Remember me
▼ Content

The Current This woman won't have children because of climate change. She says she's not alone



Page 1 of 212>
The Current This woman won't have children because of climate change. She says she's not alone26-04-2019 00:35
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1061)
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-april-24-2019-1.5107820/this-woman-won-t-have-children-because-of-climate-change-she-says-she-s-not-alone-1.5109015
26-04-2019 00:47
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-april-24-2019-1.5107820/this-woman-won-t-have-children-because-of-climate-change-she-says-she-s-not-alone-1.5109015


Actually a very high percentage of white women have no intentions of having children. It is messy and painful and then the children are such a bother. So they can give any excuse they like but any one of them would be just as good as the next one.

Think about not getting your children vaccinated! That is about as stupid as you can get. I had measles since at the time I was a kid the "vaccinations" we would get would be - "Johnny has the measles so go over and play with him". Although the percentage is low I turned out to be one of those who became nearly sterile because of that disease and never had any children.

I can tell you, the older you get, the more you see that the real purpose of life is to bring more life into this world. Without that, your own life loses much of its meaning.
26-04-2019 15:28
Skiday
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
As a 58 year old without children I find this interesting (not for ecological reasons, it's just how life worked out for me). I saw another woman from the London protests being interviewed saying she would not have children 'until climate change is resolved'. Of course there will likely be a point in time, as her biological clock ticks away, when she will be able to justify that the situation has changed, or perhaps she will forget that promise (purely my own conjecture), as the desire to have children is often more powerful than rationality. I suspect that the lady in the article referred may also one day be less resolute about her convictions as she ages. It doesn't matter what else you do to reduce your carbon footprint, the very worst thing you can do is have children. Your children may become eco-warriors, but then they may become 'frequent flyers' working in the oil industry - you just don't know.

Interestingly, a gentleman on the radio in his seventies was saying the climate disaster won't affect him as he will be dead by the time the cliff-edge arrives, but he fears for his grandchild. I'm thinking that if he hadn't had children then would that have been better? It would certainly have been better for the planet. As the youngest of 4 I believe my parents should have stopped a 2 and I should not have been born. I'm glad I was, but I wouldn't have minded if I weren't obviously.

At some point in time the human race will die out. The sun will burn out and take the Earth with it. If you believe we will develop transport faster than light, or 'warp-speed' then I think that is wishful thinking. If the human race lasts another 1000 years, 10,000 years, or 10 million years, why does it matter to anyone who is not alive today? Is your grandchild more important then your great great X100 grandchild, and if so why? I think that if the human race dies out in 100 years rather than 10 million years it will be much better for the planet, at least the planet and its wildlife will go on.

Andrew
26-04-2019 15:36
Skiday
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
I forgot to mention - Read Dan Brown's book 'Inferno' (NOT the film which completely changed the ending for some bizarre reason). The only salvation for humans and the planet going on together is within. I don't want to give spoilers, but it is brilliant. His book 'Origins' is pretty much on the money too. Fiction, but very thought provoking (and a cracking read)
26-04-2019 18:47
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Skiday wrote:
As a 58 year old without children I find this interesting (not for ecological reasons, it's just how life worked out for me). I saw another woman from the London protests being interviewed saying she would not have children 'until climate change is resolved'. Of course there will likely be a point in time, as her biological clock ticks away, when she will be able to justify that the situation has changed, or perhaps she will forget that promise (purely my own conjecture), as the desire to have children is often more powerful than rationality. I suspect that the lady in the article referred may also one day be less resolute about her convictions as she ages. It doesn't matter what else you do to reduce your carbon footprint, the very worst thing you can do is have children. Your children may become eco-warriors, but then they may become 'frequent flyers' working in the oil industry - you just don't know.

Interestingly, a gentleman on the radio in his seventies was saying the climate disaster won't affect him as he will be dead by the time the cliff-edge arrives, but he fears for his grandchild. I'm thinking that if he hadn't had children then would that have been better? It would certainly have been better for the planet. As the youngest of 4 I believe my parents should have stopped a 2 and I should not have been born. I'm glad I was, but I wouldn't have minded if I weren't obviously.

At some point in time the human race will die out. The sun will burn out and take the Earth with it. If you believe we will develop transport faster than light, or 'warp-speed' then I think that is wishful thinking. If the human race lasts another 1000 years, 10,000 years, or 10 million years, why does it matter to anyone who is not alive today? Is your grandchild more important then your great great X100 grandchild, and if so why? I think that if the human race dies out in 100 years rather than 10 million years it will be much better for the planet, at least the planet and its wildlife will go on.

Andrew


In plain English: There IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE. You can't call it a hoax because that would infer it was a joke of some sort - it is a criminal enterprise of the environmentalists that have since the early 20's been attempting to have a reason to reduce the world's population.

Every year since the 60's we have had announcements that the world is ending in 10 years if we don't give the government all of our money right now.

I suggest you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReLBceVMFmk
26-04-2019 19:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
Wake wrote:
Skiday wrote:
As a 58 year old without children I find this interesting (not for ecological reasons, it's just how life worked out for me). I saw another woman from the London protests being interviewed saying she would not have children 'until climate change is resolved'. Of course there will likely be a point in time, as her biological clock ticks away, when she will be able to justify that the situation has changed, or perhaps she will forget that promise (purely my own conjecture), as the desire to have children is often more powerful than rationality. I suspect that the lady in the article referred may also one day be less resolute about her convictions as she ages. It doesn't matter what else you do to reduce your carbon footprint, the very worst thing you can do is have children. Your children may become eco-warriors, but then they may become 'frequent flyers' working in the oil industry - you just don't know.

Interestingly, a gentleman on the radio in his seventies was saying the climate disaster won't affect him as he will be dead by the time the cliff-edge arrives, but he fears for his grandchild. I'm thinking that if he hadn't had children then would that have been better? It would certainly have been better for the planet. As the youngest of 4 I believe my parents should have stopped a 2 and I should not have been born. I'm glad I was, but I wouldn't have minded if I weren't obviously.

At some point in time the human race will die out. The sun will burn out and take the Earth with it. If you believe we will develop transport faster than light, or 'warp-speed' then I think that is wishful thinking. If the human race lasts another 1000 years, 10,000 years, or 10 million years, why does it matter to anyone who is not alive today? Is your grandchild more important then your great great X100 grandchild, and if so why? I think that if the human race dies out in 100 years rather than 10 million years it will be much better for the planet, at least the planet and its wildlife will go on.

Andrew


In plain English: There IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE. You can't call it a hoax because that would infer it was a joke of some sort - it is a criminal enterprise of the environmentalists that have since the early 20's been attempting to have a reason to reduce the world's population.

Every year since the 60's we have had announcements that the world is ending in 10 years if we don't give the government all of our money right now.

I suggest you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReLBceVMFmk


Hoaxes need not be a joke, Wake. The Church of Global Warming is more than a hoax though. It is a fundamentalist style religion.

It is not even the biggest hoax perpetuated upon the world, or the biggest religion that people try to call 'science'.


The Parrot Killer
26-04-2019 20:41
Skiday
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
Oh well, if you put 'there is no climate change' in all capital letters then it MUST be true! LOL. If you were to actually read what I wrote then you will see that at no point did I declare that there is climate change or not. My only real statement is that the Earth and all life on it will one day end - which it will. If you want to debate whether climate change is real or not then I'm sure there are other threads, but this thread is about people's decision to not have children.

Thank you for your YouTube suggestion, but equally I could direct you to web sites that 'prove' that the earth is flat, but that doesn't make it so. If you can't debate within the subject of the thread, and do so with respect (i.e. actually read peoples posts) then I have no more to say to you.
26-04-2019 20:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
Skiday wrote:
Oh well, if you put 'there is no climate change' in all capital letters then it MUST be true! LOL. If you were to actually read what I wrote then you will see that at no point did I declare that there is climate change or not. My only real statement is that the Earth and all life on it will one day end - which it will. If you want to debate whether climate change is real or not then I'm sure there are other threads, but this thread is about people's decision to not have children.


Personally, I don't worry about such events as the Sun dying an destroing Earth. There is a LONG time between then and now. We might have the ability to prevent it, or simply move Earth to somewhere else, to well, whatever.

Not having children due to paranoid beliefs is probably best. Mental illness like this is not conducive to successfully raising a family.


The Parrot Killer
26-04-2019 21:44
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Skiday wrote:
Oh well, if you put 'there is no climate change' in all capital letters then it MUST be true! LOL. If you were to actually read what I wrote then you will see that at no point did I declare that there is climate change or not. My only real statement is that the Earth and all life on it will one day end - which it will. If you want to debate whether climate change is real or not then I'm sure there are other threads, but this thread is about people's decision to not have children.

