Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Would this many fires set by arsonists have burned this prolifically 50 or 60 years ago?

No, because 50 or 60 years ago there were no active climate-alarmist arsonists and no passive climate-alarmist arsonists (who refuse to put out fires) either...

[Dilip Panjwani]

Canadian Wildfires

"Wildfire season is 10 times worse than normal, will burn for months: officials"

https://montrealgazette.com/news/que...G_HeadlineNews

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

The article does not mention a word about the rising trend of not putting out the fires promptly and effectively (not doing what the Alberta premier promptly and effectively did when the arsonists tried to win the 2023 election by lighting fires in Alberta)... only an alarmist article would omit such info...

[Dilip Panjwani]

"As a warming Earth simmered into worrisome new territory this week, scientists said the unofficial records being set for average planetary temperature were a clear sign of how pollutants released by humans are warming their environment. But the heat is also just one way the planet is telling us something is gravely wrong, they said.

“Heat sets the pace of our climate in so many ways ... it’s never just the heat,” said Kim Cobb, a climate scientist at Brown University.

Dying coral reefs, more intense Nor’easters and the wildfire smoke that has choked much of North America this summer are among the many other signals of climate distress."


https://apnews.com/article/global-he...ternoon%20Wire

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...iety-1.6885422

It would be nice if chesstalkers would stop contributing toward such climate anxiety...

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip

It is your position, and that of other CT'ers, that there is no need for "climate concern". You are entitled to post here support for your position.

Other CT'ers disagree.........there is evidence supporting negative climate change, and we need to do some things to try to slow down/mitigate totally its rate. We also are entitled to post here support for our position.

Let CT viewers judge for themselves among the chaos.

Is it the Libertarian position that the views of some people on climate change should be banned? And are you to be the censor, on your appointment of yourself?

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

P.S. Your Calgary Article: We must be healthy in our dealing with a very serious world crisis........stress can lead some to unhealthy action.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Dilip

It is your position, and that of other CT'ers, that there is no need for "climate concern". You are entitled to post here support for your position.

Other CT'ers disagree.........there is evidence supporting negative climate change, and we need to do some things to try to slow down/mitigate totally its rate. We also are entitled to post here support for our position.

Let CT viewers judge for themselves among the chaos.

Is it the Libertarian position that the views of some people on climate change should be banned? And are you to be the censor, on your appointment of yourself?

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

P.S. Your Calgary Article: We must be healthy in our dealing with a very serious world crisis........stress can lead some to unhealthy action.

Hi Bob,
The Libertarian position is that you are free to post what you like, but if your posting is unnecessarily alarmist which can lead to pathologic anxiety in several youngsters, either it should be widely accepted that considerable amounts of what you post is not to be believed (like Tucker Carlson's lawyers claimed in his defense, and what is likely true of chesstalk posts), or you have to compensate the ones harmed by your postings...

[Pargat Perrer]

Hi Bob,
The Libertarian position is that you are free to post what you like, but if your posting is unnecessarily alarmist which can lead to pathologic anxiety in several youngsters, either it should be widely accepted that considerable amounts of what you post is not to be believed (like Tucker Carlson's lawyers claimed in his defense, and what is likely true of chesstalk posts), or you have to compensate the ones harmed by your postings...

My wife's 2 kids suffered pathological anxiety after reading Dilip's unnecessarily alarmist post about the Libertarian position on posting.

Dilip, you can pm me for directions where to send your compensation payment.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Combating misinformation from the misinformation police:
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/arti...rmation-police

[Sid Belzberg]

Combating misinformation from the misinformation police:
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/arti...rmation-police

Great article, thanks for sharing Dilip!

https://twitter.com/Plandemic3Movie/...94835249258496

[Bob Armstrong]

Negative Climate Change

Dilip's Post # 1447 - Free Speech & Censorship

In this thread, there is no censorship. There are posting standards, but this is different.

All sides of an issue are free to post what they consider "support" for their position.

It is up to CT viewers to discuss the material, and try to identify that which is in fact "false".

In addition, through use of the "Conversation Format", all here are trying to form "Generally Accepted Statements" on the issue, This shows where differing sides do make common cause on the "facts".

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Bob Armstrong]

ChessTalk

Negative Anthropogenic Climate Change (NACC) Thread

(Started: 21/12/9)



Overview & Update

1. Weekly Stats:

Week # 27 (23/7/3 – 9: 7 days)

Views
.....................................................2023 Average.... 2022 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day..........Views/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(27 wks.)___________

........32...................52.........................29.....................44

Responses (Posts)

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

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

Responses/Day....Resp./Day............ (27 wks.)__________________

.............3.......................6........................2............................5.


Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's stats fell back in line with the 2023 average so far.

There remains here, a steady interest in the critical issue of negative climate change. All sides of the issue are free to post material they claim to be in support (Though this thread was started by an Anthropogenicist). CT'ers are getting a good sampling of all that is out there. You decide!

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 chess players 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.

2. The Anthropogenicist Position

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?


3. The Naturalists' Position

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.


4. Negative Climate Change: The Conversation Project

All sides have been trying to come up with accurate statements on climate change that will gain general acceptance....we are using the "Conversation Format".

We have reached now 5 STATEMENTS in various stages of acceptance (See below).

All are a work-in-progress, though for some, proposed revisions have now stopped. So, for this forum, a number of the earlier statements are now “generally accepted”.

(Note: One comment on each of the Statements 1-4 is still outstanding – see below. These may lead to some revision.)

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

(Following a "Conversation Format" protocol)

Statement # 1

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

(Outstanding Comments: Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 - "Bob, concerning statement 1, you are presuming there is a "problem." That is not established yet.")

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.

(Outstanding Comments: Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 - "Bob, concerning statement 2. - Uk Met Observatory is the only source of direct thermometer data going back over 300 years. The average rate is .5 degrees every 100 Years.")

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.

(Outstanding Comments:Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 - "Bob, concerning statement 3. Given that heart of the early Industrial Revolution started in the UK, where manmade CO2 emissions were significant, it is an excellent platform to analyze the data. Again, no agreement yet about whether there is a problem.")

Statement # 4

For 650,000 years, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere never rose beyond 300 parts per million (to 1949). In 1950, 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had spiked dramatically to 380 parts per million. Since 1950, we have now had another 75 years of the Industrial Revolution. We are seeking a source for the 2023 count for CO2 parts per million.
[Note: The significance of CO2, and the Industrial Revolution, as factors in negative climate change is hotly debated. But it is necessary to include a factual finding on these two items, to have some common factual statement concerning them, for future Statements & debate.]

(Outstanding Comments:Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 - "Concerning statement 4, what is the source of your data and methodology concerning Co2 concentrations PPM in the atmosphere for the last 650,000 years? The data you refer to in statement 3 shows that rate of temp. Increase is a modest (.5 degrees per century) before and after manmade CO2 emissions.)

Statement # 5

It is essential to have alternate sources of energy; it is good that this transition is now underway; our options include renewables (solar panels, tidal, water turbines, windmills) and nuclear. Traditionally used fossil fuels, including coal, are finite, though more plentiful than commonly thought.


5. CT'ers Immediate Task

CT'ers of all stripes are now invited to propose amended statements, for the majority to choose between. You can also just post confirmation that you believe the particular statement to be true.

Take a hand at drafting "critical scientific statements"!

6. CT'ers' Local Action: Promotion of the Conversation on Climate Change

You can do something! Promote the discussion on Climate Change!

a. 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!

b. You can also re-post the tentative STATEMENTS above.

~ Bob A. (Anthropogenicist)

[Bob Armstrong]

Commonly Accepted Statement # 1

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

Outstanding Comment: Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 - "Bob, concerning statement 1, you are presuming there is a "problem." That is not established yet."

Proposed Revision of this Statement # 1

Statement # 1

Solar Activity is the main driver of climate change. It is heat from the sun that is the "source" of the rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth.

Nature of Revision:

As Sid wished, the word "Problem" is removed, because it is his view that the rising temperature is not a "Problem", and he does not agree to it.

Is Statement # 1 now generally accepted? Under our protocol, if it is not challenged within one week, it is deemed "generally accepted." This is a variant of the Quebec practice re "motions": no objection; motion passes.

Proposed New Statement

I would like to canvas CT'ers whether they believe the following statement is true:

"Currently rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth is a problem for humanity."

I am raising this because of the revision of Statement # 1 above. The new Statement is fine, in my opinion, but the revision loses something that is also true.

I imagine this is not considered acceptable to Sid either, but I'll let him speak for himself. It may not be acceptable to some other CT'ers as well.

The goal in the Conversation Format is not "unanimity". The goal is "generally accepted". It is my suspicion that Sid is out of line with the majority on this issue, but let's test it to find out.

I would like to canvas CT'ers whether they believe this new statement is considered true by many.

I, for one, believe we see "problems" for human living all around us every day, the world over, from rising heat levels (Regardless of arguing over why the heat is rising or the rate at which it is rising).

So CT'ers need to express their opinions on whether Sid's position is generally accepted (That of the Naturalists) or my new statement is generally accepted (That of the Anthropogenicists). We cannot speak for the rest of the outside world.......we can only talk about generally accepted by the 40 some odd CT'ers who are regularly viewing all posts here, though perhaps not commenting yet.

So CT'ers have to speak up if we have a contested view as to whether a statement is "generally accepted by CT viewers".

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Sid Belzberg]

Commonly Accepted Statement # 1

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

Outstanding Comment: Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 - "Bob, concerning statement 1, you are presuming there is a "problem." That is not established yet."

Proposed Revision of this Statement # 1

Statement # 1

Solar Activity is the main driver of climate change. It is heat from the sun that is the "source" of the rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth.

Nature of Revision:

As Sid wished, the word "Problem" is removed, because it is his view that the rising temperature is not a "Problem", and he does not agree to it.

Is Statement # 1 now generally accepted? Under our protocol, if it is not challenged within one week, it is deemed "generally accepted." This is a variant of the Quebec practice re "motions": no objection; motion passes.

Proposed New Statement

I would like to canvas CT'ers whether they believe the following statement is true:

"Currently rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth is a problem for humanity."

I am raising this because of the revision of Statement # 1 above. The new Statement is fine, in my opinion, but the revision loses something that is also true.

I imagine this is not considered acceptable to Sid either, but I'll let him speak for himself. It may not be acceptable to some other CT'ers as well.

The goal in the Conversation Format is not "unanimity". The goal is "generally accepted". It is my suspicion that Sid is out of line with the majority on this issue, but let's test it to find out.

I would like to canvas CT'ers whether they believe this new statement is considered true by many.

I, for one, believe we see "problems" for human living all around us every day, the world over, from rising heat levels (Regardless of arguing over why the heat is rising or the rate at which it is rising).

So CT'ers need to express their opinions on whether Sid's position is generally accepted (That of the Naturalists) or my new statement is generally accepted (That of the Anthropogenicists). We cannot speak for the rest of the outside world.......we can only talk about generally accepted by the 40 some odd CT'ers who are regularly viewing all posts here, though perhaps not commenting yet.

So CT'ers have to speak up if we have a contested view as to whether a statement is "generally accepted by CT viewers".

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

Statement # 1

Solar Activity is the main driver of climate change. It is heat from the sun that is the "source" of the rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth.

The statement is out of context "rising atmospheric temperature of the earth is a modest .5 degrees average every 100 years'

Re:Problem
"Currently rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth is a problem for humanity." is not a problem for humanity. however, air pollution is even though
air quality has tremendously improved since the 1960s it is important to remain vigilant.

It is my suspicion that Sid is out of line with the majority on this issue

Seb Lee Retweeted

Seb Lee
@TheCoronaCure_
·
18h
As much as the media would LIEk you to think, you are not the 'fringe minority.' Globalist parasitic demons are.




https://twitter.com/TheCoronaCure_/s...89450488913920









I have been that way my entire life and it has served me very well. I am very pleased that I saw the COVID plandemic for what it is and did the opposite of the majority
and avoided getting injected with lethal slow kill bioweapns.

I also see the climate change scam for what it is, this tweeter put it well;



Theo Fleury

@TheoFleury14
The world has been infiltrated by a bunch of criminals who disguise themselves as politicians. Trudeau has laundered over a Trillion $$$ and nobody has said a word. The plandemic was used as a vehicle for the laundering of taxpayers all over the world. Now they are following that up with the war in Ukraine and another scam called climate change. Had enough yet!!!! Uncle. 80 years ago they tried the same shit and now they are with the same script back with a vengeance. They want it all. But just like the last time this to will be another failed attempt. Cause communism is forever a failed ideology. Marxism is a forever failed ideology. Socialism is a failed ideology. They all lead to mass death. Which is what we are seeing today. Will you fight for your children and their future or will you voluntarily step on to the boxcar without saying a word. What are you afraid of at this point you have nothing to lose and everything to gain!!!! Your kids will thank you for it.


Until you have examined ALL the evidence I presented Bob that gives ample evidence of the above statement, you are simply assisting in obfuscating the atrocities committed by these criminals by discussing the nuances of the equivalent of the platform of the Flat Earth Society and giving credence to an obvious scam!
So please engage your brain this time and read. carefully to what I have posted and listen to the videos I have asked you countless times to listen to.

[Bob Armstrong]

Thanks for directly weighing in Sid.........

Our new Commonly Accepted Statement # 1 does not play one way or another as to whether the rise in temperature is a problem. It merely states the fact that you agree with - your fact is that the average rising temperature is about .5 degrees C every 100 years.....that is rising temperature.

But you do come out swinging at my proposed new Statement that this rising heat is a problem for humanity.

So we now know that one CT'er is against the new Statement proposed. As I have said, unanimity is nice, but we need only "commonly accepted" for Statements to make the list.

I am a CT'er who believes the new Statement is true.

So at the moment, in voting, we have a tie.

Anyone want to risk their lives to step into the middle of this, and vote on my new proposed Statement?

This role that I have adopted, of playing Secretary for the CT'ers participating in this thread, is seeming like a much more difficult task than I had anticipated when I originated this thread on Dec. 9, 2021!

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Bob Armstrong]

"The Canadian lake that marks when humans started changing the planet.

A small lake near Toronto is on the verge of becoming the representative site of humanity’s impact on the planet across geologic time."

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...mhAW4S4QM2hoOG

Bob A

[Sid Belzberg]

Thanks for directly weighing in Sid.........

Our new Commonly Accepted Statement # 1 does not play one way or another as to whether the rise in temperature is a problem. It merely states the fact that you agree with - your fact is that the average rising temperature is about .5 degrees C every 100 years.....that is rising temperature.

But you do come out swinging at my proposed new Statement that this rising heat is a problem for humanity.

So we now know that one CT'er is against the new Statement proposed. As I have said, unanimity is nice, but we need only "commonly accepted" for Statements to make the list.

I am a CT'er who believes the new Statement is true.

So at the moment, in voting, we have a tie.

Anyone want to risk their lives to step into the middle of this, and vote on my new proposed Statement?

This role that I have adopted, of playing Secretary for the CT'ers participating in this thread, is seeming like a much more difficult task than I had anticipated when I originated this thread on Dec. 9, 2021!

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

Anyone want to risk their lives to step into the middle of this, and vote on my new proposed Statement?

Bob, that is a very serious charge; in fact, if anyone is "risking their lives", it is me for calling out the elite genocidal globalist Marxists for what they are.
Make no mistake about it, people like MEP Christine Anderson et al are going after the perpetrators of these crimes not useful idiots of the Elite like yourself and millions of others that have bought into this bullshit.

You can either withdraw that statement or, for my legal protection, I will request that the administrator delete my account replete with all posts in their entirety in
that case, congratulations, chief, you win!


"We didn’t vote for this ‘World Government’, and we certainly didn’t vote for these Satanic Agents of Chaos to implement ‘Global Digital ID’s’. I’m sick of being told how to live by those that say in Audio, Video, and in Writing that they want to kill everyone to achieve ‘Net Zero’."