Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Bob Armstrong]

Bob G:

The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act of the USA is a good start by a government on positive steps to slow the negative climate change trajectory we are on, despite its negatives.

Here is one article that suggests it is very helpful:

“There's this debate in the climate community about individual action versus systemic action,” says Jamie Alexander, director of Drawdown Labs at Project Drawdown, a nonprofit that advocates for climate action. “I think this deal helps show how those are not actually really two entirely distinct things. They are very much related, and demand even at a household level can help massively shift the system.”

https://www.wired.com/story/the-secr...allSubs_Active

I am not really that much in agreement with this analysis though. I believe that individual positive action is a very small percentage of the solution.

The problem is noted above - only the systems (Read governments and multi-nationals) can actually solve the problem........and only by radical action that neither are willing to take:

https://www.wired.com/story/some-kin...allSubs_Active

Lastly, I think the video that you gave the link to (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vAW..._channel=MSNBC) is right that the law being passed clearly exhibits the conflict of interest problem of the three main senators involved, Manchin, Sinema and Schumer. The bill helps the fossil fuel industry at the same time as it does introduce good concepts on slowing negative climate change.

But I am not an expert on this......I am just a little-guy layman who is doing his best to muddle through......so........I can't say if this new USA law is a real help, or, a real hindrance, in the overall. I will wait to see/hear more analysis in the future.

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Sid Belzberg]

Commentary from one of my "COVID" colleagues' scientists on COVID and Climate Change.


It is fascinating that EVERYTHING we'd predicted (in writing and on video interviews) in regard to not only the ineffectiveness of the shots (they're not vaccines), but also to their negative impact on all-cause mortality (SADS... right!), to the effects of lockdowns, school closures, masking, and social distancing has come to pass. These predictions are on record and now we have the empirical data from Government websites of all things. Moreover, even peer-reviewed publications are showing the harms and believe me, if they even get published, then their methods and conclusions had to be unassailable. Otherwise, they would never see the light of day. Sadly, many papers showing these harms, especially with regard to the shots, often have to contain verbal genuflection toward the shots which likely explains how they didn't get rejected. These genuflections often include phrases like... 'Despite our findings showing this or that harm, we also must recognize how effective have been the vaccines in preventing millions of deaths from COVID and so our results should not be used to cause vaccine hesitancy(TM)'. Not acknowledged by our elite yet though. They might think themselves oh so bright and that might well be the case. But one thing they don't have is WISDOM!


The climate change fanatics have seen this and learned a LOT. I do not believe in anthropogenic climate change. I do not believe carbon dioxide should be viewed as a pollutant or atmospheric poison and in fact hold the opposite view. Even if that was the case, we are not facing an existential threat from (carbon dioxide-induced) climate change; period.

I'm sure you recall the hand rubbing 20 years ago about the coming ice-age. Well, that didn't pan out so they went to Global Warming but when it appeared that maybe the globe wasn't warming, the term Climate Change was coined which fits everything. Well, the ice caps have increased in size. Water levels around the antarctic seashores have gone DOWN! Prior to interference with farming, our agricultural output kept growing, hundreds of millions were pulled out of poverty and starvation around the world, all of which will be lost in deference to the Climate Change Gods' diktats.

And by the way, have you noticed that we haven't had all those predicted devastating hurricanes this year? Had some developed (and I admit there's another season coming up soon), you know they'd blame that on climate change. But absent the hurricane deluge, we hear nothing from our climate change zealots now, do we? You've also got to love when they talk about the unprecedented BILLIONS of dollars in damage now caused by these POWERFUL storms. Well such storms existed in the past. Actually, who knows how powerful they were... they weren't measured. But back in the 1800s if a hurricane hit the southeastern US coast, how much damage could have been done? Not much. Now that the coasts are so populated and built up, even a tropical storm can cause BILLIONS of dollars in damage, no?

