Should We Revise Our Position On Global Warming?

Johnnyvee

Ostrich
Other Christian
We are all familiar with the basics of climate change on this forum I think. There is little doubt that the main drivers of climate change are beyond human control, (Milankovitch cycles, solar activity etc.) and that the climate history of the planet has shown that life can exist with much higher CO2 levels and temperatures. (but not necessarily very much lower than today?) It also seems likely that this pattern will continue, and we are about to head into a new ice age. I can`t see what will really change that. (unless it`s God`s will to do so)


gracial-interglacial.jpg


However, the basic science of climatology seems to suggest that there is a causal link between CO2 emissions and rising temperatures. Normally this is a mechanism driven mostly by astronomical events like the mentioned natural cycles of the solar system. But there are also biological reasons that this occurs at times. Grasslands (grass species) have the ability to sequester carbon into the soil in large amounts, and humans can affect that process by the way that we tend the land, and the type of farming practices that we employ. So less grasslands with the natural ecosystems that are involved with ruminants grazing and so on will mean less carbon into the soil and more released into the atmosphere. The more monocropping and tillage to produce industrial foods, the worse this situation will get. This will also affect human health and biodiversity to a great extent.

According to the WTO (and they have little incentive to lie about this) there has been an increase in the global CO2 emissions of 36.4 percent in the period from 1997-2011. What`s interesting is that about 30 percent of this has come from developing economies. Read; China, India and other Asian countries mostly. The West has remained quite stable, and China has been the biggest CO2 producing country since 2011 in fact. (twice that of the US currently) https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/gtdw_e/wkshop16_e/francois_e.pd

All that being said, I think that we should consider a different stance on this subject maybe. If there really is a human component to an increase in temperature on the planet, then it seems that we have all the best solutions! Regenerative agriculture/permaculture. (Joel Salatin, Allan Savory style) (1) Go to war against big food and monocropping etc. Also, attack the richest people on the planet where it hurts the most by going after global free trade and production of goods in developing countries, using their own tools against them. (CO2 emissions/global warming/pollution, job outsourcing, US poverty/meth use, a case for sensible nationalism etc.)

We might literally and metaphorically get burned in the coming years if there really is an increase in temperature, that will cause more of the events that are unfolding as we speak. That doesn`t mean that we have to be wrong, but we might be perceived as being wrong if we insist on the; "there is no global warming at all" thing. There might be some anthropogenic global warming, and it`s the fault of the most greedy amongst us. And it`s interconnected with human health, biodiversity and a whole host of other things as well.
 
Last edited:

Papaya

Peacock
Gold Member
According to the WTO (and they have little incentive to lie about this) there has been an increase in the global CO2 emissions of 36.4 percent in the period from 1997-2011. What`s interesting is that about 30 percent of this has come from developing economies. Read; China, India and other Asian countries mostly. The West has remained quite stable, and China has been the biggest CO2 producing country since 2011 in fact. (twice that of the US currently) https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/gtdw_e/wkshop16_e/francois_e.pd
Youre joking...As always follow the money. How is WTO funded?


Id buy crack before Id buy any of this human causal nonsense.
 
Do what you want to do about climate change, but realize our mortal coils will not see most of their projections about sea level rise, etc due to changes in models and reality. Looking at local trends can be far more important, like irrigation. The west coast seems like the heart of global warming, but due to their droughts, the air is drier, thus it has less heat capacity, thus it can heat up quickly. The midwest still has most heat records set in the 1930s because of better use of the Ogalala aquifer.
 

Johnnyvee

Ostrich
Other Christian
Youre joking...As always follow the money. How is WTO funded?


Id buy crack before Id buy any of this human causal nonsense.

What I meant is that they have little incentive to lie about the negative effect of global trade on CO2 emissions. Which is what they basically conclude with in this study. But would it hurt if we said; there might be some human effect on the climate yes, but your globalism and greed etc. is in fact causing it?
 
What I meant is that they have little incentive to lie about the negative effect of global trade on CO2 emissions. Which is what they basically conclude with in this study. But would it hurt if we said; there might be some human effect on the climate yes, but your globalism and greed etc. is in fact causing it?
Negative aspects of climate change is where the money goes because only governments can do something like make everyone pollute and consume less. Not falling for the hype and going to a nice place that would benefit from global warming is the more based response.
 

It_is_my_time

Crow
Protestant
The biggest causes of pollution are...

Mass immigration: importing hundreds of millions of 3rd world people into the first world, greatly increasing their carbon footprint.

Free Trade: Allowing billionaires to pocket more money by shipping manufacturing jobs overseas so that they can pay their workers less money and pollute more under less strict policies.

Point this out to any climate change sycophant and they only have one choice... To ignore you because their funders will not allow this discussion, rendering it all one giant grift.
 

Johnnyvee

Ostrich
Other Christian
Negative aspects of climate change is where the money goes because only governments can do something like make everyone pollute and consume less. Not falling for the hype and going to a nice place that would benefit from global warming is the more based response.

