Jump to content

Climate change morons


Cardboard
 Share

Recommended Posts

That is what happens when you let these morons take over:

 

"Amid rising tensions in Northern British Columbia, where a handful of activists are protesting the Coastal GasLink pipeline -- and where the RCMP recently opened a criminal investigation after finding "traps" and "bags full of fuel-soaked rags" along the project's access road -- the fates have decided to insert a good chuckle. Recently the project's proponents were left scratching their heads after a United Nations committee called on Canada to suspend Coastal GasLink (among other projects) until it obtains indigenous backing. The project does, in fact, enjoy broad indigenous backing, with all 20 of the bands along the route having signed support agreements. This utterly escaped the attention of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. In the wake of the committee's report on how "disturbed" and "alarmed" it feels at Coastal GasLink's supposedly callous treatment of the locals, someone has finally decided to tell the poor committee what is going on. It came as a great surprise to committee chairman Nourredine Amir. "I did not know that most first nations agree on [Coastal GasLink]. That is something new that comes to my understanding," he told Reuters yesterday. Reuters took it from there: "Asked why the committee did not gather more information, [Mr.] Amir said its role does not include investigations." Indeed. In fairness, the committee's 18 members are described as "experts of high moral standing and acknowledged impartiality." Rudimentary research skills are not part of the job description."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And look what's happening in Australia - environmentalist created disaster:  no clearing of underbrush for years due to the know it all environmentalists.

Years of fuel sources pile up and now catastrophic wildfires with no end.

 

These people are idiots.

 

I'm glad your limited knowledge of brush fires came in handy to back your argument.  The underbrush is not the only reason for the Australian fires.  Alot of that underbrush is drier, almost kindling like, due to warmer weather and less rain every year.  No different than the large fires we are now facing in BC and Alberta, which did not occur in such scale since I've been alive...50 years. 

 

You have extremists in the climate change argument, and they actually do a disservice to those that actually understand the science, changes in climate (both natural and man-made), and the consequences it will create for humanity over the next 100 years.  But constantly bashing those who are bringing it to your attention and trying to find balance between economics and quality of life...well, if you have children or grand-children, you should certainly give it some thought and what they could be facing in their lifetime when you are gone.  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And look what's happening in Australia - environmentalist created disaster:  no clearing of underbrush for years due to the know it all environmentalists.

Years of fuel sources pile up and now catastrophic wildfires with no end.

 

These people are idiots.

 

I'm glad your limited knowledge of brush fires came in handy to back your argument.  The underbrush is not the only reason for the Australian fires.  Alot of that underbrush is drier, almost kindling like, due to warmer weather and less rain every year.  No different than the large fires we are now facing in BC and Alberta, which did not occur in such scale since I've been alive...50 years. 

 

You have extremists in the climate change argument, and they actually do a disservice to those that actually understand the science, changes in climate (both natural and man-made), and the consequences it will create for humanity over the next 100 years.  But constantly bashing those who are bringing it to your attention and trying to find balance between economics and quality of life...well, if you have children or grand-children, you should certainly give it some thought and what they could be facing in their lifetime when you are gone.  Cheers!

 

Sorry you don't know what you are talking about pal. The Australian event is a man-made disaster created by policies and regulations preventing

the traditional seasonal controlled burnoff (during the wet season) of underbrush that has gone on for decades in Australia. Gutless politicians

did not stand up to "the greenies" in Australia who were overly concerned about CO2 emissions.

 

Why don't you study the problem yourself instead embracing the fear mongering power of your extremist infant, Greta Thunberg?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And look what's happening in Australia - environmentalist created disaster:  no clearing of underbrush for years due to the know it all environmentalists.

Years of fuel sources pile up and now catastrophic wildfires with no end.

 

These people are idiots.

 

I'm glad your limited knowledge of brush fires came in handy to back your argument.  The underbrush is not the only reason for the Australian fires.  Alot of that underbrush is drier, almost kindling like, due to warmer weather and less rain every year.  No different than the large fires we are now facing in BC and Alberta, which did not occur in such scale since I've been alive...50 years. 

 

You have extremists in the climate change argument, and they actually do a disservice to those that actually understand the science, changes in climate (both natural and man-made), and the consequences it will create for humanity over the next 100 years.  But constantly bashing those who are bringing it to your attention and trying to find balance between economics and quality of life...well, if you have children or grand-children, you should certainly give it some thought and what they could be facing in their lifetime when you are gone.  Cheers!

