500 Prominent Scientists warn U.N.---There is NO Climate Emergency

a reply to: sapien82

Yeah I guess your right. collecting all the sewage from every city in a bigger than the UK and treating it before discharge was just a bandaid.

They really needed to stop the pollution at source.

Do you think that using bullets to kill the population that produced the sewage would have been too much or could they have just hanged them with rope instead.

If they walked on water, would you say its because they can't swim?

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: sapien82

really?

So how do you heat your home? Do you have a car? Do you operate a cell phone?

Beliefs don't go far when they are inconvenient, do they?

Especially when it comes to myths like eternal growth and over-consumption without alternative. Yadaya?

This would be your moment to shine with new ideas for efficiency or whatnot, just saying. Who cares about individual CO2 footprints? No, really. Who does?
This is more about the big picture of corporate greed, pollution and waste than it's about consumption on an individual level. A lack of better public transportation connections is nothing we can change with the choice of our ride, can we?

a reply to: PublicOpinion
oh no my friend, you believe in a myth

There are more people and homes creating pollution than any corporation and what we choose as individuals is extremely important because there is little means of preventing individuals from creating havoc

Think of garbage! Have you ever visited a landfill? Go and see how big that problem is.

Corporations will only produce what you buy. With your choices you can support companies that care about the environment and those that don't.

Think of paint,, cleaning products, water use, ineffecient use of fossil fuels.

Remember companies exist to be profitable. Efficiency is their middle name.

Who taught to blame others for all our problems

500 Prominent Scientists warn U.N.---There is NO Climate Emergency

500 prminent scients just lost a snip load of 'free' money.

a reply to: neo96

LOL - absolutely right

but in reality, those guys were kicked off the gravy train long ago because they are thinkers and individualists. They weren't going to carry any ones water just for a grant. Science is science and it is up to its practioners to speak up when it is being abused.

They are speaking up very clearly now and are being attacked for their principals

Your mode of thinking is on false pretense. The big oil companies will be the same people to bring in any systems and renovations to replace it. It however is a reason to impose further limits on what those who have little can get and do. We can look at any of our leaders who scream climate crisis, and what they tell us to do vs their own actions. Al gores person home used 36x more electricity than the national average... im suppose to believe him it's about saving the world from big oil pollution power and curruption??

Meat will be taxed beyond the mouths of the poor, and be a luxury for the higher classes. Your ability to travel will be limited and monitored, your "clean" utility bill will be beyond affordability for many. This issue is used for far more things than I can list off to invoke control over people's lives on a global scale, and the reality is the science is NOT settled, and when proven to be manipulated time and time again makes for a dishonest conversation.

But! How can we take that chance you say? Focus on your personal responsibility and lead by example, not by virtue signals, fear and damnnation.




a reply to: underwerks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Corporations will only produce what you buy.

LOL.

[...]
DuPont was asked about the chemical and the risk reports it submitted to the EPA but declined to comment for this story.

TheIntercept

You old farts and your blind obedience to the corporate gods... it's like watching kittens. Kinda cute but generally a waste of good shopping time.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

oh - so you proved my point.

A corporation made a class of chemicals that people bought for their own purposes (fire fighting foam, teflon).

I am relieved to hear that dupont is not making chemicals that people aren't buying. That would indeed be terrible.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

The oh-so well informed consumer declined to comment your story.
Blame any individual individual.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

The oh-so well informed consumer declined to comment your story.
Blame any individual individual.

Lol, I wonder how that devise you are using to communicate was made?

a reply to: Muninn

The 500 prominent "Arguments of Minimie".

Also, my shoe laces might be capped with plastic thus anything I say is mere pretense. Next?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

ok let a kitten show you how its done.

I took one look at teflon pans 40 years ago and saw the flakes that get into the food when the coating is scratched. I made a personal individual decision that it probably wasn't very good for me or my family.

I bought a cast iron pan that I seasoned properly and I have used that pan for the past 40 years. No teflon for me. I learned how to season the pan with flaxseed oil and works a charm. Almost as good as teflon.

I have spread the word to everyone I know that uses teflon. I can't force them not to buy but I can show them a better way.

As for the fire fighter foam. Hey that stuff saves lives (pro) in the event of a fire that you can't use water on but its very bad for the environment (con). So I showed the laboratory analysis to the city. Turns out that it strips all oils from the skin of aquatic organisms and kills them. So a protocol was developed that the fire department would carry storm sewer matts to stop the stuff from getting into the environment as much as possible. The fire department calls the works department who come and do the clean up with a vac truck. The stuff is put into a holding pond and allowed to be exposed to sunlight, ph changes etc and treated before discharge. I know that the towns protocol was spread throughout the province.

Its not a perfect solution but then environmental solutions rarely are. They are often a compromise between pros and cons.

Btw - did you look at the lab data at all to see what dosages they are talking about that the gave the rats. Usually if freaking MASSIVE compared to what ordinary exposure.

So that is what I did while you were watching kittens. I hope you enjoyed the show.

Time to put on your critical thinking hats. Headlines are designed to fool the naive. If you read the actual letter you will find this line:

A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields

So they are not all scientists, and they don’t all work in the field of climate science either.

On the other hand, the number of actual climate scientists stating there is an emergency vastly outnumbers scientists who don’t see an emergency.

Here is a peer reviewed scientific analysis of the statement that 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is real and caused by humans. I choose to put my trust into the actual scientists, not the individuals working in related fields who self labeled themselves as experts.

iopscience.iop.org...

One of the key objections these “experts” bring up is that excess carbon dioxide is good for the planet. ( I would also like to point out that this is classic goal post moving because the argument used to be that CO2 isn’t rising ). In actuality this argument is shortsighted. Scientists are well aware that additional CO2 will cause a short term greening effect because the ice cores show that. But the ice cores also show that plant acclimate very quickly.

The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”

climate.nasa.gov...

a reply to: queenofswords

I checked all the links.

Where is the list of the 500 "Scientists"?

a reply to: Gorgonite

while you are thinking critically...

You know that science is not done by consensus..right?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Then why bring it up at all???

I bring it up because the general consensus of the OP and the thread was that ''oh, here we have more proof that all the climate change is bs'', because ''500 prominent'' scientists have proved otherwise.

If the purpose of gathering information is to help us to choose who and what to trust then it is best to not just accept what one group is saying but rather to entertain information from all sides. Yes? So by pointing out that this group of prominent scidntists is not really all that prominent and that there are not 500 of them but only a couple of hands full this whole article should not be taken as proof of anything but rather just one more case of he said she said.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Who Exactly Pays these Alleged Global Warming Proponent " Scientists " Annual Salaries may I Ask ? Politics Not Involved At All in their Endowments ? .........Hmm......

We don't need to bounce from one side of the swing to the other here Zanti. Certainly those annual salaries are paid and likely politics play a role in it. CERTAINLY. No argument from me there. But my whole point is that even as that can be the case it can easily be the case from those whose salaries are ANTI-global warming. It's that simple. Can you not see that?

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

ok fair enough! I can accept you thinking

But are we not better off to avoid following any group of people?

Look this has been shoved down our throats for decades now, with prediction after prediction falling flat. Is that not enough>

a reply to: Gorgonite

hmm - so the effects of CO2 on plants MAY be limted.....so does she know or not?

What exactly is the lifespan of vegetation for it to become acclimated? Are we talking crops that grow for a season or trees. Why would green house operators use CO2 year after year if plants acclimise that quickly

I would suggest that this scientist is likely talking through her hat here

Be care of words like "may be", "associated with", "linked to". It indicates that the person speaking is not very confident at all.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Except that the predictions turned out to be more than accurate and that we could've solved the climate change issue in the fcking 80ies already.

Yeah. No. #AintEnough.