Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

[Arising_uk]

"As it was them who first claimed it would happen and lo' it is"

Yeah, I read the Guardian piece: inaccurate crap from a (currently) leftist rag that overtly promotes the notion that human-driven climate change is real. ...

Where is the inaccuracy? Are you saying your Stanford Research Institute(SRI) didn't publish a paper back in 1968 for the American Petroleum Institute(API) warning of the consequences of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere? That Exxon didn't then do it's own research and come to the same conclusions? That the data shows a straight correlation with a half a degree increase over pre-industrial averages and us pumping CO2 into the atmosphere? That the API didn't produce a memo saying "“Victory will be achieved when: those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extant science appear to be out of touch with reality.”?
That this, "“The campaigns of those who reject the reality of climate science are fueled by the fossil fuel industry that advocate[s] for and drive[s] the emissions that cause global warming.” The data appear to corroborate this observation: in total, climate deniers, constituting 160 elected Members in the 113th Congress, have accepted $55,516,077 in contributions from the coal mining industry while the other 373 Members have taken $35,210,844 in contributions. On average, a climate denier therefore takes almost four times more in contributions from the fossil fuel industry than a non-denier." is false?

Large, undisguised bias renders a news organization into a propaganda machine. ...

It's clear where the real propaganda machine is and it's your API lobbyists. Ironic really when they raised the issue in the first place.

You should take everything in that piece, and rag, with not a pinch, but a handful, of salt.

Nah! Because even our right-wing rags are saying the same thing.

[Arising_uk]

I won't shout, I'll just state: Human-driven climate change is a thick-cut slice of baloney. ...

That'd be you the climate scientist talking would it?

The climate -- as an interlocking of various heat distribution systems -- changes...it has to...it's dynamic. ...

Exactly, the data shows the world was warming but it also shows that since we began pumping gases into the atmosphere on an industrial scale there's been a jump over the average.

Man's industry has had little impact on that change.

Depends if you think half a degree over the average is little, it's not given the scale we are talking about and it was predicted just as it is also now predicted that we're going to go over 1.5 degrees no matter what we do and that is on a good day given that as you say it's a dynamic feedback system.

Do I think it means we'll go extinct? Of course not but it'll mean a massive disruption to all walks of life and from such things wars start and civilizations fall. Of course this is nothing new but why let it happen just because a few want to make a massive buck when it's not necessary?

[henry quirk]

Yep...got my *BS in the subject.








*get it?

[Arising_uk]

So what is your explanation of the correlation between the data showing an increase over the historical average and the historical production of greenhouse gases if not causation?

[henry quirk]

In other words: dumb friggin' luck.

That's my explanation for data that supposedly shows a temp increase over the historical average coinciding with the production of greenhouse gases.

Dumb. Friggin'. Luck.

[Immanuel Can]

That's my explanation for data that supposedly shows a temp increase over the historical average coinciding with the production of greenhouse gases.

In a sense, it doesn't much matter what caused greenhouse gases and global warming. What matters is that we have not the least idea how to change it.

Here are some recent "environmentalist" ideas about how to fix things in my country:


1. Start making electric cars, though they have a far greater carbon footprint and disposal problem than regular cars. Call it a win, because it creates less obvious air pollution.

2. Take over vast tracts of the world's most arable land in order to produce low-grade, inedible corn, turn it very poor fuel, and put it in cars and burn it. Call it "ethanol," and claim it's good for the environment.

3. Set up recycling programs that collect five grades of plastic, but can only recycle one. Have a special fleet of diesel trucks pick up what amount to balloons of air, carry them to a new depot, sort them, and have more trucks take most of the plastic to a landfill anyway.

4. Spend billions to set up windmills that produce tiny amounts of much more expensive energy, kill millions of birds, block the landscape, and make local residents ill. Call it "sustainable, renewable" energy.

5. Cut back on obvious stuff, but don't substantially alter the Western lifestyle. Put more and more things on batteries that are highly toxic, and keep inventing technologies that depend on heavy metals. Don't mention those.

6. Ban all controlled hunting and culling of animal populations, so that major species overpopulate, become diseased and starve, as a result of lack of predators. Hold onto that belief even when masses of the species begin to invade human habitation and become a serious danger to themselves and us.

7. By taxation, penalize small countries in the developed world. Do nothing about the developing world, and don't criticize authoritarian foreign governments that are the major polluters worldwide. For example, of the ten rivers that are the major dumpers of plastic into the oceans, accounting for 80% of the waste, eight are in Asia, and two are in Africa. But Canada, which has very clean rivers, is now supposed to be banning plastics. Ignore all facts about this, and just pretend we're making a difference.

8. Claim to be taking "moral leadership" on the environment, without any reason to believe that anybody else from another culture thinks we're "moral leaders." Pretend everybody so admires us that all we have to do is tank our own economies and the rest of the world will join us. Leave places with vast populations, like China, India, Mexico City, and so on to their own decisions about pollution, and just hit the Western democracies hard. Just trust that soon, these other places will start to "feel bad," and cut back too. Simply believe that they will take the opportunity to take over economically, and that will make it true.


In short, it's pretty clear that the environmental lobby doesn't actually have the foggiest idea of what to do. They're just thrashing around, trying symbolic gestures, without at all understanding the consequences of what is actually happening, or how to address it. And in every case, their interventions have not only made life worse, they've made pollution worse too. Nobody's winning from what they are advocating.

So there isn't any reason to listen to these jokers anymore; in fact, there's every reason to await better science on this question. Because if we do what the naive environmentalists want us to do, we'll be dead faster than ever.

[henry quirk]

We can't change, avoid, or correct that which doesn't exist.

There is no human-driven climate change.

The climates does change, yes: but industry is not the engine of that change.

[Immanuel Can]

The climates does change, yes: but industry is not the engine of that change.

I'm inclined to reserve judgment on that until the data comes in. But either way, as I'm sure you'd agree, it would make zero difference to the question, "Should we jump on board with the 'responses' advocated by 'environmentalists' right now?"

On the basis of their record, I think the answer's pretty clearly "No!" It would be like playing Russian roulette with an automatic. (I'm sure you get that implication.)

[henry quirk]

Oh, I agree. That's why I don't entertain their silly-assed solutions, don't even comment on their silly-assed solutions, and just get to the root of it.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can.

I expect that ordinary people like you and me will try be more frugal and generally more careful. Eventually the politicians will have to make laws to change the industries that use too much water and other finite natural resources.

Like you, I don't fully understand what needs to be done however I know there are experts who know what must be done.

I guess you are too young to have known the austere conditions during and just after the last war. I can remember, and we can do it again.

[jayjacobus]

The climates does change, yes: but industry is not the engine of that change.

I'm inclined to reserve judgment on that until the data comes in. But either way, as I'm sure you'd agree, it would make zero difference to the question, "Should we jump on board with the 'responses' advocated by 'environmentalists' right now?"

On the basis of their record, I think the answer's pretty clearly "No!" It would be like playing Russian roulette with an automatic. (I'm sure you get that implication.)

Both you guys see what's happenning but you say let's wait to see what happens next.

You are the Nevelle Champerlains of 2019.

[Immanuel Can]

Both you guys see what's happenning but you say let's wait to see what happens next.

You don't read very well.

What we're advocating is using science. What you're advocating is using panic. And between those two, I think the choice is pretty clear.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can.

I expect that ordinary people like you and me will try be more frugal and generally more careful. Eventually the politicians will have to make laws to change the industries that use too much water and other finite natural resources.

Like you, I don't fully understand what needs to be done however I know there are experts who know what must be done.

I guess you are too young to have known the austere conditions during and just after the last war. I can remember, and we can do it again.

I have no problem with austerity, if it's a) correctly aimed at a solution, and b) has some chance of solving the problem. But at the moment, I agree with your statement that we don't really know what needs to be done. Until we really do, we should be skeptical of easy solutions of the sort the climate-change lunatics routinely advocate. We've seen what those ideas do: they give us austerity, but no improvement.

[henry quirk]

"What we're advocating is using science."

Sure, we should keep an eye open, but, to be honest: I think the fat lady done sung.

Human industry is not driving the clmate, so there's no good reason to cripple ourselves economically, no good reason to give the floor to self-described 'socialists' (commies).

*Drive them back underground where CHUD belong.









*or give 'em helicopter rides

[Immanuel Can]

"What we're advocating is using science."

Sure, we should keep an eye open, but, to be honest: I think the fat lady done sung.

Okay, but either way, we are not going to find a solution to anything by pretending we know what to do, panicking, doing a bunch of symbolic gestures that are, in fact, entirely environmentally destructive (like sending around fleets of "recycling" trucks), and then crashing our economies while making things worse.

What we need is a rational solution, a scientific solution, if such a thing can be had. But first, as you rightly point out, we'd need to have scientific certainty that climate change is a) caused by consumption, and b) reversible by us; then c) we'd have to know what to do to reverse it, and d) have the will to act.

At present, we have none of those things. What the environmentalists all want is a bunch of climate-destroying "climate saving" reforms, imposed on the developed world only, without the data to know what we're doing.