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

[Deleted User]

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.

it seems that you cant help but tell people not only what to believe, but what they already believe.

as far as orders go for the former, i would question any authority you claim to dictate

as far as knowledge of the latter, i would question any credibility you claim on the question

randd1

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Or we could do our best to stop climate change and maybe these people won't have to migrate.

You can't stop the climate changing. You could wipe every human off the planet, magically disappear all the pollution we've caused and it would still do not one jot of difference to the climate changing. It's going to happen no matter what we do.

So if we can't stop climate change, and we know it's going to happen, then why not get out in fornt of it and manage it?

- Bio-engineer plants for human consumption that would thrive in these regions. Simple and effective, and can actually be done, simply because we've done it before in other regions. Plus it would give those regions an economic boost to develop as a food producing region.

- Ensure that economically, the people in these regions have a good standard of living by having fairer trade agreements.

- Develop infrastructure (bullet trains, high speed aircraft like the proposed hydrogen hybrid plane) that links these regions easily to the rest of the world.

- Have here at home, national recycling centres that actually tear apart products for every scrap of material or substance that could possibly be recycled. And to keep these centres going, have the unemployed do one day a week in these centres as part of getting the dole. The added bonus's obviously being we would require less resources from abroad, we would cut down massively on scouring the Earth for resources, the unemployed would have a work detail to call upon when looking for a job, and what materials/substances we don't keep for ourselves to use, we can export at minimal price to the poorer regions to aid their economies, and they wouldn't have to export as much resources themselves.

- Incorporate non bio-degrable pullotants into the natural environment. Plastics for example that don't degrade for 1000 years. Turn them into structure that can support animal/plant life. For example, turning plastic bottles into hollow but strong and durable cube shapes and placing them underwater to allow small fish and plants to grow in their recesses, likes artiificial reefs. These would ilkely work better in warmer climates.

Not exactly ground breaking ideas, but much better than the over the the top, stupid "recycle plastic bags to smother your children to stop them dying from suffering in 12 years" level of hysteria we're hearing in relation to climate change.

Also, they're not exactly great, but they're actual ideas, not just mindless rhetoric which is all we seem to be hearing.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

it seems that you cant help but tell people not only what to believe, but what they already believe.

as far as orders go for the former, i would question any authority you claim to dictate

as far as knowledge of the latter, i would question any credibility you claim on the question

It seems you are only ok with the idea of Greta detractors expressing their opinion.

As for the rest of you post, it reads like some of the waffle coming from UK political parties on the campaign trail at the moment. I guess it was supposed to come across as sharp witted and profound, it does neither.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

Nope that wasnt made clear where you referred to 'worldwide' concensus / wtte.

What you've missed there was your previous reference to your many 'billions' in lower latitudes. In contrast your reference above details

"Those who once lived on coastlines will face displacement and resettlement bottlenecks as they seek habitable places inland, according to new research".

That says nothing about your statement that there would be 'displacement of billions of people due to the reduced habitability through food production of many lower latitude nations' .

The point being the far greatest density of people is not in lower latitudes which you are going on about. You also need to check what your graphic says about climate change theoretically improving agricultural outputs worldwide ...

The above comes with the provisio that "The science however is far from certain on the benefit of carbon fertilisation". So like a lot of scientific projections then.

It also clearly states that:

This Map represents the case of beneficial carbon fertilisation processes

You may wish to compare that map based projection with the areas considered the major crop production areas across the globe ....

My post counted food crop decimation and coastal displcement.

6 out of 8 of the most populated countries on the planet are projected to have their crops decimated - covering 4.1 billion people. 14 out of 20 of the most populated - covering 5.4 billion people (with 3.2 billion in the countries whose crops are decimated).

As requested, here is a contrast of current world crop yields versus the map showing crop decimation:

Huge areas of productive crop production will be decimated.

As usual, you never bother doing your own bloody research - just piss at others efforts and demand more.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

My post counted food crop decimation and coastal displcement.6 out of 8 of the most populated countries on the planet are projected to have their crops decimated - covering 4.1 billion people. 14 out of 20 of the most populated - covering 5.4 billion people (with 3.2 billion in the countries whose crops are decimated)...

