Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

topper75

rossie1977 wrote: »

...
Parts of Return of the King was filmed in the area and the landscape has dramatically changed in the 15 or so years since that movie came out.

I'd raise more eyebrow to see a landscape with glaciers staying the exact same year on year to be honest.

Maybe it is always melting and shrinking and the earth is just still moving out of the last ice age. We don't know. I also don't know why people run around with their hair on fire after extrapolation from a sliver of time. Maybe they like the excitement that comes with fear.

sk8erboii

topper75 wrote: »

I'd raise more eyebrow to see a landscape with glaciers staying the exact same year on year to be honest.

Maybe it is always melting and shrinking and the earth is just still moving out of the last ice age. We don't know. I also don't know why people run around with their hair on fire after extrapolation from a sliver of time. Maybe they like the excitement that comes with fear.

We’re still in the middle of an ice age

KyussB

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

More likely that the scientists and technological advancement will have solved the problem, or we'll be on the way to conolising the Moon and Mars and thereby helping alievate the problem on mother Earth anyway.

If a REAL crisis emerges, you can bet that's what'll happen. Take the massive increases in technological advancement during the First and Second World Wars. Sure most of it was for military applications but much of it has filtered down into everyday life since (including the Internet incidentally)

Science and tech will solve the issue, not hysteria and calls to live like we're in the Third World.

If you want WWII or Moon Race style technological development, then you need massive government spending - which significantly increases governments overall contribution percentage-wise, to the countries GDP (effectively being a much much bigger player, in the economy).

There are tasks which for-profit business is incapable of.

Professor Moriarty

KyussB wrote: »

If you want WWII or Moon Race style technological development, then you need massive government spending - which significantly increases governments overall contribution percentage-wise, to the countries GDP (effectively being a much much bigger player, in the economy).

There are tasks which for-profit business is incapable of.

I'd love to see the plans for transporting billions of people to the Moon and Mars. Nevermind the plans for buildings and infrastructure. Oh and food production. And breathing.

its ok we'll just organise an urchin to implore you to lIStEn tO tHE sCiEnCe

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/05/climate-crisis-11000-scientists-warn-of-untold-suffering Another 11,000 lying climate scientists in a communist conspiracy. Seriously though it's not looking good.

That particular publication has shown itself to be less editorially independent and even more extremist in its views compared to some of the Tabloids and yet here we have it quoted as source material...

:rolleyes:

Overheal

gozunda wrote: »

That particular publication has shown itself to be less editorially independent and even more extremist in its views compared to some of the Tabloids and yet here we have it quoted as source material...

:rolleyes:

Are you trying to imply that the article is incorrect in reporting that the statement was made or are you just being petulant?

gozunda

Overheal wrote: »

Are you trying to imply that the article is incorrect in reporting that the statement was made or are you just being petulant?

To which 'statement' are you referring to exactly?

Equivalently would you use the Sun Newspaper to back up what you are claiming or are you just being 'petulant' - whatever that has to do with it....

Overheal

gozunda wrote: »

To which 'statement' are you referring to exactly?

Equivalently would you use the Sun Newspaper to back up what you are claiming or are you just being 'petulant' - whatever that has to do with it....

I’m just trying to ascertain what about the article in question you are trying to impugn? If it’s only the publisher, I mean.

Gaoth Laidir

The recent furore over Varadkar's comment that's it's not all bad (milder winters would be better for the homeless) just proves that there is a brainwashing campaign underway, in which no off-script comments are tolerated. To castigate someone for pointing out the obvious, be it by politicians or those rancid Extinction Rebellion hippies who have called for civil disobedience in response, is proof of this campaign. IF the forecasts of doom were accurate (they're not), it would not be all bad in a warmer world. There would indeed be benefits, so to ignore this fact is either pure ignorance or fraud.

This campaign is being strengthened now in the mainstream media, not least The Guardian, but also by RTÉ in their climate week next week. In the promo for one of their programs, they talk about 2050 and show just two clips; O'Connell Bridge in Dublin knee-deep in water, and talk of an Iceland climate here, 8 degrees colder if the Gulf Stream cuts off.

These two clips suggest that this program's intention is not to give a balanced and open insight but to be a tabloid-style propaganda based purely on the increasing hyperbole we're being bombarded with day after day. The way most people now get their weather forecasts from the tabloids, blaming the actual forecasters when the "3 months of SHOCKING SNOW" don't materialise, this program will further show the tabloid direction RTÉ seem to be headed in a desperate attempt to retain viewers/clicks and hence justify their existence. The recent reporting on storm Lorenzo has already been proof of that.

gozunda

Overheal wrote: »

I’m just trying to ascertain what about the article in question you are trying to impugn? If it’s only the publisher, I mean.

I dont think you are. You made a grab at something which I didnt say and then attempted to throw some personal insult into the mix.

Overheal wrote: »

Are you trying to imply that the article is incorrect in reporting that the statement was made or are you just being petulant?

My previous comment stands. Sorry if you dont understand that.

That particular publication has shown itself to be less editorially independent and even more extremist in its views compared to some of the Tabloids and yet here we have it quoted as source material...

if the guardian could only be linked (however tenuously) to the koch bros then id say the content of the article wouldnt have mattered all of a sudden.

funny things, standards.

Eric Cartman

Overheal wrote: »

Are you trying to imply that the article is incorrect in reporting that the statement was made or are you just being petulant?

Sure look at the likes of jess spear, career socialist who did a hdip in climatology,

The ‘climate scientist’ industry is being blaggarded by lifelong students with socialist political views doing a 1-2 year course and using their credentials to band headlines like that into their agenda. If you had a list of those 11,000 i think youd struggle to find 50 who actually work day in day out on studying the climate.

KyussB

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

The recent furore over Varadkar's comment that's it's not all bad (milder winters would be better for the homeless) just proves that there is a brainwashing campaign underway, in which no off-script comments are tolerated. To castigate someone for pointing out the obvious, be it by politicians or those rancid Extinction Rebellion hippies who have called for civil disobedience in response, is proof of this campaign. IF the forecasts of doom were accurate (they're not), it would not be all bad in a warmer world. There would indeed be benefits, so to ignore this fact is either pure ignorance or fraud.

This campaign is being strengthened now in the mainstream media, not least The Guardian, but also by RTÉ in their climate week next week. In the promo for one of their programs, they talk about 2050 and show just two clips; O'Connell Bridge in Dublin knee-deep in water, and talk of an Iceland climate here, 8 degrees colder if the Gulf Stream cuts off.

These two clips suggest that this program's intention is not to give a balanced and open insight but to be a tabloid-style propaganda based purely on the increasing hyperbole we're being bombarded with day after day. The way most people now get their weather forecasts from the tabloids, blaming the actual forecasters when the "3 months of SHOCKING SNOW" don't materialise, this program will further show the tabloid direction RTÉ seem to be headed in a desperate attempt to retain viewers/clicks and hence justify their existence. The recent reporting on storm Lorenzo has already been proof of that.

By the end of the century climate change is set to force billions of people to migrate away from predominantly poor/third-world lower-latitude countries which would no longer be able to adequately sustain their populations - but shure "the homeless in northern latitudes wll be warmer in winter", brilliant...

That is the level of ignorance to the effects of climate change that we're dealing with - something which causes such massive harm, and we have the head of our government trying to spin an upside to it...

KyussB

Deleted User wrote: »

if the guardian could only be linked (however tenuously) to the koch bros then id say the content of the article wouldnt have mattered all of a sudden.

funny things, standards.

So find a link like that then?

I don't think you guys understand how double standards work.

Didn't take you long to reference my posts once again, after making a big drama/show out of proclaiming you'd ignore them, in the other thread.

Tuisceanch

gozunda wrote: »

That particular publication has shown itself to be less editorially independent and even more extremist in its views compared to some of the Tabloids and yet here we have it quoted as source material...

:rolleyes:

He didn't quote from the article.He linked to the article. The article is not source material. The article links to the report that contains the original statement. The article does quote from that report which is not surprising since it is a newspaper. The very same report has been reported by all mainstream outlets including Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/science/11000-scientists-warn-of-climate-emergency

Tuisceanch

Eric Cartman wrote: »

If you had a list of those 11,000 i think youd struggle to find 50 who actually work day in day out on studying the climate.

Here is a list of the signatories.

https://tinyurl.com/y4mg9tne

There is no need to speculate.

Eric Cartman

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Here is a list of the signatories.

https://tinyurl.com/y4mg9tne

There is no need to speculate.

Ill go through that later but from an overview of sociologists, ‘plant breeders’ , anthropologists, mathematicians, ill already say half that list isnt any more qualified to speak about this than anyone here.

ELM327

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Ill go through that later but from an overview of sociologists, ‘plant breeders’ , anthropologists, mathematicians, ill already say half that list isnt any more qualified to speak about this than anyone here.

To quote George Wallace, a lot of those probably need to see some four letter words
"W-O-R-K and S-O-A-P"

Tuisceanch

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Ill go through that later but from an overview of sociologists, ‘plant breeders’ , anthropologists, mathematicians, ill already say half that list isnt any more qualified to speak about this than anyone here.

ELM327 wrote: »

To quote George Wallace, a lot of those probably need to see some four letter words
"W-O-R-K and S-O-A-P"

I'm not convinced the comment above substantiated your assertion in the way it was intended. Perhaps it was meant as light relief before a more substantive point was to be made.

Gaoth Laidir

KyussB wrote: »

By the end of the century climate change is set to force billions of people to migrate away from predominantly poor/third-world lower-latitude countries which would no longer be able to adequately sustain their populations - but shure "the homeless in northern latitudes wll be warmer in winter", brilliant...

That is the level of ignorance to the effects of climate change that we're dealing with - something which causes such massive harm, and we have the head of our government trying to spin an upside to it...

"Billions of people..." Really? Where did you get that figure from?

"Lower-latitude countries..." What's latitude got to do with anything? Maybe you mean altitude.

You notably ignored the actual point I was making in my post by reporting with the usual hyperbole and not focusing on what I said. That, to me, is ignorance.

O'Connell Bridge will not be knee-deep in the Liffey - nor will the Gulf Stream have cut off - in 30 years (nor in 80, as you refered to).

KyussB

Climate change is going to decimate food crops in lower latitudes, as well as turning a lot of places into deserts - trigering huge amounts of migration - in addition to that, the rising sea levels will displace people from urban areas (not limited to lower latitudes).
https://www.google.com/search?q=climate+change+migrants+bilions

You don't need a persistent rise in sea level to make an area uninhabitable - it's the surge level during the worst storms that will forcibly displace people, long before the persistent sea level catches up.

Tell me how

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Ill go through that later but from an overview of sociologists, ‘plant breeders’ , anthropologists, mathematicians, ill already say half that list isnt any more qualified to speak about this than anyone here.

Well, your position just changed from only 50 out of 11,000 are noteworthy to now 5,500 are so.
That's progress.

Thelonious Monk

Tell me how wrote: »

Well, your position just changed from only 50 out of 11,000 are noteworthy to now 5,500 are so.
That's progress.

I think he's coming around to accepting and being part of a Marxist Utopia

Gaoth Laidir

KyussB wrote: »

Climate change is going to decimate food crops in lower latitudes, as well as turning a lot of places into deserts - trigering huge amounts of migration - in addition to that, the rising sea levels will displace people from urban areas (not limited to lower latitudes).
https://www.google.com/search?q=climate+change+migrants+bilions

You don't need a persistent rise in sea level to make an area uninhabitable - it's the surge level during the worst storms that will forcibly displace people, long before the persistent sea level catches up.

No, you're still completely missing the point. Why is climate change only going to only "decimate" crops? It's always only 100% negative effects. There is absolutely no crop in any place whatsoever that will actually benefit? All low-latitude countries are going to suffer? For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction.

I see that, instead of answering my specific points, you just Googled the 4 words "climate change migrants bilions [sic]" to find hits that match your point. If that's the type of research you do - which clearly seems to be the case - then you really need to change that.

KyussB

It's an encouragement for you to go and do your own research, instead of wasting other peoples time by denying easily verified information.

It doesn't matter if some countries in higher latitutdes benefit - these countries in the lower latitudes, and the people in them (who are predominantly poorer), will be fucked...

weldoninhio

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Here is a list of the signatories.

https://tinyurl.com/y4mg9tne

There is no need to speculate.

I picked three at random and what they are qualified in.

1. Maria Abate. Zoologist and biology.

2. Peter Hodum. Avian Ecology and biology.

3. Leonie Valentine. Conservation biologist.


None of the three I picked at random have qualifications in climatology etc. Now the other 10997 might have, but it would be a bit of a coincidence if they were. I'd be interested if others picked 3 at random (to allay any fears of bias on my part), how many would actually be climate scientists??

Tell me how

weldoninhio wrote: »

I picked three at random and what they are qualified in.

1. Maria Abate. Zoologist and biology.

2. Peter Hodum. Avian Ecology and biology.

3. Leonie Valentine. Conservation biologist.


None of the three I picked at random have qualifications in climatology etc. Now the other 10997 might have, but it would be a bit of a coincidence if they were. I'd be interested if others picked 3 at random (to allay any fears of bias on my part), how many would actually be climate scientists??

Do you really think issues with the climate are limited to weather implications?
You should have stuck with describing taking ice cubes from your freezer.

Tell me how

Good to see near unanimous support in New Zealand parliament for a Zero Carbon bill.

Bill passes

The bill sets our two targets for New Zealand:

• Reduce emissions of all greenhouse gases except biogenic methane, to net zero by 2050;

• Reduce gross emissions of biogenic methane within the range of 24 per cent to 47 per cent by 2050, and includes an interim target to cut gross emissions of biogenic methane by 10 per cent below 2017 levels by 2030.

weldoninhio

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you really think issues with the climate are limited to weather implications?
You should have stuck with describing taking ice cubes from your freezer.

Sorry for popping your, "11k scientists claim world is in crisis" bubble by pointing out facts. How long did you spend looking for three climate scientists before getting frustrated and replying with the above??