Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[robinessex]

Try these:-

http://gridwatch.co.uk/

http://www.dynamicdemand.co.uk/grid.htm

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

[Terminator X]

jet_noise said:

durbster said:

Well no, because all the data sources show warming.

That's quite a depth of knowledge you're demonstrating there or a remarkable see-no-evil, some might say religious, closed-mindedness!

By warming you mean no warming since since 1995

TX.

[robinessex]

UN review says carbon plans fall well short of climate goals

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3784...

A UN review of national plans to cut carbon says they are well short of the levels needed to keep the rise in global temperatures under 2C.
The report finds that by 2030 the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere will be some 25% above that mark.

No surprise there then.

[Terminator X]

China and the USA emit almost 50% of World CO2, perhaps have a word with them.

TX.

[durbster]

Terminator X said:

jet_noise said:

durbster said:

Well no, because all the data sources show warming.

That's quite a depth of knowledge you're demonstrating there or a remarkable see-no-evil, some might say religious, closed-mindedness!

By warming you mean no warming since since 1995

TX.

In which temperature data would we find that conclusion?

[AreOut]

Sir David Attenborough proposes shooting Donald Trump to save climate

http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2016/11/sir-david-...

just when you think they can't get more ridiculous...

[hidetheelephants]

Propellant isn't very green, bludgeoning him to death with a rolled up Sharper Image catalogue would be much more sustainable and also quite ironic.

[LongQ]

Back in 2013 Attenborough proposed the need for humanity to limit its expansion (nice trick if you think it's at all possible) because if is didn't nature would do so anyway.

I'm puzzled.

When did humanity become NOT part of nature?

And why attempt to do something that is completely the opposite of human nature if there is a solution a little further down the road should it turn out to be "required".

I'm not really decrying his fears for some future population of the world but, like those wo have gone before, they will have to work things out for themeselves when the time comes. As has always been the case .... and assuming the time comes.

If not that then lets go straight to a "Brave New World" scenario now, publically and sell the concept as something positive - whether it is or not only time will tell. Not that it matters.

What is it that these social dabblers are trying to achieve? Some form of historic immortality?

[hidetheelephants]

It's the old Malthusian thing, a lot of watermelons have it; evidence so far is that the population will self-regulate once everyone has access to the basics like we do(education, healthcare, running water, shelter and free association), people lose interest in breeding incontinently once they are no longer fearful about a)child mortality b)where their next meal is coming from.

[Randy Winkman]

LongQ said:

I'm puzzled.

When did humanity become NOT part of nature?

Were Exxon Valdez or Chernobyl nature?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spi...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl

[mondeoman]

Randy Winkman said:

LongQ said:

I'm puzzled.

When did humanity become NOT part of nature?

Were Exxon Valdez or Chernobyl nature?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spi...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl

S'funny, if you actually look into it, Exxon Valdez has had no lasting impact - wildlife has returned, there is effectively no evidence of the spill. Just sayin.

[LongQ]

Randy Winkman said:

LongQ said:

I'm puzzled.

When did humanity become NOT part of nature?

Were Exxon Valdez or Chernobyl nature?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spi...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl

Yes, in my view.

But then my question was "When did humanity become NOT part of nature?"

Citing the incidents you have seems to suggest you think that humans, having created the circumstances for such events, must at some point become not part of nature. If we are still part of nature then so are the events created by humans, whatever they may be.

Now if you want to narrow the definition that's fine by me so long as you can offer an answer to the question.

On a different tack ....

It would seem that "the natural world" pretty much shrugged off the Valdez problem after a couple of decades - as it tends to do.


And Chernobyl, despite being less than beneficial to some humans in the area at the time along with, presumably, local wildlife, ultimately returned a large patch of land to "nature". By many accounts nature is doing whatever it does apparently quite successfully. Perhaps that is the sort of human induced event that Attenborough had in mind when he suggested that Nature would resolve the problem of human overpopulation as he perceives it.

[Randy Winkman]

LongQ said:

Randy Winkman said:

LongQ said:

I'm puzzled.

When did humanity become NOT part of nature?

Were Exxon Valdez or Chernobyl nature?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spi...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl

Yes, in my view.

But then my question was "When did humanity become NOT part of nature?"

Citing the incidents you have seems to suggest you think that humans, having created the circumstances for such events, must at some point become not part of nature. If we are still part of nature then so are the events created by humans, whatever they may be.

Now if you want to narrow the definition that's fine by me so long as you can offer an answer to the question.

On a different tack ....

It would seem that "the natural world" pretty much shrugged off the Valdez problem after a couple of decades - as it tends to do.


And Chernobyl, despite being less than beneficial to some humans in the area at the time along with, presumably, local wildlife, ultimately returned a large patch of land to "nature". By many accounts nature is doing whatever it does apparently quite successfully. Perhaps that is the sort of human induced event that Attenborough had in mind when he suggested that Nature would resolve the problem of human overpopulation as he perceives it.

Shrugging off such vents is hilarious. Is rape and murder OK because it's "nature"?

[Jinx]

Randy Winkman said:

Shrugging off such vents is hilarious. Is rape and murder OK because it's "nature"?

Any Attenborough documentary shows plenty of both. Or are you species-ist?

[Randy Winkman]

Jinx said:

Randy Winkman said:

Shrugging off such vents is hilarious. Is rape and murder OK because it's "nature"?

Any Attenborough documentary shows plenty of both. Or are you species-ist?

Your reply shows that the comment about nature was silly.

[Jinx]

Randy Winkman said:

Your reply shows that the comment about nature was silly.

Peter Singer
on all animals are equal.

[wc98]

Randy Winkman said:

Your reply shows that the comment about nature was silly.

crude oil occurs naturally .in some places it seeps from the ground onto land and into water. "nature" knows this and has mechanisms in place to deal with it. it is why there are no long lasting effects from any oil spill anywhere in the world. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-mic...

[robinessex]

Paris climate deal enters force as focus shifts to action.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3787...

The Paris agreement on climate change has come into force.
Governments have agreed to keep the global temperature rise to two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels - and preferably 1.5 degrees.
"This is a moment to celebrate," United Nations climate chief Patricia Espinosa told Reuters.
"It is also a moment to look ahead with sober assessment and renewed will over the task ahead."
The Eiffel Tower in Paris is expected to be lit up in green light on Friday to mark the entry into force of the historic climate pact.
Delegates from almost 200 countries are meeting in Marrakech next week to consider the way ahead beyond Paris.
The deal agreed in the French capital less than a year ago commits governments to moving their economies away from fossil fuels.
On Thursday, a UN review of national pledges to cut carbon said they fall short of the levels needed to keep the rise in global temperatures under 2C.

Well, for a start, they should cancel the bloody Eiffel tower thing to save a bit of CO2 !! As for the party in Marrakech next week, that should get the chop as well. I'm going to cancel the kids bonfire for a start, as well. And don't forget the Xmas tree in London this years, that's also for the chop. And all those bloody house with xmas decorations outside. I’m buy Damart for everyone this yr !!

[jshell]

wc98 said:

Randy Winkman said:

Your reply shows that the comment about nature was silly.

crude oil occurs naturally .in some places it seeps from the ground onto land and into water. "nature" knows this and has mechanisms in place to deal with it. it is why there are no long lasting effects from any oil spill anywhere in the world. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-mic...

True. I spent time looking for pipeline leaks in the Gulf of Guinea until we found that it was seabed seepage on a massive scale with oil showing all over the place.

[hidetheelephants]

True fact; the worst longterm environmental problems have stemmed from assiduous use of chemical dispersants, which all disrupt the natural processes which are already capable of breaking down crude and even bitumen in the long run.