Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Bob, 25 facts why you are dead wrong and, in fact these half-baked ideas iare endangering life on this planet with "pal-reviewed" Pseudoscience

https://co2coalition.org/facts/


Fact #1
CO2140-million-year trend of dangerously decreasing CO2.

Download this Resource
Learn More
Fact #2
CO2 vs Temperature CO2The warming effect of each molecule of CO2 declines as its concentration increases

Download this Resource
Learn More
Fact #3
Food Security CO2First and foremost, CO2 is plant food.

Download this Resource
Learn More
Fact #4
CO2In the last four glacial advances, the CO2 level was dangerously low.

Download this Resource
Learn More
Fact #5
CO2CO2 emissions began accelerating in the mid-20th century


Learn More
Fact #6
CO2Our current geologic period (Quaternary) has the lowest average CO2 levels in the last 600 million years

Download this Resource
Learn More
Fact #6
Food SecurityCO2 increase is enhancing corn production… a lot

Download this Resource
Learn More
Fact #7
CO2Current CO2 levels are near record lows. We are CO2 impoverished.

Download this Resource
Learn More
Fact #8
CO2More CO2 means more plant growth.

Download this Resource
Learn More
Fact #9
Food Security CO2More CO2 helps to feed more people worldwide.

Download this Resource
Learn More
Fact #10
Temperature CO2 vs TemperatureModern warming began more than 300 years ago…

Download this Resource
Learn More
Fact #11
TemperatureMelting glaciers confirm modern warming predated increases of CO2

Download this Resource
Learn More
Fact #12
TemperatureRising sea levels confirm modern warming predated increases of CO2

Download this Resource
Learn More
Fact #13
TemperatureTemperatures changed dramatically during the past 10,000 years. It wasn’t us.

Download this Resource
Learn More
Fact #14
TemperatureInterglacials usually last 10,000 – 15,000 years. Ours is 11,000 years old.

Download this Resource
Learn More
Fact #15
TemperatureThe last interglacial was 8°C (14°F) warmer than today. The polar bears survived. Greenland didn’t melt.

Download this Resource
Learn More
Fact #16
TemperatureThe current warming trend is neither unusual nor unprecedented (Part 1).

Download this Resource
Learn More
Fact #17
TemperatureThe current warming trend is neither unusual nor unprecedented (Part 2).

Download this Resource
Learn More
Fact #18
TemperatureEarth’s orbit and tilt drive glacial-interglacial changes.

Download this Resource
Learn More
Fact #19
TemperatureWe are living in one of the coldest periods in all of Earth’s history.

Download this Resource
Learn More
Fact #20
TemperatureFor most of Earth’s history, it was about 10°C (18°F) warmer than today.

Download this Resource
Learn More
Fact #21
TemperatureIPCC models have overstated warming up to three times too much.

Download this Resource
Learn More
Fact #22
TemperatureFor human advancement, warmer is better than colder.

Download this Resource
Learn More
Fact #24
TemperatureAn “ideal” temperature is not that of 150 years ago

Download this Resource
Learn More
Fact #25
Food SecurityMore CO2 means moister soil.

Download this Resource
Learn More

Bob A and Bob G,
We have an excellent opportunity for a sincere and science-based debate here on chesstalk between you guys and Sid. Want to take up the challenge? Pargat could set up the rules of the debate, as that would help.
D

[Bob Gillanders]

Bob A and Bob G,
We have an excellent opportunity for a sincere and science-based debate here on chesstalk between you guys and Sid. Want to take up the challenge? Pargat could set up the rules of the debate, as that would help.
D

Well, thank you for the invitation, but I will pass. I invite Pargat to take my spot.

It was maybe 10-15 years ago, I spent a very unhealthy amount of time researching the topic of climate change (or global warming as it was known then). There was a vast amount of youtube videos and websites on the topic, arguing both sides. I approached it with an open mind, listening closely to both sides. Trying to understand as best I could the science and all the data presented. I am no scientist, so it took some time. But eventually I concluded global warming was real in spite of all the noise presented by those denying it.

When I was a small boy, I remember snow arriving in December and remaining until it melted in April. There would occasionally be a warm spell where most of the snow melted, but quickly replaced with new snow within a week. But for the most part, during the months of January to March the ground had continuously covered with snow. Nowadays, it is unusual if we get more than a week or two of snow all winter.

For me the debate is over. Climate change is real. Deniers want to drag out the debate so as to avoid doing anything about it.

We need to move on and debate what to do.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Well, thank you for the invitation, but I will pass. I invite Pargat to take my spot.

It was maybe 10-15 years ago, I spent a very unhealthy amount of time researching the topic of climate change (or global warming as it was known then). There was a vast amount of youtube videos and websites on the topic, arguing both sides. I approached it with an open mind, listening closely to both sides. Trying to understand as best I could the science and all the data presented. I am no scientist, so it took some time. But eventually I concluded global warming was real in spite of all the noise presented by those denying it.

When I was a small boy, I remember snow arriving in December and remaining until it melted in April. There would occasionally be a warm spell where most of the snow melted, but quickly replaced with new snow within a week. But for the most part, during the months of January to March the ground had continuously covered with snow. Nowadays, it is unusual if we get more than a week or two of snow all winter.

For me the debate is over. Climate change is real. Deniers want to drag out the debate so as to avoid doing anything about it.

We need to move on and debate what to do.

You are missing the point, Bob G.
Everybody knows that Climate keeps on changing. The question up for debate is: How much of a threat it is, and should we, can we and if so, what should we be doing about it?

[Sid Belzberg]

Well, thank you for the invitation, but I will pass. I invite Pargat to take my spot.

It was maybe 10-15 years ago, I spent a very unhealthy amount of time researching the topic of climate change (or global warming as it was known then). There was a vast amount of youtube videos and websites on the topic, arguing both sides. I approached it with an open mind, listening closely to both sides. Trying to understand as best I could the science and all the data presented. I am no scientist, so it took some time. But eventually I concluded global warming was real in spite of all the noise presented by those denying it.

When I was a small boy, I remember snow arriving in December and remaining until it melted in April. There would occasionally be a warm spell where most of the snow melted, but quickly replaced with new snow within a week. But for the most part, during the months of January to March the ground had continuously covered with snow. Nowadays, it is unusual if we get more than a week or two of snow all winter.

For me the debate is over. Climate change is real. Deniers want to drag out the debate to avoid doing anything about it.

We need to move on and debate what to do.

"Throughout History, the majority is always wrong, & therefore critical & original thought is the gateway that separates one from the majority."

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Sid:

I very much appreciate your postings.

You have done much more research on this than I have.

That being said, all the scientific articles you cite go directly against all the mainstream positions.

I do believe that the majority is always behind the "Truth Curve". Truth almost always surfaces through a minority, and sometimes a minority of one, who takes on the world (Galileo). You, and those in your cohort, claim to be this minority, bearing to the majority, the truth.

Not being too knowledgeable scientifically, I have to fall back on my analysis of my current life and my logic.. It is not easy for us "little" guys (reading what we can, but no time to become substantially knowledgeable) to figure all this out, as Bob G said (And it seemed he made a big effort. It is an effort that is more than many of us who are concerned that negative climate change, evolving such that it will be hostile to the human species, can make).

So my layman's decision is that my worry is REAL.(NOT false news, because of some New World Order conspiracy being behind the whole thing).

So what I do know is that the emission of CO2 is adding to the non-porousness of the atmosphere with respect to heat escape. The issue is not what the CO2 percentage around Earth has been since the big bang. I am satisfied that, seeing that each year we are breaking heat records around the globe, the heat canopy is going to cause a global air temperature rise that is going to be totally hostile to man.

Furthermore, I believe that there is a time line, a deadline. Calculations have been done about the rate of heat rise expected, given current trajectory. The first goal set by the main world body on this has been deemed by mainstream science to now be "Unachievable". Unless some radical change happens, to create "The Sustainable Society on Earth", neither will we meet the fall-back temperature target. How long must we fail, before the minority admits that we are on a suicide path.

I do have, and have posted, mainstream citations for articles supporting the above. But I am not wanting to be a fully armed warrior for my cause. I am not archiving these articles in order to be armed for some scientific debate. I am not up to that.

My personal strategy/contribution, as one of the little guys, facing intolerable heat, with no more energy to run air conditioners, and no ability to move north as a band-aid interim measure, is to generate what this thread is accomplishing ........presentation of articles and discussion/argument among my friend/acquaintances/etc. on BOTH sides of the issue.

We chess family have an opportunity/obligation to sort through the cacophony as best we can, take advantage of information our chess friends are putting forward, and plump down on one side or the other.

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Bob Gillanders]

"Throughout History, the majority is always wrong, & therefore critical & original thought is the gateway that separates one from the majority."

But Sid, at first those warning us about global warming (climate change) were the minority. Thru decades of debate and evidence we are now the majority. Are we now wrong because we have won the debate? That's silly.

[Bob Armstrong]

Anthropogenic Positive Climate Change

Green Technology

Americas - USA

"President Joe Biden signed into law one of the most significant investments in fighting climate change ever undertaken by the United States. The new act will boost efforts to manufacture more zero-carbon technology in America, establish a new federal office to organize clean-energy innovation, and direct billions of dollars toward disaster-resilience research.

No, I’m not talking about the Inflation Reduction Act, the landmark Democratic climate and taxes bill that passed the Senate on Sunday along party lines. I’m talking about a different piece of legislation: The CHIPS and Science Act."


https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...eekly%20Planet

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi to "Negative Climate Change Deniers" on CT:

I am trying to understand your position. I'm going to try to cast your argument in "little guy" terms that some of us can fathom:

1. I believe you are NOT denying that the climate is changing, and that this is negatively affecting the life of humans on Earth.
2. You are saying that this climate change we are currently experiencing in our time is just part of a long-term "natural" process.
3. Mankind's contribution to the evolving non-porousness of the atmospheric canopy is negligible in comparison to what is happening by natural process.
4. Since it is negligible, upsetting the society by any climate change driven change, is unnecessary.
5. Since we can do nothing about the natural climate change occurring now, humans will simply have to adapt as best they can (Say as the air gets hotter, and the sea levels rise).
6. It is an open question whether this phase of Earth's climate change will in the long-run bring about such a hostile environment for man, that even with maximum ingenuity, we may go extinct (Read the dinosaurs inability to adapt to the climate change which happened for them - apparently due to an asteroid hit).

This is a pretty simple framework for a "denier" argument. It is the best I have been able to tease out so far.

If it is not correct, instead of initially just pummelling we adherents with stats and articles, could I ask that the deniers just amend my 6-point framework to what it should be. Then the rest of us can try to deal with the revised and corrected "Denial Argument".

Thanks.

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Sid Belzberg]

Hi to "Negative Climate Change Deniers" on CT:

I am trying to understand your position. I'm going to try to cast your argument in "little guy" terms that some of us can fathom:

1. I believe you are NOT denying that the climate is changing, and that this is negatively affecting the life of humans on Earth.
2. You are saying that this climate change we are currently experiencing in our time is just part of a long-term "natural" process.
3. Mankind's contribution to the evolving non-porousness of the atmospheric canopy is negligible in comparison to what is happening by natural process.
4. Since it is negligible, upsetting the society by any climate change driven change, is unnecessary.
5. Since we can do nothing about the natural climate change occurring now, humans will simply have to adapt as best they can (Say as the air gets hotter, and the sea levels rise).
6. It is an open question whether this phase of Earth's climate change will in the long-run bring about such a hostile environment for man, that even with maximum ingenuity, we may go extinct (Read the dinosaurs inability to adapt to the climate change which happened for them - apparently due to an asteroid hit).

This is a pretty simple framework for a "denier" argument. It is the best I have been able to tease out so far.

If it is not correct, instead of initially just pummelling we adherents with stats and articles, could I ask that the deniers just amend my 6-point framework to what it should be. Then the rest of us can try to deal with the revised and corrected "Denial Argument".

Thanks.

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

For starters, I, for one, resent being labeled a "climate denier" just as much as being labeled an "anti-vaxxer".Both labels are false and deliberately misleading. Straighten that out, and I will consider your summarization.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Sid:

I apologize for the sloppiness and giving a generally misleading understanding of your positions.

It was not intentional...........no attempt to downgrade your contribution to this critical discussion.

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Dilip Panjwani]

But Sid, at first those warning us about global warming (climate change) were the minority. Thru decades of debate and evidence we are now the majority. Are we now wrong because we have won the debate? That's silly.

It is not necessarily a question of minority or majority... it is definitely an issue of 'activism/activists' vs. 'open-mindedness' ...

[Sid Belzberg]

2022 is here. We go into the new year still fighting off COVID, with the bigger challenge of climate change ahead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JV7k...ealEngineering

Aliens are not coming to our rescue, neither is God, it is up to us collectively to save ourselves.

We know the problem and the solution, we just need to do it.

10.28.2021“97% Consensus” — What Consensus?"
https://co2coalition.org/media/97-co...t-consensus-2/

[Pargat Perrer]

Bob A and Bob G,
We have an excellent opportunity for a sincere and science-based debate here on chesstalk between you guys and Sid. Want to take up the challenge? Pargat could set up the rules of the debate, as that would help.
D

This is not at all the debate I mentioned. I suggested a debate between the actual CLIMATE SCIENTISTS who are on opposite sides of the ACC debate.

I was hoping that Sid, as the closest link we have to the actual climate scientists, could set up and organize such a debate.

Sid, if you really feel your position is unassailable from a scientific point of view, setting up such a debate offers you and your cohorts a magnificent chance. It would be like having a chess game to decide a title, and you are White and you have draw odds. If you draw, you win.

You are White because there has never before been ACC. Therefore the onus is on the ACC proponents to win the (game) (debate).

Sid, I encourage you to organize such a debate. Not because I think you will lose, in fact you very much could win just by drawing. I encourage it because I want to see it, hear it. That is my only reason.

[Bob Gillanders]

Bob A,. I would be interested in your thoughts....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vAW..._channel=MSNBC

[Sid Belzberg]

Bob A,. I would be interested in your thoughts....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vAW..._channel=MSNBC

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael.../#53ffc15f12d6

https://spectator.com.au/2022/07/mun...%20this%20week