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.

"KyussB wrote:

]As requested, here is a contrast of current world crop yields versus the map showing crop decimation:
https://blog.agrivi.com/Media/archive/2016/02/Sh_01_.png
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/projected-impact-of-climate-change/trend09-1m-soer2010-eps/image_large
Huge areas of productive crop production will be decimated.As usual, you never bother doing your own bloody research - just piss at others efforts and demand more.

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.

ELM327

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.

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

Tuisceanch

KyussB wrote: »

The effcts of climate change decimate crop production primarily in lower latitudes (mid to lower, to be more precise) - affecting mostly poorer nations:

And on the displacement of billions:
Rising seas could result in 2 billion refugees by 2100

Date:June 26, 2017Source:Cornell UniversitySummary:In the year 2100, 2 billion people -- about one-fifth of the world's population -- could become climate change refugees due to rising ocean levels. Those who once lived on coastlines will face displacement and resettlement bottlenecks as they seek habitable places inland, according to new research.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170626105746.htm

The scientific consensus I referred to is that humans are pushing climate change.

Interesting article. I noted the following quote:
"Earth's escalating population is expected to top 9 billion people by 2050 and climb to 11 billion people by 2100, according to a United Nations report. Feeding that population will require more arable land even as swelling oceans consume fertile coastal zones and river deltas, driving people to seek new places to dwell." As you say those populations that are most at risk from the effects of climate change are located in the low latitudes (0 - 30 Degrees N/S).

https://shift-magazine.net/2015/11/17/10-countries-most-affected-by-climate-change/
Population is highest in the northern hemisphere at 25-26 degrees North latitude and 77-78 degrees East Longitude.
https://engaging-data.com/population-latitude-longitude/

Tuisceanch

From the following article: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2018-11-29/climate-shocks-and-humanitarian-crises

"..throughout 2018, weather events also had devastating humanitarian consequences in developing countries, from immense floods in the Indian state of Kerala to an intense drought in Afghanistan that affected millions." ...
"Over the past decade, academics and policymakers have vigorously debated the question of whether climate change poses a security threat, with particular emphasis on whether it causes internal conflict. "
.."several risk factors make some countries more vulnerable than others to the consequences of climate change. Three stand out in particular: a high level of dependence on agriculture, a recent history of conflict, and discriminatory political institutions. Research suggests that in countries that display some or all of these risk factors, climate extremes are especially likely to lead to disastrous outcomes, including violence, food crises, and the large-scale displacement of populations."
"Countries facing the three aforementioned risk factors will struggle to deal with climate shocks. And one of the most serious of these shocks—especially in countries that depend on agriculture—is likely to be drought and water shortage. "

"The risk factors we identify are, naturally, not the only conditions that can contribute to instability and humanitarian crises. But unabated climate change is likely to amplify the challenges of these high-risk countries in decades to come. They will see more extreme consequences, and their already fragile governments will become even more hard pressed to manage violence and feed their populations. Understanding where instability is most likely to occur is an important first step to reducing risk."

The source might not be to everybody's taste.

"Foreign Affairs is an American magazine of international relations and U.S. foreign policy published by the Council on Foreign Relations, a nonprofit, nonpartisan, membership organization and think tank specializing in U.S. foreign policy and international affairs."

" Using data from the International Labor Organization, we defined a country as having a “high” level of agricultural dependence if at least 40 percent of its population worked in agriculture—a threshold that 66 countries met. In some countries, such as Malawi and Somalia, over 80 percent of the workforce is employed in agriculture."

gozunda

Wow the alarmists are really digging deep with a wealth of old theoetical projections

We are all going to die or something !!!! Or maybe not ...

The moral of the story - dont listen to the usual alarmist rhetoric...

Thankfully we dont have to look too far to find some sanity. This in reaction to another extreme alarmist. Roger Hallam ...

