Tuisceanch wrote: » Well wherever you look there will be vested interests so i don't know how that helps. Is the answer 42?
Boredstiff666 wrote: » No because oldies do not produce kids, so if you killed off oldies you would still have same problems and no one to blame or ask to borrow money off and not pay back because you think they have forgotten. Plus there are some tasty woman who are older than 42 and that would be a loss. Celebs are annoying as are political people and Pat Kenny so there's a start.
Tuisceanch wrote: » https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/05/ozone-layer-healing-after-aerosols-un-northern-hemisphere
Researchers say that they have pinpointed the major sources of a mysterious recent rise in a dangerous, ozone-destroying chemical. CFC-11 was primarily used for home insulation but global production was due to be phased out in 2010. But scientists have seen a big slowdown in the rate of depletion over the past six years. This new study says this is mostly being caused by new gas production in eastern provinces of China.
gozunda wrote: » Not quite ...https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48353341
Boredstiff666 wrote: » Well listening to a stupid 16 year old who is being manipulated by others with vested interest is just ridiculous and not the answer. There is only one answer but how you do that is???????
[Deleted User] wrote: » Have to congratulate you on your ability to fit in as a new user. Only a few posts in but feels like you could have been using the site for years. Have you had a previous account ? Would be nice to know some of your previous thoughts on other subjects.
Jerry Taylor, 56, was a full-throated climate change skeptic. He penned op-eds, appeared on cable news networks and worked the “entire orbit of right-wing media,” arguing climate change was not a real problem. In Taylor’s eyes, climate change was a hoax, propagated by the exaggerated claims of alarmist liberal commentators. Then, he says, his reality started to unravel. First, he began to have serious doubts about the credibility of the scientific counterarguments he was citing. Then he shifted his focus, professing that even if climate change is real, the level of action required to address it would impose staggering costs that would harm the economy more than climate change itself. Eventually, he began to lose faith in that argument as well. Today, as founder of the Niskanen Center, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that promotes carbon taxation, Taylor is one of a growing number of climate change “converts.”
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., is encouraging Republicans to come up with climate change legislation to counter Democrats’ Green New Deal, saying, “Let’s have that debate instead of everybody saying we’re just deniers,” McCarthy’s comments signal “a tipping point” for the Republican party, said Alex Flint, executive director of Alliance for Market Solutions, an organization focused on “conservative, pro-growth solutions to reduce carbon pollution.”
Bob Inglis, a former congressman from South Carolina who once doubted the science of climate change, points to Al Gore’s appearance in the 2006 documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” as the reason he thought climate change was a liberal idea that would inevitably lead to bigger government and more regulation. Inglis credits his son and a “spiritual awakening” after a 2008 U.S. House Science Committee trip to see the languishing Great Barrier Reef for his conversion to climate change activism. But that conversion also meant the end of his political career. He is putting his faith in young conservatives, like Nick Huey, 27, to change the culture of the Republican party.
“In my generation, they get it. They understand this is something we should be on board with,” Huey said. “But most people I talk to say, ‘I believe it, I have no idea what to do, so I ignore it.’” The biggest source of conservative skepticism on climate change is fear of what the solution might be, said Josiah Neeley, senior fellow in energy policy at the R Street Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based public policy research organization focused on free enterprise. The phenomenon of denying problems when the solutions are undesirable is called solution aversion. “There is a suspicion that if they embrace the idea that climate is a problem, they are going to be pushed into some liberal or big government response to the whole thing,” said Neeley, who used to doubt there was anything that could reasonably be done to combat climate change. The worst case scenario involves societal breakdown and social instability in parts of the world that are unable to deal with extreme weather, large sea level rise and permanent drought conditions, Neeley said. “From a risk management perspective, we should do what can to try and minimize that risk,” said Neeley.
It was this way of thinking about risk that was the “final nail in the coffin” for Jerry Taylor’s move from climate denialism to activism. Near the end of his time at Cato, Jerry Taylor met with a top risk management expert from Goldman Sachs who convinced him that he needed to look at all potential outcomes.
Deleted User wrote: » Have to congratulate you on your ability to fit in as a new user. Only a few posts in but feels like you could have been using the site for years. Have you had a previous account ? Would be nice to know some of your previous thoughts on other subjects.
KyussB wrote: » Those other than myself, who view climate change as needing urgent action: Do you view major government projects as a necessary part of the solution? What percentage of total GDP should be allocated to government action on climate change? (lets consider this an EU-level question) What is the amount in Euro's, which that percentage of GDP represents? Where will the money come from - and when you tot up where the money will come from, does it match that percentage of GDP, in raw Euro amounts? What proportion should come from taxes, without risking cratering the economy - and what proportion should comes from other sources? (What will those other sources be?) People will know I have my own answers to all of that - but I want to see other posters on this end of the discussion, work through the economic questions - as I think that's more instructive than me stating what I think. I may 'red team' the answers a bit.
Boredstiff666 wrote: » After the early 1970's environmental worry about pollution and burning of the rain forests there was a later fantastic discovery by 'scientists' that we are now in big trouble and are going to freeze to death in a new ice age. In this video 'scientists' use the facts of extremely cold winters in the 1970's. In fact some of the worst on record. But today's global warming 'scientists' kind of miss this information out when they tell us that global warming is hotter each year since records began. What happened to the cold winters in the 1970's then? You will see in the video just a few minutes in how they say that ice on the North pole is blocking sea routes year round instead of melting and it has been getting colder for the past 30 years. A new ice age was just around the corner they say. 'Scientists' were telling us this just 40 years ago.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSDLRm3jhc8
There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.