I laugh, ruefully, when they talk about fighting climate change with electric cars. Let's ignore the fact that just making electric cars not only has a far larger carbon footprint (was that to even matter, and I don't think it does) but also has a huge impact on good old fashioned pollution, not to mention the use of slave labour for production of the rare earth metals etc, And where, pray tell, do our climate geniuses think that the energy needed to power these electric cars come from? Oh... the electric grid which is powered by??? In Toronto, electric cars can use the express/HOV lanes! How environmentally sound this is! Take one lane away from regular traffic causing HUGE jams and increased levels of pollution (and carbon) by regular cars. In the meantime, the so-called non-polluting cars which by the way are only affordable to high income earners, speed along unimpeded. So is this environmental policy or merely virtue signaling showing our dedication to fighting climate change by celebrating, by giving them their own lanes, those who can afford these electrified vehicles.

To me, the ONLY arguments in favour of the currently used electric cars are based on a couple of broad notions:

1) You want to drive one because they accelerate like crazy and self navigate and also look nice and might be cheaper to operate given high gasoline prices right now. And by the way... although I blame Biden and Trudope's policies on effectively hobbling oil and gas production as well as distribution, and therefore providing fertile soil for the huge spike in prices, let's be honest. The oil companies have reported and continue to report record profits which are up by 100s of percentage points. So they're not merely passing on the cost of the increased resource now are they! There's some graft and profiteering going on there too.

2) We do have cities with huge air pollution and smog problems. I can see a situation where certain cities might want to eliminate internal combustion engines from their cores and permit only electric vehicles so as to reduce localized concentrated smog/pollution. Basically they're just moving the carbon dioxide or actual pollutants elsewhere so as to be less concentrated. I'd buy into that for now apart from my overall objections to how the damn cars are made in the first place as alluded to above.

It's so hard to talk to others about actual science since you just get dismissed or worse. But even the CDC is getting the message. Well, not so much getting the message. They KNEW the vaccines etc were worthless as were their other mitigation measures (even admitted in writing by Dr Birx!). But I think that even the CDC et al are coming rapidly to the conclusion that they can no longer hide effectively what's really happening! Hence the loosening of COVID restrictions etc (in the USA... not so much here in Canada).



https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/04/grea...twitter%7Cmain

[Dilip Panjwani]

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, you are a good man. But I wonder why you do not realize that one should not become a one sided activist (which you clearly are) if one cannot defend one's position in a logical (not necessarily with all scientific details) manner in a debate. Rather than just spend all this time and effort in activism, I would suggest that you first spend some time debating your logic with someone like Sid, to ensure that you can logically defend what your activism is about... I am writing this as your well-wisher...

[Bob Gillanders]

But I wonder why you do not realize that one should not become a one sided activist (which you clearly are) if one cannot defend one's position in a logical (not necessarily with all scientific details) manner in a debate.

I think Bob A is doing an excellent job of defending his position. :)

But, C'mon Dilip. Aren't we all just playing to the crowd? None of us are going to convince the others to change their opinions. Just enjoy the debate.
Eventually, the world will change. Climate change will get worse, or it won't.

If you want to convince me climate change is a hoax, start by bringing back the snow like it was when I was a child.

[Bob Gillanders]

Bob G:

The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act of the USA is a good start ......

Thanks Bob. It is a start, but it could have been so much more.
Oh well, take the half loaf as they say...

Of course the process started out with a grand scheme championed by Bernie Sanders.
To summarize what happened.

Sanders as budget chief starts with a huge package knows as Build Back Better.
All the tax increases (mostly on wealthy) meant to pay for it gets gutted.
The bill is split into 2 pieces. Piece A - Infrastructure, Piece B - Climate change and social spending
They are supposed to both go thru the process and be either both approved, or neither approved.
Well, surprise surprise, A - Infrastructure gets passed without B, now know as Build Back Better.

They can't seem to get Manchin on board. He keeps stringing them along until it finally dies.

Some time passes, inflation becomes an issue, then we get Inflation Reduction Act.
It is Build Back Better 2, but a lot smaller, and add in some money for fossil fuel companies.
Now Manchin is happy, but what about Sinema?
After she demands they keep the tax loophole "carried Interest" for the super rich, now she is happy too.

But, it's a start. Hurrah.

[Dilip Panjwani]

I think Bob A is doing an excellent job of defending his position. :)

But, C'mon Dilip. Aren't we all just playing to the crowd? None of us are going to convince the others to change their opinions. Just enjoy the debate.
Eventually, the world will change. Climate change will get worse, or it won't.

If you want to convince me climate change is a hoax, start by bringing back the snow like it was when I was a child.

What we are reading here or elsewhere is not a structured debate. I envisage a structured debate in which Bob A. would first tell us (in a few points) why he thinks we should take the drastic steps he advocates; Sid would then respond by challenging the basis/rationale of those points, point by point; Bob A. would then counter-respond with pointing out either why Sid's challenge is irrelevant or whether there are glaring holes in it; Sid would then respond specifically to Bob's objections....till one of them runs out of arguements specifically to the last set of statements made by the other.... thus we would actually progress towards a logical answer and not just keep on hearing just stories from them both....

[Neil Frarey]

Are solar panels a good thing to help fight climate change? I've been thinking about installing some on my south facing roof.

[Sid Belzberg]

Thanks Bob. It is a start, but it could have been so much more.
Oh well, take the half loaf as they say...

Of course the process started out with a grand scheme championed by Bernie Sanders.
To summarize what happened.

Sanders as budget chief starts with a huge package knows as Build Back Better.
All the tax increases (mostly on wealthy) meant to pay for it gets gutted.
The bill is split into 2 pieces. Piece A - Infrastructure, Piece B - Climate change and social spending
They are supposed to both go thru the process and be either both approved, or neither approved.
Well, surprise surprise, A - Infrastructure gets passed without B, now know as Build Back Better.

They can't seem to get Manchin on board. He keeps stringing them along until it finally dies.

Some time passes, inflation becomes an issue, then we get Inflation Reduction Act.
It is Build Back Better 2, but a lot smaller, and add in some money for fossil fuel companies.
Now Manchin is happy, but what about Sinema?
After she demands they keep the tax loophole "carried Interest" for the super rich, now she is happy too.

But, it's a start. Hurrah.

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/sta...97370108727297

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

In the interest of transparency:

Yes, I do agree...........I am definitely in the "progressive" camp, as opposed to the "conservative/status quo" camp.

Yes, I feel I am transparent about my politics......I am a Democratic Marxist (A member of the Democratic Marxist Party of Ontario), not a capitalist New Democratic Party member, which I was for nearly all my voting life, until recently (Nor a member of any other political party.)

No......I am not any "expert" on progressive causes, nor on Democratic Marxist theory. Yes they are an important part of my life agenda, but I have a very full normal life, despite now working on my 78th year.

So I am, I hope, a rather informed, and hopefully somewhat intelligent, "little guy" who is trying hard, within realistic life restraints, to muddle through the most critical, life-threatening issue man has ever faced. And trying to do so in an age of "over-information" and intentional "false news".

So.......no.........I am not qualified to carry forward a very knowledgeable scientific DEBATE on "Negative Anthropogenic Climate Change". It was neither part of my (Illustrious?) career, nor now, retired, is it may avocation (Which happens to be chess).

But what I do do is to present articles pointing to the "FACT" of Negative Anthropogenic Climate Change. And, if possible, I look for perceptive articles written by laymen, that we "ordinary, confused, public" can understand. I am trying to add information to the discussion (In which I hope to generate input from BOTH sides).

And yes.........I do try to do my own layman's analysis of the issue, in hopes of generating discussion (Not only with those more expert, but with more ordinary lost souls like myself on this issue - See my post above on the "Anti- Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change Position" - post # 623 - an attempted simplification).

And, where I think I understand enough to make a contribution, I will try as best I can to "respond directly" to issues raised against my position (Which I feel I have been faithfully doing since I first started this thread in December, 2021).

I hope this CT thread, a discussion within our chess family, will encourage more "laymen" like myself, on both sides, to venture an opinion in public, despite knowing that they are no "expert".

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Neil:

I think solar panels are a good thing......introducing "green" energy into our system has to be good.

At my farm property, when I first purchased it, going solar was a big up-front capital cost I couldn't afford, or I would have tried to go totally off-grid, and become an electricity sales company to Hydro One.

Now the up-front capital cost is down significantly, and the holding power of domestic batteries is now much better.

My problem at the farm now is my age (77 y.o.).......how long will I be able to run my country property?..........with selling on the horizon, I am not keen to make a further major capital investment into the farm.

Will every "little guy" on the planet doing this stop negative climate change? NOPE. But is it still a good idea: YUP.

The only hope to avoid species suicide is "Global Systemic Change away from Capitalism".

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Bob Armstrong]

Negative "Anthropogenic" Climate Change vs Negative "Natural" Climate Change

"Comment" by Veronica Knight, Member of THE Think Tank (https://www.facebook.com/bob.armstrong.9235) - 22/8/13


"I want to understand better what we humans are doing and what's happening to our Planet. So I asked Google "How do human carbon dioxide emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?" https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than... says "The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any."

AS FAR AS THE NATURAL CYCLE IS CONCERNED: "Consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 60% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati et al. 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years). [Paragraph updated July 2022, to correct information on % of additional CO2 that is absorbed.]

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating."

REPEAT: Humans have added in just 120 years what normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years to add naturally!

Sciencing.com says: An increase in the amount of carbon dioxide creates an overabundance of greenhouse gases that trap additional heat. This trapped heat leads to melting ice caps and rising ocean levels, which cause flooding.

Those melting ice caps and rising ocean levels create cause more than flooding, but I'll stop here for now.

"Figure 1: Global carbon cycle. Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatons (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4)."




Bob A (T-S/P)

[Tom O'Donnell]

Are solar panels a good thing to help fight climate change? I've been thinking about installing some on my south facing roof.

Start with googling "lithium mining" "child labor".

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Dilip:

In the interest of transparency:

I am definitely in the "progressive" camp, as opposed to the "conservative/status quo" camp.


~ Bob A (T-S/P)

Labels meant to deceive! Bob, more progress has occured in improving quality of life in free-market countries than the marxist countries can even dream of, and you are the one clamouring to achieve the status quo for world temperatures, rather than trying to adapt to climate change which has always occured and will continue to occur...

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

I know we agree to disagree, but I'll just state my position again:

1. Capitalism has brought progress, at the cost of great exploitation of the peasant/worker, and is UNSUSTAINABLE in the long run.
2. USSR-style Communism has brought material progress (China) but at the expense of the rights and privacy of the worker.
3. Democratic Marxism is new and never been tried.......the closest historical equivalent is Chile under the Unity Government of President Salvadore Allende (1970-3) - ended by a military coup instigated by USA.
4. IF world temperature rise is driven by BOTH human activity AND natural process, yes we should do our best to minimize the amount of the increase we are contributing. At least try and lengthen out man's time in the multi-verse,
5. Yes, if there is no reducing the rate of speed of heat increase near the surface of the Earth, mankind will need all their ingenuity to "adapt" to the increasingly hostile natural environment........and I fear that mankind will, like the dinosaurs, be unable to adapt and will go extinct, if we are unable to affect change in the current trajectory sufficiently to survive.

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Dilip Panjwani]

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.

Is it not surprising that main-stream media has not organized a structured debate on this issue? It seems one side is chickening out, very likely the side main-stream media is on...