Climate change and overpopulation

[Sabruness]

In terms of overpopulation...

In the 1800s, they were saying the streets would be unwalkable due to horse-poop being everywhere if the population continued to increase at it's current rate... That didn't happen, because the automobile was invented and people stopped using horses.

Later, there was a paper predicting that the population could not possibly exceed 1 billion because the planet's ability to produce food simply could not measure up to such a population, even if every single square-inch of arable land was converted to farmland.

Once again, this didn't happen. This was not due to the calculations being wrong. In fact, the calculations were pretty darn solid. Once again, the reason it didn't happen and the world's population is now around 8X what they said was the peak the planet could sustain is, again, because technology advanced in the area of food production, allowing us to produce more food with less land.

Every time it's predicted we are reaching a population cap for various reasons, new technology is invented that allows us to break past those previous limits.

that's humanity for you. just as we are exceedingly creative in coming up with new and grotesque ways to kill each other, so too are we exceedingly creative in creating our way out of preconceived and and supposedly unbreakable limits. and sometimes.... sometimes they come together to create something that revolutionizes a field for all.

 

[Daitengu]

You can also pull up the same on the other side, people actively funding climate alarmism. Just because people are funding something doesn't automatically make it incorrect.

The difference is in the evidence presented by both sides. The denial side is always being called out on fudging numbers. So then the denial side chose to go the government conspiracy route, and the "solar is a very dirty process to make" route. It's obvious they don't have good arguments or evidence so they constantly move the goal post that always favors oil.

An example of the same thing can be seen with the World Health Organization and their denying of covid's origin. With evidence of bribery and all.

 

[NotaNuffian]

... thread still not locked.

Guess the argument isn't as heated.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

The difference is in the evidence presented by both sides. The denial side is always being called out on fudging numbers. So then the denial side chose to go the government conspiracy route, and the "solar is a very dirty process to make" route. It's obvious they don't have good arguments or evidence so they constantly move the goal post that always favors oil.

An example of the same thing can be seen with the World Health Organization and their denying of covid's origin. With evidence of bribery and all.

You’re joking right?
only one side fudges numbers?

They both fudge numbers with theoretical models all the time. Hence why being too much into one side is practically a religion.

THE CLIMATE IS ALWAYS CHANGING, it’s just one side says it’s not while the other is saying man is doing all of it, and both are bogus.

 

[Lloyd]

You can tell global warming isn't real by the effects it has on on the world. All information about it is propaganda, but you can see through it if you ask yourself why.
Why is there a push to convince people of global warming?
The short answer is money, but also control.
Convincing people of a threat to their existence is a great motivator. It helps drive political activism in a way that threatens no one in power, while reducing the power and influence of major oil and gas corporations. Then you have a new industry the government can launder money through to themselves and their friends. And to top it all of, the state gets bigger and more powerful.
Now let's look at what is happening to suggest global warming doesn't exist.
The most powerful evidence for this in my opinion is the sea level.
If the earth really is warming up, then we expect the ice caps to melt and the sea level to go up. This would make things like beach front property worth less as the years go by rather than more, but we don't see this at all. In fact we see the ice caps getting bigger year over year, rather than smaller. If anything earth seems to be heading towards a new ice age.
Overall, global warming is fake and gay and anyone who believes in it is retarded.
The end.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

@Reinaislost Why the hell did you open a portal to Twitter?

 

[Deleted member 76176]

@Reinaislost Why the hell did you open a portal to Twitter?

Generally, I'd have used Reddit, but I'm not using my account as part of the protest (I'm documenting it), and I don't think the results would have been more varied depending on the sub I asked. So this is the next-best alternative I had. Whether the takes are good or bad, regardless, they are going to help me with my presentation.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

Generally, I'd have used Reddit, but I'm not using my account as part of the protest (I'm documenting it), and I don't think the results would have been more varied depending on the sub I asked. So this is the next-best alternative I had. Whether the takes are good or bad, regardless, they are going to help me with my presentation.

 

[Deleted member 76176]

If the earth really is warming up, then we expect the ice caps to melt and the sea level to go up. This would make things like beach front property worth less as the years go by rather than more, but we don't see this at all. In fact we see the ice caps getting bigger year over year, rather than smaller. If anything earth seems to be heading towards a new ice age.

The effects of climate change are measured in decades and centuries instead of years. So while we may not experience the more catastrophic effects of these changes while we are alive, the results are increasingly becoming more evident.
The world has gone through climate changes before and it will survive. However, how our future generations will experience this cannot be said. The infrastructure we develop takes into account that things are likely to stay the way they are.

As for the ice thing: There’s land ice and there’s sea ice. The melting of glaciers (land ice) is what you should be worried about since it is melting at an alarming rate. As for why sea ice is increasing, this has been studied before.

The water around Antarctica is more fresh than it has been in pervious years because of increased snow and rainfall as well as increased contribution of fresh water from melting land ice.

This fresh, cold water is less dense than the warmer, saltier water below. Previously, that warm salty water would rise, melting the sea ice. But now, because of the lighter fresh water on top, there is less mixing of the ocean's layers and the surface stays cooler, longer.

Geniune question: do you guys had chapters dedicated to global warming, CFC, noble gases, the effects of deforestation, and the thinning of ozone layer in school text books?

 

[Lloyd]

The effects of climate change are measured in decades and centuries instead of years. So while we may not experience the more catastrophic effects of these changes while we are alive, the results are increasingly becoming more evident.
The world has gone through climate changes before and it will survive. However, how our future generations will experience this cannot be said. The infrastructure we develop takes into account that things are likely to stay the way they are.

As for the ice thing: There’s land ice and there’s sea ice. The melting of glaciers (land ice) is what you should be worried about since it is melting at an alarming rate. As for why sea ice is increasing, this has been studied before.

The water around Antarctica is more fresh than it has been in pervious years because of increased snow and rainfall as well as increased contribution of fresh water from melting land ice.

This fresh, cold water is less dense than the warmer, saltier water below. Previously, that warm salty water would rise, melting the sea ice. But now, because of the lighter fresh water on top, there is less mixing of the ocean's layers and the surface stays cooler, longer.

Geniune question: do you guys had chapters dedicated to global warming, CFC, noble gases, the effects of deforestation, and the thinning of ozone layer in school text books?

Except the fact that the propaganda is that the world is only a few years away from complete climate catastrophe, and yet it never comes.

 

[Daitengu]

You’re joking right?
only one side fudges numbers?

They both fudge numbers with theoretical models all the time. Hence why being too much into one side is practically a religion.

THE CLIMATE IS ALWAYS CHANGING, it’s just one side says it’s not while the other is saying man is doing all of it, and both are bogus.

Heh, skipping my argument of moving goal post with an accusation. All the governments fudge CO2 numbers, to make themselves look better, which is the main argument for deniers.

Ice sheet data, air samples, and ocean temperature data are hard data, which show human caused global warming. Deniers conveniently didn't talk about, or showed graphs with numbers inconsistent with the data.

But really after big oil got caught paying people to be public deniers, suddenly there's far less people in that camp. Kinda similar to big tobacco's campaign to cover up the whole addiction and lung cancer evidence.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

Geniune question: do you guys had chapters dedicated to global warming, CFC, noble gases, the effects of deforestation, and the thinning of ozone layer in school text books?

Yes. I’ve read all of that.

Heh, skipping my argument of moving goal post with an accusation. All the governments fudge CO2 numbers, to make themselves look better, which is the main argument for deniers.

Ice sheet data, air samples, and ocean temperature data are hard data, which show human caused global warming. Deniers conveniently didn't talk about, or showed graphs with numbers inconsistent with the data.

But really after big oil got caught paying people to be public deniers, suddenly there's far less people in that camp. Kinda similar to big tobacco's campaign to cover up the whole addiction and lung cancer evidence.

I’m not moving any goal post.

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.

You need to also put your crosshairs on the green politics.

When the people telling us to use less CO2, are the same people buying up beach front property and flying huge ass luxury air crafts with carrying their luxurious gas guzzling limousines to climate meetings, something is definitely wrong.

There is way more money and government spending than big oil can muster for all of their theoretical models for why we need to eat bugs, have 0 children and own nothing.

 

[Daitengu]

Except the fact that the propaganda is that the world is only a few years away from complete climate catastrophe, and yet it never comes.

Heh, doomsday cult is always at it.

Really it's the media banking on sensational titles to get views. Unfortunately it's causing artificial panic. Though, without it, the gov would just let big corp keep on poisoning all the things cause it's a percentage cheaper than the healthy alternative. On the other hand, big corp just owns alot of politicians in many nations these days.

Yes. I’ve read all of that.



I’m not moving any goal post.

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.

You need to also put your crosshairs on the green politics.

When the people telling us to use less CO2, are the same people buying up beach front property and flying huge ass luxury air crafts with carrying their luxurious gas guzzling limousines to climate meetings, something is definitely wrong.

There is way more money and government spending than big oil can muster for all of their theoretical models for why we need to eat bugs, have 0 children and own nothing.

You do know that's just PR right?

It's like that shitty Bobby Kotick Vanity Fair article where he claims to be a good guy and pro union, while systematically preventing a union at Blizzard, and straight threatemed to have a woman killed.

Those rich assholes don't care, they juat want to look good to the public.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

Heh, doomsday cult is always at it.

Really it's the media banking on sensational titles to get views. Unfortunately it's causing artificial panic. Though, without it, the gov would just let big corp keep on poisoning all the things cause it's a percentage cheaper than the healthy alternative. On the other hand, big corp just owns alot of politicians in many nations these days.

You do know that's just PR right?

It's like that shitty Bobby Kotick Vanity Fair article where he claims to be a good guy and pro union, while systematically preventing a union at Blizzard, and straight threatemed to have a woman killed.

Those rich assholes don't care, they juat want to look good to the public.

Lol, when politicians own stock in Green energy, they create a market for it. Yea it’s definitely PR.

-_-

I prefer to look at what people do more than what they say.

Big oil wants to sell me cheap energy.

Green wants me to:

1. buy 60k lithium battery cars with batteries they haven’t figured out it how to recycle, and costs 30k to replace the battery every 7-10 years.

2. Eat bugs for protein or lab grown meat.

3. Not have children.

4. Not travel, while their people can.

5. Pay a tax just for breathing.

I’m just saying. Really think about it. Don’t submit to a false dichotomy that because one is wrong the other is right.

They can both be wrong, but it’s kind of obvious Green is the more evil of the two.

 

[Deleted member 76176]

Except the fact that the propaganda is that the world is only a few years away from complete climate catastrophe, and yet it never comes.

Curious. I've never actually seen anyone claim that the world is going to die in the near future. This could be because I'm not an avid news reader, and the books and papers I read never backed up the claim. To begin with, the reason governments are unwilling to switch to more environmentally friendly options is because this isn't a problem of the imminent future. Not completely, at least.

While I agree that fossil fuels are great, we could transition over time instead of all at once. This would allow us to keep the finite nature of the resources and environmental impact in mind.

When the people telling us to use less CO2, are the same people buying up beach front property and flying huge ass luxury air crafts with carrying their luxurious gas guzzling limousines to climate meetings, something is definitely wrong.

There is way more money and government spending than big oil can muster for all of their theoretical models for why we need to eat bugs, have 0 children and own nothing.

That's a logical fallacy, though. Just because the politicians are bad doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist, not to mention the gross misrepresentation of the solutions climate scientists suggest.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

That's a logical fallacy, though. Just because the politicians are bad doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist, not to mention the gross misrepresentation of the solutions climate scientists suggest.

It's not a logical fallacy. Anon keeps saying that the problem exists, but this problem isn't AS bad as politicians claim.

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

@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.

But really after big oil got caught paying people to be public deniers, suddenly there's far less people in that camp. Kinda similar to big tobacco's campaign to cover up the whole addiction and lung cancer evidence.

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.

 

[Deleted member 76176]

It's not a logical fallacy. Anon keeps saying that the problem exists, but this problem isn't AS bad as politicians claim.

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.

 

[Daitengu]

Lol, when politicians own stock in Green energy, they create a market for it. Yea it’s definitely PR.

-_-

I prefer to look at what people do more than what they say.

Big oil wants to sell me cheap energy.

Green wants me to:

1. buy 60k lithium battery cars with batteries they haven’t figured out it how to recycle, and costs 30k to replace the battery every 7-10 years.

2. Eat bugs for protein or lab grown meat.

3. Not have children.

4. Not travel, while their people can.

5. Pay a tax just for breathing.

I’m just saying. Really think about it. Don’t submit to a false dichotomy that because one is wrong the other is right.

They can both be wrong, but it’s kind of obvious Green is the more evil of the two.

See, you're tying two different issues together. Global warming being a thing is one thing. The other is absolute trashy snake oil salesmen looking to scam you a quick fix solution while paying off the gov to prevent painful but nessesary reforms.

Liket he gov needs to stop zoning suburbs and shift to multilevel buildings. Or stop preventing people from owning apartments, and stop the whole rent price hike conspiracy goin on. Housing reform like this will go a lot farther to reducing CO2 emissions than ANOTHER device to buy.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

That's a logical fallacy, though. Just because the politicians are bad doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist, not to mention the gross misrepresentation of the solutions climate scientists suggest.

It's not a logical fallacy. Anon keeps saying that the problem exists, but this problem isn't AS bad as politicians claim.

What Sailus said.
Pollution is a problem, I just think the solution to carbon is planting more trees, not necessarily cutting back on use.

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.

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, so I'm sorry.

Wrong, I claimed that we aren’t affecting the climate by breathing. If we don’t take care of the forests, we could be affecting the climate that way.
Photosynthesis is required to reduce CO2 in the air.

See, you're tying two different issues together. Global warming being a thing is one thing. The other is absolute trashy snake oil salesmen looking to scam you a quick fix solution while paying off the gov to prevent painful but nessesary reforms.

Liket he gov needs to stop zoning suburbs and shift to multilevel buildings. Or stop preventing people from owning apartments, and stop the whole rent price hike conspiracy goin on. Housing reform like this will go a lot farther to reducing CO2 emissions than ANOTHER device to buy.

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.