neither good or bad. We can use knowledge of atomic energy to build power plants or to bomb people. It's impossible to develop technical prowess without risk of using it for harmful purposes.

It is not accurate to call someone a terrorist when they do not intend harm towards anyone. Africans who use slash and burn practices to clear rainforests do great environmental damage, but their intention is economic prosperity, not to terrorize humanity.

Name calling is counter-productive to environmental conservation. People are not inclined to listen to reason when confronted out of hostility.

[All Darc]

If we had a meat alternative, really tasty and with good texture, we would solve a lot of the cow fart (methane) that also induce global warming.



Vegetarian steak has been created from LENTILS at Dutch University | Daily Mail Online


Easier than try capture the gases :

[freebeard]

Take easy. I gave a Example of terrorist using myself in a fictional way (creator of a killing virus). I didn't tried to offend anyone here.

Not offended, just perplexed why you would insert yourself into that hypothetical.

The ecologic impact would always exist, but could be much lower with some care, with investment on reasearch, alternatives. But greed refuses it on behalf of extra profit.

I'm going to file this under preaching to the choir. People who gravitate here are already doing what they can in whatever small way to exactly that. Take the message to those who need to hear it.

But, they say 'softly, softly, catchee monkey', 'more flies with honey than vinegar' etc. The pest best approach is to appeal to the greed, by touting ROI or opportunity cost.

[niky]

Originally Posted by redneck

.

4th...

http://ecomodder.com/forum/555935-post621.html



>

Surprise surprise... water levels don't always rise, or rise uniformly.

And adjustments do have to be made, because the land itself either rises or sinks.

Scientists do note areas where the sea level is going down, either due to the variability caused by heat distribution:

https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news...-coastal-areas

Or due to land masses rebounding after glacial melt:

SitNews: Melting glaciers boost sea level; however, sea levels will actually drop in Alaska By MOLLY RETTIG

Also, yes, there is debate. And fighting:

http://www.psmsl.org/train_and_info/...gb1/tgalt.html
(That was an interesting read)

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by All Darc

I didn't tried to offend anyone here.

The ecologic impact would always exist, but could be much lower with some care, with investment on reasearch, alternatives. But greed refuses it on behalf of extra profit.

I'm not offended at all, and I value your contribution to this forum. I try to present a balanced look at any subject in the most provocative way I can, and often play devil's advocate simply for the sake of discussion.

It's not just greed that causes resources to be wasted or consumed irresponsibly. People are creatures of habit, comfort, and convenience. For example, people use plastic bags at grocery stores even though we could bring our own bags. As another example, when I finally buy an EV, I will not drive it long distance simply because I refuse to spend my time waiting to charge a battery. I'll take a petrol vehicle instead.

We have many selfish motivations for choosing not to conserve resources, and they aren't all simply greed. Businesses cater to the demands of their customers. Consumers have at least as much responsibility to demand conservative products as businesses have to practice conservation.