Modern Environmental movment

[EarthScienceguy]

For the past 30 years there has been a building a growing chorus of voices which seems to have reached a crescendo in the last 10 years of people screaming about the climbing rate of CO2 in our atmosphere and how this is causing the atmosphere to warm at an alarming rate. And yet CO2 is at one of its lowest points over the past 600 million years.

The alarm has gone off about melting polar ice caps and yet for most of the past 600 million years the Earth has been without polar ice caps.

The alarm has gone off about extreme weather being caused by "climate change" and yet extreme weather is caused by large differences in temperature differences. And there is evidence that when the earth was warmer the north and south poles had similar temperatures to the equator.

Life has flourished in the last 600 million years. In fact more than 90% of all life that has lived on this planet lived when the Earth was much warmer than it is today.

This facts can be known by anyone. In and are not in dispute, when Bill Nye (I am using Bill Nye as an example not because he is any type of great scientist) is pressed on these facts he does not dispute them he expresses that the rate of increase is the concerned.

With all these facts that are contrary to the climate change narrative, is there another reason why this climate change narrative is being put forward?

A major point that is raised as a cause to the raising the CO2 concentration is the population increase of the world. Bill Nye raised this point a few years ago putting forward the thought that couples should have to register to have children.

And yet the entire population of the world could fit into the the state of Florida and each one could have 200 square feet apiece.


Karl Marx

You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible. (Published by Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1973 edition, page 66)]

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 10 by EarthScienceguy]

You are relying on Forbes for scientific data?

This Forbes:

"Forbes is a global media company, focusing on business, investing, technology, entrepreneurship, leadership, and lifestyle."

https://www.forbes.com

Not a single mention of science as one of their claimed expertise.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 9 by Tcg]

Ok, So what. I have stats that disagree with those but that is unimportant.

So let's say that they are correct and that the CO2 levels are rising. What does that mean for our planet?

It has been demonstrated in laboratory settings how plants grow better when the concentration of CO2 is higher. That would translate into man being able to grow more food and in areas where we cannot grow plants now. Studies have shown that a plant will grow 17% more above ground and 40% more below ground. Making it possible to grow plants in dryer climates. Along with elevating the oxygen production of the plants.

So what is the downside here?

Storms? Well, if the Earth had a more homogeneous temperature storms would actually decrease because storms receive their energy from temperature differences on the Earth.

So again what is the downside here?

[Tcg]

So let's say that they are correct and that the CO2 levels are rising.

I never addressed CO2 levels at all. Please review what I did in fact say and address that.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 13 by Tcg]

My point is I do not even care if 97% of scientist do agree.

And the reason why I picked forbes is because they do not have a dog in this fight.

They would not be prone to outlandish theories because then their clientele would not read them any longer. And they would not be subject to the pressure that scientist recieve who do not support the climate change narrative and do not need climate change for funding like NASA does.

My point was let the CO2 rise. It will return the planet to the way it has been for most of its history.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 13 by Tcg]

My point is I do not even care if 97% of scientist do agree.

Previous you claimed it wasn't true. Now you claim you don't care about this fact. We are right back to where this discussion started. You don't want facts to interfere with the claim you are trying to make. This is exactly the response one would expect from one trying to create a conspiracy theory.

[Tcg]

And they would not be subject to the pressure that scientist recieve who do not support the climate change narrative and do not need climate change for funding like NASA does.

Not surprisingly, this statement fulfills my prophecy from post #9:

"Of course if one is pushing a conspiracy theory, they'll find excuses to doubt this report from NASA."

[Bust Nak]

My point was let the CO2 rise. It will return the planet to the way it has been for most of its history.

Why? Sounds like a bad idea to me. Instead lets keep the planet the way it has been for most of our history.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 13 by Tcg]

My point is I do not even care if 97% of scientist do agree.

...

They would not be prone to outlandish theories because then their clientele would not read them any longer. And they would not be subject to the pressure that scientist recieve who do not support the climate change narrative and do not need climate change for funding like NASA does...

I would agree with you that if one individual is right, and the whole of the rest of humanity is wrong, that makes not one iota of difference to his/her correctness.

Nevertheless, if you are after a conspiracy theory, I suspect you would be more effective looking for it amongst the 3%, and wondering if they have been bought by the coal, oil and gas vested interests, than you would be among the 97% who, mostly, have no dog in the fight, either.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Tcg]

You are not understanding what I am saying.

Let's say we burn all the fossil fuels on the planet and the CO2 levels continue to rise. What are you and these other scientist will be the problem?

Proponents of the global warming narrative estimate that if current conditions exist then by the year 2100 the CO2 concentration will be 1000 ppm. What will be the repercussions for the Earth?

During the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous period, that is a time span of 200 million years, the CO2 concentration during the this entire time was above 1000 ppm. It a time when the Earth was lush green world that could support huge animals like dinosaurs.

In fact the Earth having ice caps is actually a relative rarity.

We have only around 300 years of fossil fuels left on this planet even if we estimate a rise of 1000 ppm per century that is 3000 ppm which is still 4000 ppm below the highest levels in the past.

[bluethread]

Though one can create short term micro climate effects, such as acid rain, that has nothing to do with CO2. From what I have seen weather is more a function of gravity, both terrestrial and extraterrestrial, and solar radiation. By comparison, the effect of CO2 levels is minor.

I think a greater concern is deforestation and urbanization. I say this because plants are an integral part of the water cycle and thus the oxygen cycles. Though urban centers are highly productive economically, that productivity is a dead end ecologically. Most of the environments are artificial and not self sustaining and consumer based. What is interesting is that the environmental movement was originally opposed to urbanization and consolidation of wealth. However, now the loudest voices arguing for environmentalism are urban and/or rich. The rich being those who can afford estates that allows them to avoid any of the effects that they protest against.