Best Arguments on Climate?

[Webbman]

I don't have any issues with the rise in plant food...err carbon dioxide.

I have faith in the plants, but none in international science.

[Lloyd]

Environment vs AGW

Electro wrote: Denying GW is one thing, but it's impossible to deny the negative impact our way of life has on the environment and our very existence.
- So, by desperately holding on to our "way of life" and personal comfort, through our individualism, we are condemning our future.
- In my opinion, too much carbon is worst than not enough. But, when did we really not have enough CO2? We don't know what caused the ice ages, if they really did happen.
- I like many ideas from the EU theory, but I believe we could do without mythology and catastrophism. It would give us a lot more credibility. Mythology is just that, myth. I reject anything related to interpretation of human made myths, and spiritually. Furthermore, EU does not provide any detailed mechanism on planet formation and ejection.

A lot of members here seem to share concerns about the environment. I do. But the people who control the AGW debate, i.e. the major media, appear to have ulterior motives, namely population reduction. Stewart Brand, who organized the Whole Earth Catalog in the 1970s, argued in favor of nuclear power as an alternative to CO2 producing energy sources, but the controlled Environmental movement ignored that, considering it a polluter. But there are alternative nuclear power designs that would not pollute, such as Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors. Alan Savory found that holistic management of grazing animals greatly helps sequester carbon in plants and soil that also help much to reverse desertification, but the online media are hyping some dolt complaining about raising animals for meat and denying Savory's claims.

Many members of this forum distrust conventional science for obvious reasons, like for ignoring electrical forces in the universe. If you study the history of science, you can see that it was taken over by the "1%" probably around the 1880s, when I think they bought up major science journals. They set up the so-called peer review process for getting science papers published in journals, but that's not at all a scientific process, because it prevents alternative theories and findings from being published. It's just a means for the 1% to control the media.

The graph you posted from NASA showing the amount of CO2 in the air for hundreds of thousands of years is based on uniformitarian geology, which is based on false assumptions, such as radiometric dating methods and no global cataclysms over that period of time. But, as we showed in the thread, Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm, there have obviously been several cataclysms in the past 5,000 years, including a great flood, which deposited nearly all of the sedimentary rock on the former supercontinent.

Charles Chandler has a paper at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031 that suggests that Earth was too hot in the distant past to retain water, but if supercritical CO2 was possible as you suppose, then it seems that supercritical water might have existed as well, since the atmosphere was likely much larger, like on Venus or even like the gas giants. Charles theorized that asteroids delivered water to Earth during the Late Heavy Bombardment, which could be in agreement with the NASA graph, but he hasn't considered the arguments that strongly suggest that cataclysms occurred just a few millennia ago. If you don't like catastrophism in EU theory, you could check out his site. His EU theory is much better in my opinion than the Thunderbolts theory, but the latter is better at catastrophism.

The 1% are likely racist Malthusians who fear overpopulation, so they want to promote public opinion that we need less technology so most of the population will die off. By the way, I think they try to spread disease by pretending to try to prevent it, such as via toxic vaccines, toxic drugs, toxic therapies etc.

[Electro]

And from D_Archer - warming is not really a problem is it? - Are you serious? What about the Arctic and the Antarctic? What about the rise in sea levels? Waters are getting warmer. What about places who used to have snow and relied on it for winter sports? What about all the animal species affected by warming? How many species must now go further and further up north? Migrations are also affected. It's a real catastrophe!

It was phrased as a question was it not? It could be a problem but it could also be an opportunity, it is not ALL bad. And my point stands, it is used as a deflection from actual pollution etc. Industry is happy to dump waste, because doing it responsible hurts the bottom line. You can dabble in CO2 policies endlessly, you can tax it, but it would not solve anything, it is politics, not science.

I think you are getting too emotional, stick to science and a cool head. Pun intended.

Regards,
Daniel

Like I said, fossil fuels don't only cause GW. They pollute the air and the waters. We could assume CO2 is harmless, but it doesn't change the fact fossil fuels are harmful in many other ways. That's why I see no legitimate reason to oppose AGW whatsoever. Yes, you are right. I'm emotional about it. That's why I will not post anymore on this subject, as it will be detrimental to friendships I might have developed on this forum.

[LunarSabbathTruth]

There is no doubt that industrialization has produced pollution and waste.

However, one of the points ignored by mainstream thinking is that forces outside of the Earth (Sun, comets and nearby planets) have caused extreme damage to the Earth's surface and atmosphere, and that the Sun still continues to affect the Earth much more than they realize.

The "400,000 years of virtually steady-state conditions before 1950" never existed. Those numbers of CO2 PPM on the graph probably reflect day-to-night fluctuations over a few thousand years or something like that.

- joe

[Lloyd]

Electro wrote: Like I said, fossil fuels don't only cause GW. They pollute the air and the waters. We could assume CO2 is harmless, but it doesn't change the fact fossil fuels are harmful in many other ways. That's why I see no legitimate reason to oppose AGW whatsoever. Yes, you are right. I'm emotional about it. That's why I will not post anymore on this subject, as it will be detrimental to friendships I might have developed on this forum.

Fossil fuels aren't polluting if they're cleaned up properly. The U.S. is a lot cleaner than it was in the 1960s and it can be made much cleaner still with proper technology and reasonable laws. Nuclear power can do that too. As for disagreements, mature people don't become enemies just because of them. You can help by posting the best arguments for AGW that you find or found. You made a good start with the NASA graph. The graph didn't show harm done by increased CO2, did it? With no CO2 plant life ends and animal life follows. So how can you not be concerned about having too little CO2?

[Electro]

Electro wrote: Like I said, fossil fuels don't only cause GW. They pollute the air and the waters. We could assume CO2 is harmless, but it doesn't change the fact fossil fuels are harmful in many other ways. That's why I see no legitimate reason to oppose AGW whatsoever. Yes, you are right. I'm emotional about it. That's why I will not post anymore on this subject, as it will be detrimental to friendships I might have developed on this forum.

Fossil fuels aren't polluting if they're cleaned up properly. The U.S. is a lot cleaner than it was in the 1960s and it can be made much cleaner still with proper technology and reasonable laws. Nuclear power can do that too. As for disagreements, mature people don't become enemies just because of them. You can help by posting the best arguments for AGW that you find or found. You made a good start with the NASA graph. The graph didn't show harm done by increased CO2, did it? With no CO2 plant life ends and animal life follows. So how can you not be concerned about having too little CO2?

What I really like about this forum is how people are respectful of each other no matter the idea or opinion. I guess that's why I'm still here.

Fossil fuels may be a bit cleaner than in the 60's, but are still fossil fuels. I'm not concerned about having too little CO2 because it's not going to happen, even if we decided to eliminate all fossil fuels tomorrow morning. Before the industrial revolution, the Earth was doing just fine.

There are much cleaner alternatives and some are out there right now. I even drive an electric car. Of course, nothing is 100% clean, but we need to choose the cleanest alternative. I know the US economy relies a lot on the oil and gas industry, hence the opposition against AGW, but the cost of environmental disasters is increasing steadily and will overtake profit from fossil fuels.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/12/ ... the-world/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... pollution/

http://www.environmentamerica.org/repor ... ssil-fuels

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our- ... ossil.html

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -you-think

[LunarSabbathTruth]

....
There are much cleaner alternatives and some are out there right now. I even drive an electric car. Of course, nothing is 100% clean, but we need to choose the cleanest alternative. I know the US economy relies a lot on the oil and gas industry, hence the opposition against AGW, but the cost of environmental disasters is increasing steadily and will overtake profit from fossil fuels.
....

No doubt there is much profit in oil and their related industries, but you make several assumptions.

First, there is no consensus that oil is actually a "fossil" fuel. Many people on this forum believe it is a mineral and of relatively recent origin.

But this statement "I know the US economy relies a lot on the oil and gas industry, hence the opposition against AGW" carries even more assumptions. People don't believe in Man-made Global Warming because they recognize that Man did not make the Sun (which they do not believe is unchanging), not because they support the oil industry.

- joe

[Electro]

First, there is no consensus that oil is actually a "fossil" fuel. Many people on this forum believe it is a mineral and of relatively recent origin.

I never believed it was a "fossil" fuel either, but it doesn't change anything. The results are the same.

But this statement "I know the US economy relies a lot on the oil and gas industry, hence the opposition against AGW" carries even more assumptions. People don't believe in Man-made Global Warming because they recognize that Man did not make the Sun (which they do not believe is unchanging), not because they support the oil industry.

Even if CO2 were not the culprit, it doesn't change the fact that fossil fuels are damaging for the environment and our health.

[LunarSabbathTruth]

First, there is no consensus that oil is actually a "fossil" fuel. Many people on this forum believe it is a mineral and of relatively recent origin.

I never believed it was a "fossil" fuel either, but it doesn't change anything. The results are the same.

But this statement "I know the US economy relies a lot on the oil and gas industry, hence the opposition against AGW" carries even more assumptions. People don't believe in Man-made Global Warming because they recognize that Man did not make the Sun (which they do not believe is unchanging), not because they support the oil industry.

Even if CO2 were not the culprit, it doesn't change the fact that fossil fuels are damaging for the environment and our health.

Yes, the oil industry causes pollution. But producing solar cells requires lots of energy and dangerous chemicals, birds get killed by windmills, dams and turbines disturb fish. Etc.

Unfortunately, we live in a fallen world. We are no longer living under the planetary conditions which produced the legendary golden age. And building pagodas, erecting obelisks, or putting taxes on CO2 is not going to attain what was lost. There is a limit to what Man can do.

- joe

[Electro]

Of course, there's no perfect solution, but we have to find the least damaging.

With a world population of 7.4 billion, going towards 9.7 billion in 2050, we certainly can't expect miracles... When animals are overpopulated, they die. Us humans live longer and longer, and breed like rabbits in many countries ...

[dodeca]

1. No warming in the UAH satellite record from 1980 to 1998 El Nino… PROVEN

2. No warming between the end of that El Nino in 2001 and the start of the current El Nino at the beginning of 2015… PROVEN

3. No warming in the southern polar region for the whole 38 years of the satellite record.

4. No warming in the southern ex-tropicals for 20 years.

5. No warming in Australia for 20 years, cooling since 2002

6. No warming in Japan surface data for the last 20 years, No warming from 1950-1990.. zero trend

7. No warming in the USA since 2005 when a non-corrupted system was installed, until the beginning of the current El Nino.

8. UAH Global Land shows no warming from 1979 1997, the no warming from 20012015

9. Iceland essentially the same temperature as in the late 1930s as now, maybe slightly lower

10. Southern Sea temperatures not warming from 1982 2005, then cooling

11. Even UAH NoPol shows no warming this century until the large spike in January 2016.

That is DESPITE a large climb in CO2 levels over those periods.

There IS NO CO2 WARMING effect.

The ONLY warming has come from ElNino and ocean circulation effects.

[Lloyd]

Dodeca, thanks for your info, but can you mention the sources?

Media.
Electro, I feel that the media's attempts to make it seem like disaster is imminent is unhealthy, i.e. the media itself is unhealthy. People can come to agreement better if all sides are calm and objective. Malthusians have been around a long time warning of overpopulation dangers, which have probably contributed to the rationale for wars etc. The Club of Rome started promoting hysteria in 1970 or so with their elitist warning of overpopulation and declining standard of living. I heard that their predictions of coming scarcities never panned out, because trends changed and improved technology and processes intervened.

Pollution.
We are in agreement that pollution is very dangerous. The air in many countries is still very polluted, I've read. Western medicine is very dangerous with its toxic drugs, radiation and vaccines. U.S. big business is too unregulated, so people are exposed to lots of dangerous chemicals, such as non-stick cookware, microwave ovens, flame retardants in mattresses etc, plastics in packaging & toys, chlorine and fluoride in the water supply etc, unhealthy foods causing major diseases like diabetes, dementia etc. Luckily our air pollution has improved a lot, but it's still not clean enough. And our soils and water are contaminated with agricultural chemicals, as well as industrial ones. Also, plastic bottles etc break down in sunlight on the oceans and result in plastics contaminating ocean life, even more than on land.

Population.
If population were to reach 10 billion, that would not be a disaster by itself. Paul Stitt, a food biochemist, calculated that 20 billion could easily be accommodated if food were grown properly and distributed efficiently. And there are very encouraging trends in food production, such as vertical farming and aquaponics. What's the maximum height above current sea level that the oceans could reach, if the ice caps melted? If it takes a century for sea level to rise 3 feet, it shouldn't be hard to build dikes around populated areas, like the Dutch have done. As ice melts, land becomes available that was frozen. It's also been found that floating tropical islands can be made very cheaply, which could support populations. But another way to solve overpopulation, I think, is to colonize space. Asteroids could be moved into near-Earth orbit and people could live on the insides. Mars can be terraformed. Eventually, Venus could be inhabited too.

Greenhouse Gases
Yesterday, I read up on a history of AGW science. It said a scientist in 1938 discovered that CO2 absorbs sunlight and thus is a greenhouse gas. But that doesn't make sense to me. If you have a room full of objects of many different kinds, all of the objects will reach the same temperature, if the temperature holds steady, but some objects will take longer, depending on their size and R-factor, i.e. resistance to heat flow. The same should be true in air. At http://www.engineersedge.com/heat_trans ... -gases.htm is a table of the heat conductivity of gases. At 300K it shows the following values: CO2 16.8; H2O 18.7; CH4 34.1; O2 26.3; N2 26.0; Ar 17.9. I've heard that methane is a greenhouse gas, but this says its conductivity is 34.1, even higher than O2 and N2. Water vapor is about the same as CO2. So it should take a CO2 atmosphere longer to heat up or cool down than a N2 or O2 atmosphere.

[Grey Cloud]

One of the first challengers to the propaganda.
https://climateaudit.org/

A. W. Montford - The Hockey Stick Illusion (Excellent book)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Illusion-Clima ... 1906768358


The Golden Rule - follow the money.

[Electro]

There are very good points from either side of the debate, no question about it. But, can we really afford to take the risk by ignoring the possibility we might be responsible? The ozone layer is a very good example... What about pollution? Do we really want to deny the right for our children and grandchildren to breathe without a mask? Why are we so attached to fossil fuels? That's the question...

[Lloyd]

Electro, do you have a problem with nuclear power? If so, what about LFTR, i.e. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors? I understand they're extremely safe and non-polluting. Regular nuclear power seems rather non-polluting as well.

Most people agree that it's healthiest to have clean air, clean water and a clean environment. But people want food and power. So what's wrong with non-polluting technology?