Climate change exposes future generations to life-long health harm

[howbri]

Climate change has been going on for thousands of years. Fake news. Simply a way for the globalist elite and socialist/communist cabals to rape the treasury of the U.S. Ain't gonna happen with Donald as POTUS.

[nausea]

And they wonder why the birth rate is going down - people have an innate, evolutionary driven, feeling for future circumstances. I would say we're living on borrowed time, not that it makes much difference to me, being in my 60s.

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Anyone living here, whether they have children or not, must be aware that in many towns and cities the air is already unfit to breathe. Action needs to be taken now to protect the present population and future generations. 

 

The hazards of climate change are less prescient than little Greta and her green army of alarmists would have us believe and can be tackled with a phased response, using emerging "green" technologies   

 

This, however, is no excuse for delaying sensible action to clean Thailand's polluted air

 and reduce the environmental impact of plastic - which, thankfully, the current administration is committed to do.

I completely agree, Krataiboy, that measures should be taken which are ecologically healthy.  And there's no excuse to wait for a concerted effort.  You can start with yourself immediately.  For myself, and as a single, small example, I haven't littered since I was in my late teens.  Long, long before any of this climate change nonsense appeared.

 

My specific objection aired in my post is the shameless use of children to aid in the promotion of their theory.

 

I may as well add another objection.  Climate change is now being claimed to be responsible for exacerbating air pollution as well.  Will they eventually link all of the world's ills to climate change?  Sanity is becoming a rare trait these day, it seems.

 

"Climate change is already harming people's health by increasing the number of extreme weather events and exacerbating air pollution, according to the study published in The Lancet medical journal."

[TopDeadSenter]

17 minutes ago, Scot123 said:

To question why every single one of Al gore's predictions never happened and when global warming was proved a lie changed the name to climate change something that has been occurring since the birth of the earth

Don't forget it started as "acid rain". All the trees were going to die and then we would too. It was to be miraculously solved by fitting a very expensive box full of platinum in your exhaust pipe. But it's scope was limited. Some countries didn't have many trees. It just wasn't scary enough. Then there was the Ozone depletion cult, followed by the Global Warming cult and finally we end up with the all encompassing climate change cult.

 The future generations have bigger issues than natural climate change. 

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Don't forget it started as "acid rain". All the trees were going to die and then we would too. It was to be miraculously solved by fitting a very expensive box full of platinum in your exhaust pipe. But it's scope was limited. Some countries didn't have many trees. It just wasn't scary enough. Then there was the Ozone depletion cult, followed by the Global Warming cult and finally we end up with the all encompassing climate change cult.

 The future generations have bigger issues than natural climate change. 

It used to be that the mad prophet with bible and sign in hand, portending the end of the world, was considered to have a few screws loose.  It's now become the rage.

[bristolboy]

41 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Don't forget it started as "acid rain". All the trees were going to die and then we would too. It was to be miraculously solved by fitting a very expensive box full of platinum in your exhaust pipe. But it's scope was limited. Some countries didn't have many trees. It just wasn't scary enough. Then there was the Ozone depletion cult, followed by the Global Warming cult and finally we end up with the all encompassing climate change cult.

 The future generations have bigger issues than natural climate change. 

Actually, the biggest single creator of acid rain are coal powered plants. The acid rain problem in the USA was originally about how coal burning power plants mainly in Ohio were creating sulfuric acid  and nitric acid rain which was killing trees and poisoning forests in the Northeast. Interestingly enough, Fred Singer, currently a leading client denialist. led the campaign against forcing coal power plants to install expensive scrubbers to clean up the fumes. In this he heroically fought against virtually all atmospheric scientists. Sound familiar? Well, Fred lost, the scrubbers were installed, and the acid rain problem disappeared from the Northeast.

 

As for Ozone depletion, it was none other than those 2 Marxists, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, who worked together to ban harmful fluorocarbons in order to keep them from the atmosphere. The reason you don't hear about it much anymore is because it worked and the ozone hole is shrinking as predicted by scientists.