Thank you for your YouTube suggestion, but equally I could direct you to web sites that 'prove' that the earth is flat, but that doesn't make it so. If you can't debate within the subject of the thread, and do so with respect (i.e. actually read peoples posts) then I have no more to say to you.


So the comparison of NASA's claimed temperature record and that reported in the newspapers in the area being different is the same as Flat Earthists? Well I don't think that we need to discuss anything anymore.
26-04-2019 22:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
Wake wrote:
Skiday wrote:
Oh well, if you put 'there is no climate change' in all capital letters then it MUST be true! LOL. If you were to actually read what I wrote then you will see that at no point did I declare that there is climate change or not. My only real statement is that the Earth and all life on it will one day end - which it will. If you want to debate whether climate change is real or not then I'm sure there are other threads, but this thread is about people's decision to not have children.

Thank you for your YouTube suggestion, but equally I could direct you to web sites that 'prove' that the earth is flat, but that doesn't make it so. If you can't debate within the subject of the thread, and do so with respect (i.e. actually read peoples posts) then I have no more to say to you.


So the comparison of NASA's claimed temperature record and that reported in the newspapers in the area being different is the same as Flat Earthists? Well I don't think that we need to discuss anything anymore.


There's certainly no need to discuss that here. That is not the topic of this thread. Try to stay on topic, Wake. You keep wandering off into making completely irrelevant comments.


The Parrot Killer
27-04-2019 01:45
Skiday
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
Wake wrote:
Well I don't think that we need to discuss anything anymore.


No we don't. Unless you'd like to discuss anything I wrote about in my original comment.

If I were to have an opinion on climate change, not having time to study all the evidence on either side, I might be tempted to be influenced by someone who has, like Sir David Attenborough rather than perhaps the most famous denier, Donald Trump, who has allegedly never even read a book - any book, and certainly not anonymous posters on web forums who 'gaslight' other contributors.

This is clearly not a forum for considered and respectful discussion so I shall say no more and leave.
27-04-2019 02:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
Skiday wrote:
Wake wrote:
Well I don't think that we need to discuss anything anymore.


No we don't. Unless you'd like to discuss anything I wrote about in my original comment.

If I were to have an opinion on climate change, not having time to study all the evidence on either side, I might be tempted to be influenced by someone who has, like Sir David Attenborough rather than perhaps the most famous denier, Donald Trump, who has allegedly never even read a book - any book, and certainly not anonymous posters on web forums who 'gaslight' other contributors.

This is clearly not a forum for considered and respectful discussion so I shall say no more and leave.


Actually, it is, but you would rather insult people and believe anything you hear on the internet rather than take part in an actual discussion.

Have a fun life in the kiddie pools.


The Parrot Killer
27-04-2019 05:56
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
No, he is right, this is the kiddie pool and your it. Enjoy.

Trolls love to run real people away from places where they should be able to have adult discussion, and its sad to see people like you win, but there is no defeating a troll such as yourself.
27-04-2019 15:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
dehammer wrote:
No, he is right, this is the kiddie pool and your it. Enjoy.

Trolls love to run real people away from places where they should be able to have adult discussion, and its sad to see people like you win, but there is no defeating a troll such as yourself.


You really want to ignore the laws of thermodynamics, don't you? You just can't STAND it when someone shoots down your magickal machine idea with them.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 27-04-2019 15:44
27-04-2019 16:34
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
You think because you know the words "laws of thermodynamics" that people give anything you say any weight. Go back to school kid. You can still graduate 3rd grade.
27-04-2019 17:28
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Skiday wrote:
Wake wrote:
Well I don't think that we need to discuss anything anymore.


No we don't. Unless you'd like to discuss anything I wrote about in my original comment.

If I were to have an opinion on climate change, not having time to study all the evidence on either side, I might be tempted to be influenced by someone who has, like Sir David Attenborough rather than perhaps the most famous denier, Donald Trump, who has allegedly never even read a book - any book, and certainly not anonymous posters on web forums who 'gaslight' other contributors.

This is clearly not a forum for considered and respectful discussion so I shall say no more and leave.


Well please forgive the insult but if you would rather believe an actor rather than a climate scientist there is no need for you to attend anything but Save The Earth rallies where you can tell yourselves how active you are in the climate change movement.
27-04-2019 17:36
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
dehammer wrote:
You think because you know the words "laws of thermodynamics" that people give anything you say any weight. Go back to school kid. You can still graduate 3rd grade.


