Climate change and overpopulation

[Daitengu]

@Reinaislost
Thank you for at least testing source.
Don't forget to address the decades of wrong predictions climate alarmists have made to drive activism.


I have no idea what the big oil dudes pushed. I am skeptical of climate alarmists for what they have claimed and gotten wrong repeatedly. The government has also altered historical records to support the narrative.

Always be skeptical of dates of doom that are within a decade.

Florida getting flooded? Yeah, not for another 25-50 years or more, goin by glacial and icecap melt. I'll be dead by then, also not planning to have kids so whatever.

The main thing climatologists are saying is that the weather will be more severe because of the increases heat. That includes harsher blizzards as well as drought or flooding, etc.

Tbh, skynet or WW III will probably kill us off before global warming does.

 

[Deleted member 76176]

Thank you for at least testing source.
Don't forget to address the decades of wrong predictions climate alarmists have made to drive activism.

Can I be honest? I’ve never heard of the term ‘climate alarmists’ before. While acid rain was once thought to be a huge problem for today’s age, and government policies and steps that helped to mitigate it, never a world ending occurance.

Also wanted to point out, we don’t even know if “fossil fuels” are actually from fossils. No one ever observed it being made, so we have no idea.

That's not how science works. The disagreement can't be so fundamental.

My thing is I don’t see or believe CO2 is a bad thing. I believe the focus on CO2 is wrong.

Nobody said so. I don't believe any legitimate scientist would ever say that.

 

[Midnight-Phantom]

To be honest, I find both points quite puzzling. Climate change is an ongoing phenomenon that has been happening since the inception of our climate. However, due to human advancements and the emergence of new technologies, we are rapidly accelerating the pace of climate change. It's crucial to acknowledge the importance of balance in nature and the need for ecosystems to adapt to these changes.

Unfortunately, the introduction of synthetic substances into the environment, such as plastic, has severely disrupted this balance. Nature struggles to naturally break down plastic and other synthetic materials, leading to detrimental effects on the environment. The natural processes of substance evolution are not as swift as the introduction of these synthetics, causing disturbances in the equilibrium of ecosystems. If we create something like plastic, it would be wise to develop a substance that can mitigate its impact, following the principle of maintaining a sustainable cycle. Regrettably, we have not followed this principle, and we are now facing the consequences.

Moreover, all of our infrastructures as a whole is inadequately optimized, both in terms of its environmental impact and its impact on physical and mental well-being. As a result, when environmental disruptions occur, everything tends to deteriorate rapidly and very badly, which is the global predicament we are currently witnessing.

Regarding the issue of overpopulation or underpopulation, it largely depends on one's perspective of the world as a whole. If we strive to ensure equal access to quality services and opportunities for everyone using today's technology, then it could be argued that overpopulation poses a problem. Such a situation would be unsustainable, and society would likely collapse under the strain.

On the other hand, if we consider factors like declining elderly populations, ongoing conflicts, reduced interest in marriage among the younger generation, and decreasing populations in developed countries, we might conclude that underpopulation is a concern. In this scenario, a more systematic and global distribution of people could be necessary. The younger generation faces various mental health challenges and existential crises, further complicating the dynamics of population. As independent and thoughtful individuals, reaching a unanimous conclusion on any matter is rare because nothing is absolute or universally agreed upon. Different viewpoints exist, and they are perfectly valid and understandable.

For instance, let's consider money as an example. It encompasses an extensive range of options, each with varying purchasing power depending on your location and the specific item you wish to purchase. However, we must keep in mind that this system operates within the context of a singular species inhabiting a single planet. Does this system appear rational to you?

Have a cookie and coffee and don't think about this stuff, read novels and chill ..

 

[Lloyd]

Scientists will cut off a dude's dicks and balls and say, "I did it for their health."
Believing in science is mentally retarded.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

Well, he also denied that climate change is manmade or that humans played a relatively small role. I don't have a standard to judge how much misinformation there is on the internet and the political scenario, so I'm sorry.

I can't comment on that. I didn't even read enough of this thread because I think this types of discussions are useless. BUT.

I don’t even deny the climate is changing.
Technically I’m not a denier, I just don’t believe it’s changing as much as climate alarmists do, and don’t believe manmade climate change is as big as they want it to be.

For some reason, you missed this.

 

[TheEldritchGod]

*Sigh* This is what we refer to as "knowing just enough to be dangerous."

You know a few things, but there are some rather critical flaws in your reasoning here.

1. The COVID vaccine was a new type of vaccine that doesn't use a virus, alive or dead, at all. It was an mRNA vaccine, using the same signaling method cells use to create proteins. In other words, there is no virus, it convinces some of your cells to present the spike protiens that a virus would, which programs your immune system to fight the virus without you having ever been infected

Okay...

