Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Ya, sure, whatever.
But what really caught my attention was the point I raised about Texas Governor Gregg Abbott passing a law that would countermand local laws requiring water breaks for construction workers. Austin for example passed an ordinance that outside construction workers must be given a 10 minute water break every 4 hours. wow, aren't they generous!

But too generous for Governor Abbott apparently. Seems crazy and very hard to believe that they would have to legislate employers to allow such breaks from a scorching heat work environment, but apparently that is the case. The water breaks since 2010 that Governor Abbott now wants to take away has reduced the death toll on workers significantly. Or is this another bullshit socialist story? or is it true?

If it is just all bullshit, I would like to know!

Here another video on the topic, help you in your research. :)

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

Why do we need a 'law' to ensure that workers can stay hydrated and if hard physical labor is involved, that they get the needed rest for a few minutes when they get fatigued? If some ruthless and idiotic employer tries to deny this to workers, he/she would be in big trouble as any harm, even minor, would then be deemed to be needing to be heavily compensated by any judge, even in the absence of any 'law' on it.
Besides the obvious benefits to the workers, it would be beneficial even to the employer to encourage workers to stay hydrated and not fatigued (while performing heavy labor), so that their output would be much better than otherwise...
Removing the mandatory 4 hour rule makes sense for the workers, because on a cool day, some very fit worker may choose to work straight through and finish his work a little early at the end and leave early, and on a very hot hard day, may need a break every 2 hours or even earlier... The point is that you don't need a myriad regulations governing each and every aspect of human activity...

[Sid Belzberg]

I have been watching these threads with growing horror for some time!

I read somewhere a long time ago that 90% of what you read on the internet is B.S. and I believe it. Unfortunately amateur researchers like Sad Klutzberg seem unable to recognize this, and buy into whatever the latest conspiracy theory is promulgated on line. For me, I rely on my own experience, simple-minded though it may be.

I have lived in the same town for 50 plus years (how dull...not). Amongst other things, I have seen the tomato growing season go from 2.5 months to 4 months. For 35 years we lived without air-conditioning....now not so much. Them's two facts that suggest significant warming.

Now how much of that is due to the crap we throw into the environment I don't know, but I suspect our puny efforts on earth have always paled in comparison to nature. Another thing I don't know is why on earth such momentous discussions are limited to a little Canadian chess site? There's a whole lot of stuff I don't know, as some will surely tell me quite rudely, but if I want to know what the weather is like, I don't go on the internet...I look out of my window!

Sad Klutzberg

Fred, why not come visit me in person and see how well hurling ethnic slurs ("klutz") at me works out for you?

[Fred Harvey]

Fred, why not come visit me in person and see how well hurling ethnic slurs ("klutz") at me works out for you?

klutz

noun INFORMAL•NORTH AMERICAN a clumsy, awkward, or foolish person.

So what's your problem...more thin-skinned B.S....just adding to the 90%!

[Sid Belzberg]

Mocking someone based on their name, particularly when it carries cultural or ethnic connotations only highlights your ignorant insinuations aimed at my name, my heritage, and my faith revealing a profound ignorance that can only be matched by your own lamentable existence. I can only pity your pathetic attempts at wit, for they merely serve to highlight the vacuity of your own soul.

[Fred Harvey]

Ignoring your ethnic diversion, although I will grant that "the vacuity of your own soul" has a certain poetic aura to it, any mockery you perceive is aimed solely at your persistent embracing of whatever conspiracy theory is touted on the internet. In my opinion, you have been given far too easy a ride on here by other debaters!

[Bob Gillanders]

Why do we need a 'law' to ensure that workers can stay hydrated and if hard physical labor is involved, that they get the needed rest for a few minutes when they get fatigued? If some ruthless and idiotic employer tries to deny this to workers, he/she would be in big trouble as any harm, even minor, would then be deemed to be needing to be heavily compensated by any judge, even in the absence of any 'law' on it.

Why do we need a law? What!!!!

The law was necessary to save lives.
"If some ruthless and idiotic employer...." don't you mean "when some ruthless and idiotic employer.."
Because that is exactly what happened. The law was passed, and the death toll plummeted.
Labour laws are there for a reason. To protect us all from the ruthless and idiotic.
If your Libertarian philosophy involves cancelling labour laws that protect us from the "ruthless and idiotic", then count me out.

Very difficult to sue somebody when you are dead.

[Sid Belzberg]

Ignoring your ethnic diversion, although I will grant that "the vacuity of your own soul" has a certain poetic aura to it, any mockery you perceive is aimed solely at your persistent embracing of whatever conspiracy theory is touted on the internet. In my opinion, you have been given far too easy a ride on here by other debaters!

Your predictable resort to labeling any viewpoint contrary to your limited perspective as a "conspiracy theory" only underscores your own intellectual impoverishment and lack of critical thinking.

Your assertion that 90% of information on the internet is false is a testament to your own gullibility and intellectual laziness. It is a convenient excuse, enabling you to dismiss any argument that challenges your shallow worldview. Instead of engaging in thoughtful analysis and discernment, you prefer to hide behind the veil of skepticism, as if it were a badge of intellectual superiority.

Your feeble attempts at mockery are but a reflection of your own insecurities and inability to counter arguments with reason and logic. It is amusing to witness your desperate attempts to undermine my credibility, all the while failing to grasp the substance of my arguments. I can only surmise that your intellectual faculties are ill-suited to the task of engaging in meaningful discourse.

[Sid Belzberg]

Why do we need a law? What!!!!

The law was necessary to save lives.
"If some ruthless and idiotic employer...." don't you mean "when some ruthless and idiotic employer.."
Because that is exactly what happened. The law was passed, and the death toll plummeted.
Labour laws are there for a reason. To protect us all from the ruthless and idiotic.
If your Libertarian philosophy involves cancelling labour laws that protect us from the "ruthless and idiotic", then count me out.

Very difficult to sue somebody when you are dead.

Government Explained.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Why do we need a law? What!!!!

The law was necessary to save lives.
"If some ruthless and idiotic employer...." don't you mean "when some ruthless and idiotic employer.."
Because that is exactly what happened. The law was passed, and the death toll plummeted.
Labour laws are there for a reason. To protect us all from the ruthless and idiotic.
If your Libertarian philosophy involves cancelling labour laws that protect us from the "ruthless and idiotic", then count me out.

Very difficult to sue somebody when you are dead.

Libertarianism does not need labor laws to protect workers; it makes workers realize that their protection is a given, because society is not bogged down by a myriad imperfect laws and constant political bickering, and instead has a very efficient judicial backbone on which they can rely 100% to be protected from even minor harm, and that they do not have to become a slave or die when dealing with ruthless and idiotic employers...
Sid has posted a nice video above explaining how stupid our current systems really are...

[Bob Armstrong]

Proposed New Statement # 3 (Renumbering those below)

Statement # 3: "Currently rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth is a problem for humanity."

Challenge - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1452 - "Currently rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth is a problem for humanity." is NOT [Emphasis added] a problem for humanity. however, air pollution is even though air quality has tremendously improved since the 1960s it is important to remain vigilant."

Defence - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1451 - "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)."

Added Defence - Bob Gillanders - Post # 1468 - "Seems crazy and very hard to believe that they [Texas Governor, Greg Abbot,] would have to legislate employers to allow such breaks from a scorching heat work environment, but apparently that is the case. The water breaks since 2010 that Governor Abbott now wants to take away has reduced the death toll on workers significantly."

Added Defence - Fred Harvey - Post # 1470 - "I have lived in the same town for 50 plus years (how dull...not). Amongst other things, I have seen the tomato growing season go from 2.5 months to 4 months. For 35 years we lived without air-conditioning....now not so much. Them's two facts that suggest significant warming."

Conclusion

Under "The Conversation Format" protocol we have adopted in this thread, a proposed statement is given the benefit of the doubt that it is "generally accepted" when originally proposed. If not challenged during one week, then the Statement joins the other generally accepted Statements, without any discussion, nor Secretary ruling.

Should a proposed Statement be challenged, with reasons, then the originator of the Statement, and any other CT'ers here, must defend the Statement's truth. As well, the onus is on the Challenger to muster CT'er support for his/her challenge, to confirm that he is not the only challenger.

In this case, Sid's Challenge has not been supported since Wed., July 12 (Over one week).

In fact, two other CT'ers joined the originator in defending Statement # 3.

So Statement # 3 has been considered "generally accepted" by the CT'ers in this thread and can be inserted into the list.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

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.

Challenge - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1452 - "The statement is out of context "rising atmospheric temperature of the earth is a modest .5 degrees average every 100 years'"

Defence - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1453 - "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."

Conclusion

Under "The Conversation Format" protocol we have adopted in this thread, a proposed statement is given the benefit of the doubt that it is "generally accepted" when originally proposed. If not challenged during one week, then the Statement joins the other generally accepted Statements, without any discussion, nor Secretary ruling.

Should a proposed Statement be challenged, with reasons, then the originator of the Statement, and any other CT'ers here, must defend the Statement's truth. As well, the onus is on the Challenger to muster CT'er support for his/her challenge, to confirm that he is not the only challenger.

In this case, Sid's Challenge has not been supported since Wed., July 12 (Over one week).

So Statement # 3 has been considered "generally accepted" by the CT'ers in this thread and can remain in the list.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

ChessTalk

Negative Anthropogenic Climate Change (NACC) Thread

(Started: 21/12/9)

Overview & Update

[Post 1 of 2 - see 2 below]



1. Weekly Stats:

Week # 28 (23/7/10 – 16: 7 days)

Views
.....................................................2023 Average.... 2022 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day..........Views/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(28 wks.)___________

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

Responses (Posts)

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

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

Responses/Day....Resp./Day............ (28 wks.)__________________

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


Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's stats are quite in line with the stats of the prior week, and 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 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.

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" protocol.

Under "The Conversation Format" protocol we have adopted in this thread, a proposed statement is given the benefit of the doubt that it is "generally accepted" when originally proposed. If not challenged during one week, then the Statement joins the other generally accepted Statements, without any discussion, nor Secretary ruling.

Should a proposed Statement be challenged, with reasons, then the originator of the Statement, and any other CT'ers here, must defend the Statement's truth. As well, the onus is on the Challenger to muster CT'er support for his/her challenge, to confirm that he is not the only challenger.

We have reached now 6 STATEMENTS in various stages of acceptance (See below).

All are a work-in-progress, though for some, there are no outstanding proposed revisions, and so they currently stand unchallenged, or challenges have previously been defeated. So, for this forum, a number of the statements are now “generally accepted” as “fact”.

[Continued in next post]

[Bob Armstrong]

Negative Climate Change
[Part 2 of 2 - Part 1 Above]

"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 rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth.

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.

Challenge : 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:

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


Statement # 4

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.

[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.]

Challenge: Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 - "Bob, concerning statement [4 – formerly 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.

Statement # 5

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.]

Challenge: Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 - "Concerning statement [5 – formerly 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 # 6

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 Negative Climate Change

You can do something! Promote the discussion on Negative 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)

[Sid Belzberg]

A Global network of over 1500 Scientists and professionals headed by Nobel laureate IVAR GIAEVER put out the following declaration:



There is no climate emergency


A global network of over 1501 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.

Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming

The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.

Warming is far slower than predicted

The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.

Climate policy relies on inadequate models

Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO₂. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO₂ is beneficial.

CO₂ is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth

CO₂ is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO₂ is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO₂ in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.

Global warming has not increased natural disasters

There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO₂-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.

Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities

There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO₂ policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, and they certainly will, we have ample time to reflect and re-adapt. The aim of global policy should be ‘prosperity for all’ by providing reliable and affordable energy at all times. In a prosperous society men and women are well educated, birthrates are low and people care about their environment.

https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/

[Bob Armstrong]

Commonly Accepted Statements on Negative Climate Change

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.

Challenge - 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."

Defence - Bob Armstrong - Sid's facts "support" Statement # 2! He asserts evidence that the average rate of increase is ".5 degrees every 100 years" over a 300 year period. This confirms "the temperature is now rising, and has been for some time". Arguably, if it has been rising for 300 years, and you look at all the human problems arising from this rising heat (See Statement # 3), then heat is going to "likely continue to rise for some time in the future". We, of course, at this point in developing our Statements, have not taken on the issue, yet, of whether this trend of .5 degrees per 100 years is the expected increase for the future.

Processing Protocol

Under "The Conversation Format" protocol we have adopted in this thread, a proposed statement is given the benefit of the doubt that it is "generally accepted" when originally proposed. If not challenged during one week, then the Statement joins the other generally accepted Statements, without any discussion, nor Secretary ruling.

Should a proposed Statement be challenged, with reasons, then the originator of the Statement, and any other CT'ers here, must defend the Statement's truth. As well, the onus is on the Challenger to muster CT'er support for his/her challenge, to confirm that he is not the only challenger.

We will revisit this in one week to see what activity there has been re Statement # 2.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)