Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)

[PRTVR]

Greeny said:

Gadgetmac said:

Which bit of "I am irrelevant when compared to what scientists in the field think" didn't manage to tunnel it's way into your tiny mind?

I'd guess you also didn't pick up on my comment that I think your question is innane.

Tropical fish in an aquarium have the water at an optimum temperature for a reason, you wouldn't want to start increasing or decreasing that temperature.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Sunday 8th December 17:58

So are you saying that the earths temperature at present is optimum, and like fish in an aquarium we can not survive any minor change in that temperature.
Even though the earths temperature varies vastly across the globe, and people still seem to survive and choose to live in a variety of climates?

On any particular day there is around a 100°C difference between the hottest and coldest points on the earth.

[Greeny]

Gadgetmac said:

No, we will survive, but our environment will change which will hurt us, probably in a catastrophic way in the medium term.

Will not the extreme measures that are being suggested to halt climate change, or stop warming, also hurt our current way of life catastrophically ?
And if, once they are implemented, will that be an end to climate change. From there on, average earth temperature, sea and ice levels will remain constant?

[Gadgetmac]

PRTVR said:

Greeny said:

Gadgetmac said:

Which bit of "I am irrelevant when compared to what scientists in the field think" didn't manage to tunnel it's way into your tiny mind?

I'd guess you also didn't pick up on my comment that I think your question is innane.

Tropical fish in an aquarium have the water at an optimum temperature for a reason, you wouldn't want to start increasing or decreasing that temperature.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Sunday 8th December 17:58

So are you saying that the earths temperature at present is optimum, and like fish in an aquarium we can not survive any minor change in that temperature.
Even though the earths temperature varies vastly across the globe, and people still seem to survive and choose to live in a variety of climates?

On any particular day there is around a 100°C difference between the hottest and coldest points on the earth.

Irrelevant.

Disease will spread to areas previously unaffected as just one example of how humans will suffer. Crops could fail. There are many many ways in which human suffering could grow and more people will die prematurely.

[Gadgetmac]

Greeny said:

Gadgetmac said:

No, we will survive, but our environment will change which will hurt us, probably in a catastrophic way in the medium term.

Will not the extreme measures that are being suggested to halt climate change, or stop warming, also hurt our current way of life catastrophically ?
And if, once they are implemented, will that be an end to climate change. From there on, average earth temperature, sea and ice levels will remain constant?

Who knows. So are you saying that it doesn't matter what we do now as if global warming is real we're fked either way...

[Gadgetmac]

Climate change impacts

https://www.edf.org/climate/how-climate-change-plu...

As deniers are keen to say, do your own research.

[Greeny]

Gadgetmac said:

Who knows. So are you saying that it doesn't matter what we do now as if global warming is real we're fked either way...

No, I am not saying that.
If we change the way we live, does the science say, climate change will stop.
If not, and we are faced in the future with still having to adapt to climate change, why don’t we start doing that now with the abilities we have that will disappear in a fossil free world, If that is the path to be chosen. There are vast areas of the world that would become habitable in a warmer world, just maybe these could become new areas for life, just as they were in the past.
I’m not wishing to take the role of ‘denier’ or ‘believer’ , but I don’t see this part of the conversation raised usually.

[Gadgetmac]

Greeny said:

Gadgetmac said:

Who knows. So are you saying that it doesn't matter what we do now as if global warming is real we're fked either way...

No, I am not saying that.
If we change the way we live, does the science say, climate change will stop.
If not, and we are faced in the future with still having to adapt to climate change, why don’t we start doing that now with the abilities we have that will disappear in a fossil free world, If that is the path to be chosen. There are vast areas of the world that would become habitable in a warmer world, just maybe these could become new areas for life, just as they were in the past.
I’m not wishing to take the role of ‘denier’ or ‘believer’ , but I don’t see this part of the conversation raised usually.

So the whole of the human race should migrate north or south? Not really a solution is it. You've seen what happens when less than a quarter of Syria wants to leave for more prosperous parts, let alone any large scale migration.


ETA: well I say a quarter but Syria's population is over 18m how many fled? So nearer to 10% probably.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Sunday 8th December 18:51

[JustALooseScrew]

Gadgetmac said:

So the whole of the human race should migrate north or south? Not really a solution is it. You've seen what happens when less than a quarter of Syria wants to leave for more prosperous parts, let alone any large scale migration.

Gagetmac has a point. It's obviously far better to tax us into oblivion because CO2 and unrenewables, such that we're all back living in mud huts and caves and using donkeys to plough this green and pleasant land.

Who knows maybe the majority of the Northern Hemisphere's population will become climate refugees and we can all move to a warmer camp in Syria.

[Greeny]

Gadgetmac said:

So the whole of the human race should migrate north or south? Not really a solution is it. You've seen what happens when less than a quarter of Syria wants to leave for more prosperous parts, let alone any large scale migration.


ETA: well I say a quarter but Syria's population is over 18m how many fled? So nearer to 10% probably.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Sunday 8th December 18:51

What if there is no option?

[robinessex]

Gadgetmac said:

Greeny said:

Gadgetmac said:

Which bit of "I am irrelevant when compared to what scientists in the field think" didn't manage to tunnel it's way into your tiny mind?

I'd guess you also didn't pick up on my comment that I think your question is innane.

Tropical fish in an aquarium have the water at an optimum temperature for a reason, you wouldn't want to start increasing or decreasing that temperature.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Sunday 8th December 17:58

So are you saying that the earths temperature at present is optimum, and like fish in an aquarium we can not survive any minor change in that temperature.
Even though the earths temperature varies vastly across the globe, and people still seem to survive and choose to live in a variety of climates?

No, we will survive, but our environment will change which will hurt us, probably in catastrophic ways in the medium term. That's what the science is pointing to.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_...

Edited by Gadgetmac on Sunday 8th December 18:20

This is where you've finally lost the plot. Are you actually one of the fish in the afore mentioned fish bowl?

[robinessex]

Mrr T said:

Gadgetmac said:

Article in Psychology Today about tackling climate change denial.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.c...

It's a thing.

Psychology is a science in serious crisis.

I think Psychologists should stick to Psychology. They seem to lack the intelligence for any original thought.

[Halb]

I know this is old and has probably been posted here, but it pipped up on my yt list as I was in the gym.
Professor Jordan Peterson on climate change and climate policy at the Cambridge Union
GWPF
https://youtu.be/pBbvehbomrY
6mins

[Greeny]

Halb said:

I know this is old and has probably been posted here, but it pipped up on my yt list as I was in the gym.
Professor Jordan Peterson on climate change and climate policy at the Cambridge Union
GWPF
https://youtu.be/pBbvehbomrY
6mins

Nov 8th 2018, I posted that. He talks a lot of sense

[Gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

Greeny said:

Gadgetmac said:

Which bit of "I am irrelevant when compared to what scientists in the field think" didn't manage to tunnel it's way into your tiny mind?

I'd guess you also didn't pick up on my comment that I think your question is innane.

Tropical fish in an aquarium have the water at an optimum temperature for a reason, you wouldn't want to start increasing or decreasing that temperature.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Sunday 8th December 17:58

So are you saying that the earths temperature at present is optimum, and like fish in an aquarium we can not survive any minor change in that temperature.
Even though the earths temperature varies vastly across the globe, and people still seem to survive and choose to live in a variety of climates?

No, we will survive, but our environment will change which will hurt us, probably in catastrophic ways in the medium term. That's what the science is pointing to.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_...

Edited by Gadgetmac on Sunday 8th December 18:20

This is where you've finally lost the plot. Are you actually one of the fish in the afore mentioned fish bowl?

The BBC stalking maniac saying I've lost the plot.

[Gadgetmac]

JustALooseScrew said:

Gadgetmac said:

So the whole of the human race should migrate north or south? Not really a solution is it. You've seen what happens when less than a quarter of Syria wants to leave for more prosperous parts, let alone any large scale migration.

Gagetmac has a point. It's obviously far better to tax us into oblivion because CO2 and unrenewables, such that we're all back living in mud huts and caves and using donkeys to plough this green and pleasant land.

Who knows maybe the majority of the Northern Hemisphere's population will become climate refugees and we can all move to a warmer camp in Syria.

That's brilliant, and can't have used up all of your crayon set either.

Win-win.

[PRTVR]

Gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

Greeny said:

Gadgetmac said:

Which bit of "I am irrelevant when compared to what scientists in the field think" didn't manage to tunnel it's way into your tiny mind?

I'd guess you also didn't pick up on my comment that I think your question is innane.

Tropical fish in an aquarium have the water at an optimum temperature for a reason, you wouldn't want to start increasing or decreasing that temperature.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Sunday 8th December 17:58

So are you saying that the earths temperature at present is optimum, and like fish in an aquarium we can not survive any minor change in that temperature.
Even though the earths temperature varies vastly across the globe, and people still seem to survive and choose to live in a variety of climates?

On any particular day there is around a 100°C difference between the hottest and coldest points on the earth.

Irrelevant.

Disease will spread to areas previously unaffected as just one example of how humans will suffer. Crops could fail. There are many many ways in which human suffering could grow and more people will die prematurely.

The temperature of the planet is irrelevant, OK if you say so.

[Down and out]

robinessex said:

Mrr T said:

Gadgetmac said:

Article in Psychology Today about tackling climate change denial.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.c...

It's a thing.

Psychology is a science in serious crisis.

I think Psychologists should stick to Psychology. They seem to lack the intelligence for any original thought.

You get an ology, you're a scientist.

[anonymous-user]

I see the chaps and chappesses are up to their disruptive tactics at London Heathrow
Oh well I don't fly anyway

[robinessex]

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

Greeny said:

Gadgetmac said:

Which bit of "I am irrelevant when compared to what scientists in the field think" didn't manage to tunnel it's way into your tiny mind?

I'd guess you also didn't pick up on my comment that I think your question is innane.

Tropical fish in an aquarium have the water at an optimum temperature for a reason, you wouldn't want to start increasing or decreasing that temperature.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Sunday 8th December 17:58

So are you saying that the earths temperature at present is optimum, and like fish in an aquarium we can not survive any minor change in that temperature.
Even though the earths temperature varies vastly across the globe, and people still seem to survive and choose to live in a variety of climates?

No, we will survive, but our environment will change which will hurt us, probably in catastrophic ways in the medium term. That's what the science is pointing to.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_...

Edited by Gadgetmac on Sunday 8th December 18:20

This is where you've finally lost the plot. Are you actually one of the fish in the afore mentioned fish bowl?

The BBC stalking maniac saying I've lost the plot.

For the nth time. The BEEB is a biased entity and continuously posts dramatic CC stories. Factual evidence has been posted here previously showing their agenda. Again you show 'missing the point' characteristics. Throw the blinkers away. You also devalue your reply calling posters maniacs. Probably because you've nothing else to resort to, with only a belief.

[robinessex]

PRTVR said:

Gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

Greeny said:

Gadgetmac said:

Which bit of "I am irrelevant when compared to what scientists in the field think" didn't manage to tunnel it's way into your tiny mind?

I'd guess you also didn't pick up on my comment that I think your question is innane.

Tropical fish in an aquarium have the water at an optimum temperature for a reason, you wouldn't want to start increasing or decreasing that temperature.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Sunday 8th December 17:58

So are you saying that the earths temperature at present is optimum, and like fish in an aquarium we can not survive any minor change in that temperature.
Even though the earths temperature varies vastly across the globe, and people still seem to survive and choose to live in a variety of climates?

On any particular day there is around a 100°C difference between the hottest and coldest points on the earth.

Irrelevant.

Disease will spread to areas previously unaffected as just one example of how humans will suffer. Crops could fail. There are many many ways in which human suffering could grow and more people will die prematurely.

The temperature of the planet is irrelevant, OK if you say so.

The temperature of the plane is a useless average. What the hell does that tell you that's of any practical use. It's just a mathematical derivation.