 

Sorry you don't know what you are talking about pal. The Australian event is a man-made disaster created by policies and regulations preventing

the traditional seasonal controlled burnoff (during the wet season) of underbrush that has gone on for decades in Australia. Gutless politicians

did not stand up to "the greenies" in Australia who were overly concerned about CO2 emissions.

 

Why don't you study the problem yourself instead embracing the fear mongering power of your extremist infant, Greta Thunberg?

 

Do you ignore science solely because it disproves your argument?  The world is not flat, no matter what you believe!

 

The increased dried underbrush is a cause of warmer temperatures, reduced rain water, and deterioration of soil conditions.  It's not the only cause of these fires, but it is exaggerating the effects and making them worse.  Governments have less resources available for controlled burns, because the sheer amount of dried underbrush is increasing decade over decade.  There has been no decreased burning of underbrush in BC and Alberta, yet we're experiencing fires more often and over greater hectares compared to the past.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-50951043

 

"So is this down to climate change?

Many Australians are asking that very question - but the science is complicated.

 

Scientists have long warned that a hotter, drier climate will contribute to fires becoming more frequent and more intense. Many parts of Australia have been in drought conditions, some for years, which has made it easier for the fires to spread and grow.

 

Data shows that Australia has warmed overall by slightly more than one degree Celsius since 1910, with most of the heating occurring since 1950, the Bureau of Meteorology says."

 

Cheers!

Australian_Mean_Temperature_-_Last_100_Years.thumb.png.b9a471035907f0c7664288ef35454ddf.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The book: Fire Season: Field Notes from a Wilderness Lookout" by Philip Connors

 

This is a great resource of how forest management has changed over the year particularly in the US. Lots has changed from a conservation perspective and whether or not man select harvests forests or not does have a big impact on future forest fires and potential ecological health.

 

That being said, if forests are not allowed to be timbered then we should expect forest fires to happen. It's a natural part of nature and often promotes a much stronger ecological system the following years. It puts nitrogen back in the soil, allows sunlight to reach new areas of the forest floor, and it manages the wildlife populations. The only reason people really make a stink about it is because they've chosen to build homes in areas which are susceptible to fires. Nature will do its things with or without humans.

 

______________

 

I do a lot of reading about the timber industry (historic context) in PA. It's quite amazing how "tough" nature can be in regards to human involvement. This past fall I did a solo backpacking trip up near Slate Run PA (Black Forest Trail 42miles). The trail was names the black forest because the hemlocks were so dense at one point that you would need a lantern during the day just to see. The lumber industry in the late 1800's early 1900's harvested a ton of timber from this area as well as all over PA. Well the lumber companies realized that in order to create future revenue they would need to plant trees. So they spent a ton of money planting hemlock trees for the future. nature had other plans and hardwoods such as Beech, Red Oak, Maple, and Cherry quite literally took over the state. This has lead to an ecological system that can support more wildlife and also has produced some of the best hardwood forests in the country. There are actually very few areas in PA and the east coast for that matter, that actually resemble what the forests would have looked like when the pilgrims settled this land. 

 

To end my rambling basically what I'm saying is that nature will do it's thing. The fires in Australia will stop when the fuel runs out and over the next 20 years there will be new ecological systems developed organically. I do believe we should be good stewards of the environment though.

 

Another good book is: Encounters with the Archdruid - John McPhee. It reads a bit more like a novel, but the historic context and perspectives are interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Interesting perspective. Independent outsider views are useful indeed.

 

On a personal level, I have seen, over the years, how climate change has affected our ski season (downhill): shorter season, warmer, more rain etc). There are many factors and "natural" cycles can be overriding but there are many causes and some may be reversible? For that specific reason, I don't think I will invest in Vail Resorts, a company I used to like for various reasons, including financial ones.

Here's a link that is not necessarily balanced but some references are helpful. The animated graph (4 quadrant-graph by Robert Rohde) may be food for thought during your next hike. Despite the noise (statistical), it's getting warmer and dryer down under.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/media-reaction-australias-bushfires-and-climate-change

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Australia, there is no argument that the climate may be changing, albeit slowly - it's been that way for thousands of years.

 

The question is: is it man made?  The jury is still out, despite what Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio and infant Greta say.

Last I checked, 6 years later,  the Arctic IceCap is still there, despite Al Gore's claims they would disappear by 2013.