In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"
This is in strong contrast with the current position of the US National Academy of Sciences: "...there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.
Climate change is happening today. Scientists have known for some time, from multiple lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate, primarily through greenhouse gas emissions. The evidence is clear and compelling. Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are warming, the magnitude and frequency of extreme climate and weather events are increasing, and sea level is rising along our coasts.
AlekSmart wrote: » I would agree with that,however it is also quite clear that Ms Thunberg is an intelligent and singularly focused young woman. I get a sense of a harder edge to her persona,both in spoken and visible elements. I wonder how Ms T will mature,and what the 21,31 and 41 year old Greta will think of her own singlemindedness and anger when she looks back on it all in 2060 ?
weldoninhio wrote: » The world will be gone by then according to her. I can see her having a full blown meltdown once people stop worshiping her when the next "idol" comes along. And the puppeteers pulling her strings now will be nowhere to be seen once she isn't useful to them.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » I'd say she'll just carry on with her life and study in one of the world's top universities or stay at home in Sweden. Greta gonna be fine.
Tuisceanch wrote: » Well I don't think you could have been big into environmental issues at the time, in terms of activism or knowledge of the understanding of the scientific consensus, otherwise I don't think you would continue to perpetuate such a myth. I am frankly perplexed that you would, so I can only speculate that it's probably more to do with what you perceived to be true based on media reports rather than having some great insight at the time. However if you could direct me to some scientific papers at the time to support your assertion then that would be helpful. It is accepted now, by the overwhelming opinion of climate scientist,government bodies,businesses,insurance and banking sector,energy sector,military and intelligence agencies, that AGW is real and happening now. However if you believe that this is some grand conspiracy then that would be extremely worrying because where would there be to turn? It would also be difficult for people to accept such an opinion based on nothing more than hearsay. I really would appreciate if you could explain this strange phenomenon.https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 Alsohttps://sites.nationalacademies.org/sites/climate/index.htm BTW I think you make some very valid points in your other posts.
Tuisceanch wrote: » ... In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"
Boredstiff666 wrote: » I have never said anything is a myth. If you weren't around in those days how could you have known what people were worried about or believed? Scientists have always banded stuff around and been as wrong as many times as they have been right. Also before you listen to any scientists you should find out who is financing their research. For example the tabaco industry used to finance alternative research with obvious results. In the same way you ought to find out who is financing an immature 16 year old to pull faces at world leaders and make damming speeches before you take what she said as gospel. I may be older but I can say with all honesty that if anybody tells you anything there is a reason for doing so and it is always not to benefit yourself in anyway.
hetuzozaho wrote: » What's that mean?
Tuisceanch wrote: » What we should be concerned about in this country is having a serious discussion about the best way forward to meet our commitments to the EU and to avoid a situation where we allow this country to veer towards supporting extremist views based on nothing more than emotion and misunderstanding.
gozunda wrote: » Lol. Yup. She will definitely have the required academic qualifications required for university entry with the way she is going having dropped out of school!
Clarence Boddiker wrote: » Greta will be fine, she'll just go back to her simple, sustainable home and have a well deserved sit down on their 8 thousand euro armchairs. She'll have plenty of money rolling in from endorsements etc not that she had to worry about that anyway as she comes from one of her countries elite, wealthy families.
Tell me how wrote: » It's very curious that you profess to have a had a strong interest in this topic when you were a child and since that period, as the science has produced more and more data highlighting the problem, the real world events have grown more and more extreme in frequency and impact that you are now looking to undermine someone who has been so forceful in promoting awareness of the need for action on a global level for doing so. If you said that you felt sorry for her getting so upset about this, as you did, but that she should just live her life, as you did, and she will realise that the world will keep turning and society will adapt I could understand your position. But you, as others decrying Greta are trying to paint her as some elitist bourgeois teenager who is just being a tad dramatic with no evidence to support this. As I have said to others with similar arguments, it seems to me to be rooted in a hatred of the girl. And once again, as with others, it is unclear what is the motivation behind this hatred. I'm not using these phrases lightly, but observing someone who is calling for action on a topic which is widely agreed needs action (as you yourself have said) and seeking to undermine her message rather than support or suggest improvements to it is very interesting.
Clarence Boddiker wrote: » Think you might be mixing me up with someone else? In any case she is just some elitist bourgeois teenager, but obviously a puppet, a figurehead with a lot of power and money behind her. As for the message, I think its all a scam.. a scam which tells the Bourgeoise "Pay more in taxes and you can keep on consuming" Thats what we hear about climate change.."you need to pay more" Never "we need to ban plastics" "We need to outlaw most pesticides/herbicides" "We need to reduce air travel" It seems to be the case that all the proposals re climate change benefit the Capitalists and Corporations..the very people who got us into this mess.
Tell me how wrote: » Seriously? You haven't heard that message? I'd say someone sailing twice across the Atlantic having previously travelled throughout Europe on rail and Ferry while telling people they are doing so to avoid plane journeys was a pretty strong communication of that message. No? As for the whole taxes thing? Why then are governments worldwide so reluctant to bring in such taxes to this point? If it's not the governments calling for action on the climate then who is it? The electorate? Is that not a quintessential example of democracy in action?
Clarence Boddiker wrote: » No, if the Govt are serious about environmental issues then theres a whole swathe of policies that could be implemented. A massive reduction on Plastics being one, of course this will never happen as it might hurt the profits of the Capitalists. All we get is pushing the costs on to the taxpayer and never on big business. Consumption must never take a hit.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f0f9dcd3c171b8509db497e3a438e4fb.svg)
