global climate change.

Doomsday Prepper Forums

Help Support Doomsday Prepper Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Brent, you are conflating global warming and pollution. Those are two separate issues. The whole pretext of global warming is that CO2 is a pollutant. CO2 is a 100% natural and normal substance that has been in the atmosphere since before human beings existed. At one time there was a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere (and methane too) than there is now.

During the Cambrian period, atmospheric CO2 levels were TWICE what they are today. Somehow Earth survived...

CO2 is PLANT FOOD for crying out loud!

Regarding pollution, nobody wants to breathe polluted air or drink polluted water.
 
Last edited:
Brent, you are conflating global warming and pollution. Those are two separate issues. The whole pretext of global warming is that CO2 is a pollutant. CO2 is a 100% natural and normal substance that has been in the atmosphere since before human beings existed. At one time there was a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere (and methane too) than there is now.

During the Cambrian period, atmospheric CO2 levels were TWICE what they are today. Somehow Earth survived...

CO2 is PLANT FOOD for crying out loud!

Regarding pollution, nobody wants to breathe polluted air or drink polluted water.

The whole pretext of global warming is not that CO2 is a pollutant in the sense that you seem to mean: no reputable scientist is claiming that a) it's unnatural, b) it's abnormal or c) it hasn't been in the atmosphere since before human beings existed. In addition, no reputable scientist is saying, 'OMG, the Earth won't survive climate change!"

CO2, methane and certain other gases trap heat in the atmosphere. The underlying science of climate change is that as the proportion of these gases in the atmosphere rises, so its capacity to store heat also rises and that this has knock-on effects on other environmental systems.

The question for humans (with a particularly human bias) isn't whether or not the Earth will survive climate change - of course it will - but, rather, whether or not the environmental conditions upon which humans depend will change so radically as a result of climate change and other factors (including pollution) as to make life challenging, difficult or even impossible. Earth will be here long after we've gone; the question is how long we'll be here enjoying any kind of quality of life.
 
There is no doubt in my mind that co2 and methane are trapping heat. I believe there is enough science showing that. I am disheartened that the reality is man will not do what is needed to stop it. Like Bluejoy said though, the world will not end. It will make it much harder for mankind to live on the planet and possibly impossible one day. I do find a certain sense of peace in knowing that no matter what happens, give it a million or two years and the planet has a way of renewing and starting over. There has been 5 mass extinction periods in the worlds history. Yet each time, given enough time, whole new species and ecosystems started over. Life finds a way. There’s no reason to think it won’t happen again. I’ve often thought with all the billions of galaxies out there, how many times has life started, advanced and then perished? Probably hundreds of millions of times. Hopefully there are some places where the advances made it to get past the self destructive nature that we demonstrate as a species. As a matter of fact I am sure it has, somewhere out there.
 
There is no doubt in my mind that co2 and methane are trapping heat. I believe there is enough science showing that. I am disheartened that the reality is man will not do what is needed to stop it. Like Bluejoy said though, the world will not end. It will make it much harder for mankind to live on the planet and possibly impossible one day. I do find a certain sense of peace in knowing that no matter what happens, give it a million or two years and the planet has a way of renewing and starting over. There has been 5 mass extinction periods in the worlds history. Yet each time, given enough time, whole new species and ecosystems started over. Life finds a way. There’s no reason to think it won’t happen again. I’ve often thought with all the billions of galaxies out there, how many times has life started, advanced and then perished? Probably hundreds of millions of times. Hopefully there are some places where the advances made it to get past the self destructive nature that we demonstrate as a species. As a matter of fact I am sure it has, somewhere out there.
What do you think mankind can do to prevent this? A 100%carbon tax? More Al Gore movies? Everyone forced to use electric cars? Limit all new births to one per couple? Stop the use of all oil? Stop the use of all coal? Stop all use of wood burning? All of these?
Even if you did all these things and anything else you think of, it would not stop an exstinction period. You state that global climate change is real and we are causing it or not doing what is needed to stop it, yet you also claim that it has occured 5 times in the past and humans did not even exist during any of those times. Listen to how foolish that is.
 
The whole pretext of global warming is not that CO2 is a pollutant in the sense that you seem to mean

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007),[1] is a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court case in which twelve states and several cities of the United States brought suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force that federal agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) as pollutants.

The #1 greenhouse gas is water vapor. So according to this ruling, the EPA was forced to classify water as a pollutant. This is how insane this is.
 
Last edited:
The #1 greenhouse gas is water vapor. So according to this ruling, the EPA was forced to classify water as a pollutant. This is how insane this is.

The key phrase in my response was 'in the sense that you seem to mean'. You and the paper you've linked to use different definitions of 'pollutant'.

