Kudos to all the people protesting today. Governments need to get off their holes and do something.
Yeah, like build more runways at Heathrow.
Its not just the governments.
- Airbus and Boeing don't build aircraft because governments told them to. They do it because Joe Public wants to fly from A to B.
- Car manufacturers are the same. Public demand shapes industry response.
- If the govts went full renewable electricity, we'd all be bitching (and out of work) 'cos of the price of electric.
- The Western world wastes almost as much food as it eats.
Complicated solution....
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49567197
Nuclear Fission is probably the best method right now with Fusion the longer term goal
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on September 20, 2019, 08:42:01 PM
Its not just the governments.
- Airbus and Boeing don't build aircraft because governments told them to. They do it because Joe Public wants to fly from A to B.
- Car manufacturers are the same. Public demand shapes industry response.
- If the govts went full renewable electricity, we'd all be bitching (and out of work) 'cos of the price of electric.
- The Western world wastes almost as much food as it eats.
Governments can have a huge impact on what industry builds. It took government to take the lead out of petrol and CFCs out of aerosol propellants. They're well able to regulate the fuel that burns in jet engines.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 21, 2019, 04:26:52 AM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on September 20, 2019, 08:42:01 PM
Its not just the governments.
- Airbus and Boeing don't build aircraft because governments told them to. They do it because Joe Public wants to fly from A to B.
- Car manufacturers are the same. Public demand shapes industry response.
- If the govts went full renewable electricity, we'd all be bitching (and out of work) 'cos of the price of electric.
- The Western world wastes almost as much food as it eats.
Governments can have a huge impact on what industry builds. It took government to take the lead out of petrol and CFCs out of aerosol propellants. They're well able to regulate the fuel that burns in jet engines.
Are you proposing they take the carbon out of aviation fuel?
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 20, 2019, 08:54:36 PM
Complicated solution....
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49567197
Nuclear Fission is probably the best method right now with Fusion the longer term goal
Agreed.
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on September 20, 2019, 08:42:01 PM
Its not just the governments.
- Airbus and Boeing don't build aircraft because governments told them to. They do it because Joe Public wants to fly from A to B.
- Car manufacturers are the same. Public demand shapes industry response.
- If the govts went full renewable electricity, we'd all be bitching (and out of work) 'cos of the price of electric.
- The Western world wastes almost as much food as it eats.
Yip wonder how many eco warriers have 3 or 4 flights a year, I haven't been on a plane since 2012 and hopefully never get on another one.
Quote from: t_mac on September 21, 2019, 01:52:21 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on September 20, 2019, 08:42:01 PM
Its not just the governments.
- Airbus and Boeing don't build aircraft because governments told them to. They do it because Joe Public wants to fly from A to B.
- Car manufacturers are the same. Public demand shapes industry response.
- If the govts went full renewable electricity, we'd all be bitching (and out of work) 'cos of the price of electric.
- The Western world wastes almost as much food as it eats.
Yip wonder how many eco warriers have 3 or 4 flights a year, I haven't been on a plane since 2012 and hopefully never get on another one.
Is this because you just haven't had the chance to, or you're abstaining from flying?
Pointing out that solutions are at the minute very difficult to come by is an important part of any solution.
Proposing simple solutions to complex problems is the very definition of populism.
Defining this discussion as those who agree with us and those who disagree is a guarantee to get nowhere.
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 20, 2019, 08:54:36 PM
Complicated solution....
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49567197
Nuclear Fission is probably the best method right now with Fusion the longer term goal
course it is.
Yet the hippies in Greenpeace etc won't go for it. They want to try and force everyone back to being hunter gatherers ffs.
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on September 21, 2019, 05:35:57 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 20, 2019, 08:54:36 PM
Complicated solution....
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49567197
Nuclear Fission is probably the best method right now with Fusion the longer term goal
course it is.
Yet the hippies in Greenpeace etc won't go for it. They want to try and force everyone back to being hunter gatherers ffs.
I can see why people would be opposed to fission considering the risk of meltdown and the problem with radioactive waste. However all this needs to be squared with the risk level which is reducing all the time.. I think I read that fission is safer than solar in terms of deaths but of course it's hard to quantify. But the debate around fission needs to be much more objective and informed because at the minute its not
Fusion tho would be inherently safe but rather perplexingly I discovered that Greenpeace is opposed to it.
Of course nuclear is not available to all countries and those which are evolving themselves into industrialised economies will almost always gravitate towards coal due to its stand alone ability.
Greenpeace is opposed to fusion?! WTF?
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 21, 2019, 06:31:04 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 21, 2019, 04:26:52 AM
Governments can have a huge impact on what industry builds. It took government to take the lead out of petrol and CFCs out of aerosol propellants. They're well able to regulate the fuel that burns in jet engines.
Are you proposing they take the carbon out of aviation fuel?
https://theicct.org/publications/long-term-aviation-fuel-decarbonization-progress-roadblocks-and-policy-opportunities
Quote from: BennyCake on September 21, 2019, 02:35:00 PM
Quote from: t_mac on September 21, 2019, 01:52:21 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on September 20, 2019, 08:42:01 PM
Its not just the governments.
- Airbus and Boeing don't build aircraft because governments told them to. They do it because Joe Public wants to fly from A to B.
- Car manufacturers are the same. Public demand shapes industry response.
- If the govts went full renewable electricity, we'd all be bitching (and out of work) 'cos of the price of electric.
- The Western world wastes almost as much food as it eats.
Yip wonder how many eco warriers have 3 or 4 flights a year, I haven't been on a plane since 2012 and hopefully never get on another one.
Is this because you just haven't had the chance to, or you're abstaining from flying?
Don't fly, the 2012 one was to London when I was forced to go for work, no problem with any one flying but do have an issue with someone telling me to how to save the planet when they are flying a lot and staying in hotels.
Quote from: t_mac on September 22, 2019, 04:05:30 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on September 21, 2019, 02:35:00 PM
Quote from: t_mac on September 21, 2019, 01:52:21 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on September 20, 2019, 08:42:01 PM
Its not just the governments.
- Airbus and Boeing don't build aircraft because governments told them to. They do it because Joe Public wants to fly from A to B.
- Car manufacturers are the same. Public demand shapes industry response.
- If the govts went full renewable electricity, we'd all be bitching (and out of work) 'cos of the price of electric.
- The Western world wastes almost as much food as it eats.
Yip wonder how many eco warriers have 3 or 4 flights a year, I haven't been on a plane since 2012 and hopefully never get on another one.
Is this because you just haven't had the chance to, or you're abstaining from flying?
Don't fly, the 2012 one was to London when I was forced to go for work, no problem with any one flying but do have an issue with someone telling me to how to save the planet when they are flying a lot and staying in hotels.
Heard some people said they're not going to fly again due to climate change. The planes are still going like, so whether you're sat in them or not, it's still creating pollution. Daft argument really.
In which case every argument is daft. Let doomsday come sooner better most of educated world are selfish pricks.
There is a simple solution staring us in the face but no one wants to admit it. There are too many people on the planet. Sin é.
Yip need a good plague, unfortunately it will be the poor and weak wiped out and the greedy selfish pricks will stay and fcuk the planet up.
Quote from: t_mac on September 22, 2019, 09:28:11 PM
In which case every argument is daft. Let doomsday come sooner better most of educated world are selfish pricks.
Yes every argument is daft. But do you see any less cars or planes flying? Nope. So, whatever. I won't be feeling guilty for driving, breathing, farting and lighting my coal fire.
Quote from: BennyCake on September 22, 2019, 10:47:55 PM
Quote from: t_mac on September 22, 2019, 09:28:11 PM
In which case every argument is daft. Let doomsday come sooner better most of educated world are selfish pricks.
Yes every argument is daft. But do you see any less cars or planes flying? Nope. So, whatever. I won't be feeling guilty for driving, breathing, farting and lighting my coal fire.
Benny, a small piece of advice, Read over your post before you post.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 22, 2019, 03:59:48 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 21, 2019, 06:31:04 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 21, 2019, 04:26:52 AM
Governments can have a huge impact on what industry builds. It took government to take the lead out of petrol and CFCs out of aerosol propellants. They're well able to regulate the fuel that burns in jet engines.
Are you proposing they take the carbon out of aviation fuel?
https://theicct.org/publications/long-term-aviation-fuel-decarbonization-progress-roadblocks-and-policy-opportunities
That article just basically outlines current problems and hypothetical solutions...doesnt really discuss the practicalities of the solution like this linked related article on the same website.
https://theicct.org/blog/staff/decarbonizing-aviation-through-low-carbon-fuels-will-be-beyond-difficult
Fact is there is no good practical solution to jet travel GHG emissions coming any time soon.
Quote from: Silver hill on September 23, 2019, 12:04:49 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on September 22, 2019, 10:47:55 PM
Quote from: t_mac on September 22, 2019, 09:28:11 PM
In which case every argument is daft. Let doomsday come sooner better most of educated world are selfish pricks.
Yes every argument is daft. But do you see any less cars or planes flying? Nope. So, whatever. I won't be feeling guilty for driving, breathing, farting and lighting my coal fire.
Benny, a small piece of advice, Read over your post before you post.
Oh, is there a spelling mistake?
Quote from: BennyCake on September 22, 2019, 10:47:55 PM
Quote from: t_mac on September 22, 2019, 09:28:11 PM
In which case every argument is daft. Let doomsday come sooner better most of educated world are selfish pricks.
Yes every argument is daft. But do you see any less cars or planes flying? Nope. So, whatever. I won't be feeling guilty for driving, breathing, farting and lighting my coal fire.
You should get into your coal fire once it's lit. Get the full benefit of it. ;)
Quote from: BennyCake on September 23, 2019, 10:54:09 AM
Quote from: Silver hill on September 23, 2019, 12:04:49 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on September 22, 2019, 10:47:55 PM
Quote from: t_mac on September 22, 2019, 09:28:11 PM
In which case every argument is daft. Let doomsday come sooner better most of educated world are selfish pricks.
Yes every argument is daft. But do you see any less cars or planes flying? Nope. So, whatever. I won't be feeling guilty for driving, breathing, farting and lighting my coal fire.
Benny, a small piece of advice, Read over your post before you post.
Oh, is there a spelling mistake?
Spelling's fine. But with comments like that, Are you per chance a member of the evangelical wing of the DUP's flat earth society?
Quote from: Silver hill on September 23, 2019, 03:21:50 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on September 23, 2019, 10:54:09 AM
Quote from: Silver hill on September 23, 2019, 12:04:49 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on September 22, 2019, 10:47:55 PM
Quote from: t_mac on September 22, 2019, 09:28:11 PM
In which case every argument is daft. Let doomsday come sooner better most of educated world are selfish pricks.
Yes every argument is daft. But do you see any less cars or planes flying? Nope. So, whatever. I won't be feeling guilty for driving, breathing, farting and lighting my coal fire.
Benny, a small piece of advice, Read over your post before you post.
Oh, is there a spelling mistake?
Spelling's fine. But with comments like that, Are you per chance a member of the evangelical wing of the DUP's flat earth society?
No, they wouldn't let me in their club. Backstards!
At the end of the day, plenty of people are giving out, but people have to get to work and heat their homes. This climate crisis has been talked about since I was a child and what has happened in that time? More cars and more flights/runways etc etc, that's what. Nothings really changed, but now suddenly is all your and my fault. And soon we'll all be taxed more because it's our fault. That will solve it!
Quote from: BennyCake on September 23, 2019, 03:31:18 PM
Quote from: Silver hill on September 23, 2019, 03:21:50 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on September 23, 2019, 10:54:09 AM
Quote from: Silver hill on September 23, 2019, 12:04:49 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on September 22, 2019, 10:47:55 PM
Quote from: t_mac on September 22, 2019, 09:28:11 PM
In which case every argument is daft. Let doomsday come sooner better most of educated world are selfish pricks.
Yes every argument is daft. But do you see any less cars or planes flying? Nope. So, whatever. I won't be feeling guilty for driving, breathing, farting and lighting my coal fire.
Benny, a small piece of advice, Read over your post before you post.
Oh, is there a spelling mistake?
Spelling's fine. But with comments like that, Are you per chance a member of the evangelical wing of the DUP's flat earth society?
No, they wouldn't let me in their club. Backstards!
At the end of the day, plenty of people are giving out, but people have to get to work and heat their homes. This climate crisis has been talked about since I was a child and what has happened in that time? More cars and more flights/runways etc etc, that's what. Nothings really changed, but now suddenly is all your and my fault. And soon we'll all be taxed more because it's our fault. That will solve it!
It IS all of our faults.
And I get your frustration with the futility of it all; no one wants to or is willing to give up their modern necessities of life or even conveniences, especially when the effects are so abstract and long term, particularly in rich western countries, and each generation grows up with a new normal that is seriously degraded, ecologically especially, compared to the last.
We have to start somewhere though. What the solutions are is an area I personally have no problem with serious people debating.
What IS a big problem (for me anyway) is the Trump wing of society who, for personal convenience, choose to demagogue and willfully misrepresent the well-documented reality of climate change.
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 21, 2019, 06:19:53 PM
I can see why people would be opposed to fission considering the risk of meltdown and the problem with radioactive waste. However all this needs to be squared with the risk level which is reducing all the time.. I think I read that fission is safer than solar in terms of deaths but of course it's hard to quantify. But the debate around fission needs to be much more objective and informed because at the minute its not
But folks are drawing absolute safety cases from technology designed in the 60s.
Compare a car from the 1960s to now and you'll quickly come to the conclusion the 60s car is a death trap! Its no different in reactor design - all modern designs are fail-safe - fukushima could not happen a modern reactor:
1. All modern reactors require a feedback loop of (a small amount of) power to keep the reaction ongoing (electromagnetics for the control rods). Withdraw that loop and the reaction safely shuts down as gravity pulls the control rods down.
2. All modern reactors can be cooled by passive means alone - so failure of the coolant pumps does not lead to an overheat scenario.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 22, 2019, 03:59:48 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 21, 2019, 06:31:04 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 21, 2019, 04:26:52 AM
Governments can have a huge impact on what industry builds. It took government to take the lead out of petrol and CFCs out of aerosol propellants. They're well able to regulate the fuel that burns in jet engines.
Are you proposing they take the carbon out of aviation fuel?
https://theicct.org/publications/long-term-aviation-fuel-decarbonization-progress-roadblocks-and-policy-opportunities
Could go with cryoplanes (hydrogen) - but then that releases water vapour at high altitude which is not good either...
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on September 23, 2019, 05:14:09 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 21, 2019, 06:19:53 PM
I can see why people would be opposed to fission considering the risk of meltdown and the problem with radioactive waste. However all this needs to be squared with the risk level which is reducing all the time.. I think I read that fission is safer than solar in terms of deaths but of course it's hard to quantify. But the debate around fission needs to be much more objective and informed because at the minute its not
But folks are drawing absolute safety cases from technology designed in the 60s.
Compare a car from the 1960s to now and you'll quickly come to the conclusion the 60s car is a death trap! Its no different in reactor design - all modern designs are fail-safe - fukushima could not happen a modern reactor:
1. All modern reactors require a feedback loop of (a small amount of) power to keep the reaction ongoing (electromagnetics for the control rods). Withdraw that loop and the reaction safely shuts down as gravity pulls the control rods down.
2. All modern reactors can be cooled by passive means alone - so failure of the coolant pumps does not lead to an overheat scenario.
Why isn't the right, including Trump, all over this, instead of his futile "attempt" to save the coal industry.
It's not like they give a shit about the environmental constituency, never mind the more hysterical side that won't countenance even a discussion of nuclear energy production, but I'm sure there are a lot of people out there of all stripes who are nervous about nuclear but also ignorant about the advances and open to education and persuasion.
Quote from: J70 on September 23, 2019, 05:59:41 PM
Why isn't the right, including Trump, all over this, instead of his futile "attempt" to save the coal industry.
It's not like they give a shit about the environmental constituency, never mind the more hysterical side that won't countenance even a discussion of nuclear energy production, but I'm sure there are a lot of people out there of all stripes who are nervous about nuclear but also ignorant about the advances and open to education and persuasion.
You refer to centrist voters. The US voting system is often about rallying the base and pressing the emotional buttons, not appealing to reason. Trump would be wiser to push ahead with nuclear out of an "owning the libs" strategy. The Fox News crowd loves nuclear not because of its potential for CO2 mitigation, but because liberals are afraid of it.
That young girl is hysterical.
Quote from: Angelo on September 23, 2019, 09:23:08 PM
That young girl is hysterical.
Yeah she looks like she is going to have a breakdown, whoever is pulling the strings, her parents I assume, should call an end to it.
Can we put Trump in a sealed off room and pump carbon emissions into the room to see if it changes his mind?
Quote from: Minder on September 23, 2019, 10:05:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on September 23, 2019, 09:23:08 PM
That young girl is hysterical.
Yeah she looks like she is going to have a breakdown, whoever is pulling the strings, her parents I assume, should call an end to it.
You two sound hysterical. Whoever is pulling the strings, your parents I assume, should call an end to it.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 23, 2019, 10:25:34 PM
Quote from: Minder on September 23, 2019, 10:05:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on September 23, 2019, 09:23:08 PM
That young girl is hysterical.
Yeah she looks like she is going to have a breakdown, whoever is pulling the strings, her parents I assume, should call an end to it.
You two sound hysterical. Whoever is pulling the strings, your parents I assume, should call an end to it.
Very good
Quote from: Minder on September 23, 2019, 10:05:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on September 23, 2019, 09:23:08 PM
That young girl is hysterical.
Yeah she looks like she is going to have a breakdown, whoever is pulling the strings, her parents I assume, should call an end to it.
They always attack her, never the argument. That's because she's right.
I cannot believe the hate directed towards Greta.
And those coming out with the snide remarks about her on Twitter are showing traits of bullies.
The last time I saw this much vitriol directed at a kid by adults was during the Holy Cross School blockade. These people should be ashamed of themselves. Shower of child-abusing thugs, the whole bloody lot of them.
People will listen to science when it benefits them but ignore it when it doesn't.
I find it odd that people need a 16 year old to tell them what is happening to the world. I don't mean that as an attack on Greta - people need to listen to the bloody science.
QuoteThe hounding of Greta Thunberg is proof that the right has run out of ideas
Aditya Chakrabortty
With scientists backing her cause, opponents of the young environmental activist have resorted to ugly personal attacks
Over the past few days, something extraordinary has happened in our politics. A bunch of grown men have begun bullying a schoolgirl. Perhaps you already know who I mean: Greta Thunberg, she of the pigtails and school strikes, who came to Westminster last week and slammed adoring MPs for posturing rather than taking action on climate breakdown, then hoofed it over to St Pancras for the 36-hour train ride back to Stockholm.
Which left the eco-denialists back here with a stonking great headache: how to bash this 16-year-old celeb? Not by dismantling her arguments, not when the scientists and Sir David of Blue Planet back her up. Nor by sniffing around her record, since by definition a teenager hasn't much of a past to rake over. The standard methods of political warfare off-limits to them, they are trying something new and unusual. They are sinking their teeth into her.
She was "chilling", declared Brendan O'Neill, editor of the hard-right website Spiked, after picking on her "monotone voice" and "look of apocalyptic dread in her eyes". Given Thunberg's openness about her Asperger's, this was a dog whistle if he knew about it, but it was at best crass if he didn't: the kid's on the spectrum! Bringing up the rear were the bloggers at Guido Fawkes, trying to eke a three-course meal out of the morsel that Thunberg's mum performed in the Eurovision song contest 10 years ago – cast-iron proof of "an incredibly privileged background". This finding has been gurningly spread on social media by none other than that vomiting dustbin of opinions Toby Young. You don't need to be much sharper than him to observe that he is the son of a baron who rang Oxford University to get his boy a place.
This is sad and it is desperate, but one thing it is not is insignificant. Both O'Neill and the Guido Fawkes site form part of the wider ecology of rightwing thinking. O'Neill is a regular on the rolling-news channels, with their unquenchable demands for just-add-water controversy; Guido Fawkes supplies both gossip and personnel to the rest of the British media.
Sure enough, by last weekend the Spectator and the Sunday Times were hosting attacks on this schoolgirl revolutionary, with her authoritarian demands about not destroying the environment, with Rod Liddle in the Sunday paper devoting almost half a page to "that weird Swedish kid" and her "imbecilic" supporters. The Spectator apparently can't get enough of this story, even running a piece by Helen Dale, who posted a tweet calling for "this Greta Thunberg character" to "have a meltdown on national telly". This was a "gag", Dale says now, deploying the excuse of bullies down the ages: can't you take a joke?
Amid this virtuoso vulgarity and sheer crass panic lies a political strategy that has rarely been used in Britain. It can be defined as denying your opponent the legitimacy to speak, not because of what they are saying or what they've done, but simply on account of who they are. Almost three years after the Brexit referendum, both politicians and pundits constantly fret about the UK sinking into an US-style culture war, where politics is merely shorthand for morality, and where what you say is always less important than where you come from and what you look like. Well, the past few days have been a case study in how a British culture war might escalate.
By no means is it the first example. Let us not forget how the Brexit press decried inconvenient judges as Enemies of the People or urged their then heroine Theresa May to Crush the Saboteurs, nor how Nigel Farage hailed the referendum victory as a revolution "without a shot being fired", just days after the murder of Jo Cox. But you could, if sufficiently generous of spirit, put those earlier displays down to an excess of tabloid spirits and the commercial need to stoke some controversy. This episode is different: it is about trying to demolish a 16-year-old merely for saying what she believes.
The ironies are manifold. In this culture war being prosecuted by the right, the cut-price controversialists – whose sourdough bread and butter is bashing out 800 words about the thought police – are trying to police other people's thoughts. The career bleaters about the PC brigade want to adjudicate on who is politically correct. They bang on about Twitter stormtroopers and the online mob, then gang up on the web and social media to try to crush a teenager. How they cheered when Adam Boulton, majordomo of Sky News, trashed a student representative of Extinction Rebellion live on TV as being "incompetent, middle class, self-indulgent"!
Of course it is right to debate the solutions suggested by Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion or whoever else. I welcome the BBC cross-examining earnest Labour politicians on exactly what they mean by declaring a climate emergency. Indeed, I might point out that their proposals for a "green industrial revolution" (Jeremy Corbyn) or "environmental growth" (Welsh first minister Mark Drakeford) will do little to deal with the problems they now identify.
But such debates are not what the keyboard warriors of the right want. They couldn't give a flying fund manager about policy. They are not playing the ball but the woman – and they're doing so deliberately.
The most telling part of O'Neill's attack on Thunberg is towards the end of his 800 or so curdled words, when he exclaims that the Swede is "a patsy for scared and elitist adults". This stricture comes from the editor of a website whose organisation, as my colleague George Monbiot reported recently, has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from the network operated by the billionaire Koch brothers, who made their money running oil pipelines and refineries: in other words, the sort of fossil-fuel industry most threatened by the politics expressed by environmental activists, and which poses one of the greatest dangers to our climate.
In this respect, the right is doing the same as it always has: chummily putting its arm around your shoulder while slipping the other hand into your pocket, all the better to rob you with. Only this time, it's being nastier, more abusive and more personal – it wants a culture war to cover up for its paucity of evidence and arguments.
You can expect more such attempts every time people try to build alternatives to our broken economic and political model. On one side, you have the establishment's licensed outriders, now out of puff and out of ideas. On the other are people far removed from power by dint or age or location or ethnicity or class. They are the genuine insurgents, not the pretend rebels of the right. This is what it looks like when one side knows the jig is almost up.
• Aditya Chakrabortty is a Guardian columnist
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on September 23, 2019, 05:15:54 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 22, 2019, 03:59:48 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 21, 2019, 06:31:04 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 21, 2019, 04:26:52 AM
Governments can have a huge impact on what industry builds. It took government to take the lead out of petrol and CFCs out of aerosol propellants. They're well able to regulate the fuel that burns in jet engines.
Are you proposing they take the carbon out of aviation fuel?
https://theicct.org/publications/long-term-aviation-fuel-decarbonization-progress-roadblocks-and-policy-opportunities
Could go with cryoplanes (hydrogen) - but then that releases water vapour at high altitude which is not good either...
I know a guy who works in the handling of aviation of fuel on planes frightfully dangerous stuff when you consider the pressure changes, movement of the fuel and the evaporation rate and the fact that one spark could be 300 corpses, and has a number of times.
Considering how volatile a relatively stable fuel like aviation fuel can become in a plane I would not like to be on a plane using something as unstable as hydrogen especially cryogenicaly which looks like the only feasible way to use it.
There would be so many deaths with this before they got it to an acceptable level that it would never get of the ground.... in a democracy at least :P .
Quote from: Solo_run on September 23, 2019, 11:37:36 PM
People will listen to science when it benefits them but ignore it when it doesn't.
I find it odd that people need a 16 year old to tell them what is happening to the world. I don't mean that as an attack on Greta - people need to listen to the bloody science.
People know what is happening to the world. People are just trying to run around chasing pound notes to feed and clothe themselves and their family. If that means burning heating oil to warm them, driving a car to make a living, then so be it.
The world is easily fixed through the eyes of a naive teenager, who maybe doesn't grasp that the world is run by evil corporations, psychopathic businessmen and corrupt politicians.
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on September 23, 2019, 05:14:09 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 21, 2019, 06:19:53 PM
I can see why people would be opposed to fission considering the risk of meltdown and the problem with radioactive waste. However all this needs to be squared with the risk level which is reducing all the time.. I think I read that fission is safer than solar in terms of deaths but of course it's hard to quantify. But the debate around fission needs to be much more objective and informed because at the minute its not
But folks are drawing absolute safety cases from technology designed in the 60s.
Compare a car from the 1960s to now and you'll quickly come to the conclusion the 60s car is a death trap! Its no different in reactor design - all modern designs are fail-safe - fukushima could not happen a modern reactor:
1. All modern reactors require a feedback loop of (a small amount of) power to keep the reaction ongoing (electromagnetics for the control rods). Withdraw that loop and the reaction safely shuts down as gravity pulls the control rods down.
2. All modern reactors can be cooled by passive means alone - so failure of the coolant pumps does not lead to an overheat scenario.
Spot on.... tho in discussions it will inevitability turn to the probs of radioactive waste. I would always point to France as an example for nuclear but poor old Chernobyl always gets a run out.
For the "she's being paid / manipulated by her parents" crowd:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=773676963000126&id=732846497083173
As the rumours, lies and constant leaving out of well established facts continue, please share this newly updated clarification about me and my school strike.
Please help me communicate this to the grown ups who lie about me and family so that I can focus on school instead:
Recently I've seen many rumors circulating about me and enormous amounts of hate. This is no surprise to me. I know that since most people are not aware of the full meaning of the climate crisis (which is understandable since it has never been treated as a crisis) a school strike for the climate would seem very strange to people in general.
So let me make some things clear about my school strike.
In may 2018 I was one of the winners in a writing competition about the environment held by Svenska Dagbladet, a Swedish newspaper. I got my article published and some people contacted me, among others was Bo Thorén from Fossil Free Dalsland. He had some kind of group with people, especially youth, who wanted to do something about the climate crisis.
I had a few phone meetings with other activists. The purpose was to come up with ideas of new projects that would bring attention to the climate crisis. Bo had a few ideas of things we could do. Everything from marches to a loose idea of some kind of a school strike (that school children would do something on the schoolyards or in the classrooms). That idea was inspired by the Parkland Students, who had refused to go to school after the school shootings.
I liked the idea of a school strike. So I developed that idea and tried to get the other young people to join me, but no one was really interested. They thought that a Swedish version of the Zero Hour march was going to have a bigger impact. So I went on planning the school strike all by myself and after that I didn't participate in any more meetings.
When I told my parents about my plans they weren't very fond of it. They did not support the idea of school striking and they said that if I were to do this I would have to do it completely by myself and with no support from them.
On the 20 of august I sat down outside the Swedish Parliament. I handed out fliers with a long list of facts about the climate crisis and explanations on why I was striking. The first thing I did was to post on Twitter and Instagram what I was doing and it soon went viral. Then journalists and newspapers started to come. A Swedish entrepreneur and business man active in the climate movement, Ingmar Rentzhog, was among the first to arrive. He spoke with me and took pictures that he posted on Facebook. That was the first time I had ever met or spoken with him. I had not communicated or encountered with him ever before.
Many people love to spread rumors saying that I have people "behind me" or that I'm being "paid" or "used" to do what I'm doing. But there is no one "behind" me except for myself. My parents were as far from climate activists as possible before I made them aware of the situation.
I am not part of any organization. I sometimes support and cooperate with several NGOs that work with the climate and environment. But I am absolutely independent and I only represent myself. And I do what I do completely for free, I have not received any money or any promise of future payments in any form at all. And nor has anyone linked to me or my family done so.
And of course it will stay this way. I have not met one single climate activist who is fighting for the climate for money. That idea is completely absurd.
Furthermore I only travel with permission from my school and my parents pay for tickets and accommodations.
My family has written a book together about our family and how me and my sister Beata have influenced my parents way of thinking and seeing the world, especially when it comes to the climate. And about our diagnoses.
That book was due to be released in May. But since there was a major disagreement with the book company, we ended up changing to a new publisher and so the book was released in august instead.
Before the book was released my parents made it clear that their possible profits from the book "Scener ur hjärtat" will be going to 8 different charities working with environment, children with diagnoses and animal rights.
And yes, I write my own speeches. But since I know that what I say is going to reach many, many people I often ask for input. I also have a few scientists that I frequently ask for help on how to express certain complicated matters. I want everything to be absolutely correct so that I don't spread incorrect facts, or things that can be misunderstood.
Some people mock me for my diagnosis. But Asperger is not a disease, it's a gift. People also say that since I have Asperger I couldn't possibly have put myself in this position. But that's exactly why I did this. Because if I would have been "normal" and social I would have organized myself in an organisation, or started an organisation by myself. But since I am not that good at socializing I did this instead. I was so frustrated that nothing was being done about the climate crisis and I felt like I had to do something, anything. And sometimes NOT doing things - like just sitting down outside the parliament - speaks much louder than doing things. Just like a whisper sometimes is louder than shouting.
Also there is one complaint that I "sound and write like an adult". And to that I can only say; don't you think that a 16-year old can speak for herself? There's also some people who say that I oversimplify things. For example when I say that "the climate crisis is a black and white issue", "we need to stop the emissions of greenhouse gases" and "I want you to panic". But that I only say because it's true. Yes, the climate crisis is the most complex issue that we have ever faced and it's going to take everything from our part to "stop it". But the solution is black and white; we need to stop the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Because either we limit the warming to 1,5 degrees C over pre industrial levels, or we don't. Either we reach a tipping point where we start a chain reaction with events way beyond human control, or we don't. Either we go on as a civilization, or we don't. There are no gray areas when it comes to survival.
And when I say that I want you to panic I mean that we need to treat the crisis as a crisis. When your house is on fire you don't sit down and talk about how nice you can rebuild it once you put out the fire. If your house is on fire you run outside and make sure that everyone is out while you call the fire department. That requires some level of panic.
There is one other argument that I can't do anything about. And that is the fact that I'm "just a child and we shouldn't be listening to children." But that is easily fixed - just start to listen to the rock solid science instead. Because if everyone listened to the scientists and the facts that I constantly refer to - then no one would have to listen to me or any of the other hundreds of thousands of school children on strike for the climate across the world. Then we could all go back to school.
I am just a messenger, and yet I get all this hate. I am not saying anything new, I am just saying what scientists have repeatedly said for decades. And I agree with you, I'm too young to do this. We children shouldn't have to do this. But since almost no one is doing anything, and our very future is at risk, we feel like we have to continue.
And if you have any other concern or doubt about me, then you can listen to my TED talk ( https://www.ted.com/talks/greta_thunberg_the_disarming_case_to_act_right_now_on_climate/up-next ), in which I talk about how my interest for the climate and environment began.
And thank you everyone for your kind support! It brings me hope.
/Greta
Ps I was briefly a youth advisor for the board of the non profit foundation "We don't have time". It turns out they used my name as part of another branch of their organisation that is a start up business. They have admitted clearly that they did so without the knowledge of me or my family. I no longer have any connection to "We don't have time". Nor does anyone in my family. They have deeply apologised for what has happened and I have accepted their apology.
Great article from an incredibly brave and articulate person. I agree with Eamonn, those who are criticising her are basically engaging in child abuse for hire. Good clip below from the Majority Report on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSFEcG0CKB0
These are very dark times (I've also been bingeing on a lot of Scott Walker music recently, which definitely hasn't helped :o) but as we settle down to wait for our Mad Max style hellscape to fully appear, at least we can say we were told, and clearly, what we should do to prevent it. People like her are a wonder and she should be cherished.
Just on the nuclear issue, I don't know near enough about it. For me the big questions re its use is the production of the waste material - where and how can it be safely dealt with? Also, are these new reactor designs safe enough to deal with natural disasters, earthquakes, hurricanes, typhoons, tsunami etc? Given that a lot of these phenomena are exacerbated by climate change, are these risks being built into design?
Genuine questions, I'd love some answers. Nuclear has always seemed to me that it should or could be part of a solution.
I wonder if they got the family discount on the ANTIFA tee shirts?
Oh.....I forgot, they just borrowed them from someone
Its alot of pressure for any1 let alone someone who is 16, yesterday was a difficult watch.
I know she'd prob say she wants to do it but to be thrust into the limelight like that and all the pressure and ridicule that comes with it is difficult to handle... she is 16 FGS!
As for the facts of the Climate there is no way I would be listening to a well meaning 16 year old on it.
Firstly I'd have difficulty believing that she knows more than myself about it and there is no way she understands more than a lot of other people who talk about it.
If you want to talk about Climate change talk about it, not Greta Thornberg.
And lets hear about the solutions..... the solutions are difficult with consequences of their own.
Then people just want rant on about the ridicule of a 16 year old instead of actual solutions, there must be dozens of articles online about this.
If you want to talk about child abuse talk about child trafficking not this.
Meanwhile in other news Ireland is doing its part by banning oil exploration in its territorial waters
KSA also pledged to do their bit by pledging not to build any peat power plants
Quote from: easytiger95 on September 24, 2019, 09:36:52 AM
those who are criticising her are basically engaging in child abuse for hire.
Why do you think there's a (clearly troubled) child fronting this propaganda campaign?
Quote from: five points on September 24, 2019, 04:24:28 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on September 24, 2019, 09:36:52 AM
those who are criticising her are basically engaging in child abuse for hire.
Why do you think there's a (clearly troubled) child fronting this propaganda campaign?
It's not propaganda.
Climate change is a fact.
Quote from: seafoid on September 24, 2019, 04:25:35 PM
Climate change is a fact.
Climates have always changed and will change. That is a fact. The theory that current climate change is wholly or predominantly man-made and will have catastrophic results most certainly is not.
Meanwhile, I await an answer to my question.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2019/sep/18/listen-to-the-scientists-greta-thunberg-tells-congress-video
Greta says it better than anyone - she doesn't want anyone to listen to her per se, she wants them to listen to the scientists. But given that one of the two main parties in the world's biggest emitter is committed to climate change denial, then she feels no choice but to speak out - given that her generation are the ones who will bear the biggest cost.
Perhaps people should get over the fact that she is a 16 year old girl and acknowledge the sense she is talking - she says we should follow the considered, peer reviewed conclusions of over 99 percent of studies that climate change is caused by human activity. If you disagree with her, I assume you are disagreeing with that?
Or maybe you just don't think a 16 year old girl should speak truth to power - a position I find as repellent as climate change denial. We won't get a solution without a functioning global democratic system. Her stand renews faith in the power of free speech, protest and democracy on the ground. The tragedy is that a 16 year old girl is displaying more maturity than the majority of lawmakers in Western societies.
Quote from: five points on September 24, 2019, 04:29:03 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 24, 2019, 04:25:35 PM
Climate change is a fact.
Climates have always changed and will change. That is a fact. The theory that current climate change is wholly or predominantly man-made and will have catastrophic results most certainly is not.
Meanwhile, I await an answer to my question.
Jesus Christ. Do you actually believe this?
She's doing alright
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EFPYxlTXYAEEVwQ?format=jpg&name=medium)
Quote from: trailer on September 24, 2019, 04:51:47 PM
Quote from: five points on September 24, 2019, 04:29:03 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 24, 2019, 04:25:35 PM
Climate change is a fact.
Climates have always changed and will change. That is a fact. The theory that current climate change is wholly or predominantly man-made and will have catastrophic results most certainly is not.
Meanwhile, I await an answer to my question.
Jesus Christ. Do you actually believe this?
Do you believe the opposite?
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on September 24, 2019, 04:52:40 PM
She's doing alright
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EFPYxlTXYAEEVwQ?format=jpg&name=medium)
You really think she's running her own Twitter account?
Quote from: easytiger95 on September 24, 2019, 04:45:44 PM
Or maybe you just don't think a 16 year old girl should speak truth to power - a position I find as repellent as climate change denial. We won't get a solution without a functioning global democratic system. Her stand renews faith in the power of free speech, protest and democracy on the ground. The tragedy is that a 16 year old girl is displaying more maturity than the majority of lawmakers in Western societies.
She's a troubled child with special needs. If you think that fronting a huge political campaign is a safe and appropriate activity for her, fair enough but I beg to differ.
Is this the boul' Foxkkkommander back under another account??
Quote from: five points on September 24, 2019, 04:29:03 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 24, 2019, 04:25:35 PM
Climate change is a fact.
Climates have always changed and will change. That is a fact. The theory that current climate change is wholly or predominantly man-made and will have catastrophic results most certainly is not.
Meanwhile, I await an answer to my question.
Yup, agreed.
Quote from: five points on September 24, 2019, 04:29:03 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 24, 2019, 04:25:35 PM
Climate change is a fact.
Climates have always changed and will change. That is a fact. The theory that current climate change is wholly or predominantly man-made and will have catastrophic results most certainly is not.
Meanwhile, I await an answer to my question.
So CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas? Methane is NOT a greenhouse gas? Human activities are NOT pumping up the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? The climate is NOT undergoing a long term warming trend? Records are NOT being set every year now? The more extreme weather and rising seas are NOT having and will not have any effect on the natural or human world?
What specifically are you claiming?
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on September 24, 2019, 05:08:11 PM
Is this the boul' Foxkkkommander back under another account??
Or Dolph, although I think he was also foxcommander. ;D
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on September 24, 2019, 05:08:11 PM
Is this the boul' Foxkkkommander back under another account??
Me? I've been here, posting reasonably consistently, since 2009.
Quote from: J70 on September 24, 2019, 05:10:58 PM
So CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas? Methane is NOT a greenhouse gas? Human activities are NOT pumping up the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? The climate is NOT undergoing a long term warming trend? Records are NOT being set every year now? The more extreme weather and rising seas are NOT having and will not have any effect on the natural or human world?
What specifically are you claiming?
I'm claiming what I have said: that climates have always changed and will continue to change. For example we have had well-documented cooling and warming periods throughout history.
There is widespread but not universal suspicion that CO2, methane etc are greenhouse gases but their actual effects in what are complex to the point of chaotic climatic systems are still a matter of debate.
The theory of a long term warming trend is also a matter of debate. 40 years ago the scientists thought the earth was cooling. 40 years is a not even a nanosecond in terms of previous long term cooling and warming trends.
And there is a fair degree of selective bias in the "records being broken every year" stories. Not to mention the danger of apples-and-oranges comparisons between primitively-measured temps even a few decades ago and more accurately measured temps these days.
Quote from: five points on September 24, 2019, 05:02:14 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on September 24, 2019, 04:45:44 PM
Or maybe you just don't think a 16 year old girl should speak truth to power - a position I find as repellent as climate change denial. We won't get a solution without a functioning global democratic system. Her stand renews faith in the power of free speech, protest and democracy on the ground. The tragedy is that a 16 year old girl is displaying more maturity than the majority of lawmakers in Western societies.
She's a troubled child with special needs. If you think that fronting a huge political campaign is a safe and appropriate activity for her, fair enough but I beg to differ.
This is simply not true.
Climate change is a global emergency that we all must work together to solve. We are literally facing a mass extinction.
Quote from: five points on September 24, 2019, 05:02:14 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on September 24, 2019, 04:45:44 PM
Or maybe you just don't think a 16 year old girl should speak truth to power - a position I find as repellent as climate change denial. We won't get a solution without a functioning global democratic system. Her stand renews faith in the power of free speech, protest and democracy on the ground. The tragedy is that a 16 year old girl is displaying more maturity than the majority of lawmakers in Western societies.
She's a troubled child with special needs. If you think that fronting a huge political campaign is a safe and appropriate activity for her, fair enough but I beg to differ.
Disgusting lies. It's clear you are looking to cause trouble.
Quote from: J70 on September 24, 2019, 05:11:30 PM
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on September 24, 2019, 05:08:11 PM
Is this the boul' Foxkkkommander back under another account??
Or Dolph, although I think he was also foxcommander. ;D
Christ - I forgot about Dolph ;D ;D ;D
QuoteQuote from: magpie seanie on September 24, 2019, 05:23:19 PM
She's a troubled child with special needs. If you think that fronting a huge political campaign is a safe and appropriate activity for her, fair enough but I beg to differ.
Disgusting lies. It's clear you are looking to cause trouble.
Not lies. Her diagnosis is well known. And I'm not looking to cause trouble.
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 23, 2019, 11:45:08 PM
I know a guy who works in the handling of aviation of fuel on planes frightfully dangerous stuff when you consider the pressure changes, movement of the fuel and the evaporation rate and the fact that one spark could be 300 corpses, and has a number of times.
Considering how volatile a relatively stable fuel like aviation fuel can become in a plane I would not like to be on a plane using something as unstable as hydrogen especially cryogenicaly which looks like the only feasible way to use it.
There would be so many deaths with this before they got it to an acceptable level that it would never get of the ground.... in a democracy at least :P .
No no no - a hydrogen fuelled plane would be much safer than kerosene. It is a misguided fallacy that hydrogen is more dangerous.
Consider this - hydrogen is lighter than air - so you crash land and one of your tanks starts to leak - where does that fuel go? Not on the ground where all the passengers are like kerosene, but quickly up into the air where it becomes so diffuse that its relatively safe from ignition.
There has been studies done on this and the conclusion was quite categorical - H2 is much safer than JetA!
Quote from: five points on September 24, 2019, 04:29:03 PM
Climates have always changed and will change. That is a fact. The theory that current climate change is wholly or predominantly man-made and will have catastrophic results most certainly is not.
It is an accepted fact to everyone except those with mental faculties equal to flat-earth believers.
Quote from: J70 on September 24, 2019, 05:10:58 PM
Quote from: five points on September 24, 2019, 04:29:03 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 24, 2019, 04:25:35 PM
Climate change is a fact.
Climates have always changed and will change. That is a fact. The theory that current climate change is wholly or predominantly man-made and will have catastrophic results most certainly is not.
Meanwhile, I await an answer to my question.
So CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas? Methane is NOT a greenhouse gas? Human activities are NOT pumping up the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? The climate is NOT undergoing a long term warming trend? Records are NOT being set every year now? The more extreme weather and rising seas are NOT having and will not have any effect on the natural or human world?
What specifically are you claiming?
Any time there's a bit of a gale, heavy rain or an Indian summer, it's all lumped in with "climate change". Conveniently, the term moved from "global warming" to further push the agenda.
Quote from: five points on September 24, 2019, 05:16:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on September 24, 2019, 05:10:58 PM
So CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas? Methane is NOT a greenhouse gas? Human activities are NOT pumping up the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? The climate is NOT undergoing a long term warming trend? Records are NOT being set every year now? The more extreme weather and rising seas are NOT having and will not have any effect on the natural or human world?
What specifically are you claiming?
I'm claiming what I have said: that climates have always changed and will continue to change. For example we have had well-documented cooling and warming periods throughout history.
There is widespread but not universal suspicion that CO2, methane etc are greenhouse gases but their actual effects in what are complex to the point of chaotic climatic systems are still a matter of debate.
There is no debate about whether they are greenhouse gases. It was demonstrated for CO2 by an Irish physicist 150 years ago.
Nor is anyone denying that the climate has changed in the past. People have always died in the past, including of natural causes, but that does not mean that society should dismiss disease and war and crime as things we should do nothing about.
The science is pretty robust at this stage. If it wasn't, right wingers would not be wheeling out the same few people to give the denialist "perspective " every time, just like the tobacco and asbestos companies used to do. And never mind that their "perspective " variously includes complete denial that greenhouse gases are real, are rising, are having an effect on the climate, are having an effect on societies to it's happening but let's just adapt.
And even if climate change wasn't real, we are still leaving a terrible legacy for future generations as we carelessly and ignorantly destroy the natural world.
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on September 24, 2019, 05:38:00 PM
Quote from: five points on September 24, 2019, 04:29:03 PM
Climates have always changed and will change. That is a fact. The theory that current climate change is wholly or predominantly man-made and will have catastrophic results most certainly is not.
It is an accepted fact to everyone except those with mental faculties equal to flat-earth believers.
I don't argue with personal insults.
Quote from: five points on September 24, 2019, 05:02:14 PM
If you think that fronting a huge political campaign is a safe and appropriate activity for her, fair enough but I beg to differ.
Its not safe or appropriate - as the right wing nutcases are proving.
But she seems to have the ear of the world and rightly or wrongly is in the position she is in - and (as she is aware) this is rapidly growing far more important than any one person.
Quote from: five points on September 24, 2019, 05:41:24 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on September 24, 2019, 05:38:00 PM
Quote from: five points on September 24, 2019, 04:29:03 PM
Climates have always changed and will change. That is a fact. The theory that current climate change is wholly or predominantly man-made and will have catastrophic results most certainly is not.
It is an accepted fact to everyone except those with mental faculties equal to flat-earth believers.
I don't argue with personal insults.
Says the man that decided to target a 16 year old.
Quote from: BennyCake on September 24, 2019, 05:40:51 PM
Quote from: J70 on September 24, 2019, 05:10:58 PM
Quote from: five points on September 24, 2019, 04:29:03 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 24, 2019, 04:25:35 PM
Climate change is a fact.
Climates have always changed and will change. That is a fact. The theory that current climate change is wholly or predominantly man-made and will have catastrophic results most certainly is not.
Meanwhile, I await an answer to my question.
So CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas? Methane is NOT a greenhouse gas? Human activities are NOT pumping up the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? The climate is NOT undergoing a long term warming trend? Records are NOT being set every year now? The more extreme weather and rising seas are NOT having and will not have any effect on the natural or human world?
What specifically are you claiming?
Any time there's a bit of a gale, heavy rain or an Indian summer, it's all lumped in with "climate change". Conveniently, the term moved from "global warming" to further push the agenda.
You can thank Frank Luntz, George W Bush and the US Republican Party for that.
The term global warming was too scary and inconvenient for them.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange)
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on September 24, 2019, 05:43:43 PM
Quote from: five points on September 24, 2019, 05:41:24 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on September 24, 2019, 05:38:00 PM
Quote from: five points on September 24, 2019, 04:29:03 PM
Climates have always changed and will change. That is a fact. The theory that current climate change is wholly or predominantly man-made and will have catastrophic results most certainly is not.
It is an accepted fact to everyone except those with mental faculties equal to flat-earth believers.
I don't argue with personal insults.
Says the man that decided to target a 16 year old.
Saying "She's a troubled child with special needs" is not targeting. And you've actually agreed with my point that her politicking is not safe nor appropriate for her.
Quote from: five points on September 24, 2019, 05:46:10 PM
Saying "She's a troubled child with special needs" is not targeting.
In what world?
You attacked the messenger, not the message.
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on September 24, 2019, 05:47:44 PM
Quote from: five points on September 24, 2019, 05:46:10 PM
Saying "She's a troubled child with special needs" is not targeting.
In what world?
You attacked the messenger, not the message.
I attacked no-one.
Quote from: five points on September 24, 2019, 05:48:19 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on September 24, 2019, 05:47:44 PM
Quote from: five points on September 24, 2019, 05:46:10 PM
Saying "She's a troubled child with special needs" is not targeting.
In what world?
You attacked the messenger, not the message.
I attacked no-one.
I know your a bit slow on the uptake - as is obvious from your ignoring 99+% of the global scientific community - but you've even quoted your attack on her.
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on September 24, 2019, 05:53:54 PM
Quote from: five points on September 24, 2019, 05:48:19 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on September 24, 2019, 05:47:44 PM
Quote from: five points on September 24, 2019, 05:46:10 PM
Saying "She's a troubled child with special needs" is not targeting.
In what world?
You attacked the messenger, not the message.
I attacked no-one.
I know your a bit slow on the uptake - as is obvious from your ignoring 99+% of the global scientific community - but you've even quoted your attack on her.
Again and for the last time, I most definitely did not. And, again and for the last time, I'm not engaging with your personal insults. Over and out.
Quote from: five points on September 24, 2019, 05:56:38 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on September 24, 2019, 05:53:54 PM
Quote from: five points on September 24, 2019, 05:48:19 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on September 24, 2019, 05:47:44 PM
Quote from: five points on September 24, 2019, 05:46:10 PM
Saying "She's a troubled child with special needs" is not targeting.
In what world?
You attacked the messenger, not the message.
I attacked no-one.
I know your a bit slow on the uptake - as is obvious from your ignoring 99+% of the global scientific community - but you've even quoted your attack on her.
Again and for the last time, I most definitely did not. And, again and for the last time, I'm not engaging with your personal insults. Over and out.
Yes you did and good f__king riddance.
Quote from: five points on September 24, 2019, 05:41:24 PM
I don't argue with personal insults.
Quite........
Quote from: five points on September 24, 2019, 04:24:28 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on September 24, 2019, 09:36:52 AM
those who are criticising her are basically engaging in child abuse for hire.
Why do you think there's a (clearly troubled) child fronting this propaganda campaign?
Quote from: five points on September 24, 2019, 05:02:14 PM
She's a troubled child with special needs. If you think that fronting a huge political campaign is a safe and appropriate activity for her, fair enough but I beg to differ.
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on September 24, 2019, 05:36:19 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 23, 2019, 11:45:08 PM
I know a guy who works in the handling of aviation of fuel on planes frightfully dangerous stuff when you consider the pressure changes, movement of the fuel and the evaporation rate and the fact that one spark could be 300 corpses, and has a number of times.
Considering how volatile a relatively stable fuel like aviation fuel can become in a plane I would not like to be on a plane using something as unstable as hydrogen especially cryogenicaly which looks like the only feasible way to use it.
There would be so many deaths with this before they got it to an acceptable level that it would never get of the ground.... in a democracy at least :P .
No no no - a hydrogen fuelled plane would be much safer than kerosene. It is a misguided fallacy that hydrogen is more dangerous.
Consider this - hydrogen is lighter than air - so you crash land and one of your tanks starts to leak - where does that fuel go? Not on the ground where all the passengers are like kerosene, but quickly up into the air where it becomes so diffuse that its relatively safe from ignition.
There has been studies done on this and the conclusion was quite categorical - H2 is much safer than JetA!
Crash landing it might be safer for a fire since it does disperse quickly but an explosion is the risk where all the energy is released at once. Anyway I was actually thinking more of what happens if it leaks in flight in a confined space like the fuselage but I suppose the same could happen during a crash landing. The lightness of Hydrogen also make it very difficult to prevent leaks.
This of course is not to mention the dangers of having a pressure vessel of any kind at 3000PSI on board a plane, which I understand would be the min pressure it would be needed to make it anyway viable for a commerical jet.
The problem with planes is that you are at 10000m and one thing goes wrong its curtains
This thread has gone the usual route.....not untypical for the modern world.
I have to ask the question... what does a poster on here have to do with any solution for the climate?
Quote from: five points on September 24, 2019, 04:24:28 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on September 24, 2019, 09:36:52 AM
those who are criticising her are basically engaging in child abuse for hire.
Why do you think there's a (clearly troubled) child fronting this propaganda campaign?
Because he's (somehow) the US President and is completely in the pockets of fossil fuel interests
Quote from: sid waddell on September 24, 2019, 06:25:10 PM
Because he's (somehow) the US President and is completely in the pockets of fossil fuel interests
... and he's jealous that she is smarter than him?
Viciously abusing children is an integral part of mainstream right-wing ideology
This applies to sexual abuse, putting children of refugees in concentration camps, claiming that survivors of school shootings are "crisis actors" and vicious verbal abuse of a young environmental campaigner
Right-wing politics is totally bankrupt of ideas
It has no vision whatsoever for improving the lives of people, well, no vision whatsoever for improving the lives of people who aren't already filthy rich at any rate
So shameless abuse of the weak, marginalised and those who are campaigning to change society and the world for good is now all it has left
Trump, Johnson and the other hard Brexiteers, Putin, the DUP, Netanyahu, Bin Salman, Orban, Modi, Bolsonaro, Duterte, Erdogan, Salvini, Le Pen, AFD etc., they are all the same thing - they are part of a loose, and often less loose international alliance of kleptocrats and sadists who are out to protect untramelled privilege and power at all costs, and they have no problem dragging the world into a new dark age to do so
Quote from: five points on September 24, 2019, 04:29:03 PM
Quote from: seafoid on September 24, 2019, 04:25:35 PM
Climate change is a fact.
Climates have always changed and will change. That is a fact. The theory that current climate change is wholly or predominantly man-made and will have catastrophic results most certainly is not.
Meanwhile, I await an answer to my question.
People have always died of natural causes, therefore murder is impossible.
Quote from: five points on September 24, 2019, 05:16:18 PM
There is widespread but not universal suspicion that CO2, methane etc are greenhouse gases but their actual effects in what are complex to the point of chaotic climatic systems are still a matter of debate.
Incorrect. They are greenhouse gases. No debate about it.
QuoteThe theory of a long term warming trend is also a matter of debate.
No it is not.
(https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/2014-bas-hockey-stick.png)
Quote40 years ago the scientists thought the earth was cooling.
Incorrect. Hansen et al. (1981), which was typical of studies at the time, had this to say:
"It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage."
Quote
And there is a fair degree of selective bias in the "records being broken every year" stories.
How can global average temperatures have "selective bias?"
How did the protests go in China the worlds biggest culprit for emissions and pollution? Noticed sid never mentioned them either
Antifa and China..... there we go. That's a BINGO
Quote from: sid waddell on September 24, 2019, 06:41:30 PM
Viciously abusing children is an integral part of mainstream right-wing ideology
This applies to sexual abuse, putting children of refugees in concentration camps, claiming that survivors of school shootings are "crisis actors" and vicious verbal abuse of a young environmental campaigner
Right-wing politics is totally bankrupt of ideas
It has no vision whatsoever for improving the lives of people, well, no vision whatsoever for improving the lives of people who aren't already filthy rich at any rate
So shameless abuse of the weak, marginalised and those who are campaigning to change society and the world for good is now all it has left
Trump, Johnson and the other hard Brexiteers, Putin, the DUP, Netanyahu, Bin Salman, Orban, Modi, Bolsonaro, Duterte, Erdogan, Salvini, Le Pen, AFD etc., they are all the same thing - they are part of a loose, and often less loose international alliance of kleptocrats and sadists who are out to protect untramelled privilege and power at all costs, and they have no problem dragging the world into a new dark age to do so
Don't usually agree with all you write but that is spot on.
However I'm not sure of the merits of having a child being placed front and centre for this campaign. And you can be damn sure someone or a group of powerful people have pushed her out into the limelight to face the shi T storm.
I've probably mentioned this before on a thread like this is that the problem with the climate change movement is that it has become zealot like.
An obsessive atheist, with their steadfast beliefs and unwiltingly dismissive tone, is every bit as insufferably annoying as a religious nutcase. They quote their scientific understanding as fact when the only fact about origin is that nobody in science has yet come up with a better reasoning for it than the God fella.
The climate change movement seems determined for a seat at this table. When people describe the movement as selective it's because they hit you in exactly the same way; through a sample of trustworthy data that requires "scientific agreement" to compare any further back in time than the industrial revolution.
I will never dismiss client change but I absolutely reserve the right to question the sanity, motives and unflinching, inherent bias of a movement of zealots.
——
Ponder this. Back when Christianity was spreading, the world was one of villages with older, wiser elders. They didn't latch onto Christianity because it answered their questions, or made any more sense than their other shrines and Gods. But it brought with it a set of guiding principles that any smart leader could subscribe to, and or take advantage of.
Climate change is a bit like this for governments. Whether it's based on truth or a lie doesn't actually matter to a government. Looking after the environment is a pretty bloody good set of guiding principles to confer upon your citizens. Raising taxes if they don't is a pretty good asset to call upon.
Trouble is, like Religion, the zealots just make it unbearable for so many of us.
Quote from: thewobbler on September 24, 2019, 08:59:13 PM
I've probably mentioned this before on a thread like this is that the problem with the climate change movement is that it has become zealot like.
An obsessive atheist, with their steadfast beliefs and unwiltingly dismissive tone, is every bit as insufferably annoying as a religious nutcase. They quote their scientific understanding as fact when the only fact about origin is that nobody in science has yet come up with a better reasoning for it than the God fella.
The climate change movement seems determined for a seat at this table. When people describe the movement as selective it's because they hit you in exactly the same way; through a sample of trustworthy data that requires "scientific agreement" to compare any further back in time than the industrial revolution.
I will never dismiss client change but I absolutely reserve the right to question the sanity, motives and unflinching, inherent bias of a movement of zealots.
——
Ponder this. Back when Christianity was spreading, the world was one of villages with older, wiser elders. They didn't latch onto Christianity because it answered their questions, or made any more sense than their other shrines and Gods. But it brought with it a set of guiding principles that any smart leader could subscribe to, and or take advantage of.
Climate change is a bit like this for governments. Whether it's based on truth or a lie doesn't actually matter to a government. Looking after the environment is a pretty bloody good set of guiding principles to confer upon your citizens. Raising taxes if they don't is a pretty good asset to call upon.
Trouble is, like Religion, the zealots just make it unbearable for so many of us.
Which were?
Quote from: Gmac on September 24, 2019, 08:33:11 PM
How did the protests go in China the worlds biggest culprit for emissions and pollution? Noticed sid never mentioned them either
Ever heard about what happens to people who protest in China?
Quote from: thewobbler on September 24, 2019, 08:59:13 PM
the only fact about origin is that nobody in science has yet come up with a better reasoning for it than the God fella.
Sweet Jesus. The origins of the universe, the origins of the stars, the origins of the planets, and the origins of humanity are well understood. The "God did it" explanation was made redundant years ago. Just because you haven't read the literature doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Quote
I will never dismiss client change but I absolutely reserve the right to question the sanity, motives and unflinching, inherent bias of a movement of zealots.
So you don't question the science, you just don't like the fact that there are people who insist on quoting the science?
Quote
Trouble is, like Religion, the zealots just make it unbearable for so many of us.
You poor little lamb.
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on September 24, 2019, 08:36:40 PM
Antifa and China..... there we go. That's a BINGO
He should say what he really "thinks" abut Greta Thunberg
Or how about his opinion on what Dinesh D'Souza, the US right-wing's favourite fake intellectual did when he compared Thunberg to a Nazi
How about his opinion on what Fox News's Laura Ingraham said when she compared Thunberg and other environmental activists to Stephen King's "Children Of The Corn"
The Children Of The Corn were fictional characters who murdered people in order to ensure a successful corn harvest
So the mainstream US right wing is actually comparing Thunberg to Nazis and murderers, I'm making precisely zero of this up
Yet you won't hear a word about that here from any of the Trump cultists
That's because, like their charlatan hero, they are sadists who revel in seeing cruelty inflicted on children in whatever form they can get away with
This is the world we live in now, where right wing crazies defend monstrous behaviour because "my team"
The 1930s are not some abstract past - they are here right now
Quote from: sid waddell on September 24, 2019, 11:22:41 PM
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on September 24, 2019, 08:36:40 PM
Antifa and China..... there we go. That's a BINGO
He should say what he really "thinks" abut Greta Thunberg
Or how about his opinion on what Dinesh D'Souza, the US right-wing's favourite fake intellectual did when he compared Thunberg to a Nazi
How about his opinion on what Fox News's Laura Ingraham said when she compared Thunberg and other environmental activists to Stephen King's "Children Of The Corn"
The Children Of The Corn were fictional characters who murdered people in order to ensure a successful corn harvest
So the mainstream US right wing is actually comparing Thunberg to Nazis and murderers, I'm making precisely zero of this up
Yet you won't hear a word about that here from any of the Trump cultists
That's because, like their charlatan hero, they are sadists who revel in seeing cruelty inflicted on children in whatever form they can get away with
This is the world we live in now, where right wing crazies defend monstrous behaviour because "my team"
The 1930s are not some abstract past - they are here right now
what has any of that got to do with climate change ? Climate change only started in January 2017 I suppose
Quote from: Gmac on September 25, 2019, 01:15:19 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on September 24, 2019, 11:22:41 PM
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on September 24, 2019, 08:36:40 PM
Antifa and China..... there we go. That's a BINGO
He should say what he really "thinks" abut Greta Thunberg
Or how about his opinion on what Dinesh D'Souza, the US right-wing's favourite fake intellectual did when he compared Thunberg to a Nazi
How about his opinion on what Fox News's Laura Ingraham said when she compared Thunberg and other environmental activists to Stephen King's "Children Of The Corn"
The Children Of The Corn were fictional characters who murdered people in order to ensure a successful corn harvest
So the mainstream US right wing is actually comparing Thunberg to Nazis and murderers, I'm making precisely zero of this up
Yet you won't hear a word about that here from any of the Trump cultists
That's because, like their charlatan hero, they are sadists who revel in seeing cruelty inflicted on children in whatever form they can get away with
This is the world we live in now, where right wing crazies defend monstrous behaviour because "my team"
The 1930s are not some abstract past - they are here right now
what has any of that got to do with climate change ? Climate change only started in January 2017 I suppose
The right is a problem. The right (people who don't believe in evolution) have evolved on the climate as follows:
1 - Climate change is a hoax
2 - Okay, it's not a hoax, but man isn't responsible
3 - Okay, man is responsible, but what about China?
4 - Greta has pigtails. You know who else had pigtails? The Hitler Youth! Ergo climate change alarmists are Nazis!
Some people on the right are at stage 4, others are still at stage 1.
It is also a bit of misnomer for young Greta to say us pesky adults have stolen her childhood, the youth of the day are guzzling resources on throw away items. When I was young I walked, like every person on my estate, to school, played outside kicking a ball and never ever had a holiday overseas, rather than blame this generation, climate change is as mentioned before down to one reason and one reason alone - there is too many people on this rock, nothing will change and a tipping point will occur soon, the earth is better off without us, maybe a mass extinction will give it time to heal and let it be inhabited by creatures who deserve it rather that us greedy, needy, selfish halfwits - the irony is they are thinking of colonising Mars, in case such an eventuality happens, so mankind can destroy two planets!
And there you go Eamon, proving my point.
In three quotes you've claimed that scientists understand the origins of the universe, reconfirmed that you will blindly follow scientific opinion, and attacker me for not doing the same.
Look up zealotry.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 25, 2019, 05:11:29 AM
The right is a problem. The right (people who don't believe in evolution) have evolved on the climate as follows:
1 - Climate change is a hoax
2 - Okay, it's not a hoax, but man isn't responsible
3 - Okay, man is responsible, but what about China?
4 - Greta has pigtails. You know who else had pigtails? The Hitler Youth! Ergo climate change alarmists are Nazis!
Some people on the right are at stage 4, others are still at stage 1.
Nice reductionism there.
I'll bite.
8 looming environmental apocalypses in the past 60 years:
1 Silent Spring
2 The Population Bomb
3 Resource Depletion
4 Global Cooling
5 Acid Rain
6 The Ozone Hole
7 Peak Oil
8 Global Warming aka Climate change
1-7 turned out to be either false or highly exaggerated.
And the left expect us to collapse the world economy for no. 8.
Quote from: five points on September 25, 2019, 08:34:34 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 25, 2019, 05:11:29 AM
The right is a problem. The right (people who don't believe in evolution) have evolved on the climate as follows:
1 - Climate change is a hoax
2 - Okay, it's not a hoax, but man isn't responsible
3 - Okay, man is responsible, but what about China?
4 - Greta has pigtails. You know who else had pigtails? The Hitler Youth! Ergo climate change alarmists are Nazis!
Some people on the right are at stage 4, others are still at stage 1.
Nice reductionism there.
I'll bite.
8 looming environmental apocalypses in the past 60 years:
1 Silent Spring
2 The Population Bomb
3 Resource Depletion
4 Global Cooling
5 Acid Rain
6 The Ozone Hole
7 Peak Oil
8 Global Warming aka Climate change
1-7 turned out to be either false or highly exaggerated.
And the left expect us to collapse the world economy for no. 8.
I'll bite back and assume you didn't pull that list off some half-baked Fox News or Facebook post.
Just a couple for starters...
Explain how Silent Spring, Acid Rain, Ozone Hole are either false or highly exagerrated.
Quote from: thewobbler on September 24, 2019, 08:59:13 PM
I've probably mentioned this before on a thread like this is that the problem with the climate change movement is that it has become zealot like.
An obsessive atheist, with their steadfast beliefs and unwiltingly dismissive tone, is every bit as insufferably annoying as a religious nutcase. They quote their scientific understanding as fact when the only fact about origin is that nobody in science has yet come up with a better reasoning for it than the God fella.
The climate change movement seems determined for a seat at this table. When people describe the movement as selective it's because they hit you in exactly the same way; through a sample of trustworthy data that requires "scientific agreement" to compare any further back in time than the industrial revolution.
I will never dismiss client change but I absolutely reserve the right to question the sanity, motives and unflinching, inherent bias of a movement of zealots.
——
Ponder this. Back when Christianity was spreading, the world was one of villages with older, wiser elders. They didn't latch onto Christianity because it answered their questions, or made any more sense than their other shrines and Gods. But it brought with it a set of guiding principles that any smart leader could subscribe to, and or take advantage of.
Climate change is a bit like this for governments. Whether it's based on truth or a lie doesn't actually matter to a government. Looking after the environment is a pretty bloody good set of guiding principles to confer upon your citizens. Raising taxes if they don't is a pretty good asset to call upon.
Trouble is, like Religion, the zealots just make it unbearable for so many of us.
Zeal doesn't make something wrong. It doesn't make it right either, but that is where you have to look at your own conscience.
What would you have people do?
Do you think elected governments (or dictators either) are just going to follow the guiding principles of environmental responsibility without the support of the populace and in some cases, mass mobilization?
This issue is rightly a hot political one right now, partly because of a series of recent weather events and effects on polar regions, but also partly because some very large and influential countries have been taken over by right wing demagogues who are intent on falsely dismissing the legitimate concerns and rolling back the modest steps taken so far, and intent on opening up their countries' remaining tracts of somewhat ecologically intact lands to exploitation and destruction.
Quote from: J70 on September 25, 2019, 11:01:40 AM
I'll bite back and assume you didn't pull that list off some half-baked Fox News or Facebook post.
Just a couple for starters...
Explain how Silent Spring, Acid Rain, Ozone Hole are either false or highly exagerrated.
The thesis of Silent Spring was that a pesticide called DDT would accumulate in the environment and cause huge harm. (Spoiler: that never really happened). DDT was very effective in preventing malaria. The scare caused DDT to be banned, and there was later a re-emergence in malaria cases worldwide, including in places where it had almost been eradicated, although the debate over cause and effect is still going on. Suffice to say there's been no catastrophe, apart from the malaria deaths. https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/1999/sep/01/guardianleaders
Acid rain was the 1980s scare that sulphur and nitrogen oxides would combined with water in the atmosphere to form sulphuric and nitric acids, and fall as rain to destroy trees, lakes and watercourses. It was grossly exaggerated. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/what-made-the-acid-rain-myth-finally-evaporate-1.900603
The 1990s Ozone Hole depletion theory was that the use of chloroflurocarbons (CFCs) was destroying the ozone layer surrounding the earth. The ozone would disappear and along with it the protection it offered from the sun. Again the passage of time revealed that this too was grossly exaggerated. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ozone-hole-was-super-scary-what-happened-it-180957775/
You can educate yourself on the rest as well as I can. Look up Google if you're stuck.
Quote from: five points on September 25, 2019, 11:32:42 AM
The 1990s Ozone Hole depletion theory was that the use of chloroflurocarbons (CFCs) was destroying the ozone layer surrounding the earth. The ozone would disappear and along with it the protection it offered from the sun. Again the passage of time revealed that this too was grossly exaggerated. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ozone-hole-was-super-scary-what-happened-it-180957775/
Unsurprisingly the guy that can't remember attacking a 16 year old 3 posts ago cannot read his own links:
QuoteEach year during ozone hole season, scientists from around the world track the depletion of the ozone above Antarctica using balloons, satellites and computer models. They have found that the ozone hole is actually getting smaller: Scientists estimate that if the Montreal Protocol had never been implemented, the hole would have grown by 40 percent by 2013. Instead, the hole is expected to completely heal by 2050.
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on September 25, 2019, 11:54:48 AM
Quote from: five points on September 25, 2019, 11:32:42 AM
The 1990s Ozone Hole depletion theory was that the use of chloroflurocarbons (CFCs) was destroying the ozone layer surrounding the earth. The ozone would disappear and along with it the protection it offered from the sun. Again the passage of time revealed that this too was grossly exaggerated. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ozone-hole-was-super-scary-what-happened-it-180957775/
Unsurprisingly the guy that can't remember attacking a 16 year old 3 posts ago cannot read his own links:
QuoteEach year during ozone hole season, scientists from around the world track the depletion of the ozone above Antarctica using balloons, satellites and computer models. They have found that the ozone hole is actually getting smaller: Scientists estimate that if the Montreal Protocol had never been implemented, the hole would have grown by 40 percent by 2013. Instead, the hole is expected to completely heal by 2050.
Happy to respond but not as long as you insult and vilify using false pretences.
Quote from: five points on September 25, 2019, 11:57:28 AM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on September 25, 2019, 11:54:48 AM
Quote from: five points on September 25, 2019, 11:32:42 AM
The 1990s Ozone Hole depletion theory was that the use of chloroflurocarbons (CFCs) was destroying the ozone layer surrounding the earth. The ozone would disappear and along with it the protection it offered from the sun. Again the passage of time revealed that this too was grossly exaggerated. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ozone-hole-was-super-scary-what-happened-it-180957775/
Unsurprisingly the guy that can't remember attacking a 16 year old 3 posts ago cannot read his own links:
QuoteEach year during ozone hole season, scientists from around the world track the depletion of the ozone above Antarctica using balloons, satellites and computer models. They have found that the ozone hole is actually getting smaller: Scientists estimate that if the Montreal Protocol had never been implemented, the hole would have grown by 40 percent by 2013. Instead, the hole is expected to completely heal by 2050.
Happy to respond but not as long as you insult and vilify using false pretences.
When you're wrong as you have been repeatedly on this thread can you not just admit you were wrong? The Ozone hole problem was not exaggerated. The science clearly laid out what was happening and what would happen. Steps were taken to stop this happening and hey presto - it didn't happen.
You did attack Greta Thunberg which you should immediately retract and apologise for. I'm hoping that your lack of understanding is the cause and not some other (worse) motive.
Quote from: five points on September 25, 2019, 11:32:42 AM
Quote from: J70 on September 25, 2019, 11:01:40 AM
I'll bite back and assume you didn't pull that list off some half-baked Fox News or Facebook post.
Just a couple for starters...
Explain how Silent Spring, Acid Rain, Ozone Hole are either false or highly exagerrated.
The thesis of Silent Spring was that a pesticide called DDT would accumulate in the environment and cause huge harm. (Spoiler: that never really happened). DDT was very effective in preventing malaria. The scare caused DDT to be banned, and there was later a re-emergence in malaria cases worldwide, including in places where it had almost been eradicated, although the debate over cause and effect is still going on. Suffice to say there's been no catastrophe, apart from the malaria deaths. https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/1999/sep/01/guardianleaders
Acid rain was the 1980s scare that sulphur and nitrogen oxides would combined with water in the atmosphere to form sulphuric and nitric acids, and fall as rain to destroy trees, lakes and watercourses. It was grossly exaggerated. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/what-made-the-acid-rain-myth-finally-evaporate-1.900603
The 1990s Ozone Hole depletion theory was that the use of chloroflurocarbons (CFCs) was destroying the ozone layer surrounding the earth. The ozone would disappear and along with it the protection it offered from the sun. Again the passage of time revealed that this too was grossly exaggerated. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ozone-hole-was-super-scary-what-happened-it-180957775/
You can educate yourself on the rest as well as I can. Look up Google if you're stuck.
Silent spring - are you for real?
DDT, specifically, is the textbook example of a persistent toxin that bioaccumulates. Mercury is another example. They're not metabolized, but stored in the body, so as the molecules move up the food chain, the concentrations in the body increase. DDT had devastating effects on raptors especially, due to it causing thinning of egg shells, but is also toxic to many forms of aquatic life. There is no legitimate debate about this.
Assuming though, for the sake of argument, that no legitimate alternative to DDT existed to fight malaria (which is false), that does not render the concerns first publicized by Rachel Carson as false.
Something can be two things at once. Asbestos is the "miracle mineral", with amazing heat- and chemical- and structural- proofing properties. That doesn't make it any less toxic.
On acid rain, you're going to need a little more then an article by William Reville. The 2005 report from the very NAPAP committee he claims downplayed the effects of acid rain acknowledges them, states that some areas may not recover due to continued exposure, and documents the reductions in emissions arising out of the 1990 Clean Air Act legislation in the US, which introduced the highly successful cap and trade policy.
Someone else has pointed out flaws in your ozone bit, but your claims strike me as equivalent to someone saying, post -quadruple bypass operation, that the doctors where scare-mongering when they warned him he could die if he didn't change his lifestyle.
Quote from: five points on September 25, 2019, 11:57:28 AM
Happy to respond but not as long as you insult and vilify using false pretences.
Not until you grow a set of balls and withdraw your personal attack on a 16 year old kid because you don't have the means to debate her message.
Quote from: magpie seanie on September 25, 2019, 12:31:29 PM
When you're wrong as you have been repeatedly on this thread can you not just admit you were wrong? The Ozone hole problem was not exaggerated. The science clearly laid out what was happening and what would happen. Steps were taken to stop this happening and hey presto - it didn't happen.
The problem was indeed exaggerated though, as here, which blamed supersonic flights: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13217923-200-science-supersonic-threat-to-ozone-layer/
QuoteYou did attack Greta Thunberg which you should immediately retract and apologise for. I'm hoping that your lack of understanding is the cause and not some other (worse) motive.
Since when does noting that someone has special needs constitute an attack on them? Greta has acknowledged her Aspergers diagnosis herself and not unreasonably sees it as a character asset. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/02/greta-thunberg-responds-to-aspergers-critics-its-a-superpower And any child or adult who believes that the world is about to end and that their future has been stolen is indeed troubled. Again, noting that does not constitute an attack. I feel sorry for her.
Quote from: J70 on September 25, 2019, 12:40:33 PM
Silent spring - are you for real?
DDT, specifically, is the textbook example of a persistent toxin that bioaccumulates. Mercury is another example. They're not metabolized, but stored in the body, so as the molecules move up the food chain, the concentrations in the body increase. DDT had devastating effects on raptors especially, due to it causing thinning of egg shells, but is also toxic to many forms of aquatic life. There is no legitimate debate about this.
Assuming though, for the sake of argument, that no legitimate alternative to DDT existed to fight malaria (which is false), that does not render the concerns first publicized by Rachel Carson as false.
Something can be two things at once. Asbestos is the "miracle mineral", with amazing heat- and chemical- and structural- proofing properties. That doesn't make it any less toxic.
Raptors saved. Millions die from malaria. And no exaggeration? Wow.
Quote
On acid rain, you're going to need a little more then an article by William Reville. The 2005 report from the very NAPAP committee he claims downplayed the effects of acid rain acknowledges them, states that some areas may not recover due to continued exposure, and documents the reductions in emissions arising out of the 1990 Clean Air Act legislation in the US, which introduced the highly successful cap and trade policy.
Most of the world has never enjoyed Clean Air Act legislation yet acid rain is no longer counted as a serious problem.
Quote from: J70 on September 25, 2019, 12:40:33 PM
Someone else has pointed out flaws in your ozone bit, but your claims strike me as equivalent to someone saying, post -quadruple bypass operation, that the doctors where scare-mongering when they warned him he could die if he didn't change his lifestyle.
Except the earth didn't need a quadruple bypass operation to duck the ozone hole bullet.
Quote from: five points on September 25, 2019, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: J70 on September 25, 2019, 12:40:33 PM
Silent spring - are you for real?
DDT, specifically, is the textbook example of a persistent toxin that bioaccumulates. Mercury is another example. They're not metabolized, but stored in the body, so as the molecules move up the food chain, the concentrations in the body increase. DDT had devastating effects on raptors especially, due to it causing thinning of egg shells, but is also toxic to many forms of aquatic life. There is no legitimate debate about this.
Assuming though, for the sake of argument, that no legitimate alternative to DDT existed to fight malaria (which is false), that does not render the concerns first publicized by Rachel Carson as false.
Something can be two things at once. Asbestos is the "miracle mineral", with amazing heat- and chemical- and structural- proofing properties. That doesn't make it any less toxic.
Raptors saved. Millions die from malaria. And no exaggeration? Wow.
Where's the exagerration?
You said the environmental effects did not happen. Changing story?
Quote from: five points on September 25, 2019, 01:12:35 PM
Quote
On acid rain, you're going to need a little more then an article by William Reville. The 2005 report from the very NAPAP committee he claims downplayed the effects of acid rain acknowledges them, states that some areas may not recover due to continued exposure, and documents the reductions in emissions arising out of the 1990 Clean Air Act legislation in the US, which introduced the highly successful cap and trade policy.
Most of the world has never enjoyed Clean Air Act legislation yet acid rain is no longer counted as a serious problem.
Really?
Where was it a problem to begin with? What did the Scandinavians do?
What about places like China and India? Russia?
Quote from: five points on September 25, 2019, 01:16:14 PM
Quote from: J70 on September 25, 2019, 12:40:33 PM
Someone else has pointed out flaws in your ozone bit, but your claims strike me as equivalent to someone saying, post -quadruple bypass operation, that the doctors where scare-mongering when they warned him he could die if he didn't change his lifestyle.
Except the earth didn't need a quadruple bypass operation to duck the ozone hole bullet.
Just the Montreal Protocol thankfully.
Which was more like aspirin and giving up smoking and red meat I guess.
Quote from: J70 on September 25, 2019, 01:18:20 PM
Really?
Where was it a problem to begin with?
What about places like China and India? Russia?
Antartica, chiefly. https://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/28/us/ozone-hole-raising-concern-for-scientists-safety.html
Quote from: five points on September 25, 2019, 12:52:27 PM
The problem was indeed exaggerated though, as here, which blamed supersonic flights: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13217923-200-science-supersonic-threat-to-ozone-layer/
Jesus H. Christ.
Do you actually read your own links?
Story: "A new generation of Supersonic Transports that fly higher than Concorde could damage the Ozone layer"
5points: "14 Concordes didn't damage the Ozone layer so all the science is a load of crap."
QuoteThomas Peter, Christoph Bruhl and Paul Crutzen, of the Max Planck Institute
for Chemistry in Mainz calculated the effect on the ozone layer of a fleet
of 600 SSTs flying at either an altitude of 22 kilometres or between 17
and 20 kilometres, which is in line with studies announced recently by NASA.
Quote from: J70 on September 25, 2019, 01:19:39 PM
Quote from: five points on September 25, 2019, 01:16:14 PM
Except the earth didn't need a quadruple bypass operation to duck the ozone hole bullet.
Just the Montreal Protocol thankfully.
Which was more like aspirin and giving up smoking and red meat I guess.
My point exactly, except in global terms we still smoke and eat red meat.
Okay, a question.
The Mayor of Courmayeur is blaming global warming for a part of a local glacier being in danger of breaking away.
Would it be wrong to ask him to consider that if he was somehow able to be be transported fleetingly to this place 1,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, 5,000 years ago and 10,000 years ago, that he would likely not recognise the topology of the area in each epoch, and might even think them each as different places?
Again I'm not saying he's wrong in his proclamations. But for anyone to be convinced that the world they grew up in, was exactly as how nature intended it to be forever, well it's a narrow mindset..
Quote from: five points on September 25, 2019, 01:21:45 PM
Quote from: J70 on September 25, 2019, 01:19:39 PM
Quote from: five points on September 25, 2019, 01:16:14 PM
Except the earth didn't need a quadruple bypass operation to duck the ozone hole bullet.
Just the Montreal Protocol thankfully.
Which was more like aspirin and giving up smoking and red meat I guess.
My point exactly, except in global terms we still smoke and eat red meat.
That the fix was relatively easy compared to other environmental problems, does NOT mean that the issue was exaggerated or not a serious problem.
My point stands. You're dismissing the problem after the fact because we were able to fix it. Same as the idiot I used in the example of the bypass.
Quote from: J70 on September 25, 2019, 01:37:17 PM
That the fix was relatively easy compared to other environmental problems, does NOT mean that the issue was exaggerated or not a serious problem.
My point stands. You're dismissing the problem after the fact because we were able to fix it. Same as the idiot I used in the example of the bypass.
I was in school 30-odd years ago when they were scaring the crap out of us about it. Mind you it's merely an example, but one of many. I was too young for global cooling and too old for peak oil.
Quote from: five points on September 25, 2019, 01:39:06 PM
Quote from: J70 on September 25, 2019, 01:37:17 PM
That the fix was relatively easy compared to other environmental problems, does NOT mean that the issue was exaggerated or not a serious problem.
My point stands. You're dismissing the problem after the fact because we were able to fix it. Same as the idiot I used in the example of the bypass.
I was in school 30-odd years ago when they were scaring the crap out of us about it. Mind you it's merely an example, but one of many. I was too young for global cooling and too old for peak oil.
You might want to pick better examples then if there are so many.
The ones you have presented aren't doing too well even with the modest discussion here.
Nothing you have said about the ozone hole, for example, invalidates the concern that existed.
Quote from: five points on September 25, 2019, 01:21:11 PM
Quote from: J70 on September 25, 2019, 01:18:20 PM
Really?
Where was it a problem to begin with?
What about places like China and India? Russia?
Antartica, chiefly. https://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/28/us/ozone-hole-raising-concern-for-scientists-safety.html
I think you're confusing the concerns about acid rain and the ozone layer.
Quote from: J70 on September 25, 2019, 01:56:35 PM
I think you're confusing the concerns about acid rain and the ozone layer.
I was indeed.
Quote from: five points on September 25, 2019, 01:58:40 PM
Quote from: J70 on September 25, 2019, 01:56:35 PM
I think you're confusing the concerns about acid rain and the ozone layer.
I was indeed.
Acid rain was political hot potato in Europe in the 1990s as the Irish Times article linked above mentions. It was a big concern in Eastern Europe in the years after the Berlin Wall fell.
Quote from: thewobbler on September 25, 2019, 01:22:09 PM
Okay, a question.
The Mayor of Courmayeur is blaming global warming for a part of a local glacier being in danger of breaking away.
Would it be wrong to ask him to consider that if he was somehow able to be be transported fleetingly to this place 1,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, 5,000 years ago and 10,000 years ago, that he would likely not recognise the topology of the area in each epoch, and might even think them each as different places?
Again I'm not saying he's wrong in his proclamations. But for anyone to be convinced that the world they grew up in, was exactly as how nature intended it to be forever, well it's a narrow mindset..
Isn't the point though that what is happening is NOT natural?
I have never heard anyone say that the natural world is static.
But outside of the five previous mass extinction events in the past 500 million years, nothing has ever occurred on the scale of the current destruction of habitats and collapse of species, both in terms of numbers of species and individuals. Climate change, acidification of the oceans, over-harvesting, habitat destruction and fragmentation, invasive species all being major contributors.
Fear and consumption, keeping western world economies going for years.
Tubs was right about yer Swedish doll.
This place is getting worse.
Quote from: J70 on September 25, 2019, 02:06:02 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on September 25, 2019, 01:22:09 PM
Okay, a question.
The Mayor of Courmayeur is blaming global warming for a part of a local glacier being in danger of breaking away.
Would it be wrong to ask him to consider that if he was somehow able to be be transported fleetingly to this place 1,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, 5,000 years ago and 10,000 years ago, that he would likely not recognise the topology of the area in each epoch, and might even think them each as different places?
Again I'm not saying he's wrong in his proclamations. But for anyone to be convinced that the world they grew up in, was exactly as how nature intended it to be forever, well it's a narrow mindset..
Isn't the point though that what is happening is NOT natural?
I have never heard anyone say that the natural world is static.
But outside of the five previous mass extinction events in the past 500 million years, nothing has ever occurred on the scale of the current destruction of habitats and collapse of species, both in terms of numbers of species and individuals. Climate change, acidification of the oceans, over-harvesting, habitat destruction and fragmentation, invasive species all being major contributors.
If there were 5 natural mass extinctions before, then another natural one is surely inevitable.
I wouldn't possibly suggest that human excess isn't contributing to the event. It might even be speeding it up at a rate of knots. This seems likely.
But proclaiming every environmental change as the result of global warming /climate change is basically two fingers up to a planet that has seen off all its species at least 5 times, and continued to do its own thing throughout. People should take a step back and think about what they're saying, before latching these words onto everything. That's the point I'm trying to make here.
Quote from: thewobbler on September 25, 2019, 02:54:33 PM
If there were 5 natural mass extinctions before, then another natural one is surely inevitable.
I wouldn't possibly suggest that human excess isn't contributing to the event. It might even be speeding it up at a rate of knots. This seems likely.
But proclaiming every environmental change as the result of global warming /climate change is basically two fingers up to a planet that has seen off all its species at least 5 times, and continued to do its own thing throughout. People should take a step back and think about what they're saying, before latching these words onto everything. That's the point I'm trying to make here.
Re. the bit in bold - so if it was 95+% the result of human activity? [and its likely 99%+ human activity - as there have been no external events such as notable increase/decrease in solar activity or volcanic ash or from a meteor impact which could be associated to many (if not all!) previous extinction events]
Quote from: thewobbler on September 25, 2019, 02:54:33 PM
Quote from: J70 on September 25, 2019, 02:06:02 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on September 25, 2019, 01:22:09 PM
Okay, a question.
The Mayor of Courmayeur is blaming global warming for a part of a local glacier being in danger of breaking away.
Would it be wrong to ask him to consider that if he was somehow able to be be transported fleetingly to this place 1,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, 5,000 years ago and 10,000 years ago, that he would likely not recognise the topology of the area in each epoch, and might even think them each as different places?
Again I'm not saying he's wrong in his proclamations. But for anyone to be convinced that the world they grew up in, was exactly as how nature intended it to be forever, well it's a narrow mindset..
Isn't the point though that what is happening is NOT natural?
I have never heard anyone say that the natural world is static.
But outside of the five previous mass extinction events in the past 500 million years, nothing has ever occurred on the scale of the current destruction of habitats and collapse of species, both in terms of numbers of species and individuals. Climate change, acidification of the oceans, over-harvesting, habitat destruction and fragmentation, invasive species all being major contributors.
If there were 5 natural mass extinctions before, then another natural one is surely inevitable.
I wouldn't possibly suggest that human excess isn't contributing to the event. It might even be speeding it up at a rate of knots. This seems likely.
But proclaiming every environmental change as the result of global warming /climate change is basically two fingers up to a planet that has seen off all its species at least 5 times, and continued to do its own thing throughout. People should take a step back and think about what they're saying, before latching these words onto everything. That's the point I'm trying to make here.
Who is saying every environmental change is specifically down to global warming? Global warming IS an environmental change, unfortunately just one of the major ones we are inflicting on the planet.
The previous mass extinctions were down to things like massive asteroid strikes, continental-scale volcanic activity and (over many, many millennia, not decades) climate change. The last one was 66 million years ago at the end of the Cretacous! Every six year old kid is familiar with that one, as it killed T. rex and Triceratops.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the current collapse is down to anything OTHER than human activity or that another one was inevitable. I've already listed the major causes. We're scraping the land clean, polluting the air, land and water, massively over-fishing, spreading species all around the planet where they wreak havoc on native species and habitats.
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on September 25, 2019, 03:29:06 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on September 25, 2019, 02:54:33 PM
If there were 5 natural mass extinctions before, then another natural one is surely inevitable.
I wouldn't possibly suggest that human excess isn't contributing to the event. It might even be speeding it up at a rate of knots. This seems likely.
But proclaiming every environmental change as the result of global warming /climate change is basically two fingers up to a planet that has seen off all its species at least 5 times, and continued to do its own thing throughout. People should take a step back and think about what they're saying, before latching these words onto everything. That's the point I'm trying to make here.
Re. the bit in bold - so if it was 95+% the result of human activity? [and its likely 99%+ human activity - as there have been no external events such as notable increase/decrease in solar activity or volcanic ash or from a meteor impact which could be associated to many (if not all!) previous extinction events]
He's right to an extent tho.... everything gets blamed on Global Warming when there are other factors. As an example the increase in intensity of wildfires in the Western US is widely blamed on Global Warming but research shows that extinguishing every wild fire disrupts the natural cycle of burning and actually creates denser forests (unsurprisingly) with more fuel and so more explosive fires when they do get going.
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 25, 2019, 03:42:22 PM
He's right to an extent tho.... everything gets blamed on Global Warming when there are other factors. As an example the increase in intensity of wildfires in the Western US is widely blamed on Global Warming but research shows that extinguishing every wild fire disrupts the natural cycle of burning and actually creates denser forests (unsurprisingly) with more fuel and so more explosive fires when they do get going.
Another is severe flooding. When such events happened, they blame climate change but rarely if ever mention buildings built on flood plains or the policy decisions (on environmental grounds) to stop dredging and clearing rivers. The Dublin road in Cavan town was blocked by flash flooding last Sunday night. 30 years ago much of that area was a swamp but is now built up with retail parks and the like. Little wonder the excess water now ends up on the road.
Quote from: five points on September 25, 2019, 04:18:58 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 25, 2019, 03:42:22 PM
He's right to an extent tho.... everything gets blamed on Global Warming when there are other factors. As an example the increase in intensity of wildfires in the Western US is widely blamed on Global Warming but research shows that extinguishing every wild fire disrupts the natural cycle of burning and actually creates denser forests (unsurprisingly) with more fuel and so more explosive fires when they do get going.
Another is severe flooding. When such events happened, they blame climate change but rarely if ever mention buildings built on flood plains or the policy decisions (on environmental grounds) to stop dredging and clearing rivers. The Dublin road in Cavan town was blocked by flash flooding last Sunday night. 30 years ago much of that area was a swamp but is now built up with retail parks and the like. Little wonder the excess water now ends up on the road.
So it's the fault of environmentalists that flood plains are widely built on? ;D
Quote from: thewobbler on September 25, 2019, 08:17:12 AM
And there you go Eamon, proving my point.
In three quotes you've claimed that scientists understand the origins of the universe,
They do. Just because you don't doesn't mean nobody does.
Quotereconfirmed that you will blindly follow scientific opinion,
"Blindly?" Scientific knowledge is evidence-based.
Quoteand attacker me for not doing the same.
I'm attacking you for not knowing what you're talking about and projecting your ignorance onto everyone else.
Quote
Look up zealotry.
Done. What do I do now?
Quote from: five points on September 25, 2019, 08:34:34 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 25, 2019, 05:11:29 AM
The right is a problem. The right (people who don't believe in evolution) have evolved on the climate as follows:
1 - Climate change is a hoax
2 - Okay, it's not a hoax, but man isn't responsible
3 - Okay, man is responsible, but what about China?
4 - Greta has pigtails. You know who else had pigtails? The Hitler Youth! Ergo climate change alarmists are Nazis!
Some people on the right are at stage 4, others are still at stage 1.
Nice reductionism there.
I'll bite.
8 looming environmental apocalypses in the past 60 years:
1 Silent Spring
2 The Population Bomb
3 Resource Depletion
4 Global Cooling
5 Acid Rain
6 The Ozone Hole
7 Peak Oil
8 Global Warming aka Climate change
1-7 turned out to be either false or highly exaggerated.
And the left expect us to collapse the world economy for no. 8.
Okay, I'm going to pick out one of your little fallacies and focus on that. The ozone hole.
The thinning of the ozone layer was a big problem in the 1980s. It was vanishing at the polar regions and thinning over Europe.
Governments got together and signed the Montreal Protocol, a ground-breaking international agreement to phase out the use of ozone-depleting chemicals in products like aerosols and fridges.
It worked.
The ozone layer has begun to recover.
The Montreal Protocol is hailed as one of the most successful international environmental agreements ever.
If you're trying to argue that governments should not come together to solve big environmental problems, the Montreal Protocol is a really bad example to pick. Without the Montreal Protocol you'd be getting a sunburn with 5 minutes of exposure to the sun.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/09/montreal-protocol-ozone-treaty-30-climate-change-hcfs-hfcs/ (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/09/montreal-protocol-ozone-treaty-30-climate-change-hcfs-hfcs/)
Quote from: five points on September 25, 2019, 11:32:42 AM
The 1990s Ozone Hole depletion theory was that the use of chloroflurocarbons (CFCs) was destroying the ozone layer surrounding the earth. The ozone would disappear and along with it the protection it offered from the sun. Again the passage of time revealed that this too was grossly exaggerated. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ozone-hole-was-super-scary-what-happened-it-180957775/
Thanks for posting the rebuttal to your own argument. From the very link that you posted:
"Scientists estimate that if the Montreal Protocol had never been implemented, the hole would have grown by 40 percent by 2013. Instead, the hole is expected to completely heal by 2050."
Quote
You can educate yourself on the rest as well as I can. Look up Google if you're stuck.
The University of Google doesn't seem to be working very well for you, does it?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 25, 2019, 04:46:21 PM
Okay, I'm going to pick out one of your little fallacies and focus on that. The ozone hole.
Discussed that and the acid rain one ad nauseam earlier today when you weren't around. You're free to read back on it if you wish but I'm not going to tread old ground twice in the one day.
Happy to discuss any of the other 6. But do please drop the patronising tone. It only aggravates.
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 25, 2019, 03:42:22 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on September 25, 2019, 03:29:06 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on September 25, 2019, 02:54:33 PM
If there were 5 natural mass extinctions before, then another natural one is surely inevitable.
I wouldn't possibly suggest that human excess isn't contributing to the event. It might even be speeding it up at a rate of knots. This seems likely.
But proclaiming every environmental change as the result of global warming /climate change is basically two fingers up to a planet that has seen off all its species at least 5 times, and continued to do its own thing throughout. People should take a step back and think about what they're saying, before latching these words onto everything. That's the point I'm trying to make here.
Re. the bit in bold - so if it was 95+% the result of human activity? [and its likely 99%+ human activity - as there have been no external events such as notable increase/decrease in solar activity or volcanic ash or from a meteor impact which could be associated to many (if not all!) previous extinction events]
He's right to an extent tho.... everything gets blamed on Global Warming when there are other factors. As an example the increase in intensity of wildfires in the Western US is widely blamed on Global Warming but research shows that extinguishing every wild fire disrupts the natural cycle of burning and actually creates denser forests (unsurprisingly) with more fuel and so more explosive fires when they do get going.
But is that not textbook, observable, human activity-caused climate change at work? If we accept your premise (and I'm sure forestry management has a large part to play in wildfire spread) then human activity has contributed to the prevalence of wildfires, those wildfires release huge amounts of carbon into the air, contributing to global warming, which then feedbacks into providing drier, hotter, more combustible conditions for future fires, again in explosively full forests?
It's a bit chicken and egg, but to say that everything gets blamed on global warming, misses the fact that we are to blame for global warming.
Quote from: thewobbler on September 25, 2019, 01:22:09 PM
Okay, a question.
The Mayor of Courmayeur is blaming global warming for a part of a local glacier being in danger of breaking away.
Would it be wrong to ask him to consider that if he was somehow able to be be transported fleetingly to this place 1,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, 5,000 years ago and 10,000 years ago, that he would likely not recognise the topology of the area in each epoch, and might even think them each as different places?
Again I'm not saying he's wrong in his proclamations. But for anyone to be convinced that the world they grew up in, was exactly as how nature intended it to be forever, well it's a narrow mindset..
There's no need to build strong buildings or carry out seismic retrofitting on older buildings because earthquakes are naturally occurring events.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 25, 2019, 04:40:14 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on September 25, 2019, 08:17:12 AM
And there you go Eamon, proving my point.
In three quotes you've claimed that scientists understand the origins of the universe,
They do. Just because you don't doesn't mean nobody does.
Feck! when did they find out?
Been researching and reading up on this for most of my life so I'm all ears on this one!
Quote from: easytiger95 on September 25, 2019, 04:51:20 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 25, 2019, 03:42:22 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on September 25, 2019, 03:29:06 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on September 25, 2019, 02:54:33 PM
If there were 5 natural mass extinctions before, then another natural one is surely inevitable.
I wouldn't possibly suggest that human excess isn't contributing to the event. It might even be speeding it up at a rate of knots. This seems likely.
But proclaiming every environmental change as the result of global warming /climate change is basically two fingers up to a planet that has seen off all its species at least 5 times, and continued to do its own thing throughout. People should take a step back and think about what they're saying, before latching these words onto everything. That's the point I'm trying to make here.
Re. the bit in bold - so if it was 95+% the result of human activity? [and its likely 99%+ human activity - as there have been no external events such as notable increase/decrease in solar activity or volcanic ash or from a meteor impact which could be associated to many (if not all!) previous extinction events]
He's right to an extent tho.... everything gets blamed on Global Warming when there are other factors. As an example the increase in intensity of wildfires in the Western US is widely blamed on Global Warming but research shows that extinguishing every wild fire disrupts the natural cycle of burning and actually creates denser forests (unsurprisingly) with more fuel and so more explosive fires when they do get going.
But is that not textbook, observable, human activity-caused climate change at work? If we accept your premise (and I'm sure forestry management has a large part to play in wildfire spread) then human activity has contributed to the prevalence of wildfires, those wildfires release huge amounts of carbon into the air, contributing to global warming, which then feedbacks into providing drier, hotter, more combustible conditions for future fires, again in explosively full forests?
It's a bit chicken and egg, but to say that everything gets blamed on global warming, misses the fact that we are to blame for global warming.
Not so much as forest are carbon sink so they are part of the natural cycle, once they burn they grow again and so take the the CO2 as they grow and store it until they burn again.
An increase in temps would increase the energy required to burn the fires so sure it would be a factor but negligible (in the Western US at Least) in comparison to the increase in fuel, which yes was caused by human activity.
I was hoping that if I started this thread we could actually discuss ways to deal with climate change. Instead it's been diverted into the usual crap of trying to convince the flat earthers that scientists understand science better than someone who did a few seconds of "research" on Google and watches Fox News all day. This is one of the reasons why it's so hard to get anything done on this issue. It's like history teachers having to spend 90% of every lesson trying to talk some sense into a small rump of holocaust deniers.
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 25, 2019, 04:53:03 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 25, 2019, 04:40:14 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on September 25, 2019, 08:17:12 AM
And there you go Eamon, proving my point.
In three quotes you've claimed that scientists understand the origins of the universe,
They do. Just because you don't doesn't mean nobody does.
Feck! when did they find out?
Been researching and reading up on this for most of my life so I'm all ears on this one!
The Cosmic Background Radiation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background) was discovered in 1964.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 25, 2019, 05:00:11 PM
I was hoping that if I started this thread we could actually discuss ways to deal with climate change. Instead it's been diverted into the usual crap of trying to convince the flat earthers that scientists understand science better than someone who did a few seconds of "research" on Google and watches Fox News all day. This is one of the reasons why it's so hard to get anything done on this issue. It's like history teachers having to spend 90% of every lesson trying to talk some sense into a small rump of holocaust deniers.
You reap what you sow, you have contributed to the disintegration of this thread probably more than anyone else with your holier than thou BS and ad hominen attacks.
I suggest you close it and try again. Maybe head the new one with Solutions for CC but to be honest do you really think you are going to get many solutions on gaaboard?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 25, 2019, 05:01:54 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 25, 2019, 04:53:03 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 25, 2019, 04:40:14 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on September 25, 2019, 08:17:12 AM
And there you go Eamon, proving my point.
In three quotes you've claimed that scientists understand the origins of the universe,
They do. Just because you don't doesn't mean nobody does.
Feck! when did they find out?
Been researching and reading up on this for most of my life so I'm all ears on this one!
The Cosmic Background Radiation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background) was discovered in 1964.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that CMB tells us the origin of the universe? ;D ;D ;D
Ah lads, don't derail the thread! Start another for that stuff.
Lock it Eamonn.
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 25, 2019, 05:09:37 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 25, 2019, 05:01:54 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 25, 2019, 04:53:03 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 25, 2019, 04:40:14 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on September 25, 2019, 08:17:12 AM
And there you go Eamon, proving my point.
In three quotes you've claimed that scientists understand the origins of the universe,
They do. Just because you don't doesn't mean nobody does.
Feck! when did they find out?
Been researching and reading up on this for most of my life so I'm all ears on this one!
The Cosmic Background Radiation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background) was discovered in 1964.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that CMB tells us the origin of the universe? ;D ;D ;D
There it is. The reason why this discussion is pointless.