DT changes transgender thread into climate debate

Discussion in 'Current & Military Affairs Discussion Forum.' started by R, Jul 31, 2017.

  1. R

    R Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Posts:
    1,513
    Almost word for word the points @ThreadpigeonsAlpha and myself made when this thread first started; Since you raised it though what is your differing opinion on climate issues and NATO countries providing more in the way of both fiscal and physical assets into the pact?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. A350-800

    A350-800 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2016
    Posts:
    307
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    I'm answer to your question, Trump wishes to restore fossil fuels as the unchallenged fuel in the USA, and believes very heavily in the coal industry. His premise behind this wasn't that climate change is purely a political concept created to deny the US jobs. it may be true that it is detrimental for the us if china or other third world countries didnt make efforts to curb emissions and the us did, and I do find Macrons personal project of dominating the Paris agreement quite irritating. However Trumps consistent emphasis last year denying global warming was actually happening wasn't really very convincing. I am also not sure if long term, his fossil fuel emphasis (and lack of comparitive input behind reneweables and more environmentally intended companies, like Tesla) is the best way forward for the US. It is to be seen if any emphasis on coal creates the job numbers he wanted to create or promised, and I think it is notable companies like GM have slowed down small and fuel efficient car development because of lower oil prices and Trumps/ Trumps EPA hints that future emissions regulation changes will be less stringent. (GM sold European Opel/Vauxhall recently, one of the reasons amount many cited was that the company didn't currently need the small car expertise due to conditions in the US; fine for the moment to get rid of a loss making asset, but in the future, they may need to rely on it again when oil prices or environmental regs become a restricting factor to truck and large car sales in the us). I just don't think Trumps position is, umm, sustainable!

    The president also said NATO was obsolete, then reversed his statement. Even if there was frustration European states were not paying up, implying a pact is unnescescary when the tensions with Russia increased and US allies felt threatened seemed potentially reckless to me.
     
  3. A350-800

    A350-800 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2016
    Posts:
    307
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    :)
    In answer to your first point, I am sorry if you feel I took your point regarding diabetics not being able to serve. I didn't actually read all the first page before I posted, and I will make sure I do in future to avoid making points people have already made, I apologise. I was actually thinking of my friend who applied to join the army with type one diabetes, which on reflection was fair bit it did strike me when I saw this thread that applicants who are undergoing transgender therapy may be give certain unfair leniancies which other apllicants, such as my fried, are not entitled to ( if they allow transsexuals on hormone replacement therapy, they could have allowed my diabetic friend to have a role with less exercise or risk).
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2017
  4. R

    R Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Posts:
    1,513
    Can respond to this on afew different fronts, Obama’s administration created the Surface Mining's Stream Protection Rule, killed a lot of the US mining industry in around 2014, which effected all the associated businesses and communities without investing in industries that would re-deploy the workforce. The trump administrations review and subsequent quashing of the legislation created instant reinvestment without government funds and a rejuvenation of the sector, with all the communities associated with them. Smart political move supporting his base. America using its net supply of oil within itself instead of supplying from less stable places such as the Middle East, for obvious reasons has benefits.

    Its worth reviewing how much has been given in government subsidies to renewables versus their returns. Tesla will occupy a growing part of the retail market, but how accessible the technology will be moving forward is what to watch. This is because batteries use rare earth minerals and produce a lot of toxic by-products which is why all of them are manufactured in china! No company has been able to produce commercial vehicles yet capable of range which will be a game changer if they can make it affordable. US government is heavily invested in that research and alternative fuels.