 

The issue I raised about Australia is where the environmentalists and climate change morons made the problem WORSE.

For decades, underbrush and timber have been cleared (cut or burned off) proactively, off season to reduce the fuel for wildfires.

Farmers, ranchers and landowners created extensive firebreaks and removed dead or living trees in hopes of limiting the damage

during prime fire season. But green regulations stopped much of that - and contributed hugely to the increase in fuel source - when lightning

or arsonist started the fires. Climate change idiots claim that proactive burning only caused more CO2 emissions and yield no benefits

during fire season. Obviously, they look like idiots now - but with children like Greta "analyzing" the problem - they'll turn the argument

around and blame it on "man-made" climate change.

 

Next these clowns will go after the coal business in Australia in hopes of sinking the Australian economy for good.

 

Given the ridiculous argument that we should just "let nature do it's thing" - we ought to get rid of the all dams and levees

in this country and see what happens to St Louis, New Orleans and countless other communities protected by wise (instead of stupid) policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Australia, there is no argument that the climate may be changing, albeit slowly - it's been that way for thousands of years.

 

The question is: is it man made?  The jury is still out, despite what Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio and infant Greta say.

Last I checked, 6 years later,  the Arctic IceCap is still there, despite Al Gore's claims they would disappear by 2013.

 

The issue I raised about Australia is where the environmentalists and climate change morons made the problem WORSE.

For decades, underbrush and timber have been cleared (cut or burned off) proactively, off season to reduce the fuel for wildfires.

Farmers, ranchers and landowners created extensive firebreaks and removed dead or living trees in hopes of limiting the damage

during prime fire season. But green regulations stopped much of that - and contributed hugely to the increase in fuel source - when lightning

or arsonist started the fires. Climate change idiots claim that proactive burning only caused more CO2 emissions and yield no benefits

during fire season. Obviously, they look like idiots now - but with children like Greta "analyzing" the problem - they'll turn the argument

around and blame it on "man-made" climate change.

 

Next these clowns will go after the coal business in Australia in hopes of sinking the Australian economy for good.

 

Given the ridiculous argument that we should just "let nature do it's thing" - we ought to get rid of the all dams and levees

in this country and see what happens to St Louis, New Orleans and countless other communities protected by wise (instead of stupid) policies.

The Arctic Sea ice is actually an input I follow to help prove or disprove the underlying thesis. The latest:

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/155/video-annual-arctic-sea-ice-minimum-1979-2019-with-area-graph/

 

The New Orleans levee and dam example is interesting. The history of levees and dams is overall positive but mistakes (human) have been made along the way, people have tended to figure out that coordinated efforts work best and often infrastructure is built after the floods (!). New Orleans' history has been punctuated by flood episodes. In many ways, the 1849 one was the most significant although the cost (human) of Katrina was much higher. An interesting feature is that, before 1849, dams and levees were mostly a private affair and the 1849 flood sort of socialized the process and an important piece of legislation then that helped for the infrastructure transition was called the "Drain the swamp" act. :) The big mistake though (human, as a proximate cause) was the founder who put New Orleans where it stands now, despite the evidence and reasoning suggested by his engineer.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/orleans/struggle.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if Sanjeev had such thought before taking his mom to India?

 

"I would really like to go but, we are going to put up a fair bit of CO2 right into the atmosphere during our trip plus we are going to travel over there and polute their air even more. It won't be good for future generations and even living Indians. We should do our fair share and stay home".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were several flood control acts that got the ball rolling on building dams and levees in the US. The future of many of the cities, towns, and neighborhoods that are in close proximity to waterways or low lying is going to be a huge political struggle in the years to come. The government run flood insurance program is not self sustaining and people are not paying premiums commiserate with their level of risk. When the flood insurance rates change or maps are redrawn, many properties in flood prone areas will become unsellable with annual premiums in the $6-8k range.

 

I wonder if Sanjeev had such thought before taking his mom to India?

 

"I would really like to go but, we are going to put up a fair bit of CO2 right into the atmosphere during our trip plus we are going to travel over there and polute their air even more. It won't be good for future generations and even living Indians. We should do our fair share and stay home".

 

I would encourage you to travel to Delhi in December. You can see first hand what the US and Europe looked like before they enacted all the free market killing environmental regulations. I promise you will come back a believer in the EPA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were several flood control acts that got the ball rolling on building dams and levees in the US. The future of many of the cities, towns, and neighborhoods that are in close proximity to waterways or low lying is going to be a huge political struggle in the years to come. The government run flood insurance program is not self sustaining and people are not paying premiums commiserate with their level of risk. When the flood insurance rates change or maps are redrawn, many properties in flood prone areas will become unsellable with annual premiums in the $6-8k range.

 

I wonder if Sanjeev had such thought before taking his mom to India?

 

"I would really like to go but, we are going to put up a fair bit of CO2 right into the atmosphere during our trip plus we are going to travel over there and polute their air even more. It won't be good for future generations and even living Indians. We should do our fair share and stay home".

 

I would encourage you to travel to Delhi in December. You can see first hand what the US and Europe looked like before they enacted all the free market killing environmental regulations. I promise you will come back a believer in the EPA.

 

This is happening all over the place even in obvious places. My brother in-law bought a fixer-upper for a rental property here in PA. it was relatively close to a flood zone (along a river) that hasn't flooded in 50 years. The property itself has no prior flood damage or history as it sits up on a hill. Well the local township allowed the building to be sold and then where he started renovating it they came in and told him he isn't allowed to renovate the property because this house was going to be re-designated in the flood zone. Basically he had to jump through a million hoops. They apparently didn't want him driving up the value of the home and then claiming it on federal flood insurance if it were to flood. He had to get a lawyer and sue the township because they didn't make this clear before he purchased the property and eventually they came to some legal agreement that he could do what he wants with the property as long as he exempts himself from federal flood insurance. Whole thing still seems shady to me.

 

A former Geology professor gave me the advice of never purchasing/building a home near water. In the case of my brother in-law I guess he was right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My view on climate change is perfectly summed up by George Carlin in his "Save the planet".

 

The collective makeup of the modern man doesn't allow for foregoing/reducing current consumption over preserving nature's delicate balance. We don't even know or understand the true impact of reducing diversity of flora/fauna, destroying rain forests, clearing land large scale for sub-urbanization etc. How do you balance immediate consumption/gratification against unknown/non-quantifiable future damage that might happen to generations down the lane?

 

The economic system is incentivized to maximize growth. The economic house of cards will collapse if we go into prolonged deflation (the unlimited borrowing has to be whittled away by inflation & growth). There is every incentive to wage wars, exploit natural resources to the fullest extent to get the growth game going.

 

If you look at many of the economic crises that resulted in recessions/depressions, you would notice that we push the envelope until something breaks. If the crisis is as bad as some say it is, then we would never act until it is too late.

 

I view nature as a beautiful self correcting system that punishes the excesses and then comes to a balance. As George Carlin says, Earth may finally get its fair share of plastics before humans perish altogether.

 

Why bother if Sun eventually gobbles up Earth in a few billion years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest “morons” involved in the subject of climate change are those who don’t believe that our climate is changing. While there may be legitimate debate as to its causes, it only seems logical that man’s actions are a contributing factor. If so we should be responsible enough to take whatever reasonable steps we can to diminish the negative effects we have on our climate.

 

Those who continue to deny the fact that our climate is changing are most likely large city dwellers who rarely venture out into the real world or those who are simply young and naive.

 

Those that don’t think we should take whatever reasonable steps we can to mitigate our adverse effects on climate no doubt have no children or grand children.

 

Of course there is the odd idiot that thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People can say what they want but if you look at their actions there aren't many people who believe in manmade climate change.  You get on an airplane, buy some consumer goods from China, drive to work, heat your home past 15c, etc then you don't really believe in it.

 

 

And people who smoke "don't really believe" it is bad for their health.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“People can say what they want but if you look at their actions there aren't many people who believe in manmade climate change.  You get on an airplane, buy some consumer goods from China, drive to work, heat your home past 15c, etc then you don't really believe in it.”

 

Huh? The logic here escapes me.

 

Just because someone drove to work, then they don’t believe in climate change? But if you walked to work than you do?

 

If you happened to hit 75 in a 70 zone then you don’t believe in any traffic rules?

 

If you violated one of the 10 commandments so you must be an atheist?

 

Because someone doesn’t personally take extreme measures to combat climate change, it is quite a leap to declare they they don’t believe in it.

 

Since I would guess that you have gotten on an airplane, bought something from China, and heated your home above 15c, than according to how you define it, you don’t believe that man has contributed to climate change.

 

But are you completely, 100%, absolutely sure of that? What if you are wrong?