Virus / vaccine

mRNA in a viral sheath/mRNA in a viral sheath
Accesses cells through the ACE2/Accesses cells through the ACE2
Reprograms your cell's DNA/Reprograms your cell's DNA
Causes your cells to make copies of itself/causes your cells to make spike proteins.

So... explain how it isn't a virus, again?

Because your heart muscle has the ACE2 receptor. People who get the virus by infection don't get heart problems. It stays in the lungs. The jab goes in your blood stream.

So... which major organs have the ACE2 receptor? Trick question. They all have the ACE2.

Oh, as far as a LITTLE KNOWLEDGE...

DECEMBER OF 2019, ME AND A FEW HUNDRED PEOPLE WERE BRUTE FORCING THE RNA SEQUENCES OF COVID.

My friend Jesus (hey-zeus), was the one who first found the pShuttle protein sequence next to the ORF10 sequence. Which is odd because that normally only appears in herpes viruses. It's thought to be the sequence that inhibits mutation and causes herpes to be stable.

Did you know that in 2015 the US army had a project shut down by Obama where they were going to try to cure the common cold by combining the cold with ORF10? PEOPLE WERE WORRIED IT WOULD MAKE A SUPERVIRUS.

Funny thing, a Chinese virologist working on that team got a job in Canada and almost got arrested for espionage like a year later.

The decay on the pShuttle sequence (as patented by the ADDGENE CORPORATION) seems to indicate its been through many generation and that would make it about 5 years old. Back in 2020.

I don't have a little knowledge about anything, friend.

Edit:

Fun fact, Carbon monoxide pollution had a far greater chance of being a strong indicator where people died in the greatest number than any other factor.

 

[Deleted member 76176]

I can't comment on that. I didn't even read enough of this thread because I think this types of discussions are useless. BUT.

For some reason, you missed this.

Again, I don't have a standard to judge how much is too much or even heard the term climate alarmists before this discussion. Who are 'they' anyway? It couldn't be the climate scientists.

 

[Daitengu]

Again, you’re completely misinterpreting what I say for your argument.

My thing is I don’t see or believe CO2 is a bad thing. I believe the focus on CO2 is wrong. Also, that the politicians and people pushing green want us to believe CO2 is the problem so they can continue restrict and control us.

Do you know what the carbon cycle is? We learned that in grade school and everyone seems to forget it.

Why? CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it's crazy elevated now compared to history.

Yes I know the carbon cycle. There's enough CO2 in the air that it's affecting the ocean now tho.

Also carbon monoxide is a secret terrible pollutant that no one really monitors. It breaks down the hydroxyl in the air, which breaks down the methane in the air. A 25x more potent greenhouse gas.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

Can I be honest? I’ve never heard of the term ‘climate alarmists’ before. While acid rain was once thought to be a huge problem for today’s age, and government policies and steps that helped to mitigate it, never a world ending occurance.


That's not how science works. The disagreement can't be so fundamental.



Nobody said so. I don't believe any legitimate scientist would ever say that.

1. Climate alarmist is the opposite of a climate denier, but on the same curve. They think climate change is the end of the world when it’s been going on for a long long time.

2. It isn’t how science works, a lot of scientific theories isn’t how science works yet people accept it as fact.

3. You’re right, but politicians and climate activists say it all the time. Now we are getting. Somewhere.

Why? CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it's crazy elevated now compared to history.

Yes I know the carbon cycle. There's enough CO2 in the air that it's affecting the ocean now tho.

Also carbon monoxide is a secret terrible pollutant that no one really monitors. It breaks down the hydroxyl in the air, which breaks down the methane in the air. A 25x more potent greenhouse gas.

How do you know there is too much CO2 in the air? How do we know it’s affecting the ocean?

And how do you know how this compares to history. Which part of history? Prehistoric earth had way more CO2 and was way hotter than where we are now.

also, are you accounting for the fact Earth moves in a spiral and moves up with the sun?

what about unseen volcanic activity below the oceans in the depths that are largely unmapped? CO2 coming from the earth’s crust we know very little about past 50 miles?

Nope, it’s all man made and we can fix it by doing everything the climate alarmist tell us -_-

Seriously.

 

[Deleted member 76176]

2. It isn’t how science works, a lot of scientific theories isn’t how science works yet people accept it as fact.

I'm reasonably certain that's because the colloquial use of the word and scientific are different.

3. You’re right, but politicians and climate activists say it all the time. Now we are getting. Somewhere.

I don't think they say so in the literal sense. Rather, it’s the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere that’s problematic.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

I'm reasonably certain that's because the colloquial use of the word and scientific are different.


I don't think they say so in the literal sense. Rather, it’s the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere that’s problematic.

Okay, qualify that. What studies have been done to show the CO2 is problematic and why is it problematic?

Where is the comparison down from? Also who conducted there study and what was the methodology?

The burden of proof lies on the one who wants someone else to change their lifestyle. If you want to write a good speech, you have to explain what’s causing the problem and why we need to reduce emissions, rather than say, pruning forests to prevent massive fires and planting more trees to do photosynthesis.

Remember, we are only talking about CO2 here, not other pollutants that come from burning gas which are harmful to the environment.

 

[Deleted member 76176]

Okay, qualify that. What studies have been done to show the CO2 is problematic and why is it problematic?

Where is the comparison down from? Also who conducted there study and what was the methodology?

The burden of proof lies on the one who wants someone else to change their lifestyle. If you want to write a good speech, you have to explain what’s causing the problem and why we need to reduce emissions, rather than say, pruning forests to prevent massive fires and planting more trees to do photosynthesis.

Remember, we are only talking about CO2 here, not other pollutants that come from burning gas which are harmful to the environment.

Are you going to trust the peer reviewed papers?

1. Climate alarmist is the opposite of a climate denier, but on the same curve. They think climate change is the end of the world when it’s been going on for a long long time.

2. It isn’t how science works, a lot of scientific theories isn’t how science works yet people accept it as fact.

3. You’re right, but politicians and climate activists say it all the time. Now we are getting. Somewhere.

How do you know there is too much CO2 in the air? How do we know it’s affecting the ocean?

And how do you know how this compares to history. Which part of history? Prehistoric earth had way more CO2 and was way hotter than where we are now.

also, are you accounting for the fact Earth moves in a spiral and moves up with the sun?

what about unseen volcanic activity below the oceans in the depths that are largely unmapped? CO2 coming from the earth’s crust we know very little about past 50 miles?

Nope, it’s all man made and we can fix it by doing everything the climate alarmist tell us -_-

Seriously.

By the way, this is fascinating. No, this isn't about man made climate change.

 

[Midnight-Phantom]

The Earth's atmosphere is primarily composed of dry air, consisting of approximately 78.08 percent nitrogen, 20.95 percent oxygen, and 0.93 percent argon. The remaining 0.04 percent consists of trace gases, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone, which are categorized as greenhouse gases.

Even properly understanding the global impact of these gases will require extensive research and analysis conducted by various scientists from different fields. They have to gather and examine vast amounts of data, then systematically organize it, and ultimately reach conclusions. It is important to note that throughout this process, scientists will consider the dynamic nature of knowledge. As data is collected, analyzed, and reports are generated, scientists will then collectively form conclusions, either through consensus or by evaluating the significance of individual findings.

The probability of this happening is close to zero unless some people here are trillionaires..

[ However, it is crucial to recognize that scientific knowledge is not static, and it evolves over time. New theories and ongoing research continually contribute to different outcomes and the revision of existing knowledge and facts. Therefore, it is essential to remain open to updated information and embrace the idea that knowledge is constantly evolving ]

 

[AnonUnlimited]

Are you going to trust the peer reviewed papers?

By the way, this is fascinating. No, this isn't about man made climate change.

I’m at work I’ll check it out later.

Peer reviewed doesn’t matter as long as the methodology is right. There are good and bad peer reviewed articles along with everything in life.

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

Always be skeptical of dates of doom that are within a decade.

Florida getting flooded? Yeah, not for another 25-50 years or more, goin by glacial and icecap melt. I'll be dead by then, also not planning to have kids so whatever.

Look you just did the exact same thing, but moved the date out a little bit. Far enough to be forgotten by the public when the time comes around. Florida or UK isn't going to be underwater in even 100 years. The models that predict such a thing are simple and assumptive.

The polar ice caps get their snow replaced relatively quickly, thats why every year they return to normal and form the ice sheets.
Glaciers melt in some places and grow in others.

The main thing climatologists are saying is that the weather will be more severe because of the increases heat. That includes harsher blizzards as well as drought or flooding, etc.

That doesn't actually make sense. More heat means colder/harsher blizzards? All because the temp changed a degree or two?
Nonsense.
The climate is dependant on the sun. Weather patterns tend to be oscillating.
Man made climate change aint got nothin on natural changes.
.
CO2 is good for the environment. It's how plants get the carbon to grow.
All these govt carbon "net-zero" policies aren't solving any problem. The "Climate Crisis" is fear mongering. In fact is causing many other crises, like energy and food.
Why is limiting farming and energy production considered a good thing to pursue? Especially with the world population growing.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

.
CO2 is good for the environment. It's how plants get the carbon to grow.
All these govt carbon "net-zero" policies aren't solving any problem. The "Climate Crisis" is fear mongering. In fact is causing many other crises, like energy and food.
Why is limiting farming and energy production considered a good thing to pursue? Especially with the world population growing.

Greenhouse Carbon Dioxide Supplementation - Oklahoma State University

By Megha Poudel and Bruce Dunn. Learn about carbon dioxide, its concentration in relation to plants, supplementation, the effect of supplemental CO2 on different growing factors, sources of carbon dioxide and control and distribution of CO2.

extension.okstate.edu

Just adding an article for your source.

 

[melchi]

Greenhouse Carbon Dioxide Supplementation - Oklahoma State University

By Megha Poudel and Bruce Dunn. Learn about carbon dioxide, its concentration in relation to plants, supplementation, the effect of supplemental CO2 on different growing factors, sources of carbon dioxide and control and distribution of CO2.

extension.okstate.edu

Just adding an article for your source.

To be fair, I don't think that article supports the more CO2 is always better for plants. It is a bell curve. Above 5000 ppm it becomes toxic to humans. Also CO2 + H2O makes the PH lower. Some of the toxic algae blooms are from water PH getting too low. I'm not saying that CO2 is the only thing that causes this but it can. Certain plants can handle certain enviroments better than others, obviously.

 

[Daitengu]

Look you just did the exact same thing, but moved the date out a little bit. Far enough to be forgotten by the public when the time comes around. Florida or UK isn't going to be underwater in even 100 years. The models that predict such a thing are simple and assumptive.

The polar ice caps get their snow replaced relatively quickly, thats why every year they return to normal and form the ice sheets.
Glaciers melt in some places and grow in others.

That doesn't actually make sense. More heat means colder/harsher blizzards? All because the temp changed a degree or two?
Nonsense.
The climate is dependant on the sun. Weather patterns tend to be oscillating.
Man made climate change aint got nothin on natural changes.
.
CO2 is good for the environment. It's how plants get the carbon to grow.
All these govt carbon "net-zero" policies aren't solving any problem. The "Climate Crisis" is fear mongering. In fact is causing many other crises, like energy and food.
Why is limiting farming and energy production considered a good thing to pursue? Especially with the world population growing.

Look man, those estimates change all the time. Take the Beetlegues red giant for example. Current prediction models say it'll go super nova between 7-50 years from now.

Are you going to bitch about the weatherman because he forecasted rain, but you got none? I don't think you know science enough to understand how fallable prediction is because there is rarely ever enough data points to consider everything and have exact dates.

I see you need to study up on how weather works beyond basic highschool science class.

Here's a basic explanation why you can get more blizzards from global warming.
1. There's a high pressure dome at the poles caused by equatorial heat pushing air to the poles.
2. Heat evaporates water. The more heat, the more water in the atmosphere.
3. The higher density air from being water heavy pushes against the poles in a non uniform pattern because of day/night cycles.
4. In the winter this will cause that dome to buckle and be wavy like a primary school kid art project bowl.
5. That created a rollercoaster effect of warm, cold, warm, cold for a larger range of latitude than normal.
6. What happens to the extra water in air? Blizzard waves.

Dunno about you, but being an adult I like to know the weather. Having watched it for 20 years, you see the patterns and changes. I'm expecting a heat wave from this el nino we've got building. And a mostly dry winter where I live, with a chance for a heavy snow dump if the weather from the Pacific yanks around the key stream.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

To be fair, I don't think that article supports the more CO2 is always better for plants. It is a bell curve. Above 5000 ppm it becomes toxic to humans. Also CO2 + H2O makes the PH lower. Some of the toxic algae blooms are from water PH getting too low. I'm not saying that CO2 is the only thing that causes this but it can. Certain plants can handle certain enviroments better than others, obviously.

True.

I was just pointing out most tend to overlook things when it comes to the environment. pH levels of soil can cause issues for some plants while others would thrive in those different levels.

Main point being that CO2 isn’t the end all be all. I really think that most of the CO2 being emitted is out of control when we consider the idea that the earth has a “molten crust” in most of the theories.

Now too much CO2 at once could likely cause climate change, but there is so much we don’t know that to try and force people to live uncomfortably to solve the issue is only self-serving to the global elites.

 

[melchi]

Ad Hominem

www.txst.edu

I alluded to this earlier but above is a definition of the logical fallacy know as Ad-Hominem. I'd suggest anyone looking to get a good grade in their speech to avoid this.