• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Climate change as a tool of tyranny

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Because I deal with reality as it is in the here and now, if the worst of the AGW future climate projections turn out to be correct, then I would accept it,
But then it would be too late if the projections are correct.

The great danger is that if it goes up much more, then the permafrost would gradually melt and release increasing tons of methane gas into the atmosphere, which is 20 times more heat retentive than CO2.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
It's My Birthday!
But then it would be too late if the projections are correct.

The great danger is that if it goes up much more, then the permafrost would gradually melt and release increasing tons of methane gas into the atmosphere, which is 20 times more heat retentive than CO2.
The planet's constitutional aspects are forever trying to reach a state of homeostasis in a larger stellar constitution trying to reach homeostasis, the planet's climate is just one aspect, it can never be controlled by mankind imho.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The planet's constitutional aspects are forever trying to reach a state of homeostasis in a larger stellar constitution trying to reach homeostasis, the planet's climate is just one aspect, it can never be controlled by mankind imho.
Like I said, a denier of reality should never use a face palm emoji.

But nice word salad.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
If we assume anthropogenic climate control is real, then it is possible for unscrupulous governments to change the climate in ways that will tyrannize populations and control them.
I believe the anthropomorphic changes in the climate are at present a runaway change. Human influence cannot significantly reduce the current trends anymore. Population growth and energy demands are off the chart. Sorry for the pessimistic approach, but the numbers for global climate change very well may radically change the future of human civilization.

Despite the fact that little can be done to stop or even reduce the trends Governments can and do manipulate and control resources, and control weaker nations with deteriorating climates and divided by conflict like Russia is doing in Africa with the Wagner private army/
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
The planet's constitutional aspects are forever trying to reach a state of homeostasis in a larger stellar constitution trying to reach homeostasis, the planet's climate is just one aspect, it can never be controlled by mankind imho.
We're not talking about "control" but about "influence".

There's a Buddhist koan that goes "When a butterfly flaps its wings, the weather is changed the world over"-- or words to that effect. We as humans have an influence since we are a part of this world, and the research is clearly showing that this up-tick with global warming over the last several decades is entirely of human cause-- mainly higher levels of C02 and methane.

This is what the researchers now know.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
It's My Birthday!
We're not talking about "control" but about "influence".

There's a Buddhist koan that goes "When a butterfly flaps its wings, the weather is changed the world over"-- or words to that effect. We as humans have an influence since we are a part of this world, and the research is clearly showing that this up-tick with global warming over the last several decades is entirely of human cause-- mainly higher levels of C02 and methane.

This is what the researchers now know.
I agree that humans contribute a certain influence on the planet's climate, along with a multitude of other natural planetary contributions. But who among humanity has the authority and wisdom to determine the amount of human contribution that is appropriate from the whole planet's health's view, not just the human elite's perspective?
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
The biggest problem I have is connected to those who work under the doom and gloom assumption of the Left, that climate change is all bad, rather that just a movement toward a new steady state. The fear of the unknown and those who take advantage is the real problem.

If the earth gets warmer, more water will be in the atmosphere for more rain. Land, now under ice with a shorter growing season, will come into play. These changes will help feed the growing populations. I have lived in the northern and southern USA, which represents a span of 5 grow zones. If all the grow zones increase by one, it will be warmer with milder winters and longer grow seasons. We will need less fossil fuel for heat. It is all balancing itself to the needs of the growing world populations.

Doom and gloom seems to dominate, since there are more pessimists than optimists. When the earth warmed form the last ice age, 1700 miles of glaciers, the circumference of the earth, melted and open more habitable land, allowing humans to emerge as the new dominant species. It was not all doom and gloom, but it had a bright side.

If we were back then, today, the pessimists would also proclaim the world would end. The fear mongers need accountability since this scam is too political. Name me one thing the Left gives up? If all these people are going to die, of doom and gloom, maybe we need to outlaw abortion to keep the population up? I am sorry, you guys are for population control, which you expect to get.

It should be more about preparing for change instead of trying to stop time with pseudo applied science. Much of this fear comes from casino math, since this black box approach can be scary, since it allows your imagination to go wild via finite odds of doom and gloom. This approach is from a misinterpretation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, that shows us that some areas of science, into casino math, is more like an atheist religion, with a modern, ends of time, knock off scenario.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
The biggest problem I have is connected to those who work under the doom and gloom assumption of the Left, that climate change is all bad, rather that just a movement toward a new steady state. The fear of the unknown and those who take advantage is the real problem.

If the earth gets warmer, more water will be in the atmosphere for more rain. Land, now under ice with a shorter growing season, will come into play. These changes will help feed the growing populations. I have lived in the northern and southern USA, which represents a span of 5 grow zones. If all the grow zones increase by one, it will be warmer with milder winters and longer grow seasons. We will need less fossil fuel for heat. It is all balancing itself to the needs of the growing world populations.

Doom and gloom seems to dominate, since there are more pessimists than optimists. When the earth warmed form the last ice age, 1700 miles of glaciers, the circumference of the earth, melted and open more habitable land, allowing humans to emerge as the new dominant species. It was not all doom and gloom, but it had a bright side.

If we were back then, today, the pessimists would also proclaim the world would end. The fear mongers need accountability since this scam is too political. Name me one thing the Left gives up? If all these people are going to die, of doom and gloom, maybe we need to outlaw abortion to keep the population up? I am sorry, you guys are for population control, which you expect to get.

It should be more about preparing for change instead of trying to stop time with pseudo applied science. Much of this fear comes from casino math, since this black box approach can be scary, since it allows your imagination to go wild via finite odds of doom and gloom. This approach is from a misinterpretation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, that shows us that some areas of science, into casino math, is more like an atheist religion, with a modern, ends of time, knock off scenario.
The above certainly is devoid of objective science and is only your ill-informed opinion.
 

JIMMY12345

Active Member
If we assume anthropogenic climate control is real, then it is possible for unscrupulous governments to change the climate in ways that will tyrannize populations and control them.
One wonders how heart felt the Climate change agenda actually is. Take the most recent climate change conference in Kenya. Google
"Kenya Pandora papers" Kenyans and others are in shock at the mega amount of money deposited abroad. This could be used for solar panels, Wind energy in Kenya and other countries. I do not mind if world leaders hang on to their Mercedes and Audi's. I just wish they would not lecture the West at great length. Most ordinary Kenyans do not have cars or use 6 lane city Highways. Maybe the problem is not unscrupulous governments but those that keep money abroad. This invested in the country of origin could liberate populations and help achieve climate control.
 

JIMMY12345

Active Member
If we assume anthropogenic climate control is real, then it is possible for unscrupulous governments to change the climate in ways that will tyrannize populations and control them.
Trying to change the climate in a good way can badly effect populations.Very badly.

Deutsche Welle did 2 documentaries on the internet.One on copper.The other on cobalt.We need both for green batteries and solar batteries.Copper is from S America.Cobalt is from Congo/Finland.Their huge metal deposits are a curse.For them.
In the Congo the work is back breaking and some make 50 cents (USA) a day.

The local population suffer from contaminated land.The water is poisoned.Cancers are well above norm.Both for miners breathing contaminated dust and their kids in the locality.Child labour in Congo still happens.The land is so contaminated it cannot revert to local farming/fishing.
There is an argument as we recycle electric cars etc we will reach a level where mining is not needed.

I think this is a silly argument.India,China,Africa very rightly all want a Western lifestyle.This includes lots of cars and SUV's in the future.Their citizens pay a heavy price.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Trying to change the climate in a good way can badly effect populations.Very badly.

Deutsche Welle did 2 documentaries on the internet.One on copper.The other on cobalt.We need both for green batteries and solar batteries.Copper is from S America.Cobalt is from Congo/Finland.Their huge metal deposits are a curse.For them.
In the Congo the work is back breaking and some make 50 cents (USA) a day.

The local population suffer from contaminated land.The water is poisoned.Cancers are well above norm.Both for miners breathing contaminated dust and their kids in the locality.Child labour in Congo still happens.The land is so contaminated it cannot revert to local farming/fishing.
There is an argument as we recycle electric cars etc we will reach a level where mining is not needed.

I think this is a silly argument.India,China,Africa very rightly all want a Western lifestyle.This includes lots of cars and SUV's in the future.Their citizens pay a heavy price.
None of these things is free from problems, true, but climate change must be addressed without delay, even if some of the current solutions create some problems. There will be a variety of technologies that can be used and we need to explore a lot of them and not rely on only one. For instance I have read some encouraging progress with a battery technology that uses sodium and Prussian White, and avoids the need for cobalt. We will get better at this.
 
Top