Far-Right Climate Denial Is Scary. Far-Right Climate Acceptance Might Be Scarier. - Page 8 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Any other minor ideologies.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15014785
Pants-of-dog wrote:So you have provided evidence for one of your three claims, so I will wait for the other two.

What a gracious concession of error and apology for your false accusation....

not.

https://ourworldindata.org/yields-and-l ... griculture
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states ... in-7-years

Will you now undertake never again to lie that I do not provide evidence for my statements of fact?
But just to be clear, you agree with all of Dr. Donohue’s study concerning the increased foliage in some places due to CO2 fertilisation?

I assume you are referring to the mandatory genuflection to anti-fossil-fuel hysteria...?
Please quote the text from the studies that shows they ignored this.

:lol: :roll: :eek: :?:

Uh, every sentence that doesn't explain how sulfuric acid is far more toxic to marine life than carbonic acid is text that shows they ignored it. Hello?
:roll:

Indeed....
#15014807
@Truth To Power,

The truth.

"The truth" is not a description of an economy. You're avoiding politics on a political forum.
Definitions that reflect empirically observable facts to disaggregate quantities that do not have like relations to production, allocation and exchange.

You're still not giving characteristics of a mode of production that you support.
A monopoly company is not a state.

A monopoly company does have power over a capitalist state, thus still being a capitalist economy. You proved my point, yet you claim to go against it.
It's not emotional. It's a fact.

Nothing that set society free from ignorance, false consciousness, and religious oppression is evil. Those tools label such social liberation as "evil" to prevent an attack against the exploiters.
No True Scotsman Fallacy.

This is a stereotype from a false conscious person's viewpoint on real consciousness.
It makes perfect sense. Whenever your claims are proved objectively false, you just claim the facts reflect others' "conditioning" rather than objective physical reality. Somehow, everyone else has been "conditioned," but you are magically free of any conditioning.

That is because I do not follow anyone. I do not let social norms internally rule me. I do not let social manipulation rule me. I do not let money rule my mind because money does not buy love.
They can't be really honest unless they are also ignorant.

This is not a political statement, yet you're posting on a political forum.
Sure it is.

I think people who have false consciousness like you are evil.
Anti-scientific gibberish.

You're asking questions that are out of context.
Wrong. I have a good dictionary, and I know how to use it.

"Good" is a false emotional word that cannot be truly used for political agendas. Your dictionary must be bad. And you don't know how to use a Correct dictionary because if you did, you would gain real consciousness you Nazi.
Wrong again. I've seen it, and more than once.

You've seen lies more than once. And a lie told often enough becomes the false truth. And a fool like you would believe in false truth.
Only dupes are productive in a socialist economy.

You're going on an emotional tangent that's not political.
In self-defense.

You're promoting social hostility, which won't do you anything political.

You rarely make political statements, yet you're posting on a political forum. Your head on bashings show how much you lack real consciousness, and it shows how much your heart is being oppressed by tools that are used to exploit fools like you. A sympathetic person would feel sorry for you, but you bash enough that you are at some point in the future, self destructive in a social manner.
#15014839
Truth To Power wrote:https://ourworldindata.org/yields-and-l ... griculture
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states ... in-7-years


Quote the supporting text.

What a gracious concession of error and apology for your false accusation....

not.


Will you now undertake never again to lie that I do not provide evidence for my statements of fact?

I assume you are referring to the mandatory genuflection to anti-fossil-fuel hysteria...?

:lol: :roll: :eek: :?:

Uh, every sentence that doesn't explain how sulfuric acid is far more toxic to marine life than carbonic acid is text that shows they ignored it. Hello?

Indeed....


The rest of this is just crap and not worthy of a reply.

You have yet to quote the text that supports your claim about sulphuric acid being ignored. Please do so or I will dismiss the criticism as unsupported.

Also:
Form the study you cited:

    Abstract
    [1] Satellite observations reveal a greening of the globe over recent decades. The role in this greening of the “CO2 fertilization” effect—the enhancement of photosynthesis due to rising CO2 levels—is yet to be established. The direct CO2 effect on vegetation should be most clearly expressed in warm, arid environments where water is the dominant limit to vegetation growth. Using gas exchange theory, we predict that the 14% increase in atmospheric CO2 (1982–2010) led to a 5 to 10% increase in green foliage cover in warm, arid environments. Satellite observations, analyzed to remove the effect of variations in precipitation, show that cover across these environments has increased by 11%. Our results confirm that the anticipated CO2 fertilization effect is occurring alongside ongoing anthropogenic perturbations to the carbon cycle and that the fertilization effect is now a significant land surface process.

So, the scientist that you support as a valid source claims that the additional carbon in the atmosphere is anthropogenic.
#15014889
Truth To Power wrote: We KNOW that CO2 could not have caused the Permian-Triassic extinction, because CO2 was even higher for many millions of years when life thrived.

The destruction of Indonesia's rainforest couldn't possibly cause the extinction of Oragutans because lots of animals live in Africa's savannah. It's not like species have adapted to the conditions in their local environment and time period. If Orangutans can thrive in one biome, they can thrive anywhere.

I also notice that Monbiot provided multiple sources to back up his claims whilst you struggle to provide any.
#15015001
Pants-of-dog wrote:That reminds me:

@Truth To Power

Please provide evidence that the Kiribati islands are sinking and the land loss is not due to sea level rise. Thanks.

The Nation of Kiribati is Growing, Not Sinking
Published on September 11, 2018

Journalists are traveling to the Pacific island nation of Kiribati, because they believe that global warming is causing it to sink into the ocean, and it will soon be gone. However, the people of Kiribati are telling reporters this is not the case. A newsman has chalked this up to a “mental block” that makes the locals unwilling to face the truth. Yet, the facts of the matter prove that the people of Kiribati are correct, and the journalists are disconnected from reality.

The nation of Kiribati is comprised almost entirely of coral reef islands. These are typically found in the Pacific Ocean and are primarily made of gravel, silt and sand that has accumulated on coral reefs. Because these islands are only slightly above sea level and are made of loosely bound sediments, they are considered to be among the most vulnerable places on Earth to rising sea levels.

Journalists and activists frequently point to short-term or local trends as proof that humans are causing harmful changes in the earth’s climate, but long-term, inclusive data often shows that these changes are well within the bounds of natural variation. Beyond coral reef islands, they have done this with diverse subjects like hurricanes, temperature changes, famines, rainfall, and ice conditions.

Since long before humans began using fossil fuels, the earth and its climate have been changing. As stated in the college textbook Evolution of Sedimentary Rocks, “Every area of the continents has been at one time covered by the sea, and there are some places that show clear record of being submerged at least 20 separate times.”

Data from tide gauges show that the average global sea level has been generally rising since 1860 or earlier. Since 1993, instruments on satellites have also shown a rise in the average global sea level.

That does not mean that sea level has risen everywhere. The ocean’s vast waters are not evenly distributed like they are in small bodies like lakes. For instance, the sea level in the Indian Ocean is about 330 feet below the worldwide average, while the sea level in Ireland is about 200 feet above average. Even though all the oceans are connected, such variations are caused by gravity, winds, and currents.

Also, the practical effects of these phenomena are dynamic. For example, between 1992 and 2010, sea level rose by about 6 inches in the tropical Western Pacific while falling by about the same amount in San Francisco.

In other words, local sea level trends commonly differ from global ones. Hence, it is a mistake to assume that the average global trend applies to everywhere on earth.

It is also a mistake to assume that a rise in the average global sea level translates to a net loss in coastal land. Per a 2016 study published in the journal Nature, the earth gained a net total of 5,000 square miles of coastal land area from 1985 to 2015.

This episode highlights the media’s propensity to embrace false narratives and look down their noses at others who don’t. Given the effects of media on the public and governments, this can waste enormous resources on fake problems, while diverting them from real ones.

https://stream.org/nation-kiribati-growing-not-sinking/
#15015019
I see.

I guess I need to clarify that the land is not being physically lost. There are continuing efforts to replace it.

What is being lost is arable land, due to higher levels of salinity from sea water, increased erosion in many areas, and increased droughts where fresh water in unavailable.

Also, do you have links to the actual studies instead of an article from a questionable website? Thanks.
#15015051
Pants-of-dog wrote:I see.

I guess I need to clarify that the land is not being physically lost. There are continuing efforts to replace it.

What is being lost is arable land, due to higher levels of salinity from sea water, increased erosion in many areas, and increased droughts where fresh water in unavailable.

Also, do you have links to the actual studies instead of an article from a questionable website? Thanks.

Here is one link for this claim:
Per a 2016 study published in the journal Nature, the earth gained a net total of 5,000 square miles of coastal land area from 1985 to 2015.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3111

Here is another link from National Geographic:
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/201 ... shift-map/

"Surprisingly, coastal areas across the globe had a net gain of more than 13,000 square kilometers (5,000 square miles) of land, largely due to human construction that has outpaced natural erosion."
#15015231
Pants-of-dog wrote:Those are not the studies cited in the article.

The first link I give is the 2016 study from the journal Nature cited when he writes, "Per a 2016 study published in the journal Nature, the earth gained a net total of 5,000 square miles of coastal land area from 1985 to 2015." If you want to read that entire study, you will have to pay for it as stated in the link.

And the second link I give is just an additional article from National Geographic that also cites the same 2016 study from the journal Nature giving the same "net gain of more than 13,000 square kilometers (5,000 square miles) of land," since you claimed my original source was from a questionable website.

I don't have any links to the earlier studies he cited in his article. So you are going to have to find those on your own, if you are that interested.
#15015232
So you Cherry-pick articles from NASA, when it suits you.

Perhaps you should look at this article from NASA. NASA, incidentally, agrees with the Climate Change and Global Warming scientific consensus.

Greenland’s melting ice sheet could generate more sea level rise than previously thought if greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase and warm the atmosphere at their current rate, according to a new modeling study. The study, which used data from NASA’s Operation IceBridge airborne campaign, was published in Science Advances today.

In the next 200 years, the ice sheet model shows that melting at the present rate could contribute 19 to 63 inches to global sea level rise, said the team led by scientists at the Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. These numbers are at least 80 percent higher than previous estimates, which forecasted up to 35 inches of sea level rise from Greenland’s ice.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2883/stud ... nland-ice/
#15015239
@Godstud
Computer models of global warming proven wrong
12/14/17

In the midst of gloom-and-doom predictions of rapid climate change, a recent study shows computer models grossly overestimate the rate of global warming. The study, published in the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, shows real-world climate change over the past 38 years is 0.096 degrees Celsius, about half of what computer models predict.

https://world.wng.org/content/computer_ ... en_wrong_0

Climate correction: when scientists get it wrong
NOVEMBER 23, 2018

On November 1, AFP joined news outlets around the world in covering the release of a major academic paper warning that our oceans were warming dramatically quicker than previously thought.

The study was undertaken by some of the world's most pre-eminent climate scientists, using state-of-the-art modelling systems reviewed by their peers, and appeared in one of the most prestigious academic journals.

There was just one problem: it was wrong.

Published in Nature, the paper by researchers from the University of California San Diego and Princeton found that ocean temperatures had warmed 60 percent more than current estimates.

Soon after publication, an independent climate scientist—one who has repeatedly voiced scepticism of the consensus that human behaviour is causing global warming—spotted an error in the Nature paper's maths.

With the rectified calculation, the authors quickly realised they had made a mistake.

The new results had a far larger range of possibilities in ocean temperature increases—between 10 and 70 percent: still warmer, but rendering the study vague even for the sometimes unknowable science of climate modelling.

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-climate-s ... wrong.html
#15015240
:lol: So NASA's a great source when you can find a single article you like, but they're wrong about other stuff?

Toss off! That's a BS article and you know it. One climate model, amongst a great many wasn't totally accurate? The article doesn't even go in depth and your source is a bullshit Intelligent Design paper! :knife: :knife: :knife:
#15015243
Godstud wrote::lol: So NASA's a great source when you can find a single article you like, but they're wrong about other stuff?

When did I quote an article from NASA on climate change?

Godstud wrote:Toss off! That's a BS article and you know it. One climate model, amongst a great many wasn't totally accurate? The article doesn't even go in depth and your source is a bullshit Intelligent Design paper! :

You just can't take being proven wrong. :moron:
#15015245
I'm not wrong. Your source is idiotic, and biased against science, in general.


My mistake about your source, it was National Geographic. Mind you, they don't agree with your assessment, either.

CLIMATE CHANGE
Rising temperatures, extreme weather events, shifting wildlife populations and habitats, rising seas, and a range of other impacts will be seen as the climate changes.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... te-change/

The article you referred to was a climate change prediction made a very long time ago. That they were incorrect kind of makes sense, as the science was in its infancy. They know a lot more, now.
#15015251
Godstud wrote:I'm not wrong. Your source is idiotic, and biased against science, in general.

My mistake about your source, it was National Geographic. Mind you, they don't agree with your assessment, either.

At least you admit you made a mistake for once.
Praise the Lord.
#15015253
Liberal eco-imperialism is the real threat. Unlike far right eco-nazis, liberal eco-imperialism isn't a tiny fringe of powerless cranks, the liberal eco-imperialists are the power elites that run the world:

The fight against eco-imperialism
It is not acceptable to use climate change as an excuse to limit growth in poor countries as the west's carbon emissions rise

Thursday the World Bank approved a £2.4bn loan to build a huge new coal-fired power station in South Africa. The issue has exposed the rift between two central international goals – alleviating poverty and preventing global warming. South African ministers claimed that the project was essential for their country's development, while a concerted environmental campaign lobbied international governments to block the scheme. Amid concerns about global warming, this question of development versus environment may become one of the most contentious international issues over the next few years.

Since the 1970s the green movement has acquired ever-greater prominence in international development. In the last decade, global warming concerns have refocused the emphasis of poverty reduction strategies away from development and towards the environment. This is portrayed as a win-win situation – where the interests of the local people are perfectly aligned with the interests of environmental campaigners. Sustainable technologies like wind turbines and solar panels improve the lot of the recipients while keeping their carbon emissions to a minimum. However, this approach has been criticised as a form of eco-imperialism – because western carbon considerations remain a limiting factor on developing world progress.

The Working Group on Climate Change and Development is a network of more than 20 NGOs including WWF, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace. Founded in 2004, its "central message is that solving poverty and tackling climate change are intimately linked and equally vital, not either/ors".

The group's most recent report lists the overarching challenges as (1) how to stop and reverse further climate change, (2) how to live with the degree of climate change that cannot be stopped and (3) how to design a new model for human progress and development that is climate-friendly. The makes fascinating reading – and is illuminating as to the ideological backdrop to development policy.

These environmental groups, while spanning quite a large spectrum, tend to demonstrate an affinity with the pro-rural socialist left. The report describes climate change as not just a threat but also an "opportunity" to re-think the entire global system. It challenges western notions of development and growth and, most starkly, concludes that "mere reform within the current global economic system will be insufficient" to tackle poverty in a carbon constrained future. Indeed, members of these groups often seem to embrace rural village life as representing a pre-industrial idyll which should be preserved.

Such romantic ideology therefore seeks to largely maintain the status quo – where the African poor are kept "traditional" and "indigenous". It's hard to disagree with Lord May, former president of the Royal Society in his observation that "much of the green movement isn't a green movement at all, it's political".

With poverty redefined in terms of the environment and infused with pro-rural socialism, large-scale projects to industrialise or modernise are not the priority – indeed, western-style development and modernisation are seen as part of the problem. Instead there is a self-limiting bottom-up approach which subsidises underdevelopment not as a transitionary phase but as an end goal.

To effectively sideline the development strategy that every western country has undertaken in raising living standards is remarkable. Indeed, while India and China have lifted at least 125m people out of slum poverty since 1990, over the same period 46 countries have actually got poorer – the large majority of them African states.

Environmental policies that seek to reinforce the rural status quo as a means of limiting carbon emissions may be of benefit to the developed world, but they are detrimental to the long-term ability of the poor to cope with climate change. The planned South African power plant at Limpopo exposes the collision between these different policy aims. With the country going to the World Bank for a £2.4bn loan, international governments have been forced to weigh up developmental advantage versus environmental damage.

South Africa suffers major power shortages and insists that a new plant is essential to the country's economic progress. Environmentalists are horrified that the plant will emit 25m tonnes of carbon per annum, and point out that much of the new electricity will be used by heavy industry. Despite a concerted lobbying campaign from environmental groups, the loan was approved on Thursday – albeit with abstentions from Britain, America and the Netherlands. A US treasury spokesman explained that the abstention was due to an "incompatibility with the World Bank's commitment to be a leader in climate change mitigation and adaption". Considering that the World Bank's first affirmed purpose is to alleviate poverty, we can see how pervasive the reframing of poverty in terms of environment has become.

It is up to the developed world to produce the technologies for cleaner energy and implement policies to significantly reduce carbon emissions. It is not acceptable to use global warming as a way of limiting growth in poor African countries when our own climate emissions continue to rise.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nge-carbon

____________________

A Call to Look Past Sustainable Development

American diplomats are upset that dozens of countries — including Nepal, Cambodia and Bangladesh — have flocked to join China’s new infrastructure investment bank, a potential rival to the World Bank and other financial institutions backed by the United States.

The reason for the defiance is not hard to find: The West’s environmental priorities are blocking their access to energy

A typical American consumes, on average, about 13,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity a year. The citizens of poor countries — including Nepalis, Cambodians and Bangladeshis — may not aspire to that level of use, which includes a great deal of waste. But they would appreciate assistance from developed nations, and the financial institutions they control, to build up the kind of energy infrastructure that could deliver the comfort and abundance that Americans and Europeans enjoy.

Too often, the United States and its allies have said no.

The United States relies on coal, natural gas, hydroelectric and nuclear power for about 95 percent of its electricity, said Todd Moss, from the Center for Global Development. “Yet we place major restrictions on financing all four of these sources of power overseas.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/busi ... .html?_r=1

__________________________


President Obama infamously told Africans they should focus on their “bountiful” wind, solar and biofuel. If they use “dirty” fossil fuels to raise living standards “to the point where everybody has got a car, and everybody has got air conditioning, and everybody has got a big house, well, the planet will boil over.”

So when South Africa applied for a World Bank loan to finish its low-pollution coal-fired Medupi power plant, his administration voted “present,” and the loan was approved by a bare majority of other bank member nations. The Obama Overseas Private Investment Corporation refused to support construction of a power plant designed to burn natural gas that was being “flared” and wasted in Ghana’s oil fields.

As David Wojick and I have documented (here, here, here, here and here), eco-imperialist, carbon colonialist policies by the World Bank and other anti-development banks have perpetuated needless energy deprivation, poverty, disease and early death in Africa, Asia and beyond for much too long.


In recent years, the World Bank strayed far from its original 1944 mission of reducing global poverty, providing financial aid and guidance to needy countries, and giving “life-saving global health and humanitarian assistance” to “the world’s most vulnerable populations.” Instead, it increasingly focused on “fighting the effects of climate change,” supporting wind and solar energy projects, and combating emissions of plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide.

Other supposed multilateral “development” banks followed the World Bank’s callous lead. Most stopped financing coal-fired power plants, slashed or ceased funding for oil and gas exploration by poor countries, and emphasized “total de-carbonization” in their lending practices.

In their warped worldview, manmade climate change dangers that exist only in computer models are a far more pressing concern than horrific real-world, present-day deprivation, disease and death.

Right now, around the world, over a billion people still do not have electricity; another 2 billion have electrical power only sporadically and unpredictably. In Sub-Saharan Africa, nearly 700 million people (the population of all Europe) rarely or never have electricity, and still cook and heat with wood, charcoal, and animal dung. In India, over 200 million people still do not have access to safe drinking water.

Every year, hundreds of millions become ill and 5 million die of lung and intestinal diseases from inhaling pollutants from open fires, and from lack of clean water, refrigeration, bacteria-free food and decent clinics. Largely because they lack electricity to power modern economies, nearly 3 billion survive on a few dollars per day, and more millions die every year from preventable or curable diseases.

But the anti-development banks still focus on “climate change mitigation” and financing “the shift in energy production to renewable energy technologies, and the shift to low-carbon modes of transport.”

Such as horses, oxen and walking, one supposes. People in those countries have been there, done that. They will no longer tolerate being told these banks will help themimprove their lives only a little, only to the extent that doing so would conform to climate and sustainability guidelines, only as much as could be supported by wind, solar biofuel and geothermal energy.

http://www.eco-imperialism.com/sanity-a ... orld-bank/
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 12

Dangerous terrorists who are such a threat that t[…]

Schizophrenia

I don't believe there really is such a thing as &q[…]

There's ''productive'' in the sense of; ''got to […]

Election 2020

The illegal immigration issue is a classic exampl[…]