UN Says Climate Genocide Is Coming. It’s Actually Worse Than That.

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
19,235
Yussie you are delusional. No where did I say anything like that.

Instead we have 8 pages of you agressively denying it, claiming you do more than most, telling everyone to shut up or lead, and just carry on as usual.


Anyway I found a nice picture of you so it's all good.
And the irony is that if everyone had his mindset the problem (if there is one) goes away. So again I have to ask as well, what are you doing? Are you separating your waste and laying it out for reclaimers? Do you think before switching on that extra light and switch off what you don't need? We should all be living more conscientiously for others reasons. So if he is why do you care about his mindset over climate change? That seems more like the behaviour of a fanatic than someone who really cares and has good arguments.
 

Arthur

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
23,706
Richard Epstein said:
Our Latest Global Warming Scare

... So why is there so much fear about the consequences of climate change? As reported by Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute total fossil fuel consumption is up 55% since 1950. Total energy-related CO2 emissions is up 500 percent. Total CO2 concentration is up by about one-third. The total temperature increase during that time has been 0.65°C. But in the meantime, global life expectancy has increased from 48 years to 71.4 years. Global malaria infections are down about 37 percent, and global malaria deaths are down by 62 percent. Corn yields per acre are up 25 percent since 2000, 44 percent since 1990, and 88 percent since 1980. Global GDP is sharply up and global poverty is sharply down. And other numbers only reinforce the same trend: as Johan Norberg shows in his book Progress, all major indicators—life expectancy, income, health—are up. As basic levels of technology continue to improve, we will have cheaper production of energy and its more efficient utilization.

Things seem pretty good, so why does the IPCC think that the future is bleak? And why does it think that major transformations are needed to deal with the risks of CO2 emissions? There is no reason to think that all nations can be coaxed into a single coherent central plan to manage emissions, assuming that one even exists. At the very least, China, now the largest emitter of CO2 and India, the third largest, will both sit this one out. Yet at the same time, the United States, which has rightly ditched the Paris Accord, posted in 2017 the largest reduction in CO2 emissions of any nation by relying increasingly on natural gas as a source of energy, even as overall global CO2 levels have moved upward. As Bjorn Lomborg, the head of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, has written, it is not easy to introduce wholesale changes into any economy, and the IPCC presents no evidence that the enormous cuts in fossil fuel consumption it requires to reach its targets can realistically be made.

... The far better path, therefore, is to concentrate on improving yields and reducing externalities from our best energy sources, instead of overlooking the serious externalities that wind and solar themselves can create. The simple path of steady and predictable technological improvement promises far greater returns than the measures suggested by the IPCC report.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
12,137
No, not really.

Whichever definition you use, "this kind of creature" is now dying out thousands of times more often than in the past.
No it's not because we don't have a complete record of what creatures existed and died in the past. We don't even have a complete record of what creatures exist and die today.
 

garp

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
6,894
LOL @ the perpetual imminent Armageddon crowd. If it's not nuclear holocaust, peak oil or pandemic plague, it's climate genocide (Correction: per the headline it's even worse than climate genocide - because there is apparently an even worser thing than global genocide).

Love the site in this link, btw, - it must trigger the climatists no end:
“World renowned climate expert” Peter Wadhams predicted Arctic ice would be gone ten years ago, and then in 2015, but has graciously granted the ice yet another decade. He also believes skeptics are murdering climate scientists.
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/10/peter-wadhams-grants-the-arctic-another-reprieve/
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
10,676
No, not really.

Whichever definition you use, "this kind of creature" is now dying out thousands of times more often than in the past.
Sure, use the Individuality thesis or the Aristotelian view of species and come back to tell us how well that goes. And then come back and tell people why you cherrypicked your definition of "kind".
 
Last edited:
Top