Jump to content

Climate Change Hoax or Nah?


Kults

Recommended Posts

On 1/7/2020 at 12:03 PM, Kults said:

So there are a couple of issues with this

 

- "climate change is real and impacted by humans. It's just not going to destroy us all"......., sure, maybe. Sure causes big problems in places like Australia, Bangladesh, Maldives, Vanuatu, Fiji, etc. etc.

 

- "the record of climate related deaths are going down over the last 100 years"....., sure, but the quality of dwellings, health care, firefighting resources, communications and warnings, awareness and preparation, etc. etc. has increased astronomically during this time. There are many variables (for an against) in this situation that haven't been addressed. It even mentions that our ability to deal with disasters is better but doesn't include it in the equation of climate related deaths.

 

- It also suggests that 'climate catastrophists' deny science because it's a business for them. But the book he cites is also exactly that for the fossil fuel industry (and openly states that). Denying climate change is business for the fossil fuel industry - glass houses, etc. etc.

 

- it says the reason why the developing world needs fossil fuels is cost. Well, if climate change is real and poses serious threat to the world, then profits need to be reconsidered for a minute to ensure we're not going to live in a shit hole. Sucks if that's the case but it might be worse than the alternative (cue the knee jerk 'socialism increase taxes trope).

 

I think this article is just as unbalanced as the shrill shit you get from climate change warriors. And if all they've got is "it sucks but won't kill us all", then it's not overly encouraging.

Edited by Hua Guofang
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
Just now, Joker said:

Took me an hour and a half to read through this whole thread. My take away...

 

Climate change is real... maybe. 

It most definitely IS real. Climate changes. It changed before there were any human beings on earth and will continue to change long after were gone. The crux of the issue is how much of that (negative) change is caused by CO2 emissions and what the right way forward is to reduce that (if its even proven to be the main cause).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kults said:

rytkbbn1aj941.jpg

 

Such a pity memes like that spread as people and animals are dying and a country burns. Suggests that people are too quick to believe things that support their own assumptions.

 

False arson claims spread on social media amid Australian bushfire crisis

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/false-arson-claims-spread-on-social-media-amid-australian-bushfire-crisis

 

.......most of the “arsonists” were actually arrested for bushfire-related offences, such as discarding a lit cigarette or failing to comply with total fire bans, not deliberately lighting fires.

 

In a statement on Monday, NSW Police Force said they had charged only 24 people with allegedly deliberately lighting bushfires since the beginning of the season.

 

Meanwhile, the Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews told ABC Gippsland on Tuesday that none of the fires burning in the state had been confirmed to have been deliberately lit.

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Kults said:

All fair points. Problem is, theyre all based on 'If's

 

I prefer policies that will impact my wallet to be based on undeniable irrefutable facts. 

Most things in life are ifs though.

 

Very rarely do politicians and decision makers ever have undeniable and irrefutable facts about anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kults said:

Well they didn't light themselves did they? 

 

"Only" 24... lol.

Dry lightening, dude. It's one of the main cause of bushfires in Australia during drought periods.

 

The majority of the people arrested for lighting fires weren't the cause of the major blazes. They were loonies lighting grass fires in their own neihgbourhoods that were put out without spreading.

 

.

Edited by Hua Guofang
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hua Guofang said:

Most things in life are ifs though.

 

Very rarely do politicians and decision makers ever have undeniable and irrefutable facts about anything.

Yes, Ill give you that much. It's far from settled science though, we've already covered that a few pages back. There is enough reasonable doubt raised for me personally to not buy into what I now perceive is a hustle.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hua Guofang said:

Dry lightening, dude. It's one of the main cause of bushfires in Australia during drought periods.

 

The majority of the people arrested for lighting fires weren't the cause of the major blazes. They were loonies lighting grass fires in their own neihgbourhoods that were put out without spreading.

I'll believe you only cause I know fuck all about bush fires and assume you know what you're talking about since you live there. Its quite the leap to blame that set of circumstances on climate change though.

 

E: I should specify, in this context I mean climate change as in the catch all term for human pollution now, not actual, you know, climate changing

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I got my stats mixed up - it's approx 40% accidental and approx 15% lightening (I thought it was the other way around) with another approx 40% deliberately lit.

