jackboy wrote: » Because human carbon emissions were not involved in past climate change. So even if we reduce carbon emissions to pre industrial levels, catastrophic climate change will still occur. We need to adapt to the planet we are living on or we will suffer like past civilizations except on a far greater scale.
Tell me how wrote: » It's a common phrase when describing groups supporting both for and against arguments. I thought the liberals were supposed to be the ones easily triggered.
gozunda wrote: » It's overt personalisation which bears no relation to the discussion. But you already know that. The tem 'bollox' is just as much 'basic' English. Doesn't mean its anymore acceptable when describing someone ...
gozunda wrote: » It tends to be used used by those who cannot actually engage in proper discussion and revert to throwing ****e. And as said we know that already ...
wrote: » However, the sheer blinding stupidity of large swathes of the pro Brexit camp makes mild smugness almost unavoidable.
wrote: » Labour has bigger problems. Corbyn, in my opinion needs to drop any sort of fantasy about a renegotiation with Brussels and plump for a People's Vote. He'll never be Brexity enough for those who remain fully committed to leaving the EU so he might as well try and win over one camp who will otherwise defect to the Liberal Democrats.
Tell me how wrote: » :pac::pac: It is absolutely used in common debate/discussion. Some examples from the Brexit Thread in just the last couple of weeks. But, go ahead and report the post if you feel it crossed a line.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » At what rate will this happen?
jackboy wrote: » We have no idea. Even the worst shifts in climate in the last thousand years would cause severe difficulties in today’s world. These are relatively minor compared to the worst seen in say the last ten thousand years. Reducing carbon emissions will do nothing to prepare us for this.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » So we should ignore carbon and its impact on climate change because of "difficulties" in the past ten thousand years? What difficulties? Can you explain why ignoring carbon pollution will help mankind in any way?
[ Yacht Skipper Wiped Out Carbon Emissions Saved By Greta Thunberg With Flight To U.S. To Sail Her To Europe
jackboy wrote: » Well of course ignoring carbon will only help if we focus on other areas instead. The general public are being told that reducing carbon will prevent catastrophic climate change and save the world. It should be made clear that it won’t.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Okay, third time of asking. So when will this natural catastrophic climate change occur?
jackboy wrote: » As I said before, we have no idea as we don’t yet have the knowledge.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » So you say we shouldn't focus on carbon pollution because natural climate change will be worse. But you don't know what will happen or when it will happen. Okay, got that.
Tea drinker wrote: » Well if someone is serious about the climnate emergency why on Earth would they have kids? Isn't overpopulation one of the biggest problems? If they have kids already they should have a serious discussion about sterilization - anything less is "do as I say not as I do."
jackboy wrote: » More or less. Except we should be focusing on preparing for natural climate change instead of focusing on carbon.
Akrasia wrote: » Yes genius, people worried about future generations should just not have any
Tell me how wrote: » This is a good appointment.https://twitter.com/CBCAlerts/status/1201159777247727616
Tell me how wrote: https://twitter.com/PaulEDawson/status/1201229227363667969
Ireland is not paying its fair share to help developing countries deal with the impact of climate change caused by wealthy nations, aid agencies say. They say Ireland's contribution to an international fund would need to increase six-fold before we came close to making amends for the damage caused. In a report to be published today, Trocaire and Christian Aid Ireland argue that Ireland's €80 million annual donation needs to increase to €475 million.
Akrasia wrote: » Reducing atmospheric greenhouse gasses is our best chance at reversing global warming and preventing catastrophic climate change, this has been known for decades, every credible scientist agrees with this.
The Oort Cloud wrote: » Here we go again. This tiny island and its citizens are being attacked again telling us all that we are not doing enough. We already took hundreds of thousands of migrants and refugees in and we as a tiny island have given millions to poorer 3rd world countries and now they want us to pay six-fold 'in regards to climate change' blaming us harshly that we are not doing enough, ffs, they can piss-off with that attitude imo. Independent.iehttps://www.independent.ie/news/environment/ireland-is-told-to-stump-up-more-cash-to-help-developing-nations-cope-with-climate-change-38744178.html
YFlyer wrote: » Some good ideas there. Doesn't need to be all or nothing.
hetuzozaho wrote: » I think that's a big thing in these discussions. People making no changes because they can't change everything. It came up on some podcast I was listening to about how people approach change and are hard on themselves in achieving 100per cent and not more happy about changing the 10per cent. So like, one person wanting to cut out amazon.com and someone saying but you use an iPhone so what your doing is pointless. Instead of, every little helps I guess.