In your original rebuttal of the definition of CO2 as a pollutant, you implied that it can't be one because it's natural, common and has been around for ages. Hence, you defined a pollutant as something unnatural, uncommon and fairly recently occuring.

'Pollutant' in legal rulings uses a different and, as one would expect, quite specific definition. There's a fairly straightforward explanation here: https://skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant-advanced.htm

In essence, a pollutant is any substance or any form of energy that, through human action, is added to the environment 'at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form.' (https://www.britannica.com/science/pollution-environment)
 
@Bluejoy With that definition, if I water my lawn faster than the ground can absorb it, then the ground is being polluted by me. Right, I buy into that definition.
 
What do you think mankind can do to prevent this? A 100%carbon tax? More Al Gore movies? Everyone forced to use electric cars? Limit all new births to one per couple? Stop the use of all oil? Stop the use of all coal? Stop all use of wood burning? All of these?
Even if you did all these things and anything else you think of, it would not stop an exstinction period. You state that global climate change is real and we are causing it or not doing what is needed to stop it, yet you also claim that it has occured 5 times in the past and humans did not even exist during any of those times. Listen to how foolish that is.
I think you can bury your head in the sand and ignore it all you like, but that isn’t going to fix anything.. The only thing I do agree with is limiting births to one child worldwide is a good idea. That’s a real step that could be doable. If a deer population is over crowded for an area and are eating more than the areas resources provide, what do we do? We allow hunting to thin out the population. Since hunting humans is out of the question, birth control is the best option. Coal should have been stopped long ago. I agree, no one and no country is going to stop using oil or stop producing electricity, which is why I don’t have much hope here.
Yes, there have been extinctions that weren’t caused by man. Does that make it any better if we cause one for ourselves now? That’s like saying, ‘well you’re going to die sooner or later anyways, so let’s just go ahead and get it over with now’.
I still believe science could fix the energy problem. Energy is really abundant in the universe. If the whole world put enough resources into it we could discover non polluting ways to get it. There are ways to start cleaning the air too. With enough resources I’m sure it could be scaled up enough to make a difference. The problem is back to greed though. Oil is so tied to all the economies and has most politicians being supported in some way that nothing will change. People aren’t going to make the tough choices needed.
 
@Bluejoy With that definition, if I water my lawn faster than the ground can absorb it, then the ground is being polluted by me. Right, I buy into that definition.

I'm glad you get it, unless you're being sarcastic in which case well, yes, doing that would in effect pollute your lawn, damaging it through too much of a good thing.
 
I'm glad you get it, unless you're being sarcastic in which case well, yes, doing that would in effect pollute your lawn, damaging it through too much of a good thing.
There was definitely sarcasm there. I really don’t sweat it. All the denial in the world isn’t going to change the fact that we are damaging the only place we have to live. Like I said though, I’m not concerned for me. I’m a prepper for one so I’m better set to deal with problems than most. It’s our kids that are going to pay the price for this,
 
There was definitely sarcasm there. I really don’t sweat it. All the denial in the world isn’t going to change the fact that we are damaging the only place we have to live. Like I said though, I’m not concerned for me. I’m a prepper for one so I’m better set to deal with problems than most. It’s our kids that are going to pay the price for this,

I agree. A few years ago, I read a paper that suggested that one of the primary driving forces behind climate change denial was fear of the pain of loss. Much of the literature on the subject concerns not doing this, no longer do that, giving up the other... people fear loss, and in materialist, consumption-driven societies they fear the loss of the material and material-based things around which they build their identities such as the car they drive, clothes they wear, size of house, overseas holidays. If one's identity is built on these things then losing them becomes emotionally damaging and painful. The paper encouraged two complementary approaches to this problem: a) a process of pre-emptive mourning for these perceived losses, alongside b) a process of exploring the gains to be made, and the healthier and more robust identities to be forged, in making the necessary changes.

It's one of the reasons that I enjoy prepping. Rather than aiming to survive in a some sort of post-apocalyptic wasteland, being a classicist I prefer the original Greek meaning of apokálypsis: a revealing of secrets. My positive prepping contributes to ending the current Culture of Maximum Harm and developing a kinder, gentler, fairer, more supportive society of eudaimonia, human flourishing, within a wider context of global environmental flourishing. If all does go horribly wrong and we end up in a wasteland then at the very least I, personally, will have lived a kinder and gentler life, and my preps might help me to live a while longer with dignity. And if people call me daft to have this as my goal then fair enough, I'd rather be daft and kind than sensible and mean.
 
@Brent, thats your incorrect opinion that Im burying my head in the sand and ignoring it. What exactly do you think the world can do with enough resources used to solve this? How much is enough? Got an estimate?
Why dont you start making a difference? Why are you buying food from retail markets instead of growing all that you eat? That food is transported using diesel/gasoline. So many resources are used up to grow that food, process it and get it to your table. The same with meat and dairy. Why do you drive vehicles? Dont you realize how much they pollute the planet? Are you perhaps greedy like the others you accuse? No, its a matter of neccessity and convienence. You act like everyone is polluting the planet on purpose because they want to just be evil. You live the same way as they do.

I think you would understand if you research how much of what you call pollution is released during a volcanic eruption in a short period of time in a reletive small area and see how long it takes the eviroment to recover. Compare that to any man made pollution of the same significance. Look at chernobyl and fukushima, cant get much worse than that. All those enviromental disasters have no effect on global climate change or factor into the earth having a global ice age or heat wave. Pollution is a localized affect not a global one. Global climate change has to do with orbital rotationtion of our solor system, cosmic ray fluxuations and solor radiation cycles from our sun.

My advise is to be as enviramentaly conservative as possable while still maintaining your quality of life, because what you suggest we as a human race is doing or not doing to our planet has no significance on the global enviroment or climate change of a exstinctional event. We as a species can and will adapt to most anything short of that.
 
@Brent, thats your incorrect opinion that Im burying my head in the sand and ignoring it. What exactly do you think the world can do with enough resources used to solve this? How much is enough? Got an estimate?
Why dont you start making a difference? Why are you buying food from retail markets instead of growing all that you eat? That food is transported using diesel/gasoline. So many resources are used up to grow that food, process it and get it to your table. The same with meat and dairy. Why do you drive vehicles? Dont you realize how much they pollute the planet? Are you perhaps greedy like the others you accuse? No, its a matter of neccessity and convienence. You act like everyone is polluting the planet on purpose because they want to just be evil. You live the same way as they do.

I think you would understand if you research how much of what you call pollution is released during a volcanic eruption in a short period of time in a reletive small area and see how long it takes the eviroment to recover. Compare that to any man made pollution of the same significance. Look at chernobyl and fukushima, cant get much worse than that. All those enviromental disasters have no effect on global climate change or factor into the earth having a global ice age or heat wave. Pollution is a localized affect not a global one. Global climate change has to do with orbital rotationtion of our solor system, cosmic ray fluxuations and solor radiation cycles from our sun.

My advise is to be as enviramentaly conservative as possable while still maintaining your quality of life, because what you suggest we as a human race is doing or not doing to our planet has no significance on the global enviroment or climate change of a exstinctional event. We as a species can and will adapt to most anything short of that.
I hope your right and we can adapt to whatever comes. As far as living less wasteful as the average I do live with less than most. LED lights, energy conservation appliances, recycling and compost, gardening, etc. am I a eco nut, no. But I do try to live less wasteful than most. As far as giving up electricity, I’m not suggesting that. I am suggesting that the govt start taking money from stupid ideas like building a 30billion dollar wall and start subsidizing industries to develope solar, wind and water energy production. Battery technology would be a good one too. I think the govt allready has enough money, it just should be reallocated to more important uses.
I agree when man had small villages the pollution was locally contained. The problem is with as large as our population has grown, it has become a global problem now. I have a saying in life about why would you piss in the pool you swim in.
And yes you are right about volcanoes adding large amounts of gasses to the atmosphere. The thing with this is they are usually one big event, and then go dormant again for a long while. Mans pollution is 24/7, non ending and ever increasing. Add the natural events to this and it has reached a point that the planet can’t absorbe it all anymore.
I don’t think we all need to stop living with AC and move into caves here. I do think we need to seriously increase our research into cleaner energy, and the sooner the better.
 
I agree. A few years ago, I read a paper that suggested that one of the primary driving forces behind climate change denial was fear of the pain of loss.
My primary driving force is science Bluejoy. And the lack of good scientific integrity among MOST so called "Climate Change Experts" is appalling. They have been caught RED HANDED cooking the books on multiple occasions.

If you are interested in real science and not pseudoscience, listen to a bona fide expert, Roy Spencer:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/
 
world wide the vast majority agree that we are the primary reason. Of course there will always be 10% that disagree. I’m going with the vast majority most times.
 
You can also pick apart ‘definitions’ and bits and pieces of any argument, ensuring nothing ever gets done. Ignoring the reality of us changing our planet and overpopulating it won’t change anything. It may make you sleep better at night though.
Imagine the planet with no people on it at all. It would revert back to clean water, clean soil and nature again after a time. I remember reading how the Europeans were astonished that Native Americans were able to drink from the rivers, it was not polluted like it was in Europe. Of course it is polluted now. How sad one can't drink from the creek. All I can say to the argument is try to reduce, reuse and recycle, not only is that budget wise but environmentally smart. Of course there are people who refuse to do it.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top