Do you believe that we are now or will soon be overpopulated?

[sealybobo]

we must stop treating our oceans like a waste dump while also exploiting their resources to the point of collapse

 

[Meister]

 

[Unkotare]

You know the other time in history when the climate was changing and many species were becoming extinct? Answer: every single period of history, all the damn time.

 

[Meister]

It's a good time for another mass extinction....maybe global climate change will help.
Earth has survived several mass extinctions in the past. it's a cyclical thing.

 

[sealybobo]

1. We have done better since 1989. If we kept doing what we were doing, we'd be worse off than we are now.
2. We are in trouble now. You act like global warming isn't a major problem. It is if you ask anyone except corporate polluters and Republicans who defend them.

So do we have to be under water before you will wise up?

Shocking New Report On Loss Of Nature Paints A Terrifying Picture For The Future Of Humanity | HuffPost

 

[Meister]

1. We have done better since 1989. If we kept doing what we were doing, we'd be worse off than we are now.
2. We are in trouble now. You act like global warming isn't a major problem. It is if you ask anyone except corporate polluters and Republicans who defend them.

So do we have to be under water before you will wise up?

Shocking New Report On Loss Of Nature Paints A Terrifying Picture For The Future Of Humanity | HuffPost

The sky has been falling for over 30 years, Silly. A lot of hypocrites have made a fortune off
of their schtick.
We have done our part, time for other nations to do their part, once that is done, let's see where
we are when the dust settles. Losing trillions in our economy is just ridiculous as an answer.

 

[sealybobo]

1. We have done better since 1989. If we kept doing what we were doing, we'd be worse off than we are now.
2. We are in trouble now. You act like global warming isn't a major problem. It is if you ask anyone except corporate polluters and Republicans who defend them.

So do we have to be under water before you will wise up?

Shocking New Report On Loss Of Nature Paints A Terrifying Picture For The Future Of Humanity | HuffPost

The sky has been falling for over 30 years, Silly. A lot of hypocrites have made a fortune off
of their schtick.
We have done our part, time for other nations to do their part, once that is done, let's see where
we are when the dust settles. Losing trillions in our economy is just ridiculous as an answer.

True those nations have to do their part.

But also remember before they were manufacturing, we were the big bad industrialized nation. Everything was made here. Now to keep our air clean we make it over there. Let them get lead poisoning and suffer unsafe work environments like we did for centuries.

And the sky has been falling for 30 years. Thing are worse today than they were 30 years ago.

How bad do things have to get before you'll say ok?

 

[sealybobo]

1. We have done better since 1989. If we kept doing what we were doing, we'd be worse off than we are now.
2. We are in trouble now. You act like global warming isn't a major problem. It is if you ask anyone except corporate polluters and Republicans who defend them.

So do we have to be under water before you will wise up?

Shocking New Report On Loss Of Nature Paints A Terrifying Picture For The Future Of Humanity | HuffPost

The sky has been falling for over 30 years, Silly. A lot of hypocrites have made a fortune off
of their schtick.
We have done our part, time for other nations to do their part, once that is done, let's see where
we are when the dust settles. Losing trillions in our economy is just ridiculous as an answer.

Funny you mention 30 years

• In the 30-year period prior to Hansen’s testimony, the Earth’s surface was, on average, less than 0.2°F warmer than the 20th-century average. In the 30 years since, the planet’s surface has, on average, undergone a six-fold temperature increase.

1. The Earth has gotten warmer.
2. So warm, in fact, that the temperature trend was almost certainly due to the greenhouse effect, which is enhanced by emissions of gases like carbon dioxide and methane from burning fossil fuels.
3. As a result, summer heat waves and other extreme weather events will become more common.

"The greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now,” Hansen said. When he spoke, 1988 was on track to become the hottest year of all-time. Since then, that record has been broken six more times – in 1990, 1998, 2010, 2014, 2015 and 2016.

 

[Meister]

No matter what you say.....just follow the money and see where it goes. Lol!
The UN is a joke, I needed to mention that.

 

[sealybobo]

No matter what you say.....just follow the money and see where it goes. Lol!
The UN is a joke, I needed to mention that.

I do follow the money. Corporations pay lobbyists and scientists millions of dollars to say global warming isn't real.

The rest of the world isn't lying. Scientists from all over the world aren't lying.

It only seems to be right wingers, the GOP and Corporations who are denying global warming.

Just remember we went through this 2 times before in my lifetime. They said cigarettes don't cause cancer and they said lead was safe. They were lying but it took decades to end the fight because they were able to get half of our government to go along. The GOP who side with corporations denied and lied for decades.

And now they are doing it again on global warming. We even see the progression. Its no longer a hoax. Now they have different arguments. It's now real but not that big of a deal.

 

[Meister]

No matter what you say.....just follow the money and see where it goes. Lol!
The UN is a joke, I needed to mention that.

I do follow the money. Corporations pay lobbyists and scientists millions of dollars to say global warming isn't real.

The rest of the world isn't lying. Scientists from all over the world aren't lying.

It only seems to be right wingers, the GOP and Corporations who are denying global warming.

Just remember we went through this 2 times before in my lifetime. They said cigarettes don't cause cancer and they said lead was safe. They were lying but it took decades to end the fight because they were able to get half of our government to go along. The GOP who side with corporations denied and lied for decades.

And now they are doing it again on global warming. We even see the progression. Its no longer a hoax. Now they have different arguments. It's now real but not that big of a deal.

Good grief, get off the meds that they gave you. They can't even get their models to work right without a twist here and a jerk there.

 

[sealybobo]

No matter what you say.....just follow the money and see where it goes. Lol!
The UN is a joke, I needed to mention that.

Yes, no matter what we say.

Republican climate rhetoric shifts (again), but the goal remains the same.

In recent years, leaders of the Republican Party have become aware that denying the existence of global warming makes them look like idiots. Changes in climate have become obvious, not just to scientists, but to ordinary people — they can be directly measured, with such exotic instruments as a “thermometer.” Majorities of every group except the most conservative Republicans (who will trust their media over their lying eyes) believe it is happening.

Denying visible, tangible reality is a dicey business, even for the modern US right. It makes the party look like a death cult. So Republican climate-communication strategy has undergone something of an adjustment.

Not a large adjustment, mind you. The GOP remains dead set against doing anything about climate change, against any policy that would threaten the profits of fossil fuel companies. That is the non-negotiable baseline, despite a few fringe figures who signal otherwise (until the time comes for votes).

But front-line, hardcore denialism of the “it’s a hoax” variety has largely receded to the base. Republican leaders and spokespeople have moved back to the next line of defense: Yes, the climate is changing, but we don’t know to what extent humans are responsible.

Professional double-talker Marco Rubio, senator from the climate-battered state of Florida, ran a version of this on CNN’s Jake Tapper show earlier this month.

“Sea level rise and changes in the climate, those are measurable,” Rubio said. “I don’t think there’s a debate about whether that’s happening because you can measure that.” See? He’s a reasonable guy! Not some crazy denier.

“The secondary aspect,” he adds, “is how much of that is due to human activity...”

Tapper pushes on: “Do you believe it is man-made?”

“Humanity and its behavior, scientists say, is contributing to that,” Rubio acknowledged. “I can’t tell you to what percentage is contributing and many scientists would debate the percentage is contributable to man versus normal fluctuations, but there’s a rise in sea level, temperatures are warmer in the waters than they were 50, 80, 100 years ago. That’s measurable.”

In short: The climate is changing but we’re not sure why.

Rubio’s is not a new rhetorical ploy, of course, nor is it unique to him. But it has helped the GOP wriggle out from under the uncomfortable “denier” label. Conservative leaders who pull this move tend to get the headlines they want: “Republican acknowledges climate change.”

There are two things to say about this rhetorical move by the GOP.

First, this is still denialism. It doesn’t get Republicans out of the trap like they think it does, unless the media is incredibly lazy. (Ahem.) Second, and more broadly, the ever-shifting rhetoric of climate denial reveals that particular arguments about science were never really offered in good faith. The fact is, the GOP is the party of fossil fuels; it recognizes, accurately, that to acknowledge climate change is to empower its opponents.

Human responsibility is the whole point. It is the heart of the matter. That is precisely what the much-discussed scientific consensus is a consensus about. Denying it — or muddying it up, saying “many scientists would debate the percentage [that] is contributable to man versus normal fluctuations” — is what we mean when we talk about denialism.

It’s just not true that “many scientists” debate the human contribution to climate change. Climate scientists are effectively certain that human beings are responsible for most or all of the warming over the past few centuries. (Or more than all of it — there’s some evidence we’d be drifting toward an ice age if not for global warming.)

Nothing is 100 percent certain in science, but the reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which summarize the state of science, express a 95 percent confidence that humans have caused more than half and most likely all or more than all of recent global temperature rise. That is about as close to certain as scientists ever get about anything.

Here, from Skeptical Science, is a selection of independent peer-reviewed studies and their conclusions about the balance of human and natural “forcings” that warm the climate:

As you can see, most put the human contribution at or above 100 percent. Natural forcings are small and possibly negative, i.e., cooling.

So: Yes, humans are causing global warming and the only thing that can slow it is a rapid reduction in human greenhouse gas emissions. That is a fact, at least insofar as anything counts as a fact in these ridiculous post-truth times. There is simply no other plausible story.

Why conservatives keep gaslighting the nation about climate change

 

[sealybobo]

Look at lyin Donny

Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes presses Trump about his climate change views. He says: "I think something’s happening. Something’s changing - and it’ll change back again. I don't think it's a hoax, I think there's probably a difference. But I don't know that it's man-made."

There’s no argument here. Trump does not make arguments. There are just ... phrases, unconnected to the phrases that precede and follow them. It’s just bits of rhetoric Trump has heard — his impression of what his people say about these things — jumbled up in his brain.

Note that someone clearly told him before the interview that the “hoax” thing is a trap and he should not outright deny climate change. You can tell, because he just blurts it out: “I don’t think it’s a hoax.” And then, “I’m not denying climate change.”

But he is.

He says “something’s changing and it’ll change back again.” That’s denying climate change. He says “I don’t know that it’s manmade.” That’s denying climate change (see above). He says there’s no way to know if Greenland glaciers would be melting without human activity. That’s denying climate change.

She protests: “But that’s denying it.” She asks, “What about all the scientists?”

“Scientists also have a political agenda,” he says. That sounds like he’s calling it a hoax!

The point here is not to catch Trump in a contradiction. Trump contradicts himself every time he opens his mouth. He does not have beliefs as such, not like we ordinarily understand them, and so he can’t really contradict himself. Nothing divided by nothing is nothing.

Rather, the point is that Trump, in this as in so many other areas, is a rawer, truer reflection of right-wing thinking on this subject.

Listening to him talk, it’s clear that everything is geared around defending the right’s tribal position. He just says whatever comes to mind in that pursuit, grabs whatever talking point bubbles up from his Fox-informed subconscious. It doesn’t matter — I’m sure it never occurs to him — that half the things he says don’t fit with the other half. He’s not offering good-faith arguments, statements of fact or reasoning meant to be subject to critical scrutiny.

Persuasion is not any part of this, in either direction. The goal is only to deflect, confuse, and mislead, in defense of the status quo.

 

[sealybobo]

No matter what you say.....just follow the money and see where it goes. Lol!
The UN is a joke, I needed to mention that.

I do follow the money. Corporations pay lobbyists and scientists millions of dollars to say global warming isn't real.

The rest of the world isn't lying. Scientists from all over the world aren't lying.

It only seems to be right wingers, the GOP and Corporations who are denying global warming.

Just remember we went through this 2 times before in my lifetime. They said cigarettes don't cause cancer and they said lead was safe. They were lying but it took decades to end the fight because they were able to get half of our government to go along. The GOP who side with corporations denied and lied for decades.

And now they are doing it again on global warming. We even see the progression. Its no longer a hoax. Now they have different arguments. It's now real but not that big of a deal.

Good grief, get off the meds that they gave you. They can't even get their models to work right without a twist here and a jerk there.

So you are denying global warming is man made. Got it flat earther.

 

[sealybobo]

Despite the best efforts of President Donald Trump and his administration to disappear information about our increasingly dire situation, straightforward climate denialism is becoming increasingly untenable as a talking point. Not only are respected scientific bodies continuing to issue highly credible, hair-on-fire reports about our careening path toward the worst-case scenario, but also extreme weather events and calamitous wildfires are bearing out those reports all over the nation's front pages. Polls show that the majority of Republican voters make the connection. In the face of such overwhelming evidence, outright denial is looking sillier than ever.

Hence the new GOP "pivot" on climate change. Some Republican politicians are now admitting that climate change is real and that something needs to be done about it. What is that "something"? The answer, for many is "innovate." Here is Wyoming senator John Barrasso, for example, in The New York Times, arguing that we need to "Cut Carbon Through Innovation, Not Regulation." (As an example, Barrasso cites a speculative carbon-sequestration process called enhanced oil recovery: "By injecting carbon dioxide into an otherwise unproductive well, oil can be economically extracted. This is good for the environment and the economy—producing more American energy and sequestering carbon dioxide underground.")

Then there's Thom Tillis, senator from North Carolina, who called for "an innovative, market-driven strategy to combat the impacts of climate change." Marco Rubio of Florida said, "To the extent that we want to truly limit carbon emissions, technology can get us there." And on Fox News, Ben Sasse of Nebraska said, "You can't legislate or regulate your way into the [pre-warming] past. We have to innovate our way into the future."

This innovative messaging shift recalls an earlier pivot 16 years ago, when Republican messaging guru Frank Luntz told the party in a confidential memo that they had "lost the environmental communications battle," particularly on the subject of global warming. Luntz advised GOP officeholders to play up the notion of scientific uncertainty, to say "climate change" instead of the scarier "global warming," and to play up the "unfairness" of the United States being asked to do more than China or India. There's also this:

Global warming alarmists use American superiority in technology and innovation quite effectively in responding to accusations that international agreements such as the Kyoto accord [the predecessor to the Paris climate accord] could cost the United States billions. . . . This should be our argument. We need to emphasize how voluntary innovation and experimentation are preferable to bureaucratic or international intervention and regulation.

So—pretty much the same playbook as today.

Very few Republican leaders have dared to go beyond these lip service appeals to support the kinds of governmental policies that might actually lead to serious innovation. After the release of the National Climate Assessment, Republican senator Susan Collins of Maine ventured the heretical opinion that "we should reconsider some regulatory steps that the president has been eager to overturn." Last year, Carlos Curbelo, a GOP representative from Florida, went so far as to introduce legislation to institute a carbon tax of $24 per ton. But the bill never came up for a vote and died with the last Congress. Curbelo says that he hopes it will be reintroduced this year—but unfortunately he isn't in a position to do so himself, having lost in November to Democrat Debbie Mucarsel-Powell.

The GOP’s “Modified Limited Hangout” on Climate Change

 

[Meister]

No matter what you say.....just follow the money and see where it goes. Lol!
The UN is a joke, I needed to mention that.

I do follow the money. Corporations pay lobbyists and scientists millions of dollars to say global warming isn't real.

The rest of the world isn't lying. Scientists from all over the world aren't lying.

It only seems to be right wingers, the GOP and Corporations who are denying global warming.

Just remember we went through this 2 times before in my lifetime. They said cigarettes don't cause cancer and they said lead was safe. They were lying but it took decades to end the fight because they were able to get half of our government to go along. The GOP who side with corporations denied and lied for decades.

And now they are doing it again on global warming. We even see the progression. Its no longer a hoax. Now they have different arguments. It's now real but not that big of a deal.

Good grief, get off the meds that they gave you. They can't even get their models to work right without a twist here and a jerk there.

So you are denying global warming is man made. Got it flat earther.

I'm saying that it's much more cyclical than man made. I laugh at people like you who thinks
it's all man made. You can't tell me how much of a temperature change has been the result of man.
Yet you're willing to spend trillions of the US economy to try and stop it.
Again...I laugh at you.

 

[Unkotare]

Can anyone guess how many people were alive on earth during the largest (perhaps) extinction events in the history of the earth?

Anyone?

Maybe we pulled an Avengers and went back in time 250 million years or so to cause all those extinctions before humans existed.

 

[Slyhunter]

The coasts might be over-populated but we have plenty of empty space in the center of the country. We just have too many selfish self-centered idiots around.

Plenty more room to pack more sardines in

The United States of America is one of the least populous countries in the world for its size. We have lots and lots of room.

It really is scary that a dummy like you teaches children. Ok so you need more evidence we are overpopulated?

Shocking New Report On Loss Of Nature Paints A Terrifying Picture For The Future Of Humanity
Up to 1 million species are at risk of extinction.

Planet Earth has been put on red alert by hundreds of leading scientists who have warned that humanity faces an existential threat within decades if the steep decline of nature is not reversed.

The conclusions of the greatest-ever stock-taking of the living world, published on Monday, show that ecosystems and wild populations are shrinking, deteriorating or vanishing completely, and up to 1 million species of land and marine life could be made extinct by humans’ actions if present trends continue.


CHECK MATE BITCH!!!!

Food, pollination, clean water and a stable climate all depend on a thriving plant and animal population. But forests and wetlands are being erased worldwide and oceans are under growing stress, says the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the United Nations’ expert nature panel, in the landmark global assessment report. The three-year study, compiled by nearly 500 scientists, analyzed around 15,000 academic studies that focused on everything from plankton and fish to bees, coral, forests, frogs and insects, as well as drawing on indigenous knowledge.

If we continue to pollute the planet and waste natural resources as we have been doing, it won’t just affect people’s quality of life but will lead to a further deterioration of earth’s planetary systems, said the IPBES scientists.

Do you not understand Evolution? The old die to make room for the new.

 

[Slyhunter]

No matter what you say.....just follow the money and see where it goes. Lol!
The UN is a joke, I needed to mention that.

I do follow the money. Corporations pay lobbyists and scientists millions of dollars to say global warming isn't real.

The rest of the world isn't lying. Scientists from all over the world aren't lying.

It only seems to be right wingers, the GOP and Corporations who are denying global warming.

Just remember we went through this 2 times before in my lifetime. They said cigarettes don't cause cancer and they said lead was safe. They were lying but it took decades to end the fight because they were able to get half of our government to go along. The GOP who side with corporations denied and lied for decades.

And now they are doing it again on global warming. We even see the progression. Its no longer a hoax. Now they have different arguments. It's now real but not that big of a deal.

Good grief, get off the meds that they gave you. They can't even get their models to work right without a twist here and a jerk there.

So you are denying global warming is man made. Got it flat earther.

So you are denying that global warming and cooling are natural side effects of nature and solar activity. You are the neanderthal.

 

[Flopper]

Simple question before I head out to work. Do you believe in overpopulation, do you think it's a current problem or a very near future one, and what label would you use to identify yourself overall?

Population of the earth or the US? The average global birth rate is 18.5 births per 1,000 total population in 2016. The death rate is 7.8 per 1,000 per year. So, yes population is still growing. However, when you look at individual countries, the picture is quite different. Some ethnic groups will essentially be extinct in a hundred years. Other will dominate the planet.