 

Since there just might be a possibility that man is contributing to climate change, shouldn’t you at least take some minor steps to help reduce the problem? If you don’t than I am going to guess that you have no children or grand children because if you did you might feel some responsibility to make at least some attempt to leave them a better world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Id say the culprit in the examples used(not to endorse or give legitimacy to the climate crazies) is more about people being inherently selfish, than it is about climate change. They use the cars and airplanes because they care more about the quality of THEIR lives. But they still believe in climate change. They just expect others to do the heavy lifting.

 

But all in all, climate change has been a great way for creative individuals to capture their share of federal funding and well intentioned but poorly researched philanthropy dollars. Its basically like space travel or treasure hunting, but with a much wider scope and louder cult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gregmal, I agree with pretty much everything you said. I just get a bit tired of so many people taking extreme positions or using serious challenges like climate change to further their personal agendas - eg. the China Hoax. I don’t know the true cause of climate change but like Cardboard said in a comment some time ago, I don’t doubt that man has contributed to the problem.

 

So if we can personally do a little that might help, than why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fundamental error.

 

I have brought up this point in terms of personal responsibility before. There was a vice documentary a few years ago about sweatshop workers in vietnam, sri lanka, etc. Mostly impoverished, maltreated women. The vice host visits them and asks, "you are so poorly treated and taken advantage of by these companies like nike, old navy, etc. - but yet I see everyone here wearing the reject goods: nike sneakers and old navy clothes. Why don't you boycott, refuse to contribute to it?"

 

The question is, who bears the brunt of responsibility to affect change? Is it the tradesman trying to earn enough to pay his mortgage, educate his kids; the poor vietnemese seamstress trying to feed her family? Or is it those in government, those in executive roles who make decisions on a tuesday afternoon that affects millions?

 

Some will say, 'well if nobody buys nike sneakers, they will shut down the sweatshops!' But IMHO this is (frankly) bullshit and ignores the great lesson of the one and only uncle ben: with great power comes great responsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Id say the culprit in the examples used(not to endorse or give legitimacy to the climate crazies) is more about people being inherently selfish, than it is about climate change. They use the cars and airplanes because they care more about the quality of THEIR lives. But they still believe in climate change. They just expect others to do the heavy lifting.

 

But all in all, climate change has been a great way for creative individuals to capture their share of federal funding and well intentioned but poorly researched philanthropy dollars. Its basically like space travel or treasure hunting, but with a much wider scope and louder cult.

 

Yes. Gregmal gets it. If climate change is this apocalyptic event and if it can be reversed through our actions then why the fuck are the woke people if the world doing nothing at a personal level.

 

I live in Canada where most of the population wants to lower CO2 but also insists on driving SUV s and going to Mexico in winter.  I can't take it seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And look what's happening in Australia - environmentalist created disaster:  no clearing of underbrush for years due to the know it all environmentalists.

Years of fuel sources pile up and now catastrophic wildfires with no end.

 

These people are idiots.

Alot of that underbrush is drier, almost kindling like, due to warmer weather and less rain every year. 

 

Drier climate is not a prediction of global warming. Wetter is. Global warming is supposed to produce more absolute humidity (but constant relative humidity) and more rain.  The climate should be more like a rainforest and less like California. In fact high humidity is absolutely necessary to climate models that predict high climate sensitivities to C02 and lots of warming because water vapour is a greenhouse gas that amplifies the effect of C02. So if you argue for drier you are also arguing that global warming is not really that big a deal since the sensitivity to C02 must than be low.

 

So the brush fires don't prove global warming. They do the opposite. They disprove it. The indicate a drier climate which is not a prediction of Climate Models.

 

This whole thing is crazy and I guess I'm making the mistake of engaging crazy people. Any alien looking at Earth over the last 1 billion years would note that for most of Earth's history it was ice free and teaming with life. That the ice ages were hugely destructive to life on the planet. It would note that Human civilization rose up only after the ice receded (an interglacial where sea levels rose 120m!) and than it would see that humans had figured out a way to extend the interglacial and perhaps produce an ice free Earth.

 

At that point it would be thinking: These humans are impressive...they have figured out a way to prolong the interglacial which is conducive to all life on the planet by pumping C02 into the atmosphere. I think they would be confused if they found out there was a political movement to stop this.

 

We should be trying to pump more C02 into the atmosphere not less. Make the Earth Great Again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...