Climate change emergency skepticism

[EricDMMiller]

The climate emergency is not what people are being sold. Billionaires who have invested in green technologies are forcing a lie n the world that needs to stop.
Man has damaged the seas and the balance of nature. Solar energy won’t fix that because solar panels have highly toxic chemicals in them and will poison the ground water doing even more damage

Leaving the rest of your post aside, I expect that you would not be able to provide sources for these claims that meet the General Content Guidelines of this site. Are you sure that you are in the right place?

And for a more substantive reply to those points...

Climate change is overwhelmingly supported by scientific evidence and is not a hoax forced by wealthy investors. Major climate reports, including those from the United Nations and leading research institutions, consistently demonstrate that global warming is driven by human-generated emissions. It is a global scientific consensus, as far as anything can be.

I think that you are right to worry about billionaires being involved in politics, but the last six months should demonstrate that the billionaires we should worry about are not interested in the environment.

I have no idea where you got the idea that solar panels are some kind of global risk of water contamination. Like any e-waste, they have some toxic materials that need to be dealt with. But largely, they are no more dangerous than a computer motherboard or a cell phone.

 

[Ian DF]

Leaving the rest of your post aside, I expect that you would not be able to provide sources for these claims that meet the General Content Guidelines of this site. Are you sure that you are in the right place?

And for a more substantive reply to those points...

Climate change is overwhelmingly supported by scientific evidence and is not a hoax forced by wealthy investors. Major climate reports, including those from the United Nations and leading research institutions, consistently demonstrate that global warming is driven by human-generated emissions. It is a global scientific consensus, as far as anything can be.

I think that you are right to worry about billionaires being involved in politics, but the last six months should demonstrate that the billionaires we should worry about are not interested in the environment.

I have no idea where you got the idea that solar panels are some kind of global risk of water contamination. Like any e-waste, they have some toxic materials that need to be dealt with. But largely, they are no more dangerous than a computer motherboard or a cell phone.

End-of-Life Solar Panels: Regulations and Management | US EPA

When solar panels, which typically have a 25-30 year lifespan, reach the end of their lives and become waste, they must be managed safely. Learn about this renewable energy waste, different types of solar panels and how they are regulated.

www.epa.gov

We can begin with the EPA research
Until 6 months ago there was a very specific article about the mining of materials for solar panels and the amount of deaths being caused by those processes.
CORE have a large amount of interesting articles both in support of sustainable and warning about it

News & Publications — CoRE

News & Publications

www.corebuffalo.org

As for support around the Climate emergency I will begin with

Australia PM's adviser says climate change a UN hoax - BBC News

A key business adviser to the Australian government says the UN is using climate change to control a new world order.

www.bbc.com

Let me also clarify.
I believe in an alternative approach that many are beginning to also align with.
What we are seeing is the imbalance our actions are causing because of the pollution of our seas and the slow extinction of animals that inhabit it.

Ocean deoxygenation

The oxygen content of the ocean has declined by around 2% since the middle of the 20th century overall, while the volume of ocean waters completely depleted of oxygen has quadrupled since the 1960s. Ocean oxygen levels are expected to fall on average by 3–4% by 2100 overall due to climate change...

iucn.org

Everyone learned in school about photosynthesis yet we rush to put alternative energy instead of protecting our oceans and the animals in it
We don’t need renewables, we need to stop destroying the balance

You may not agree with me
But let me remind you that many scientists said that nuclear power would change the world and make us less dependent upon fossil fuels. Eventually the dangers became obvious

Leaving the rest of your post aside, I expect that you would not be able to provide sources for these claims that meet the General Content Guidelines of this site. Are you sure that you are in the right place?

And for a more substantive reply to those points...

Climate change is overwhelmingly supported by scientific evidence and is not a hoax forced by wealthy investors. Major climate reports, including those from the United Nations and leading research institutions, consistently demonstrate that global warming is driven by human-generated emissions. It is a global scientific consensus, as far as anything can be.

I think that you are right to worry about billionaires being involved in politics, but the last six months should demonstrate that the billionaires we should worry about are not interested in the environment.

I have no idea where you got the idea that solar panels are some kind of global risk of water contamination. Like any e-waste, they have some toxic materials that need to be dealt with. But largely, they are no more dangerous than a computer motherboard or a cell phone.

Leaving the rest of your post aside, I expect that you would not be able to provide sources for these claims that meet the General Content Guidelines of this site. Are you sure that you are in the right place?

And for a more substantive reply to those points...

Climate change is overwhelmingly supported by scientific evidence and is not a hoax forced by wealthy investors. Major climate reports, including those from the United Nations and leading research institutions, consistently demonstrate that global warming is driven by human-generated emissions. It is a global scientific consensus, as far as anything can be.

I think that you are right to worry about billionaires being involved in politics, but the last six months should demonstrate that the billionaires we should worry about are not interested in the environment.

I have no idea where you got the idea that solar panels are some kind of global risk of water contamination. Like any e-waste, they have some toxic materials that need to be dealt with. But largely, they are no more dangerous than a computer motherboard or a cell phone.

Leaving the rest of your post aside, I expect that you would not be able to provide sources for these claims that meet the General Content Guidelines of this site. Are you sure that you are in the right place?

And for a more substantive reply to those points...

Climate change is overwhelmingly supported by scientific evidence and is not a hoax forced by wealthy investors. Major climate reports, including those from the United Nations and leading research institutions, consistently demonstrate that global warming is driven by human-generated emissions. It is a global scientific consensus, as far as anything can be.

I think that you are right to worry about billionaires being involved in politics, but the last six months should demonstrate that the billionaires we should worry about are not interested in the environment.

I have no idea where you got the idea that solar panels are some kind of global risk of water contamination. Like any e-waste, they have some toxic materials that need to be dealt with. But largely, they are no more dangerous than a computer motherboard or a cell phone.

 

[archosaur]

As for support around the Climate emergency I will begin with
[Australia PM's adviser says climate change a UN hoax - BBC News]

First, you share a video of a "top Australian government business adviser" claiming that climate change is a UN hoax. He - a business advisor - makes a claim that nearly all earth scientists disagree with and cites nothing, and you think "Yeah, this is my guy. This will show them?" I will just say I'm not convinced and I'll leave it at that.

Let me also clarify.
I believe in an alternative approach

Let's hear it

that many are beginning to also align with.

bandwagon fallacy

What we are seeing is the imbalance our actions are causing because of the pollution of our seas and the slow extinction of animals that inhabit it.

You aren't specific about what the "imbalance of our actions" is. It seems like an important concept to you because you later talk about "destroying the balance" again. The oceans are indeed suffering and animals are going extinct. The biggest threat to our oceans is climate change

1. Atmospheric CO2 causes ocean acidification
2. Ocean Deoxygenation - seemingly a concern of yours - is caused primarily by the warming of the oceans, which reduces the solubility of oxygen and impedes ocean mixing.

Coupled with overfishing and pollution, yes, oceans are struggling.

Everyone learned in school about photosynthesis...

Honestly trying to figure out what you're saying here. Are you saying that photosynthesis, which produces oxygen, has been impeded and that this is a cause of ocean deoxygenation? Again, no. What you're referring to is part of marine primary production, and indeed it has been observed to be in slight decline in recent years.

Once again, the cause is climate change.

...yet we rush to put alternative energy instead of protecting our oceans and the animals in it

This is a false dichotomy.

We don’t need renewables, we need to stop destroying the balance

You have said nothing to support the idea that we don't need renewable energy. You have said nothing to explain what you mean by "the balance".

You may not agree with me
But let me remind you that many scientists said that nuclear power would change the world and make us less dependent upon fossil fuels. Eventually the dangers became obvious

This argument is invalid and unsound. Simply a mess. First of all nuclear power is far safer than fossil fuels. Second, it's a generalization to characterize "scientists" as having "said that nuclear power would change the world and make us less dependent upon fossil fuels". Scientists are not a homogenous mass, and they say a variety of things on a variety of subjects. But yes, the body of science has supported and does support that nuclear power is safer and cleaner than fossil fuels. Finally, even if "scientists" were wrong about that, to extend that to "therefore they may be wrong about this" is a genetic fallacy.

 

[Ian DF]

First, you share a video of a "top Australian government business adviser" claiming that climate change is a UN hoax. He - a business advisor - makes a claim that nearly all earth scientists disagree with and cites nothing, and you think "Yeah, this is my guy. This will show them?" I will just say I'm not convinced and I'll leave it at that.


Let's hear it

bandwagon fallacy

You aren't specific about what the "imbalance of our actions" is. It seems like an important concept to you because you later talk about "destroying the balance" again. The oceans are indeed suffering and animals are going extinct. The biggest threat to our oceans is climate change

1. Atmospheric CO2 causes ocean acidification
2. Ocean Deoxygenation - seemingly a concern of yours - is caused primarily by the warming of the oceans, which reduces the solubility of oxygen and impedes ocean mixing.

Coupled with overfishing and pollution, yes, oceans are struggling.


Honestly trying to figure out what you're saying here. Are you saying that photosynthesis, which produces oxygen, has been impeded and that this is a cause of ocean deoxygenation? Again, no. What you're referring to is part of marine primary production, and indeed it has been observed to be in slight decline in recent years.

Once again, the cause is climate change.

This is a false dichotomy.

You have said nothing to support the idea that we don't need renewable energy. You have said nothing to explain what you mean by "the balance".


This argument is invalid and unsound. Simply a mess. First of all nuclear power is far safer than fossil fuels. Second, it's a generalization to characterize "scientists" as having "said that nuclear power would change the world and make us less dependent upon fossil fuels". Scientists are not a homogenous mass, and they say a variety of things on a variety of subjects. But yes, the body of science has supported and does support that nuclear power is safer and cleaner than fossil fuels. Finally, even if "scientists" were wrong about that, to extend that to "therefore they may be wrong about this" is a genetic fallacy.

I see that you have a very keen desire to persist that any other explanation except that of a “Climate Emergency” exists
As early as the 1990s the debate began

Many climate change scientists do not agree that global warming is happening - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

There are also many who are questioning the media over its handling of the facts

Why Some Americans Do Not See Urgency on Climate Change

As the Earth’s temperature continues to rise, climate change remains a lower priority for some Americans, and a subset of the public rejects that it’s happening at all. To better understand the perspectives of those who see less urgency to address climate change, the Center conducted a series of...

www.pewresearch.org

There are still over 60 countries who do not agree with those pushing the idsa
I can also tell you as someone who grew up during the 70s in the UK, I have yet to meet anyone who can answer a simple question.
One which I posed to several supposed authorities on the subject in the UK
If there is a climate emergency
Why in the 70s did the UK have a drought due to a long term dry spell, but during this emergency, with claims of water companies failing to improve water supplies isn’t there a drought?
I read the book by Professor Wayne Visser, Thriving and when I asked him that question, he also had no answer
I will say it again.
The issue we face is an imbalance caused by the destruction of the oceans.
Restock and restore the balance and much of the impact man has had goes away
As for global warming of the oceans primarily causing the problem it is only a secondary factor and people must stop trying to excuse it this way
Pollution from factories running into the water is killing off not just the marine life but algae and bacteria that are essential

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332220300014

It does seem however that you are determined to push that everything is the result of Climate Change and I think it would be best to say I prefer to agree to disagree

I will continue my desire to focus on cleaning and returning our oceans to their required levels before any other actions

 

[archosaur]

As early as the 1990s the debate began
[Many climate change scientists do not agree that global warming is happening - PMC]

That article is 30 years old. Its primary citation is from World Climate Review, a defunct publication by Patrick J. Michaels, a climate change denialist who was funded in part by the fossil fuel industry. He was also a liar, and claimed to be Virginia's state climatologist until the governor clarified that no such position is appointed. In his post which is cited in this article, Patrick's claim of overwhelming skepticism of climate change hinged on his claim that there were only 60 climate scientists in the US. Do you really believe that? 60? According to a guy who lied about his own classification?

Scientific consensus on climate change is overwhelming and clear.

There are also many who are questioning the media over its handling of the facts
[Why Some Americans Do Not See Urgency on Climate Change]

Again, bandwagon fallacy. Some Americans don't see climate change as urgent? Duh! 1 in 5 American adults are illiterate.

I can also tell you as someone who grew up during the 70s in the UK, I have yet to meet anyone who can answer a simple question.
One which I posed to several supposed authorities on the subject in the UK
If there is a climate emergency
Why in the 70s did the UK have a drought due to a long term dry spell, but during this emergency, with claims of water companies failing to improve water supplies isn’t there a drought?

Where / when you were born is irrelevant.
Okay, so your question implies that if global climate change were an emergency, there should be a drought in the UK recently. Since there hasn't been a drought in the UK recently, there is no climate change emergency. This argument is wrong in many ways. I'm going to focus on one. Climate change refers to long-term global trends in temperature, weather patterns, and climate systems, not short-term or localized events. Just because one region has not experienced a drought does not mean that climate change is not happening. Climate change affects different regions in different ways—some may see more droughts, while others may experience increased rainfall, stronger storms, or rising temperatures.

will say it again.
The issue we face is an imbalance caused by the destruction of the oceans.

You've said it plenty, but you have yet to define it.

It does seem however that you are determined to push that everything is the result of Climate Change

"everything"? No. Be specific. What have I attributed to climate change? Ocean acidification and deoxygenation. And I've cited sources. If your "opinion" is that something else is causing these phenomena, write a paper, get it peer reviewed, and enjoy life as a celebrated scientist.

and I think it would be best to say I prefer to agree to disagree

Okay then I think we're done here. You are determined to discount an enormous body of scientific work because your ill-defined pet theory - which you have no intention to support scientifically - is more appealing to you. You are in good company. As you say, there is a great fellowship of scientifically illiterate people who agree with you, at least in spirit if not specifically, in that they believe climate change is a hoax.

I will continue my desire to focus on cleaning and returning our oceans to their required levels before any other actions

Okay bye. Wear sunscreen.

 

[Grinkle]

Locking the thread as its become about Climate Change per se as opposed to a debate around politics.