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

Tell me how

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

The recent report on waterways gave ag as the biggest pollutant in Ireland, I suppose I'm basing it on that. Most of our uplands are bare of trees too because of sheep.

Definite room for improvement.
But, for obvious reasons waterways focus on ground pollutants as opposed to airborne emissions and the flat out use of resources leading to CO2 which is part of the wider conversation and problem (of course farming contributes to that as well in terms of methane output).

Every branch of society, industry and individual should be aiming to do their bit to make improvements.

easypazz

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

The recent report on waterways gave ag as the biggest pollutant in Ireland, I suppose I'm basing it on that. Most of our uplands are bare of trees too because of sheep.

We are a predominantly meat eating species though, most of us need meat to survive.

Because we are out of control we need to be culled, then there will be less demand for cattle.

Thelonious Monk

easypazz wrote: »

We are a predominantly meat eating species though, most of us need meat to survive.

Because we are out of control we need to be culled, then there will be less demand for cattle.

Or we could just eat less meat. What realistic ways of reducing the population could you see happening?

easypazz

Tell me how wrote: »

Every branch of society, industry and individual should be aiming to do their bit to make improvements.

Why bother though?

The global climate is about to change massively, mainly due to human action, at least that is what is being predicted.

With 8 billion people it can't be stopped, and trying to make modest changes at this point will not effect the outcome, whatever that may be, much.

I don't see much point in trying to delay the inevitable.

Tell me how

easypazz wrote: »

Why bother though?

The global climate is about to change massively, mainly due to human action, at least that is what is being predicted.

With 8 billion people it can't be stopped, and trying to make modest changes at this point will not effect the outcome, whatever that may be, much.

I don't see much point in trying to delay the inevitable.

If every human related being ever born had had that attitude, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We wouldn't have made or way out of caves before succumbing to the inevitable.

pantomine2020

easypazz wrote: »

We are a predominantly meat eating species though, most of us need meat to survive.

500 million vegetarians in India would beg to differ

Winning_Stroke

pantomine2020 wrote: »

500 million vegetarians in India would beg to differ

Let them at it, more meat for me.

Fr_Dougal

Tell me how wrote: »

You should look in to it a bit more before making statements that show your lack of knowledge on the matter.

Arsonists always are around, but, the conditions have been exacerbated by the climate to the point where the current situation is ongoing.

I have, extensively, scientists are even backing it up.

More than 180 alleged arsonists have been arrested since the start of 2019, with 29 blazes deliberately lit in the Shoalhaven region of southeast NSW in just three months.

The Shoalhaven fires were lit between July and September last year, with Kempsey recording 27 deliberately lit fires, NSW Bureau of Crime and Statistics and Research data shows

In Tasmania, where fires have sprung up in the north of the state and outside Hobart, four were caught setting fire to vegetation. Victoria reported 43 charged for 2019.

Melbourne University associate professor Janet Stanley said arsonists were typically young males, aged 12 to 24, or older men in their 60s.

Professor Ogloff assessed all three firesetters caught during the Black Saturday bushfires, including former volunteer firefighter Brendan Sokaluk, who was sentenced to 14 years for lighting the Churchill fire on February 7, 2009, that killed 10 people.

The higher the population, the higher the number of scrotes, the more fires.



Science.

easypazz

pantomine2020 wrote: »

500 million vegetarians in India would beg to differ

Good for them. They are still in the minority though.

Winning_Stroke

The Atlantic is now asking how long Australia will be livable ( https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/01/only-way-confront-australias-wildfires/604546/ ), haha the loons really have the run of the place.

And I thought we all just had a decade left anyways?

Thelonious Monk

Winning_Stroke wrote: »

The Atlantic is now asking how long Australia will be livable ( https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/01/only-way-confront-australias-wildfires/604546/ ), haha the loons really have the run of the place.

And I thought we all just had a decade left anyways?

Yes the greeny loons have the run of the place. That's why the world is doing absolutely nothing about global warming and the destruction of natural habitats around the world. That's why there are so many new climate taxes.
We are doing absolutely nothing, all that matters in consumption and economic growth.

easypazz

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Yes the greeny loons have the run of the place. That's why the world is doing absolutely nothing about global warming and the destruction of natural habitats around the world. That's why there are so many new climate taxes.
We are doing absolutely nothing, all that matters in consumption and economic growth.

We cant really do anything. May as well accept that the course is set now as to what will happen regarding climate change.

osarusan

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

The higher the population, the higher the number of scrotes, the more fires.

Has anybody disputed that?

You are missing the 'the wider and longer they burn' part of your sequence.

Australia has had 9 of its 10 warmest years on record since 2005, and 2019 was the warmest year ever there.

Such hot and dry conditions are not the only factors involved in these fires, certainly, but it's absurd to argue that they aren't a factor at all.

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

So basically this is a cop out. You and the people thanking this post recognise there's a massive problem but are unwilling to do anything about it except blame population. There wont be any population control unless we have some kind of fascist regime in place lets face it.
So reducing the number of cows, changing our diets, reducing consumption, better distribution of wealth, education, green energy, all of these things would help our current situation and they mean changing our lifestyles and being more frugal etc. There is no avoiding this if we want to avert disaster.

'Facist regime'? Ahh - the all or nothing fallacy!

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma

And away off with trying to profile people simply because you dont agree with their opinions. Yes I thanked the post. And yes Ive even done a bit and more to do yet the fact remains that the global human population is out of control.

The thing is there is a problem and part of that problem is an ever increasing human population. And no that does not mean we can't do something about it other than some 'fascist regime'.

Yeah things should change. Climate emissions from transport have increased by 137% since 1990, while emissions associated with farming have only increased by 1%. So let me see what should we do?

What we dont need is people like George Monbiot and his brand of extremism telling us that we need to adopt his vision of utopia...

Fr_Dougal

osarusan wrote: »

Has anybody disputed that?

You are missing the 'the wider and longer they burn' part of your sequence.

Australia has had 9 of its 10 warmest years on record since 2005, and 2019 was the warmest year ever there.

Such hot and dry conditions are not the only factors involved in these fires, certainly, but it's absurd to argue that they aren't a factor at all.

Without clearings of course they’re going to burn, it’s a natural cycle. We have the same challenge with gorse fires in Ireland, they burn every few years when they are massively overgrown.

The earth is 4.5bn years old, records only began in the 1850’s in Australia, that’s a very small sample.

Further research:

Contrary to popular belief nurtured by poor media research, Australia has enjoyed a decline in extreme temperatures since record-keeping began in the 1800s.

Analysis of daily raw temperature records maintained by the Bureau of Meteorology shows that most locations in Australia have less extreme cold nights and less extreme hot days than was the case a hundred years ago.

The evidence is strong of a reduction in the diurnal temperature range at a majority of Australian weather recording stations, with the greatest reduction in extreme cold nights, fewer scorching days and an increase in the average mean temperature.

Australia's weather has become slightly warmer but more docile with less extreme storms and fewer cold/hot extremes that are threatening to most plant and animal life.

Source: http://www.waclimate.net/extreme-temperatures.html

Tell me how

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Without clearings of course they’re going to burn, it’s a natural cycle. We have the same challenge with gorse fires in Ireland, they burn every few years when they are massively overgrown.

The earth is 4.5bn years old, records only began in the 1850’s in Australia, that’s a very small sample.

Further research:



Source: http://www.waclimate.net/extreme-temperatures.html

Do you think you know more than the climate scientists, in Australia who are saying what is happening now is a massive problem exacerbated by human behaviours?

Because this is the crux of it, we either listen to what they are saying and act, or carry on without feeling the need to change behaviours.

Fr_Dougal

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you think you know more than the climate scientists, in Australia who are saying what is happening now is a massive problem exacerbated by human behaviours?

Because this is the crux of it, we either listen to what they are saying and act, or carry on without feeling the need to change behaviours.

Of course it’s exacerbated by human behaviours, as stated in the Australian media(see earlier post), the majority of these fires are being started by humans. It’s really not that difficult to understand.

Have you petitioned Trump yet? You guys over in the United States are going to have the same issue once you get into your summer.

Tell me how

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Of course it’s exacerbated by human behaviours, as stated in the Australian media(see earlier post), the majority of these fires are being started by humans. It’s really not that difficult to understand.

Have you petitioned Trump yet? You guys over in the United States are going to have the same issue once you get into your summer.

Patently it is.

Either you, or the climate scientists are focusing on the wrong angle...

James Brown

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Without clearings of course they’re going to burn, it’s a natural cycle. We have the same challenge with gorse fires in Ireland, they burn every few years when they are massively overgrown.

The earth is 4.5bn years old, records only began in the 1850’s in Australia, that’s a very small sample.

Further research:



Source: http://www.waclimate.net/extreme-temperatures.html

Trees for example, they are at 45% of what they were before we came along. A simple thing but a good example of the effect we've had. I don't see it being a natural cyclical thing. Certainly has an effect on air quality I'd imagine.

US2

Raptor Pepper wrote: »

Has the average temperature in Australia risen since 1960?

Probably has thrre is much more recording stations now than in the 60s. To get an accurate answer youd have to check the average from only stations that were in operation in 1960.

Tell me how

US2 wrote: »

Probably has thrre is much more recording stations now than in the 60s. To get an accurate answer youd have to check the average from only stations that were in operation in 1960.

More stations means more accurate measurement, not that inherently the average will rise as a consequence of being measured more often.

If that were the case, it would simply mean that averages in 1960 were false.

Slowyourrole

Seems the police are now having to take time to correct the fake news been spread by the climate change deniers.


Police contradict claims spread online exaggerating arson's role in Australian bushfires

Victoria police say there is no evidence any of the devastating bushfires in the state were caused by arson, contrary to the spread of global disinformation exaggerating arsonist arrests during the current crisis.
A misleading figure suggesting 183 arsonists have been arrested “since the start of the bushfire season” spread across the globe on Wednesday, after initial reports in News Corp were picked up by Donald Trump Jr, US far-right websites and popular alt-right personalities.

KyussB

The main notable thing about that, is the willingness and happiness of many people, to be 'deceived' into backing that type of propaganda - then to just shrug it off later when it's shown to be manufactured, still upholding the myths/lies that were generated/spread, even when the source(s) have been discredited - then justifying this support of discredited propaganda, by falsely accusing 'the other side' of doing the same (which is an implicit admission of wilfully supporting propaganda).

That's the story of most of this thread.

Tuisceanch

I thought KyussB might be interested in this post!

https://twitter.com/EWGnetwork/status/1215235050863841280

This paper evaluates Green New Deal solutions to global warming, air pollution,and energy insecurity for 143 countries.The solutions involve transitioning all energy to 100% clean, renewable windwater-solar (WWS) energy, efficiency,and storage. WWS reduces global energy needs by 57.1%, energy costs by 61%,and social (private plus health plus climate) costs by 91% while avoiding blackouts, creating millions more jobs than lost and requiring little land. Thus,100% WWS needs less energy, costs less, and creates more jobs than current energy.

gozunda

Tuisceanch wrote: »

I thought KyussB might be interested in this post!

https://twitter.com/EWGnetwork/status/1215235050863841280

The odd thing about this is that proponents of the green new deal in the US who are pushing for carbon-free power is that they don't want nuclear and hydro electricity power generation.

In a recent group letter to Congress, a collection of 626 environmental interests, led by groups such as Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of the Earth, laid out what they wanted in the GND.

Included was a demand for 100 percent renewable energy, specifying that “any definition of renewable energy must also exclude all combustion-based power generation, nuclear, biomass energy, large scale hydro and waste-to-energy technologies.” 

I find it very odd that nuclear and hydro electric are being targeted for shutdown and for some reason dont make the grade as far as the GND goes

https://earthworks.org/publications/group-letter-to-congress-urging-green-new-deal-passage/

AlekSmart

gozunda wrote: »

The odd thing about this is that proponents of the green new deal in the US who are pushing for carbon-free power is that they don't want nuclear and hydro electricity power generation.

In a recent group letter to Congress, a collection of 626 environmental interests, led by groups such as Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of the Earth, laid out what they wanted in the GND.

Included was a demand for 100 percent renewable energy, specifying that “any definition of renewable energy must also exclude all combustion-based power generation, nuclear, biomass energy, large scale hydro and waste-to-energy technologies.” 

I find it very odd that nuclear and hydro electric are being targeted for shutdown and for some reason dont make the grade as far as the GND goes

https://earthworks.org/publications/group-letter-to-congress-urging-green-new-deal-passage/

TLDR....well actually no !....it's just that when I see the damage inflicted on the Queens English by the presence of non-words such as ....... :mad: CENTER :mad:...I am immediately put in mind to reach for a pistol !!!

Perhaps Ms Thunberg could be motivated to mount a campaign to save the English language ?

gozunda

AlekSmart wrote: »

TLDR....well actually no !....it's just that when I see the damage inflicted on the Queens English by the presence of non-words such as ....... :mad: CENTER :mad:...I am immediately put in mind to reach for a pistol !!!

Perhaps Ms Thunberg could be motivated to mount a campaign to save the English language ?

Just to clarify- I was quoting from the letter. Prepared to get very annoyed

This taken from the letter to Congress

Thelonious Monk

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

The recent report on waterways gave ag as the biggest pollutant in Ireland, I suppose I'm basing it on that. Most of our uplands are bare of trees too because of sheep.

That lie again.
The trees are not missing because sheep. Sheep are there because nothing useful will grow

Thelonious Monk

Deleted User wrote: »

That lie again.
The trees are not missing because sheep. Sheep are there because nothing useful will grow

Not true. Too many sheep and deer. So natural woodlands can't regenerate.

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Not true. Too many sheep and deer. So natural woodlands can't regenerate.

You posted about sheep supposedly being the reason there's no trees in upland areas in another thread. That is incorrect. The same answer stands

There are a number of reasons why there are no trees in upland areas here and it has little to do with sheep.

The first is what is known as the altitudinal tree line, i.e. above c.500 m where extensive native tree growth is naturally not viable due to exposure etc

The second is that in the 17th and 18th centuries - the population of Ireland was almost double of what it is today and subsistence agriculture meant that many upland areas were cleared of any remaining vegetation by poor people seeking out a very meager existence.

The third is that many remaiming areas of uplands in Ireland do not support native forestry - mainly due to blanket bog and poor drainage.

Blaming sheep for no trees in upland areas is like blaming ships for the oceans being deep.