Climate change and overpopulation

[AnonUnlimited]

A climate model is more than just CO2 emissions, but apparently that is beyond you.

The fact is, human intervention caused a massive irreversible shift in Mediterranean climate not necessarily due to macroscopic factors, but rather due to microscopic factors already during the early stage of human civilisation.

You argument was that we humans have no influence. I disagree. We have.

No, my argument was that man made use of oil does not have a large impact, and even if the climate is changing it’s not world ending or flood crisis like predicated by climate alarmists.

And I’m arguing that CO2 emissions are the wrong thing to focus on.

Climate is always changing, plant more trees and protect the forests.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

No, my argument was that man made use of oil does not have a large impact, and even if the climate is changing it’s not world ending or flood crisis like predicated by climate alarmists.

And I’m arguing that CO2 emissions are the wrong thing to focus on.

Climate is always changing, plant more trees and protect the forests.

I think you forgot a Q before your username. No need to repeat the propaganda of the oil multinationals now after 50 years.

 

[Deleted member 84247]

 

[AnonUnlimited]

I think you forgot a Q before your username. No need to repeat the propaganda of the oil multinationals now after 50 years.

Ad homenim.

accuse the other person of being brainwashed because he has a point you can’t refute

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

Ad homenim.

accuse the other person of being brainwashed because he has a point you can’t refute

Look, you have long since left the realm of rationality, so talking to you makes no sense. You won't change your opinion, anyway, regardless of how misguided you are.

Furthermore, you talk like them. You sound like them. A bit more eloquent, admittedly, but that doesn't change your underlying tone. Sometimes, a duck is a duck.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

To hell with this. @justabot Please, lock this thread.

I’m preparing a speech on climate change and overpopulation, and I need your input.

The general rules for posting: Threads and posts related to religion and politics are banned. The topic is too volatile.

Other: No homework help threads

 

[AnonUnlimited]

Look, you have long since left the realm of rationality, so talking to you makes no sense. You won't change your opinion, anyway, regardless of how misguided you are.

Again, ad hominem.

You didn’t even try to talk about anything, you came in the middle of a conversation talking about forests when we were talking about articles.

When I asked what it had to do, you explained it then stated “your argument is this” when I corrected you on what I meant you started accusing me as misguided and all this other stuff.

Really man. I’m very rational, you just don’t have a point nor do you want to discuss this because you are afraid it might lead to discovering something you don’t want.

This is a defense mechanism people put up which is why debating on the internet is pointless.

Have a nice day, we can just agree to disagree, there is no need to attack someone or poison the well.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

Again, ad hominem.

You didn’t even try to talk about anything, you came in the middle of a conversation talking about forests when we were talking about articles.

When I asked what it had to do, you explained it then stated “your argument is this” when I corrected you on what I meant you started accusing me as misguided and all this other stuff.

Really man. I’m very rational, you just don’t have a point nor do you want to discuss this because you are afraid it might lead to discovering something you don’t want.

This is a defense mechanism people put up which is why debating on the internet is pointless.

Have a nice day, we can just agree to disagree, there is no need to attack someone or poison the well.

Look, I am too long in this game to not see your bs. You are schooled in rhetoric, but nothing else.

Talking with you is completely senseless, a waste of time, because your premise is fundamentally flawed.

Now you leave with a set of candid words in an attempt to appear reasonable. You are the most insidious type of denies that exists. You appear clam on the surface, but below you are full of lies and deceit.

You retreat when getting exposed.

You claim human fossil fuel consumption has no impact on the current world climate. That premise is evidently quite wrong and far from defensible.

So why are you doing this?

 

[AnonUnlimited]

Look, I am too long in this game to not see your bs. You are schooled in rhetoric, but nothing else.

Talking with you is completely senseless, a waste of time, because your premise is fundamentally flawed.

Now you leave with a set of candid words in an attempt to appear reasonable. You are the most insidious type of denies that exists. You appear clam on the surface, but below you are full of lies and deceit.

You retreat when getting exposed.

You claim human fossil fuel consumption has no impact on the current world climate. That premise is evidently quite wrong and far from defensible.

So why are you doing this?

Ad hominem.
Argument from authority.
Poisoning the well.
Gaslighting.

At least I can see your true colors. If you just want to name all go ahead, otherwise please get back to the topic.

 

[Deleted member 76176]

@justabot please, lock this thread before it escalates any more.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

Ad hominem.
Argument from authority.
Poisoning the well.
Gaslighting.

At least I can see your true colors. If you just want to name all go ahead, otherwise please get back to the topic.

Then, let's break it down, what is your central argument? What is your thesis, Anon?

 

[AnonUnlimited]

Then, let's break it down, what is your central argument? What is your thesis, Anon?

Climate change is constantly occurring, but whether it’s linked to man-made co2 emissions is not proven.

However, logically we need oxygen producing plants to make sure we can still breathe such as forests.

Plants and living things can also work as carbon storage if people are worried that we are bringing too much carbon out of the ground, once they die just bury them, that’s carbon not in the air.

As far as greenhouse gases go though, I find it more believable that underwater volcanic activity produces a lot more than man does, however again it’s inconclusive.

I don’t have a solution, but I don’t believe the current green politics solution of mining lithium and then putting the batteries into they landfill is a good solution, it might make the air cleaner but it polluted in a different way (plus the main problem if you’re worried about CO2 is the fact all energy usage produces it including nuclear power, which is what powers those cars and your phones as well).

I guess you could say, I don’t know, but I don’t believe in the current solutions and think focusing on making oxygen producers is better than not burning oil.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

Climate change is constantly occurring, but whether it’s linked to man-made co2 emissions is not proven.

However, logically we need oxygen producing plants to make sure we can still breathe such as forests.

Plants and living things can also work as carbon storage if people are worried that we are bringing too much carbon out of the ground, once they die just bury them, that’s carbon not in the air.

As far as greenhouse gases go though, I find it more believable that underwater volcanic activity produces a lot more than man does, however again it’s inconclusive.

I don’t have a solution, but I don’t believe the current green politics solution of mining lithium and then putting the batteries into they landfill is a good solution, it might make the air cleaner but it polluted in a different way (plus the main problem if you’re worried about CO2 is the fact all energy usage produces it including nuclear power, which is what powers those cars and your phones as well).

I guess you could say, I don’t know, but I don’t believe in the current solutions and think focusing on making oxygen producers is better than not burning oil.

Brevity is the clarity of spirit, so keep yourself short. I want no arguments. I just want to confirm your thesis. Your statement.

So you, essentially, state that anthropogenic climate change caused by man made CO2 is not proven? Or do you state that anthropogenic climate change is general is not proven? Am I correct?

 

[AnonUnlimited]

Brevity is the clarity of spirit, so keep yourself short. I want no arguments. I just want to confirm your thesis. Your statement.

So you, essentially, state that anthropogenic climate change caused by man made CO2 is not proven? Or do you state that anthropogenic climate change is general is not proven? Am I correct?

Not proven, but it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. And even if it is happening, to what degree is the question.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

Not proven, but it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. And even if it is happening, to what degree is the question.

So, if I understand correctly, you don't deny climate change itself, but rather our part in it, correct?

So, you acknowledge that a global heating is going on and that is also caused by rising CO2 levels, but you say that it is not us causing it?

 

[AnonUnlimited]

So, if I understand correctly, you don't deny climate change itself, but rather our part in it, correct?

So, you acknowledge that a global heating is going on and that is also caused by rising CO2 levels, but you say that it is not us causing it?

1. I don’t deny our part in it.

2. Loaded question.

I don’t know about global heating since I don’t take worldly measurements. Rising CO2 levels is possible, whether it’s causing it is unknown since all we have are simulation models. Answer is “I don’t know, but I don’t believe it’s as bad as some want us to believe.”

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

1. I don’t deny our part in it.

2. Loaded question.

I don’t know about global heating since I don’t take worldly measurements. Rising CO2 levels is possible, whether it’s causing it is unknown since all we have are simulation models. Answer is “I don’t know, but I don’t believe it’s as bad as some want us to believe.”

This is why I am asking for your feedback. I try to define your position, so I must necessarily ask all possibilities.

1. So you acknowledge our part in it.

2. You have doubts about both the degree of heating and CO2 levels.

So all in all, you admit that there is an anthropogenic climate change taking place, and you admit that we are behind it as a conditio sine qua non.

You merely doubt the impact of climate change and that the consequences will be manageable? That is your point, as far as I understand.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

This is why I am asking for your feedback. I try to define your position, so I must necessarily ask all possibilities.

1. So you acknowledge our part in it.

2. You have doubts about both the degree of heating and CO2 levels.

So all in all, you admit that there is an anthropogenic climate change taking place, and you admit that we are behind it as a conditio sine qua non.

You merely doubt the impact of climate change and that the consequences will be manageable? That is your point, as far as I understand.

If you want to know my exact position.

Im against all the measures and solutions that current green politicians and and the WEF are suggesting. Other than that, I do believe in climate change.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

If you want to know my exact position.

Im against all the measures and solutions that current green politicians and and the WEF are suggesting. Other than that, I do believe in climate change.

Then why do you say stuff like, "Climate change is constantly occurring, but whether it’s linked to man-made co2 emissions is not proven."#

If you didn't, I wouldn't be here arguing with you.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

Then why do you say stuff like, "Climate change is constantly occurring, but whether it’s linked to man-made co2 emissions is not proven."#

View attachment 19277

If you didn't, I wouldn't be here arguing with you.

Because it’s happening regardless of our own emissions.

If there is oil in the ground, and it lights on fire due to magma then that emission is happening right? So why are we letting the oil be burned by itself, why not use it for our own means and try to find a proper solution if it’s a big concern instead?