Remember me
▼ Content

Climate change and possible mass migration on a grand scale.. so where is safe?


Climate change and possible mass migration on a grand scale.. so where is safe?05-12-2017 22:55
Richard4796
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
I believe that as climate change starts to have a greater impact on our ability to grow food, water and general resources (worldwide) we will see mass migration like never seen before.

Worldwide population is unbelievably high. Population growth is high everywhere, but especially in underdeveloped countries, most of which are close to the equator.

So... if this is true, and does in fact happen in the future, where is safe ?

I have posted this to get people's thoughts and opinions on this if possible please?

I live in the U.K. As an island we are protected from mainland Europe by the sea (it can be crossed though). Our population is, however, high. If mass migration happened our country, but especially Europe would be overwhelmed and society could possibly collapse.

I do not intend this to become a political debate, but the more I learn about climate change the more I believe mass migration will be the biggest challenge of the coming age... as a result of climate change.

Where in the world is safe? Maybe safe isn't the correct word? Maybe nowhere is but it's now about damage control. Where will be less affected maybe ?

I thought possibly New Zealand... but the. I thought 'what about all the earthquakes' which may increase on the Pacific ring?

I may be looking to far into this... but humour me if your interested in sharing your opinion. I believe all mainland continents will see huge mass migration and will be unsafe.

Thoughts ?
Sorry for the long post.

Richard.
05-12-2017 23:02
Richard4796
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
I should also maybe mention that when I think about this I keep considering the possible factors listed below to my question 'where in the world is safe, or at least a possibly safer country to live?'


Population density
Mainland or island
Easy access (or not) for mass migration (due to humanitarian issues)

Weather (and what it may be in future, Australia may get hotter etc so not a good option maybe?)
Ability to grow food etc
05-12-2017 23:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
Richard4796 wrote:
I believe that as climate change

What is 'climate change'? Define 'climate change' without resorting to circular definitions. I keep hearing this buzzphrase, but I can't find a definition for it other than itself.
Richard4796 wrote:
starts to have a greater impact on our ability to grow food, water and general resources (worldwide) we will see mass migration like never seen before.

This argument is one of many common ones that comes out the Church of Global Warming.
Richard4796 wrote:
Worldwide population is unbelievably high. Population growth is high everywhere, but especially in underdeveloped countries, most of which are close to the equator.

Most of the equator is sea, and you DO seem to be writing off Taiwan and China both of which produce advanced technology.
Richard4796 wrote:
So... if this is true, and does in fact happen in the future, where is safe ?

Frankly, I don't think it's worth worrying about. Go live where you want.
Richard4796 wrote:
I have posted this to get people's thoughts and opinions on this if possible please?

My thoughts? My opinion is that you are safe right where you are. If you don't like England, find somewhere else that you like.
Richard4796 wrote:
I live in the U.K.

A lot of people here do.
Richard4796 wrote:
As an island we are protected from mainland Europe by the sea (it can be crossed though).

The Channel is not much of a barrier to the mainland anymore, thanks to the train, the hovercraft, the boats, the aircraft, etc. Heck...some people SWIM there!
Richard4796 wrote:
Our population is, however, high.

Probably not as high as you think. Sounds like you're somewhere in the environs of London. Trying heading north for a bit. England has some truly beautiful countryside. Stop in some of the pubs for a pint. You'll meet a nice variety of people in your travels.
Richard4796 wrote:
If mass migration happened our country, but especially Europe would be overwhelmed and society could possibly collapse.

No need for a mass migration. Societies don't collapse that way. We had the pioneers in the States. They WALKED across this nation to build their own societies without any government help. They created their own governments too. Today, they are States of the Union.

Richard4796 wrote:
I do not intend this to become a political debate, but the more I learn about climate change the more I believe mass migration will be the biggest challenge of the coming age... as a result of climate change.

This particular fear is peddled by the Church of Global Warming. It is presupposes 'instabilities' that will eventually cause the atmosphere to undergo a catastrophic change. It is a false religion. There really is no need to panic.
Richard4796 wrote:
Where in the world is safe? Maybe safe isn't the correct word? Maybe nowhere is but it's now about damage control. Where will be less affected maybe ?

Affected by what? What do you fear? Is this just a general panic response?
Richard4796 wrote:
I thought possibly New Zealand... but the. I thought 'what about all the earthquakes' which may increase on the Pacific ring?

New Zealand is quite pretty. It is on the Pacific Ring of Fire. Here's something you should know about earthquakes:

A region that is experiencing earthquakes on a regular basis may be doing so for only a couple of reasons. The first is that the earthquake is due to nearby crustal stress. Frequent earthquakes relieve this stress and remain generally quite weak as a result. If something sticks, no earthquakes for a while...then BAM! The stress is relieved all at once.

The other reason for earthquakes is due to magma flow. These effect volcanic areas and are generally small. The eruption itself produces the largest quake near the surface, but the eruption is the bigger concern rather than the earthquake.

If this bugs you, Los Angeles, Tokyo, and Hong Kong are all on the Ring of Fire as well. So is Seattle, where I live. Yes, we get earthquakes. Yes, we have volcanoes (Seattle is near Mt St. Helens), and no, we don't worry about them much.

Richard4796 wrote:
I may be looking to far into this... but humour me if your interested in sharing your opinion. I believe all mainland continents will see huge mass migration and will be unsafe.

Thoughts ?
Sorry for the long post.

Richard.


I don't. There is no need. Nothing is going to happen rapidly unless our Sun becomes unstable and cooks the Earth. In that case, there is nowhere you can go.


The Parrot Killer
05-12-2017 23:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
Richard4796 wrote:
I should also maybe mention that when I think about this I keep considering the possible factors listed below to my question 'where in the world is safe, or at least a possibly safer country to live?'


Population density
Mainland or island
Easy access (or not) for mass migration (due to humanitarian issues)

Weather (and what it may be in future, Australia may get hotter etc so not a good option maybe?)
Ability to grow food etc


Australia DOES get hotter than a similar latitude in the northern hemisphere. The reason has to do with Earth's orbit and its seasons.

Currently, summer in the northern hemisphere occurs when Earth is furthest from the Sun. This is the slowest point in our orbit. We get less energy from the Sun, but for a longer period.

During out winter, Earth is closest to the Sun. This is the fastest part of our orbit. This is also Australia's summer. Earth is closer resulting in more intense energy, just as the southern hemisphere is in summer.

We can and do grow food just about anywhere. Cattle are numerous too. So are chickens. Fish is available anywhere you are near the sea. All of these are shipped everywhere people want to eat them.

My advice? Don't Panic.


The Parrot Killer
06-12-2017 00:56
Richard4796
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
Hi,

Thank you for your reply and engagement with my post.

If my post gave the impression I was in panic mode that was not my impression. I have never (until now) joined a forum where climate issues etc can be discussed, so may have been over zealous.

I do, however, believe that climate change is a real issue (if you disagree that's ok, I'm not a persistent preacher sort, everything has their view points.

I guess what I mean by climate change is the changing weather patterns (though these possibly have happened since the earth was created) that will/could have an impact on the human population of this earth.

You seem to claim that climate change is a religion. I guess what you mean by this is that is preached about and you somewhat disagree?if that is the case we may have to agree to disagree on that one. Climate change as a term isn't very broad, i guess what I mean by it is anything that could have a changing impact for the population.

Also, please note, I'm not a pint drinker... I'm more of a whiskey man


I agree that reading back my post sounds like a person in panic mode, but that is not the case. My thoughts around about this planet changed somewhat when I had children. I'm sure that's the case for many (just in many different ways).

I will possibly see no real drastic changes to my life and surroundings (though I do not fully believe that). But I do believe my children will.

What also changed my perception of these things is when I was younger and started to grow my own food (or at least some of it) I started to realise (somewhat naively) that as a race we are not providing enough food and resources for the worldwide population. I knew this before, of course. But what I didn't fully understand is the time and effort it take to produce food. This then helped me realise the true dependency we have on oil to move, transport and grow our food.

It may see I'm talking about a whole different topic here, but I don't think I am. I believe (from research and readings) that the Syria war, at its most core foundation was started because of a true lack KFC resource for the general population. War followed, then mass migration throughout Europe.

My understanding is that the states were formed when the population of your country was very small in comparison to what it is now?

Also, I have been north in my country quite a bit... in fact my bloodline comes from Scotland. I guess when I talk about population I make reference to the fact the human population was sky rocketed, statistics seem to back this.

You are correct though, I did forget to mention China/Asia in my post. You are also right in that they are one of the most advanced (and fully resourced might I add) country in the world (china)

I agree, I am fine living where I am now, and in truth I love this country of mine. Also, yes, the channel is not a barrier really in today's world.

I do believe, and this is not a panic response, that we will see developments on a huge scale in the future. Maybe not the near future, but the near future,

An article came in the past few days confirming that scientists believe California's droughts will only continue to get worse. Not a great sign that. Especially for the huge population of LA etc.

We are hardly feeding the world as it is huh? Warming temps, including that of the sea and pollution of all kids will not help this. I do believe mass migration may happen in some areas. Not now, but it will.

Thanks again for your reply and sharing your thoughts.
06-12-2017 02:15
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
Richard4796 wrote:
Hi,

Thank you for your reply and engagement with my post.

If my post gave the impression I was in panic mode that was not my impression. I have never (until now) joined a forum where climate issues etc can be discussed, so may have been over zealous.

I do, however, believe that climate change is a real issue (if you disagree that's ok, I'm not a persistent preacher sort, everything has their view points.

I guess what I mean by climate change is the changing weather patterns (though these possibly have happened since the earth was created) that will/could have an impact on the human population of this earth.

You seem to claim that climate change is a religion. I guess what you mean by this is that is preached about and you somewhat disagree?if that is the case we may have to agree to disagree on that one. Climate change as a term isn't very broad, i guess what I mean by it is anything that could have a changing impact for the population.

Also, please note, I'm not a pint drinker... I'm more of a whiskey man


I agree that reading back my post sounds like a person in panic mode, but that is not the case. My thoughts around about this planet changed somewhat when I had children. I'm sure that's the case for many (just in many different ways).

I will possibly see no real drastic changes to my life and surroundings (though I do not fully believe that). But I do believe my children will.

What also changed my perception of these things is when I was younger and started to grow my own food (or at least some of it) I started to realise (somewhat naively) that as a race we are not providing enough food and resources for the worldwide population. I knew this before, of course. But what I didn't fully understand is the time and effort it take to produce food. This then helped me realise the true dependency we have on oil to move, transport and grow our food.

It may see I'm talking about a whole different topic here, but I don't think I am. I believe (from research and readings) that the Syria war, at its most core foundation was started because of a true lack KFC resource for the general population. War followed, then mass migration throughout Europe.

My understanding is that the states were formed when the population of your country was very small in comparison to what it is now?

Also, I have been north in my country quite a bit... in fact my bloodline comes from Scotland. I guess when I talk about population I make reference to the fact the human population was sky rocketed, statistics seem to back this.

You are correct though, I did forget to mention China/Asia in my post. You are also right in that they are one of the most advanced (and fully resourced might I add) country in the world (china)

I agree, I am fine living where I am now, and in truth I love this country of mine. Also, yes, the channel is not a barrier really in today's world.

I do believe, and this is not a panic response, that we will see developments on a huge scale in the future. Maybe not the near future, but the near future,

An article came in the past few days confirming that scientists believe California's droughts will only continue to get worse. Not a great sign that. Especially for the huge population of LA etc.

We are hardly feeding the world as it is huh? Warming temps, including that of the sea and pollution of all kids will not help this. I do believe mass migration may happen in some areas. Not now, but it will.

Thanks again for your reply and sharing your thoughts.


It is difficult to look through any of the subjects here and get any real discussion since there is a cadre of people whose entire intent is to drown out any real discussion. litesong and monckton (previously Spot) spring to mind.

The only way you could be part of an intelligent conversation would be to ignore these people altogether.

But speaking plainly - while the climate has been warming, this has been occurring cyclically for at least 3,000 years that we know of - the Mycenaean Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period have not only been pretty well documented both in writing but geologically. And these were NOT localized events as a few have attempted to claim. The geologic record from all over the world is unmistakable and well documented.

As far as I can make out this started as an ecological movement but very rapidly fell into the hands of extremists. People who believe that man is a cancer upon the Earth. Then it was used by politicians as a source of control and power. Finally it has become part of a new world wide capitalist investment strategy in carbon credits. Do not be fooled, none of the AGW fantasy is real.

I have done extensive research as an electronics engineer on spectroscopy and I can assure you that CO2 has no measurable effect on atmospheric heating. The absorption spectrum of CO2 simply has no energy in it and total saturation was reached at about 200 or so ppm.

Moreover, so much of Earth's carbon was being tied up in fossil fuels that the Earth was getting in danger of photosynthesis shutting down and plants being unable to live. So the increase in CO2 has been nothing more than good for this planet. Plant life all over the globe has been burgeoning. Food is more plentiful than in living memory. The super-populations of India and China are still bad but doing better than ever before.

Animal life is increasing like no time in the past and we have everything from whales at higher levels than since the 16th century. Great White Sharks which are symptoms of very large fish populations are so common that it is become dangerous to swim in the ocean. Predators are coming down into the cities because predators are usually lone animals that protect their own hunting grounds and the showing up of mountain lions in cities means that there are so many of them that they are running out of hunting grounds.

In short - man-made global warming and all of the negative things said about it is nothing more than a fraud and a hoax.
06-12-2017 02:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
Richard4796 wrote:
Hi,

Thank you for your reply and engagement with my post.

If my post gave the impression I was in panic mode that was not my impression. I have never (until now) joined a forum where climate issues etc can be discussed, so may have been over zealous.

I would agree.
Richard4796 wrote:
I do, however, believe that climate change is a real issue (if you disagree that's ok, I'm not a persistent preacher sort, everything has their view points.

Personally, I have never seen anyone able to even define it other than itself.
Richard4796 wrote:
I guess what I mean by climate change is the changing weather patterns (though these possibly have happened since the earth was created) that will/could have an impact on the human population of this earth.

This is defining 'climate change' as 'changing weather patterns'. This is a bit vague, since weather patterns change on a daily and even an hourly basis. The weather is always changing. At this point 'climate' isn't even being discussed...weather is.
Richard4796 wrote:
You seem to claim that climate change is a religion. I guess what you mean by this is that is preached about and you somewhat disagree?if that is the case we may have to agree to disagree on that one. Climate change as a term isn't very broad, i guess what I mean by it is anything that could have a changing impact for the population.

If you look at any religion, the one thing they all have in common is that they all are based on some initial circular argument. In Christianity, for example, it is the argument that Christ is who he said he is, and that he existed. It is neither possible to prove or disprove whether Christ existed, or that he is who he said he is. It is a past unobserved event (as far as today's observers are concerned). Even with evidence like the existence of a Bible, people's descriptions of how a prayer was answered for them, etc. are all just evidence. None of them are a proof. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'. At least the Christians openly declare their religion is based on faith.

The circular argument by itself is not a fallacy. It only becomes the fallacy when one fails to recognize it as such. Often, this is where you start to see the more fundamentalist type of religions appear.

The phrase 'global warming' and 'climate change' are essentially buzzphrases. They have no meaning other than themselves. This makes the belief in them a void argument. While no theory can exist based on a logical fallacy such as a void argument, religions can be based on them, since the void argument is a special type of circular argument, but one that is already a fallacy.

Buddhism, Shintoism, even most atheism, is based on an initial circular argument. The belief of 'global warming' or 'climate change' is no different from any other religion. I consider it a fundamentalist style religion. It does not use or create any theory of science.

The Church of Global Warming teaches that the world is being destroyed or seriously damaged by warming temperatures. Often data is quoted from various sources, including government agencies. The problem is that due the requirements of the rules of statistical math, it is not possible to determine anything like a temperature of the Earth using the instrumentation we have. It is not possible to determine of the world is warming, cooling, or just staying the same. The whole pretext of 'global warming' is that the temperature of the Earth is actually rising. Since we can't measure it to any useful degree of accuracy, all of these claims of data from whatever source is made up numbers. They might as well be random numbers (in fact, that is what they are. A particular type of random number known as a randU).

Anyone claiming they know the temperature of the Earth is using made up numbers.

Richard4796 wrote:
Also, please note, I'm not a pint drinker... I'm more of a whiskey man
Not a problem. You are not far from Scotland.
Richard4796 wrote:
I agree that reading back my post sounds like a person in panic mode, but that is not the case. My thoughts around about this planet changed somewhat when I had children. I'm sure that's the case for many (just in many different ways).

Again, there is no need for any sort of mass migration due to 'global warming' or 'climate change'. If any kind of mass migration is needed, it will most likely be due to fleeing war and conflict which are politically or religiously motivated.
Richard4796 wrote:
I will possibly see no real drastic changes to my life and surroundings (though I do not fully believe that). But I do believe my children will.

I do not know your age. Since you have children, I will assume you have been kicking around this planet for a few decades. In that time you have already seen drastic changes. You have seen two major economic crisis, wars wandering around the world, the spread of radical Islamic militants to many parts of Europe, the invention of some truly cool technologies, and some great improvements in our ability to feed ourselves. Why should tomorrow be any different?
Richard4796 wrote:
What also changed my perception of these things is when I was younger and started to grow my own food (or at least some of it) I started to realise (somewhat naively) that as a race we are not providing enough food and resources for the worldwide population.

Actually, we do. The problem is one of distribution and theft. Wars get in the way. Governments take and let their people starve. Cost and difficulty of shipping are other factors. Food generally has a limited life span. It takes time and effort to preserve it. Shipping times are critical.
Richard4796 wrote:
I knew this before, of course. But what I didn't fully understand is the time and effort it take to produce food.

Some areas produce better than others. Mechanization of farming and ranching has improved yield. So have improvements in types of crops to raise, etc. It takes time to learn how to farm or ranch. Yes, it's hard work. It can produce plenty of food. Much of your difficulty was probably learning how and what to farm.
Richard4796 wrote:
This then helped me realise the true dependency we have on oil to move, transport and grow our food.

Quite true. Fortunately, oil is a renewable resource. So is methane (natural gas). The carbon dioxide it produces when we burn these fuels is quite benign. It does not harm the planet. It will actually help it. Plants need it to grow.

Richard4796 wrote:
It may see I'm talking about a whole different topic here, but I don't think I am. I believe (from research and readings) that the Syria war, at its most core foundation was started because of a true lack KFC resource for the general population. War followed, then mass migration throughout Europe.

Syria is at war with itself. It is a civil war, with various factions trying to seize power by force. It has been going on for a VERY long time. I don't think anyone can identify a real cause for it other than just a violent way to change government leaders.
Richard4796 wrote:
My understanding is that the states were formed when the population of your country was very small in comparison to what it is now?

The States of the United States were formed over the years. The most recent addition is Hawaii, which joined the Union in 1959, some 170 years after the first States were formed. Puerto Rico looks like it might be the 51st State to join in the foreseeable future. We'll have to change our flag again!
Richard4796 wrote:
Also, I have been north in my country quite a bit... in fact my bloodline comes from Scotland. I guess when I talk about population I make reference to the fact the human population was sky rocketed, statistics seem to back this.

Heh. That explains your taste for whiskey.

Yes, there are more of us than ever before now. That means conditions are improving to the point where people are surviving long enough to reproduce. People are living longer too. They are all finding enough water and food to do this. It may not be easy, but they ARE doing it.
Richard4796 wrote:
You are correct though, I did forget to mention China/Asia in my post. You are also right in that they are one of the most advanced (and fully resourced might I add) country in the world (china)

Heh. Quite all right. Geography isn't taken as seriously as it used to be.
Richard4796 wrote:
I agree, I am fine living where I am now, and in truth I love this country of mine. Also, yes, the channel is not a barrier really in today's world.

Ah...the truth is out. You like where you live after all. I don't blame you. There is a lot to like about the U.K.

Richard4796 wrote:
I do believe, and this is not a panic response, that we will see developments on a huge scale in the future. Maybe not the near future, but the near future,

If not the near future, but the near future???
Yes, you will see developments...many fantastic ones. I don't think they will be the catastrophe the Church of Global Warming teaches.
Richard4796 wrote:
An article came in the past few days confirming that scientists believe California's droughts will only continue to get worse. Not a great sign that. Especially for the huge population of LA etc.

Scientists are people. They have religious beliefs just like any people. Many of them also belong to the Church of Global Warming.

Science is not a scientist. It is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. Theories of science have no inherent power of prediction. They must turn to a system like mathematics to gain that power. Statistics is not a branch of mathematics with the power of prediction.

Many people figure that science is data. It is not. Data is an observation only. It is not a theory at all. It may inspire a theory, but it itself is not science.

A lot of people toss around the word 'scientists' quite a bit, usually in an effort to legitimize their argument. Here it is used as a buzzword. Science is not scientists. It is not people at all. It is just the theories themselves.

There is no equation for California droughts. There is no way to predict them. We can make educated guesses, but that's all.

California is a fairly large State with many different climates in it. Much of it is desert. This is a State that misuses water so much that a minor drought becomes a major problem. A series of these year after year only makes it worse. California doesn't have a drought problem, they have a water waste problem. Almond farms use a LOT of water. So do the rice farms in the Sacramento valley. There are a lot more farmers than before, and they all want water. California has not improved is water collection and distribution infrastructure to compensate.

The Church of Global Warming has always been predicting that things will 'get worse'. This is no different than any other church predicting the 'end of the world' or the 'eternal damnation of man'.

Richard4796 wrote:
We are hardly feeding the world as it is huh?

Not because of production, because of logistics.
Richard4796 wrote:
Warming temps, including that of the sea and pollution of all kids will not help this.

Actually, warmer temperatures increase yield. If you'll recall the history of your own nation during the medieval warm period, where bountiful crops and even wines became commonplace in the U.K. region.
Richard4796 wrote:
I do believe mass migration may happen in some areas. Not now, but it will.

Warmer temperatures tend to produce better growing seasons, particularly in the colder areas of Europe. There is no need to move.
Richard4796 wrote:
Thanks again for your reply and sharing your thoughts.

Quite welcome. Perhaps it's a bit clearer now why I consider 'global warming' or 'climate change' to be not a religion, but the same religion.


The Parrot Killer
06-12-2017 03:17
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(810)
Hey look people! Someone here wants to have an actual discussion and it's not your typical Litebeer jiberish or Monty Linkwar. Thanks Richard. Welcome,
and I might hang out for a bit to see where this goes...

I started to realise (somewhat naively) that as a race we are not providing enough food and resources for the worldwide population.

I think you may be a bit misinformed on this point...
I live in Iowa(Central United States) It is in the heart of corn and soybean country. Our problem? TOO MUCH grain is being produced and it is driving prices down and small farmers out of business. The discussion needed about food shortages is creating strategies to get that grain to starving people. Did you know that CO2 is plant food? Did you know that greenhouses pump CO2 into the house? Optimum levels are around 1000 parts per million, about 2 and 1/2 times the claimed amount in the air today. Elevated CO2 is helping to grow more food!
Edited on 06-12-2017 03:26
06-12-2017 03:38
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(155)
Richard4796 wrote:
....I thought possibly New Zealand... but the. I thought 'what about all the earthquakes' which may increase on the Pacific ring?.....


Are you suggesting that climate change is somehow going to affect earthquakes?

Don't think I've seen that concern before, at least in any practical sense. Maybe you could explain.






















perhaps you could explain.
06-12-2017 04:16
litesong
★★★★★
(2041)
Richard4796 wrote: Thank you for your reply and engagement with my post.
Richard....you speak with people named, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebag steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiner & many time (plus 1) threatener gazzzed & guzzzling" & "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebag steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiner badnight". Be friends with them if you don't mind lying.
06-12-2017 11:49
moncktonProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(212)
I haven't thought about this at all.

But I came across the phrase "Lifeboat Britain" recently and when you google it related to climate change, this comes up, from 2008 ...

James Lovelock: 'enjoy life while you can: in 20 years global warming will hit the fan'

... Lovelock believes global warming is now irreversible, and that nothing can prevent large parts of the planet becoming too hot to inhabit, or sinking underwater, resulting in mass migration, famine and epidemics. Britain is going to become a lifeboat for refugees from mainland Europe, so instead of wasting our time on wind turbines we need to start planning how to survive...

... Prophets have been foretelling Armageddon since time began, he says. "But this is the real thing."...


https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange

... so you're probably best off where you are.

Unlike the states, where Trumps wall is just a distraction - Canada should be building one. Before they come like the zombie hordes in Brad Pitt's World War Z ...



... though to be fair, due to the obesity, about 5 foot high should do it, with maybe a small ditch and a rope swing on the other side.
Because putting it in front of the wall would just be taking the piss really.

Yeah I heard the phrase in a couple of presentations by Gwynne Dyer - I think this is one of them ...

Gwynne Dyer -- Geopolitics in a Hotter World
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc_4Z1oiXhY

Again from almost 10 years back, apparently The Pentagon, and British military are on the case regarding this - and "Lifeboat Britain" is a phrase being used.

Which kind of puts this whole Brexit thing into a new light. Hmm.
Along with talk of borders going up in other parts of Europe - in the spirit of new found nationalism, particularly Poland recently. Hmm.

Who would have thought a gradual slide to totalitarianism would be so serendipitous and timely?

As for elsewhere to go, Switzerland is interesting if you can afford it.
A friend from Switzerland told me about this a long time back, I thought he was exaggerating, but no - they've always been ready to seal the country at the touch of a button ...

Switzerland's Military Defense Involves Blowing Up All Roads Into The Country
http://www.businessinsider.com/switzerlands-military-defenses-2012-6

Locked in with cheese, toblerone and the choice of three languages.
I can't name a bad movie with these core elements, but hard work.
And they don't like you flushing the toilet after midnight the neighbours might call the police, so maybe a bit uptight come end times.

New Zealand, looks like that's going to be fully booked soon ...

Silicon Valley super-rich head south to escape from a global apocalypse
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/29/silicon-valley-new-zealand-apocalypse-escape

Though I don't think that's so much to escape the global apocalypse as the local one in america where everyones got guns and when the shit hits the fan they're asked to form an orderly line ... Adios!

Bad news is, New Zealand has got guns too, about 1 million for a population of 4 million. So more than enough to worry about sitting on the only hill o'beans trying to figure out how your bump stock works. And that's before the Australians turn up, all hot and bothered and resourceful.

So you could try there, maybe a butlers job for some highly strung tech entrepreneur coked up in his villa till the bitter end ...



Back to Britain - apparently, because of the 'cold blob', global warming in Britain will be offset by the cooling of the North Atlantic, all that sea air we'll be last to bake.

And so taking it one step further, I suppose Ireland. All that farmland. Population about 4 million. U2. Mrs Browns Boys. Guinness. A mature sense of independence and the Armalite.

But the nukes will probably start flying once it starts getting bad, so its all just popcorn for the show really. Back to James Lovelock.
06-12-2017 14:19
Tim the plumber
★★★☆☆
(981)
Utter drivel.

How will a slight temperature rise, less than the normal variation in temperature, make the world uninhabitable?

Just alarmist drivel.
06-12-2017 15:37
moncktonProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(212)
Maybe, but this drivel appears to be coming straight from the top.
Perhaps you could write them all a stiff letter?
Keep us in the loop.

Military Experts: Global Warming Could Spark 'Epic' Humanitarian Crisis - Dec 2016
http://www.forces.net/news/tri-service/military-experts-global-warming-could-spark-epic-humanitarian-crisis

Climate change will stir 'unimaginable' refugee crisis, says military - Dec 2016
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/01/climate-change-trigger-unimaginable-refugee-crisis-senior-military

Climate change threat must be taken as seriously as nuclear war – UK minister - July 2015
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/13/climate-change-threat-serious-as-nuclear-war-uk-minister

Military chiefs told to prepare for new threats to UK security - July 2013
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/defence-and-security-blog/2013/jul/08/army-conflict-climate-change
06-12-2017 15:52
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
monckton wrote:
Maybe, but this drivel appears to be coming straight from the top.
Perhaps you could write them all a stiff letter?
Keep us in the loop.

Military Experts: Global Warming Could Spark 'Epic' Humanitarian Crisis - Dec 2016
http://www.forces.net/news/tri-service/military-experts-global-warming-could-spark-epic-humanitarian-crisis

Climate change will stir 'unimaginable' refugee crisis, says military - Dec 2016
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/01/climate-change-trigger-unimaginable-refugee-crisis-senior-military

Climate change threat must be taken as seriously as nuclear war – UK minister - July 2015
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/13/climate-change-threat-serious-as-nuclear-war-uk-minister

Military chiefs told to prepare for new threats to UK security - July 2013
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/defence-and-security-blog/2013/jul/08/army-conflict-climate-change


There you go "straight from the top" meaning that the insanity has grown to engulf even someone that can't read.
07-12-2017 21:45
Richard4796
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
Thank you all for your replies.
Andi didn't mean that climate change will create more earthquakes, though it did read that way didn't it.

What I didn't expect when I found this website was the level of emotional debate. I respect different of opinions but feel that for some emotions and argumentative debate is the norm?

I don't think there is a slight couple of degrees warming. I guess what I meant is that some areas (arctic) has seen quite a jump. Populai on increase will continue and are use of resources continues to climb.

My personal view, please don't take this as a personal attack, is that it's easier to disprove anything, than prove something.


Parrot killer and gas thank you for your replies and you both mentioned something that I didn't consider or know. Which is great, it's all about learning. Though parrot, I don't consider oil as a renewable resource. It is a temporary renewal resource?

I Ski quite a bit. Some of the highest French and Italian resorts have seen a huge reduction in snowfall and changing seasons over the last 7 years. This includes shorter seasons. If not climate change or whatever you want to call it, then it is a change of some sorts that might not be a healthy one, for us in the long term. This is, of course, just one example.

Moncton, thank you for your insightful reply. I thought Ireland might see less effects, I may be wrong. Plus they love their alcohol so that's always a positive Hahahaa.
07-12-2017 23:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
Richard4796 wrote:
Thank you all for your replies.
Andi didn't mean that climate change will create more earthquakes, though it did read that way didn't it.

It rather did. You seemed to go on for a fair bit about it.
Richard4796 wrote:
What I didn't expect when I found this website was the level of emotional debate. I respect different of opinions but feel that for some emotions and argumentative debate is the norm?

There is a lot of confusion in the global warming debate. It becomes emotional because this debate is also about government's role in society and governmental structure and authority. On the one side, you have the Church of Global Warming encouraging a greater role of government to manage economies and sources of energy. On the other side are the Outsiders, who reject such intrusion by government.

The science used by the Outsider's arguments is simple. It is basically the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and in general the conservation of energy law. It also uses the branches of mathematics relating to statistical analysis, and with it probability mathematics and random number mathematics.

The argument often used by the Church of Global Warming attempts to equate science with 'data'. The 'data' used is typically in the form of a 'statistical summary', even though the statistical analysis was never performed (only a simple average, which does not produce a valid summary). Much of the 'data' is completely fabricated. The Church of Global Warming does not use or create any theory of science.

While the 2nd LoT and the Stefan-Boltzmann law are relatively simple theories (a few here don't understand what entropy is or how the S-B law works). The problem of statistical mathematics is a greater one. Most people don't know it (the same reason that Las Vegas makes so much money off of people), even though they took a class in it. I have found textbooks often used in such classes horrible.

Simply averaging available thermometers, for example, is an error in statistical math (known as a selection by opportunity error). Such a technique ignores the requirement that any statistical summary must include the margin of error, a number derived from the possible variances in the data, not the data itself. I am not talking about instrument tolerance here, but the possible variance of data (how fast does temperature change per kilometer or mile).

Statistics is a great summary tool. It cannot, however, predict anything. It is based on probability math and random numbers to work.

Richard4796 wrote:
I don't think there is a slight couple of degrees warming. I guess what I meant is that some areas (arctic) has seen quite a jump.

The Arctic sea ice did reduce for a time (it's recovering now). At the same time, the Antarctic ice was growing some (it's reducing now, due to summer). We do not know the actual cause of Arctic ice receding temporarily. We DO know that there is a volcanic ridge under the polar sea, and that this was active recently. I suspect that this is the cause of Arctic ice loss, not any kind of global temperature increase.

Seasonal changes in Seattle range from possibly zero deg F in the winter to as high as 99 deg F in the summary. This range of almost 100 deg F is far greater than any temperature change caused by 'global warming'. Seattle is considered a marine environment. We get less of a temperature range than most anywhere else during the seasons.

Our plants are still here, our trees are healthy, and the place is truly beautiful (when the Sun finally comes out!).

Temperatures of a few degrees over a hundred years doesn't impress me as anything significant, even if carbon dioxide WAS able to warm the Earth.

Richard4796 wrote:
Populai on increase will continue and are use of resources continues to climb.

Our production of those resources continues to climb also.
Richard4796 wrote:
My personal view, please don't take this as a personal attack, is that it's easier to disprove anything, than prove something.

This is actually the way science works. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. When a new theory is inspired (for whatever reason), it is the test of falsifiability that makes it a scientific theory. The whole idea is to try to break the theory and failing at it. No theory of science is ever proven, but any theory of science can be destroyed at any time by conflicting evidence.
Richard4796 wrote:
Parrot killer and gas thank you for your replies and you both mentioned something that I didn't consider or know. Which is great, it's all about learning. Though parrot, I don't consider oil as a renewable resource. It is a temporary renewal resource?

Nope. Oil is actually a renewable resource.

It is possible to synthesize oil. The procedure is to combine carbon dioxide (or carbon monoxide), hydrogen, and put it under high heat and pressure in the presence of an iron catalyst. This is known in chemistry as the Fischer-Tropsche process. The Germans used it to manufacture oil during WW2 to help feed the war machine.

These are the same conditions found underground. Heat...pressure...carbon source...hydrogen source...iron. The planet we are standing on is a giant Fischer-Tropsche machine.

Look at where oil collects. The best oil fields are near the edges of tectonic plates, especially where spreading action is occurring. This includes the North Sea, the Mideast, off the southern and western coasts of the United States, the northern coast of Alaska, etc.

You can find oil anywhere you drill (if you go deep enough), but the plate edges is where oil tends to come closest to the surface. Drilling is cost by foot. You want to drill as little as possible for the stuff.

The Russians developed the technology to drill deeper than anybody else. They used this technology to drill in Siberia (far away from a plate edge) very deep holes. Sure enough, they found oil.

We have pumped some wells dry, then capped them. Opening them later we found oil in them. It did not seep in from nearby wells, as they were also pumped dry. The oil well had renewed itself somehow (we now know how).

Some oil collects in sandy or other geological formations that make it difficult to separate what you want from the rock. Fracking helps a lot here. This is pounding the rock using water and sand (or some proprietary abrasive).

There is plenty of oil. It's cheap price on the market is an indication of this. Gasoline in the U.K. is expensive not because of the oil cost, but because of taxes imposed by the U.K. government.

At least you're not in Norway.

Richard4796 wrote:
I Ski quite a bit. Some of the highest French and Italian resorts have seen a huge reduction in snowfall and changing seasons over the last 7 years. This includes shorter seasons. If not climate change or whatever you want to call it, then it is a change of some sorts that might not be a healthy one, for us in the long term. This is, of course, just one example.

I also ski. Seasons change. Some are good...some are bad. Seven years is nothing. Variance is normal.

I don't call it 'climate change' because 'climate change' doesn't mean anything other than itself. It is also not quantifiable. There is no way to measure such a 'change', since 'climate' itself refers to an unspecified time interval.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 08-12-2017 00:16
08-12-2017 00:24
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(810)
Very well explained ITN. The only thing I would add would be the reason for all the emotion in the climate debate that Richard commented on. It has to do with money, and an arseload of it. Taxpayer money, my money. This is also why it is more of a political issue than anything. Liberals want to take and spend, and that's exactly what they are doing in the false name of "global warming" or whatever they call it on this particular day.
08-12-2017 02:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Very well explained ITN. The only thing I would add would be the reason for all the emotion in the climate debate that Richard commented on. It has to do with money, and an arseload of it. Taxpayer money, my money. This is also why it is more of a political issue than anything. Liberals want to take and spend, and that's exactly what they are doing in the false name of "global warming" or whatever they call it on this particular day.


Also an excellent point.

I used to call it global warming/cooling/coming_ice_age/warming/climate_change/whatever_the_hell_they_call_it_now. The list was getting too long. It's the same bunch pushing the same 'solutions' to the same 'problem'.

Since all religions are based on some initial circular argument I just refer to it as the Church of Global Warming now.

Gawd...State religions can be expensive.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 08-12-2017 02:20
09-12-2017 12:48
moncktonProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(212)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Very well explained ITN.


Into the Night wrote:
Also an excellent point.


Sorry to cut in lads, but which one of you ladies is leading?
You're bringing a tear to my eye.



Can you do a tango over on Climate of Concern it's strangely quiet there.
09-12-2017 18:05
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(810)
Nice of you to share your wedding photos with all of us. Did you have trouble finding any trouble finding someone to bake the cake?
10-12-2017 10:36
moncktonProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(212)
We wanted one shaped like a cock.
Had to order it from the states.
Edited on 10-12-2017 11:20
11-12-2017 08:36
Richard4796
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
Monkton I sense your used to debates progressing into insulting arguments?
11-12-2017 08:39
Richard4796
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
ITN do you think the earths growing population will. Change your thoughts on the effects we (are having/may have in the future - depending on viewpoint) in relation to climate change or whatever you want to call it. Let's not say climate change, let's say a negative effect on the earth?

Do you think our population has reached that stage yet? And if not, when ?

Thanks for the reply above. Very useful.
11-12-2017 12:15
moncktonProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(212)
Richard4796 wrote:
Monkton I sense your used to debates progressing into insulting arguments?


Does the pope shit in his hat?
The 'debate' in this forum is an insult, it's just theatre.
You won't see more role playing outside dungeons and dragons.
11-12-2017 18:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
Richard4796 wrote:
ITN do you think the earths growing population will. Change your thoughts on the effects we (are having/may have in the future - depending on viewpoint) in relation to climate change or whatever you want to call it. Let's not say climate change, let's say a negative effect on the earth?

Do you think our population has reached that stage yet? And if not, when ?

Thanks for the reply above. Very useful.


I don't think our population is going to be a problem for a long time. Here's why:

For each person born into this world, that's not only a new mouth to feed, but also a new pair of hands to ranch and farm or otherwise support himself (we are so efficient now that he can not only support himself, he can support others as well!).

We are so good at growing food now, for example, that we can afford all the people who don't directly farm or ranch. We can afford the marketers, the distributors, the scientists, the engineers, the priests, the entertainers, and all the other jobs that don't ranch or farm. Some of these jobs can improve ranching and farming still further.

All of these non-farming and non-ranching jobs can buy what the farmer and rancher produces.

For water, the rains come and the rains go. As long as we have rain, we will have water. Water is not uniformly distributed however. Some areas have more than they need, others don't have enough. These same scientists and engineers are working on helping to solve that problem as well, by producing systems that mimic the rain, desalinating water. These systems are getting better too, they no longer have to distill water the usual way, but can desalinate water by pushing it through carefully made membranes. Much less energy is used that way.

The challenge is not that there isn't enough food or enough water, the challenge is and has been getting it to where it's needed. The things that prevent that is not only the logistics of getting that much stuff into difficult terrain, but doing something about government thieves and war zones.

We can't just outlaw war, of course (without starting a war over it!). We can't just conquer every evil government and put them out of power (without starting a war over it!). This is the challenge, not overpopulation.

There is plenty of land. There are great hunks of it that have almost no population at all. Many people joke about the 'flyover' States, but it IS land. It IS fertile. It's biggest problem right now is water, and to a certain extent, politics. Canada has plenty of water, but we can't get it in the United States very easily. (btw, the State most flown over is currently Virginia.)

Canada's population is much less than that of the United States, most of which is concentrated along the southern border. North of that are vast resources, difficult to get to even for Canada, and on the other side of the border from the United States.

Resources are not uniformly distributed. They have the same kind of problem as water.

What you hear about in the press is the bad news. Bad news sells. Good news is boring. People want to buy bad news. This bias alone means you get a very distorted view of what is. Others grab this bad news and turn it into some kind of cause. The overpopulation myth is one such cause.

The news media is the cause of 'overpopulation'. The news media wants to report the shortages, the starvation, the lack of water resources, the lack of X resource, etc. Yes, what they report exists to be sure, but it is not nearly as dire as the news media lays it out to be.

The Earth really has plenty of resources of every kind. We just have to get the dog to see the rabbit.


The Parrot Killer
11-12-2017 18:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
monckton wrote:
Richard4796 wrote:
Monkton I sense your used to debates progressing into insulting arguments?


Does the pope shit in his hat?
The 'debate' in this forum is an insult, it's just theatre.
You won't see more role playing outside dungeons and dragons.


To Richard: Does this response answer your question?


The Parrot Killer
12-12-2017 20:07
Richard4796
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
Kinda lol. I just don't understand why that's the case. It's called climate debate lol.
12-12-2017 20:39
moncktonProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(212)
Anyone can register a misleading domain name.
12-12-2017 20:45
litesong
★★★★★
(2041)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebag steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiner badnight" bluffed: .... role playing...
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebag steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiner badnight".... & others even worse, believe they are role players. However, they actually are what their names declare.
12-12-2017 20:53
moncktonProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(212)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebag steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiner badnight" bluffed: .... role playing...
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebag steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiner badnight".... & others even worse, believe they are role players. However, they actually are what their names declare.


Either way, they are water carriers for the beast.
12-12-2017 21:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
Richard4796 wrote:
Kinda lol. I just don't understand why that's the case. It's called climate debate lol.


As I described earlier, all religions are based on an initial circular argument. The Church of Global Warming is no exception. In the case of the Church of Global Warming, the religion takes a fundamentalist form.

Like any fundamentalist religion, any Outsider of the religion is either a 'lost sheep' that has not yet seen the 'truth', or more typically is looked upon as the devil himself and is to be condemned.

The Church of Global Warming denies science. It does not use or create any theory of science. Specifically, it ignores and denies the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It often ignores the 1st law of thermodynamics as well.

There are two types of individuals within this religion. There are those convinced the Earth is going to hell in a handbasket unless radical changes are made. Another takes the form of what another has referred to as a Warmzombie. These people tend to argue against the first type, but still insist that things like 'greenhouse' gases exist or that we can actually measure the temperature of the Earth. It's like two factions within the religion. Both are fundamentalists. The only real difference is the level of threat that carbon dioxide is believed to be.

Like any other member of the Church of Global Warming, any Outsider is looked upon as a 'lost sheep', that is to say untutored, uneducated, unwilling to learn, etc.; or as the devil himself that is only out to 'confuse', 'disrupt', 'troll', etc.

Whether a radical member (Such as monkton, litesong, and most others) or a Warmzombie style member (such as Wake), the same thing happens. Any Outsider is looked upon something to despise, or at the very least, someone to 'save'.

Like two branches of Christianity such as Catholic vs. Protestant, they despise each other as well. The only time they unify is to despise an Outsider like a Jew.

The whole 'climate debate' is actually a series of religious arguments, all masquerading around the 'science' that neither group is using and even denies, and a very few number of Outsiders that point out the two or three theories of science the Church of Global Warming ignores.

A favorite argument technique used in the Church of Global Warming is the use of credentials to legitimize their argument. It is based on the belief that some government agency or university degree is the only legitimate source for a theory of science. This belief denies the very history of science itself, since several successful scientists had no degree, no credential, no government blessing, nothing. All they had was a curious mind and a creative ability to test a theory of theirs by trying to falsify it.

Galileo, for example, had only a basic education and some teaching experience at his school. He enrolled at the University of Pisa to study music and medicine, but never graduated. He was a good flute player. He loved music.

Faraday joined the Royal Institution with nothing but a basic education. He educated himself, then went on to become one of the most influential scientists ever.

There are other examples, but this makes the point. Science isn't about credentials, universities, degrees, government programs, or even peer reviews.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.

It is religion that needs credentials, blessings and sanctification from some 'priest', and a Holy Order. Science needs none of that. Anyone can be a scientist.


The Parrot Killer
12-12-2017 21:38
moncktonProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(212)
The Heartland Institute also have a weekly podcast where you can pick up new climate-change denial anti-science talking points on a regular basis. When it comes to climate change - big money is firmly with 'Galileo'.

But this week, the abolition of net neutrality and restoration of 'internet freedom'...

FCC CHAIRMAN AJIT PAI: THE TRUTH ABOUT THE RESTORING INTERNET FREEDOM ORDER DECEMBER 11, 2017
https://www.heartland.org/multimedia/podcasts/fcc-chairman-ajit-pai-the-truth-about-the-restoring-internet-freedom-order

(Warning: side effects may include scalp loss, rectal bleeding, spontaneous combustion, irritability, ridicule ...)
12-12-2017 22:04
Richard4796
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
monckton wrote:
Anyone can register a misleading domain name.


So that is what has happened here then?
12-12-2017 22:05
Richard4796
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
litesong wrote:
Richard4796 wrote: Thank you for your reply and engagement with my post.
Richard....you speak with people named, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebag steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiner & many time (plus 1) threatener gazzzed & guzzzling" & "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebag steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiner badnight". Be friends with them if you don't mind lying.


Drugs?
12-12-2017 22:11
Richard4796
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
Into the Night wrote:
Richard4796 wrote:
Kinda lol. I just don't understand why that's the case. It's called climate debate lol.


As I described earlier, all religions are based on an initial circular argument. The Church of Global Warming is no exception. In the case of the Church of Global Warming, the religion takes a fundamentalist form.

Like any fundamentalist religion, any Outsider of the religion is either a 'lost sheep' that has not yet seen the 'truth', or more typically is looked upon as the devil himself and is to be condemned.

The Church of Global Warming denies science. It does not use or create any theory of science. Specifically, it ignores and denies the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It often ignores the 1st law of thermodynamics as well.

There are two types of individuals within this religion. There are those convinced the Earth is going to hell in a handbasket unless radical changes are made. Another takes the form of what another has referred to as a Warmzombie. These people tend to argue against the first type, but still insist that things like 'greenhouse' gases exist or that we can actually measure the temperature of the Earth. It's like two factions within the religion. Both are fundamentalists. The only real difference is the level of threat that carbon dioxide is believed to be.

Like any other member of the Church of Global Warming, any Outsider is looked upon as a 'lost sheep', that is to say untutored, uneducated, unwilling to learn, etc.; or as the devil himself that is only out to 'confuse', 'disrupt', 'troll', etc.

Whether a radical member (Such as monkton, litesong, and most others) or a Warmzombie style member (such as Wake), the same thing happens. Any Outsider is looked upon something to despise, or at the very least, someone to 'save'.

Like two branches of Christianity such as Catholic vs. Protestant, they despise each other as well. The only time they unify is to despise an Outsider like a Jew.

The whole 'climate debate' is actually a series of religious arguments, all masquerading around the 'science' that neither group is using and even denies, and a very few number of Outsiders that point out the two or three theories of science the Church of Global Warming ignores.

A favorite argument technique used in the Church of Global Warming is the use of credentials to legitimize their argument. It is based on the belief that some government agency or university degree is the only legitimate source for a theory of science. This belief denies the very history of science itself, since several successful scientists had no degree, no credential, no government blessing, nothing. All they had was a curious mind and a creative ability to test a theory of theirs by trying to falsify it.

Galileo, for example, had only a basic education and some teaching experience at his school. He enrolled at the University of Pisa to study music and medicine, but never graduated. He was a good flute player. He loved music.

Faraday joined the Royal Institution with nothing but a basic education. He educated himself, then went on to become one of the most influential scientists ever.

There are other examples, but this makes the point. Science isn't about credentials, universities, degrees, government programs, or even peer reviews.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.

It is religion that needs credentials, blessings and sanctification from some 'priest', and a Holy Order. Science needs none of that. Anyone can be a scientist.




Fair point. But some posters here are sharing some heavy stuff. You have made some good points and shared some helpful information. I admit, some I have learnt from, and some I disagree with. Either way I respect your knowledge and views, and the fact you are taking the time to share them with me.

However, not everyone who comes here is the devil, or uneducated, or even a lower being who needs sorting out lol. I admit, this is quite a heavy forum for the light hearted person who wa to to know/debate more about climate change. I'm one step away of thinking that some peeps here are hig on some funky stuff
12-12-2017 22:52
moncktonProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(212)
Richard4796 wrote:
monckton wrote:
Anyone can register a misleading domain name.


So that is what has happened here then?


Who knows.
But the stimulation of endless debate in order to stall action on an issue has been the central tactic of vested interests and lobbyists since the fight over tobacco - which they extended by about 30 or more years off the top of my head. It is thoroughly documented.

And it's been used to delay action on climate change since well before this website was created and that's been well known as well.

You'd think someone with enough interest to set this place up would be aware of that, so stressing the word 'debate' is a little bit of a **** you taunt to anyone trying to end it.

I mean here we are, it's confused you.

And then there's all the users who registered but never posted, all just sitting there unused, almost more than half it looks like.
I find that odd.

But again who knows, these games go on.
Just assume the worst and carry on.
12-12-2017 23:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
Richard4796 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Richard4796 wrote:
Kinda lol. I just don't understand why that's the case. It's called climate debate lol.


As I described earlier, all religions are based on an initial circular argument. The Church of Global Warming is no exception. In the case of the Church of Global Warming, the religion takes a fundamentalist form.

Like any fundamentalist religion, any Outsider of the religion is either a 'lost sheep' that has not yet seen the 'truth', or more typically is looked upon as the devil himself and is to be condemned.

The Church of Global Warming denies science. It does not use or create any theory of science. Specifically, it ignores and denies the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It often ignores the 1st law of thermodynamics as well.

There are two types of individuals within this religion. There are those convinced the Earth is going to hell in a handbasket unless radical changes are made. Another takes the form of what another has referred to as a Warmzombie. These people tend to argue against the first type, but still insist that things like 'greenhouse' gases exist or that we can actually measure the temperature of the Earth. It's like two factions within the religion. Both are fundamentalists. The only real difference is the level of threat that carbon dioxide is believed to be.

Like any other member of the Church of Global Warming, any Outsider is looked upon as a 'lost sheep', that is to say untutored, uneducated, unwilling to learn, etc.; or as the devil himself that is only out to 'confuse', 'disrupt', 'troll', etc.

Whether a radical member (Such as monkton, litesong, and most others) or a Warmzombie style member (such as Wake), the same thing happens. Any Outsider is looked upon something to despise, or at the very least, someone to 'save'.

Like two branches of Christianity such as Catholic vs. Protestant, they despise each other as well. The only time they unify is to despise an Outsider like a Jew.

The whole 'climate debate' is actually a series of religious arguments, all masquerading around the 'science' that neither group is using and even denies, and a very few number of Outsiders that point out the two or three theories of science the Church of Global Warming ignores.

A favorite argument technique used in the Church of Global Warming is the use of credentials to legitimize their argument. It is based on the belief that some government agency or university degree is the only legitimate source for a theory of science. This belief denies the very history of science itself, since several successful scientists had no degree, no credential, no government blessing, nothing. All they had was a curious mind and a creative ability to test a theory of theirs by trying to falsify it.

Galileo, for example, had only a basic education and some teaching experience at his school. He enrolled at the University of Pisa to study music and medicine, but never graduated. He was a good flute player. He loved music.

Faraday joined the Royal Institution with nothing but a basic education. He educated himself, then went on to become one of the most influential scientists ever.

There are other examples, but this makes the point. Science isn't about credentials, universities, degrees, government programs, or even peer reviews.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.

It is religion that needs credentials, blessings and sanctification from some 'priest', and a Holy Order. Science needs none of that. Anyone can be a scientist.




Fair point. But some posters here are sharing some heavy stuff. You have made some good points and shared some helpful information. I admit, some I have learnt from, and some I disagree with. Either way I respect your knowledge and views, and the fact you are taking the time to share them with me.

Here we can simply agree to disagree on various points. We each have our views and the reasons for them. For many, their views are religiously based. That's all I'm saying on that.
Richard4796 wrote:
However, not everyone who comes here is the devil, or uneducated, or even a lower being who needs sorting out lol.

Heh. Never said they were. That's how an Outsider of the Religion is viewed as though by someone in the Church of Global Warming.
Richard4796 wrote:
I admit, this is quite a heavy forum for the light hearted person who wa to to know/debate more about climate change.

Here we disagree. It can be, but too many here are stuck in religion. Personally I like some beef in my burger. I tire of the fundamentalist religious. I would much rather debate on stuff that isn't religiously based. I am happy to discuss your fear of population increase harming the planet, for example. I don't think it's a problem to worry about, but I know a lot of people do.
Richard4796 wrote:
I'm one step away of thinking that some peeps here are hig on some funky stuff


Who knows? There are a lot of childish reactions to be sure.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Climate change and possible mass migration on a grand scale.. so where is safe?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
electronic scale005-10-2017 05:38
temperature increasing because the atmospheric mass is increasing816-09-2016 19:00
Antarctic Ice mass changes2015-11-2015 16:06
Antarctic also losing ice mass205-05-2014 04:42
International Climate Grand Prix314-03-2013 06:41
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact