nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Jimmy Garlic

Climate saint Greta Trunburg is settling sail for UN climate talks in New York to demand that governments socially engineer and tax the little people into oblivion to save the planet. Accompanied by her film maker father who lives vicariously through her, a filthy rich aristocrat from Monaco and some German bloke the trip will no doubt vastly increase the wattage of her halo before she lectures us all about impending climate Armageddon in New York. Hopefully snaps from the trip will make it into Hello! Magazine.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

What exactly about it was 'political poo'? I took down pretty much every criticism of it.

Lol - Not to derail the thread any further- simply take a read back - absolutely nothing was taken down.

It is and remains a political piece of garbage dreamed up by the US Democrats activists in a bid to get back into power - and not even a very good effort at that.

Not just me saying it's a pile of poo btw ...

https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2019/02/11/the-problem-with-the-green-new-deal

I wonder how greta is doing trying to bum a lift back to Europe from the Americas now that Chile is in the throws of political unrest and has had to cancel the latest climate change conference.

...turns out I've traveled half around the world, the wrong way,"

she tweeted

Indeed you have greta. All that expended carbon dioxide emissions gallavanting half way around the world when you could have simply Skyped or taken the train to Spain ....

[Deleted User]

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

They're all poor losers as well who believe that maybe some day if they keep... idk, cleaning toilets or whatever the poors do... will maybe be rich!

oh my god.

that's just best left

tuisceanch youve made really interesting posts in this thread, cheers

FreudianSlippers

Tell me how wrote: »

A venn diagram of those on Boards denouncing Greta and those with issues with refugees is a perfect circle it seems.

They're all poor losers as well who believe that maybe some day if they keep... idk, cleaning toilets or whatever the poors do... will maybe be rich!

Tuisceanch

KyussB wrote: »

The typical "blind to everything except that which can be positively spun" garbage, that you get from denialists.

The upsides in crop production elsewhere don't matter because the discussion is about the triggers for mass migration, from the mid-to-lower latitudes.

The downsides aren't 'balanced out' by upsides - that's False Balance - the downsides cause mass migration regardless of any upsides elsewhere.

Coupled with that is that the projected agriculture decline is in the areas of the world with the highest population densities. The tiny country of Monaco has the world's highest population density. With an area of three-fourths of a square mile (2 sq km) and a total population of 30,645, Monaco has a density of almost 39,798 people per square mile.

However, because Monaco and other microstates have very high densities due to their extremely small size, Bangladesh (population 157,826,578) is often considered the most densely populated country, with more than 2,753 people per square mile.

6034073

However reverting to the central point of your observation regarding the effects of migration I think it could be useful, in terms of moving the discussion forward, to link to the following article:

https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/climate-change-already-driving-mass-migration-around-globe

"Given the oversize role that migration plays in our current political discourse, you’d think there would be more emphasis on the one factor military and security experts believe will affect future migration patterns more than any other: climate change."

" In a report to Congress last week, the GAO criticized the manner in which the Trump administration has sought to remove any acknowledgement of climate change from our foreign policy and diplomatic strategies, keeping experts in the dark about an issue that’s growing only more urgent as a shifting climate—and all that comes with it—displaces millions of people and disrupts societies across the globe."

Eric Cartman

Tell me how wrote: »

A venn diagram of those on Boards denouncing Greta and those with issues with refugees is a perfect circle it seems.

As is those who support greta and want open borders...

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

Most likley identified as such due to the fact that the green new deal you were endlessly promoting in a thread about gretas travels in the US was shown to be a large pile of political poo.

If what is posted doesnt stand up to scrutiny and others point that out - that is not being 'brow' beaten - it is simply discussion. Some people dont seem to like that oddly enough ...

What exactly about it was 'political poo'? I took down pretty much every criticism of it.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

The loudest screeches in this thread were those of "Communism!" when discussing the Green New Deal.Any discussion of the need for massive government spending and involvement in directly tackling climate change, and the denialists go ape shit trying to brow-beat it, to shut down discussion.

Most likley identified as such due to the fact that the green new deal you were endlessly promoting in a thread about gretas travels in the US was shown to be a large pile of political poo.

If what is posted doesnt stand up to scrutiny and others point that out - that is not being 'brow' beaten - it is simply discussion. Some people dont seem to like that oddly enough ...

gozunda

Akrasia wrote: »

It’s impossible to project accurately global food production 50 or 100 years from now, which is why climate scientists use scenarios to model different outcomes dependent on different assumptions for uncertain variablesThere are some scenarios where climate change is harmful but manageable, best case scenarios, and there are some scenarios where climate change causes a literal apocalypse (resource shortages causing conflict, mass immigration ultimately leading to WW3)And then there are all the scenarios in the middle, of which there are many plausible outcomes that have very negative outcomes including runaway climate change if we breach certain tipping points.The scientists who know the most are extremely concerned because they know that the most likely outcomes are very damaging in the medium term and potentially catastrophic in the long term (climate change doesn’t just stop at 2100)

Indeed scientists do hold many different opinions and they use scenarios to model theoretical outcomes. Believe it or not some of us actually understand this hence my comment above.

Regarding the direction of agricultural production - what we do know is technology transfer initiatives occurring between 1950 and the late 1960s increased agricultural production worldwide, particularly in the developing world, beginning most markedly in the late 1960s. The initiatives resulted in the adoption of new technologies, including high-yielding varieties (HYVs) of cereals, especially dwarf wheats and rices, in association with new agricultural techniques and new methods of cultivation, including mechanization.

Not only that but cereal production more than doubled in developing nations between the years 1961–1985. Yields of rice, maize, and wheat increased steadily during that period. The production increases can be attributed roughly equally to irrigation, fertilizer, and seed development especially in the case of Asian rice production.

The end result if all this innovation means that at present there is no global shortage of food. With surpluses in many crops year on year.

Where food is in short supply is mainly the result of corruption and other inequalities

https://www.worldhunger.org/letter-food-shortage-world-questions/

And rather than getting dragged off into a morass of 'yes but' type dialogue - the comment above simply points out that the Map being bandied about actually details theoretical projections of ' beneficial carbon fertilisation processes' >As is detailed on the graphic<. Not that difficult to understand tbh ....

Edit. Detail added.

Akrasia

gozunda wrote: »

Lol Its your own GARBAGE! And as for 'blind' well yes indeed - I was quoting from your own map graphic which is detailed as the benefits of carbon fertilisation processes !!! Have you even seen that - seriously???

here it is:

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/projected-impact-of-climate-change/trend09-1m-soer2010-eps/image_large

-See left hand panal for details about that map

The projections on yields etc are also theoretical as has been pointed out and the 'facts' your spouting about lower agricultural yields yada yada are simply projections based on science which is stated on that map which is 'uncertain

And no it's not just me who are saying that there are balances and technological solutions. The scientists are!!! Are they 'denialists' really?

*

But no worries bro - its easy to make a mistake like that ...

*https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/prediction-extinction-rebellion-climate-change-will-kill-6-billion-people-unsupported-roger-hallam-bbc/

It’s impossible to project accurately global food production 50 or 100 years from now, which is why climate scientists use scenarios to model different outcomes dependent on different assumptions for uncertain variables

There are some scenarios where climate change is harmful but manageable, best case scenarios, and there are some scenarios where climate change causes a literal apocalypse (resource shortages causing conflict, mass immigration ultimately leading to WW3)

And then there are all the scenarios in the middle, of which there are many plausible outcomes that have very negative outcomes including runaway climate change if we breach certain tipping points.

The scientists who know the most are extremely concerned because they know that the most likely outcomes are very damaging in the medium term and potentially catastrophic in the long term (climate change doesn’t just stop at 2100)

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

The typical "blind to everything except that which can be positively spun" garbage, that you get from denialists.
The upsides in crop production elsewhere don't matter because the discussion is about the triggers for mass migration, from the mid-to-lower latitudes.The downsides aren't 'balanced out' by upsides - that's False Balance - the downsides cause mass migration regardless of any upsides elsewhere.

Lol Its your own 'garbage'! And as for 'blind' well yes indeed - I was quoting from your own map graphic which is detailed as the benefits of carbon fertilisation processes !!! Have you even seen that - seriously???

here it is:

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/projected-impact-of-climate-change/trend09-1m-soer2010-eps/image_large

-See left hand panal for details about that map

This Map represents the case of beneficial carbon fertilisation processes

The projections on yields etc are also theoretical as has been pointed out and the 'facts' your spouting about lower agricultural yields yada yada are simply projections based on science which is stated on that map which is 'uncertain

And no it's not just me who are saying that there are balances and technological solutions. The scientists are!!! Are they 'denialists' really?

Many temperate regions will likely see increased crop yields under future climate, due to warmer temperatures and the CO2 fertilization effect. Depending on the extent of global trade and cooperation, these yield increases could help to partially ameliorate decreases experienced elsewhere. Many agricultural impact projections don’t include the CO2 fertilization effect, due to uncertainty, but in reality this effect will probably help soften the blow of climate change to some extent. (For example, global wheat production may be more likely to increase than decrease; Liu et al. 2018 Global Change Biology1.)...

For example, over the historical period of global warming, technological advancements have increased yields by 100-200% in spite of any negative impact of climate change. Even if this yield trend were to reverse, the total production of calories might not be affected if economic forces cause more land to be used for agriculture. In other words, if yields were to be reduced by 10% that does not translate directly into 10% less food available. It is likely that the reduction in yield would stimulate increased land use for agriculture. In this example, if 10% more land were used for agriculture, total production would remain unaffected....

All these factors would need to be reckoned with before one could make any credible projection of reduced food production in the future

*

But no worries bro - its easy to make a mistake like that ...

*https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/prediction-extinction-rebellion-climate-change-will-kill-6-billion-people-unsupported-roger-hallam-bbc/

Beasty

Jimmy Garlick do not post in this thread again

I'll deal further with some of your posts when I get chance later on

Jimmy Garlic

Tell me how wrote: »

Those against Greta - 'We don't want to hear the opinions of 11,000 scientists.'

Also those against Greta - 'Here's a video of some Russian ceremonial dancing'

Every logical thinking person -

A.pampered job for life communist just like yourself

Tell me how

Those against Greta - 'We don't want to hear the opinions of 11,000 scientists.'

Also those against Greta - 'Here's a video of some Russian ceremonial dancing'

Every logical thinking person -

Jimmy Garlic

**** your priests

Jimmy Garlic

For all the Latin lovers in da room..

Jimmy Garlic

https://youtu.be/BFjlYyYEGx0W

Jimmy Garlic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFjlYyYEGx0

Jimmy Garlic

KyussB wrote: »

The loudest screeches in this thread were those of "Communism!" when discussing the Green New Deal.

Any discussion of the need for massive government spending and involvement in directly tackling climate change, and the denialists go ape shit trying to brow-beat it, to shut down discussion.

Dyed in the wool Stalinist. You would.have been a Yagoda type character 90 years ago.

KyussB

ELM327 wrote: »

There's nothing louder than the screeches of the liberal left when someone dares have an opinion different to what they deem as acceptable in their "tolerant" utopia

The loudest screeches in this thread were those of "Communism!" when discussing the Green New Deal.

Any discussion of the need for massive government spending and involvement in directly tackling climate change, and the denialists go ape shit trying to brow-beat it, to shut down discussion.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

This comment and your previous one include a graphic on theoretical carbon fertilisation benefits of climate warming and some added coastal flooding stuff!

It's of note that lots of regions in that graphic show theoretical improvements in crop yield. The same regions with some of the highest densities of people in the world. Many 'low latitudes' regions already have poor yields as shown in your additional current graphic. But there we go - there's science for you. Lots of contradictions and balances. But you've ignored all that for some strange reason.

You can throw all the Projected graphics that you like - it remains your ideas about some crazy Mad Max future of total crop decimation and low latitude hell holes with billions of displaced people are little more than your own fantasy.

Nothing is 'demanded' - I suggested you do so to inform yourself and yes I'm already am aware of where the bulk of crops are grown etc - just you seem to have issues when others point out such claims doesnt stand up to scrutiny. And btw it's not up to anyone else to do any reseach for you. That's on you.

The typical "blind to everything except that which can be positively spun" garbage, that you get from denialists.

The upsides in crop production elsewhere don't matter because the discussion is about the triggers for mass migration, from the mid-to-lower latitudes.

The downsides aren't 'balanced out' by upsides - that's False Balance - the downsides cause mass migration regardless of any upsides elsewhere.

Professor Moriarty

gozunda wrote: »

Well that's clearly not in context with your comment above. So no - no opt out of the booby prize my friend ...

Pity. Ah well.

gozunda

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Is it global engagement with climate change? Otherwise, you can keep it.

Well that's clearly not in context with your comment above. So no - no opt out of the booby prize my friend ...

Professor Moriarty

gozunda wrote: »

You've just lost the internet. Consolation prize in the post...

:rolleyes:

Is it global engagement with climate change? Otherwise, you can keep it.

gozunda

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Great point.

You've just lost the internet. Consolation prize in the post...

:rolleyes:

gozunda

Overheal wrote: »

Okay Boomer.

Ha ha - even more US style personal puerile rhetoric. Deary me but we really have reached a new low in the discussion with that being offered by way of discourse. Truely truely pathetic - but hey is anyone surprised :pac:

Professor Moriarty

Woodsie1 wrote: »

And "ok boomer" is any kind of point?

Sorry if me posting offends you so much,chill out.

No, you're fine.

Woodsie1

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Great point.

And "ok boomer" is any kind of point?

Sorry if me posting offends you so much,chill out.

Professor Moriarty

Woodsie1 wrote: »

Jesus Christ:rolleyes:

Great point.

Woodsie1

Overheal wrote: »

Okay Boomer.

Jesus Christ:rolleyes: