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.
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.
_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.
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.
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.
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:
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?
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....
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Tuisceanch wrote: » Here is a list of the signatories.https://tinyurl.com/y4mg9tne There is no need to speculate.
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"
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...
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.
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.
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??
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.
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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1a8522b26abe4367117071263a70671.svg)