    There have been afew peer reviewed studies of the relatively minor eruptions at Eyjafjallajokull in Iceland which stated more gas was pumped into the atmosphere from this one eruption event than man since the industrial revolution. Think about that next time people start talking about the manmade effects on climate cycles and climate science in general and promote the additional taxing of the activities of citizens. Not undermining the importance of public health. Is global climate changing, yes, why we don’t understand. Yet anyway…

    Trumps comments about NATO becoming obsolete are potentially true and were related to the EU launch of its own HQ; in association with the European Defence Agency developing defence integration with EU member states and agreements in the absence of NATO. UK government also said it made NATO obsolete. I think it’s very undermining and another step towards a federalised European state.

    Sorry for the long post heres a potato!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. A350-800

    A350-800 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2016
    Posts:
    307
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    I neglected to even consider the environmental impact of battery production. Excellent post.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    880
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    Actually we can prove the massive human impact on CO2 levels and therefore climate change because CO2 particles from human emissions are lighter than natural ones owing, I believe, to our process of fractional distillation to shorten hydrocarbons. This allows us to show how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is emitted humans.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    880
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    • Like Like x 1
  8. R

    R Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Posts:
    1,513
    Please dont put forward The Guardian as factual evidence sighting an Australian government source in support of carbon tax legislation. -banghead- If you disagree with my opinion thats fine but atleast read some of the research link or pick up a copy of Earth's early atmosphere. Science. by Kasting. It has some great chapters on gases and emissions. I'm not saying human activity doesnt have an impact but to what extent I question, as do many others.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Old Man

    Old Man Ex-Matelot

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    Posts:
    2,082
  10. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    880
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.html

    https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=50

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

    https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities

    Point taken. Some more reputable sources. That last government link has 2,000 billion metric tons of CO2 down as the human emissions since the industrial revolution - compared to Eyjafjallajokull which was releasing somewhere in the millions.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    880
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    Below is a graph of human emissions driving the greenhouse effect compared to various other drivers, both natural and human, such as volcanos, sun-bursts, deforestation ect.
    You can see quite how much more effect human emissions have than any other factor. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...uman-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#.WX89_7xwbIY
     

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 2
  12. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    880
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    @Rossi
    I have now read your link which proved most interesting. While I was aware of volcano's role in the formation of the atmosphere, I had not considered the effects of Sulphur emission, nor of heavy metals. While even your link stated that humans produce significantly more Sulphur than volcanos, the violent eruptions do allow Sulphur to be forced higher into the atmosphere and contribute to Ozone destruction. However, Sulphur does in fact also contribute to climate cooling as it reflects sun rays before they reach earth. Whether this is sufficient to make up for their impact upon the Ozone I don't know, though my guess would be not.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    880
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    Wouldn't want to disappoint.
     
    • Hoofin Hoofin x 1
  14. R

    R Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Posts:
    1,513
    :D hehe and its not @ThreadpigeonsAlpha for a change..

    @Fibonarchie Fairone, however my issues with the science and policy remain, there's been far less warming than predicted and fewer climate disasters than predicted link; and does it make any sense to spend trillions of dollars for such little effect on the temperature? Any climate model created isn't able to predict the changes to climate we experience. There is clearly an exaggeration. The risk of the climate religion which is what it has become is it has furious defenders which are turning into intolerant dogmas, and a level of confirmation bias. All the while the International Panel of Climate Change gives a pass to the behaviour of developing nation economies in their polluting behaviours. This indicates to me the whole arena is just being used as a means to tax, with the funds generated going back into the government coffers rather than research possible solutions.

    I'm all for responsible environmental management and ethical business practises, my original point was not to get into a debate around the arena of climate science, but to highlight a smart political move in restarting the US coal/fossil fuel industry which will create productivity within the economic voter base and removes the requirement to import resources. If you feel like disagreeing with my comments on that basis then crack on, ;) otherwise we can go back to the thread topic, and opinions on its merits for or against.

     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Hoofin Hoofin x 1
  15. GreyWing

    GreyWing Nobody

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Posts:
    4,851
    Anyone that believes in global warming, just watch this guy. 30 Minutes will dispel 15 years of false education by liberal teachers who no longer question the narrative.



    You've been had :(

    Or answer the age old question that differentiates between religion and science. What would have to happen with data for you not to believe in man made climate change? (used to be global warming before they found out the earth wasn't warming of course).

    If the answer is nothing, then it's a religion.
     
    • Hoofin Hoofin x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2017
  16. Teapot

    Teapot Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2017
    Posts:
    158
    App Stage:
    TMU
    Humans have heated the planet with fossil fuel burning that's a fact. But what mainstream media and scientists won't publicly mention too loudly is that we've actually already passed the point of going back. We've actually pumped out so much greenhouse gases, that we can't reverse the damage we've now caused. So the question should no longer be 'How do we stop this' but should be 'How do we move forward with the damage already done'.

    Remember the tech is there to not need fossil fuels anymore but they've got a powerful lobby and unfortunately those on the side of wanting to stop climate change with the loudest voices are all the same left wing crazies that also say peadophelia is a sexual orientation and that they're depressed because of capitalism oppressing them while they film their rioting on their iPhones... These few crazies get the whole group painted with the same brush.

    But Antarctica is melting, polar bears are starving and places such as Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Nauru are preparing for their islands to be washed away by buying land in other countries to move their citizens to. And we have moved into the 6th great extinction.

    We definitely contributed to all this but similarly the same people guilting the working class for driving cars to work are the same people who fly private jets to climate change rallies (Leonardo DiCaprio) and make millions themselves off of telling the rest of us how evil we are for letting polar bears starve when in reality I have to work 40 hours a week hard labour to be able to afford to eat meat.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. R

    R Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Posts:
    1,513
    Well if you think your adding to the demise of mother Gaia, there is an easy way to reduce your personal footprint permanently. ;) (Disclaimer: All posts contained within this site by me are for educational, historical, humour and or scientific purposes and it is not my intention to condone, promote or incite the use of self harm or promote political, religious, or illegal activities.) :D
     
    • Hoofin Hoofin x 1
  18. Teapot

    Teapot Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2017
    Posts:
    158
    App Stage:
    TMU
    Disclaimer or not I might try my hand at a cheeky lawsuit, I could do with a compensation holiday to Toremilinos right about now ;)
     
  19. GreyWing

    GreyWing Nobody

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Posts:
    4,851
    Let me tell you the answer to that, you pay them more money! :D It's a religion , that's what you do with religions, you give them more and more money.

    @Teapot can you do me a favour mate. Can you show me a debate online where someone who believes in man made climate change actually wins a debate over someone who doesn't?

    It doesn't happen
     
  20. Teapot

    Teapot Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2017
    Posts:
    158
    App Stage:
    TMU
    Well it's very easy for the fossil fuel lovers to resort to reductio ad absurdum, with one example being Glenn Beck on Fox News many years ago sending a bloke in an SUV to sit outside with the engine running in the lashing snow and asked him if it was getting warmer outside...

    The scientific facts are there, the burning of fossil fuels emit greenhouse gases that warm the planet, melting the ice caps and causing the oceans to absorb the CO2 resulting in suffocating fish etc.

    BUT I already said I agree that many climate change 'enthusiasts' I'll call them are nuts. But that's because unfortunately climate change has become a political debate rather than a cold hard science debate. And the vast majority of empirical evidence supports that human activity is aiding the heating of the planet.

    You're right though, it is a religion. Carbon taxes aren't saving the planet, banning petrol cars won't save the planet, cars only contribute about 5% to global greenhouse gas emissions! I personally am a massive petrol head and the moving to hybrid engines and electric engines in motor sports hurts my soul!

    The fact is we'd have to stop factories using fossil fuels and stop the burning of oil and gas for electricity if we actually wanted change but that's too hard so they'll tax us for using petrol. You're correct and I agree with you about it being a religion.

    BUT climate change is scientifically irrefutable ;)
     
    • Hoofin Hoofin x 1

Share This Page