Climate Change.

kneemos

We hear endless doomsday scenarios about climate change,but what if any definite negative effect has it had on anybody?

Sweetemotion

Tax.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Devastating floods here. Drought leading to famine elsewhere. But nothing negative.

Fr_Dougal

Massive infrastructure costs.

The EU had set a goal for all member states to have 22% SER by 2022. Who's going to pay for this? The tax payer.

kneemos

Katelyn Gifted Turtle wrote: »

Devastating floods here. Draughts leading to famine elsewhere. But nothing negative.

Had those since Moses was in short pants.

Atlantic Dawn

None, if your a gob****e building a house too near the sea, a floodplain or a river bank you get exactly what you deserve, the lads in the caves knew this thousands of years ago, no need for some highly paid subsidised scientist to come to any vested conclusion to tell them the basics of nature.

Flint Fredstone

Katelyn Gifted Turtle wrote: »

Devastating floods here. Draughts leading to famine elsewhere. But nothing negative.

Someone should close a window.

Samaris

Yep, nothing at all. Tell that to the people of Kiribati.

wakka12

Wow. I hope you're a troll, and if not then it is genuinely saddening that theres such ignorance still out there. The world really is doomed

mad muffin

I'll be long dead before the deadly effects of my flatulence will be felt.

RayM

Far be it from me to disagree with almost every climatologist in the world, but the weather is supposed to get a bit cooler later in the week.

Global warming, my arse.

edbrez

Most flooding in Ireland is now blamed on climate change instead of bad planning decisions.

darkpagandeath

wakka12 wrote: »

Wow. I hope you're a troll, and if not then it is genuinely saddening that theres such ignorance still out there. The world really is doomed

No it's not, The world will still be here after its uninhabitable to humans. Unless you are talking about when the earth is eaten by the sun turning into a red giant ?

Pherekydes

RayM wrote: »

Far be it from me to disagree with almost every climatologist in the world, but the weather is supposed to get a bit cooler later in the week.

Global warming, my arse.

Weather and climate are two different things.

suicide_circus

Climate change?


more like climyth change

wakka12

darkpagandeath wrote: »

No it's not, The world will still be here after its uninhabitable to humans. Unless you are talking about when the earth is eaten by the sun turning into a red giant ?

No, the flooding will destroy huge swathes of animal habitats. The ocean temperatures and PH will rise and kill off the majority of marine life. Acid Rain is already killing off massive amounts of forests and we are currently destroying huge parts of jungles that arent going to just regrow out of the sand when we disappear. Its a domino effect. We will bring the world down with us you know

KingBrian2

You want to let the property developers run riot over your towns by despoiling the environment.

mcmoustache

I thought you had your own thread for this nonsense.

Samaris

"Doomed" is always a fairly extreme word. What could happen is that humans render chunks of the world unhabitable (or not easily habitable) to humans and/or the animals/plantlife they depend on. That would lead to mass migration and increased competition over scarcer resources. We are already seeing that on a small scale with island nations such as Kiribati and Tuvalu.

But ofc, that's not sea level rise, it's sea monsters getting agitated and swishing water up over their islands. Rly.

pheasant tail

I think it's very sad peoples attitude to climate change and how they think they play no role in it or that it doesn't affect them. Wait until we don't meet our emission targets and taxes go through the roof, only ourselves to blame and it's right. Saint Enda Kenny comes out after the Paris agreements and says that climate change is not a priority for the country now, yet a couple of weeks later he's paying how many millions in compensation for flooding...

Atlantic Dawn

The CO2 emissions based motor tax is the biggest joke, not only has the recent VW emissions scandal exposed the deliberate manipluation of test results to not reflect any real world driving but our NCT doesn't actually test the emissions coming from any diesel car yet it does for petrol cars.

aidoh

edbrez wrote: »

Most flooding in Ireland is now blamed on climate change instead of bad planning decisions.

Bad planning and the dredging and redirection of rivers away from their natural courses into cattle grazing fields, large-scale draining of turloughs and bogs for the same reason (both of which are, apart from being unique in their flora and fauna and often legally protected in Ireland, are also major carbon sinks).
What do you think the combined effect of additional methane from loads of new farmers scrambling to take advantage of the lax new dairy quota, and the rapid loss of sinks to store atmospheric carbon?
Ireland's predicted future climate will be wetter and colder - more frequent flooding is absolutely a sign of that.
Also the massive and rapid increase in intensity and frequency of winter storms in the West is another clear sign.
Bad planning has something to do with flooding, of course, but people tend to not see the bigger picture and the cumulative effects of bad planning / global climate warming.

edbrez

aidoh wrote: »

Bad planning has something to do with flooding, of course, but people tend to not see the bigger picture and the cumulative effects of bad planning / global climate warming.

There's no bigger picture to see. All that flooding is due to poor planning and maintenance of rivers. Part of our recent floods are due to dams being opened. There's no way Irish cattle are responsible for our floods. That's called pseudoscience. If every cow in Ireland dies tomorrow, if every driver switched to electric cars there will still be floods here next year.

RayM

Pherekydes wrote: »

Weather and climate are two different things.

Yeah well, I think the experts are wrong about their chosen field of study. And no amount of true environmental facts will change my mind.

kneemos

Samaris wrote: »

Yep, nothing at all. Tell that to the people of Kiribati.

Do Pacific Islands suffer from erosion?

daheff

Not sure i agree with the global warming brigade....or at least not to the indisputable extent they make it out to be.

I do agree though that we shouldnt be polluting the planet the way we do.



Theres not enough evidential long term (thousands/millions of years) of data available to see about temperature changes (uptrends downtrends etc)

_Brian

Very noticeable in farming. We're in a marginal area but see land remaining wetter each year with increased rainfall and less drying.
Wetter weather leads to leeching of minerals and increased weed growth which costs money.
More winter feeding needed as land is less traffickable. In last 10 years the winter for cattle indoors here has increased by 4 weeks and in parts of the country it's close to 6 month indoors.

All adding to the cost of food production which costs everybody in the long run.

Sam Kade

_Brian wrote: »

Very noticeable in farming. We're in a marginal area but see land remaining wetter each year with increased rainfall and less drying.
Wetter weather leads to leeching of minerals and increased weed growth which costs money.
More winter feeding needed as land is less traffickable. In last 10 years the winter for cattle indoors here has increased by 4 weeks and in parts of the country it's close to 6 month indoors.

All adding to the cost of food production which costs everybody in the long run.

10 years is only a blip with climate, hardly long enough to come to conclusions about climate change. We had colder winters during the 70's milder winters during the 90's nothing startling about having wetter winters now.

kneemos

_Brian wrote: »

Very noticeable in farming. We're in a marginal area but see land remaining wetter each year with increased rainfall and less drying.
Wetter weather leads to leeching of minerals and increased weed growth which costs money.
More winter feeding needed as land is less traffickable. In last 10 years the winter for cattle indoors here has increased by 4 weeks and in parts of the country it's close to 6 month indoors.

All adding to the cost of food production which costs everybody in the long run.

Rainfall has been normal annually according to the Met Office.
You may get wetter periods at the wrong time of year that makes it appear wetter .Could be due to poor drainage or mismanaged rivers also.

ScumLord

It didn't do the neanderthals any favours.

Samaris

kneemos wrote: »

Rainfall has been normal annually according to the Met Office.
You may get wetter periods at the wrong time of year that makes it appear wetter .Could be due to poor drainage or mismanaged rivers also.

What do you think happens when you get a whole lot of annual average rainfall in two months?

It's still AVERAGE. But all at once. Average up the months and the seasons, not just the annual. You need to check all the patterns against each other, not just the most wide-ranging.

KingBrian2

You know what's really silly but has to be made use of. We are a very rainy country yet we have a problem with water and getting people to pay for the water we all use. We somehow have to learn to take up all that water that is dumped on us and make our city run on it.

darkpagandeath

List of stuff that's already supposed of happened or killed us.

Oil runs out. supposed to be 50 year left in the 60-70s
Acid Rain.
Ozone layer. Loads of money spent, Then realised it was a natural phenomenon at the poles.
All the while sea level rising, My estimations on the reporting of various times we should be under 2 meters of ocean by now.
C02 emission, And Ph change in oceans.
Amazon cut down we all suffocate.
Desertification In Africa, Famines. They all should be dead by now.
Oceans fished to extinction, Should of happened by now.
Famines everywhere due to food production not keeping up.
Fresh water runs out.
2012
Solar flairs.


Anyone think of anything else ?

ThinkProgress

Part of me is inclined to think the whole climate change thing is exaggerated scaremongering...

Our little spinning green/blue planet likes to move a river over there, and create a new lake here... Take a hot country and make it a touch hotter... Take a moderately warm country and make it a touch warmer... Take a cold country and make it a bit warmer.... Hold on a minute! lol

Anyway whether this thing is real or imagined, can we really afford to hang about and see what happens?

I'll be okay, I'm semi aquatic... But the rest of you guys might be screwed.

lawlolawl

darkpagandeath wrote: »

List of stuff that's already supposed of happened or killed us.

Oil runs out. supposed to be 50 year left in the 60-70s
Acid Rain.
Ozone layer. Loads of money spent, Then realised it was a natural phenomenon at the poles.
All the while sea level rising, My estimations on the reporting of various times we should be under 2 meters of ocean by now.
C02 emission, And Ph change in oceans.
Amazon cut down we all suffocate.
Desertification In Africa, Famines. They all should be dead by now.
Oceans fished to extinction, Should of happened by now.
Famines everywhere due to food production not keeping up.
Fresh water runs out.
2012
Solar flairs.


Anyone think of anything else ?

I sort of agree with you.

There has always been somebody standing on a street corner shouting "the end is nigh" throughout human history.

I find that the 'evidence' for climate change conveniently presenting itself since exactly the same time that experts have begun talking about it to be a bit odd. Declaring that the climate has changed after what is in actual terms a mere handful of years seems a bit hasty.

There have been mini ice ages and sustained temporary increases in average temperatures at numerous points in recorded human history.

Bongalongherb

There's a new documentary film being released on the 2nd of may 2016, in a few days that explains a lot of rubbish about global warming alarmists, they might learn something from this scientific film. It's called 'Climate Hustle' In theatres and dvd 2nd may. http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/climate-hustle-will-rock-alarmists-to-their-core/

kneemos

Bongalongherb wrote: »

There's a new documentary film being released on the 2nd of may 2016, in a few days that explains a lot of rubbish about global warming alarmists, they might learn something from this scientific film. It's called 'Climate Hustle' In theatres and dvd 2nd may. http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/climate-hustle-will-rock-alarmists-to-their-core/

The dismissal of scientists that take a contrary view is very sinister in fairness.

smash

Bongalongherb wrote: »

There's a new documentary film being released on the 2nd of may 2016, in a few days that explains a lot of rubbish about global warming alarmists, they might learn something from this scientific film. It's called 'Climate Hustle' In theatres and dvd 2nd may. http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/climate-hustle-will-rock-alarmists-to-their-core/

Looks like zeitgeist

Samaris

We get one of these threads every couple of months.

I've said it before and say it again, any scientist or group of scientists that manage to prove it's not happening has his/her/their fortune made.

Also, studies into it have been going on since the '70s.

smash

Samaris wrote: »

We get one of these threads every couple of months.

I've said it before and say it again, any scientist or group of scientists that manage to prove it's not happening has his/her/their fortune made.

Also, studies into it have been going on since the '70s.

Plenty have already done that. They either get fired or dismissed as being a quack.

The biggest driving force behind the climate change debate was Al Gore. He had the most to profit from it too!

Remember when it wasn't climate change and it was called global warming? That didn't suit his agenda.

HensVassal

daheff wrote: »

Not sure i agree with the global warming brigade....or at least not to the indisputable extent they make it out to be.

I do agree though that we shouldnt be polluting the planet the way we do.



Theres not enough evidential long term (thousands/millions of years) of data available to see about temperature changes (uptrends downtrends etc)

So thousands of scientists in the IPCC are just spreading bullshit? Why would they do that exactly? For the craic?

I can understand climate change deniers spreading their message. They benefit from the fossil fuel industry or are paid by those who do.

darkpagandeath

HensVassal wrote: »

So thousands of scientists in the IPCC are just spreading bullshit? Why would they do that exactly? For the craic?

I can understand climate change deniers spreading their message. They benefit from the fossil fuel industry or are paid by those who do.

Who denied climate change ? Climate change happens all the time throughout history.

Boom_Bap

Climate Change = Hailstones and Sleet in April...the end of April.

VinLieger

The facts dont lie that last year was once again the hottest year on record and 2016 is expected to once again beat that record.

Deniers will try to fudge the numbers by pointing to useless wide ranging graphs but heres the actual science of global temperature increase

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-graph-national-review_us_567054efe4b0fccee1700f96

HensVassal

darkpagandeath wrote: »

List of stuff that's already supposed of happened or killed us.

Oil runs out. supposed to be 50 year left in the 60-70s
Acid Rain.
Ozone layer. Loads of money spent, Then realised it was a natural phenomenon at the poles.
All the while sea level rising, My estimations on the reporting of various times we should be under 2 meters of ocean by now.
C02 emission, And Ph change in oceans.
Amazon cut down we all suffocate.
Desertification In Africa, Famines. They all should be dead by now.
Oceans fished to extinction, Should of happened by now.
Famines everywhere due to food production not keeping up.
Fresh water runs out.
2012
Solar flairs.


Anyone think of anything else ?

Well cod used to be the cheapest thing on the menu in the chipper. Now it's one of the dearest.

Samaris

smash wrote: »

Plenty have already done that. They either get fired or dismissed as being a quack.

The biggest driving force behind the climate change debate was Al Gore. He had the most to profit from it too!

Remember when it wasn't climate change and it was called global warming? That didn't suit his agenda.

Rubbish. To..basically all counts.

There are very few reputable scientists in the field (dentists do not count) that can manage to ignore all of the evidence collected over the last few decades and those that do generally ARE quacks.

People keep talking about the money and conveniently ignoring that the big money...actually isn't in the "yes, it's happening" side, it's in the vested interests that have too much to lose by a move away from fossil fuels. It's a gap in logic that I cannot quite comprehend.

Al Gore is one of many big (non-scientific) names that have spoken out about it and tried to raise awareness. Not done a bad job of it either, but he's far from the only one. It really isn't a massive conspiracy aimed to get Al Gore money!

Global warming vs climate change.
In the 1970s, the term used was "inadvertent climate modification" Both "climate change" and "global warming" came into parlance at much the same time. Global warming was used to refer to a gradual increase of the overall temperature. Climate change was used to refer to all other modifications that came with that. The media picked up specifically on "global warming" in the 1980s, but there were enough people going "It's bloody freezing outside, global warming my arse!" that the more neutral and all-encompassing "climate change" was being used, presumably by people sick of explaining the difference between climate and weather. It makes more sense anyway, since it includes oceanic thermal expansion, weather pattern changes, etcetera.


TL:DR - A chance in nomenclature over a forty-year period is not evidence of an over-arching conspiracy.

HensVassal

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Who denied climate change ? Climate change happens all the time throughout history.

Are you serious? There are numerous lobbies and "think tanks" out there whose sole purpose is to deny that climate change is real.

And the fact that there have been ice ages in the past so the rise in temperatures since the Industrial Revolution is nothing to get alarmed about really is a weak argument.

Samaris

HensVassal wrote: »

Are you serious? There are numerous lobbies and "think tanks" out there whose sole purpose is to deny that climate change is real.

And the fact that there have been ice ages in the past so the rise in temperatures since the Industrial Revolution is nothing to get alarmed about really is a weak argument.

Yes and no. Overall, anyone that denies it's happening AT ALL and tries to say that the earth and its processes are a static system is an idiot. There are some lobbies and "not-really-thinking tanks" that do try to do that to just sweep anything out of the way, but they're kinda stopping that now as they've moved to the non-anthropological cause argument since the "not-happening-at-all" argument is so thoroughly debunked as to not be worth trying to hold onto.

In general, they focus on the anthropological aspects of it.

smash

Samaris wrote: »

Rubbish. To..basically all counts.

There are very few reputable scientists in the field (dentists do not count) that can manage to ignore all of the evidence collected over the last few decades and those that do generally ARE quacks.

I don't think too many people are completely ignoring evidence, but people with vested interests are hugely over playing our part in the issues regarding clime change.

Samaris wrote: »

People keep talking about the money and conveniently ignoring that the big money...actually isn't in the "yes, it's happening" side, it's in the vested interests that have too much to lose by a move away from fossil fuels. It's a gap in logic that I cannot quite comprehend.

I agree to an extent, the motor industry is an example of this industry which didn't want to change. But it's not where the big money lies.

Samaris wrote: »

Al Gore is one of many big (non-scientific) names that have spoken out about it and tried to raise awareness. Not done a bad job of it either, but he's far from the only one. It really isn't a massive conspiracy aimed to get Al Gore money!

Al Gore has become a billionaire as a result of his agenda. He has also slipped up over and over... http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/06/26/al-gore-sells-his-soul-to-big-carbon-again/

Samaris

smash wrote: »

I don't think too many people are completely ignoring evidence, but people with vested interests are hugely over playing our part in the issues regarding clime change.

How, who and where? Who are these "people"? What are the vested interests? What vested interests are against the theory of climate change? What do -they- lose if the evidence is accepted?

smash wrote: »

I agree to an extent, the motor industry is an example of this industry which didn't want to change. But it's not where the big money lies.

Believe me, it sure as hell isn't in scientific research.

smash wrote: »

Al Gore has become a billionaire as a result of his agenda. He has also slipped up over and over... http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/06/26/al-gore-sells-his-soul-to-big-carbon-again/

That is actually pretty irrelevant. He isn't a scientist, he's spoken on what he read and interpreted from actual research. He spoke pretty well, if a bit simplistically, but eh, if that's what's needed to educate on the basic concepts, whatever.

kneemos

I think the scientists have shot themselves in the foot with their dire predictions that were definitely going to happen because,well the models said so.