Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Comment


    • Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post
      Thank you for this video link, Sid. I watched the entire video.

      I think I may be coming around to the idea of "The Great Reject" as mentioned at the end of the video.

      I've been strenuously against digital currency ... but I may have to expand that to being against far more than that. I did not know, for example, that Bill Gates is pushing for synthetic meat, and the definition of that is not soy substitutes, but is some kind of 3D-printed substance. That really blew my mind.

      It seems we are approaching a major inflection point. in world history. We may have to choose between allowing the effects of climate change (whether human-caused or not) to happen without changing our economic path, which implies letting a few billions of people perish, OR we must allow world socialism combined with fascism, both of a very extreme degree, to bring an end to democracy.

      It is interesting .... it seems that there will be extreme fascism (police state) along with extreme socialism (everyone on government assistance, very few productive people). Usually you have one or the other, although I am not a history expert, perhaps they have combined somewhere in the past.

      So I am starting to think we must fight to let climate change take its course. The alternative seems to me much worse. But I can say that because at the moment, I am not much affected by climate change. If I was affected or could envision myself affected ... well we all have a sense of self-preservation, don't we?

      EDIT: I don't really care about the survival of the human species. I know Bob A. does care about that, but I don't understand why. I think everything goes in cycles, begins and ends, and can start anew.
      Last edited by Pargat Perrer; Saturday, 13th May, 2023, 04:54 AM.

      Comment


      • Hi Pargat:

        You are correct - I don't like to see any species come to an end, and man has been the dominant species on Earth, up until now. I believe bio-diversity on Earth is important.

        As to negative climate change, as you say, whether natural or man-made, we are feeling the effects. I do not favour simply doing nothing, and spending the rest of our time as a species, merely trying futilely to adapt to a new environment that is extremely hostile to mankind.

        I am unclear as to whether the Naturalists say that nothing can be done about the future dire consequences, because it is naturally-based..........can some Naturalist answer this please?

        Secondly, though I am an Anthropogenic, I wish to be clear that I do not support each and every wacko idea that is being proposed to try to bring negative climate change under control.........this is especially so when the solution involves the adoption of fascist governments, and fascist strategies.

        I am looking for strategies that decrease the rate of negative climate change......the ones most preferable are those that involve positive climate change - enhancing our natural environment on Earth.

        ~ Bob A (T-S/P)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
          Hi Pargat:

          You are correct - I don't like to see any species come to an end, and man has been the dominant species on Earth, up until now. I believe bio-diversity on Earth is important.

          As to negative climate change, as you say, whether natural or man-made, we are feeling the effects. I do not favour simply doing nothing, and spending the rest of our time as a species, merely trying futilely to adapt to a new environment that is extremely hostile to mankind.

          I am unclear as to whether the Naturalists say that nothing can be done about the future dire consequences, because it is naturally-based..........can some Naturalist answer this please?

          Secondly, though I am an Anthropogenic, I wish to be clear that I do not support each and every wacko idea that is being proposed to try to bring negative climate change under control.........this is especially so when the solution involves the adoption of fascist governments, and fascist strategies.

          I am looking for strategies that decrease the rate of negative climate change......the ones most preferable are those that involve positive climate change - enhancing our natural environment on Earth.

          ~ Bob A (T-S/P)
          Bob, have you listened to the presentation Paragat refers to? If yes, I will be happy to respond to the points you bring up. The presentation exactly corresponds to my points; hence it is very important to me that we have a clear understanding of where I am coming from to engage further.

          Comment


          • Hi Sid:

            Reasonable request........it is most important to understand the thinking of anyone in opposition on anything......

            I will try to watch the video........I have a limitation re visual media, but if I break it up into viewing parts, I might be able to get through it.

            I'm not sure, though, when I'll get to this.....hopefully sooner, rather than later.

            Bob A

            Comment


            • Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (NACC)

              Green Energy

              Nuclear

              "Despite all the growth and advances in renewable energy, globally we consume more fossil fuels than ever, and our rate of CO2 production is in fact increasing, not heading to zero.

              But there’s a bipartisan, environmentally friendly solution still sitting on the table, still waiting for its moment — if only we can overcome our predetermined bias.

              the expansion of nuclear energy as an environmentally friendly solution to address both the world’s energy problems and, perhaps counter-intuitively, as a catalyst for peace and unity."

              https://time.com/6278789/nuclear-ene...lctg=206908353

              Bob A (T-S/P)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
                Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (NACC)

                Green Energy

                Nuclear


                But there’s a bipartisan, environmentally friendly solution still sitting on the table, still waiting for its moment


                Bob A (T-S/P)
                Maybe the climate-anxiety pushers are themselves anxious about the world adopting 'Nuclear', as it would rob them of their drumbeat...

                Comment


                • I suspect that at least some of the anxiety is caused by memories of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Brad Thomson View Post
                    I suspect that at least some of the anxiety is caused by memories of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.
                    The harm that would be caused by the recommendations of the climate-anxiety pushers likely outweighs all three of these accidents put together...
                    Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Saturday, 13th May, 2023, 06:00 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View Post

                      The harm that would be caused by the recommendations of the climate-anxiety pushers likely outweighs all three of these accidents put together...
                      Absolutely correct Dillip!



                      The number of deaths directly attributable to the three nuclear disasters - Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima - were as follows:
                      1. Chernobyl (1986): The immediate death toll from the Chernobyl disaster was 31 people, most of them reactor staff and emergency workers. However, the UN World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that about 4,000 deaths can be attributed to the disaster, mainly from radiation-induced cancer and leukemia among those exposed to high levels of radiation.
                      2. Three Mile Island (1979): The incident at Three Mile Island did not directly result in any deaths. The long-term effects on public health, including cancer rates, were extensively studied and debated. The consensus among major scientific studies is that the accident did not raise the overall incidence of cancer among those living near the plant.
                      3. Fukushima (2011): The earthquake and tsunami that caused the Fukushima disaster resulted in more than 15,000 deaths, but these were due to the natural disaster, not the nuclear accident. The direct radiation exposure from the accident has not caused any deaths as of my last update. However, the World Health Organization has stated that there is a slightly elevated risk of certain types of cancers among those who were exposed to radiation.
                      References
                      1. Chernobyl (1986):https://inis.iaea.org/search/search...._q=RN:36093263
                      2. Three Mile Island (1979):
                      3. Fukushima (2011):
                        • World Health Organization's report on Health Risk Assessment from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami report by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) about the levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the nuclear accident after the 2011 great east-Japan earthquake and tsunami:

                      Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Sunday, 14th May, 2023, 01:34 PM.

                      Comment


                      • For those that believe climate change to be natural, what are the 'natural' causes?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Brad Thomson View Post
                          For those that believe climate change to be natural, what are the 'natural' causes?
                          Chesstalk Post 1114 https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...369#post224369


                          Chesstalk Post 1115 https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...371#post224371

                          Comment


                          • This looks like a promising up-and-coming project for alternative energy sources: in the not to distant future (2025).


                            ITER (initially the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, iter meaning "the way" or "the path" in Latin[2][3][4]) is an international nuclear fusion research and engineering megaproject aimed at creating energy through a fusion process similar to that of the Sun. Upon completion of construction of the main reactor and first plasma, planned for late 2025,[5] it will be the world's largest magnetic confinement plasma physics experiment and the largest experimental tokamak nuclear fusion reactor. It is being built next to the Cadarache facility in southern France.[6][7] ITER will be the largest of more than 100 fusion reactors built since the 1950s, with ten times the plasma volume of any other tokamak operating today.[8][9]

                            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	ITER 2023-05-15 at 9.48.35 PM.png
Views:	46
Size:	1.54 MB
ID:	226745

                            Comment


                            • Thank you, Sid. If true this proves that we DO have a climate change crisis, and further indicates that there is NOTHING we can do about it because it is completely beyond our control. Let us hope it does not destroy us all, which it eventually will unless the natural heating trend reverses itself, or at least stops, soon. I think I would like our chances better if we instead of nature were responsible.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Brad Thomson View Post
                                Thank you, Sid. If true this proves that we DO have a climate change crisis, and further indicates that there is NOTHING we can do about it because it is completely beyond our control. Let us hope it does not destroy us all, which it eventually will unless the natural heating trend reverses itself, or at least stops, soon. I think I would like our chances better if we instead of nature were responsible.
                                Brad, the data I presented shows that the average temp increase is.5 degrees every century and has been that way with or without manmade CO2 emissions. How do you square that with the claim that we have a "climate change crisis"?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X