Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
robinessex said:
I thought kids went to school to be educated, not brainwashed
“Climate change is a global issue, and as such, it is important that everybody understands not only about the effects, but how everybody can help to tackle this global problem.”...
Seems reasonable... do they already have specialists in say, communism, poverty, war, famine? Or not important enough?“Climate change is a global issue, and as such, it is important that everybody understands not only about the effects, but how everybody can help to tackle this global problem.”...
LongQ said:
Nothing in the green philosophy works without significant human population reduction and handing over the planet to non-humans. At which point conflict can be guaranteed.
Twaddle. A green philosophy is entirely compatible with technological progress. An unintended byproduct of progress happens to be a lower birthrate anyway. Generalising "greens" as mud soaked neo-luddites for petty point scoring is foolish.LongQ said:
Nickgnome said:
Randy Winkman said:
Good questions. If things are goings tits up and we can do something about it I think we should. Rather than go on about what it was like a million years ago.
My concern is in relation to risk. Even if the risk is small the impact is almost immeasurable. The sad thing is many of the deniers here will be dead in the not too distant future and certainly before the third quarter of 2000s. They seem to care little as long as there lives are not impacted now.
They will have be long since been forgotten before the impacts are felt globally.
On the other hand if Extinction Rebellion somehow succeed in their objective (whatever it may be) and as part of that trash the global economy, with all of its faults. and succeed in persuading people that the world's way of life was better 300 years ago ... then yes the impacts may well be felt somewhat globally much sooner than any possible CO2 connection alone would suggest.
If you want to endure that those born in the 21st century will be guaranteed to be stuffed or at the least thinned out with about a 1 in 7 chance of survival (although less because they will be old) and the experience that follows then by all means follow the ultra green movement. Be part of the solution.
Just don't claim that the children and grandchildren will inherit anything close to the lifestyle that you might aspire to if it matches in any way what we current think of as 'normal'. There is not 'green' objective that thinks humanity can exist in its current structure into the future even by 'going green'.
Nothing in the green philosophy works without significant human population reduction and handing over the planet to non-humans. At which point conflict can be guaranteed.
If you wish to respond please give me the courtesy of responding to my specific point on risk.
The Political Agenda of Climate Change.
https://www.cfact.org/2019/08/14/the-political-age...
More than vaguely relevant to a thread titled 'Climate change - the POLITICAL debate'.
https://www.cfact.org/2019/08/14/the-political-age...
More than vaguely relevant to a thread titled 'Climate change - the POLITICAL debate'.
turbobloke said:
The Political Agenda of Climate Change.
https://www.cfact.org/2019/08/14/the-political-age...
More than vaguely relevant to a thread titled 'Climate change - the POLITICAL debate'.
I got as far as "patty cake interview" and gave up. But at least I know what "CFACT" is now.https://www.cfact.org/2019/08/14/the-political-age...
More than vaguely relevant to a thread titled 'Climate change - the POLITICAL debate'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_a_Cons...
Nickgnome said:
LongQ said:
Nickgnome said:
Randy Winkman said:
Good questions. If things are goings tits up and we can do something about it I think we should. Rather than go on about what it was like a million years ago.
My concern is in relation to risk. Even if the risk is small the impact is almost immeasurable. The sad thing is many of the deniers here will be dead in the not too distant future and certainly before the third quarter of 2000s. They seem to care little as long as there lives are not impacted now.
They will have be long since been forgotten before the impacts are felt globally.
On the other hand if Extinction Rebellion somehow succeed in their objective (whatever it may be) and as part of that trash the global economy, with all of its faults. and succeed in persuading people that the world's way of life was better 300 years ago ... then yes the impacts may well be felt somewhat globally much sooner than any possible CO2 connection alone would suggest.
If you want to endure that those born in the 21st century will be guaranteed to be stuffed or at the least thinned out with about a 1 in 7 chance of survival (although less because they will be old) and the experience that follows then by all means follow the ultra green movement. Be part of the solution.
