Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Bob Armstrong]

Any other "Negative Natural Climate Changer (NNCC)" CT'ers got anything to say on my post # 1274?

Sid, personally, did not object to the common statements # 1 & # 2; he commented only on the area of possible disagreement (We haven't quite got there yet) - so I am going to assume he personally accepts these two statements as "fact/data":

"Commonly Accepted Statements on Negative Climate Change (Layman's Terms)"

Statement # 1: Solar Activity is the main driver of climate change". It is heat from the sun that is the "source" of the problem.

Statement # 2: Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will continue to rise in the future.

Any other CT'ers of any stripe got any objection to/revision of/ comment on either of these two seminal statements of "cooperation"??

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Sid Belzberg]

Any other "Negative Natural Climate Changer (NNCC)" CT'ers got anything to say on my post # 1274?

Sid, personally, did not object to the common statements # 1 & # 2; he commented only on the area of possible disagreement (We haven't quite got there yet) - so I am going to assume he personally accepts these two statements as "fact/data":

"Commonly Accepted Statements on Negative Climate Change (Layman's Terms)"

Statement # 1: Solar Activity is the main driver of climate change". It is heat from the sun that is the "source" of the problem.

Statement # 2: Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will continue to rise in the future.

Any other CT'ers of any stripe got any objection to/revision of/ comment on either of these two seminal statements of "cooperation"??

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

Bob the UK Meteorological Observatory has the longest-running thermometer-based data in the world. Why would you ignore this unique source of data that goes back to 1654? Perhaps because it contradicts the narrative you push?

[Brad Thomson]

I have no doubt said this before, but I will say it again. The climate IS changing, and I noticed quite a shift take place back in the 1970s. But the climate is always naturally changing, we have even had ice ages. Thus, the reasons for the recent, radical changes may be natural. But the vast amounts of pollution that have been belched into the atmosphere in the last couple of centuries, not to mention the radioactivity from nukes, are certainly not good and may or may not affect the climate. I have no faith is science/scientists on this question. The climate change may be natural, it may be man-made, or it may be a combination of both. Now, just in case there may in fact be an extent to which climate change is man made, we humans should do all that we can to curtail the effect we may be having. To not do so would be dangerously irresponsible, even if it turns out that climate change is completely natural. In other words, we have got to err on the side of caution and assume that we are responsible, just in case we are. If it turns out that we are not, then there can be no harm in cleaning up our ecosystem. If it turns out that we are responsible, and we do nothing, then we are in huge trouble and will extinct ourselves eventually. Arguing back and forth while doing nothing is to fiddle while Rome may be burning. So again, let us assume that climate change is man-made just in case it is.

[Sid Belzberg]

I have no doubt said this before, but I will say it again. The climate IS changing, and I noticed quite a shift take place back in the 1970s. But the climate is always naturally changing, we have even had ice ages. Thus, the reasons for the recent, radical changes may be natural. But the vast amounts of pollution that have been belched into the atmosphere in the last couple of centuries, not to mention the radioactivity from nukes, are certainly not good and may or may not affect the climate. I have no faith is science/scientists on this question. The climate change may be natural, it may be man-made, or it may be a combination of both. Now, just in case there may in fact be an extent to which climate change is man made, we humans should do all that we can to curtail the effect we may be having. To not do so would be dangerously irresponsible, even if it turns out that climate change is completely natural. In other words, we have got to err on the side of caution and assume that we are responsible, just in case we are. If it turns out that we are not, then there can be no harm in cleaning up our ecosystem. If it turns out that we are responsible, and we do nothing, then we are in huge trouble and will extinct ourselves eventually. Arguing back and forth while doing nothing is to fiddle while Rome may be burning. So again, let us assume that climate change is man-made just in case it is.

There is no climate emergency as the data from the UK Meteorological Observatory clearly shows. Just like with the lethal slow kill injections, it is another government-sponsored scam. The sooner you realize the government wants you dead and off their rolls the better off you will be. The measures the government wants to impose for the so-called climate emergency include lockdowns and fatally disrupting the food supply.

The lockdowns for COVID were utterly useless as are the proposed countermeasures for climate change. The result of COVID lockdowns alone was that millions in poverty died from starvation due to the COVID lockdowns. Next, it will hit you if you don't wake up. 20% of Canadians are now using food bank services.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Sid:

I had just picked 150 years, since that is the rounded figure for the Industrial Revolution 'til now.....there was no specific reason.

I'm happy to go back to 1650 (rounded for ease of math) & the UK Meteorological Observatory data. So we will have 200 years of pre-Industrial Revolution temperature data, to compare to the 150 yrs. (Approx.) from the start of the Industrial Revolution to 2000.

Any other CT'er comments on my post # 1276 above, before we try to move further forward?

Bob A

[Bob Armstrong]

We have now started a list of "Commonly Accepted Statements on Negative Climate Change (Layman's Terms)":

Statement # 1: Solar Activity is the main driver of climate change". It is heat from the sun that is the "source" of the problem.

Statement # 2: Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will continue to rise in the future.

Possible Common Statement # 3:

3. From 1650 (200 years before the Industrial Revolution [Started: 1850]; 1650 is earliest global temperature recording), the Earth's mean temperature has been rising naturally (Earth has been in a natural warming cycle; it has gone through various cooling and warming cycles before this current warming one). There is surface temperature data for the period 1650 to 1850, and beyond, from the records of the UK Meteorological Observatory. Some propose that they are sufficient to use to analyze our increasing temperature problem.

Any comments from our CT'er viewers? Is this a generally acceptable statement to add to our "commonly- accepted" list?

Bob A (T-S/P)

[Dilip Panjwani]

We have now started a list of "Commonly Accepted Statements on Negative Climate Change (Layman's Terms)":

Statement # 1: Solar Activity is the main driver of climate change". It is heat from the sun that is the "source" of the problem.

Statement # 2: Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will continue to rise in the future.

Possible Common Statement # 3:

3. From 1650 (200 years before the Industrial Revolution [Started: 1850]; 1650 is earliest global temperature recording), the Earth's mean temperature has been rising naturally (Earth has been in a natural warming cycle; it has gone through various cooling and warming cycles before this current warming one). There is surface temperature data for the period 1650 to 1850, and beyond, from the records of the UK Meteorological Observatory. Some propose that they are sufficient to use to analyze our increasing temperature problem.

Any comments from our CT'er viewers? Is this a generally acceptable statement to add to our "commonly- accepted" list?

Bob A (T-S/P)

Statement # 2: Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will likely continue to rise for some time in the future, before it starts falling again.

[Brad Thomson]

Why is almost all of the talk about the burning of fossil fuels and not to some extent at least about the fact that vast and horrendous deforestation is doing untold damage to the capacity of our ecosystem to function successfully? You can debate as you are all you want to my friends, but if you keep cutting down trees then your points are all completely moot, and we will all soon die.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

Thoughtful comment.

I think, though, we can only accept part:

Statement # 2 (Revised): Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will likely continue to rise for some time in the future."

If we are going to be cautious about temperature rise in the next day ("likely"), then we certainly do not want to wade into speculation as to if and when the current heat cycle will ever end (A Subsequent Cooling Cycle). This would be controversial, not "commonly accepted".

Anyone object to my secretarial ruling on Dilip's suggestion?

If not, then we have an improved Statement # 2.

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Bob Armstrong]

ChessTalk

Negative Anthropogenic Climate Change (NACC) Thread

(Started: 21/12/9)

Week # 16 (23/4/17 – 23: 7 days)



Weekly Stats:

Views
.....................................................2023 Average.... 2022 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day..........Views/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(16 wks.)..........(16 wks.).