 

This article is also a little bit OBE as when it was written NSW and QLD were the focal points of fires. Now it's Vic, NSW with some in WA and SA.

 

Either way, the guy is talking about how fires start, not climate change and/or its impact on Australia's fire season, whether it's man made or any of that.

 

 

 

 

 

Arson, mischief and recklessness: 87 per cent of fires are man-made

By Paul Read
November 18, 2019 — 12.00am

https://www.smh.com.au/national/arson-mischief-and-recklessness-87-per-cent-of-fires-are-man-made-20191117-p53bcl.html

 

 

 

There are, on average, 62,000 fires in Australia every year. Only a very small number strike far from populated areas and satellite studies tell us that lightning is responsible for only 13 per cent. Not so the current fires threatening to engulf Queensland and NSW. There were no lightning strikes on most of the days when the fires first started in September. Although there have been since, these fires – joining up to create a new form of mega-fire – are almost all man-made.

About 40 per cent of fires are deliberately lit ... The Hillville fire that destroyed homes last week.

About 40 per cent of fires are deliberately lit ... The Hillville fire that destroyed homes last week. Credit:Nick Moir

A 2015 satellite analysis of 113,000 fires from 1997-2009 confirmed what we had known for some time – 40 per cent of fires are deliberately lit, another 47 per cent accidental. This generally matches previous data published a decade earlier that about half of all fires were suspected or deliberate arson, and 37 per cent accidental. Combined, they reach the same conclusion: 87 per cent are man-made.

The cycles of the seasons are changing beyond that which can be explained by known forces, both ancient and modern. Every lethal wildfire since 1857 has happened at the height of summer. Until now. The size of these fires has never been seen in Australia's history this side of summer, and certainly not starting as early as September.

Seasonal changes, in part due to climate change on top of natural oscillations causing the drought and westerly winds, have some origins in man-made emissions. More directly, however, the source of ignition is human.

 

 

It's not lost on police, emergency services and firefighters at the front line that most of these fires were lit deliberately, or accidentally through recklessness, nor that they are unprecedented in their timing and ferocity. Since September, it has been a constant pattern that a few days after the fires roar through we have the first police reports that arson or recklessness was involved.

 

The mix of people lighting fires always follow the same age and gender profiles: whether accidental or deliberate, half are children, a minority elderly, and the most dangerous are those aged between 30 and 60. Ninety per cent are male.

The psychosexual pyromaniac has long been relegated to dusty tomes from 1904 to the1950s. At least among those caught, the profile emerges of an odd, unintelligent person from a chaotic family, marginalised at the fringes of society and deeply involved in many types of crime, not only fire.

If I had to guess, I'd say about 10,000 arsonists lurk from the top of Queensland to the southern-most tip of Victoria, but not all are active and some light fires during winter. The most dangerous light fires on the hottest days, generally closer to communities and during other blazes, suggesting more malicious motives. Only a tiny minority will gaze with wonder at the destruction they have wrought, deeply fascinated and empowered. Others get caught up with the excitement of chaos and behave like impulsive idiots.

 

As for children, they are not always malicious. Children and youths follow the age-crime curve where delinquency peaks in their late teens. Fire is just one of many misbehaviours. The great majority grow out of it. Four overlapping subgroups include: accidental fire-play getting out of control; victims of child abuse – including sexual abuse – and neglect; children with autism and developmental disorders; and conduct disorder from a younger age, which can be genuinely dangerous.

 

Whereas the first three groups can be helped and stopped, the last is more problematic. These children are more likely to continue lighting fires for a lifetime, emerging as psychopaths in adulthood. This tends to match the finding that only 10 per cent of convicted arsonists will go on to light fires again after prison. They are the recidivists, more fascinated by fire, more prone to giving in to dangerous urges when in crisis, more impulsive, less empathic – the hallmarks of a psychopath.

Some research suggests only a very small percentage of arsonists are ever caught, which has several implications.
One is that we have a biased profile of who they really are. Whereas the children and the dopey get caught, the more cunning would be less represented in our samples. More ominous, many more than 10,000 arsonists might be active.

One of the few prospective studies of almost 3000 fire lighters in South Australia alone found as many as 14 per cent of people in a community sample lit fires. This level is much higher than actual convictions would suggest. Further to this, community sampling suggests females represent 20 per cent of those fire lighters, even though convictions of females are only half this figure. If this trend continues into adulthood, it suggests we have a biased view of the typical arsonist to begin with.

 

Those we haven't caught yet are still hiding, but we know enough to recognise them and, one day, maybe stop them.

 

In the thick of a deadly crisis, it beggars belief that some people would seek to make it worse. But we should be careful who we demonise. Not all children mean to do harm. Careful handling of them will reduce, not exacerbate, their problems and allow caregivers to refer them before the first match is struck.

Emergency services and communities on the front line will shine a light on the very best of humanity; others will disgrace themselves through idiocy or malice. Amid the chaos of confronting fires, the psychopath forever looms – not only the criminals who light fires in the forests and grasslands but perhaps also, figuratively, the people who profit from planetary destruction and ignore the urgent warnings of 23 emergency commissioners to prepare.

When the flames abate, we can have a sensible national dialogue about the prevention of wildfires, handling arson, and maybe even climate change.

 

Paul Read is an ecological criminologist and sustainability scientist at Monash University.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Kults said:

It most definitely IS real. Climate changes. It changed before there were any human beings on earth and will continue to change long after were gone. The crux of the issue is how much of that (negative) change is caused by CO2 emissions and what the right way forward is to reduce that (if its even proven to be the main cause).

I agree. I was trying to be funny but I obviously failed.

 

I found it funny that a bunch of folks who use spray paint are discussing the impacts of climate change. I'm sure the VOCs emitted from any paint, spray or otherwise, do very little damage to our environment, but I still found it funny. 

  • Props 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the thing I see, un-PC as it is... The only way to affect change is war or taxes, neither of which is likely to be a practical fix and its arguable how practical and impactful either is. The biggest polluters at this point are China and India. Both nuclear powers and both countries that don't have a very good record at treating humans very well. Simplified, they give zero fucks, so will need to be bribed into compliance or stomped into it. Sort of thinking neither is a reasonable solution. To differing degrees, this is the same issue with the next 5 polluters, especially so when measured per capita. Brazil's government clearly are unable to manage even fundamental social policy or affectively handle their affairs by the most basic of metrics. Really think they give a fuck about global warming when huge swaths of the population live in shanties on the edge of a rain forest? Think they can even begin to wrap their heads around what's happening globally when half the kids under 13 in those neighborhoods don't even have shoes, despite living across a valley from resorts and properties catering some of the wealthiest humans in the country, if not world?

 

So bring this home, the USA has done more in the last decade to reduce carbon emissions than any other nation on earth, by a long shot. Look it all up. Sure we have bullshit, feel good legislation like California reducing their carbon foot print by outsourcing their dirty deeds to neighboring states, but likewise we're also a country with dudes like Elon Musk disrupting multiple markets from EV's to space transport at a pace that the government can only dream about. No doubt that'll continue as we see Tesla getting into powering homes, Sony jumping in with EV's and Apple doing who the fuck knows what as they move to disrupting new market segments and industries. 

 

So again, yes... You can always do a little more. That's universal about life in general... But in in terms of meaningful efforts that have evidence based, impactful result... I have yet to see a single proposal anywhere that actually makes any sense. And all of this sits way the fuck out on a limb of being questionable at its core. Indeed humans have an impact on the earth... Name a single species that does not. I'm all for people leaving dense populations to go rural and live lifestyles that are more in balance with nature, but that isn't likely to happen, ironically and despite those same areas being the most vocal about it. This change, like so many other ills that plague modern society (at least as far as I've observed in the USA), needs to happen at the individual level. People need to start being accountable for themselves and responsible for themselves. Same way I hated paying higher subway fares to pave roads I'd never drive on the other end of the state, being green requires investments at the local level so when you're being taxed, you can view the application of that towards progress. I'm simply not okay living a low impact lifestyle in the mountains of Montana to be taxed so that NYC can be a little more environmentally friendly, let alone fucking Beijing. 

 

So again, tax people to death as a solution knowing how responsible and efficient government is at spending everyones money or wage wars on sovereign nations under the premise that its for the greater good.

 

 

  • Truth 1
  • Props 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kults said:

The irony isn’t lost on me either. Funny what 20 years will do to a bunch of misfits

Tru dat.  What I'm thinking though, is..... don't trees consume co2 and turn it into o2?  I mean, that would say that carbon gases are GOOD for plant growth.  Maybe not carbon MONOXIDE, but carbon DIOXIDE is probably fine.  I'd say the more the better for trees.  I wonder why that point isn't brought up more.

 

Look at what they do to grow weed indoors, they actually use compressed co2 to inject it into the atmosphere.  Artificial "global warming gas" environment for growing the best reeferz?  Cough cough...... cough coughchchchghgh

  • Props 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dirty_habiT said:

Tru dat.  What I'm thinking though, is..... don't trees consume co2 and turn it into o2?  I mean, that would say that carbon gases are GOOD for plant growth.  Maybe not carbon MONOXIDE, but carbon DIOXIDE is probably fine.  I'd say the more the better for trees.  I wonder why that point isn't brought up more.

 

Look at what they do to grow weed indoors, they actually use compressed co2 to inject it into the atmosphere.  Artificial "global warming gas" environment for growing the best reeferz?  Cough cough...... cough coughchchchghgh

Some of the vids I posted earlier in the thread touch on that. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dirty_habiT said:

Tru dat.  What I'm thinking though, is..... don't trees consume co2 and turn it into o2?  I mean, that would say that carbon gases are GOOD for plant growth.  Maybe not carbon MONOXIDE, but carbon DIOXIDE is probably fine.  I'd say the more the better for trees.  I wonder why that point isn't brought up more.

You're absolutely correct, trees consume CO2. 

 

Here's some basic irrefutable facts:

 

1. The majority of a  tree's mass (after water) doesn't come from nutrients absorbed through its roots, but rather through its leaves. Trees clean the air of CO2 and grow accordingly (Caron Dioxide in, Carbon stays as mass, O2 is released as waste).

 

2. The planet has been deforested at an impressive level. You can pick almost any forest in the world and see it has shrunk rapidly in the last 50 years. The Amazon is a really easy one to find aerial maps and stats related to its shrinking.  I'd find articles, but I don't imagine anyone will read them. Trees that once cleaned the air are now gone and the land where forests once grew has been turned into farmland or urban centers. (carbon credits for planted are a waste of time, but make californians feel good). 

 

3. When a tree is burned the CO2 that was stored in its mass is released back into the atmosphere.

 

4. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, meaning it traps heat in the atmosphere instead of the heat dissipating back into outer layers of the planet's atmosphere and eventually space

 

5. Humans are the cause of deforestation. (As a related tangent: Forest fires occur naturally and help build healthy forests. Human intervention of stopping the natural cycles of forest fires, especially around  development of agriculture and urban areas, has caused fires to be much worse in the last several decades. Throw in invasive species [brought from place to place by HUMANS] like the Japanese Pine Beetle, Dutch Elm Disease, Box Elder Disease, etc and the healthy forests are now tinder boxes Rocky Mountain National Park is just a couple dry seasons away from looking like Australia does now.) 

 

6. All the previous points end with this: There is more CO2 in the atmosphere currently than at any time in human history. 

 

I'm trying to keep this as "text light" so you guys will read and actually acknowledge these facts. I'm not going to touch on cars, coal, petroleum, etc. Each case is as easily demonstrable at putting more CO2 (or other/worse greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere. 

 


I can't wait to see which point will be called into question, maybe you could find one forest that gained a thousand acres so you can ignore all the rest that burned away? Maybe termites are helping bring down a handful of trees?

 

Or more likely you won't acknowledge any of it because its uncomfortable to do so and maintain a mask of integrity. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Props 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I'll have a go.