Just don't claim that the children and grandchildren will inherit anything close to the lifestyle that you might aspire to if it matches in any way what we current think of as 'normal'. There is not 'green' objective that thinks humanity can exist in its current structure into the future even by 'going green'.
Nothing in the green philosophy works without significant human population reduction and handing over the planet to non-humans. At which point conflict can be guaranteed.
If you wish to respond please give me the courtesy of responding to my specific point on risk.
Excellent.
Care to share your risk analysis work with us?
Wayoftheflower said:
LongQ said:
Nothing in the green philosophy works without significant human population reduction and handing over the planet to non-humans. At which point conflict can be guaranteed.
Twaddle. A green philosophy is entirely compatible with technological progress. An unintended byproduct of progress happens to be a lower birthrate anyway. Generalising "greens" as mud soaked neo-luddites for petty point scoring is foolish.He does not stand alone in that.
Show us how technological progress and green philosophy works in harmony.
The Birthrate fall off has, thus far, been most noticeable in a handful on advance technology countries. Are you saying that the technology causes the birthrate drop? Or does the relative "wealth" of the countries mean that they change their views about the need for continuity by means of large families and spend their wealth on 'tech' (or maybe travelled enabled by tech?) instead?
How long can those countries and the economies of which they are part survive with negative population growth and ageing populations?
Which will come first - an overheated planet or an economic system that can no longer support current 'tech' let alone further advances, Green or otherwise?
Maybe Nickgnome's Risk Analysis work will inform us?
LongQ said:
David Attenborough would disagree with you.
I don't have a problem with Attenborough's point of view, "The only straw of comfort or of hope, and even that is pretty fragile, is that wherever women are given political control of their bodies, where they have the vote, education, appropriate medical facilities and they can read and have rights and so on, the birth rate falls, there’s no exceptions to that,”Do you?
Wayoftheflower said:
LongQ said:
Show us how technological progress and green philosophy works in harmony.
Your house now takes an order of magnitude less energy to light due to the progress from incandescent to flourescent to LED. Green progress obviously.Wayoftheflower said:
I don't have a problem with Attenborough's point of view, "The only straw of comfort or of hope, and even that is pretty fragile, is that wherever women are given political control of their bodies, where they have the vote, education, appropriate medical facilities and they can read and have rights and so on, the birth rate falls, there’s no exceptions to that,”
Do you?
that situation tends to arise when a population sees an increase in wealth, a growing middle class and a move away from strict adherence to religious doctrine. this all tends to happen as a result of a cheap and reliable supply of energy, there is no exception to that either.Do you?
Wayoftheflower said:
LongQ said:
Show us how technological progress and green philosophy works in harmony.
Your house now takes an order of magnitude less energy to light due to the progress from incandescent to flourescent to LED. Green progress obviously.But ultimately yes it does decrease demand but not as much as people think. Same with things like EV cars.
LongQ said:
I wonder if the locals are causing a special version of local warming by using so much of their indigenous thermal energy to make the place more liveable?
As a theatrical stunt based on the arrival of a foreign politician the timing was immaculate and the presence of some concerned foreigners , including a German Professor and his family who presumably flew in especially, made for international news.
The Press release must have have been very carefully prepared as I have now read it from several news sources using it verbatim.
Meanwhile here is a 10 year history of the weather in Reykjavik.
https://www.worldweatheronline.com/reykjavik-weath...
Best to scroll down and look at the 10 year charts for various weather measurements.
Overall no change or a slight cooling perhaps although the various values seems to be a little erratic and uncooridinated.
A weird amount of rain and snow over the end of 2018 and so far in 2019 but also low wind speeds and a slightly unusual Pressure pattern.
Some odd things this year but not extreme heat in comparison to recent times and the 2014 "Death" of the alleged glacier (is it really a glacier?) came in a short period of apparent warmth that seems to have peaked around 2016.
given the standard definition of a glacier i think it was more of a small snow/ice cap. the temp data for reykjavik appears to closely follow the atlantic multi decadal oscilliation, no surprise given the location of iceland. no doubt the next cool phase will see the reappearance of the "glacier". As a theatrical stunt based on the arrival of a foreign politician the timing was immaculate and the presence of some concerned foreigners , including a German Professor and his family who presumably flew in especially, made for international news.
The Press release must have have been very carefully prepared as I have now read it from several news sources using it verbatim.
Meanwhile here is a 10 year history of the weather in Reykjavik.
https://www.worldweatheronline.com/reykjavik-weath...
Best to scroll down and look at the 10 year charts for various weather measurements.
Overall no change or a slight cooling perhaps although the various values seems to be a little erratic and uncooridinated.
A weird amount of rain and snow over the end of 2018 and so far in 2019 but also low wind speeds and a slightly unusual Pressure pattern.
Some odd things this year but not extreme heat in comparison to recent times and the 2014 "Death" of the alleged glacier (is it really a glacier?) came in a short period of apparent warmth that seems to have peaked around 2016.
"Many researchers believe that glaciers disappeared from Iceland during the relatively mild climatic optimum c. 5000–8000 years ago. Will it be long before the glaciers in Iceland disappear again?"
https://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/highlights/2010/ice...
https://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/highlights/2010/ice...
southendpier said:
"Many researchers believe that glaciers disappeared from Iceland during the relatively mild climatic optimum c. 5000–8000 years ago. Will it be long before the glaciers in Iceland disappear again?"
https://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/highlights/2010/ice...
In a(nother) climate optimum it's entirely possible.https://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/highlights/2010/ice...
turbobloke said:
southendpier said:
"Many researchers believe that glaciers disappeared from Iceland during the relatively mild climatic optimum c. 5000–8000 years ago. Will it be long before the glaciers in Iceland disappear again?"
https://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/highlights/2010/ice...
In a(nother) climate optimum it's entirely possible.https://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/highlights/2010/ice...
Whether it is a good climate or a bad climate seems to be partly related whether it is good or bad for humans, odd that.
More good news about the GBR.
Before: Great Barrier Reef is damaged beyond repair and cannot be saved say scientists.
Now: Great Barrier Reef is not dead, is not dying and is not even on life support says politician.
Blimey. Politician gets it right. Certain scientists, duh.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/g...
All they need to do is tax El Nino out of existence. Could be problematic.
Before: Great Barrier Reef is damaged beyond repair and cannot be saved say scientists.
Now: Great Barrier Reef is not dead, is not dying and is not even on life support says politician.
Blimey. Politician gets it right. Certain scientists, duh.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/g...
Politician said:
I was expecting to see dead areas with a few patches of life, I saw the exact opposite to that.
That's what happens when you swallow alarmist hype, but better late than never.All they need to do is tax El Nino out of existence. Could be problematic.
turbobloke said:
More good news about the GBR.
Before: Great Barrier Reef is damaged beyond repair and cannot be saved say scientists.
Now: Great Barrier Reef is not dead, is not dying and is not even on life support says politician.
Blimey. Politician gets it right. Certain scientists, duh.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/g...
Before: Great Barrier Reef is damaged beyond repair and cannot be saved say scientists.
Now: Great Barrier Reef is not dead, is not dying and is not even on life support says politician.
Blimey. Politician gets it right. Certain scientists, duh.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/g...
Politician said:
I was expecting to see dead areas with a few patches of life, I saw the exact opposite to that.
turbobloke also said:
The message since printed mass media emerged has been the same: do your own research using primary sources not just secondary sources in the MSM or SM, then think, then make your own mind up.
That assumes a mind with the capacity for independent thought...there will always be sheeple and shills getting it together, but it's not compulsory
So a politician tells you everything is fine and you celebrate a "win". So much for "Do your own research" and "Primary sources".That assumes a mind with the capacity for independent thought...there will always be sheeple and shills getting it together, but it's not compulsory
Here's a non paywalled version of the story
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff