Climate change could mean the extinction of our species

[Stavros]

I on the other hand like to review from a variety of sources...I'll acknowledge climate change but I won't necessarily acknowledge the root cause as being man induced industrialization until I review all data available. And even then, man induced industrialization as the cause is biased in itself because it eliminates the possibility multiple causes.

Human activity as cause:

Ocean dead zones with zero oxygen have quadrupled in size since 1950, scientists have warned, while the number of very low oxygen sites near coasts have multiplied tenfold. Most sea creatures cannot survive in these zones and current trends would lead to mass extinction in the long run, risking dire consequences for the hundreds of millions of people who depend on the sea.
Climate change caused by fossil fuel burning is the cause of the large-scale deoxygenation, as warmer waters hold less oxygen. The coastal dead zones result from fertiliser and sewage running off the land and into the seas.

Human activity as remedy:
“This is a problem we can solve,” Breitburg said. “Halting climate change requires a global effort, but even local actions can help with nutrient-driven oxygen decline.” She pointed to recoveries in Chesapeake Bay in the US and the Thames river in the UK, where better farm and sewage practices led to dead zones disappearing.

Full article is here-
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...oxygen-starved

[Ts RedVeX]

Sahara, which is rather big, used to be a forest and it was no co2 of human origin that caused it to go dry... Or did we have an industrial revolution a couple of thousands years ago? Baltic sea used to freeze and you could cross it on foot and it was no big deal. Climate changes. Why don't you get over it and prepare for change rather than try to put all your shit in peoples' minds?

[trish]

You didn’t mention any time periods. One period when the Sahara had a subtropical climate was possibly as recent as 6000 years ago. The Hadley circulation once rose above the latitude that now bounds it to the North and the Sahara was a monsoon belt. The redirection of the Hadley was definitely not due to the burning of fossil fuels. There was no doubt a reason. “Climate changes” is certainly not a satisfactory explanation. Sometimes it’s due to continental drift. Sometimes precession. Sometimes meteorite strikes. Sometimes complex shifts in atmospheric and oceanographic currents. Sometimes the production of oxygen by photosynthetic plants.

Again, you made no mention of time. The Baltic is much further north and of course entirely covered by ice during the last ice age. That also wasn’t caused by the burning of fossil fuels. More recently, we know from records that the Baltic Sea has frozen over 20 times since 1720. The last time was in 1987. This averages to about once every 13-14 years. It’s now been 31 years since the last freezing. I’m not sure anyone as yet attributed a cause to this latter phenomenon. But my guess is that the greenhouse effect has not been eliminated.

The current exponential rise in global atmospheric and oceanographic temperatures and the concomitant recession of glacial ice is most definitely due primarily to the release of CO2 and other greenhouse gases by human activity.

Why don't you get over it and prepare for change rather than try to put all your shit in peoples' minds?

Get over what? No one is stopping you or anyone else from suggesting solutions: how to stop, or slow, or prepare for an inevitable change. I would think knowing the cause of the change would be useful to these endeavors. If it were not for climatologists you wouldn’t even know if global warming would dry up the oceans or cause them to rise.

[chupapau]

Dear Miss Ts Redvex,

I see your ultra right crappy no argument posts on just about any subject. I have to ask, are you getting paid for that? Or are you just practicing to get a job in that sense?

Are you aware of the fact that global warming due to human activity denial is already a felony in several countries, like say holocaust denial is? So why would that be?

Or do you just want people to shut up about any topic that makes you uncomfortable? Cause it's easier to live in denial?

Once had a dear friend who was very gay, the macho type. He couldn't hide it from himself or others, but kept struggling to come to terms with it. His remedy for that was two fold. He took to alcohol, and he joined extreme right movements. Once I asked him what he would have done if say he lived on the early 40's. His answer was he would have volunteered to throw himself in the crematorium.

Macabre but funny, it still makes no sense. Just as little as a person like you who belongs to a minority that is always in danger of being surpressed takes stances on behalf of people who would leave you rotting in the gutter without blinking a eye.

I don't get it.

[Ts RedVeX]

I believe that any genuinely right-wing people wouldn't give two fucks about anyone's sexuality, race, gender expression, where he buys his fags from, how he brings his children up, as well as that they would be the ones to help a person lying in a ditch before any greedy, jealous communist. We are the reasonable people, who tell the truth without bending it so that it suits us or our acquaintances. If you do not understand that then apparently you are not a reasonable person and therefore also think socialism is good. As to communists of all sorts, most of them actually believe in the bullshit they preach - just like the extreme "blow-up warriors" being deployed here believe in things - and the rest are either too afraid to speak reasonably because they want to keep their cosy jobs at the propaganda wheel - be it global warming, homophobia or gender equality, or are the arse-holes who come up with it.

Sahara's climate has changed several times and periods are it is going to change again, and just like it was not the global warming, or man-generated CO2 that changed it in the past, it is not going to be it in future. It is not important here how long ago Sahara was a forest. It is more important to note that the forest became desert within a century, maybe a few years longer. Your claims that you can definitely attribute global warming solely to humans making CO2, based on less than-half-a-century of research is just bullshit.

As to Baltic, I meant that you could go walk on it from Poland to Sweden in around the 15th century. Also 13 years is not that long a time for about 20 degree winter temperature shifts, is it? So what, is the industrial revolution and all the factories and power plants etc. taking a break every 13 years? Or is it because the cows stop breathing or people become vegan and eat no meat, every 13 years? Knowing the cause actually wouldn't help much. It is certainly not a necessity, since I'm here, not frozen somewhere, at the bottom of Baltic sea. Whereas thinking something which actually hasn't got much to do with it is causing climate change, might lead to a false sense of security once you've brought all the factories and development in Europe to stop, and getting the European civilisation wiped out by others who decide to keep their development going. I kinda understand why someone living in the US would be aiming at that, but Stavros, or any other European?? Do you really believe the solidarity of your comrades will make them help you when everybody is struggling to feed their families? LOL

[broncofan]

I believe that any genuinely right-wing people wouldn't give two fucks about anyone's sexuality, race, gender expression, where he buys his fags from, how he brings his children up, as well as that they would be the ones to help a person lying in a ditch before any greedy, jealous communist.

I have to say at this point it looks not just like willful blindness but stupidity. "Genuine" right-wingers wanted same-sex relations in the U.S. to be illegal. Genuine right-wingers 75 years ago sent gay men to concentration camps where they were murdered. Some genuine right-wingers today insist they should call transsexuals "men" and exclude them from military service. Some genuine right-wingers support conversion therapy for gay children, which is often just a euphemism for torturing children into conformity in a way that will only harm them physically and emotionally but not change their sexual orientation.

I love your use of the no true scotsman fallacy but these are genuine right-wingers. Are all right-wingers this way? No, some are more moderate.

As you made clear elsewhere, genuine right-wingers don't simply dislike "communists". Often communism is the pretext, used as you use it when it doesn't apply, to bash a minority simply because of who they are. At the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville here, the lead neo-nazi called everyone a communist. You call everyone a communist and it doesn't have an ascertainable meaning the way you use it. That's a design feature, not an accident. This is the word intended to demonize people different from yourself who are concerned about civil rights.

Why is it that when Trish posts on this topic, she is eloquent and her posts contain details about the mechanisms of climate change and the empirical facts that demonstrate its effects and when you post, it's nothing but scurrilous name-calling, obvious errors, and conclusory statements with bogus reasoning?

[Ts RedVeX]

Firstly, state should not interfere in marriage at all.
Secondly, while it might makes sens for the state to encourage mixed-sex marriages, I cannot see why state would encourage same-sex marriage. It is obvious to me that delegalisiation of homosexuality was direct consequence of some gay activists trying to get the privilege over the non-gay people, of being able to marry another person of the same sex.

Technically, in accordance with dictionaries' medieval definitions adult human males are men, unless they are no longer fertile. Similarly, adult human females who cannot bear children are not women. Argue with the commies at your universities, to acknowledge the existence of DNA and the confusion around who is man and who is woman should be gone.

The problem is that there are not many right-wingers out there. The majority of people are socialists who believe in democracy, social justice, public NHS, trade unions, benefits, etc, etc..

I am not trying to bash minority with communism, I am trying to do that with majority, unfortunately. I cannot wait till one of you calls me a rotten capitalist whenever I say that there should not be benefits or public healthcare, or the so called 'nanny-state' that looks after all the lazy bastards on the dole who after all also deserve to eat because of human rights...

Trish seems to be somewhat smart but it also seems that she would advise victims of a hurricane to cover the roof of their new house with solar panels and build a wind turbine in their back yard, rather than advising them to move the hell out of the region.

[broncofan]

Firstly, state should not interfere in marriage at all.
Secondly, while it might makes sens for the state to encourage mixed-sex marriages, I cannot see why state would encourage same-sex marriage. It is obvious to me that delegalisiation of homosexuality was direct consequence of some gay activists trying to get the privilege over the non-gay people, of being able to marry another person of the same sex.

Technically, in accordance with dictionaries' medieval definitions adult human males are men, unless they are no longer fertile. Similarly, adult human females who cannot bear children are not women. Argue with the commies at your universities, to acknowledge the existence of DNA and the confusion around who is man and who is woman should be gone.

When I said right-wingers wanted to prohibit same-sex relations I was not talking about marriage. I was talking about adult consensual intercourse between members of the same sex. This was illegal in this country in many places and it was right-wingers who fought to maintain the prohibition. Second, your comment about the state encouraging same-sex marriage is incoherent. They were being asked to grant the same rights to same-sex couples as heterosexual couples, nothing more. There was no ascertainable privilege being sought, simply equality, which you portray as privilege while describing it in a way that makes clear you consider equality for gay men and women to be a privilege.

We don't need to depend on medieval dictionaries for definitions of sex and gender. Nobody is saying that based on DNA male to female transsexuals are female. There is no contention that transitioning changes dna, only that people who identify as female should not be addressed with male pronouns. Or how is it you would like to be addressed?

You also don't seem to know what I mean when I use the word minorities.

I contrasted Trish' style with yours to point out that you are unique in that your statements can be shown to be false and you will move on as though you are permitted to lie in defense of your various manias.

A bunch of pages back you insisted the scientists who authored the paper Stavros linked were government scientists. When it was pointed out they were researchers, scholars, and professors from a variety of universities you asserted they didn't have phds. When you were shown that they all had phds you insisted the paper did not consider alternate causes of climate change. When you were shown the section where they discussed and analyzed alternate causes at length you then said that they simply concluded that climate change was anthropogenic indirectly by ruling out alternate causes. When you were shown that they demonstrated that climate change was anthropogenic directly and not by the process of elimination you didn't seem to care. Here's a name for you: obscurantist.

[Stavros]

Your claims that you can definitely attribute global warming solely to humans making CO2, based on less than-half-a-century of research is just bullshit.

Whereas thinking something which actually hasn't got much to do with it is causing climate change, might lead to a false sense of security once you've brought all the factories and development in Europe to stop, and getting the European civilisation wiped out by others who decide to keep their development going. I kinda understand why someone living in the US would be aiming at that, but Stavros, or any other European?? Do you really believe the solidarity of your comrades will make them help you when everybody is struggling to feed their families? LOL

1) Climate science is over 100 years old, but you won't acknowledge that, or take an interest in the analysis of the data. Science after all is now the new Bullshit, which may be why your comrades in the USA want to replace the Constitution with the Holy Bible (as edited by them, of course).

2) You might want to explain why factories in Europe, North and South America all but ceased production in the 1920s and 1930s and led directly to the greatest threat to civilization posed by the murderous racists of Germany and Japan. Why did free markets lead to a collapse of the banking system? Why did food production so exceed demand prices collapsed? What was the consequence of the incompetent Winston Churchill taking Sterling back on to the Gold Standard in 1925 and the book JM Keynes wrote about it, The Economic Consequences of Mr Churchill?

I ask because yet again, even after 2008, we are being told regulation is bad for business. We are told regulation is bad for the environment. We are told immigration is destroying jobs. We are told that trading blocs are bad for business yet the same people (the US and the UK) want trade deals as a replacement that lock the partners in to unequal relations.

Just as we see the rich pass by on the other side because 'poverty is a choice' and they sneer at society's failures, believing them fit only for the gas chamber.

And before you dismiss the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society as Communists, ask yourself how they protected the environment in Alaska in the 1970s and get back to us with your balanced judgement.

[Ts RedVeX]

Right-wingers in favour of taking away freedom?! I don't know how you define a right-winger, but I would certainly not call a right-winger anyone who is in favour of prohibiting things that do not threaten and disturb others. I cannot see anything incoherent with my marriage argument. If for example, a heterosexual man may legally marry a woman, and a gay man may legally marry a woman, then there is no privileges there. However, if for example a homosexual man may legally marry another man, while a heterosexual man may not legally marry a woman, then the homosexual man is privileged.

I would like to be addressed as if I was a female and that is one of the reasons for my transition. This does not mean, however, that I approve of laws telling people how to address me under threat of lawsuits. Nor do I approve of laws that actually enabled me to change my name etc... And before you ask, it is like with the NHS, just because I disapprove of it being publicly funded does not mean I am not going to use it, especially that I have to pay for it anyway, if I chose to be righteous.

They didn't use their titles in their report so they may have actually not had them while preparing the report. Maybe it was different people who produced the report than the ones you read about in Wikipedia; maybe someone just wrote the report and put a bunch of names from Wikipedia underneath to give it more credibility; maybe the information in Wikipedia, which can be edited by any eloquent communist, is fabricated; maybe they got their titles by dint of producing the report; or maybe they are actually Doctors but were too were ashamed to put their titles there. There are many reasons why I think my doubts were justified. If government subsidises idiots to get titles then surely it wants them to learn things like gender equality and global warming. My point was simply that those reports should not be taken for granted as they were not produced for independent scientists' private money. If I was to call anyone obscurantists then it would be you guys, exactly for saying that a bunch of allegedly intelligent people allegedly with PhDs done mostly at some dodgy American universities, are definitely right in saying in their government-funded report that humans are most likely responsible for climate changes (which in case you still haven't noticed is different from saying people are definitely responsible for climate changes) just because they have some those PhDs.

The basic market rule says clearly that demand is the cause of supply and not otherwise. Had the the markets been free, the banking system would have not collapsed.

I tell you yet again that governments should not interfere in economy. Countries do not trade with eachother. People who live in countries do. The idea of running a country as if it was a company is ludicrous.