Nightmare and I agree on almost nothing. What we do agree upon is that the climate change nuts know nothing. What credentials do you have to understand anything that has to do with the fake climate change? The people that speak the loudest always seem to have gotten their education on climate change from an article in Popular Science written by an author who got his from an article in Ladies Home Journal. And inevitably they throw around the terms like "Scientists say" or "scientists agree" when they do nothing of the sort. Less that 20% of scientists happen to believe in climate change and those are people whose livelihood depends upon government grants.

When the actual things that NASA has been reporting is shown to be the exact opposite by daily weather reports in the areas under discussion and when the satellite data that shows no warming since the satellites were put in orbit 40 years ago are denied by people like you, you look like what you are - nothing more than another tool of the left.
27-04-2019 18:37
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
Skiday wrote:
As a 58 year old without children I find this interesting (not for ecological reasons, it's just how life worked out for me). I saw another woman from the London protests being interviewed saying she would not have children 'until climate change is resolved'. Of course there will likely be a point in time, as her biological clock ticks away, when she will be able to justify that the situation has changed, or perhaps she will forget that promise (purely my own conjecture), as the desire to have children is often more powerful than rationality. I suspect that the lady in the article referred may also one day be less resolute about her convictions as she ages. It doesn't matter what else you do to reduce your carbon footprint, the very worst thing you can do is have children. Your children may become eco-warriors, but then they may become 'frequent flyers' working in the oil industry - you just don't know.

Interestingly, a gentleman on the radio in his seventies was saying the climate disaster won't affect him as he will be dead by the time the cliff-edge arrives, but he fears for his grandchild. I'm thinking that if he hadn't had children then would that have been better? It would certainly have been better for the planet. As the youngest of 4 I believe my parents should have stopped a 2 and I should not have been born. I'm glad I was, but I wouldn't have minded if I weren't obviously.

At some point in time the human race will die out. The sun will burn out and take the Earth with it. If you believe we will develop transport faster than light, or 'warp-speed' then I think that is wishful thinking. If the human race lasts another 1000 years, 10,000 years, or 10 million years, why does it matter to anyone who is not alive today? Is your grandchild more important then your great great X100 grandchild, and if so why? I think that if the human race dies out in 100 years rather than 10 million years it will be much better for the planet, at least the planet and its wildlife will go on.

Andrew



Andrew,
Overpopulation might be the biggest issue facing our planet. Civilization requires resources and on our planet, those are limited.
At the same time there is Natural Climate Variation which isn't understood. Without knowing that, we can't know how we're influencing our planet except in obvious ways. Like if a forest is burned to increase farming. The amount of CO2 being converted into oxygen will decrease while agricultural production goes up. Stuff like that.
From what scientists say and this includes those at the IPCC, global warming will have a minimum impact on the southern hemisphere. This for some reason always gets ignored. Most of climate change is in the northern hemisphere.
As this forum shows like anything else, it's more of an emotional argument.
27-04-2019 21:28
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Wake wrote:
... when the satellite data that shows no warming since the satellites were put in orbit 40 years ago are denied by people like you, you look like what you are - nothing more than another tool of the left.
Sorry, but you just showed your ignorance. I do not believe in mmcc. I try to get someone that believes in it to explain if it is so dangerous, why they do not use a proven technology to stop it instead of demanding the government tax Americans into poverty to send our tax dollars to corrupt dictators who will as likely use the money to build weapons to attack us as anything else.

Instead what I get is tools of the socialist trying to claim anything other than taxing the poor will do nothing but .... You guys never did explain what it would do to lower co2 emissions.
Edited on 27-04-2019 21:29
27-04-2019 21:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
dehammer wrote:
You think because you know the words "laws of thermodynamics" that people give anything you say any weight. Go back to school kid. You can still graduate 3rd grade.


Inversion fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
27-04-2019 21:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
Wake wrote:
dehammer wrote:
You think because you know the words "laws of thermodynamics" that people give anything you say any weight. Go back to school kid. You can still graduate 3rd grade.


Nightmare and I agree on almost nothing.
That's because you also deny theories of science, particularly the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
What we do agree upon is that the climate change nuts know nothing.
That includes you, Wake. You also believe that CO2 can somehow magickally warm the Earth. You've said so. Do you wish to retract that claim?
Wake wrote:
What credentials do you have to understand anything that has to do with the fake climate change?
It doesn't matter, Wake. False authority fallacy.
Wake wrote:
The people that speak the loudest always seem to have gotten their education on climate change from an article in Popular Science written by an author who got his from an article in Ladies Home Journal.
Again, it doesn't matter, Wake.
Wake wrote:
And inevitably they throw around the terms like "Scientists say" or "scientists agree" when they do nothing of the sort.
This is true. This is known as an argument from randU fallacy.
Wake wrote:
Less that 20% of scientists happen to believe in climate change and those are people whose livelihood depends upon government grants.
Depends on who you ask. No one has made a comprehensive study. This number is unknown. Argument from randU fallacy.
Wake wrote:
When the actual things that NASA has been reporting is shown to be the exact opposite by daily weather reports in the areas under discussion
NASA doesn't report weather, Wake.
Wake wrote:
and when the satellite data that shows no warming since the satellites were put in orbit 40 years ago are denied by people like you, you look like what you are - nothing more than another tool of the left.

Satellites are incapable of measuring temperature, Wake.


The Parrot Killer
27-04-2019 21:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
James___ wrote:
Skiday wrote:
As a 58 year old without children I find this interesting (not for ecological reasons, it's just how life worked out for me). I saw another woman from the London protests being interviewed saying she would not have children 'until climate change is resolved'. Of course there will likely be a point in time, as her biological clock ticks away, when she will be able to justify that the situation has changed, or perhaps she will forget that promise (purely my own conjecture), as the desire to have children is often more powerful than rationality. I suspect that the lady in the article referred may also one day be less resolute about her convictions as she ages. It doesn't matter what else you do to reduce your carbon footprint, the very worst thing you can do is have children. Your children may become eco-warriors, but then they may become 'frequent flyers' working in the oil industry - you just don't know.

Interestingly, a gentleman on the radio in his seventies was saying the climate disaster won't affect him as he will be dead by the time the cliff-edge arrives, but he fears for his grandchild. I'm thinking that if he hadn't had children then would that have been better? It would certainly have been better for the planet. As the youngest of 4 I believe my parents should have stopped a 2 and I should not have been born. I'm glad I was, but I wouldn't have minded if I weren't obviously.

At some point in time the human race will die out. The sun will burn out and take the Earth with it. If you believe we will develop transport faster than light, or 'warp-speed' then I think that is wishful thinking. If the human race lasts another 1000 years, 10,000 years, or 10 million years, why does it matter to anyone who is not alive today? Is your grandchild more important then your great great X100 grandchild, and if so why? I think that if the human race dies out in 100 years rather than 10 million years it will be much better for the planet, at least the planet and its wildlife will go on.

Andrew



Andrew,
Overpopulation might be the biggest issue facing our planet.

You first, James.
James___ wrote:
Civilization requires resources and on our planet, those are limited.

They are not limited. Resources recycle. More people can generate more resources.
James___ wrote:
At the same time there is Natural Climate Variation which isn't understood. Without knowing that, we can't know how we're influencing our planet except in obvious ways. Like if a forest is burned to increase farming. The amount of CO2 being converted into oxygen will decrease while agricultural production goes up. Stuff like that.
From what scientists say and this includes those at the IPCC, global warming will have a minimum impact on the southern hemisphere.

Define 'global warming'. It doesn't mean anything.
James___ wrote:
This for some reason always gets ignored.

And for good reason. You have to define 'global warming' or 'climate change' before they mean anything.
James___ wrote:
Most of climate change is in the northern hemisphere.

Define 'climate change'. You keep using these buzzwords. Define them.
James___ wrote:
As this forum shows like anything else, it's more of an emotional argument.

Partially, but it's also a case of illiteracy like yours.


The Parrot Killer
27-04-2019 21:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
dehammer wrote:
Wake wrote:
... when the satellite data that shows no warming since the satellites were put in orbit 40 years ago are denied by people like you, you look like what you are - nothing more than another tool of the left.
Sorry, but you just showed your ignorance. I do not believe in mmcc. I try to get someone that believes in it to explain if it is so dangerous, why they do not use a proven technology to stop it instead of demanding the government tax Americans into poverty to send our tax dollars to corrupt dictators who will as likely use the money to build weapons to attack us as anything else.

Instead what I get is tools of the socialist trying to claim anything other than taxing the poor will do nothing but .... You guys never did explain what it would do to lower co2 emissions.


You don't need to lower CO2 emissions. CO2 has absolutely no effect on Earth's temperature. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
27-04-2019 22:55
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
You guys do not get it. That is my argument. They say the emission is doing so, but they do not use a cheap method of lowering emissions when its available.
28-04-2019 18:06
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
dehammer wrote:
You guys do not get it. That is my argument. They say the emission is doing so, but they do not use a cheap method of lowering emissions when its available.


There is a psychological trick called "The Primacy Effect". This is what the True Believers are depending upon. It is based on the fact that the first thing you are taught about something is that which you will spend the rest of your life strongly biased to. Unless you ACTUALLY use logic and science to break out of it.

The ONLY way to limit the population is to make all of the people in the world rich and comfortable enough that they needn't large families to; A. Support them in their old age and B. have sufficient surviving members of that family to accomplish A.

In this context rich is not what you as an American might think of as rich where you can fly to Mongolia to visit another culture. It is having sufficient food, protection from the weather and good enough health to live to an old age comfortably. This is what is lacking presently in about a third of the world's population and what will be required to reduce population growth to or below replacement rate.

And the ONLY way to achieve this is to have these societies provide enough energy to achieve that.

A large part of the driving force behind this energy denying "environmentalism" has to do with the racist idea that most of the world has no right to take up the space of those presently in the upper classes.

In this string this is shown quite plainly. Cut the energy and you kill people. The lower classes die first and the lowest classes are in Asia which people like dehammer have absolutely no problem killing off.
28-04-2019 18:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
dehammer wrote:
You guys do not get it. That is my argument. They say the emission is doing so, but they do not use a cheap method of lowering emissions when its available.


Like what, your magickal perpetual motion machine?


The Parrot Killer
28-04-2019 18:43
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Yea, its a magic thing called gravity. Babies learn what it is when they throw things and see it hit the floor.
28-04-2019 19:12
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
dehammer wrote:
Wake wrote:
... when the satellite data that shows no warming since the satellites were put in orbit 40 years ago are denied by people like you, you look like what you are - nothing more than another tool of the left.
Sorry, but you just showed your ignorance. I do not believe in mmcc. I try to get someone that believes in it to explain if it is so dangerous, why they do not use a proven technology to stop it instead of demanding the government tax Americans into poverty to send our tax dollars to corrupt dictators who will as likely use the money to build weapons to attack us as anything else.

Instead what I get is tools of the socialist trying to claim anything other than taxing the poor will do nothing but .... You guys never did explain what it would do to lower co2 emissions.


If you don't mind answering a question. I know spectrometry very well. So I know that CO2 only absorbs energy in three very narrow bands in an area that has so little energy that only a very small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs the entire amount.

This means that after some 180-200 ppm there is longer any more energy for CO2 to interact with. What's more, ALL this does is turn some radiant energy into conductive energy - while this indeed slows the transfer from the Earth's surface back into outer space, any additional CO2 has the very same effect as O2 and N2.

What all this means is that a while a very small amount of energy is changed into a slower moving form and consequently the mean global temperature is microscopically increased, it is so small as to be ignorable. What's more - since higher amounts of CO2 cause more rapid conduction due to the lower latent heat content of CO2 - it probably more than cancels out.

So, the question is - why are you concerned about the production of CO2? Especially in such tiny quantities?

I think I have already explained to you that the actual MGT is almost entirely reliant upon atmospheric density than gaseous content. Are you beating a dead horse because of the Primacy Effect?
28-04-2019 19:19
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
There is only one way the earth loses energy, radiation. While there is some energy that is lost in other frequencies, the majority of the energy from the atmosphere is lost in infrared radiation. Most molecules and atoms of the atmosphere are stable. This means they release energy very slowly.

Co2 is unstable. That means it releases infrared in microseconds, instead of minutes or even hours of some other molecules, such as water vapor.

The majority of the energy from the atmosphere is released when co2 impacts other molecules and atoms and releases that energy as infrared. Half of this energy goes towards the earth and half goes into space.

Increasing co2 increases the amount of energy that it released from the atmosphere. Satellite data shows this is true. They used to use this data as proof that co2 was increasing in the upper atmosphere, but then it was pointed out that this meant increasing co2 decreased the energy in the atmosphere.
28-04-2019 19:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
dehammer wrote:
Yea, its a magic thing called gravity. Babies learn what it is when they throw things and see it hit the floor.


Gravity is not energy.


The Parrot Killer
28-04-2019 19:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
Wake wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Wake wrote:
... when the satellite data that shows no warming since the satellites were put in orbit 40 years ago are denied by people like you, you look like what you are - nothing more than another tool of the left.
Sorry, but you just showed your ignorance. I do not believe in mmcc. I try to get someone that believes in it to explain if it is so dangerous, why they do not use a proven technology to stop it instead of demanding the government tax Americans into poverty to send our tax dollars to corrupt dictators who will as likely use the money to build weapons to attack us as anything else.

Instead what I get is tools of the socialist trying to claim anything other than taxing the poor will do nothing but .... You guys never did explain what it would do to lower co2 emissions.


If you don't mind answering a question. I know spectrometry very well.

It is obvious you don't, Wake.
Wake wrote:
So I know that CO2 only absorbs energy in three very narrow bands in an area that has so little energy that only a very small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs the entire amount.
Absorption does not create energy, Wake. What is absorbed has to be emitted from somewhere (like the surface). That cools the surface, Wake.
Wake wrote:
This means that after some 180-200 ppm there is longer any more energy for CO2 to interact with. What's more, ALL this does is turn some radiant energy into conductive energy -
There is no such thing as 'radiant energy' or 'conductive energy'. Heat is not energy, Wake.
Wake wrote:
while this indeed slows the transfer from the Earth's surface back into outer space,
You cannot slow or trap heat, Wake. You are AGAIN forgetting that everything also radiates, including any CO2 or any other gas in the atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
any additional CO2 has the very same effect as O2 and N2.

Which is zero.
Wake wrote:
What all this means is that a while a very small amount of energy is changed into a slower moving form
You cannot slow or trap heat, Wake.
Wake wrote:
and consequently the mean global temperature is microscopically increased,
You cannot create energy out of nothing, Wake.
Wake wrote:
it is so small as to be ignorable.
It is zero...nada...nothing.
Wake wrote:
What's more - since higher amounts of CO2 cause more rapid conduction due to the lower latent heat content of CO2 - it probably more than cancels out.
You don't have to cancel out a zero, Wake.
Wake wrote:
So, the question is - why are you concerned about the production of CO2? Especially in such tiny quantities?
Because, like you, he is a believer in the Church of Global Warming.
Wake wrote:
I think I have already explained to you that the actual MGT is almost entirely reliant upon atmospheric density than gaseous content. Are you beating a dead horse because of the Primacy Effect?

No, YOU are beating a dead horse by ignoring science.


The Parrot Killer
28-04-2019 19:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
dehammer wrote:
There is only one way the earth loses energy, radiation. While there is some energy that is lost in other frequencies, the majority of the energy from the atmosphere is lost in infrared radiation. Most molecules and atoms of the atmosphere are stable. This means they release energy very slowly.

You cannot slow or trap heat.
dehammer wrote:
Co2 is unstable.

CO2 is very stable. That's why it requires energy to break it up into carbon and hydrogen again.
dehammer wrote:
That means it releases infrared in microseconds, instead of minutes or even hours of some other molecules, such as water vapor.

You cannot slow or trap heat. All of it is emitting light all the time. There is no time delay. There is no sequence where you can just suspend the Stefan-Boltzmann law for even a moment of time.
dehammer wrote:
The majority of the energy from the atmosphere is released when co2 impacts other molecules and atoms and releases that energy as infrared. Half of this energy goes towards the earth and half goes into space.

You cannot heat the warmer surface using a colder gas, dehammer. You cannot violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You cannot make heat flow backwards.
dehammer wrote:
Increasing co2 increases the amount of energy that it released from the atmosphere.

Nope. Makes no difference. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Composition doesn't matter.
dehammer wrote:
Satellite data shows this is true.

There is no such satellite data.
dehammer wrote:
They used to use this data as proof that co2 was increasing in the upper atmosphere, but then it was pointed out that this meant increasing co2 decreased the energy in the atmosphere.

You are ignoring Kirchoff's law as well. You treat the Earth as a whole, dude. Atmosphere, ocean, the surface, the interior, all of it.


The Parrot Killer
28-04-2019 20:06
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
That's why it requires energy to break it up into carbon and hydrogen again.
IF there was any doubt you knew nothing about science, you just proved it. There is no hydrogen in co2. When scientist talk about the stability of a molecule, they are talking about its energy shells, not the bonds.
28-04-2019 20:33
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
dehammer wrote:
That's why it requires energy to break it up into carbon and hydrogen again.
IF there was any doubt you knew nothing about science, you just proved it. There is no hydrogen in co2. When scientist talk about the stability of a molecule, they are talking about its energy shells, not the bonds.


I'll be the first to ridicule nightmare but let's not use typos to do so. Plants can manipulate the energy of Sunlight and chemistry to break CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen.

Let's remember that science is unbiased so let's treat it as such. No matter how pissed off some of the others on the group may make you.
28-04-2019 20:55
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
It wasn't a typo. It was a complete lack of understanding of the science of co2, convection, conduction, and infrared radiation.

What is worse, is a total lack of willing to accept what others say. He is trolling because he is deliberately trying to make people mad. He argues that anything that supports other people's argument, is magic.

Look at the fact he states that gravity does not exist.
28-04-2019 21:07
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1061)
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Yea, its a magic thing called gravity. Babies learn what it is when they throw things and see it hit the floor.


Gravity is not energy.


Gravity is a force, not an energy. Energy can do work. Gravity does not do work.
28-04-2019 21:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
dehammer wrote:
That's why it requires energy to break it up into carbon and hydrogen again.
IF there was any doubt you knew nothing about science, you just proved it. There is no hydrogen in co2. When scientist talk about the stability of a molecule, they are talking about its energy shells, not the bonds.


Typo. Carbon and oxygen.


The Parrot Killer
28-04-2019 21:15
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1061)
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
That's why it requires energy to break it up into carbon and hydrogen again.
IF there was any doubt you knew nothing about science, you just proved it. There is no hydrogen in co2. When scientist talk about the stability of a molecule, they are talking about its energy shells, not the bonds.


Typo. Carbon and oxygen.


How much energy does it take to break CO2 into C and O2? How much does it take to break O2 into O and O? In the ozone layer UV breaks O3 into O and O2.
Edited on 28-04-2019 21:15
28-04-2019 21:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
dehammer wrote:
It wasn't a typo. It was a complete lack of understanding of the science of co2, convection, conduction, and infrared radiation.
It was a typo. Using it to deny heat and CO2 isn't going to work, dude.
dehammer wrote:
What is worse, is a total lack of willing to accept what others say. He is trolling because he is deliberately trying to make people mad. He argues that anything that supports other people's argument, is magic.
No, what YOU are arguing is a magickal machine. It is a perpetual motion machine. It won't work.
dehammer wrote:
Look at the fact he states that gravity does not exist.

Never said gravity does not exist. You are making crap up now.


The Parrot Killer
28-04-2019 21:22
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
dehammer wrote:
There is only one way the earth loses energy, radiation. While there is some energy that is lost in other frequencies, the majority of the energy from the atmosphere is lost in infrared radiation. Most molecules and atoms of the atmosphere are stable. This means they release energy very slowly.

Co2 is unstable. That means it releases infrared in microseconds, instead of minutes or even hours of some other molecules, such as water vapor.

The majority of the energy from the atmosphere is released when co2 impacts other molecules and atoms and releases that energy as infrared. Half of this energy goes towards the earth and half goes into space.

Increasing co2 increases the amount of energy that it released from the atmosphere. Satellite data shows this is true. They used to use this data as proof that co2 was increasing in the upper atmosphere, but then it was pointed out that this meant increasing co2 decreased the energy in the atmosphere.


While it is true that the Earth like all other objects in the Universe, can only lose energy via radiation, conduction is a slower means of moving heat into the upper atmosphere so that it can be combined with a portion of the incoming radiation to gain enough energy to radiate.

The core of the Earth is 5,700 K. Were that core radiating more than a couple of feet the radiation would kill all life on Earth. Instead it is captured and conducted very slowly to the surface. The atmosphere acts in the same manner though far less efficiently. Almost half of the Sun's energy that makes it to the surface of the Earth is radiated away. The rest is used to heat the surface and the atmosphere and the conduction into the upper atmosphere is a very slow process.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate The Current This woman won't have children because of climate change. She says she's not alone:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
UN climate chief warns current path leads to 'catastrophe'729-04-2019 17:57
UN climate chief warns of 'catastrophe' if planet continues on current path026-04-2019 15:34
Canadian children school adults about climate crisis317-03-2019 21:20
Want to Help Fight Climate Change? Have More Children014-03-2019 21:20
I am terrified of 'children's crusader' Greta Thunberg – and you should be too014-03-2019 16:22
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact