"Whether we like it or not" - Page 16 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15196237
Pants-of-dog wrote:Satellite observations confirm that less heat is escaping into space, and that CO2 is one of the reasons why.

I notice you offer no facts in evidence for this speculation, whereas I actually identified the relevant facts and the relevant physical mechanism.
#15196238
@Truth To Power

Your speculations are not evidence. They are, at best, an alternate unsupported and untested hypothesis for observed evidence of CO2 driven global warming.

And I can provide evidence for my claim.
#15196241
Pants-of-dog wrote:
@Truth To Power

Your speculations are not evidence. They are, at best, an alternate unsupported and untested hypothesis for observed evidence of CO2 driven global warming.

And I can provide evidence for my claim.



Science is not determined in silly forums by non-scientists.

And this has been settled science for over 20 years, and the science community at large supported it a couple years later.

I don't know what he thinks he is doing, but it has nothing to do with reality.

Or science.
#15196243
QatzelOk wrote:Pollution mitigating strategies so far

1. "Let's work with the stakeholders in the Auto and Oil industries, and try to find a solution that works for everyone. :) "

2. **Things continue to deteriorate**

3. "Let's invest in new experimental technologies that some of our stakeholders can sell us at exorbitant prices. :) "

4. **Someone writes a thread about removing CO2 with new tech**

5. **Others suggest working with big stakeholders, like the Auto and Oil sectors**

6. ** ? ***


It's really not all it's cracked up to be.


That's not really fair. This is not the first time that humanity has been facing a seemingly "unprecedented global" issue that we have not managed to mitigate, in some cases, fix, the issue.
We hunted whales to near extinction, harm the ozone layer with fluorocarbons, spill lead into the air we breathe and many many many other examples. Granted, we "mitigated those", not necessarily went back to "pristine earth" but that is not the goal, it has never been the goal. When any species' population booms, it affects their environment. When algae bloom in lakes, it might very well suffocate and kill the fish in that lake. When grasshopper's population boom, it might consume all the green and disrupt herbivores (and their predators).

The reality is, the changes that we are talking about are multigenerational, it might take decades, centuries and perhaps even millennia for the worse consequences of climate change to become readily apparent.
If you want the buy-in of a large population of people and their enthusiastic support, you need persuasion and a viable alternative to maintain a similar degree of quality of life. Shaming does not seem to work, screaming does not seem to work and certainly, suggesting that people drop their Mercedes, leave their house, and move to a cave in the forest and eat mulch, is not likely to work either. Tesla has a better chance of making the combustion engine go extinct than Greta does.
#15196250
XogGyux wrote:That's not really fair. This is not the first time that humanity has been facing a seemingly "unprecedented global" issue that we have not managed to mitigate, in some cases, fix, the issue.
We hunted whales to near extinction, harm the ozone layer with fluorocarbons, spill lead into the air we breathe and many many many other examples. Granted, we "mitigated those", not necessarily went back to "pristine earth" but that is not the goal, it has never been the goal. When any species' population booms, it affects their environment. When algae bloom in lakes, it might very well suffocate and kill the fish in that lake. When grasshopper's population boom, it might consume all the green and disrupt herbivores (and their predators).

The reality is, the changes that we are talking about are multigenerational, it might take decades, centuries and perhaps even millennia for the worse consequences of climate change to become readily apparent.
If you want the buy-in of a large population of people and their enthusiastic support, you need persuasion and a viable alternative to maintain a similar degree of quality of life. Shaming does not seem to work, screaming does not seem to work and certainly, suggesting that people drop their Mercedes, leave their house, and move to a cave in the forest and eat mulch, is not likely to work either. Tesla has a better chance of making the combustion engine go extinct than Greta does.

I don't know why you see the need to convince ME that there will be no rapid change, and that that's okay.

You need to convince the earth that it can't change until Mercedes figures out another business plan.

You need to explain to the earth that most humans are just the pets of billionaire industrialists, so these industrialists will continue to do what they please.

You need to conclude that it is really the earth that needs to follow the road-map that rich industrials set out, and that we dogs follow to the bitter end.

Convincing me won't change anything. You need to convince the earth and all living organisms that "industrialists will continue to lead."
#15196259
QatzelOk wrote:I don't know why you see the need to convince ME that there will be no rapid change, and that that's okay.

You need to convince the earth that it can't change until Mercedes figures out another business plan.

You need to explain to the earth that most humans are just the pets of billionaire industrialists, so these industrialists will continue to do what they please.

You need to conclude that it is really the earth that needs to follow the road-map that rich industrials set out, and that we dogs follow to the bitter end.

Convincing me won't change anything. You need to convince the earth and all living organisms that "industrialists will continue to lead."


Actually, im not convincing anyone. The earth is an inanimate object, as important as it might be, "it" does not have a capacity to understand, nor care. The earth will be "just fine" if we just disappear. Life, perhaps, could be a different story, but even life has managed to survive far more destructive forces than we are. There is also no objective measure as to say a panda bear is worth more than a t-rex, yet I don't remember when was the last time anyone was crying for the extinction of t-rex that was not in the 4-12-year-old age group.
All of that to say, that we can (and likely will) figure out a way to mitigate, prevent (and perhaps reverse) unwanted climate change/consequences. The reality is, the world 100 years from now is not going to look "more green and more natural with more natural habits, etc". Instead, we will be figuring out ways to turbocharge what the natural world would take longer to do. Maybe we will cover the sahara with solar panels and small salt-water lakes full of algae that will convert CO2 into biomass (which we might latter use to feed lifestock or create nutritional supplements) and then large buildings with temperature-controlled ambients inside them, de-salinated water (from all the electricity produced from desert solar panels) and grow our produce that way. At the end of the day, it is not up to me to come up with the ideas, it is not up to me to convince anyone (let alone "the planet"). Your views are dreadfully depressing and frankly unhelpful.
#15196260
Truth To Power wrote:Garbage. I gave you the evidence, and you have not even attempted to refute one single fact I identified.

What an eloquent concession of defeat.


What evidence?
Really, all I saw were simple assertions from you.
Not one link to a source, IIRC.
TtP, you seem to have the idea that anything you say counts as evidence.
I,e., that your assertions are evidence. They are not.
You also seem to think that anything that I and some others say is just meaningless false assertions.
These are certainly comforting thoughts for you.
However, they don't convince the Lurkers who don't already agree with you.

Frankly, I'm surprised the Admin. let you go on like they do.
.
#15196307
XogGyux wrote:Actually, im not convincing anyone. The earth is an inanimate object, as important as it might be, "it" does not have a capacity to understand, nor care. The earth will be "just fine" if we just disappear.

What about the Industrialist masters, whose narratives you live by?

Do they care if you dissappear off the face of the earth?

Automation has made great strides lately...
#15196311
QatzelOk wrote:What about the Industrialist masters, whose narratives you live by?

Do they care if you dissappear off the face of the earth?

Automation has made great strides lately...


Hasn't that been the history of mankind? Take for instance the printing press, before it, books would be copied by hand, by people, they would be very expensive, very rare. The printing press surely took the work of many scribes. How many horse breeders and horse caretakers, and horse car attendants "lost their job" when cars came about? The Empire State building took 3400 workers to build, the Sears towers 50 years later took about half that many despite being a larger building.
This has always occurred, and will continue to occur until such time we can replace 100% of our jobs, at which times either machine will take over, we will live in a virtual world, or we will just exist for leisure without the need to perform any work at all. And by we, I mean future human race, as none of this shit will happen within our life times.
Again, you are overly pessimistic about something that is neither new, nor limiting for human rance. In fact we have dealt with this problem for millenia. And compared to any other prior time period, the present is remarkably better. Certainly NOT even close to perfect, we definitely have long ways to go, but it is so much better.
#15196315
Referring to my previous claim:

https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553

    Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997

    John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges
    Nature volume 410, pages 355–357 (2001)


    Abstract
    The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1,2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3,4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5,6,7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8,9,10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11,12,13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

Full text here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... 0_and_1997

————————

I am not sure where the thread is now, but in terms of banning internal combustion engines, there is a strong medical argument for significantly reducing ICE use within the urban context.
#15196322
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Truth To Power
Your speculations are not evidence.

The facts I identified are evidence, not speculation. You should try to learn the difference.
They are, at best, an alternate unsupported and untested hypothesis for observed evidence of CO2 driven global warming.