........23....................10.........................30.....................44

Responses (Posts)

......................................................2023 Average.........2022 Average

....Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day......Responses/Day

Responses/Day....Resp./Day............ (16 wks.)..............(16 wks.)

.............3...................1............................3.........................5.

Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's number of views bounced back with more responses/activity. CT'ers are motivated to come by seeing that there are new responses which they have not yet seen.

Climate Change Thread “Responses”

There are lots of climate change articles out there, both on negative anthropogenic climate change, and negative natural climate change.

This thread encourages CT'ers on all sides to re-post here, as responses, the climate change posts of interest they see elsewhere. Overall, ChessTalker's have been quite active here in posting “responses” and it seems that chessplayers across Canada are wanting information on climate change, a challenge unlike any our species has ever faced before.

Note:

1. The goal of this thread is not to woodshed an opposing view into submission. Every position is entitled to post as it sees fit, regardless of the kind of, and amount of, postings by other positions. What is wanted is serious consideration of all posts........then you decide.
2. I personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least every 2^nd day, but admit my busy schedule means I am sometimes falling short on this. So it is great that a number of other CT'ers are posting responses here somewhat regularly.

The Pressing Climate Change Issue

The core issue:

Building a sense of URGENCY on this issue in society. We must realize that we cannot kick it down the road any longer!

The public is aware of the climate change issue.......

BUT.....

climate activists must find strategies to “AWAKEN” the public to the “urgency”.

It is expected, though somewhat disheartening, to see other negative issues of the day climb immediately to the top of the public's agenda, with climate change being sometimes substantially downgraded in importance. We will all pay for this.........

The Time Line

Nature's Tipping point is estimated to be, on current trajectory, only 9 years away (Around Jan. 1, 2031). Capping the temperature rise at only 1.5 degrees Celsius (the original international target) is now impossible (UN Climate Change Panel's most recent report in March, 2023). Their position is that the problem at this time is mostly due to human activity, and that radical change in our method of living is the only way to avoid this rising, very problematic, temperature. UNCCP noted that current government deadlines were totally insufficient to solve the problem. CO 2 must be capped by 2025 since it is the main contributor to the problem! Methane is another greenhouse gas of concern, with some maintaining it contributes more to the problem than CO2. The extent of involvement in the greenhouse effect of water vapour is somewhat controversial.

Also, it has now become necessary to add in the process of CO 2 “removal”, along with “eliminating” the spewing of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere by human activity.

Our window of opportunity is fast closing.

The Large Picture Solutions

Can we come up with at least one viable suggestion of some impressive, radical thing that might wake up the public, that we could then put out there to other concerned climate activists?

Negative “Natural” Climate Change

This thread has had a number of CT'ers arguing for Natural Climate Change, and arguing that the human economic activity contribution to negative climate change is negligible. We are just in one of Nature's long warming cycles.

We would encourage everyone to consider the materials being presented, and then see whether they in any way change your perspective, if you are an adherent of negative Anthropogenic climate change. Whether you change anything, or not, your assessment of the evidence would be most welcome in this thread.

CT'ers' Local Actions on Climate Change

You can do something! When you like one of this thread's links on an aspect of climate change, spread the news by posting it to your social media accounts and other Websites/Discussion Boards you participate in!

~ Bob (T-S/P)

[Bob Armstrong]

Re My Posts # 1281 & # 1284

I had asked if anyone had revisions to our Statement # 3, and our revised Statement # 2. Seems that 24 hrs. plus is sufficient time to move on.

So our growing list of "Commonly Accepted Statements on Negative Climate Change (Layman's Terms)" now is:

Statement # 1: Solar Activity is the main driver of climate change". It is heat from the sun that is the "source" of the problem.

Statement # 2: Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will likely continue to rise for some time in the future."

Statement # 3: From 1650 (200 years before the Industrial Revolution [Started: 1850]; 1650 is earliest global temperature recording), the Earth's mean temperature has been rising naturally (Earth has been in a natural warming cycle; it has gone through various cooling and warming cycles before this current warming one). There is surface temperature data for the period 1650 to 1850, and beyond, from the records of the UK Meteorological Observatory. Some propose that they are sufficient to use to analyze our increasing temperature problem.

Given the length of this thread, and the differing views, I think it is somewhat of an accomplishment to have arrived at our first three factual statements.

We are having, in my opinion, a good conversation (Not a debate), where all are contributing to try to find the most extended amount of common ground among we conversation participants.

At this point I'd like to throw it open as to what might be the next logical statement # 4 that could achieve common acceptance. It would be really good if we are able to go further than we have, although the 3 statements are a modest achievement on their own. I think they are also informative to ordinary people who have never really delved into the topic.

Anyone want to stick their head up (And as they say, it often will get blown off)?

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Sid Belzberg]

Re My Posts # 1281 & # 1284

I had asked if anyone had revisions to our Statement # 3, and our revised Statement # 2. Seems that 24 hrs. plus is sufficient time to move on.

So our growing list of "Commonly Accepted Statements on Negative Climate Change (Layman's Terms)" now is:

Statement # 1: Solar Activity is the main driver of climate change". It is heat from the sun that is the "source" of the problem.

Statement # 2: Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will likely continue to rise for some time in the future."

Statement # 3: From 1650 (200 years before the Industrial Revolution [Started: 1850]; 1650 is earliest global temperature recording), the Earth's mean temperature has been rising naturally (Earth has been in a natural warming cycle; it has gone through various cooling and warming cycles before this current warming one). There is surface temperature data for the period 1650 to 1850, and beyond, from the records of the UK Meteorological Observatory. Some propose that they are sufficient to use to analyze our increasing temperature problem.

Given the length of this thread, and the differing views, I think it is somewhat of an accomplishment to have arrived at our first three factual statements.

We are having, in my opinion, a good conversation (Not a debate), where all are contributing to try to find the most extended amount of common ground among we conversation participants.

At this point I'd like to throw it open as to what might be the next logical statement # 4 that could achieve common acceptance. It would be really good if we are able to go further than we have, although the 3 statements are a modest achievement on their own. I think they are also informative to ordinary people who have never really delved into the topic.

Anyone want to stick their head up (And as they say, it often will get blown off)?

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

https://twitter.com/bambkb/status/1650658645124718592

[Bob Armstrong]

Negative Anthropogenic Climate Change (NACC)

Transition to Green Energy

Nuclear?

https://www.technologyreview.com/202...fEvag_83iNTZuY

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Sid Belzberg]

[Sid Belzberg]

RFK Jr. red-pilled on climate agenda?! RFK Jr. declares climate ‘being exploited by the WEF & Bill Gates’ in ‘the same way that COVID was exploited’ – ‘Top-down totalitarian controls on society’

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on The Kim Iversen Show - Broadcast April 25, 2023

RFK Jr.: "The climate issues and pollution issues are being exploited by the World Economic Forum and Bill Gates and all of these big Mega billionaires the same way that COVID was exploited. To use it as an excuse to clamp down -- top-down totalitarian controls on society and to then to give us engineering solutions. And if you look closely as it turns out, the guys who are promoting those engineering solutions are the people who own the IPs, the patents for those solutions. It's being used.

They've given climate chaos a bad name because people now see that it's just another crisis that's being used to strip mine the wealth of the poor and to enrich billionaires. I, for 40 years, have had the same policy on climate and engineering. You can go check my speeches from the 1980s, and I've said the most important solution for environmental issues is not top-down controls, it's free market capitalism and what we have in this country now is not free market capitalism; it's corporate crony capitalism. It's capitalism, cushy, kind of socialism for the rich, and a brutal, barbaric merciless capitalism for the poor."

https://www.climatedepot.com/2023/04...ls-on-society/