 

I think everything you said is true except the assumption that it's all human beings that are to blame for CO2 levels and that we have reached some kind of crisis level

 

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/12/23/geologist-the-co2-scare-is-proving-false-its-time-for-some-climate-sense-un-seeks-fake-answer-to-invented-problem-of-climate-emergency/

 

Quote

Geologist Viv Forbes: "The carbon dioxide scare is proving false - it’s time for some climate sense. Human activity can never control atmospheric CO2 or global temperature. Much bigger forces are at work – solar system cycles, earth orbital changes, volcanic activity (especially on the sea floor), El Nino episodes, declining magnetic field and magnetic pole reversals, variable cosmic rays and cloud cover, and absorption/expulsion of CO2 by the mighty oceans. Geological records show that today’s CO2 levels are very low - so low that plants grow slower and need more water.

And while I do think cutting down our forests is a terrible thing to do and incredibly short sighted, I also dont think it has as much of an impact on 'climate change' as we have been led to believe

 

https://news.osu.edu/lost-trees-hugely-overrated-as-environmental-threat-study-finds/

 

Quote

Cutting down trees inevitably leads to more carbon in the environment, but deforestation’s contributions to climate change are vastly overestimated, according to a new study.

Deforestation for timber and farmland is responsible for about 92 billion tons of carbon emissions into the environment since 1900, found a study led by researchers at The Ohio State University and Yale University.

“Our estimate is about a fifth of what was found in previous work showing that deforestation has contributed 484 billion tons of carbon – a third of all manmade emissions – since 1900,” said Brent Sohngen, a professor of environmental and resource economics at Ohio State.

Deforestation is also not reaching any kind of pivoting point

 

https://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/global-forest-loss-reversed-despite-large-scale-deforestation-tropics.html

 

Quote

Twenty years of satellite data reveals the total amount of vegetation globally has increased by almost the equivalent of 4 billion tons of carbon since 2003.

 

E: And I appreciate a more easily digestible format. I'm not in for walls of text. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Authorities Finally Catch Up With Serial Arsonist Dry Lightning

https://www.betootaadvocate.com/uncategorized/woopsie/

 

image.png.612c6bda85ab8ea4cb00f0a34436216c.png

 

 

Police in the nation’s bottom-drawer state has finally caught up with the man responsible for lighting a number of fires up and down the eastern seaboard this season.

Dry Lightning, 25, was arrested earlier today by detectives and uniformed police officers in Sale, in eastern Victora, ending a month-long manhunt.

Mr Lightning, who has no fixed address, has been charged with a string of arson-related charges plus a number of charges relating to damage and destruction brought on by the fires.

Police have not ruled out charging Lightning with additional charges relating to the tragic deaths to stem from Mr Lightning’s original charges.

He was refused bail at Sale Magistrates’ Court and was remanded in custody.

More to come.

 

(PS - obviously satire, about the Victoria mega-fires that were believed to be started by dry lightening that the shock jocks and boomers are blaming on greeny arsenists)

  • LOL! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another Murdoch/News Corp employee publicly resigning because of the bullshit RW stuff the Australian newspapers have been shifting to over the last couple of years (they are an overt and vocal supporter of our conservative party). There have been a number of high-profile resignations from the Murdoch press in Australia because their shift away from news reporting to ideological cheerleading.

 

For this person it was the way the bushfires have been covered and 'climate change denial' platform they run.

'Dangerous, misinformation': News Corp employee's fire coverage email

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/dangerous-misinformation-news-corp-employee-s-fire-coverage-email-20200110-p53qel.html

 

This post could go in any number of threads up in here.

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, except:

 

 

The truth about Australia's fires — arsonists aren't responsible for many this season

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-11/australias-fires-reveal-arson-not-a-major-cause/11855022

 

Only about 1 per cent of the land burnt in NSW this bushfire season can be officially attributed to arson, and it is even less in Victoria

 

NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) Inspector Ben Shepherd said earlier this week lightning was predominantly responsible for the bushfire crisis.

 

"I can confidently say the majority of the larger fires that we have been dealing with have been a result of fires coming out of remote areas as a result of dry lightning storms," he said.

 

This week, a NSW Police media release revealed 24 people had been charged over deliberately-lit bushfires this season.

 

However, the majority of suspected arson relates to small grass fires and rubbish bins set alight, which have inflicted negligible damage and burnt a tiny area compared with fires sparked by lightning.

 

 

 

But you know, never let the truth get in the way of a good meme, and all!

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.

×
×
  • Create New...