The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

[Snowygerry]

If Global Warmer is going to destroy the world for our children then it is a fait accompli. I would suggest that we have no more reason to believe the "experts" are right about the consequences of Global Warming than they were about the consequences of peak oil.

That's strange.

For example - I quoted a scientific article above wherein experts establish that a succession of mild winters in recent decades in Nort-West Europe have created circumstances wherein exotic disease carrying insects are now able to reproduce in areas where where they formerly couldn't, and they predict based on perfectly verifiable factors how this trend will evolve in upcoming years.

I see no reason to question their conclusions, apparently no one else here does either.

Same with the article above on rising sea levels.

And you roll out Jimmy Carter ? To my knowledge he's not an expert on anything.

If you read/listen to idiots you will hear idiotic conclusions - that's no suprise is it ?

"Global warming" will not "destroy the world" and no one here suggested it would, that's just silly.

I prefer "climate change" btw, since it many places it will not be apparently "warming" and "global" changes are notoriously hard to quantify which will just confuse the simple minded.

[Snowygerry]

Considering the anthropogenic proponents are advocating extreme social, economic and technology "corrections" for something we may not be able to fix or correct, would seem a lot more discussion would be advisable over ill-thought-out and hasty actions.

Well there's little we can do about others actions.

If a bunch 16-year olds decide to not have meat any longer, or prefer to ride a bike instead of a car, or train instead of a plane to reduce their "ecologic footprint" - who am I to point out the futility of such efforts..

they're not here on the ACG to argue after all, otherwise I probably would

And naturally elected politicians will react to such "movements" - they better if they know what's good for them.

For example, it was the fault of the whales, whom couldn't reproduce quickly enough to match human consumption demands that led to consideration of and switch over to petroleum to fill the needs and voids.

Not sure I follow you there ? whales ?

It's not like industry started using petroleum for a shortage of whale oil, rather the freely available and "cheap" petroleum reduced the demand for animal fat as fuel.

Likewise "cheaper" renewable energy is reducing the demand for fossil fuel now.

Looking at the chemical makeup of this planet, inevitably we will end up with some fuel derived from hydrogen imho.

[bill shack]

the facts
the united states is 5% of the world population.
the united states consumes 25% of the fossil fuels. .

https://quizlet.com/36833422/chapter-4-flash-cards
although the United States has less than 5% of the world's population, it accounts fro approximately _____ of the worlds annual consumption of fossil fuels 25%

[T. A. Gardner]

the facts
the united states is 5% of the world population.
the united states consumes 25% of the fossil fuels. .

https://quizlet.com/36833422/chapter-4-flash-cards
although the United States has less than 5% of the world's population, it accounts fro approximately _____ of the worlds annual consumption of fossil fuels 25%

What's your point?

Riddle me this: You have two coal plants, one in America, one in China. Both have the same power output. The US one with good pollution controls puts out 3 tons of CO2 a day. The Chinese one with no pollution controls puts out 30 tons of CO2 a day.

To reduce the US plant's output by 1 ton will cost $100 million. To reduce the Chinese plant's output by 10 tons will cost $10 million.

Which do you advocate?

[G David Bock]

the facts
the united states is 5% of the world population.
the united states consumes 25% of the fossil fuels. .

https://quizlet.com/36833422/chapter-4-flash-cards
although the United States has less than 5% of the world's population, it accounts fro approximately _____ of the worlds annual consumption of fossil fuels 25%

As usual, these "facts" aren't exactly correct or informative, let alone accurate gauges.

Let's start with the misnomer/inaccurate term "fossil fuels".

1) The more correct term would be hydro-carbon compounds, not all of which are "fossils"~ i.e. prior life forms from millions to billions of years ago. For example, I burn wood to heat my home and that is a current, non-fossilized version of a hydro-carbon resource. Planting other trees to replace those that are cut down and used to fire my wood-stove is a form of sustainable ecological and biosphere activity.

The use of cropland that could be used to grow food but is used to grow plants for "bio-fuel" is another example of current, non-fossilized production and use of hydro-chemical compounds for current energy consumption and/or other uses.