It is not unsupported. I identified the facts of objective physical reality that support it. The "evidence" for CO2-driven global warming, by contrast, is nothing but post hoc fallacies, cherry-picked and falsified data, censorship and suppression of dissenting voices, and question-begging computer models.
And I can provide evidence for my claim.

But only trash "evidence" such as I described above, not real factual evidence as good as the evidence I have provided evidence for mine.

You need to find a willingness to know the fact that scientific fact is not determined by consensus, computer models, peer-reviewed papers, or officially approved data sets. It is determined ONLY by ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVENTS. So far, those are all on my side.
#15196323
late wrote:Science is not determined in silly forums by non-scientists.

Right. It is determined by ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVENTS, which are thus far unanimously on my side.
And this has been settled science for over 20 years,

No it hasn't.
and the science community at large supported it a couple years later.

That is a political statement, not a scientific one.
I don't know what he thinks he is doing, but it has nothing to do with reality.

Wrong again. ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVENTS ARE reality.
Or science.

ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVENTS will continue to prove me right and you wrong as a matter of scientific fact. Take it to the bank.
#15196324
Truth To Power wrote:
Right. It is determined by ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVENTS, which are thus far unanimously on my side.



Thanks for the laugh, seriously I got a good actual laugh out of that one.

As I pointed out before, the 2 best studies in the 1970s both found warming. While there was a lot of fighting among scientists for a while, warming became dominant in the 80s, with the community of climate scientists reaching consensus over 20 years ago. Scientific work since then has only solidified that position.

You're a paid liar.
#15196325
Steve_American wrote:What evidence?

The facts of objective physical reality and their logical implications that I identified.
Really, all I saw were simple assertions from you.

Yes, because that is how facts are identified: by asserting them. You do not seem to be clear on what facts are or how they are identified using language.
Not one link to a source, IIRC.

Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that facts exist prior to and independently of sources.
TtP, you seem to have the idea that anything you say counts as evidence.

No, but the facts of objective physical reality and their logical implications that I identify and which support my views do.
I,e., that your assertions are evidence. They are not.

That is false. When I assert a fact that supports my view, that is evidence.
You also seem to think that anything that I and some others say is just meaningless false assertions.

No, they are not meaningless. They have to have meaning in order to be false.
These are certainly comforting thoughts for you.
However, they don't convince the Lurkers who don't already agree with you.

I'm just identifying the relevant facts of objective physical reality and their logical implications.
Frankly, I'm surprised the Admin. let you go on like they do.

Me too. Usually I get banned for telling the truth.
#15196328
@Truth To Power

Until you provide links to pert reviewed studies to support your claims, your arguments are not facts, They are not even theories. At best, they are unsupported hypotheses.

Global warming is a fact. Anthropogenic climate change is a well supported theory.
#15196329
late wrote:As I pointed out before, the 2 best studies in the 1970s both found warming.

Which proves me right: the 20th century increase in solar activity, to the highest sustained level in several thousand years, has returned the earth to more normal Holocene temperatures following the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years.
While there was a lot of fighting among scientists for a while, warming became dominant in the 80s, with the community of climate scientists reaching consensus over 20 years ago. Scientific work since then has only solidified that position.

I have never disputed that the world has warmed substantially in the last 200 years because the sun became more active. The claim that it MUST have been caused by CO2 and not the sun is arrant nonscience.
You're a paid liar.

Disgraceful.
#15196330
Truth To Power wrote:
I have never disputed that the world has warmed substantially in the last 200 years because the sun became more active. The claim that it MUST have been caused by CO2 and not the sun is arrant nonscience.



This is NASA:

Image

You're lying or nuts, or both.
#15196331
Truth To Power wrote:the world has warmed substantially in the last 200 years because the sun became more active.


No.

Since 1978, the sun has decreased its activity while the temperature on the Earth’s surface has increased dramatically.

This disproves the claim that solar activity is the cause of global warming.
  • 1
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 36
Did You Get Vaccinated?

As I said, your understanding of the natural worl[…]

I think US has more police per capita than any oth[…]

Ghislaine Maxwell Trial

American hypocrisy More than 200,000 child marri[…]

Even if it survives this formal assault, the Texan[…]