Thread: Catastrophic Failure of Earth Within the Lifetime of Someone Alive Today!?

Thanks for the laugh DreamyBear! I almost want to say the same to Voldmer...if your only response to the deluge of sources is unsubstantiated conspiracy theories then this debate seems over. Feel free to back up your claims with reliable sources if you can though.

Thanks for the explanations, Voldmer.

All the different crusades I mentioned first were - at a first glance - to do with the environment. But on closer inspection they were all misguided, and following them would not in any way have benefited the environment. There is a completely different agenda behind them however: doing whatever it takes to get free enterprise under government control (using ever tougher laws, and - importantly - ever increasing fees, payable to government, for doing business. Witness for example the CO2-allowances, that have to be paid for now - to governments of course).

But some of the policies have been effective in curbing CO2 emissions, as you can see from the graph which shows significant numbers. Protecting forests from being cut down for example, has an impact on absorption of CO2.

I don't know about the secret agenda behind policies. Politicians would advocate different things just to get re-elected. Unfortunately, by being against a particular politician or government policies, a lot of people disregard the issue of climate change altogether.

What matters is, in the very least to acknowlege that certain changes are taking place. If more people care about the environment and the impact our activies have, then we can start making changes in a positive direction.

This is a clear and massive obstruction to free enterprise, and every single person or organisation in favour of freedom and free enterprise should condemn central banking in the strongest terms possible.

I understand you may have criticism regarding the effectiveness of certain central bank policies, but blaming them for being enemy of free enterprise is a bit too much.

While they are independent from government to prevent being influenced by short term political agenda, central bankers are usually appointed by goverment and still acountable to it. The monetary policies usually aim to tackle inflation or promote economic growth and not restrict businesses. In addition, their influence on the value of a currency is not as pronounced as you may think. Central banks can only offer a limited support of one currency (let it appreciate or depreciate it against another) as they have less reserves to intervene on foreign markets than do speculators (banks that trade in currencies for profit). What happens on both domestic and foreign markets has much more influence than actual bank policies.

Originally Posted by NyxCC

But some of the policies have been effective in curbing CO2 emissions, as you can see from the graph which shows significant numbers. Protecting forests from being cut down for example, has an impact on absorption of CO2.

This would be commendable, if CO2 was a problem. But the thing is, CO2 levels today are extremely low by Earths historical standards, and additionally - and this keeps being forgotten in the debate - CO2 is what plants are made of. The more CO2, the more plant life. And the more plant life, the more animal life. That used to be considered a good thing.

Originally Posted by NyxCC

I understand you may have criticism regarding the effectiveness of certain central bank policies, but blaming them for being enemy of free enterprise is a bit too much.

While they are independent from government to prevent being influenced by short term political agenda, central bankers are usually appointed by goverment and still acountable to it. The monetary policies usually aim to tackle inflation or promote economic growth and not restrict businesses. In addition, their influence on the value of a currency is not as pronounced as you may think. Central banks can only offer a limited support of one currency (let it appreciate or depreciate it against another) as they have less reserves to intervene on foreign markets than do speculators (banks that trade in currencies for profit). What happens on both domestic and foreign markets has much more influence than actual bank policies.

I'd rather not get into a detailed debate about central banking, because that's not what I want to use DreamViews for. But let me just point out that a central bank like the FED can issue as much money as it wants, and give it to whom ever it pleases. This obvously increases the money supply, and causes prices to rise (which de facto is devaluation of the currency). All the central banks do that in historical measure these days. Famously, the German central bank did the same betweeen 1918 and 1923, which ended with the total collaps of the German currency. There have been many other cases in the last 100 years (most of them in South America). Such activity destroys the value of all monetary savings, and makes winners out of spenders, and loosers out of savers. This type of motivation steers directly towards economic collaps due to the lack of savings.

Also, whether this is all done for the most noble of purposes (which I don't for a second think it is), or not, is really not particularly important. As they say: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

This would be commendable, if CO2 was a problem. But the thing is, CO2 levels today are extremely low by Earths historical standards, and additionally - and this keeps being forgotten in the debate - CO2 is what plants are made of. The more CO2, the more plant life. And the more plant life, the more animal life. That used to be considered a good thing.

Incoherent uninformed rambling which can be dismissed with as little effort as you put into researching it.

Originally Posted by fogelbise, signature

Backwards:
"My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."
- Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) who is set to become the Republican's representative for, and Chairman of, the United States Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in January 2015.

Really? Oh dear...
America - please save yourself from your imaginary friend in the sky.
Seriously, a politician spouting something like this in public in Germany would be viewed as a nutter, for whom there is no place in politics.
Not even in the Christian Democratic Union, our center-right wing party. He'd get slaughtered by the media.

Originally Posted by StephL

Really? Oh dear...
America - please save yourself from your imaginary friend in the sky.
Seriously, a politician spouting something like this in public in Germany would be viewed as a nutter, for whom there is no place in politics.
Not even in the Christian Democratic Union, our center-right wing party. He'd get slaughtered by the media.

I know this is off-topic but belief in a God that wishes you to do nothing is to deny what would be His greatness in the first place. If you could be healed by prayer, why did God give the ability to learn about medicine, the power to reason, or to do the right thing?

Anyone who thinks we should ever do nothing because God exists needs to get socked in the face by somebody who looks like Jesus, shoots lots of heroin, and gives to lots of charities so they can realize exactly how fucking stupid they are acting. Preserving the earth and being good stewards should come naturally considering it is where we live. In fact, funny thing, but the Bible even says to be good stewards, so by all means yes, tell people we should continue to be as destructive toward ourselves as possible and think you are going to get rewarded by the all powerful consummate being that created you.

^It is scary to think that he will be the chairman next month! Here is a little more humor and information on global warming below (short and funny)...

So sick of all these baseless arguments for the existence of science...

Originally Posted by FriendlyFace

So sick of all these baseless arguments for the existence of science...

@FriendlyFace: Could you clarify?

Originally Posted by snoop

I know this is off-topic but belief in a God that wishes you to do nothing is to deny what would be His greatness in the first place. If you could be healed by prayer, why did God give the ability to learn about medicine, the power to reason, or to do the right thing?

Anyone who thinks we should ever do nothing because God exists needs to get socked in the face by somebody who looks like Jesus, shoots lots of heroin, and gives to lots of charities so they can realize exactly how fucking stupid they are acting. Preserving the earth and being good stewards should come naturally considering it is where we live. In fact, funny thing, but the Bible even says to be good stewards, so by all means yes, tell people we should continue to be as destructive toward ourselves as possible and think you are going to get rewarded by the all powerful consummate being that created you.

It sounds like we are in agreement Snoop. That was my problem with Inhofe's infamous quote in my signature. If he believes in God, why does he think he should not use the brain he gave him to be a good steward of the Earth that he also gave him but instead thinks that we can do whatever foul things we want to the Earth and God will take care of it. Many religious or previously religious folks are likely familiar with the parable that I referenced.

Okey let's face the facts here people. There is no signs of anything like global warming, so let's just get back to acting like a perfect normal person. And dont start to argueing with me whatever normal is, becase that would just disturb my factualy perfect balance of comon sense. So let's just drop all the thinking that is going on here and I will help you getting back to being a perfectly normal person again. So let's just chill down, watch some comic and just try to act like normaly happy persons instead...

So let's just chill down, watch some comic and just try to act like normaly happy persons instead

Ok, back to normal life then.

Ok, back to normal life then.

Exactly my point! (and I did notice the picture)

Originally Posted by Voldmer

This would be commendable, if CO2 was a problem. But the thing is, CO2 levels today are extremely low by Earths historical standards, and additionally - and this keeps being forgotten in the debate - CO2 is what plants are made of. The more CO2, the more plant life. And the more plant life, the more animal life. That used to be considered a good thing

It would be great if contra arguments are based on some data.

Here's a graph with historical levels of CO2 emissions and a few other quotes which show that plants and animals have been disappearing from our planet and not the other way around.

Originally Posted by WWF

Forests cover 31% of the land area on our planet. They produce vital oxygen and provide homes for people and wildlife. Many of the world’s most threatened and endangered animals live in forests, and 1.6 billion people rely on benefits forests offer, including food, fresh water, clothing, traditional medicine and shelter.

But forests around the world are under threat from deforestation, jeopardizing these benefits. Deforestation comes in many forms, including fires, clear-cutting for agriculture, ranching and development, unsustainable logging for timber, and degradation due to climate change. This impacts people’s livelihoods and threatens a wide range of plant and animal species. Some 46-58 thousand square miles of forest are lost each year—equivalent to 36 football fields every minute.

Forests play a critical role in mitigating climate change because they act as a carbon sink—soaking up carbon dioxide that would otherwise be free in the atmosphere and contribute to ongoing changes in climate patterns. Deforestation undermines this important carbon sink function. It is estimated that 15% of all greenhouse gas emissions are the result of deforestation.

Deforestation is a particular concern in tropical rainforests because these forests are home to much of the world’s biodiversity. For example, in the Amazon around 17% of the forest has been lost in the last 50 years, mostly due to forest conversion for cattle ranching. Deforestation in this region is particularly rampant near more populated areas, roads and rivers, but even remote areas have been encroached upon when valuable mahogany, gold and oil are discovered.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) notes in a video that many species are threatened with extinction. In addition,

At threat of extinction are
1 out of 8 birds
1 out of 4 mammals
1 out of 4 conifers
1 out of 3 amphibians
6 out of 7 marine turtles
75% of genetic diversity of agricultural crops has been lost
75% of the world’s fisheries are fully or over exploited
Up to 70% of the world’s known species risk extinction if the global temperatures rise by more than 3.5°C
1/3rd of reef-building corals around the world are threatened with extinction
Over 350 million people suffer from severe water scarcity

Global issues website

As explained in the UN’s 3rd Global Biodiversity Outlook, the rate of biodiversity loss has not been reduced because the 5 principle pressures on biodiversity are persistent, even intensifying:

Habitat loss and degradation
Climate change
Excessive nutrient load and other forms of pollution
Over-exploitation and unsustainable use
Invasive alien species
Most governments report to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity that these pressures are affecting biodiversity in their country (see p. 55 of the report).

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) maintains the Red List to assess the conservation status of species, subspecies, varieties, and even selected subpopulations on a global scale.

Extinction risks out pace any conservation successes. Amphibians are the most at risk, while corals have had a dramatic increase in risk of extinction in recent years.

Global issues website

The quote below isn't related to global warming per se, but rather human activity. I decided to put this here as well, since you have an avatar with a lion and may be interested to learn more about the fate of these big cats.

Originally Posted by National Geographic

Lions are dying off rapidly across Africa. These cats once ranged across the continent and into Syria, Israel, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, and even northwest India; 2,000 years ago more than a million lions roamed the Earth. Since the 1940s, when lions numbered an estimated 450,000, lion populations have blinked out across the continent. Now they may total as few as 20,000 animals. Scientists connect the drastic decreases in many cases to burgeoning human populations.

Originally Posted by NyxCC

It would be great if contra arguments are made based on some data, rather than weird logical thinking.

If we have let civilisation slip so far that logical thinking is seen as weird, then humanity is certainly doomed!

Incidentally, data for the past two billion years are bloody hard to come by. Our best shot is digging in the ground in really many different places. This has to some limited extent been done, and therefore we know that plant life and animal life is doing very badly in recent times (last several million years) compared to in the old days (before the dinosaurs). There was much more CO2 in the air back then (nowadays it is mostly buried in the ground as potential fossil fuels, and in the seas).

Originally Posted by NyxCC

Here's a graph with historical levels of CO2 emissions and just in case you don't know, both plants and animals have been disappearing from our planet and not the other way around.

It's a bit pointless to show such graphs, since they prove nothing else but the intention of whomever made the graph, to give those, who see the graph, a particular impression. You seem impressed by the graph; however it means nothing to me (I would need to know exactly the provenance of the data, to believe them - especially because of the endemic deceit in the "climate change"-movement).

Originally Posted by NyxCC

The quote below isn't related to global warming per se, but rather human activity. I decided to put this here as well, since you have an avatar with a lion and may be interested to learn more about the fate of these big cats.

We cannot disagree on the horrible faith of many of the larger species of animals on this planet. And, yes, man is responsible for their demise. Humanity is essentially a plague, which has infested the planet and will likely destroy much of it in time (including humanity itself). But "climate change" has got nothing to do with that; we humans destroy wild life, because we spread and take away the natural habitats of animals.

Please note that while you were writing your reply I edited a few things as well as added an extra quote.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

If we have let civilisation slip so far that logical thinking is seen as weird, then humanity is certainly doomed!

Edit: I took out the weird logical thinking part while you were answering, as not to make it as personal but yes Voldmer, your conclusions are weird and again, not based on data.

Concluding that the Economist is a socialist publication because it does not condemn central banking is weird logical thinking.

Concluding that the more CO2 in the air, the more plants, and the more animals is also weird logical thinking.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

It's a bit pointless to show such graphs, since they prove nothing else but the intention of whomever made the graph, to give those, who see the graph, a particular impression. You seem impressed by the graph; however it means nothing to me (I would need to know exactly the entire provenance of the data, to believe them - especially because of the endemic deceit in the "climate change"-movement).

Unfortunately, I have reached my argumentative limits. Since you believe that none of the scientists, publications, numbers and figures presented so far in this thread are credible, then there is nothing more to say.

Originally Posted by NyxCC

Unfortunately, I have reached my argumentative limits. Since you believe that none of the scientists, publications, numbers and figures presented so far in this thread are credible, then there is nothing more to say.

Why on Earth did it take so long to figure that out?

I have studied some of the original claims of the "climate change"-crowd, and found they simply are not true. Also, having worked in a university during the time when completely useless frauds were given "research" positions to advance claims established prior to the collection of the data, they should have been based on, and seen the frightening effects on actual research in the academic sector of the infatuation of politicians with the "climate change"-movement, I am fully aware of the lack of true science, which is the second most prominent aspect of contemporary "climate science" (the most prominent aspect being an insatiable appetite for power and influence).

Originally Posted by NyxCC

Concluding that the more CO2 in the air, the more plants, and the more animals is also weird logical thinking.

God almighty! Humanity is surely doomed. It'll be "death by ignorance".

You worked in a university? Surprising. What was your department and your position? Do you have a doctorate; what's your level of education?

Originally Posted by Voldmer

This would be commendable, if CO2 was a problem. But the thing is, CO2 levels today are extremely low by Earths historical standards, and additionally - and this keeps being forgotten in the debate - CO2 is what plants are made of. The more CO2, the more plant life. And the more plant life, the more animal life. That used to be considered a good thing.

Oh, come on! You can't seriously believe that rising CO2 is actually good for us?

to Nyx and everyone who responded with actual sources. I am confident that anyone who comes across this thread with an open mind will see:

Facts, data and sources from people who believe we need to curtail our emissions of green house gasses

vs.

Faulty, personal, unsubstantiated anecdotes from "climate change deniers"

Voldmer...you truly disappoint me. NyxCC is one of the great aspects of this site! I find your refusal to respond with sources disrespectful.

Originally Posted by fogelbise

Voldmer...you truly disappoint me. NyxCC is one of the great aspects of this site! I find your refusal to respond with sources disrespectful.

You are obviously free to see things whichever way you choose.

I am under no obligation to deliver sources in this debate, and certainly will not do so, since I have better uses for my time. And even if I did provide sources, you, and any "climate change"-minions who might see this, would not change position one bit. Therefore it would be as meaningless as it is, when your side provide sources.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

You are obviously free to see things whichever way you choose.

I am under no obligation to deliver sources in this debate, and certainly will not do so, since I have better uses for my time. And even if I did provide sources, you, and any "climate change"-minions who might see this, would not change position one bit. Therefore it would be as meaningless as it is, when your side provide sources.

First, on those last two lines, you are wrong again Voldmer. I am interested in the truth. I am open minded and I am sometimes faulted by family for considering other's points of view, especially when backed up by sources I can review. When I hear something that sounds possible, even if it sounds a little far fetched, I will research it if it is on a subject that I am interested in or is important. And you call myself and the rest "minions"...Are there two Voldmers? Before this thread I may have been thinking of a different DV member with a similar name. By the way, I don't mind admitting when I am wrong. I see it as a virtue, so I am often quick to admit when I am wrong. I am far from perfect.

I made sure to quote you entirely because that was a beauty Voldmer...your quote shows what truth is up against all the time!

Originally Posted by fogelbise

First, on those last two lines, you are wrong again Voldmer. I am interested in the truth. I am open minded and I am sometimes faulted by family for considering other's points of view, especially when backed up by sources I can review. When I hear something that sounds possible, even if it sounds a little far fetched, I will research it if it is on a subject that I am interested in or is important. And you call myself and the rest "minions"...Are there two Voldmers? Before this thread I may have been thinking of a different DV member with a similar name. By the way, I don't mind admitting when I am wrong. I see it as a virtue, so I am often quick to admit when I am wrong. I am far from perfect.

I made sure to quote you entirely because that was a beauty Voldmer...your quote shows what truth is up against all the time!

Yes it does. But not for the reason you imagine!

And there is just one Voldmer. If you find a dichotomy there, then I strongly encourage you to contemplate the matter thoroughly. You might become enlightened.

I specifically refrained from calling you a minion, for the reason that I am not adequately acquainted with your approach to the CO2-issue in order to categorise you yet. But there certainly are minions.

If you are interested in truth, then I also encourage you to contemplate what plants are made of. You don't have to alert me, when you're done with it.

I was left with an overall positive impression from Voldmer's posts in on-topic ld-related areas. Not sure why we couldn't have a two sided evidence based discussion here.

Anyways, in the least we have provided important information for consideration even to non-believers.

Nyx, I agree with everything you just said.

It is absolutely shocking to see how many regular members here oppose climate change!

A simple thought experiment can put your world into perspective within minutes, enough to warrant the potential danger that climate change does present.

We often consider, what are the odds that climate change is anthropogenic. Perhaps a more suitable question would be, what are the chances that climate change is non anthropogenic, IE non man-made.
Expand that question to, What is the probability that a slow and repeating natural climate change could occur severely amplified within a 200 year timeframe at the exact moment of Industrialization.

Now let's link up a few figures. The Milankovitch cycles are approximately 26000 years in length. It takes this whole time to complete a single precession of earths axis. In this period of time, the PPM of c02 in the atmosphere only fluctuates by 100 ppm at highest. This is a time in which ice ages occur, oceans deposit and attract huge volumes of CO2, plant life and volcanic activity fluctuates wilding and react diversely to the climate change. Yet, the atmospheric co2 content only fluctuates by 100 PPM!

All of a sudden an era of industrialization happens, and Co2 concentrations spike to 650 PPM. For 400000 years the earth has progressed through various natural cycles, not once has co2 concentration exceeded 300 PPM. 30 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide is added to the 780 gigatonnes already present within 200 years.

It seems to me some people would choose to be skeptical of climate change to justify their own actions.