Climate change and overpopulation

[Assurbanipal_II]

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?

Then why did you say, " 1. I don’t deny our part in it."

If you are saying, it is happening regardless, then you are denying our part in. You say that we are not the crucial factor. So you are arguing against anthropogenic climate change, after all.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

Then why did you say, " 1. I don’t deny our part in it."

View attachment 19278

If you are saying, it is happening regardless, then you are denying our part in. You say that we are not the crucial factor. So you are arguing against anthropogenic climate change, after all.

Deforestation is our part in it
Lithium mining too
Poisoning the ground where plants can’t gro

Pollution in the ocean such as plastics which can affect marine plants and life… erc

that’s our part.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

Deforestation is our part in it
Lithium mining too
Poisoning the ground where plants can’t gro

Pollution in the ocean such as plastics which can affect marine plants and life… erc

that’s our part.

Then say it openly. Say that an anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist. Say that the current events are a "natural" progression of climate.

Do you agree with these statements?

 

[AnonUnlimited]

Then say it openly. Say that an anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist. Say that the current events are a "natural" progression of climate.

Do you agree with these statements?

I never made the claim anthropogenic climate change doesn’t exist. Also I never used the term anthropogenic. I’ve only stated manmade climate change is debate-able because majority of people default to CO2 emissions instead of everything else.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

I never made the claim anthropogenic climate change doesn’t exist. Also I never used the term anthropogenic. I’ve only stated manmade climate change is debate-able because majority of people default to CO2 emissions instead of everything else.

Anthropogenic is just the scientific term for man made.

And, yes, you claimed so. You said, "Because it’s happening regardless of our own emissions."

That means that we are not the crucial factor. If something happens regardless of our activity, then it is not man made. We merely accelerate it, but it is not man made. It is a natural trend. So, yes, you deny anthropogenic climate change.

It is happening regardless of our own emissions. It is man made. These statements cannot be true at the same time. It is either or.

Unless, what is causing it then according to you? What is the crucial factor behind it?

 

[Deleted member 84247]

This thread needs nuked. @justabot

 

[AnonUnlimited]

And, yes, you claimed so. You said, "Because it’s happening regardless of our own emissions."

That means that we are not the crucial factor. If something happens regardless of our activity, then it is not man made. We merely accelerate it, but it is not man made. It is a natural trend. So, yes, you deny anthropogenic climate change.

You seem to have some difficulty understanding that climate will change regardless of what we do, and we may also be accelerating it.

That they can be two different things and not black and white.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

You seem to have some difficulty understanding that climate will change regardless of what we do, and we may also be accelerating it.

That they can be two different things and not black and white.

These statements are correct only with a certain premise. Granted, you have the one in question.

 

[Deleted member 76176]

That means that we are not the crucial factor. If something happens regardless of our activity, then it is not man made. We merely accelerate it, but it is not man made. It is a natural trend. So, yes, you deny anthropogenic climate change.

Honey, it is a bit more complex than that. Climate change is indeed a natural progression as there are many natural phenomena outside human factors. We know this because climate scientists study them. However, the current warming trend is largely attributed to the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation and other man-made measures.

 

[greyblob]

climate change... curious... hmm...perchance...

 

[AnonUnlimited]

Honey, it is a bit more complex than that. Climate change is indeed a natural progression as there are many natural phenomena outside human factors. We know this because climate scientists study them. However, the current warming trend is largely attributed to the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation and other man-made measures.

Honey...

Anyway in summary.
The biggest debate about climate change isn't whether the climate is changing. Most 'climate deniers' aren't arguing that it isn't changing but that the problem isn't as big or as alarming as those who are 'advocates' against it. The biggest debate is more about what the solution is, if CO2 is really a problem then what should we do about it?

The more 'alarming' the problem is, the more people are willing to take extreme measures, that's the problem. Hence anyone who is alarmed is going to be turned off by someone who isn't alarmed because they're not in as much panic about it as they are.

Also, if someone is just fighting to have a roof over their head and enough to eat, you're not going to get them to care about the climate, the pollution or anything else. Just look at how Asia uses cheap plastics...

Actually... this ties in well with the overpopulation problem. It's not an issue of overpopulation, but more an issue of uncontrolled population... but anyway, hope your paper goes well.

No hard feelings.

 

[Deleted member 84247]

Honey...

Anyway in summary.
The biggest debate about climate change isn't whether the climate is changing. Most 'climate deniers' aren't arguing that it isn't changing but that the problem isn't as big or as alarming as those who are 'advocates' against it. The biggest debate is more about what the solution is, if CO2 is really a problem then what should we do about it?

The more 'alarming' the problem is, the more people are willing to take extreme measures, that's the problem. Hence anyone who is alarmed is going to be turned off by someone who isn't alarmed because they're not in as much panic about it as they are.

Also, if someone is just fighting to have a roof over their head and enough to eat, you're not going to get them to care about the climate, the pollution or anything else. Just look at how Asia uses cheap plastics...

Actually... this ties in well with the overpopulation problem. It's not an issue of overpopulation, but more an issue of uncontrolled population... but anyway, hope your paper goes well.

No hard feelings.

Climate change...Hope your paper goes well...Deforestation is a problem.

*Gasp*! Don't write the paper!

 

[AnonUnlimited]

Climate change...Hope your paper goes well...Deforestation is a problem.

*Gasp*! Don't write the paper!

I think it was a speech.

 

[Jemini]

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.

Right. I'm going to need some literature for the "reprograms your cell's DNA" part as I've seen no literature on that subject.

That said, assuming it is correct, there is still one essential component of a virus this is missing. The ability to reproduce itself. A virus is technically on the line between whether or not it can be considered a lifeform due to the fact it can reproduce. Meanwhile, the mRNA vaccine can't. It does not cause a cell to produce more of itself, and therefore it ends after it infects it's initial wave of cells.

Also, while the rest of the information you've said more or less lines up with the detriments of the vaccine I've heard of (I've never disagreed it's something we rushed into and has a lot of negative effects unreported and a criminally bad lack of efficacy that would have never passed the FDA's muster as "having more benefits than risks" if the testing was done properly,) I feel I should still prompt you to cite sources on the rest of the claims you're making, because you are making some very specific claims here that need to be backed up.

 

[Sabruness]

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.

i will +1 to this. both extreme sides are egregiously guilty of fudging things to support their views. it's hard to be a realistic centrist on the topic as well because either side will accuse you of being the other when you point out their creative manipulation of the numbers and data.

 

[Daitengu]

I pay attention to the weather as well.
I also think it’s funny that the best argument you had against CO2 emissions was never mentioned, despite me goading you.

CO2 in the ground coming out and “having no replacement storage and taking up oxygen.”

If you’re talking logically, the only mathematical argument that make sense is that we are adding Carbon to the air without having a quick enough way to convert it back into carbon storage (like trees or plants), thus using up the free oxygen molecules.

However, if we grow more plants, so more farming and planting trees could mitigate that and also produce more oxygen in the process. Even living things like animals are also “carbon storage” since when we die whether by starvation or something else, we turn back to dust (carbon) and are put in the ground.

Fat people store more carbon.

I just really don’t believe “preventing CO2 emission” is the best solution.

I didn't say it because I hoped you knew the general concept. And the way you speak about it shows you don't hold much stock in what they're selling. Which is fair, cause I'm dubious about them as well.

Example: Canada claims to be carbon neutral with their massive woodlands. Too bad scientific review shows them to be ignoring things like wild fires and oil refinement to get that claim.

Example 2: carbon capture plastic leaves. It's just a dumb pipe dream with no physical prototypes.

Personally, I see the graphine techs being worked on as a way to create carbon demand. The holy grail techs would be cheap conversions of CO and CO2 and diamond formation. Do note cell phone screens are made of the same stuff as ruby these days. I'd love for artificial diamond to get cheap enough that we use that instead.

Unfortunately the CO2 parts per million graphs show that while we'll live with high CO2(cause dinos had like 1000+ ppm), we'll get shifts in weather, and less landmass. Watching the desert move eastward over the years is likely my main concern. The corpo farms are really doin a number on the aquifer trying to keep their farms goin here in Kansas. The weathermen also note the tornado alley is shifting eastward into Arkansas and Missouri.

...

For my region desertification of farmlands is the main concern of the locals. Which higher temp climate change has been shown to, and will continue to strengthen over time.

 

[Midnight-Phantom]

When it comes to topics like these, I often refer to them as Pandora's box. It's best to keep it closed because once opened, it can lead to disastrous effects. There are numerous subjects like this, and as sentient beings, we all hold different opinions, each with valid points that need to be addressed.

It's important to recognize that everyone's viewpoint is shaped by their knowledge, life experiences, biases, empathy, and a range of emotions. There will never be a single topic that all humans or any sentient life form within society can unanimously agree upon. So, it's crucial not to haphazardly open Pandora's box, and if it does happen, approach it with impartiality while being mindful that people will react differently.


So be good keyboard warriors keep eating cookies..

 

[Deleted member 113259]

There will never be a single topic that all humans or any sentient life form within society can unanimously agree upon.

Without joking. Is it good to kick a baby in the head? Baby didn't do anything bizarre like holding a bank teller hostage, it's just a normal perfectly healthy baby that cries, eats, sleeps, etc. So is it good to kick it in the head? I say no, those that disagree please share.

 

[Midnight-Phantom]

Without joking. Is it good to kick a baby in the head? Baby didn't do anything bizarre like holding a bank teller hostage, it's just a normal perfectly healthy baby that cries, eats, sleeps, etc. So is it good to kick it in the head? I say no, those that disagree please share.

I want to make it clear that it is absolutely not okay to kick a baby in the head or harm them in any way.

Babies are innocent and vulnerable, and it is our responsibility as adults to protect and care for them. Any form of violence towards babies or any living being is completely unacceptable

Even then, you might come across such incidents in the news where people commit such acts.

It raises the question of whether they, and even you and I, share the same moral principles ?

 

[Deleted member 113259]

It raises the question of whether they, and even you and I, share the same moral principles ?

If they were raised in Western civilization they likely do share a lot of the same principles as us, the only difference is those people don't care about trying to be moral people. Anyone that would try to justify such heinous behavior is either too delusional to be judged on the same scale as normal people or is sane but knowingly evil.