 

I gotta say, your pronouncements on these 2 issues, don't inspire much confidence in the validity of your opinions about global warming and climate change. You don't even get that climate change isn't a different problem from global warming, but just a more general name since the rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere don't just affect temperature.

 

You know, you could look this stuff up. 

[BobBKK]

7 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Not at all. The major problems of our times, excluding military and terrorist conflicts, are:

 

(1) The 'real' pollution from vehicles and coal-fired power station with poor quality and inadequate emission controls in order to lower the cost.

 

(2) The disrespect for the environment by ordinary people who thoughtlessly discard plastic bottles and other waste into the natural environment because they can't be bothered to take the waste back with them to dispose of properly.

 

(3) The failure of certain governments or local councils to provide proper waste-disposal and recycling services.

 

(4) The failure of certain governments to prevent the regular burn-off practices of farmers before each planting season, and prevent the removal of yet more forests for agriculture.

 

(5) The damage to the environment from large corporations who discharge chemical waste onto the land or into the rivers and sea.

 

(6) The failure of local governments to consider the history of extreme weather events in their area and take appropriate action to protect the population from floods, droughts and hurricanes, by building more flood-mitigation dams, and/or ensuring that all dwellings are constructed above the levels of previous floods, and that all dwellings are built to withstand the force of previous, known hurricanes that are in the historical record.

 

(7) And perhaps the biggest problem of all, the misinformation provided by the media in associating all of the above problems with mankind's emissions of CO2, as though reducing CO2 emissions will solve the problems.

which all lead to...?

[VincentRJ]

14 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

which all lead to...?

The current situation.

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, Scot123 said:

Isn't it sad that you get called stupid, ignorant, old and the new one flat earthers oh and old and dying out by people who are so can't pick up a book and read, study and draw their own conclusions. To question why every single one of Al gore's predictions never happened and when global warming was proved a lie changed the name to climate change something that has been occurring since the birth of the earth that the sun is 97% responsible for. Now we see global warming raising its head again thinking people have forgotten. Why don't these nutters go back to street corners with their signs stating the world is ending. Who really are the idiots here? Oh word is ending in 10 years so let's party!!!!!!!! When banks stop giving 25 year even 50 year mortgages then come back lol miami along with every beach property in the world now you can not get mortgages for...... Wait a minute YES YOU CAN!!! 

I don't think any scientist is predicting the world is ending in ten years. That's a typical statement of a denialist. Exaggeration.

 

Beach property is like musical chairs. When the music stops, someone is going to miss out. Or if you choose to live in forests, get burnt.

 

Sure, you can get mortgages. Banks don't care what happens to the underlying security afterwards, they'll just collect on their loans. A more realistic assessment can be made by looking at what insurers are doing. Premiums are trending up as their risk calculations indicate to them where the problem areas are.

 

Part of the problem is politicians tell voters what they think the electorate wants to hear. That's how they get elected. When scientists present uncomfortable facts and trends, no one wants to listen.

 

Face it, how many politicians are lawyers, accountants and real estate agents? Property developers? Trump is the best example. Fervid supporters of economic growth. Scientists are a minuscule proportion of those that get elected to public office.

 

Mother Nature has a way of biting us on the bum if we don't give her respect. Lovelock wasn't far off the money with his Gaia hypothesis.

 

I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.

[RideJocky]

10 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Strange that child mortality in the western world is at an all time low then.

Would have thought more kids would be dying if the headline were in any way true, and not just fake news.

 

Where are there any food shortages?

Where is there an increase of kids dying from infectious disease?

 

Yes, but they won’t be living as long. 
 

 

[Lacessit]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

 

My specific objection aired in my post is the shameless use of children to aid in the promotion of their theory.

 

 

It's quite fascinating denialists decry children participating in the climate change debate, while millions of children are indoctrinated to believe in something they cannot see, hear or feel across a spectrum of religions without objection.

[purcho]

3 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Don't forget it started as "acid rain". All the trees were going to die and then we would too. It was to be miraculously solved by fitting a very expensive box full of platinum in your exhaust pipe. But it's scope was limited. Some countries didn't have many trees. It just wasn't scary enough. Then there was the Ozone depletion cult, followed by the Global Warming cult and finally we end up with the all encompassing climate change cult.

 The future generations have bigger issues than natural climate change. 

Absolutely. Someone with common-sense

[rabas]

8 hours ago, Lacessit said:

9 hours ago, bristolboy said:

 

How much heat do you think the human activities have produced compared to the total amount of heat created by solar emissions and volcanism?  Are there any scientists at all who back up this contention of yours?

Only about 95% of them. Scientists understand thermodynamics. politicians and laypeople don't.

The overall ocean temperature has risen by approximately 1 degree Centigrade since the Industrial Revolution. You may say that's a piffling amount.

However, to put it in perspective, what volume of water do the oceans contain? Best estimate is 1.3 to 1.5 billion cubic kilometres.

It takes 1 calorie of energy to raise the temperature of 1 gram ( or CC ) of water by 1 degree Centigrade. Do the math, and that's a lot of heat the oceans are storing. 1 cubic kilometre is storing 1 E 15 EXTRA calories.

Sure, solar energy and volcanism contribute heat. The difference this time around is for the first time in human history we are making a substantial heat contribution. And it's accelerating, as populations grow and demand more of the toys we have.

 

I don't think thermodynamics determines as much about the world's climate as you may think. Though the first law, that energy is preserved in a "closed" system, helps with some balancing. Most of the climate's complex processes are chemical and kinetic. Moreover, the biggest drivers of past and future climates are biological or genetic. Even the second law (which says don't buy lottery tickets) can't help there. (see Feynman's Ratchet)

 

Your heat argument is not wrong but it's off by orders of magnitude. This has been previously calculated:

 

Total (presumed) CO₂ forcing heat   =  2.9 W/m². (equivalent)

Total heat from human energy use  =  0.028 W/m².

Total Sun's insolence  is about       1361.0 W/m².

 

For reference, the heat from natural radioactive decay in the Earth's crust is 40TW, about 0.1 W/m² or 3X man's total waste heat, so nuclear looks good.

 

[MartinsAlmeida]

It's interesting to know. Thanks.

[Lacessit]

26 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

I don't think thermodynamics determines as much about the world's climate as you may think. Though the first law, that energy is preserved in a "closed" system, helps with some balancing. Most of the climate's complex processes are chemical and kinetic. Moreover, the biggest drivers of past and future climates are biological or genetic. Even the second law (which says don't buy lottery tickets) can't help there. (see Feynman's Ratchet)

 

Your heat argument is not wrong but it's off by orders of magnitude. This has been previously calculated:

 

Total (presumed) greenhouse heat   =  2.9 W/m^₂. (equivalent)

Total heat from human energy use  =  0.028 W/m^₂.

Total Sun's insolence  is about       1361.0 W/m^₂.

 

For reference, the heat from natural radioactive decay in the Earth's crust is 40TW, about 0.1 W/m or 3X man's total waste heat, so nuclear looks good.

 

Seems to me the calculation of human energy use entirely ignores stuff such as efficiency and personal vehicle use. There are 1.3 billion cars in the world. Open the bonnet of any of them after a trip more than a couple of kilometres. They are operating at an average energy conversion efficiency of 30% - the other 70% is heat.

No one has ever beaten the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If they could, we would have perpetual motion machines.

Permit me to doubt the assumptions behind the calculations you are quoting are valid.

[rabas]

29 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Seems to me the calculation of human energy use entirely ignores stuff such as efficiency and personal vehicle use. There are 1.3 billion cars in the world. Open the bonnet of any of them after a trip more than a couple of kilometres. They are operating at an average energy conversion efficiency of 30% - the other 70% is heat.

No one has ever beaten the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If they could, we would have perpetual motion machines.

Permit me to doubt the assumptions behind the calculations you are quoting are valid.

You should feel how hot my Harley sportster's 1200CC engine used to get, you could see it bleeding raw heat into the atmosphere.

 

But your suspicions are unfounded. Efficiencies were correctly calculated and the figure includes all energy, both waste heat and work.  The actual publication is here https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL036465

 

[emptypockets]

14 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

"Children are particularly vulnerable to the health risks of a changing climate."

 

"If we want to protect our children, we need to make sure the air they breathe isn't toxic," . . . 

 

It's always the children.  A great tactic designed to pull at the heartstrings thereby gaining support and suppress any arguments to the contrary for if you do you will be accused of unforgivable callousness towards the poor, vulnerable, innocent children.

 

LOL

It's the children who are the problem....stop having so many and reduce the world's population to some sustainable number.

[emptypockets]

13 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Strange that child mortality in the western world is at an all time low then.

Would have thought more kids would be dying if the headline were in any way true, and not just fake news.

 

Where are there any food shortages?

Where is there an increase of kids dying from infectious disease?

 

Give it time. China has very recently reported two cases of the good old black death plague to WHO. It has been suppressed on the media in China.

Maybe this is what the world needs to reduce the population.

[emptypockets]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

And many have been puzzling over what that may mean for the future of food crops.

 

As usual, MAY! Given the overwhelming population explosion, we MAY be eating processed seaweed and insects in the not too distant future.

Never been to Isaan huh?

[RideJocky]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

It's quite fascinating denialists decry children participating in the climate change debate, while millions of children are indoctrinated to believe in something they cannot see, hear or feel across a spectrum of religions without objection.

No shortage of people objecting to religion.

 

In any event, you twisted his words to imply the argument was against children participating in the debate, when clearly the argument was against people using children to further their agenda.

 

Do you understand the difference or no?

[emptypockets]

3 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I don't think any scientist is predicting the world is ending in ten years. That's a typical statement of a denialist. Exaggeration.

 

Beach property is like musical chairs. When the music stops, someone is going to miss out. Or if you choose to live in forests, get burnt.

 

Sure, you can get mortgages. Banks don't care what happens to the underlying security afterwards, they'll just collect on their loans. A more realistic assessment can be made by looking at what insurers are doing. Premiums are trending up as their risk calculations indicate to them where the problem areas are.

 

Part of the problem is politicians tell voters what they think the electorate wants to hear. That's how they get elected. When scientists present uncomfortable facts and trends, no one wants to listen.

 

Face it, how many politicians are lawyers, accountants and real estate agents? Property developers? Trump is the best example. Fervid supporters of economic growth. Scientists are a minuscule proportion of those that get elected to public office.

 

Mother Nature has a way of biting us on the bum if we don't give her respect. Lovelock wasn't far off the money with his Gaia hypothesis.

 

I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.

If you can't explain it simply ( so that I can understand it) then YOU do not understand the subject. 

At least that's what Albert Einstein apparently said. Makes a lot of pseudo intellectual smartarses look foolish.

[emptypockets]

30 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

Give it time. China has very recently reported two cases of the good old black death plague to WHO. It has been suppressed on the media in China.

Maybe this is what the world needs to reduce the population.

Two Chinese people being treated for pneumonic plague as authorities clamp down on online panic

From ABC News Australia on line

Scary stuff.

[Lacessit]

26 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

No shortage of people objecting to religion.

 

In any event, you twisted his words to imply the argument was against children participating in the debate, when clearly the argument was against people using children to further their agenda.

 

Do you understand the difference or no?

I do. However, there seems to be an argument by denialists children are incapable of independent thought. I'm sure Mozart, John Von Neumann and Judit Polgar would find that proposition ludicrous.

[Lacessit]

23 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

If you can't explain it simply ( so that I can understand it) then YOU do not understand the subject. 

At least that's what Albert Einstein apparently said. Makes a lot of pseudo intellectual smartarses look foolish.

I've explained it as simply as I can. My apologies if I can't dumb it down enough for everyone to comprehend.

 I think Einstein also said the height of stupidity is most clearly demonstrated by the individual who ridicules something he knows nothing about.

[emptypockets]

20 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I've explained it as simply as I can. My apologies if I can't dumb it down enough for everyone to comprehend.

 I think Einstein also said the height of stupidity is most clearly demonstrated by the individual who ridicules something he knows nothing about.

Except your post explained nothing.

[Scott]

Numerous off-topic posts and replies removed.  

 

[Tippaporn]

8 hours ago, RideJocky said:

9 hours ago, Lacessit said:

It's quite fascinating denialists decry children participating in the climate change debate, while millions of children are indoctrinated to believe in something they cannot see, hear or feel across a spectrum of religions without objection.

No shortage of people objecting to religion.

 

In any event, you twisted his words to imply the argument was against children participating in the debate, when clearly the argument was against people using children to further their agenda.

 

Do you understand the difference or no?

 

First of all, as RideJockey graciously pointed out, you twisted my words.

 

Secondly, I object to being called a denialist.  It's a cunning way of falsely positioning people.  It works per this example:

 

Accuser:  So, when did you stop beating your wife?

Accused:  What the f are you talking about?  I've never beat my wife.

Accuser:  So you're denying it!

 

I'm not denying anything.  I'm just calling BS on climate change.  And I'll echo RideJocky here; do you understand the difference or no?

 

And lastly, I object to the suggestive comparison you draw between climate change (objective reality) and religion (subjective reality).  It's well known that science denies subjective reality as having any validity.  Hence religions are for pagans and science is reserved for the self proclaimed intellectuals.  Might science be hamstrung in their ability to discern the true nature of reality due to their abject disavowal of subjective reality?  A worthy question, IMHO.

 

I would have more than a lot to say about the relationship between objective reality and subjective reality but it doesn't fit within this topic.  But I'll leave you with this teaser.  The idea has been put out there that objective reality flows from subjective reality.  The implication being that the source of the objective world is the subjective world.  Now wouldn't that idea make a total mess of so many world views?  I'm sure you'll discount the theory out of hand, though.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

If you read the articles I linked, you'd have understood this is not the prediction. The concern now is that the current breeding population will not produce enough offspring to support their parents with a good lifestyle as they age, retire and live longer due to advances in medication.

 

Japan is an example of the result of advanced economic growth which seem to reduce the feeling of need for large families that poor people used to have because child mortality was high and there was no social system to support them in their old age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_Japan

That is such "old" thinking. With AI robotics old people will not need children to look after them, and anyway, with increased prosperity children don't look after their aged parents. They put them in facilities for the un wanted.

When families live in cities, they don't even have anywhere for parents to live with them. Those apartments are tiny.

How on earth will children even be able to support parents when AI robotics has destroyed their job and they are on a "living wage" pittance?

 

IMO Japanese women don't even want children, or to get married. They'd rather have a career than have to look after some overworked man.

In Singapore, educated women are so reluctant to get married or have children that the government was getting involved to try and make people get married.

 

BTW, if men had to carry a baby around for 9 months, suffer morning sickness and ruin their body, the human race would have died out long ago.

[Tippaporn]

8 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I do. However, there seems to be an argument by denialists children are incapable of independent thought. I'm sure Mozart, John Von Neumann and Judit Polgar would find that proposition ludicrous.

Of course children have independent thought.  On the other hand, they are also highly impressionable.  You can see where that is going?

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, emptypockets said:

Never been to Isaan huh?

I am entirely familiar with the sight of Issan bargirls eating insects. 

I was talking about the rest of the human population.