Many temperate regions will likely see increased crop yields under future climate, due to warmer temperatures and the CO2fertilization 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,

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

Overheal

gozunda wrote: »

Wow the alarmists are really digging deep with a wealth of old theoetical projections

We are all going to die or something !!!! Or maybe not ...

The moral of the story - dont listen to the usual alarmist rhetoric...

Thankfully we dont have to look too far to find some sanity. This in reaction to another extreme alarmist. Roger Hallam ...

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

Tuisceanch

"A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25."
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/

However it would be hubristic for an individual to use that information as a means to metaphorically crush their imagined opponents in a verbalistic joist before reading on:

"The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”

Perhaps then, on reflection they might realize that the path to truth lies not in vainglorious belief in their omniscience but rather humility and acceptance of their own fallibility and in that way they might find that we are all on the same path and absolute truth will forever elude us.

gozunda

Overheal wrote: »

https://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/betterworld.jpg

Wow thats original lol. No we've never seen that simplistic alarmists fallacy that we have to agree with the screamers because agreeing with them means the 'world will be a better place' :rolleyes:

The funny thing it's the actual Scientists who are pointing out the problems with Alarmists like Roger Hallam

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

Maybe you should read the actual link no?

But yeah wrong podium. 'Hoax' & 'denial' accusers => thataway..

Here's a scary thought- 'what if' the alarmists are now claiming to know more than the scientists themselves? :eek: What then? Lynching anyone who does not agree with them? Going all religous? Even more screaming perhaps? ...

JJayoo

Saw an advert for a TV show on RTE about the climate. The advert shows Dublin under water, seems legit...

Love these projections, they have no problem including the growth in population, no problem showing the projected temp increase but the huge surge in technology and renewable energy is never projected into these long term forecasts.

We have hit a stage where building offshore wind farms and large scale solar farms are now cheaper than continuing to fuel coal power plants.

You even have countries such as Japan who have over 50billion in coal reserves, so future money they have already accounted for, accepting that these coal reserves are not going to deliver.

The world is changing

I like the idea of floating solar farms. Great for fish as the panels/infrastructure provides cover, small fish don't like open water.

In this example an old quarry has flooded, so they have turned something dangerous into something productive, could be replicated on lakes/reservoirs.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/europes-largest-floating-solar-plant-opens-in-france/

"According to its promoters, the plant’s annual output will be sufficient to power 4,733 homes, avoiding the emission of 1,096 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere."

Jimmy Garlic

JJayoo wrote: »

Saw an advert for a TV show on RTE about the climate. The advert shows Dublin under water, seems legit"

Scary stuff, but absolutely fictional, fantasy. Sea level rise is negligible and all the studies show it. Not computer models, actual recorded data.

There are 88 world tide gauges with a record length of at least 100 years in the psmsl.org database. Of those, 76 have no data quality issues.

The average rate of sea level rise for these 76 global-scale tide gauges is just 0.337 millimeters per year (mm/yr), and the acceleration is a “negligible” 0.007 mm/yr².

Thus, the average rate of sea level rise for the world’s best long-term-trend (LTT) tide gauges amounts to about 3½ centimeters per century.

Further, the relatively high (2 to 3 mm/yr) local rates of sea level rise in the studied region (the Mexican Caribbean) were determined to be primarily associated with land subsidence.

This affirms the conclusion (Piecuch et al., 2018) that geological processes, or vertical land motions, are more influential than climate-related processes in establishing local relative sea level trends

DeconSheridan

Tell me how wrote: »

Who are 'the people'?

Do you think there is an issue in terms of mans impact on the environment?
How do you think we should tackle it?

Greta thinks there's an issue, she thinks we need to unite behind the science to develop solutions to reduce the impact on society and facilitate alternative methods to supplying worldwide economies.

It's not very complicated, or unreasonable to hold this view is it?

Its all about more taxes and more control of what we can and cant do they the climate cult are hypocrites..

Tuisceanch

JJayoo wrote: »

Saw an advert for a TV show on RTE about the climate. The advert shows Dublin under water, seems legit...

It's more than likely related to these two articles:

"Dublin Bay’s sea level appears to be rising faster than initially forecast, and has risen by twice the global average in the past 20 years, underlining the urgent need to build resilience to flooding, according to Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council."
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/dublin-bay-s-sea-level-appears-to-be-rising-faster-than-initially-forecast-1.4013054

"The Irish Times writes, that a catastrophic storm during high tide will leave thousands of homes, businesses and landmark buildings in Dublin under water is inevitable over the coming decades, one of the country’s foremost climate change experts has warned.

Prof Peter Thorne said Ireland had been lucky to “dodge a bullet” until now during major storm events – because they have struck during low or neap tides – but it was only a matter of time until the elements combined for a devastating surge."
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/catastrophic-storm-surge-in-dublin-inevitable-over-coming-decades-1.4071092

[Deleted User]

Tell me how wrote: »

It seems you are only ok with the idea of Greta detractors expressing their opinion.

As for the rest of you post, it reads like some of the waffle coming from UK political parties on the campaign trail at the moment. I guess it was supposed to come across as sharp witted and profound, it does neither.

I'll simplify for you

i. telling people what to do as if you had any authority over them is not the same thing as merely expressing an opinion, and isnt likely to be treated as such

ii. your persistent trait of projecting onto others what you imagine their beliefs to be is only a reflection on you, not anybody else.

its a little strange how you seem compelled to keep at both behaviours but im sure youre very happy at it.

Tuisceanch

JJayoo wrote: »

Love these projections, they have no problem including the growth in population, no problem showing the projected temp increase but the huge surge in technology and renewable energy is never projected into these long term forecasts.

We have hit a stage where building offshore wind farms and large scale solar farms are now cheaper than continuing to fuel coal power plants.

The world is changing

I'm not sure if that's true as it's dependent on emissions which are not declining although you are right that there is a surge in renewables which is perhaps not extensively covered in mainstream media.

" Coal-fired energy continues its free fall in the U.S. as renewables keep rising, according to the latest federal data. .. Despite President Trump’s repeated promises to miners he will “save coal” and his administration’s failed attempt to prop up the coal industry, its outlook remains bleak:"
https://www.ewg.org/energy/release/22830/federal-energy-data-coal-death-spiral-renewables-surge

"In 2017, China, Europe and the United States accounted for nearly 75% of the global investment in renewable power and fuels. While investment in these major markets is impressive and needs to continue, there are also examples of significant investment in developing country markets. China had a high level of investment – an increase of 30.7% from the previous year. However, when measured per unit of gross domestic product (GDP), the Marshall Islands, Rwanda, the Solomon Islands, Guinea-Bissau, and many other developing countries are investing as much as or more in renewables than developed and emerging economies. These positive trends need to be scaled up for a global energy transition.

Furthermore, a booming global economy combined with weaker improvements in energy intensity led to an increase in energy demand of an estimated 2.1% in 2017 (more than twice the average increase over the previous five years). Energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions rose – by an estimated 1.4% – for the first time in four years, at a time when climate scientists say that emissions need to be in steep decline."
https://www.ren21.net/gsr-2018/pages/highlights/highlights/

Overheal

gozunda wrote: »

Wow thats original lol. No we've never seen that simplistic alarmists fallacy that we have to agree with the screamers because agreeing with them means the 'world will be a better place' :rolleyes:

The funny thing it's the actual Scientists who are pointing out the problems with Alarmists like Roger Hallam

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

Maybe you should read the actual link no?

But yeah wrong podium. 'Hoax' & 'denial' accusers => thataway..

Here's a scary thought- 'what if' the alarmists are now claiming to know more than the scientists themselves? :eek: What then? Lynching anyone who does not agree with them? Going all religous? Even more screaming perhaps? ...

Okay Boomer.

Woodsie1

Overheal wrote: »

Okay Boomer.

Jesus Christ:rolleyes:

Professor Moriarty

Woodsie1 wrote: »

Jesus Christ:rolleyes:

Great point.

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: »

And "ok boomer" is any kind of point?

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

No, you're fine.

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:

gozunda

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Great point.

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

:rolleyes:

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: »

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 ...

gozunda

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.

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.