I disagree with parts of this. The money goes towards measures that will reduce the freedom`s of people yes. (In the West at least) But since the real probable cause is related to the things that make the rich even richer, they will deliberately confuse and mislead in order to get the best of both worlds. The focus is not on Chinese factories and huge bulk container ships full of crap headed for US/Europe. The focus is on red meat, electric cars and bicycles etc. We have to put the focus back where it belongs, and they won`t like that. If you want to point a finger, it`s at Jeff Bezos and the like.
 

dicknixon72

Pelican
Free Trade: Allowing billionaires to pocket more money by shipping manufacturing jobs overseas so that they can pay their workers less money and pollute more under less strict policies.

This is perhaps the largest contributor to climate change. Regional production consumed by regional population means much reduced fuel costs for transport of raw materials, semi-finished goods, finished goods, and the associate air travel for corporations supporting 'global trade.'

Imagine the 'carbon footprint' of a car assembled in the United States with components 95% sourced from manufacturing in Canada, Mexico, and Latin America. Imagine the economic benefits to all associated nations when they're not competing with a $1/day wage slave for a Chinese corporation that also gets highly-subsidized shipping.
 

Papaya

Peacock
Gold Member
"Global Warming / Climates Change / Climate Crisis" are all just the same political / financial agenda re-branded under new titles for marketing purposes.

That geo political and financial agenda should not be confused with "nature conservation" which is a worthwhile endeavor.

I thought this membership knew better
 

FrancisK

Pelican
Catholic
Gold Member
Global warming? I thought it was "Climate Change"?

Or wait weren't we all supposed to use plastic to "Save the Trees" like we were taught in elementary school?
 

jollycynic

Sparrow
Protestant
Regardless of whether or not anthropogenic climate change is real, the false religion of climate change will never remedy it. Climate change is an article of faith that will drive the end of our freedoms, euthanasia of the elderly and the hyperconcentration of the population into the cities (for public transportation).

Denial of anthropogenic climate change does not mean blind worship for reckless industrialization/capitalism, or for unrestricted pollution for businesses, but that's a more nuanced discussion than it's usually possible to have with people.

The godly path here is definitely not the anti-human one that the new world preaches, but neither is it the Shapiro path of ruining God's creation to extract one extra penny.
 

SVK

 
Banned
How do you guys explain this:

1625362955215.png

My dad remembers a time when global warming was a sort of a fringe conspiracy theory...
 

911

Peacock
Catholic
Gold Member
This is a complete fabrication, known as the "hockey stick" curve, put together with very shoddy data and methodology. The handful of scientists who run this scam are known liars, people like Mann and Hansen who it turns out tried to "hide the decline", or erase the fact that the 1960s-70s were periods of global cooling. We know this because their emails were hacked, this episode is known as "Climategate".

The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, we know this because they use to grow things like grapes/wine in northern England back then, which you still can't do today. The Roman Warm Period was also likely warmer, receding glaciers in the Alps have revealed Roman-era settlements that were not covered in ice.

Here's a more accurate representation of avg global temps/climate over the last two millennia:

ScreenShot2076.jpg


MWP = Medieval Warm Period
RWP = Roman WP.


 
Last edited:

C-Note

Hummingbird
Other Christian
Gold Member
This is a complete fabrication, known as the "hockey stick" curve, put together with very shoddy data and methodology. The handful of scientists who run this scam are known liars, people like Mann and Hansen who it turns out tried to "hide the decline", or erase the fact that the 1960s-70s were periods of global cooling. We know this because their emails were hacked, this episode is known as "Climategate".

The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, we know this because they use to grow things like grapes/wine in northern England back then, which you still can't do today. The Roman Warm Period was also likely warmer, receding glaciers in the Alps have revealed Roman-era settlements that were not covered in ice.

Here's a more accurate representation of avg global temps/climate over the last two millennia:

ScreenShot2076.jpg


MWP = Medieval Warm Period
RWP = Roman WP.


Yes, the hockey stick graph promoted by Michael E. Mann, Al Gore, and other climate "scientists" is one of the biggest pseudoscientific scams in history. A good book on it is "The Hockey Stick Illusion" by Andrew Montford.
 

Cervantes

Woodpecker
Woman
All of the "solutions" to global warning proposed by globalist elites are designed to centralize the decision making about the use of energy into their hands - and have nothing to do with actually addressing the supposed global warming.

So even if I thought it was man made - I would never support the political movements organized against it.
 

Cervantes

Woodpecker
Woman
How do you guys explain this:

View attachment 31786

My dad remembers a time when global warming was a sort of a fringe conspiracy theory...
They falsify data. If any academic questioned these numbers they would be unpersoned.

Its funny that in the year 1000 Greenland was warm enough for vikings to grow wheat on it, yet its covered by a massive glacier today when the temperature is supposedly so much warmer. Why does Antarctica have more ice than ever? These are questions today's "scientists" are not allowed to ask.

Do you also believe the fake covid case count numbers?
 

Don Quixote

Ostrich
Orthodox Inquirer
We are all familiar with the basics of climate change on this forum I think. There is little doubt that the main drivers of climate change are beyond human control, (Milankovitch cycles, solar activity etc.) and that the climate history of the planet has shown that life can exist with much higher CO2 levels and temperatures. (but not necessarily very much lower than today?) It also seems likely that this pattern will continue, and we are about to head into a new ice age. I can`t see what will really change that. (unless it`s God`s will to do so)


View attachment 31774


However, the basic science of climatology seems to suggest that there is a causal link between CO2 emissions and rising temperatures. Normally this is a mechanism driven mostly by astronomical events like the mentioned natural cycles of the solar system. But there are also biological reasons that this occurs at times. Grasslands (grass species) have the ability to sequester carbon into the soil in large amounts, and humans can affect that process by the way that we tend the land, and the type of farming practices that we employ. So less grasslands with the natural ecosystems that are involved with ruminants grazing and so on will mean less carbon into the soil and more released into the atmosphere. The more monocropping and tillage to produce industrial foods, the worse this situation will get. This will also affect human health and biodiversity to a great extent.

According to the WTO (and they have little incentive to lie about this) there has been an increase in the global CO2 emissions of 36.4 percent in the period from 1997-2011. What`s interesting is that about 30 percent of this has come from developing economies. Read; China, India and other Asian countries mostly. The West has remained quite stable, and China has been the biggest CO2 producing country since 2011 in fact. (twice that of the US currently) https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/gtdw_e/wkshop16_e/francois_e.pd

All that being said, I think that we should consider a different stance on this subject maybe. If there really is a human component to an increase in temperature on the planet, then it seems that we have all the best solutions! Regenerative agriculture/permaculture. (Joel Salatin, Allan Savory style) (1) Go to war against big food and monocropping etc. Also, attack the richest people on the planet where it hurts the most by going after global free trade and production of goods in developing countries, using their own tools against them. (CO2 emissions/global warming/pollution, job outsourcing, US poverty/meth use, a case for sensible nationalism etc.)

We might literally and metaphorically get burned in the coming years if there really is an increase in temperature, that will cause more of the events that are unfolding as we speak. That doesn`t mean that we have to be wrong, but we might be perceived as being wrong if we insist on the; "there is no global warming at all" thing. There might be some anthropogenic global warming, and it`s the fault of the most greedy amongst us. And it`s interconnected with human health, biodiversity and a whole host of other things as well.
Nothing about climate change seems causally connected to human behaviors. If humans were indeed the cause of rising C02 and C02 is in fact a real problem, then why do some experts admit that areas of the globe are becoming cooler, and why do some say we are headed towards an ice age? C02 and the greenhouse effect would suggest rising temperatures and rising sea levels due to the melting of polar ice caps. We just don't see this happening. So now, the climate change scientists shifted to say that actually, climate in different areas becomes more "extreme." Well, in my opinion, the weather patterns that we have noticed that are extreme ––from wildfires in CA to hurricanes in Louisiana––many of these do in fact seem like they are man-made. But not accidentally or incidentally man-made. In fact, they seem like intentional designer storms and geoengineering.

These types of events strike me as politically motivated. I grew up in Los Angeles. As a kid, the temperature was just as hot, the landscape just as dry. And yet, there were very few fires, and not nearly as devastating. One needs to look at alternative causal theories for why these fires occur. There has always been fear mongering about droughts in CA, since the late 1800's. There has always been a political weaponizing of water in LA – just watch the movie Chinatown for some background on the subject. He who controls the water is king. Same thing is happening today. So imagine, on a global scale, whoever controls the resources is king––and who best to control resources than our lovely benefactors, who will save us from ourselves and our wasteful, destructive natures?

Whether C02 is even be a bad thing is hard to say, given that C02 aids in the greening of the earth. Look at the Amazon rainforest. It's the most diverse and abundant ecosystem in the world, no thanks in large part to the high amounts of C02, which in turn can generate a higher level of oxygen, which can in turn support large and varied mammals of all types.

Finally, does anyone remember the dire predictions of Al Gore and other climate change proponents in the late 90's and early 2000's? While not in itself an argument against the data or science, that alone should show you just how politically weaponized the debate has become.
 

get2choppaaa

Hummingbird
Orthodox
I didn't read a single post on this thread. I pulled a newby move and skipped right to the part where I get to comment...

We are in a cooling cycle supposedly.

Who cares?.... We cant grow the grass nor feed the birds...

People who get caught up in the climate thing have "too much free time on their hands" as my dad would say.
 

IM3000

Pelican
While I do believe that there is a human contribution to climate change, it is very difficult to measure and equally difficult to predict its implications.
I suggest that you guys look up how the climate models are set up and what Parameterization is. I work in energy engineering and know a little bit about sensors and measurement uncertainty. By the way the climate scientist measure the parameters which flow into their models, I can only imagine the extend of the measurement error...Truly mind-blowing that this stuff gets sold as the absolute truth.

Anyway, my stance on this subject is that we ought to focus less on CC and more on the preservation of Eco systems. Humans are destroying God's creation at a rapid pace and this obviously is an issue. Ironically, a lot of this is done to prevent CC (e.g. bio fuels, e-mobility, etc.). That said, we shouldn't go Extinction Rebellion either.
 
Top