ussr hubzilla

@zlax right! But the elimination of debt must surely have positive influence there too. Indebted nations are compelled to extract whatever resource, whether cobalt or oil, to reduce debt.

Utilising the sizeable support for climate action for anti-debt action seems a useful canalisation.

Sun, 20 Aug 2023 23:56:03 +0300

ivan zlax

zlax@ussr.win

@Doug Webb this looks like unconscious PR, just to get the attention of the privileged westerners. you might as well say: let's cancel the debts for the sake of gender justice. Trendy, stylish, youthful.

That said, the Western climate agenda itself is a form of neo-colonialism. For example, the anti-scientific but well-promoted idea of reducing carbon dioxide in atmosphere is designed to impose a global carbon tax. At the same time, the reduction of carbon dioxide leads to a reduction in green mass, and therefore in yields.

This initiative then sounds like: "let's support a carbon tax to cancel the debt". I don't think poor countries should support debt exactly as much as a neo-colonial climate change agenda. This seems like an attempt to replace one Western deception with another. It is better to refuse the West's imposed debts and its climate agenda at the same time.

Wed, 23 Aug 2023 11:46:19 +0300

Doug Webb

douginamug@mastodon.xyz

@zlax if you disagree with the CO2-heating-bad argument, you obviously think the campaign is bad. I think it's bad faith and lazy to call that argument "anti-scientific". The fundamental relationship is well established. The onus is on you on that one

The green-mass counterargument relates to another established phenomenon, but we've not had issues with CO2 levels til now (50,000 years) and the side effects are cause for concern

And yes, I do think that debt causes effects down gender lines

Wed, 23 Aug 2023 13:03:05 +0300

ivan zlax

zlax@ussr.win

@Doug Webb

@ivan zlax if you disagree with the CO2-heating-bad argument, you obviously think the campaign is bad.

The campaign is bad for me, as it is for the majority of the world's population. For the privileged Western minority, this campaign is good and necessary for the continuation of neocolonial policies.
Some researchers point out that a reduction in carbon dioxide will lead to a reduction in crop yields:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-agricultural-science/article/abs/growth-and-yield-responses-of-rice-to-carbon-dioxide-concentration/4B4E18C5E11B266FAA9DDBA3C386551F - in this sense, this clearly correlates with the depopulationist Western agenda.

I think it's bad faith and lazy to call that argument "anti-scientific". The fundamental relationship is well established.

This anti-science campaign is deliberately supported by those who are paid for it and hope for further preferential treatment, and unknowingly by those who probably skipped school while studying botany, in particular the process of photosynthesis.
This is not just my opinion, an inhabitant of a raw colony of the West: "What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that carbon dioxide from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that carbon
dioxide, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.” - it s words of Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry, he is the author of more than 200 scientific papers, he served as the Gordon McKay Professor of Dynamic Meteorology at Harvard University. Source of the quote:

https://www.sec.gov/comments/climate-disclosure/cll12-8855233-238421.pdf

The green-mass counterargument relates to another established phenomenon, but we've not had issues with CO2 levels til now (50,000 years) and the side effects are cause for concern

It's a natural science:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004 - Nature: Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/grl.50563 - AGU: Satellite observations reveal a greening of the globe over recent decades

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth - NASA: CO2 Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
This is practice:

https://www.easy-grow.co.uk/the-importance-of-adding-co2-to-your-grow-room/ - Easy Grow: Growers have observed up to a 100% increase in grow speed at 1,500 PPM

I call proponents of reducing greening by imposing a carbon tax "ideological herbicidists".

Thu, 24 Aug 2023 18:32:35 +0300

Doug Webb

douginamug@mastodon.xyz

@zlax it seems you are more confident the argument is false, than I am it is true... Not sure if talking will be fruitful.

Look, I agree that increasing CO2 concentration increases photosynthetic rate increases plant matter. Already in the previous point. That sound like it would be cool if that was the only effect.

The issue I and other have with increasing CO2 is increasing temperature (net energy increase) and the the effects it is having and may have. Also ocean acidification.

Fri, 25 Aug 2023 19:46:07 +0300

ivan zlax

zlax@ussr.win

@Doug Webb

The issue I and other have with increasing CO2 is increasing temperature (net energy increase) and the the effects it is having and may have. Also ocean acidification.

Perhaps you attribute it to the increasing temperature since your neocolonial privileges indirectly depend on it.
Rather, perceptions of increasing temperatures are likely based on falsified NOAA's data:

https://wolnemedia.net/szczyt-klimatyczny/
Here i translated it from Polish to English:

https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/14fgiqq/noaas_improved_historical_temperature_measurements/
A PhD climatologist confirmed these data and these corrections, but she couldn’t explain the reason for so much selective homogenization.
The Investor's Business Daily wrote about this fraud:

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/
Bottom line, based on falsified data, you justify the decline of the plant food base - carbon dioxide, and as a result means other carbon-based life forms on planet.

Fri, 08 Sep 2023 07:41:47 +0300

ivan zlax

zlax@ussr.win

@Doug Webb, clear demonstration of why Westerners are so zealous about reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere:

link

How will you reduce the population of the planet when the amount of food on the planet is increasing? Apparently this is the reason for your global neocolonial policies.

“Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon, you control life.”

Fri, 08 Sep 2023 23:27:19 +0300

Doug Webb

douginamug@mastodon.xyz

@zlax Yes! Let's totally funnel CO2 into greenhouses, I think that's a great idea. (Also: I am very glad I don't live in a greenhouse.)

Look, this anti-population thing... I don't get it. There are so many clearly bad neocolonial policies, not at all hidden, that I don't see why people are focussing on this pretty nebulous one.

Like debt. The point that kicked this all off. Or the fragility of peoples recently being rid of direct colonization, only face rabid 'liberalization'.

Mon, 11 Sep 2023 22:37:36 +0300

ivan zlax

zlax@ussr.win

@Doug Webb
> Yes! Let's totally funnel CO2 into greenhouses, I think that's a great idea. (Also: I am very glad I don't live in a greenhouse.)

Well, of course, because only in greenhouses is it possible to control growth and distribution. You are strongly against increasing yields outside of greenhouses: when greenery and crops increase uncontrollably. That must be a bad dream for you. No one can doubt that you are against increasing vegetation outside of artificial greenhouses.

> Look, this anti-population thing... I don't get it. There are so many clearly bad neocolonial policies, not at all
> hidden, that I don't see why people are focussing on this pretty nebulous one.

What does "nebulous" mean in this context? You see nothing wrong with this and you are trying to justify this practice in this way? You must be a proponent of the Western scientistic ideology that the planet is overpopulated?

Image/photo

This Western misanthropic ideology is an integral part of climate change ideology initially. As Alexander King's (one of the developers of the concept of "sustainable development") book, The First Global Revolution, stated: “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill… All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.” (p.75)

Or maybe you're not yet a proponent of this ideology and by its nebulous you mean it's unfounded? In that case, it's more like "voluntary ignorance" - biassed avoidance of information that is in the public domain. If censorship mechanisms restrict you from information undesirable for you - tell me - i will provide you links to relevant documents and articles touching upon the topic of realization of deliberate depopulation by Western countries in various ways.

Thu, 14 Sep 2023 00:19:01 +0300

Doug Webb

douginamug@mastodon.xyz

@zlax the ppm that makes a difference for plant growth (800ppm+) would be horrible for non-plants if it was the atmospheric concentration. Ocean pH, increased GWP, increased weather energetics, blood pH (cognition). I am a dedicated believer in common goods: huge CO2 concentration isn't one of them.

You must surely agree there comes a point where increasing numbers of humans has diminishing returns to human happiness and severe negatives for other lifeforms. We are obligate heterotrophs. ...

Thu, 14 Sep 2023 00:21:27 +0300

Doug Webb

douginamug@mastodon.xyz

@zlax ... hopefully we are only debating about what that ideal would be. Well, projections are a balancing our at ~10bn at 2050, so number is perhaps not relevant. More relevant is the increasing resource demand - rightfully - by people who have not had a fair share of the world's bounty.

It feels like you take a "population maximalist" position?

Sun, 17 Sep 2023 12:27:16 +0300

ivan zlax

zlax@ussr.win

@Doug Webb
> the ppm that makes a difference for plant growth (800ppm+) would be horrible for non-plants if it was the atmospheric concentration.

No, it doesn't work like that. For plants, any value matters: the less carbon dioxide the worse the plants grow, and the more carbon dioxide (up to a certain limit) the better the plants grow.
Image/photo

At low carbon dioxide concentrations, plants become underdeveloped.
Image/photo

> I am a dedicated believer in common goods: huge CO2 concentration isn't one of them.

Please clarify what you mean by "huge". What exactly is the PPM?

Sun, 17 Sep 2023 12:37:15 +0300

ivan zlax

zlax@ussr.win

@Doug Webb

> You must surely agree there comes a point where increasing numbers of humans has diminishing returns
> to human happiness and severe negatives for other lifeforms. We are obligate heterotrophs. ...

I don't think such a moment is coming. It would require a couple of orders of magnitude increase in the human population.

> More relevant is the increasing resource demand - rightfully - by people who have not had a fair share of the world's bounty.

"A fair share of the world's bounty"? Are you saying that Westerners ended up with a large share of the world's bounty quite fairly?

> It feels like you take a "population maximalist" position?

No, i'm sticking to a "population normalist" position. According to this position, the planet is underpopulated.

I also think it's a good idea to increase the population by at least one and a half to a couple of times as soon as possible, given the rate of technological advancement.

Well, i would also recommend that Westerners reduce their overall level of consumption and stop translating their values and standard of living to the rest of the world, extrapolating their personal problems of a privileged minority to the majority of the rest of the world.

Tue, 03 Oct 2023 10:50:22 +0300

ivan zlax

zlax@ussr.win

@Doug Webb Meteorologists, scientists explain why there is No Climate Emergency:

https://archive.ph/20230913211723/https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/meteorologists-scientists-explain-why-there-is-no-climate-emergency-5489139

World’s Simplest Argument that proves human CO2 does not change the climate:

https://edberry.com/epochtimes

Image/photo

And another one new study: The Rising-CO2-Causes-Warming Perception Not Supported By Real-World Observation

https://doi.org/10.3390/sci5030035