2) Not all hydro-carbon sources are the result of prior lifeforms. Some would appear to be product of planetary formation and chemistry separate from the need for a biosphere and living organisms.

3) Not all "fossil fuels" are actually used as "fuels", something that is burned for energy that will go out a smokestack or tailpipe. Many hydro-carbons mined from the Earth's crust are used to make PRODUCTS, such as lubricants and solvents, synthetic materials like fertilizers/insecticides/pesticides, paints, adhesives, etc. and also many are used to make "plastics" such as the "man-made" parts of your tennis-shoes, fenders of your automobile, packaging and wraps of the products you buy at the store, synthetic(polyesters) of clothing, etc., etc., etc., ...

So the initial bottom-line here is that about half or more of USA consumption of hydro-carbon resources(a.k.a. = "fossil fuels") is for the production of PRODUCTS, not as use in energy sources. These "products" are then used around the globe.

As one example, during my employment in the aircraft manufacturing industry I came to realize that the modern jet airliner, say made by Boeing, is about 80-90% non-metal in air-frame and interior components versus say the DC-3 of nearly 80-90 years ago which was mostly metal components. The modern 777 say has more in common with the scale model kit you might have displayed on your desk/shelf than it does with that near century old DC-3.

Also note that the production of PRODUCTS also requires energy,and some of that will come from the use of hydro-carbon resources as fuel.

As I go through your most recent and earlier posts, "Mr. bill shack", I'm left with the impression that you took few if any science classes during your schooling years, especially of basic chemistry. Also that if you did take such classes you failed to understand the bulk of what was being taught. AND, that if you did take such science classes, you likely failed to get a passing grade in most,if not all of them. In short, you appear to display a combination of both ignorance and stupidity in you pro-ACC/AGW postings here.

Sad thing is that increasingly more of the human population joins you in this combination of ignorance and stupidity, which might ultimately result in the demise of our species. Meanwhile, the planet will struggle on and survive, the biosphere that is, maybe for the better.

As I've said often enough here and elsewhere, if you "truly believe" in this unproven hypothesis of ACC/AGW, then do the noble thing, give up your life for the betterment of humanity; stop exhaling CO2. If you and everyone whom "believes" in ACC/AGW were to do such about 99+% of that non-problem would disappear.

[G David Bock]

What's your point?

Riddle me this: You have two coal plants, one in America, one in China. Both have the same power output. The US one with good pollution controls puts out 3 tons of CO2 a day. The Chinese one with no pollution controls puts out 30 tons of CO2 a day.

To reduce the US plant's output by 1 ton will cost $100 million. To reduce the Chinese plant's output by 10 tons will cost $10 million.

Which do you advocate?

While I appreciate your post and point, here's the key issue;
Do carbon-dioxide(CO2) levels REALLY play a key part in the issue of Climate Change/Global Warming?

Note that even at 400ppm(dry) we are still looking at a ratio of one part CO2 versus 2,500 parts everything else; Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, etc. in the general atmosphere; before we get to the CO2 component (about 1/2500 of the 1% "OTHER" of atmospheric composition).

The case of the ACC/AGW idiots is that the flea is wagging the tail that shakes the dog, so to speak ...

Meanwhile, about 99+% of LIFE on this planet requires CO2(minimum of about 300ppm) and we barely have a level enough to sustain such ...

[T. A. Gardner]

While I appreciate your post and point, here's the key issue;
Do carbon-dioxide(CO2) levels REALLY play a key part in the issue of Climate Change/Global Warming?

Note that even at 400ppm(dry) we are still looking at a ratio of one part CO2 versus 2,500 parts everything else; Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, etc. in the general atmosphere; before we get to the CO2 component (about 1/2500 of the 1% "OTHER" of atmospheric composition).

The case of the ACC/AGW idiots is that the flea is wagging the tail that shakes the dog, so to speak ...

Meanwhile, about 99+% of LIFE on this planet requires CO2(minimum of about 300ppm) and we barely have a level enough to sustain such ...

My point in the example is another that shows there is no correlation between energy consumption or fossil fuel use and CO2 creation, even when you accept that position. Thus arguing that the US the biggest user of fossil fuels is a meaningless statistical curiosity in the ACC Gorebal Warming debate.

[wolfhnd]

That's strange.

For example - I quoted a scientific article above wherein experts establish that a succession of mild winters in recent decades in Nort-West Europe have created circumstances wherein exotic disease carrying insects are now able to reproduce in areas where where they formerly couldn't, and they predict based on perfectly verifiable factors how this trend will evolve in upcoming years.

I see no reason to question their conclusions, apparently no one else here does either.

Same with the article above on rising sea levels.

And you roll out Jimmy Carter ? To my knowledge he's not an expert on anything.

If you read/listen to idiots you will hear idiotic conclusions - that's no suprise is it ?

"Global warming" will not "destroy the world" and no one here suggested it would, that's just silly.

I prefer "climate change" btw, since it many places it will not be apparently "warming" and "global" changes are notoriously hard to quantify which will just confuse the simple minded.

I usually would not make this personal but I think you have too much faith is authority. In particular the obvious manipulation of data by the global warming experts for political purposes makes me look more carefully at what they have to say than we should have to. I'm not saying that they are totally corrupt but assuming good intentions does not help necessarily in preventing people who are obsessed with an idea put it in perspective. As with most things in life power corrupts and money is the source of power in a complex society that is marginally a liberal democracy. It has been shown empirically that adding the words climate change to a research grant applicatons increases the chance it will be funded. There is ever incentive for anyone even if they are not directly associated with global warming to embrace the alarmist position and ever disincentive in the form of social censure to avoid questioning the consequences in any way.

I'm not an expert on disease vectors nor a biologist of any sort. I accept the results of the studies you linked to as to the survival of mosquito eggs from various species in cold climates. It is also worth noting that insect borne disease such as Malaria have been a major obstacle to development in tropical climates. That said a look at history will add some perspective.

It’s hard to believe that there was a time when every state in America except Alaska was malaria endemic. There is a long history of malaria in the USA dating back to the 15th Century when it first appeared in the country until today where it still affects local residents.

The first known case of the disease in America is believed to be after the arrival of explorer Christopher Columbus in 1492.

https://www.mosquitosquad.com/greate...ia-in-the-usa/

In fact, malaria was the No. 1 killer in Illinois until the 1850s.

Interestingly, malaria was not indigenous to the Mississippi Valley. Rather, settlers with malaria-infected blood came to Illinois and unwittingly infected local anopheles mosquitoes. In other words, we brought malaria to the mosquito!

This wholesale remaking of surface and subsurface hydrology, though utterly destructive to the prairie ecosystem, ended the specter of malaria. By the late 1800s, the “shakes” were mostly a thing of the past in the Central Illinois countryside.

https://www.pantagraph.com/news/loca...08ef9bbba.html

We tend to think of it now as a developing-nation disease but well into the early 19th century, malaria was extremely common in the United States, even in places like Michigan and Minnesota. The greatest prevention for malaria is mosquito control. The United States has paved over and drained all the stagnant water that bred malaria-infected mosquitoes. But it continues to be one of the leading killers in the world today – about a million people die from it each year.”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/...-medical-chart

Since we are discussing malaria specifically you may be interested in this study that focuses on migration and mortality rates in a less antidotal way. https://www.sole-jole.org/12067.pdf

The story of Malaria in the U.S. is an example of why environmentalists only tell you half the story. The brutalization of nature eliminated Malaria. Human interest and environmental interest do not always align. Worshiping nature has become as cultish as intersectional social justice. The constant harping by the left that ever objection to their policies is a conspiracy theory reflects a kind of infection of bad philosophy that is rampant in our society. Marxism and it's twin democratic socialism has crept into the intellectual zeitgeist an infected almost the entire population especially the university educated. The biologist Steven Gould is an excellent example of how even science has been perverted by the infection of ridiculous philosophical precepts. Global warming is the convenient truth by which bureaucrats and academics see a way to take their "righteous" control over society. People are people and they all are susceptible to ambition and ego traps.

Openness is perhaps the characteristic that can be most broadly associated with researchers.

Openness to experience is one of the domains which are used to describe human personality in the Five Factor Model. Openness involves six facets, or dimensions, including active imagination (fantasy), aesthetic sensitivity, attentiveness to inner feelings, preference for variety, and intellectual curiosity.

People high in openness tend to be low in conscientiousness.

Conscientiousness is the personality trait of being careful, or diligent. Conscientiousness implies a desire to do a task well, and to take obligations to others seriously. Conscientious people tend to be efficient and organized as opposed to easy-going and disorderly. They exhibit a tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement; they display planned rather than spontaneous behavior; and they are generally dependable. It is manifested in characteristic behaviors such as being neat, and systematic; also including such elements as carefulness, thoroughness, and deliberation (the tendency to think carefully before acting. Conscientiousness is one of the five traits of the Five Factor Model

It's important to see how intelligent people fall into the ego trap. Below is an article that I suspect comes from someone I have very little in common in but she is a young lady who seems to have a bit of wisdom. 18 Super Common ‘Ego Traps’ Even The Smartest People Can Fall Victim To

12. If you think you have a lot of very simple answers to big, overarching human problems, you are in an ego trap.

https://thoughtcatalog.com/brianna-w...all-victim-to/

[G David Bock]

Well there's little we can do about others actions.

If a bunch 16-year olds decide to not have meat any longer, or prefer to ride a bike instead of a car, or train instead of a plane to reduce their "ecologic footprint" - who am I to point out the futility of such efforts..

they're not here on the ACG to argue after all, otherwise I probably would

I'm all for individuals living a lifestyle they think is consistent with their beliefs, it's only when they try to impose such upon me that I might balk, or more. That was the point of my post you may be mis-quoting and/or mis-understanding ...

Like I said, keep it to yourself and no problem, try to force such on me, may be a Problem.

And naturally elected politicians will react to such "movements" - they better if they know what's good for them.

OK, where did "Nature" enter into human elections of officials/leaders ... ???

Considering the variety and range of "movements" just which of these are you advocating these "natural" politicians engage and support ???

Not sure I follow you there ? whales ?

Yes "whales', or cephalopods ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale
... Ecology

Foraging and predation

....
All whales are carnivorous and predatory. Odontocetes, as a whole, mostly feed on fish and cephalopods, and then followed by crustaceans and bivalves. All species are generalist and opportunistic feeders. Mysticetes, as a whole, mostly feed on krill and plankton, followed by crustaceans and other invertebrates. A few are specialists. Examples include the blue whale, which eats almost exclusively krill, the minke whale, which eats mainly schooling fish, the sperm whale, which specialize on squid, and the grey whale which feed on bottom-dwelling invertebrates.^[12][74][75] The elaborate baleen "teeth" of filter-feeding species, mysticetes, allow them to remove water before they swallow their planktonic food by using the teeth as a sieve.^[69] Usually whales hunt solitarily, but they do sometimes hunt cooperatively in small groups. The former behaviour is typical when hunting non-schooling fish, slow-moving or immobile invertebrates or endothermic prey. When large amounts of prey are available, whales such as certain mysticetes hunt cooperatively in small groups.^[76] Some cetaceans may forage with other kinds of animals, such as other species of whales or certain species of pinnipeds

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

... these large creatures are huge sized feeders upon many a fauna (and some flora) of the ocean and once their numbers were greatly decreased, by human hunting and harvesting, the ecology and biosphere/biodiversity of the Oceans would have been greatly upset. This is one major factor that I so far see little consideration given too in dialogues on "Climate Change". ~~~
~~~ the reduction in large sized whale population and it's impact on the food source they consumed and then it's rampant excessive growth, may have been a greater factor on Ocean chemical balances than any other action by humans, yet one that is least measured or understood.


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

It's not like industry started using petroleum for a shortage of whale oil,

Actually, from my take on recent history, that is exactly the case!
As 'whale' carcass became more scarce and expensive, the alternatives began to be more cost effective and the budding petroleum refining/distilling industry was one major such. Rather then the 'freely' available and "cheap" petroleum reduced the demand for animal fat as fuel. Petroleum would also lead to a larger diversity of products from a single "natural" resource, thus enhancing it's usability and desirability.

Likewise "cheaper" renewable energy is reducing the demand for fossil fuel now.

While solar and wind may provide "energy", when the Sun shines and the Wind blows, they don't provide raw material for PRODUCTS; which is what those mis-called "fossil fuels"/Hydro-
Carbon Resources(HCRs) provide. Solar and Wind Power ain't going to give us the "plastics" that we need to survive. ...

... Meanwhile, for the most part, that "cheaper" remains dependent upon the broad base of taxpayer(consumer) subsidy ...

Looking at the chemical makeup of this planet, inevitably we will end up with some fuel derived from hydrogen imho.

If that is your "imho" then it looks like you either;
1) Never took a chemistry (or physics) class in your life;
2) Never absorbed the lessons to be learned in taking a chemistry/physics class in your life;
3) Never got a passing grade in a Chemistry or Physics class in your life.

[wolfhnd]

I kind of like compressed natural gas

[G David Bock]

I kind of like compressed natural gas

Did you know it is also a component(key source) in vinyl product production? ???

[wolfhnd]

Did you know it is also a component(key source) in vinyl product production? ???

Fertilizer is the big one.

Why don't you think natural gas and then hydrogen isn't viable? You have the infrastructure once you convert to natural gas. Lot's of homes have natural gas available for cars and almost every Trucking center could have it available.

[T. A. Gardner]

I kind of like compressed natural gas

Except when it's weaponized...

[Snowygerry]

If that is your "imho" then it looks like you either;
1) Never took a chemistry (or physics) class in your life;
2) Never absorbed the lessons to be learned in taking a chemistry/physics class in your life;
3) Never got a passing grade in a Chemistry or Physics class in your life.

You funny

Much too longwinded, otherwise some good points, especially by Wolfhound in regard to malaria there, that is the "face" of climate change for the individual - not some nonsense about the end of world.

Please allow me to answer at my leasure, is getting near the week-end here and there's still some work to do.

[Snowygerry]

I usually would not make this personal but I think you have too much faith is authority. In particular the obvious manipulation of data by the global warming experts for political purposes makes me look more carefully at what they have to say than we should have to. I'm not saying that they are totally corrupt but assuming good intentions does not help necessarily in preventing people who are obsessed with an idea put it in perspective. As with most things in life power corrupts and money is the source of power in a complex society that is marginally a liberal democracy. It has been shown empirically that adding the words climate change to a research grant applicatons increases the chance it will be funded. There is ever incentive for anyone even if they are not directly associated with global warming to embrace the alarmist position and ever disincentive in the form of social censure to avoid questioning the consequences in any way.
-ego-traps-even-the-smartest-people-can-fall-victim-to/"]https://thoughtcatalog.com/brianna-w...all-victim-to/[/URL]

I doubt it.

A source is what it is. All sources have inherent bias, but please note the sources I used are not "global warming experts" whatever they may be.

They were "insect experts" on the one, and "sea-level experts" on the other, their findings are there for all to review or disprove, according to good scientific practice.

That being said, let me point out, there is profit to be made by denying climate change, just like by confirming it - just the origin of the funds differs.

It’s hard to believe that there was a time when every state in America except Alaska was malaria endemic.

Not at all. It's only hard to believe for those lacking in historical perspective.

The United States has paved over and drained all the stagnant water that bred malaria-infected mosquitoes.

And you were rather late to the game, we know from the Greeks and Romans that everything north of the Schelde estuary was disease ridden swampland.

Over the centuries successive generations cleaned it up, cleared and drained it, to the point that even in times of rising sea levels they gained habitable land instead of losing it.

I'm sure you're familiar with the iconic images of "windmills" in Holland - they are in fact wind-driven water pumps, constantly draining the swamp so to say

But none of that disproves anything I posted - rather it proves that anthropogenic "climate" change happens, is even deliberately done in many places with benifecial results.

Forgive me for ignoring the psychological issues raised at the end of your post, as they seem less relevant to the issues under discussion here.