Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
robinessex said:
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 !!
What was the carbon footprint and polar bear fatality count due to the "Let's stop climate change!" party?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 said:
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..."Both the long-term and short-term effects of the oil spill have been studied. Immediate effects included the deaths of 100,000 to as many as 250,000 seabirds, at least 2,800 sea otters, approximately 12 river otters, 300 harbor seals, 247 bald eagles, and 22 orcas, and an unknown number of salmon and herring."
Is death a "long lasting effect?"
If I burnt your house down would there be any long lasting effects?
Randy Winkman said:
LongQ said:
Randy Winkman said:
LongQ said:
I'm puzzled.
When did humanity become NOT part of nature?
Were Exxon Valdez or Chernobyl nature?When did humanity become NOT part of nature?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl
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.
Is it "normal" for humans?
I guess that depends on genetics, where you live and a whole load of other factors.
How would you define "normal" for humans?
Do you have a graphic that covers how "normal" for humans has evolved over time?
Oh, and "hilarious" is such an over used word these days but nevertheless I'm not sure what you find hilarious about Attenborough's assertion that "nature" will, ultimately, fix whatever problems he perceives his fellow humans will cause and, therefore, why such problems are indeed problems since at some future point the "humanity" problem will be fixed. So he tells us.
LongQ said:
Randy Winkman said:
LongQ said:
Randy Winkman said:
LongQ said:
I'm puzzled.
When did humanity become NOT part of nature?
Were Exxon Valdez or Chernobyl nature?When did humanity become NOT part of nature?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl
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.
Is it "normal" for humans?
I guess that depends on genetics, where you live and a whole load of other factors.
How would you define "normal" for humans?
Do you have a graphic that covers how "normal" for humans has evolved over time?
Oh, and "hilarious" is such an over used word these days but nevertheless I'm not sure what you find hilarious about Attenborough's assertion that "nature" will, ultimately, fix whatever problems he perceives his fellow humans will cause and, therefore, why such problems are indeed problems since at some future point the "humanity" problem will be fixed. So he tells us.
Randy Winkman said:
LongQ said:
Randy Winkman said:
LongQ said:
Randy Winkman said:
LongQ said:
I'm puzzled.
When did humanity become NOT part of nature?
Were Exxon Valdez or Chernobyl nature?When did humanity become NOT part of nature?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl
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.
Is it "normal" for humans?
I guess that depends on genetics, where you live and a whole load of other factors.
How would you define "normal" for humans?
Do you have a graphic that covers how "normal" for humans has evolved over time?
Oh, and "hilarious" is such an over used word these days but nevertheless I'm not sure what you find hilarious about Attenborough's assertion that "nature" will, ultimately, fix whatever problems he perceives his fellow humans will cause and, therefore, why such problems are indeed problems since at some future point the "humanity" problem will be fixed. So he tells us.
However, since you asked it ....
... if you want to stop, say, murder (and can clearly define murder in a way that everyone in the world would accept and agree with) ... what would you do to stop it?
Indeed what would you do to just reduce the risk of someone somewhere committing a murder?
Deploy the death penalty?
Use mind controlling drugs?
Above two posts completely off topic. Getting back on topic....
I do love this from September from one of the most rabid climate skeptic blogs
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/09/record-arcti...
Record sea ice growth lasted for max one week. Perhaps due to weather, but he couldn't wait to see how it panned out, it slowed down right after his claims, perhaps because blogs are daily and waiting one month leads to asking your impatient US readers to wait so long.
He also claims the shortest melt sea ice on records for the Arctic. Guess what, it wasn't. He is only using a 5 year graph as well, so not even the recent record measured by satellites. And DMI had an issue with graphs last year which he claimed were true and then ignored the statement when DMI pointed out they had forgotten to make the fact known to the general public.
When you have a "politician" like Steve Goddard / Tony Heller spouting such rubbish and cherry picking and also claiming false data from just one favoured source it does show how the US is the driving force for climate change discussion.
Don't be drip-fed from the US of A.
I do love this from September from one of the most rabid climate skeptic blogs
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/09/record-arcti...
Record sea ice growth lasted for max one week. Perhaps due to weather, but he couldn't wait to see how it panned out, it slowed down right after his claims, perhaps because blogs are daily and waiting one month leads to asking your impatient US readers to wait so long.
He also claims the shortest melt sea ice on records for the Arctic. Guess what, it wasn't. He is only using a 5 year graph as well, so not even the recent record measured by satellites. And DMI had an issue with graphs last year which he claimed were true and then ignored the statement when DMI pointed out they had forgotten to make the fact known to the general public.
When you have a "politician" like Steve Goddard / Tony Heller spouting such rubbish and cherry picking and also claiming false data from just one favoured source it does show how the US is the driving force for climate change discussion.
Don't be drip-fed from the US of A.
Edited by Gandahar on Saturday 5th November 00:08
Randy Winkman said:
jshell said:
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..."Both the long-term and short-term effects of the oil spill have been studied. Immediate effects included the deaths of 100,000 to as many as 250,000 seabirds, at least 2,800 sea otters, approximately 12 river otters, 300 harbor seals, 247 bald eagles, and 22 orcas, and an unknown number of salmon and herring."
Is death a "long lasting effect?"
If I burnt your house down would there be any long lasting effects?
wc98 said:
no, because another would be built in it's place. millions of people die every year as well. they are also replaced with more people. as are the whales , dolphins, otters etc by others of their species. i don't think anyone is promoting spilling oil as a recreational pastime , just highlighting the usual green mentalist guff that often leads to more damage that accompanies just about any human interaction with nature these days.
OK. I'll not worry about hundreds of thousands of animals being killed. I'm clearly a bit mental. Randy Winkman said:
wc98 said:
no, because another would be built in it's place. millions of people die every year as well. they are also replaced with more people. as are the whales , dolphins, otters etc by others of their species. i don't think anyone is promoting spilling oil as a recreational pastime , just highlighting the usual green mentalist guff that often leads to more damage that accompanies just about any human interaction with nature these days.
OK. I'll not worry about hundreds of thousands of animals being killed. I'm clearly a bit mental. robinessex said:
Randy Winkman said:
wc98 said:
no, because another would be built in it's place. millions of people die every year as well. they are also replaced with more people. as are the whales , dolphins, otters etc by others of their species. i don't think anyone is promoting spilling oil as a recreational pastime , just highlighting the usual green mentalist guff that often leads to more damage that accompanies just about any human interaction with nature these days.
OK. I'll not worry about hundreds of thousands of animals being killed. I'm clearly a bit mental. 
Randy Winkman said:
wc98 said:
no, because another would be built in it's place. millions of people die every year as well. they are also replaced with more people. as are the whales , dolphins, otters etc by others of their species. i don't think anyone is promoting spilling oil as a recreational pastime , just highlighting the usual green mentalist guff that often leads to more damage that accompanies just about any human interaction with nature these days.
OK. I'll not worry about hundreds of thousands of animals being killed. I'm clearly a bit mental. mybrainhurts said:
Hundreds of thousands of animals are killed by other animals. Don't let it worry you, it's only nature.
"Since 1970, there has already been a 58% overall decline in the numbers of fish, mammals, birds and reptiles worldwide, according to the WWF's latest bi-annual Living Planet Index."http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/26/world/wild-anima...
Oh well.
Randy Winkman said:
mybrainhurts said:
Hundreds of thousands of animals are killed by other animals. Don't let it worry you, it's only nature.
"Since 1970, there has already been a 58% overall decline in the numbers of fish, mammals, birds and reptiles worldwide, according to the WWF's latest bi-annual Living Planet Index."http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/26/world/wild-anima...
Oh well.
If they say so, it must be true.
Did they mention the causes of this debacle?
Randy Winkman said:
mybrainhurts said:
Hundreds of thousands of animals are killed by other animals. Don't let it worry you, it's only nature.
"Since 1970, there has already been a 58% overall decline in the numbers of fish, mammals, birds and reptiles worldwide, according to the WWF's latest bi-annual Living Planet Index."http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/26/world/wild-anima...
Oh well.
Oh dear, ah well, never mind, must've been humans.
mondeoman said:
Randy Winkman said:
mybrainhurts said:
Hundreds of thousands of animals are killed by other animals. Don't let it worry you, it's only nature.
"Since 1970, there has already been a 58% overall decline in the numbers of fish, mammals, birds and reptiles worldwide, according to the WWF's latest bi-annual Living Planet Index."http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/26/world/wild-anima...
Oh well.
Oh dear, ah well, never mind, must've been humans.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff