Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[Sdajii]

The Milankovitch Cycles and their effect on Climate Change

You know the SUN around the earth .... nope ... Earth around sun, universally accepted even by NASA and every space agency on the planet.

What happens when every 35,000 years if you have Mega Fauna pumping out of massive trees and CO2 levels crash, and the event you seem to be alluding to is WHEN the last variation in the orbit around the sun, and its radiance FALLS and hence the Ice age you allude to. Not a real one, but yep, for a while ... things got cold.

Any scientist KNOWS this. Knows it without any doubt. Knows it was the cause of the ice age you allude to. CO2 measured via ice bubbles was at a low for the past million years when this one occurred. Hence the well known impact of CO2 on solar absorption was at ALL TIME lows in the last million years, then hit with a Milankoviitch cycle where the sun pumped out less energy to the earth and HENCE the double whammy of ultra low CO2, and the TILT and WOBBLE .... at this extreme occurs every 35,000 years or so !!

Enjoy ..


and YES this is addressing your ice age 100,000 years ago. Not invented, not able to be debated as the course and history of the Earth moving around SUN is not open for debate. Nor are CO2 levels via the bubbles in ice cores going back around 1 million years.

LOSS of 6% IRRADIANCE is about the norm ... basically a winter upon a winter ... the cycle 41,000 years, and another the earths actual cycle and its orbit ... again measurable ... two extreme periods ... one is where the TILT is at its maximum irradiance and the other extreme ... oblique and heliun furthest from the sun and MINIMUM solar irradiance.

The latter ... again, is called the WOBBLE of the orbit of the Earth around the SUN.
Its what causes seasons, and summer and winter, but in a bigger sense is this winter and summer ... is also in a massive cycle around the sun measured over 41,000 years.

This b the way has been know, accepted ... unchanged since I think 1690.

1690 !! The year 1690 ...

Oh and the next one is 10.500 years in the future.

Cores show the temperature cools and warms 4-10 degrees for a period of time years. But if one goes back ... temperature is a mere part of the climate change issue and naturally, YES we do warm and cool ... but CO2 is directly linked to the extinction events, clearly and without any doubt via fossil records of these extinctions. OR maybe that is to be also denied.

We warm and cool over a period of say 5000 years, NOT 200 years. The 5000 years of the apex and the other end, cooling are 5,000 years out of the 41,000 year cycle.

This cycle is only one of the many natural phenomena affecting climate change. If you look at the climate data over the last few hundred thousand years it does not follow a slow, steady, regular pattern. It is chaotic and has rapid fluctuations and sometimes stable periods.

 

[explod]

This cycle is only one of the many natural phenomena affecting climate change. If you look at the climate data over the last few hundred thousand years it does not follow a slow, steady, regular pattern. It is chaotic and has rapid fluctuations and sometimes stable periods.

Agree, but nowhere near as chaotic as the last few years. As said, cities that have stood solid for hundreds of years are suddenly being hit with house wrecking winds and floods every year. Insurance companies are refusing to cover anymore. If it had always been this way those cities would not have been developed in those places in the first place. On ABC news tonight another is hitting US towns as we speak.

Sorry but it is very different this time Sd.

 

[rederob]

Except that there's a pile of links since the sea level stuff talking about extremity and rates of change. Saying it's not there doesn't make it not there. You ask for links, you get links, you ignore them, not my fault.

Nope - nothing showing that prior rates ever were or could be greater than the present rates of climate change.
To achieve what you claim you will need to write a new energy balance equation. To help you, one is in the link I provided that showed that human induced climate change has no precedent.

That's lovely. You can pick some specific context and try to retroactively assign it to something that someone else said, but it's just a stupid thing to do.

Whereas I use the definitions used by scientists, and you never knew there was one. For that matter, it seems clear that you do not understand what they actually mean, despite the fact I gave a more succinct definition earlier.

It really makes no difference what science you are presented with, you can magically wave it away. Maybe if you want to "discuss" this with someone more meaningfully in future you should at least read AR5.

Climate science basics start with an energy balance equation. There are very few "drivers" of climate that comprise the equation. At no point in a single post did I see you grasp the concept of radiative forcing. That concept underpins AGW - which is not an idea, but a scientific theory. Statistical probability approximates it to evolution as a theory.
You remain clueless on climate science.

 

[kahuna1]

This cycle is only one of the many natural phenomena affecting climate change. If you look at the climate data over the last few hundred thousand years it does not follow a slow, steady, regular pattern. It is chaotic and has rapid fluctuations and sometimes stable periods.

With respect, you are WRONG, I have followed both your and Ann's views.

This sums it up very well.

On every single 10 myths of climate change, all 10 .... every single one ... you disagree with every one , so to the 250 plus scientific organizations I have cited, and taken the time to cite.

EVERY SINGLE MYTH ... All of them .. has been covered, covered again. Pulled apart and still you believe in all 10.

Sorry but if someone reads this in the future, TAKE THE TIME ... irrespective of your views, opinions, beliefs and listen to this below.

Then if in doubt, do your own investigation as have 20,000 scientists and 200 Noble prize winners who signed off on the 2017 paper and the 50,000 WHO contributed to the IPCC and they all agreed. No myth ... just science. Facts, chemical reactions, a long long list of other things. NOT conspiracy theories.

Top 10 climate change myths



I do have a very good idea WHY this topic seems to be going in circles. It would be highly offensive were I to share what is pretty clear. Obviously one is open to opinions, something you have missed or have incorrect, or so I thought.

This guy is calm, and if you can disprove one single one of the myths he covered ... and some seem to believe ... I will give you a prize !!

On and Ann's favorite about Ice growing ... covered but this ... is a classic



This latter one covers some, but NOT all, of Ann's conspiracy theories.

 

[Sdajii]

Agree, but nowhere near as chaotic as the last few years. As said, cities that have stood solid for hundreds of years are suddenly being hit with house wrecking winds and floods every year. Insurance companies are refusing to cover anymore. If it had always been this way those cities would not have been developed in those places in the first place. On ABC news tonight another is hitting US towns as we speak.

Sorry but it is very different this time Sd.

Agree, but nowhere near as chaotic as the last few years. As said, cities that have stood solid for hundreds of years are suddenly being hit with house wrecking winds and floods every year. Insurance companies are refusing to cover anymore. If it had always been this way those cities would not have been developed in those places in the first place. On ABC news tonight another is hitting US towns as we speak.

Sorry but it is very different this time Sd.

This demonstrates such a lack of understanding it's disheartening to read. I don't want to discuss this with you any more.

 

[Sdajii]

With respect, you are WRONG, I have followed both your and Ann's views.

This sums it up very well.

On every single 10 myths of climate change, all 10 .... every single one ... you disagree with every one , so to the 250 plus scientific organizations I have cited, and taken the time to cite.

EVERY SINGLE MYTH ... All of them .. has been covered, covered again. Pulled apart and still you believe in all 10.

Sorry but if someone reads this in the future, TAKE THE TIME ... irrespective of your views, opinions, beliefs and listen to this below.

Then if in doubt, do your own investigation as have 20,000 scientists and 200 Noble prize winners who signed off on the 2017 paper and the 50,000 WHO contributed to the IPCC and they all agreed. No myth ... just science. Facts, chemical reactions, a long long list of other things. NOT conspiracy theories.

Top 10 climate change myths



I do have a very good idea WHY this topic seems to be going in circles. It would be highly offensive were I to share what is pretty clear. Obviously one is open to opinions, something you have missed or have incorrect, or so I thought.

This guy is calm, and if you can disprove one single one of the myths he covered ... and some seem to believe ... I will give you a prize !!

On and Ann's favorite about Ice growing ... covered but this ... is a classic



This latter one covers some, but NOT all, of Ann's conspiracy theories.

I'm not going to sit through the video (I can read and type quickly, but a video moves at a constant pace and is painful to drag myself through), but if it's the usual list of top 10 climate myths presented in the usual way, I would agree with the video, at least on those 10 major points in appropriate context. If you want to write a list in text I'll confirm it.

Did I misread you or did you assert that I believed all of those myths? If not, I think I've missed the point of your response.

 

[kahuna1]

I'm not going to sit through the video

Well I am agog at this response, but not surprised.

in appropriate context

You would agree in ... "appropriate context, which MEANS and for 500 odd responses means YOU don't agree !! This person, a reporter, a good one, has impartially examined both sides of every ... topic and MYTH ... in fact 16 of them about 30 mins or so ... and found the source ... then examined the science as WE have on this thread, other scientists, REAL ONES ... and in fact sometimes 15 or 20 different ones in different nations, and they ALL say the same thing.

If anything the real scientists predictions have fallen SHORT and far more conservative than reality. Quoting say Al Gore or some pilot from the 1930's and their layman ... or in the case of the first a man who could not spell POTATO ... is not a rebuttal.

"appropriate context means for some and for most, in this internet age, their view is made and not to be altered, no matter what. I personally, enter any topic knowing how stupid I am. Open to hear opinions, views, theories and so on. Then, examine them and respond as we have for 500 odd posts.

An "appropriate context is that your opinion, on science, in about 30 different fields, from ocean acidity to Ocean temperature, to atmosphere to permafrost, to Arctic Shel and Ocean sediment and on and on ... possibly 50 different quite unique and complex scientific fields where 50,000 or so scientists, professors and others operate, and agree, all 50,000 of them, and 200 Nobel prize winners, who peer review and discuss the topics and have been 100% accurate over a very long time ... their findings are ... only to be taken in what you deem to be ... "appropriate context.... that being all of them are wrong.

You have displayed this .... calling their work ... incorrect verses your own, and theirs must be taken in "appropriate context ... which is yours. Which the appropriate context is they are wrong, and you are right.

Interesting and you have shared your view on virtually all of the 16 topics covered in the two videos and ignored all written responses of the same .. for your own "appropriate context.

Having had the pleasure and honor of scientifically at times peer reviewing I suppose 100 papers over the years, writing over 50 of my own, and been peer reviewed, its always interesting and not necessary to deal with peer reviews where "appropriate context ... comes into play. Usually if not always, others ' peer reviewing' the paper and topic will respond and as we have seen here.

It is however not possible to deal with dogmas, illogical or mathematically impossible or reviews as rarely occurs, but does that have no margin for being wrong, or even the possibility of it.

Did I misread you or did you assert that I believed all of those myths? If not, I think I've missed the point of your response.

Sadly, you do. If your view, opinion, of ... "appropriate context .... as you see it, is better than 50,000 scientists in I suppose 50 fields, 200 Nobel Prize winners and your context, is ascribing to ALL the Myths and not just one, but all of them ... and I did take the time to read your responses ... so be it.

Despite, well, disagreeing and open for discussion on the topic, my small understanding of it, and that based upon worlds best, leaders in the field and 200 plus institutions, are they all wrong ?

It goes to a wider issue with the internet and whilst not being insulting, "confirmation bias" and
"Dunning-Kruger effect".

The first, "confirmation bias", is where you are fed a diet of your beliefs, via the very nature of the search engines or say Facebook and if you read or search say for gimp leather masks like from the movie Pulp Fiction" you will forever be served ads and sites that sell GIMP MASKS. If you read conspiracy theory sites, you will be forever served them. If you watch Fox news, and even if you don't, its virtually impossible to get it off suggestions and it coming up as a source.

Second issue, and I AM AN IMBECILE ... I enter these discussion not knowing anything, or clinging to anything I think I know ..."Dunning-Kruger effect" .... where one knows a bit about something but NOT really a lot, but you think you KNOW more than you really know and reality is that your an imbecile. I say this about MYSELF ... and even topics where 2 pages of qualifications and peers, leaders in the field would disagree .. with me being an idiot .. but ... I know many things can change, technology, can destroy one effect or reality quite quickly. I try NOT to pretend I know anything, not being coy ... just to LEARN ... even about things where I do have vast experience, or stick to a dogma or idea.

Last issue, is letting go of EGO ... need to be correct ... different personality types and actual intelligence. I raise this one, and I am NOT at all comfortable with speaking about it. Reason being, well one must open a can of worms and get personal or share some things I never wear on my sleeve. I welcome being wrong, I welcome someone pointing out I am stupid, and have missed something in a paper or idea I am trying to formulate and have opened it to peer review. Two heads and in fact 100 heads are better than one !!

For some, being right, and extreme forms of it Narcissists and those who cannot ever be swayed from an idea, belief or dogma, not talking religion or politics but science ... or finance ... which is a SCIENCE, based upon math and valuation. Some, its an impossibility to even get them to agree that 1 plus one equals 2. Their view is, that its one day three or four.

It is impossible for them to accept they are wrong. I am wrong and wrong about so much I thought I knew and think I know and understand, its ... actually funny what I once knew to be a fact, is now I know totally wrong.

 

[Ann]

So much money in Carbon Trading such a huge industry!

U.K. Budget Suffers Brexit Blow as Carbon Market Unravels

The U.K. budget is already falling victim to Brexit-related trouble in the carbon market.

The government might have lost as much as half a billion euros ($565 million) in revenue in the first quarter after auctions of emission permits were frozen, according to estimates by the International Emissions Trading Association. The decision not to hold government sales under the European Union’s Emissions Trading System was taken last year amid concerns 2019 allowances may become invalid in the event of a no-deal Brexit.More..

 

[qldfrog]

Explod, please read calmly
"I agree that we should take care of the planet. We are rapidly destroying it. Unfortunately, CO2 isn't the biggest issue, and by focussing on it we're ignoring the actual important issues."
There can not be a truer saying
Worse, even if CO2 was the major threat, you and the whole movement keep pretending we ,aka west as we are the only one doing any effort in the area, can actually change anything.
even if europe usa and australia were just wiped out tomorrow, india and china alone will keep increasing overall co2 output
These are not anecdotal paddocks measures but hard fact
True or not?
Simple clear: is the above true or false?
Then act accordingly and stop the bullshitting and hurting the planet indirectly

 

[rederob]

My comments are in blue.

Explod, please read calmly
"I agree that we should take care of the planet. We are rapidly destroying it. Unfortunately, CO2 isn't the biggest issue, that would be a claim which has no evidentiary base and by focussing on it we're ignoring the actual important issues." And these are?
There can not be a truer saying Another baseless claim
Worse, even if CO2 was the major threat, so now you are not sure if what you said was true you and the whole movement keep pretending we, You are talking about what every scientific institution regards as factual, and make a claim that it is not - again without evidence aka west no, the "west" are a small number of the nations who agree in with the role that GHGs play in damaging our planet as we are the only one doing any effort in the area, except that we in the west are the worst per capita emitters of GHGs and are slower than some developing countries in moving to renewable energy can actually change anything. Australia's GHG emissions are increasing, so yes, we are making it worse.
even if europe usa and australia were just wiped out tomorrow, india and china alone will keep increasing overall co2 output yet these nations are doing more than most western nations to transition to renewables
These are not anecdotal paddocks measures but hard fact yes, it's a fact based on selective use of data - something educated people do not do - and one which seeks to demonise nations which are aspiring to have first world living standards.
True or not? It's only true based on gross population. In other words it's a classic example of how the uneducated use data.
Simple clear: is the above true or false? Read the comments and you will see how baseless your claims are.
Then act accordingly and stop the bullshitting and hurting the planet indirectly. By doing what? ...spreading the rubbish you write and claim they are facts.
Some who post here are better educated and understand what is going on in the world, so are active in correcting commentaries that are mostly baseless and filled with error.

 

[explod]

This sums a few points up:-

"Had we put as much effort into preventing environmental catastrophe as we’ve spent on making excuses for inaction, we would have solved it by now. Everywhere I look, I see people engaged in furious attempts to fend off the moral challenge it presents.

The commonest current excuse is this: “I bet those protesters have phones/go on holiday/wear leather shoes.” In other words, we won’t listen to anyone who is not living naked in a barrel, subsisting only on murky water. Of course, if you are living naked in a barrel we will dismiss you too, because you’re a hippie weirdo. Every messenger, and every message they bear, is disqualified on the grounds of either impurity or purity.

As the environmental crisis accelerates, and as protest movements like YouthStrike4Climate and Extinction Rebellion make it harder not to see what we face, people discover more inventive means of shutting their eyes and shedding responsibility. Underlying these excuses is a deep-rooted belief that if we really are in trouble, someone somewhere will come to our rescue: “they” won’t let it happen. But there is no they, just us."

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/15/rebellion-prevent-ecological-apocalypse-civil-disobedience?fbclid=IwAR2urdNuvrn0IkfxOvh0x4V48c8K3soy4dlmQL_rNoapQghwJvqGn9SfGuI

 

[wayneL]

This sums a few points up:-

"Had we put as much effort into preventing environmental catastrophe as we’ve spent on making excuses for inaction, we would have solved it by now. Everywhere I look, I see people engaged in furious attempts to fend off the moral challenge it presents.

The commonest current excuse is this: “I bet those protesters have phones/go on holiday/wear leather shoes.” In other words, we won’t listen to anyone who is not living naked in a barrel, subsisting only on murky water. Of course, if you are living naked in a barrel we will dismiss you too, because you’re a hippie weirdo. Every messenger, and every message they bear, is disqualified on the grounds of either impurity or purity.

As the environmental crisis accelerates, and as protest movements like YouthStrike4Climate and Extinction Rebellion make it harder not to see what we face, people discover more inventive means of shutting their eyes and shedding responsibility. Underlying these excuses is a deep-rooted belief that if we really are in trouble, someone somewhere will come to our rescue: “they” won’t let it happen. But there is no they, just us."

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/15/rebellion-prevent-ecological-apocalypse-civil-disobedience?fbclid=IwAR2urdNuvrn0IkfxOvh0x4V48c8K3soy4dlmQL_rNoapQghwJvqGn9SfGuI

Begs the question:

How does population wide action happen without individual action?

I have already posted the research that shows that climate sceptics actually I'm more likely to be individually more responsible, with climate alarmists actually less responsible.

I am confused, can you explain to me how this works?

 

[rederob]

Begs the question:
How does population wide action happen without individual action?
I have already posted the research that shows that climate sceptics actually I'm more likely to be individually more responsible, with climate alarmists actually less responsible.
I am confused, can you explain to me how this works?

Not a very sensible question at all. Individuals have little choice in western economies when it comes to per capita CO2 emissions as the very nature of those economies demands high energy use.
As to your research, given that I am a climate sceptic and not an alarmist, the reliability of your claim is dubious.

 

[Ann]

I have already posted the research that shows that climate sceptics actually I'm more likely to be individually more responsible, with climate alarmists actually less responsible.

I am confused, can you explain to me how this works?

As I see it wayne, it is a darn site more intoxicating joining in with your mates in a civil protest and feeling the power of the 'beast' (crowd mentality). It is fun and exhilarating feeling that ancient lizard brain getting riled and excited as you join in with the mass emotion. Afterwards you can go home and spend your time uploading the pics you took on your mobile phone or GoPro up to Facebook, telling your mates how great you are, fighting to make the world a better place. Then mum calls you for your specially prepared vegan dinner and you can pound on about how great you are and how much you have done for the planet. After dinner you can pop online and buy a cheap T-shirt from H&M for the next protest.

However, if you are putting your food peeling waste into a compost bin, buying a Soda Stream in an effort to cut down on the plastic used, weeding your vegetable garden, saving water with recycled barrels attached to the down pipes, buying only second hand items, recycling, re-purposing, avoiding over packaged foods to keep waste down, covering leftovers in the fridge with plates on top of glass bowls instead of plastic wrap. Buying food more often so as not to waste with items going off. Buying quality whole, unprocessed food and grass fed meat. This is all not a particularly exhilarating feeling but it is a way to be responsible ecologically. But hell, we are only climate sceptics who are taking no responsibility for the planet's wellbeing! (Sarcasm folks, it leaks out sometimes).

 

[Sdajii]

Well I am agog at this response, but not surprised.



You would agree in ... "appropriate context, which MEANS and for 500 odd responses means YOU don't agree !! This person, a reporter, a good one, has impartially examined both sides of every ... topic and MYTH ... in fact 16 of them about 30 mins or so ... and found the source ... then examined the science as WE have on this thread, other scientists, REAL ONES ... and in fact sometimes 15 or 20 different ones in different nations, and they ALL say the same thing.

If anything the real scientists predictions have fallen SHORT and far more conservative than reality. Quoting say Al Gore or some pilot from the 1930's and their layman ... or in the case of the first a man who could not spell POTATO ... is not a rebuttal.

"appropriate context means for some and for most, in this internet age, their view is made and not to be altered, no matter what. I personally, enter any topic knowing how stupid I am. Open to hear opinions, views, theories and so on. Then, examine them and respond as we have for 500 odd posts.

An "appropriate context is that your opinion, on science, in about 30 different fields, from ocean acidity to Ocean temperature, to atmosphere to permafrost, to Arctic Shel and Ocean sediment and on and on ... possibly 50 different quite unique and complex scientific fields where 50,000 or so scientists, professors and others operate, and agree, all 50,000 of them, and 200 Nobel prize winners, who peer review and discuss the topics and have been 100% accurate over a very long time ... their findings are ... only to be taken in what you deem to be ... "appropriate context.... that being all of them are wrong.

You have displayed this .... calling their work ... incorrect verses your own, and theirs must be taken in "appropriate context ... which is yours. Which the appropriate context is they are wrong, and you are right.

Interesting and you have shared your view on virtually all of the 16 topics covered in the two videos and ignored all written responses of the same .. for your own "appropriate context.

Having had the pleasure and honor of scientifically at times peer reviewing I suppose 100 papers over the years, writing over 50 of my own, and been peer reviewed, its always interesting and not necessary to deal with peer reviews where "appropriate context ... comes into play. Usually if not always, others ' peer reviewing' the paper and topic will respond and as we have seen here.

It is however not possible to deal with dogmas, illogical or mathematically impossible or reviews as rarely occurs, but does that have no margin for being wrong, or even the possibility of it.





Sadly, you do. If your view, opinion, of ... "appropriate context .... as you see it, is better than 50,000 scientists in I suppose 50 fields, 200 Nobel Prize winners and your context, is ascribing to ALL the Myths and not just one, but all of them ... and I did take the time to read your responses ... so be it.

Despite, well, disagreeing and open for discussion on the topic, my small understanding of it, and that based upon worlds best, leaders in the field and 200 plus institutions, are they all wrong ?

It goes to a wider issue with the internet and whilst not being insulting, "confirmation bias" and
"Dunning-Kruger effect".

The first, "confirmation bias", is where you are fed a diet of your beliefs, via the very nature of the search engines or say Facebook and if you read or search say for gimp leather masks like from the movie Pulp Fiction" you will forever be served ads and sites that sell GIMP MASKS. If you read conspiracy theory sites, you will be forever served them. If you watch Fox news, and even if you don't, its virtually impossible to get it off suggestions and it coming up as a source.

Second issue, and I AM AN IMBECILE ... I enter these discussion not knowing anything, or clinging to anything I think I know ..."Dunning-Kruger effect" .... where one knows a bit about something but NOT really a lot, but you think you KNOW more than you really know and reality is that your an imbecile. I say this about MYSELF ... and even topics where 2 pages of qualifications and peers, leaders in the field would disagree .. with me being an idiot .. but ... I know many things can change, technology, can destroy one effect or reality quite quickly. I try NOT to pretend I know anything, not being coy ... just to LEARN ... even about things where I do have vast experience, or stick to a dogma or idea.

Last issue, is letting go of EGO ... need to be correct ... different personality types and actual intelligence. I raise this one, and I am NOT at all comfortable with speaking about it. Reason being, well one must open a can of worms and get personal or share some things I never wear on my sleeve. I welcome being wrong, I welcome someone pointing out I am stupid, and have missed something in a paper or idea I am trying to formulate and have opened it to peer review. Two heads and in fact 100 heads are better than one !!

For some, being right, and extreme forms of it Narcissists and those who cannot ever be swayed from an idea, belief or dogma, not talking religion or politics but science ... or finance ... which is a SCIENCE, based upon math and valuation. Some, its an impossibility to even get them to agree that 1 plus one equals 2. Their view is, that its one day three or four.

It is impossible for them to accept they are wrong. I am wrong and wrong about so much I thought I knew and think I know and understand, its ... actually funny what I once knew to be a fact, is now I know totally wrong.

I obviously can't have a rational discussion with you. Even when I bluntly say I agree with a whole heap of stuff you put forward, you accuse me of being wrong because I don't believe it.

If you can't grasp the concept that just because I disagree with one thing I can still agree with other things, it's clear that we're going to keep going around in circles.

Have a nice day.

 

[Sdajii]

However, if you are putting your food peeling waste into a compost bin, buying a Soda Stream in an effort to cut down on the plastic used, weeding your vegetable garden, saving water with recycled barrels attached to the down pipes, buying only second hand items, recycling, re-purposing, avoiding over packaged foods to keep waste down, covering leftovers in the fridge with plates on top of glass bowls instead of plastic wrap. Buying food more often so as not to waste with items going off. Buying quality whole, unprocessed food and grass fed meat. This is all not a particularly exhilarating feeling but it is a way to be responsible ecologically. But hell, we are only climate sceptics who are taking no responsibility for the planet's wellbeing! (Sarcasm folks, it leaks out sometimes).

This is off topic to the thread, but it's an important point worse addressing. People often think that if they put in a heap of effort in reducing the amount of resources they consume, or the amount of carbon, or whatever, they're part of the solution. In reality, if you put in a heap of effort to reduce your impact on the world by 5%, you're still causing 95% of the damage you were before, so you're still part of the problem, and despite putting in a heap of work you're still pretty much the same amount of the problem, and for virtually every Australian, a much much larger than average part of the problem compared to the average person in the world. People then ask "Well then, what can I do?" as though the absence of a real solution turns their fake solution into a real solution. The only real solution to humans destroying the planet is too politically incorrect to put into text (and no, I'm not talking about just randomly going around killing people, although I suppose if you chose the right people that would help the planet, but it's not what I'm talking about).

 

[explod]

This lass has not been put up to this. Her getting upset about 4 minutes in is of genuine concern.

..

 

[Ann]

People often think that if they put in a heap of effort in reducing the amount of resources they consume, or the amount of carbon, or whatever, they're part of the solution. In reality, if you put in a heap of effort to reduce your impact on the world by 5%, you're still causing 95% of the damage you were before, so you're still part of the problem,

I hear what you are saying Sdajii, to say, anything I can do to keep my part of the world clean and leave as little footprint as possible would only be saving 5% (which is a pretty random figure) but hypothetically, let's say it is only a 5% improvement, why should that be a reason to throw my hands in the air and say to hell with it, how is 5% going to help? If everyone improved the world by 5% with small incremental actions in their own lives, the change would be enormous. It would have a compounding effect. And it actually isn't a heap of effort once you have trained yourself. It is quite easy, it saves a fortune and those of us who grow our own food, it gives a feeling of peace.

People then ask "Well then, what can I do?" as though the absence of a real solution turns their fake solution into a real solution.

And this is a really important point you have made. The political agenda of anamorphic global warming can create a feeling of helplessness when there could be real and tangible things which could be done now. If we put everything down to the fault of increased carbon into the atmosphere then we run the risk of ignoring other risk factors as in the damage to the Barrier Reefs, with dredging and mining and farm runoff and crown of thorns starfish and overfishing, a raise in fire danger with more homes being built in fire-prone areas with poor planning, if we feel there may be danger to homes close to a shore line, plan to move people to higher ground over time, if there is likely to be increased storm activity build community bunkers. So much can be done, if we stop using increased carbon as a cop-out and scream for more taxes so we can build more solar and wind power. It is just ridiculous behaviour not to look further at what may or may not be a problem. If a problem needs spin doctors to promote it, there may be a problem with the problem.

The only real solution to humans destroying the planet is too politically incorrect to put into text (and no, I'm not talking about just randomly going around killing people, although I suppose if you chose the right people that would help the planet, but it's not what I'm talking about).

The planet will kill us off in time. We are doing a pretty good job ourselves with all the massive increase in diseases and the massive increase in same-sex relationships which will profoundly reduce the population in a very short period of time. Nature is already in the phase of culling us. Once the next serious ice-age occurs we are likely to have many of us wiped out with all the new diseases, famine and wars.

 

[explod]

sorry all, the link did not take and too late to delete.

 

[rederob]

In reality, if you put in a heap of effort to reduce your impact on the world by 5%, you're still causing 95% of the damage you were before.....

This is just bad maths.
You cannot assume that everyone does the same "damage" from the outset, but that is what you have done.

People then ask "Well then, what can I do?" as though the absence of a real solution turns their fake solution into a real solution.

Again, very poor assumptions. There are many things that can be done effectively, and most every one has been enunciated. At national levels the IPCC has been crystal clear on what needs to occur.
Your "fake solutions" must involve actions which only people like you would consider solutions to begin.

The only real solution to humans destroying the planet is too politically incorrect to put into text....

Except that is a claim that only people ignorant of climate facts would make. Please read about climate science from the people who have laid down a pathway to mitigation, and stop making up nonsense.