Global warmig facts, pro/for or con/against
Debate Rounds (3)
John Dewey wrote: "we think only when we are confronted with problems". That means problems can just as easily be translated to the new challenges that are looking for new solutions, because different life conditions change over time.
The historical and evolutionary development has not suddenly stopped for the generation that today to take on the challenges of the time. This lead to the modern man need to acquire new knowledge, which not only gives priority to the short-term but also gives legitimacy to the long-term.
The climate threat, and global warming is accelerated and accelerates due to new factors in a way that has never before been done through human evolution.
Never has it been so large amounts of carbon dioxide as today
Never have so many carbon particles spread into ice poles today and draw where the Sun's heat and helps to speed up the melting and heating of the snow
Never have there been so many billions of cars and various freight vehicles today
Never have there been so many industries in the world that emit heat
Never have factories and industries kept running 24 hours a day like today
Mankind has never spent so large amounts of energy today
Never has the world been populated by 7 billion people consuming energy
Never has the need for energy has been as large as in the 21st century
Never has man had more energy-guzzling pastime today
Never has mankind had so many electronic products today
Never has the consumer society been so widespread that today requires more production
Never before has humanity's population lived online, which constantly consumes electricity
All fuel daily exploitation out of the Earth and may see the light of day is also the same fuel as in some sense is burned by engines and machines or fired up and consumed daily by 7 billion people.
When the 7 billion people are in need of electricity and heat and consumes more power than ever to have conditions changed as unprecedented by all human history and evolution.
As the Earth's common assets and resources consumed by a larger population and therefore decreases faster than ever before-how much of the Earth's natural resources exist for example, if 50 years or 100 years for future generations?
While these resources are declining alarmingly fast, how will the future look like if 10 billion people in need of electricity and heat and natural resources during this time has been reduced drastically? "The ecological problem" is partly about the earth today is much more densely populated than it was in older times, and there are virtually no new areas to move to.
Man extracting resources and natural resources of the Earth and spreads them as waste all over the globe.
What do you think, good or bad facts?
This text is a machine translated version from "Babel of Democracy" Chapter 9
Link to machine translated version chapter 9
For example - Carbon dioxide is not a poisonous substance which makes the environment dirty or unclean. It is an odourless and colourless gas which is mostly inert and combines with oxygen to form CO2. When the global warming alarmists show photos of CO2 emissions they usually show a picture of a power station which has steam outlets. Then, pointing towards the big plumes of steam they shout "Look, CO2 emissions, how terrible!"
CO2 is what makes plants grow. They breath it in and breath out oxygen. Without CO2 plants wouldn't be able to grow. The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the faster plants will grow.
CO2 is in very small quantities in the atmosphere. CO2 doesn't increase its blocking qualities when more CO2 is added to the atmosphere. This is because CO2 has a infra-red blocking limit, which when reached, it doesn't cause any further increases in heat retention.
The main greenhouse gas is water vapour. Water vapour accounts for 99 percent of all green house effects on climate. The climate alarmists never talk about water vapour heat retention, despite its thermostatic effects. Water vapour cools the Earth when it is too hot and the sun heats the Earth when it is too cold.
Climate alarmists never talk about the sun. In thousands of pages of IPCC climate reports, there is no mention of the sun.
The sun is considered irrelevant by climate alarmists. Note - The sun's intensity can vary according to sun spot activity.
The climate graphs and temperature data are manipulated by the scientists. Scientists have been exposed in forging data and changing graphs by inverting them to suit their purposes. Scientists need to create impending disasters in order to get research grants and funding. Thus, they give the government what they want in return for more funding.
Governments need climate change because it creates a political vehicle to change laws so that a communist style government can be introduced in the name of saving humanity from a perceived natural disaster. Thus, they can enforce emergency measures and create a police state in enforce order and control.
I think most climate scientists has a very complex knowledge and have a high awareness of how new factors influencing the environment and nature.
All research regardless of the area is dependent on the money to be able to be carried out.
To claim that climate science is all about creating any imaginary disasters or doomsday prophecies to raise money sounds more like a wild guess on your part and a time out of thin air. You get that sound as if it is a kind of entertainment for the fun of it. I think it is for real.
On the contrary, it is probably more important than ever that you actually paint up any future scenarios of what could potentially happen for it is they who can get us to act differently than today.
Many people feel that something needs to be done. That it is running out of time. You also talk about that scientists change the data or charts to better fit their aims and objectives to get money. Contrary to what you express, the climate threat and global warming is not a question of profits for manipulation the results for get more money " in the same way as the tobacco industry or the automotive industry wanted to hide the side effects of smoking and implications from car exhaust.
Today's new media opportunities and constant flow of information and news shows today's global development in real time. Researchers and filmmakers around the world showing in natural and social documentaries how new factors influence nature and global warming. It shows how wildlife affect.
Climate change also affects the animal opportunities for green browsers. Drought affecting harvests. The coastal strip is lost. People are forced to flee. Instead of political refugees, will future to a much greater extent also be about environmental refugees.
Research shows that industrial emissions of carbon particles spread to ice poles attract the heat and speeds up the melting of snow blankets at an alarming rate. It is good that climate scientists are trying to pull the emergency brake to while landing distance becomes shorter and shorter. The global warming is like a huge oil tanker that needs a very long braking distance in kilometres to stop.
The environmental crisis exposes people to new risks and new challenges that human consciousness does not automatically draws attention to. There is no learned natural reflex to react as humans through evolution becuase it have never had to deal with today's complex and global, and slow changes, creeping changes that environmental degradation as a risk or challenge to take into consideration. Earlier social and global changes taking place for decades, but which is too slow for our consciousness to perceive or experience them immediately?
The human brain has badly with references to react on these slow and insidious dangers that are taking place in the environment and nature. There is no learned deliberate or natural reflex to react to the new because mankind through evolution have never had to deal with today's complex and global, and slow changes, creeping changes and environmental degradation.
People feel that something is changing in the world and it is extremely fast.
The first billion humans on the planet took roughly one million years to achieve and the last billion took only 14 years. It is a population explosion that is unparalleled in the evolution. When the 7 billion people consume energy and industry to support all these people with goods and services, to respond or react to nature on this.
You reason for carbon dioxide is good and useful and that it grows well.
It is not just nature that responded, but also some contractors and manufacturers prefer to use green energy, solar panels become increasingly popular, wind and solar energy is more durable, and electric cars don't emit the same amount of carbon dioxide.
All development has a pain threshold for what it can tolerate. When the limit is reached or exceeded begin instead a negative decomposition take shape. Man has his immune system to be able to restore and repair the imbalances in the human body. The same applies to nature's own "immune system" to recover and repair itself.
Stress is also useful to a certain limit, when positive stress shifts to a negative stress.
The same trend applies to how nature is affected or react to any emissions, exhaust gases from cars and industries and therefore disturb this fragile balance. It is not without reason some people express doubt that it is a planet in crisis. I don't think today's climate threats and global warming is all about the either science fiction or to paint up a jokey image of nature or the planet need to be rescued.
Today we are quite clear that human intervention in nature not always so harmless, but for the people where the Earth and sea with no age. Mankind could create and form their own Kingdom in nature. Therefore, it does not damage the led.
Nature was composed while human activity had a short-term process.
It is in the long run if people's survival. That"s why climate change is a matter and question in the heavy weight class.
This is a machine translated text. I hope it good enough to read.
You are just rambling on and not paying any attention to my statements.
You have only given a vague reference to my statements at best.
Please address my statements if you want me to carry on this debate.
I replied: All research regardless of the area is dependent on the money to be able to be carried their research.
I replied, All development has a pain threshold for what it can tolerate. When the limit is reached or exceeded begin instead a negative decomposition take shape. Mankind has his immune system to be able to restore and repair the imbalances in the human body.
I Replied, The same applies to nature's own "immune system" to recover and repair itself. I also wrote that: The first billion humans on the planet took roughly one million years to achieve and the last billion took only 14 years. It is a population explosion that is unparalleled in the evolution. When the 7 billion people consume energy and industry to support all these people with goods and services, to respond or react to nature on this.
Summary of your argument: climate scientists do not know what they are talking about, the results are manipulated to get money, climate threats and disasters is about how to raise money, climate scientists has no legitimacy, they just talk about saving humanity from disaster for the research money.
I replied: You get that sound as if it is a kind of entertainment for the fun of it. I think it is for real.
Your argumentative and the starting point is that climate change, the climate threat, global warming, climate scientists do not have legitimacy for their argument, but your argument is sustainable. You have already made up your mind, but to listen and weigh in with new arguments. When you don't get a hearing for your arguments, you don't want to continue the debate.
Climate science is just about creating legitimacy to be given top priority. That is why I wrote to the climate threat is an issue that belongs in the heavyweight class.
The biggest enemy is man himself. There are YES voters and NO deniers of climate change.
The most basic problem is not carbon dioxide that many seem to think. It is a just a conse-quence of the previous reason.
To access the root cause of climate change to squirt water on the smoke and not fire.
The population explosion reveals this accelerating process, where the first billion people took a million years to achieve and the last billion only 14 years. What does this have to do with the context wonder anyone?
Climate scientists express or mean that the Earth's population of 7 billion people today con-sume energy and resources equal to 2-3 planets. If today we consume more than we can afford, so does it mean that emissions from industry and emissions from cars to the Earth's atmosphere with emissions and exhaust emissions equivalent to 2-3 planetary emissions.
You need not actually be a rocket scientist to understand why things are going so slowly. The climate threat, and global warming has nothing to do with communism you imply, but, on the other hand, CAPITALISM and CONSUMPTION has.
Society has created a social culture which is entirely based on ECONOMY and consumption. It could be summed up with the word CAPITALISM. What has capitalism with the climate threat, and global warming to do? A LOT"
Human beings live in a society that consumes everything. Consumption knows no borders any more than greed. "Greed and envy demand continuous and unlimited growth of material nature, without due regard to the management of natural resources, and this kind of growth cannot possibly fit into a constrained world".
It is trying to continually expand. Higher GDP, consumption and economic growth will be dependent on "modernity hubris". To develop a culture that consumes everything.
This is the short description of why humans today consume energy and resources equal to 2-3 planets. The downward spiral and ferment called constant ECONOMIC GROWTH. And to be able to achieve a higher economic growth, the factories produce maximum and man must then consume a maximum of.
Economic capital has become impatient and demanding increasingly short-term profits.
Maximum economic growth, maximum production, maximum consumption may not be sen-sible target for a humanity that live in a thin membrane of life on a limited sphere. Now we have to find new forms of production which allows us to live with the Earth's resources. In-stead of poison and them.
It is a trite fact that Earth's cycles is a closed and its assets are limited. Previous patterns of life and natural resources that have existed for thousands of years and built up by previous generations, have been destroyed during a single generation time. It is recognized that waste of resources and mismanagement of natural resources. Human activities have for a very moment in Earth's history reached such intensity and extent of the risk to life sphere's fragile balances are being seriously disrupted.
"The development of this economic system is determined not by the question: what is good for man-but by the question: what is good for the system's growth?"
The obvious argument for ' NO ' campaigners will be to argue that the maximum production, maximum consumption, the system's growth can never be about global warming or the climate threat. The immediate consequence would be to start to consume more responsibly, resource management and make self-sacrifice to win something else in the longer term.
Today's current economic and social thinking is based on the assumption that the rate of growth that has characterised the current temporary period can be permanent.
There is no doubt or denial of that economy's enormous triumphs have been valuable for human well-being; Today begins a growing number argue that these successes now or in the long run mean value losses for humanity, while others welcome them as new opportunities for tomorrow. There is nowhere a safe recipe for the success of this nature to continue to be won or defeated, because an unlimited economic growth does not fit in a constrained world of natural resources.
The need for new solutions that require an unconventional way of working within the field. The previously successful economic and political prescriptions applies only to the already achieved.
The individuals, institution, organization or the society that has been purchasing power available can only produce at incessantly without regard to nature. It is nature that may be slapped.
How will the modern welfare affected when natural resources has decreased drastically in 50 or 100 years?
In every time in a nation's history, it is always some social problem that weighs more heavily than the other. For the next two-three generations, energy and climate change no doubt end up in the heavyweight class.
Insight and awareness means; "To learn, is about to suddenly understand something you al-ways understood, but in a new way". The human is his own worst enemy. The real goals be-comes easy enveloped in smoke and the real motives act as eyewash. Today, the materialist development described as that; "economic activities have become divorced from ethics and human values. The financial mechanism has come to be regarded as an autonomous entity, independent of human needs and people's will ".
In summary, natural resources a dwindling asset, and the faster people consume it and the faster it is allowed to shrink, the shorter will be the time that we have to develop a new basis for the economic existence.
Today's economic mismanagement of the planet's resources are going to the next generation leave behind a
plundered land and Earth. How much of the Earth's resources and natural resources remain about 50-100 years?
THE RECESSION WON`T BE OVER TILL WE RAISE A GENERATION that knows to live on what they"ve got.
Thanks for the debate if you continue.
Learningbythinking.com (new website from next week)
Akhenaten forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.