Denial site

Redmonton_Rebel

Electoral Member
May 13, 2012
442
0
16
Well, first there are people mitigating (or at least attempting to mitgate it) and secondly, a drastic reduction in human population is a bad thing (asking from a global perspective)?

I'm not advocating a reduction in population, I'm saying based on the current direction we're going the world's major nations are already preparing for wars that will kill many of us in a fight for dwindling resources as the worst effects of climate change kick in...especially when it comes to water security.

The way we're going we're going to create the conditions that will cause a massive loss in population, that's the ugly little not-so secret behind climate change denial. The people behind it keep talking about being concerned about other people but it's nonsense. Many people will be left without the means to live if we keep forcing the climate into a radically new state.
 
Last edited:

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I'm not going to waste anymore time on anyone here who advocates homicide of anyone as an option for todays issues.
What's the difference between someone who openly advocates homicide and someone who doesn't care about the death toll that will undoubtedly follow abandoning fossil fuels immediately?
 
Last edited:

Redmonton_Rebel

Electoral Member
May 13, 2012
442
0
16
Yeah, that's pretty hard to miss, and not just on the subject of AGW, but the best of them are at least entertaining sometimes, like the dim rodent's electric universe nonsense and support for Velikovsky's crackpot notions. And of course some of them just can't think clearly.

But the AGW issue seems pretty clear to me now. There's no doubt the climate's warming, the data on that are incontrovertible, and not just in temperature records, there's other information fully consistent with it, like areas of snow cover, Arctic ice cover, changing ranges of plants and animals, stuff like that. For a long time the complexity of teasing out the human contribution to it remained problematical. It seemed to be just about at the noise level in the data. No more; I'm now convinced AGW is real.

I'm also convinced, and have been for a long time, that the real issues at the heart of all environmental problems, not just AGW, are population and lifestyle. There are just too many humans living at too high a level of consumption, we've become a plague on the planet. Nature has ways of dealing with plagues, and they're not very nice. The planet will be fine, it--and life in general--has survived far worse than what we're doing, as described in an interesting little book called "Under a Green Sky" by Dr. Peter D. Ward, but humans may not be fine.

Excellent post.

While climate change is an very imprtant issue, so is treating the world as a desposable resource. We're part of the overall system and if we stress it to the breaking point with our highly complex society we'll probably be the first to go. The world will recover slowly, but it's possible we won't be here as part of it.

For a lot of comfort today we could be trading our future, everything we're supposed to be building to leave for future generations could be lost.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
I'm not going to waste anymore time on anyone here who advocates homicide of anyone as an option for todays issues.

bye, bye psycho

The fact that you refuse to even acknowledge that the base problem lies in the direct relationship between the emissions and the number of individual emitters tags you as an ideologue.

You sure make a helluva lot of noise about this pending Armageddon but refuse to even pay lip service the root cause... It's impossible to assume that there is any credibility to your urgent calls to action when it's clear you aren't interested in discussing the 'less than appetizing' realities associated with it
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
The fact that you refuse to even acknowledge that the base problem lies in the direct relationship between the emissions and the number of individual emitters tags you as an ideologue.

You sure make a helluva lot of noise about this pending Armageddon but refuse to even pay lip service the root cause... It's impossible to assume that there is any credibility to your urgent calls to action when it's clear you aren't interested in discussing the 'less than appetizing' realities associated with it

The have- rich countries will not give up their haves- the have nots want to be haves- and CC is coming-
 

Cabbagesandking

Council Member
Apr 24, 2012
1,041
0
36
Ontario
The fact that you refuse to even acknowledge that the base problem lies in the direct relationship between the emissions and the number of individual emitters tags you as an ideologue.

You sure make a helluva lot of noise about this pending Armageddon but refuse to even pay lip service the root cause... It's impossible to assume that there is any credibility to your urgent calls to action when it's clear you aren't interested in discussing the 'less than appetizing' realities associated with it

The problem with your thinking there is that there is not a direct relationship. We in Canada, for example, emit ten times or more the amount that some other societies do - per capita. It is how we use resources and what resources we use that governes the relationship.

Leaving aside matters of food security and many other problems that we have created, in the matter of emissions it is perfectly feasiblt to achieve a carbon neutral world. One on which there would be no losers and everyone a winner as the sources of energy are closer to home.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
The problem with your thinking there is that there is not a direct relationship. We in Canada, for example, emit ten times or more the amount that some other societies do - per capita. It is how we use resources and what resources we use that governes the relationship.
And of course the fact that we have a climate that requires us to heat our homes. Or a small populace spread out over a large area, requiring greater dependency on transportation.

Apart from those omissions, you're bang on.

Leaving aside matters of food security and many other problems that we have created, in the matter of emissions it is perfectly feasiblt to achieve a carbon neutral world. One on which there would be no losers and everyone a winner as the sources of energy are closer to home.
How do you leave aside matters of food security while you come to that conclusion?

Isn't that like saying, leaving aside the fact that you can't breath water, you can breath water?
 
Last edited:

CanadianLove

Electoral Member
Feb 7, 2009
504
4
18
Why are almost all the stickies here on the climate change subforum about denial of the issue when most of the science is in support of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

From what I've seen here most people post opinions as evidence that climate change isn't happening as opposed to real science, is this just a continuation of the political agenda of the current Conservative government?

There are millions of Canadians who accept that there is a credible case behind climate change and that we as emitters of GHGs have a responsibility to do something positive about the issue. Where is their equal standing here?

Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus. Personally I think the planet will eventually turn to a CO2 atmosphere the same as the other inner planets. Long ways off though - could be longer if we really tried.

http://www.freedomadvocates.org/images/pdf/senate minority report global warming dissent 2008.pdf
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
I'm not advocating a reduction in population, I'm saying based on the current direction we're going the world's major nations are already preparing for wars that will kill many of us in a fight for dwindling resources as the worst effects of climate change kick in...especially when it comes to water security.

The way we're going we're going to create the conditions that will cause a massive loss in population, that's the ugly little not-so secret behind climate change denial. The people behind it keep talking about being concerned about other people but it's nonsense. Many people will be left without the means to live if we keep forcing the climate into a radically new state.
Uh, yeah. I realized that a couple decades ago.

His realitty check came back NSF.
lmao
 

Redmonton_Rebel

Electoral Member
May 13, 2012
442
0
16
And that is why nothing will happen. Because people like you are in denial and expect everyone else to make sacrifices except you. Eliminating about 75% of the population is the only way to achieve your stated goal. Even your god Suzuki has admitted this, but he like you does not have the courage of his convictions.
The only question is do we shoot you or wait until things get so bad that you all die on your own? Then the rest of us can carry on with our lives.

People who don't understand the difference between a discussion point and a death threat don't belong as part of a discussion forum...or a civil society for that matter.

BTW Suzuki isn't my god, he's a celebrity and I'm not even particularly a fan of his show. It's the science I'm concerned about, not the ideology by fanatics on both sides. And certainly not by anyone who starts talking about genocide as solution.

Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus. Personally I think the planet will eventually turn to a CO2 atmosphere the same as the other inner planets. Long ways off though - could be longer if we really tried.

http://www.freedomadvocates.org/images/pdf/senate minority report global warming dissent 2008.pdf

In the long term the Circumstellar Habitable Zone will move beyond the Earth's orbit, that's in hundreds of millions of years though.

Right now we have the ability to make changes that will avoid many of the worst side effects of climate change and over industrialization...if the people who are in the positions of greatest power let us. It's a sociological issue not a technological one. We have all the technology and knowledge to create sustainable societies, what we lack is the broadbased political control to implement the needed changes.

The same people in the petro-chemical, financial, defence and other sectors who are so concerned about protecting their own very narrow interests are leaving the bulk of us exposed to some very unpleasant conditions in the future. It's probably the biggest swindle in history.
 
Last edited:

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
And certainly not by anyone who starts talking about genocide as solution.
Not necessary. We're killing off a large part of the population indirectly anyway.

Right now we have the ability to make changes that will avoid many of the worst side effects of climate change and over industrialization...if the people who are in the positions of greatest power let us. It's a sociological issue not a technological one. We have all the technology and knowledge to create sustainable societies, what we lack is the broadbased political control to implement the needed changes.
People being what we are, that won't happen.

The same people in the petro-chemical, financial, defence and other sectors who are so concerned about protecting their own very narrow interests are leaving the bulk of us exposed to some very unpleasant conditions in the future. It's probably the biggest swindle in history.
Nope. No swindles involved. It's just straight business for profit.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Oh there are only a few shootings- We need massive depopulation in order to avoid CC-

Population over 7 Billion and rising- Probable - 500- 1 Billion is the limit.

Anyone care to step up- and give their life to avoid CC. Oh yes- Not you but you have others in mind. Just as I thought.


Pruning the population will not fix climate change, because it's not the problem. The majority of pollution and resource consumption occurs in countries with shrinking populations, where still consumption climbs. You off yourself to lessen the burden, and the population of the developed countries will buy up your share.
 

Redmonton_Rebel

Electoral Member
May 13, 2012
442
0
16
Not necessary. We're killing off a large part of the population indirectly anyway.

People being what we are, that won't happen.

Nope. No swindles involved. It's just straight business for profit.

We have a different perspective on things.

Killing people off indirectly is far different from advocating planned mass murder.

I'm a believer in the democratic process, it takes time to produce results, been when motivated it can inact impressive changes.

Yupe, some of the biggest swindles in history have been going on with all the "bubbling" like .com, accounting, subprime and the energy bubble is the worst. The people behind it are some of the most cynical and arrogant individuals who've ever walked the planet and their shills in power, like our PM, are no better.

Democracy is good at removing the scum that rises to the top that pretends to be cream, it's about time for that to happen.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,846
94
48
Too many subscribe to the malthusian belief that humans will outgrow their resources. 200 years later we are no closer to running out of resources than we were when Malthus was alive because we keep finding new resources, we develop new technologies, we use resources in innovative ways etc. Need or greed is the mother of invention and humans have no shortage of either. So, those of you wringing your hands go right ahead and worry, I'm going to have faith in the capacity of humans to overcome these problems as they always have. Life is too short to always wear your shorts in a knot.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
We have a different perspective on things.
I kinda thought so, too. lol

Killing people off indirectly is far different from advocating planned mass murder.
Uh, jeeez professor .....

I'm a believer in the democratic process, it takes time to produce results, been when motivated it can inact impressive changes.
uhuh I have a sort of a credo: expect the worst and hope for the best. No disappointments that way.

Yupe, some of the biggest swindles in history have been going on with all the "bubbling" like .com, accounting, subprime and the energy bubble is the worst. The people behind it are some of the most cynical and arrogant individuals who've ever walked the planet and their shills in power, like our PM, are no better.
Nah, that stuff is just by-products of business.

Democracy is good at removing the scum that rises to the top that pretends to be cream, it's about time for that to happen.
Expect the worst .......
Since when do we live in a democracy? I'm pretty sure that we live in a corporatocracy/plutarchy/oligarchy amalgam.

Too many subscribe to the malthusian belief that humans will outgrow their resources. 200 years later we are no closer to running out of resources than we were when Malthus was alive because we keep finding new resources, we develop new technologies, we use resources in innovative ways etc. Need or greed is the mother of invention and humans have no shortage of either. So, those of you wringing your hands go right ahead and worry, I'm going to have faith in the capacity of humans to overcome these problems as they always have. Life is too short to always wear your shorts in a knot.
Yeah. It doesn't help when some people don't recognize a need for changing the status quo, though.
 

Redmonton_Rebel

Electoral Member
May 13, 2012
442
0
16
Uh, jeeez professor .....

I think it was Praxius who wants to kill off all scientists, I think it's important to be clear that mass murder is a bad thing.

uhuh I have a sort of a credo: expect the worst and hope for the best. No disappointments that way.

We're not helpless in a democracry, my credo is plan for the best then work as hard as you can to make it a reality.

Nah, that stuff is just by-products of business.

I think it's a by-product of letting lobbyists and private interests decide what public policy is. Of course they're going to look out for themselves first and leave the rest of us to fight over what's left. With just a little oversight and accountability the last economic meltdown wouldn't have occured. Business doesn't have to be corrupt to be successful, it's just what happens when the more socially retarded amoung us start calling the shots.

Expect the worst .......
Since when do we live in a democracy? I'm pretty sure that we live in a corporatocracy/plutarchy/oligarchy amalgam.

Ah, since about 1867 I think more or less, and while it's not perfect it's better than other systems where you take what you're given. Of course if we let things continue to slid the way they have in the last 20-30 years then we won't have a democracy much longer.