Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

  • Thread starter ZAGGIN
  • 3,626 comments
  • 203,588 views

Which of the following statements best reflects your views on Global Warming?


  • Total voters
    488
I'm not sure what his point is because the paper said climate change is making wildfires worse and even the author admits that's true. Are there other contributing factors to wildfires? Absolutely, but the topic of the paper was how climate change is contributing.

It sounds like he wrote that article for The FP because he knew it would get published.
The lady who gave me a lift the other week told me she'd read on Telegram that 90% of forest fires worldwide are caused by arson. The article linked by the researcher tells a slightly different story. It sounds like the 80% of US fires that are human caused, some by accident, wouldn't have burned for so long without rising global temperatures contributing to their length and intensity.

Fortunately she changed the subject to how homeschooling is the way forward so I didn't get the opportunity to continue the previous topic of conversation. I hope she includes statistical analysis on her curriculum.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what his point is

100%

"Look, they published it" somehow means "and they wouldn't have published this other thing that I could have written but didn't". I don't know how it means that.

He wrote a paper he says isn't as good as a paper he could have written, and then waives his hands saying that they wouldn't have published that - and his proof is that they published what he sent them. So stupid. Just looking for press.

What I don't understand is how people like @Arthur-A and @dirtydog actually find any of this meaningful. It's like they jumped on it without giving it two thoughts because it confirmed some kind of nonsense that has been beaten down for years constantly. Somehow they think one guy, who makes up a story about a hypothetical paper not getting published, is a smoking gun of some sort about a bunch of unrelated papers that have nothing to do with wildfires but everything to do with climate change.

I mean, do you people actually think any of this through? Or do you just run in here with what someone else told you was good?
 
Last edited:
100%

"Look, they published it" somehow means "and they wouldn't have published this other thing that I could have written but didn't". I don't know how it means that.

He wrote a paper he says isn't as good as a paper he could have written, and then waives his hands saying that they wouldn't have published that - and his proof is that they published what he sent them. So stupid. Just looking for press.

What I don't understand is how people like @Arthur-A and @dirtydog actually find any of this meaningful. It's like they jumped on it without giving it two thoughts because it confirmed some kind of nonsense that has been beaten down for years constantly. Somehow they think one guy, who makes up a story about a hypothetical paper not getting published, is a smoking gun of some sort about a bunch of unrelated papers that have nothing to do with wildfires but everything to do with climate change.

I mean, do you people actually think any of this through? Or do you just run in here with what someone else told you was good?
To put it succinctly, bad faith.
 
Got to conform to the groupthink or you don't get published. The BBC also calls every bit of weather 'climate change' these days.
Alright, I’ll play along.

Say all this is some conspiracy and humans really have no impact, what exactly is so bad about cleaner air, cleaner water, better utilization of technology and just overall less reliance on a finite resource?

And if it is a conspiracy what exactly is the desired outcome? Because it seems like every one I can think of isn’t tied to global warming being a thing.
 
Alright, I’ll play along.

Say all this is some conspiracy and humans really have no impact, what exactly is so bad about cleaner air, cleaner water, better utilization of technology and just overall less reliance on a finite resource?

And if it is a conspiracy what exactly is the desired outcome? Because it seems like every one I can think of isn’t tied to global warming being a thing.
Because that's a false choice. The reality is the elites will keep using their private jets and yachts, and living in their mansions. They want us to cut back our way of life so they don't have to cut back theirs. I say nope. We need every last bit of fossil fuel we can use to maintain any sort of decent standard of living for 8 billion+ people on this planet. It won't be replaced with batteries and windmills, that's a fantasy. The future without oil and natural gas is a much more primitive one, like it used to be. The people feeding us this climate narrative are lifelong habitual liars and con artists. They control the news and entertainment media and use their 'influencers' (celebrities and politicians) to get us to buy into it. I don't and I won't.
 
They want us to cut back our way of life so they don't have to cut back theirs. I say nope.

Exactly how does this work? I can think of several angles you might have on this, and I'm not sure which one it is. How does you "cutting back your way of life" allow "them" not to?
 
Last edited:
Because that's a false choice. The reality is the elites will keep using their private jets and yachts, and living in their mansions. They want us to cut back our way of life so they don't have to cut back theirs. I say nope. We need every last bit of fossil fuel we can use to maintain any sort of decent standard of living for 8 billion+ people on this planet. It won't be replaced with batteries and windmills, that's a fantasy. The future without oil and natural gas is a much more primitive one, like it used to be. The people feeding us this climate narrative are lifelong habitual liars and con artists. They control the news and entertainment media and use their 'influencers' (celebrities and politicians) to get us to buy into it. I don't and I won't.
I bought you this. Maybe you can make a cool hat out of it.

1444835089119.jpeg
 
Exactly how does this work? I can think of several angles you might have on this, and I'm not sure which one it is. How does you "cutting back your way of life" allow "them" not to?
Because fossil fuels are finite and running out. 8 billion people get through a vast amount of oil every day. How much longer do you think it will last? Not long. Anyone young today will live to see a very different world, then we'll see what real 'austerity' looks like. A world with no more growth (except probably population). Things will fall apart very quickly.

I bought you this. Maybe you can make a cool hat out of it.

1444835089119.jpeg
Sure... conspiracy theorist definition: someone who questions the statements of known liars. I can think for myself. Celebrities who jet all around the world are the ones telling us it's bad for the planet and we need to cut back. Okay, after you... no I didn't think so. Cutting back is just for the little people.
 
Because fossil fuels are finite and running out. 8 billion people get through a vast amount of oil every day. How much longer do you think it will last? Not long. Anyone young today will live to see a very different world, then we'll see what real 'austerity' looks like. A world with no more growth (except probably population). Things will fall apart very quickly.

Fascinating.

So you think global warming is just a hoax to cover for the previous doomsday scenario - peak oil - which was alleviated by the development of fracking and shale reserves. Your response to this is to desire to use up as much oil as you can get your hands on, because you think it is a fixed pie that others are trying to take as well. And you believe that your consumption of this oil is beneficial for your quality of life.

There are several things unexamined there. One is that many of the alternatives being suggested improve quality of life. Solar and wind power production is cheaper than fossil fuel. You can produce it for yourself cheaply, and sever your reliance on others (which is something conspiracy-minded individuals often prefer), while saving money. Solar is so cheap, it is cheaper than nuclear fusion could even possibly be once we manage to learn how to do it and reduce its cost due to economies of scale. Nuclear fusion doesn't even exist and we can't see a way to make it as cheap as solar is today. Solar is the cheapest source of energy humanity has seen. Maybe that's less the case in the UK, I know it's cloudy there a lot.

Electric cars are fast, comfortable, easy to drive, and reliable. They're not super cheap, but rebates are designed precisely to assist non-"elite" folks like yourself afford them. And when combined with solar on your roof, electric cars are insanely economical. Don't get rid of your gas guzzler for long trips of course, but for short duty, it's cheaper, and saves you from spending your life at the pump. Note that some of this requires some additional "means" that "elites" are likely to have. A garage for multiple cars, spending money for new vehicles, a house with a roof, and spending money for solar panels. But this should indicate to you that it is "elites" who are actually moving in this direction - to use less oil. And who would that benefit? People who don't have the money to do so, by reducing demand for oil and keeping the price lower.

I'm not sure exactly where you thinking you're being pressured to cut back on your lifestyle other than electric cars and maybe solar and wind power in your country. But if the world is running out of oil, why would you not be excited to see alternatives start to get developed today? Electric cars are still somewhat in their infancy, and battery power is revolutionizing a whole host of additional uses, and making my garage a nicer place. I have battery powered impact wrenches and vacuum cleaners coming from this technology - things that are very handy on a daily basis. Improved solar panel design, electric car design, even fuel efficiency in flights and trains all enable INCREASED standard of living in a post-oil world. If that's truly what you're concerned about, you should recognize that these things are necessary solutions to that problem.

Your conspiracy theory still doesn't pass the sniff test. It aligns the thing you find nefarious too well with the solution to the problem you assume. That's not a good conspiracy. A good conspiracy is a much tighter web of victimhood that's harder to poke holes in. Those kinds of conspiracy theories exist, and can still be very wrong, but this particular one is not impressive.

The amazing thing about all of this is that when your car burns oil, nastiness comes out of the tail pipe. You can literally see the smog - in big cities, it's a fine black snowfall that sits on all of your outdoor furniture. It hangs like a brown cloud over the city, and it's so painfully obvious that it comes from emissions, like car and truck emissions, that it's unbelievable that your line of thinking is the oil is something you want to burn into your atmosphere as fast as you can in spite of alternatives. If you don't like wearing masks, and many conspiracy-minded people don't, consider the masks people have had to wear in Beijing due to pollution. And then consider that the nefarious forces you think are at work would alleviate this kind of health problem posed directly at yourself.
 
Last edited:
Fascinating.

So you think global warming is just a hoax to cover for the previous doomsday scenario - peak oil - which was alleviated by the development of fracking and shale reserves. Your response to this is to desire to use up as much oil as you can get your hands on, because you think it is a fixed pie that others are trying to take as well. And you believe that your consumption of this oil is beneficial for your quality of life.
Didn't read the rest of your post but will just comment on this. I don't 'believe' oil is needed to maintain the world's living standards and keep 8 billion people fed etc. - I know it for a fact. Peak oil is of course real, every oil field has peaked or will do, and eventually dries up and becomes no longer viable (there might be some oil left there but it costs more energy and/or money to extract it than it gets back). Fracking and shale aren't a solution, they just buy a bit more time. We don't have much time left. That's why there's a rush to electric cars, in a desperate attempt to carry on business as usual. Shame they are a technological dead end, and also reliant on vast amounts of energy to produce, and mining finite resources which will also run out. They are less green than petrol and diesel cars.
 
Didn't read the rest of your post but will just comment on this. I don't 'believe' oil is needed to maintain the world's living standards and keep 8 billion people fed etc. - I know it for a fact. Peak oil is of course real, every oil field has peaked or will do, and eventually dries up and becomes no longer viable (there might be some oil left there but it costs more energy and/or money to extract it than it gets back). Fracking and shale aren't a solution, they just buy a bit more time. We don't have much time left. That's why there's a rush to electric cars, in a desperate attempt to carry on business as usual. Shame they are a technological dead end, and also reliant on vast amounts of energy to produce, and mining finite resources which will also run out. They are less green than petrol and diesel cars.
Solar and wind - absolutely abundant energy. If you cared at all about your stated problem, you'd be singing the praises of the apparent solution.

Edit: Had to give you a poo for refusing to read a post when someone bothered to actually engage you.
 
Last edited:
It’s actually both. Oil, coal and gas are running out, and also burning loads of it is causing environmental problems. Also all the other toxic stuff we’re belching into the air and pissing into the oceans isn’t helping either.

But yeah i agree on the hypocrisy of our ‘elites’ having an order of magnitude bigger carbon footprint than the average schmuck and yet lecturing us about these issues.

Eat the rich, i say.
 
It’s actually both. Oil, coal and gas are running out, and also burning loads of it is causing environmental problems. Also all the other toxic stuff we’re belching into the air and pissing into the oceans isn’t helping either.

But yeah i agree on the hypocrisy of our ‘elites’ having an order of magnitude bigger carbon footprint than the average schmuck and yet lecturing us about these issues.

Eat the rich, i say.
"Eat the rich" is just another way to dehumanize the people around you and deflect from your own life. You have a massive carbon footprint compared to someone starving in the poorer regions of the world I'd wager. You ARE the rich, just by being in the UK being able to make a post online.

Who are you going to get an informed lecture from? The waiter at your local restaurant? You're going to hear it from a rich person with a megaphone because having a megaphone can make you rich.
 
Last edited:
Solar and wind - absolutely abundant energy. If you cared at all about your stated problem, you'd be singing the praises of the apparent solution.

Edit: Had to give you a poo for refusing to read a post when someone bothered to actually engage you.

One of the issues with various ‘green technologies’ is the energy you have to use to manufacture solar panels and windmills far outweighs what you end up getting out of them. Same with EV batteries. They have to flatten forests and countryside to get at the lithium underneath.

And then once the usefulness of these solar panels and windmills and batteries is up, you’re left with a load of stuff that’s not recyclable. Windmills in particular, they’re huge and there’s thousands of them popping up on a daily basis. You only get 10 years out of them, and then all they can do with them is chop them up and bury them. The more they produce, the bigger the problem becomes.

"Eat the rich" is just another way to dehumanize the people around you and deflect from your own life. You have a massive carbon footprint compared to someone starving in the poorer regions of the world I'd wager. You ARE the rich, just by being in the UK being able to make a post online.

Who are you going to get an informed lecture from? The waiter at your local restaurant? You're going to hear it from a rich person with a megaphone because having a megaphone can make you rich.

Well I don’t fly around in a private jet telling people to drive less. And if i did, i’d deserve to be eaten.
 
One of the issues with various ‘green technologies’ is the energy you have to use to manufacture solar panels and windmills far outweighs what you end up getting out of them. Same with EV batteries. They have to flatten forests and countryside to get at the lithium underneath.

And then once the usefulness of these solar panels and windmills and batteries is up, you’re left with a load of stuff that’s not recyclable. Windmills in particular, they’re huge and there’s thousands of them popping up on a daily basis. You only get 10 years out of them, and then all they can do with them is chop them up and bury them. The more they produce, the bigger the problem becomes.
It's not a "mill" it's a "turbine". These are engineering terms. It's very hard to take your technical assessment of the energy balance of a technology seriously when you refer to something as a "windmill" when it's not a mill at all. Also of note is a complete lack of numbers or citations.


article
No. It’s a common myth that it takes more energy to manufacture and build a wind turbine than the turbine will produce. In reality, a typical wind turbine will repay its carbon footprint in less than six months, and it will generate emission-free electricity for the remainder of its 20 to 30 year lifespan.


Lithium from batteries is difficult to recycle currently, only a small percentage can be recycled. But the technology in that area is a rapidly moving target.

Edit:
Well I don’t fly around in a private jet telling people to drive less. And if i did, i’d deserve to be eaten.

To avoid any kind of hypocrisy, no one in your country could make suggestions about how to reduce one's carbon footprint. Similarly for my country - because the vast majority of people in our countries have larger carbon footprints than individuals who live in other countries. Imagine the arrogance of telling china to stop using coal (which they should) when the average chinese person has a smaller carbon footprint. Hypocrisy!

The truth is that it is a logical fallacy (called appeal to hypocrisy) to ignore a message from someone just because they are hypocritical about it. A smoker can tell you smoking is bad for you. It remains true even if they smoke. In this case, some carbon is needed to effectively study and influence in this area - including flights to conferences to make speeches.
 
Last edited:
One of the issues with various ‘green technologies’ is the energy you have to use to manufacture solar panels and windmills far outweighs what you end up getting out of them. Same with EV batteries. They have to flatten forests and countryside to get at the lithium underneath.
The only problem is that you're wrong.
 
It's not a "mill" it's a "turbine". These are engineering terms. It's very hard to take your technical assessment of the energy balance of a technology seriously when you refer to something as a "windmill" when it's not a mill at all. Also of note is a complete lack of numbers or citations.





Lithium from batteries is difficult to recycle currently, only a small percentage can be recycled. But the technology in that area is a rapidly moving target.

Edit:


To avoid any kind of hypocrisy, no one in your country could make suggestions about how to reduce one's carbon footprint. Similarly for my country - because the vast majority of people in our countries have larger carbon footprints than individuals who live in other countries. Imagine the arrogance of telling china to stop using coal (which they should) when the average chinese person has a smaller carbon footprint. Hypocrisy!

The truth is that it is a logical fallacy (called appeal to hypocrisy) to ignore a message from someone just because they are hypocritical about it. A smoker can tell you smoking is bad for you. It remains true even if they smoke. In this case, some carbon is needed to effectively study and influence in this area - including flights to conferences to make speeches.

Any type of machine that harnesses the power of the wind can be called a windmill. Just because ‘turbine’ sounds more technical doesn’t make it more correct.

And you’ve Googled an obviously biased source to confirm your viewpoints. There’s no numbers there, either. If I had the time, and I wasn’t on my phone, I would look further into it, instead of just taking whywindenergyisgreat.com’s word for it.

And finally, why do these people need to go to conferences at all in this day and age? This can all be done virtually. And even so, why don’t they take a bus or a train, or even a commercial flight, instead of a private jet of all things. If they actually cared, they would.
 
Last edited:
Any type of machine that harnesses the power of the wind can be called a windmill. Just because ‘turbine’ sounds more technical doesn’t make it more correct.

Only if the machine harnesses the power of the wind to mill. It's not a windmill if it doesn't mill. Even attempting this argument is bad faith.

And you’ve Googled an obviously biased source to confirm your viewpoints. There’s no numbers there, either. If I had the time, and I wasn’t on my phone, I would look further into it, instead of just taking whywindenergyisgreat.com’s word for it.

Oof. There are numbers there, but do definitely just jog on with your completely unfounded nonsense then.

And finally, why do these people need to go to conferences at all in this day and age? This can all be done virtually. And even so, why don’t they take a bus or a train, or even a commercial flight, instead of a private jet of all things. If they actually cared, they would.

I'm sure "they" do, many many times. I've known some climate scientists, and I can guarantee they've never flown in a private jet. I assume you mean someone like the president of the US flying to a climate conference, and the answer there is lots of things like security, mobility, speed, etc.

If you're talking about some kind of rando rich person who flies private to a conference to talk about the dangers of climate change, it's possible, not guaranteed, that they're a hypocrite. So be it. That doesn't make them wrong, or even despicable. It doesn't make it any more despicable than if you were to suggest that china shut down its coal power plants despite you likely having a larger carbon footprint than a random chinese citizen.

As for why they need to attend conferences in person, sometimes it gets the message across more effectively.
 
Last edited:
Only if the machine harnesses the power of the wind to mill. It's not a windmill if it doesn't mill. Even attempting this argument is bad faith.

Well, you’re wrong about that - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windmill - so maybe you should act a bit less smug whilst I consider the likelihood that you’re wrong about everything else you’re saying. Because really, the more the narrative is pushed towards windmills and solar panels being the solution to all of our problems, the less I believe it. Because the people saying these things never, ever have our best interests at heart. Don’t believe them, they hate you.
 
Well, you’re wrong about that - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windmill - so maybe you should act a bit less smug whilst I consider the likelihood that you’re wrong about everything else you’re saying.

Oh this is fun. This is the part where we find a definition where someone explains that people use this term (incorrectly) this way sometimes. Yes, I'm aware that sometimes people incorrectly refer to wind turbines as windmills. Thanks for finding a website that also says that. Your own definition even points out that a windmill is a wind-powered device that MILLS stuff.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mill
1
: to subject to an operation or process in a mill: such as
a
: to grind into flour, meal, or powder

Note how "to generate electricity" is not part of this definition. A windmill is a wind-powered mill, this is not hard to understand. I can see that you don't want to understand what I'm saying, but you're going out of your way to avoid the super obvious. A wind mill converts wind energy into mechanical energy that it uses to mill things.

I wonder what the definition of a turbine is...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/turbine
a rotary engine actuated by the reaction or impulse or both of a current of fluid (such as water, steam, or air) subject to pressure and usually made with a series of curved vanes on a central rotating spindle

It's an engine. I know this is going to come as a complete shock to you, but a windmill is a wind-powered mill, and a wind turbine is a wind-powered engine - specifically an electrical generator.:eek:


A mill does not generate electricity, it grinds things.
Because really, the more the narrative is pushed towards windmills and solar panels being the solution to all of our problems, the less I believe it. Because the people saying these things never, ever have our best interests at heart. Don’t believe them, they hate you.
You have some deeper issues to work out.
 
Last edited:
I said act less smug. You really should, you sound like an utterly unlikeable bellend when you talk like that. The term is interchangeable. Simple as.

From your own source:

4
: a machine that manufactures by the continuous repetition of some simple action

I’ll tell you a story, right, a true story. At a place I used work, the owner found out about a government subsidy where the firm would get paid to install solar panels on factory roofs. It all fell through obviously, the UK government u-turns on basically everything they say they’re gonna do. But anyway, did the owner of the company care one iota about the climate? No. He wanted to install solar panels onto factory roofs because he was going to get paid to do so.
 
Last edited:
I said act less smug. You really should, you sound like an utterly unlikeable bellend when you talk like that. The term is interchangeable. Simple as.
No. It's simply not. It does get used that way, incorrectly.
I’ll tell you a story, right, a true story. At a place I used work, the owner found out about a government subsidy where the firm would get paid to install solar panels on factory roofs. It all fell through obviously, the UK government u-turns on basically everything they try to do. But anyway, did the owner of the company care one iota about the climate? No. He wanted to install solar panels onto factory roofs because he was going to get paid to do so.
what.gif


What does that have to do with anything? Someone wanted to do something because they'd make money? Unbelievable. That has never happened before.
 
Last edited:
The truth is that it is a logical fallacy (called appeal to hypocrisy) to ignore a message from someone just because they are hypocritical about it.
Pretty much the definition of being a parent.
I said act less smug. You really should, you sound like an utterly unlikeable bellend when you talk like that.
I wonder if you're aware of how you come across when you say stuff like this.

Only it's not great, and I know which of the two people I'd rather have a conversation with. As a hint: it's not the person who doubles down on doubling down and then chucks out insults.
 
Y
What does that have to do with anything? Someone wanted to do something because they'd make money? Unbelievable. That has never happened before.

It’s the only reason anything happens. You might have to use some imagination to derive the point i’m making.

Pretty much the definition of being a parent.

I wonder if you're aware of how you come across when you say stuff like this.

Only it's not great, and I know which of the two people I'd rather have a conversation with. As a hint: it's not the person who doubles down on doubling down and then chucks out insults.

I don’t want to talk to you either.
 
Well, you’re wrong about that - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windmill - so maybe you should act a bit less smug whilst I consider the likelihood that you’re wrong about everything else you’re saying. Because really, the more the narrative is pushed towards windmills and solar panels being the solution to all of our problems, the less I believe it. Because the people saying these things never, ever have our best interests at heart. Don’t believe them, they hate you.
Windmill is a compound of the words wind and mill. By definition, it's a gristmill that's powered by wind. Yes, people use it in other instances, but they do so incorrectly. Even the Wikipedia link you posted suggests exactly that.

And if wind and solar aren't the solutions, then what is? Yes, people are making money off of it, but you want people to make money off of it because that means they'll keep innovating and pushing the technology forward. Without economic incentive, people wouldn't bother developing alternative energy since money makes the world go round. Overall, nuclear is probably our best bet for a solution right now since it provides a ton of power on a relatively small footprint, but that's not going to work everywhere.
 
Back