Climate Morons on The Late Late Show

s7ryf3925pivug

Mezzotint wrote: »

Burning plastics in a low temperature, uncontrolled fire is hugely hazardous from a health point of view. You're introducing all sorts of carcinogenic chemicals to the air by doing that.

Ideally we should be using fully recyclable plastics and those that can't be should be high temperature incinerated in waste to energy plants. When they're burnt in a controlled process the emissions are basically CO2 bit you're not getting all those dangerous chemicals escaping.
Ideally they shouldn't be used if they can't be recycled and recovered easily.

I find people in Ireland still have notions about cozy fireplaces, and think nothing of choking themselves and the neighbours with particulates. The smokeless fuel rules in cities have massively improved lifestyle.

I grew up in Dublin and my childhood was before the smokey fuel ban and I remember blowing black smuts out of my nose. I had loads of upper respiratory infections, sinusitis and ultimately bad ear infections that led to needing surgery and, since they vanished when the smoke did, I can only assume the two were linked.

Yeah me too. I had childhood asthma. I remember being unable to breathe outside one day when there was particularly bad smog.

Edgware

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

This climate frenzy is satisfying the age-old fantasy of many young people; to get on the telly and be famous. Doesn't matter if they come across as ridiculous. Where do these American accents come from? I worry about the future, not due to climate but due to the breed of idiots we're bringing up.

Greta ****

Mezzotint

Veda Beautiful Rope wrote: »

Yeah me too. I had childhood asthma. I remember being unable to breathe outside one day when there was particularly bad smog.

Do you remember the smell of kerosine / heating oil smoke you used to get in the suburbs of Dublin and Cork too? Most houses were heated with oil boilers and many of them were set wrong as you could smell the fumes.

It was that and chimneys belshing coal smoke everywhere and the cars were all spewing leaded petrol fumes.

While the switch over to natural gas heating hasn't reduced CO2 much, it absolutely cleaned up the local pollution.

I can definitely smell the particulates in the air in heavy traffic though. All those diesel cars are definitely not great for the lungs.

Gaoth Laidir

Wanderer78 wrote: »

absolutely, a critical component of all this is money, and we havent sorted this one out either, in relation to its creation and re-distribution, our monetary systems are not democratic in nature, they are in fact highly dysfunctional, and potentially dangerous too all humans, including the wealthy. of course i engage in activities that are harmful to the environment, most humans do, again, its virtually impossible to not. ive many digital devices, i use an astonishing amount of electrical power, but ive very little control over its creation, hence our predicament, this is whats meant by institutional and systemic change.

ive enormous amounts of respect for these young people, their movement is actually working at forcing change on a grand scale, i see no reason why we need to, or should, downgrade the quality of our lives, i do believe its possible to in fact increase the quality of our lives by making these dramatic changes

"...i do believe its possible to in fact increase the quality of our lives by making these dramatic changes".

So you do agree with this idea. Yes, we definitely do need to get away from fossil fuels and go with as much renewable as possible. Why? Because we should not be relying on a finite resource like petroleum. Also, the renewable options are cleaner and hence better for our health. Urban ozone is a killer in some large cities. But do I think that the primary reason for getting away from them is the agw component? Absolutely not. It ranks well down on the list.

There is a strange resistance to switching over to renewables alright, and I've never quite got why. But the nonsense being spouted by this new cult is not something I agree with at all.

BorneTobyWilde

A solution has been found for Climate Change Activists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k6iTFPpxOo

Gynoid

Drumpot wrote: »

Belligerent ignorance doesn’t surprise me anymore although I would wonder how representative some of the misguided opinions on this thread really are on society. The religion of Consumerism and social media narcissism allows certain people a platform for grandstanding whatever self centred dogma suits their own agenda without having to address the truth.

The only pathetic thing about children being rolled out to lecture adults and the leaders of society is that as a species we need children to tell us what scientists have been saying for decades. Some People need to be told what to do because they are too short sighted and ignorant to do what’s best for themselves. The ego and ironically childish response of some to say “I’m not having children tell me what to do” gives us an insight into why , in spite of all the incontrovertible evidence, some people refuse to accept the role we as a species are playing on our environment.

Another thing about targeting the children is a modern day thing Ive noticed. Attack the messenger , not the message. There is no informed discussion possible when a person refuses to address what is being said. It’s like Trump supporters in that there is no reasoning with some people. They know what they know and will be damned if anybody suggests otherwise.

It doesn’t matter how small Ireland is, I really can’t understand this logic. Everybody has to play their role, taking a “well if that country is producing more pollution , I’m not bothering to make adjustments” is such a backward thinking logic, almost petty child like approach. Part of the reason that climate change strategy’s usually come in form of taxes is because we are such a self absorbed, shallow species that only when if hits our pockets will we react to something. Having to pay more tax leaves us Less money to buy crap we don’t really need which in itself probably helps the environment as that leads to less disposable crap being made.

I'd be in the ''objecting to be hectored to by children in a cult'' demographic - or more like yawningly bored at the staged propaganda of it all. The solutions offered now do not solve the problems - polluters can keep on paying to pollute and the rest of us can channel money up the well worn grooves to the rich. I believe the solutions to environmental degradation already exist, they are just not funded properly because the oligarchs want to squeeze the last of the blood money out of their petro-chemical investments before selling us the next technology.
I do object to being lumped in with your hyperbolic description of us contrarian people as narcissistic, belligerently ignorant, pathetic, short-sighted etc. One can oppose the present propaganda and still care for the environment. I haven't eaten meat in over 35 years, 75% of my clothes are second hand, I'm still eeking out this shyte ol laptop where three keys don't work and the fan makes it sound like I am going for lift off, and I took an acre and a half of craggy empty bogland 20 years ago to build a home and personally planted more than 400 trees around me, so cool it with the generalising insults.

celtic_oz

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znukFtaWPAw

ErnestBorgnine

Veda Beautiful Rope wrote: »

I closed freezer doors three times in thensupermarket yesterday that random assholes just left wide open. Should be fines for stuff like that. You can get on the spot fines for littering.

Perhaps they were just doing it to feed your need of a smug sense of superiority??

Wanderer78

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

"...i do believe its possible to in fact increase the quality of our lives by making these dramatic changes".

So you do agree with this idea. Yes, we definitely do need to get away from fossil fuels and go with as much renewable as possible. Why? Because we should not be relying on a finite resource like petroleum. Also, the renewable options are cleaner and hence better for our health. Urban ozone is a killer in some large cities. But do I think that the primary reason for getting away from them is the agw component? Absolutely not. It ranks well down on the list.

There is a strange resistance to switching over to renewables alright, and I've never quite got why. But the nonsense being spouted by this new cult is not something I agree with at all.

sorry im not sure what you mean by 'agreeing with this idea'? what do you mean by agw component?

not only do i believe we must move away from fossil fuel based economics, towards alternatives such as renewables, i suspect renewables alone wont be able to do it alone, and we may need to look at alternatives such as nuclear.

when you start looking at the world of finance, it becomes clearer why we have been reluctant to move towards alternatives, as the financial sector is still heavily investing in fossil fuels

Gaoth Laidir

Wanderer78 wrote: »

sorry im not sure what you mean by 'agreeing with this idea'? what do you mean by agw component?

not only do i believe we must move away from fossil fuel based economics, towards alternatives such as renewables, i suspect renewables alone wont be able to do it alone, and we may need to look at alternatives such as nuclear.

when you start looking at the world of finance, it becomes clearer why we have been reluctant to move towards alternatives, as the financial sector is still heavily investing in fossil fuels

Agreeing with the idea of making those dramatic changes to our lifestyle that you mentiond.

AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming. The compontent of warming caused by us.

I am all for nuclear, if required, but I don't really think it would come to that. There are plenty of technological options out there, it just takes a bit of a drive to overcome the inertia in moving on them. The world's economy is inherently oil-based, so it's not an easy ship to turn. But still, this doesn't change the fact that the climate claims being made by these people are grossly exaggerated and in many cases just plain untrue.

Wanderer78

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Agreeing with the idea of making those dramatic changes to our lifestyle that you mentiond.

AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming. The compontent of warming caused by us.

I am all for nuclear, if required, but I don't really think it would come to that. There are plenty of technological options out there, it just takes a bit of a drive to overcome the inertia in moving on them. The world's economy is inherently oil-based, so it's not an easy ship to turn. But still, this doesn't change the fact that the climate claims being made by these people are grossly exaggerated and in many cases just plain untrue.

again, i dont see any reason why we need to downgrade our standard/quality of life to achieve these objectives, i think we could in fact dramatically improve them, by implementing changes.

im still not convinced by the abilities of renewables, but i could be pleasantly surprised, i am hearing great things about thorium reactors though, but it requires enormous amounts of investment to make viable.

unfortunately some climate scientist believe we re currently under estimating the negative effects of climate change, there also seems to be a lot of criticism in the world of economics about how leading economists are modeling this to, nordhaus in particular

Mezzotint

We need to be pouring a lot more resources into fusion research. If that works, we have really broken the human dependency on hacking the carbon cycle.

There are a lot of issues with existing nuclear fission technology in terms of its waste cycle, but at the same time is it actually worse than the predicted consequences of climate change? Done right nuclear fission works very well, but then you get something like Fukushima and wonder can we even manage to get that stuff right ?! A clapped out old plant in an earthquake zone in what is supposed to be one of the most organised societies in the world. That shook my faith in fission.

I mean you can explain Chernobyl in terms of a dysfunctional command based society in the USSR and a dual purpose plant that was part of the nuclear weapons plutonium cycle, but Fukushima was basically the Japanese version of "ah sure it'll be grand! Don't spend any extra money."

The reality though is we've been living next to large scale fission plants since the 1950s in the UK and France with relatively little consequence.

Hopefully fusion tech eventually happens as I really think it's probably the only source of high density, sustainable energy that we can do without risking poisoning ourselves or wrecking the planet.

Screw Attack

Dual wheels wrote: »

Do you really think those morons will give up their iphones iPads plane journies etc? Will they fcuk, after their last protest they left nothing but plastic bottles and rubbish strewn everywhere, climate change me bollix

Is that any different to the anti abortion freaks who don't care about fostering, increasing social welfare, poverty? "Pro life" me bollix, to borrow your witless tone.

vriesmays

You think Ireland will become leaders in fusion research when it doesn't even have nuclear power.

YFlyer

Motivator wrote: »

Ireland represents 0.06% of the worlds population. What we do in this country has absolutely no impact on the world’s climate. At 36 years of age, I really don’t need to be lectured by some jumped up privately schooled toadface on a Friday evening telling me to buy second hand jeans in order to save the planet.

Per capital.

Wanderer78

vriesmays wrote: »

You think Ireladn will become leaders in fusion research when it doesn't even have nuclear power.

not only is this more than likely not happen, i suspect a functioning reactor for power generation may never occur on this island

Mezzotint

vriesmays wrote: »

You think Ireladn will become leaders in fusion research when it doesn't even have nuclear power.

Ireland is part of the EU and the EU is one of the biggest drivers or fusion research at the moment through work being done by Euratom and funding from the European commission.

We could do with being a bit more forthcoming with funds for some of those projects as we've tended to avoid Euratom and weren't even members or CERN.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Just saw part of a repeat of a program called "Will Ireland Survive 2050?". I can't help but wonder will all this climate change talk impact people's mental health. For those who are prone to anxiety or excessive worrying some of this can't be good for them.

Wanderer78

Annabelle Melted Furnace wrote: »

Just saw part of a repeat of a program called "Will Ireland Survive 2050?". I can't help but wonder will all this climate change talk impact people's mental health. For those who are prone to anxiety or excessive worrying some of this can't be good for them.

im potentially one of those people, and im slowly becoming more hopeful, as ive been concerned about these issues for most of my life

high_king

Annabelle Melted Furnace wrote: »

Just saw part of a repeat of a program called "Will Ireland Survive 2050?". I can't help but wonder will all this climate change talk impact people's mental health. For those who are prone to anxiety or excessive worrying some of this can't be good for them.

I know a couple of secondary school teachers who said a lot of the teens of today are all nervous wrecks with all sorts of mental heath issues due to the identity politics diet they are being force fed day in day out.

lalababa

I didn't see the LL so can't possibly comment. I'm sure turbidy is a fine human being in many respects but I just can't listen to him.
What I can say is anybody that argues against climate change/habitat downgrading sceptics are wasting their own oxygen. When 99% of respected independent scientists agree on a subject what's the point in arguing with Mary up the road.

PopePalpatine

high_king wrote: »

I know a couple of secondary school teachers who said a lot of the teens of today are all nervous wrecks with all sorts of mental heath issues due to the identity politics diet they are being force fed day in day out.

If there's that many kids in the depths of 4chan, we're really fucked.

20Cent

The problem with stupid people is they are too stupid to know they are stupid. Climate deniers fall into this category. Best ignored from now on.

high_king

PopePalpatine wrote: »

If there's that many kids in the depths of 4chan, we're really fucked.

they don't need to go to 4chan, they are being peddled it everywhere from school to media.

high_king

The problem with brainwashed people is they are too brainwashed to know they are brainwashed, they've been told to think that anyone that questions anything about green neo nazism must be labeled "stupid" or a "denier". They can ignore the questions all they like, they won't go away.

rossie1977

The argument because we are small population wise compared to other countries we can't or shouldn't do something doesn't make sense.

We already have changed the way we deal with environmental issues over the years from the type of fuel we use to recycling practices etc. It's not that long ago that the air was unbreathable in Dublin city centre and environs thanks to the burning of coal https://www.thejournal.ie/smog-dublin-764941-Jan2013/

high_king

rossie1977 wrote: »

The argument because we are small population wise compared to other countries we can't or shouldn't do something doesn't make sense.

Tying to pretend/misrepresent the actual point being made, isn't helping your case

Drumpot

Gynoid wrote: »

I'd be in the ''objecting to be hectored to by children in a cult'' demographic - or more like yawningly bored at the staged propaganda of it all. The solutions offered now do not solve the problems - polluters can keep on paying to pollute and the rest of us can channel money up the well worn grooves to the rich. I believe the solutions to environmental degradation already exist, they are just not funded properly because the oligarchs want to squeeze the last of the blood money out of their petro-chemical investments before selling us the next technology.
I do object to being lumped in with your hyperbolic description of us contrarian people as narcissistic, belligerently ignorant, pathetic, short-sighted etc. One can oppose the present propaganda and still care for the environment. I haven't eaten meat in over 35 years, 75% of my clothes are second hand, I'm still eeking out this shyte ol laptop where three keys don't work and the fan makes it sound like I am going for lift off, and I took an acre and a half of craggy empty bogland 20 years ago to build a home and personally planted more than 400 trees around me, so cool it with the generalising insults.

You are quite misguided in your presumptions on what I said. I don’t particularly enjoy the new explosion of climate change propaganda either but I understand why it’s happening, it’s not necessarily meant for people who have some level of respect for the subject.

Not appreciating being lectured by children isn’t in itself an issue but I think it’s worth clarifying that if you are as responsible as you say then the message of the children isn’t necessarily meant for you. I’d suggest you consider the reasons why society needs children making the message as opposed to getting all upset that it’s happening. I don’t think it’s the children that should be annoying you, it’s the fact that some people will only react to propaganda tricks like having children Tell them that man made climate change makes them sad that should annoy you.

vriesmays

Annabelle Melted Furnace wrote: »

Just saw part of a repeat of a program called "Will Ireland Survive 2050?". I can't help but wonder will all this climate change talk impact people's mental health. For those who are prone to anxiety or excessive worrying some of this can't be good for them.

By 2050 Ireland will have dozens of majority muslim towns. Kids will be asking their parents what was climate change.

gozunda

20Cent wrote: »

The problem with stupid people is they are too stupid to know they are stupid. Climate deniers fall into this category. Best ignored from now on.

The general problem imo seems to be that where maintaining courtesy, respect, and exercising tolerance of opposing views might be difficult, then a public forum format is not always good fit.

The thread proposed by the OP points out a significant problems of alarmism and not that old chestnut and witch hunting special - as you call them 'deniers' (ie anyone you dont care to agree with) but rather the screaming heebie jeebie alarmists who come out with bs like 'civilisations is going to end in exactly 11 years' or wtte and other absolute blather. For sure that type of stupid rubbish needs to be ignored. Btw none of that in any way 'denies' climate change.