Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

2020 officially saw a record number of $1 billion weather and climate disasters.

1679111251

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Thargor wrote: »
    Oh wow thanks, Ill be sure to spend a few hours digging into these graphs of "Hidden Data" like you tricked Akrasia into doing recently.

    giphy.gif


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    I don’t know as to created by but yes nazi rocket scientists we’re brought to America. The Soviet’s did the same with whomever they could lay there hands on. You could only defend this by saying reason we know so much about hyperthermia now is partly down to nazi science/torture ala Joseph Mengele the angel of death, there’sno way around that either.

    There is no defending it at all.

    New Moon



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    I didn’t attack him I just looked at his website and got his angle and then cross checked his claims against with others sources. his theory that NASA fake there climate data appears erroneous to say the least similar to the flat earth conspiracy.

    Instead of adopting the standard Akrasia tactic of Googling the man before looking at the content, why don't you (and others) rubbish the actual graphs I posted above? I went to a lot of bother screenshotting them so that you wouldn't have to go through the pain of watch the video (I know, I can't listen to that voice either). If he is, as you say, full of it then it should be very easy for you to post simple evidence highlighting how each one of his graphs is fake.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Instead of adopting the standard Akrasia tactic of Googling the man before looking at the content, why don't you (and others) rubbish the actual graphs I posted above? I went to a lot of bother screenshotting them so that you wouldn't have to go through the pain of watch the video (I know, I can't listen to that voice either). If he is, as you say, full of it then it should be very easy for you to post simple evidence highlighting how each one of his graphs is fake.

    I had replied to PA before you posted the graphs also the two YouTube clips on my reply explain the flaws. The second clip is an panel interview with Brian Cox the physicist debating an Australian senator, Malcom something I forget his last name, and this guy heller teamed up with that senator to counter the nasa narrative, I know this because it says it on hellers climate science website.

    I’ve tried arguing my point before and it’s a waste of time better post up links and let people do there own reading/viewing and make up their own mind if their genuinely interested


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    I had replied to PA before you posted the graphs also the two YouTube clips on my reply explain the flaws. The second clip is an panel interview with Brian Cox the physicist debating an Australian senator, Malcom something I forget his last name, and this guy heller teamed up with that senator to counter the nasa narrative, I know this because it says it on hellers climate science website.

    I’ve tried arguing my point before and it’s a waste of time better post up links and let people do there own reading/viewing and make up their own mind if their genuinely interested

    Let me try again. Your reply to Pa's video was not about the content but rather about "Who is Tony Heller?". The links and videos were not about the graphs posted. You've again dodged the question.

    The substance of your replies and contributions would suggest you don't have much of an idea about the science. I can't remember you ever making any technical argument, instead relying on either childish personal insults or the odd unrelated link or video. This is the Science forum, not After Hours, so why not start contributing your own arguments?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    Instead of adopting the standard Akrasia tactic of Googling the man before looking at the content, why don't you (and others) rubbish the actual graphs I posted above? I went to a lot of bother screenshotting them so that you wouldn't have to go through the pain of watch the video (I know, I can't listen to that voice either). If he is, as you say, full of it then it should be very easy for you to post simple evidence highlighting how each one of his graphs is fake.

    Well said GL, and I noticed that the first shot down fired was trying to attribute "Covid-denier" to his video. Selective language is the music, Drama is the theatrics and the facts never even get a back seat, they're firmly in the boot. Same old tired tactics over and over and over.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Danno wrote: »
    Well said GL, and I noticed that the first shot down fired was trying to attribute "Covid-denier" to his video. Selective language is the music, Drama is the theatrics and the facts never even get a back seat, they're firmly in the boot. Same old tired tactics over and over and over.

    It’s on his own website https://realclimatescience.com/2020/09/longtime-climate-denier-tony-heller-gets-youtube-ban-for-covid-denial/

    He was banned after posting a video of a German doctor being arrested during an anti mask/lockdown protest in London. This German guy spoke to the crowd others speakers that day included David Icke the holocaust denier.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Let me try again. Your reply to Pa's video was not about the content but rather about "Who is Tony Heller?". The links and videos were not about the graphs posted. You've again dodged the question.

    The substance of your replies and contributions would suggest you don't have much of an idea about the science. I can't remember you ever making any technical argument, instead relying on either childish personal insults or the odd unrelated link or video. This is the Science forum, not After Hours, so why not start contributing your own arguments?

    This sums up my view, I have previously posted this in my first reply, not that you even looked at it but there are graphs and all.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XjPkclkZh6o


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    It’s on his own website https://realclimatescience.com/2020/09/longtime-climate-denier-tony-heller-gets-youtube-ban-for-covid-denial/

    He was banned after posting a video of a German doctor being arrested during an anti mask/lockdown protest in London. This German guy spoke to the crowd others speakers that day included David Icke the holocaust denier.
    #

    Was the actual German doctor quoted by Anthony Heller a 'holocaust denier'? That would be pretty strange, given that Heller himself is a Jew, which is something I found this while doing some spot research on him a year or two ago after he was accused of being 'far right' on this thread.

    But there does seem to be a pattern emerging with neolib 'rebuttals' this last while:
    'Climate denier'
    'Covid denier'
    'Holocaust denier'
    Lockdown denier'
    'Mask denier'
    'Science denier'
    'Vaccine denier'

    I've said it before, but there is nothing as dangerous as stupid, unthinking people.

    New Moon



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    #

    Was the actual German doctor quoted by Anthony Heller a 'holocaust denier'? That would be pretty strange, given that Heller himself is a Jew, which is something I found this while doing some spot research on him a year or two ago after he was accused of being 'far right' on this thread.

    But there does seem to be a pattern emerging with neolib 'rebuttals' this last while:
    'Climate denier'
    'Covid denier'
    'Holocaust denier'
    Lockdown denier'
    'Mask denier'
    'Science denier'
    'Vaccine denier'

    I've said it before, but there is nothing as dangerous as stupid, unthinking people.

    Does the Holocaust denier daivd icke have legitimacy in your opinion.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Does the Holocaust denier daivd icke have legitimacy in your opinion.

    Can you just answer my very simple question please?

    New Moon



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    Can you just answer my very simple question please?

    I don’t know but he spoke on the same platform as one, that is to say David Icke. The same David Icke that pontificates about lizard people and all sorts of conspiracy theories. The fact that this Tony Hellar guy associates with such people means that serious questions have to be asked about his own agenda.

    Donald Trump spun out “facts” also did you believe any of that. (Not a question)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    This sums up my view, I have previously posted this in my first reply, not that you even looked at it but there are graphs and all.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XjPkclkZh6o

    Yes, sorry, you did post that, I don't know how I missed it. In any case, that video is as bad as he makes out Heller's video is. He seems to change the goalposts and focus away from the actual graphs posted by Heller, making some strange arguments in the process. Examples:

    Heatwaves: The original Climate Assessment Report one-pager Heller is "debunking" shows heatwaves, as measured in days (top left bar chart highlighted below). Strangely, Heller superimposes this chart (measured in days) on top of the Heatwave Index chart, which doesn't seem to make sense. It would be more correct to stick to days, as shown in the second highlighted chart below. Baker also does the same and ends up shifting the discussion to daily high and low temperatures, showing an increase in daily lows. He also dismisses the Dust Bowl hot decade as something that may have been to do with poor farming methods or something else, we don't really know, so he says ignore it. If we do, he agrees that the graph that Heller did show (Index) is still otherwise pretty much flat.

    So he accepts Heller's analyisis is correct on the one hand, but then claims it's not by switching focus to something unrelated to the topic shown in the one-pager (i.e. heatwave days). An increase in nightime low temperatures is not a reliable metric to base a claim on, as station siting plays a major role in this, as we've seen here ourselves when we talk about Shannon v Dublin Airports (and indeed Dublin v Phoenix Park and Casement, both of which have large concrete structures or areas in close proximity to the sensors, acting as heat sources well into the night).

    Baker then goes and posts another graph (blue/red bar graph below), cherrypicking the period from only the 1950s onwards, ignoring before it. That kind of backs up Heller's point, wouldn't you think?

    555042.jpg

    555043.jpg

    Wildfires total acres burnt graph, he tries to make some argument differentiating "wildfires" from "incendiary" fires in order to try to negate Heller's point, but in reality there is no real difference between the two. Just like today, fires 100 years ago were started both deliberately and naturally. He is right, though, when he says that this is not a reliable metric on which to claim climate doom, a point I've made here in the past when the Australian and Californian fires were being bandied about as signals of impending doom here. He argues that forestry practices may have been much worse back 80-100 years ago, yet when that point was claimed about practices in Australia in recent years it was rubbished. Double standards again.

    Arctic Sea Ice: Heller uses an old IPCC graph, showing several years of satellite data prior to the 1979 "start" of the satellite measurement age. These are data that the IPCC back then deemed good enough to be used, but Baker claims that only passive microwave data should be used (though still posts a link to an article showing ice data going back to 1850, implying that that's more reliable). Heller is not wrong in what he posted, showing the lower extent in the early '70s, but Baker simply dismisses that period. Yes, since 1990 the ice has decreased below that of the early '70s, so even Heller's point is lost then.

    Sea level: He dismisses Heller's New York graph from 1850 onwards on the basis that it doesn't account for all of the US, and then shows his own graph from only 1990 onwards to try to say that Heller is wrong. But both graphs are showing basically the same thing and with not too dissimilar trends (Heller's 2.84 mm/yr, Baker's 3.3 mm/yr). It's just that Heller shows that this same trend was occuring back to at least 1890 (there's a 20-year large gap in data before that). Baker doesn't prove anything here other than the fact that he's wrong.

    Baker simply ignores and skips over Heller's Waverley, OH temperature graph. Why? Maybe he couldn't debunk that one either. He is right about the Edenhofer misquote, though, and agrees with Heller on the ridiculous claims of other doomsayers, such as the New York Times and that stupid bint, Ocasio-Cortez.

    So Baker actually does a pretty bad job in this video, himself changing goalposts and cherrypicking time periods himself. Heller is not 100% squeaky clean either, but on the whole, most of his points remain undebunked by this video. Maybe Banana Republic can do a better job than Baker?
    I don’t know but he spoke on the same platform as one, that is to say David Icke. The same David Icke that pontificates about lizard people and all sorts of conspiracy theories. The fact that this Tony Hellar guy associates with such people means that serious questions have to be asked about his own agenda.

    Donald Trump spun out “facts” also did you believe any of that. (Not a question)

    David Icke is a total nutjob, given the nonsense that he spouts. I don't know why Heller or anyone else would associate with him, but as we all know, everyone wants to gain exposure, and if that means swimming with the bottom-feeders then some people will stoop to it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    I don’t know but he spoke on the same platform as one, that is to say David Icke. The same David Icke that pontificates about lizard people and all sorts of conspiracy theories. The fact that this Tony Hellar guy associates with such people means that serious questions have to be asked about his own agenda.

    Donald Trump spun out “facts” also did you believe any of that. (Not a question)
    I'm going to spend some time tomorrow watching a few of his vids to get the feel of him (and I'm not relishing the prospect to be frank) Yes, he may have an agenda, but so do the climate change lobby as well.

    And I am not sure why, as well as throwing in David Icke, you are now throwing in the Trump bomb as well, but yes, it was good to see the present day intellectual giants that we have come to know as the corporate media and messianic scientists keeping Trump 'fact-checked' during his term:

    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/05/politics/fauci-trump-coronavirus-wuhan-lab/index.html

    New Moon



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,584 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    The theories of David Icke are really one step further along than many of us would care to go, some might say that we face an elitist class without much conscience or compassion for the average person, David Icke says they are reptilian life forms (and presumably look at humans as we might look at higher animal forms of life).

    I don't agree with him but I see what causes him to draw such outlandish conclusions. We have separated out into factions in the modern world and it's very difficult for one faction to have any real dialogue or communication with the other factor, partly out of a lack of trust, and partly because the operating assumptions are so different that we are in fact two species now, although biologically still one human race.

    This is a problem everyone faces and some try not to choose sides at all but co-exist with both sides. This creates an almost inevitable mental blurring where no definite conclusions can be drawn about anything, because once you do draw a conclusion, you are likely accepting one side and rejecting the other.

    There are ways out of this, history is full of cases of deep schisms over things that just puzzle people today, such as old religious feuds about obscure theological points, or debates about things like the ether or phlogiston.

    Sometimes a "third way" is found and that seems reasonable to enough people on either side of a schism that the rift is rendered invalid. I was looking for that way forward in my "climate change 3.0" thread and the proposals within that, but the discussion reverted to the schism rather than the proposal and moderators decided it was time to close down the discussion altogether. Unfortunate but predictable I suppose.

    The climate change debate won't be resolved by some easy breakthrough in thought processes, it will probably go away more through one of two outcomes, either (a) there won't be much of a melt and people will start to lose interest, or (b) there will be such a melt that we'll need to respond to it, and while both sides may go ahead with different ideas as to cause and effect, the main focus will become either mitigation or survival (depending on how your country sits relative to sea level, I am rather conveniently camped out at 1050 m so will be beyond the reach of the rising seas no matter how much ice melts).

    Not being flippant about this, I am convinced we are in the cross-hairs but not for the reasons advanced by orthodox climate change theory. We probably do have a rather limited time available to do things about it, and the current plan is not going to work and cannot work.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Yes, what we really need to do is get rid of the idea of everyone owning a car, electric or not. Hopefully we'll head in that direction eventually, where possible.
    It takes planning for the future and designing our cities and countryside better, which we're not exactly good at in Ireland.

    No private cars ? What a miserable backwards leap. Especially with electric cars being manufactured today. They'll come down in price eventually too.

    That's exactly the sort of stuff that makes people wonder if there is an alternate agenda. Alot of people would also prefer, if given the option, of a warmer world with private transport rather than a soylent green/1984 type of so called eco friendly existence where nobody can have a car or light a fire or eat meat and all live crammed in tower blocks.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    No private cars ? What a miserable backwards leap. Especially with electric cars being manufactured today. They'll come down in price eventually too.

    That's exactly the sort of stuff that makes people wonder if there is an alternate agenda. Alot of people would also prefer, if given the option, of a warmer world with private transport rather than a soylent green/1984 type of so called eco friendly existence where nobody can have a car or light a fire or eat meat and all live crammed in tower blocks.

    It's a laughable idea, "designing our countryside better". We shouldn't need to travel from the arsehole of somewhere to the arsehole of somewhere else the other side of the country. No, everywhere should be within walking or cycling distance from everywhere else. Bloody geology and plate techtonics, making different places far from eachother. I'm sure someone will try to claim that human ghgs gave no doubt made the distances further too.

    We need to somehow make a black hole, which will remove the distances and hence the need for cars.

    Maybe T. Monk was being sarcastic when he posted that. I hope so, because if not then it probably ranks as the most crazy post in the history of Boards.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,477 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    Maybe T. Monk was being sarcastic when he posted that. I hope so, because if not then it probably ranks as the most crazy post in the history of Boards.

    The idea of moving away from private cars being as dominant in transport as they are is a crazy idea? Many would suggest continuing the status quo with cars is completely crazy as there's only so much room.
    Anyway it's hardly the place for this discussion, Infrastructure forum has a discussion on reducing the amount of cars should you wish to join in.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    The idea of moving away from private cars being as dominant in transport as they are is a crazy idea? Many would suggest continuing the status quo with cars is completely crazy as there's only so much room.
    Anyway it's hardly the place for this discussion, Infrastructure forum has a discussion on reducing the amount of cars should you wish to join in.

    You"re the one who brought up the idea in this thread that we should move away from everyone owning a car. How would you suggest people shouldie move from A to B, especially those living out in the countr Should they be moved to the towns to make a 100% urban demographic and have a hub-spoke model of public transport? How would that work? Has the past century of the car therefore been a complete backward step in human development?

    Would you also therefore recommend grounding planes and ships too and just having virtual holidays and family reunions? Virtual hugs...it might catch on.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,477 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    You"re the one who brought up the idea in this thread that we should move away from everyone owning a car. How would you suggest people shouldie move from A to B, especially those living out in the countr Should they be moved to the towns to make a 100% urban demographic and have a hub-spoke model of public transport? How would that work? Has the past century of the car therefore been a complete backward step in human development?

    Would you also therefore recommend grounding planes and ships too and just having virtual holidays and family reunions? Virtual hugs...it might catch on.

    I wouldn't say it's been a complete backward step, but designing societies around the private car is a complete disaster in my opinion, and the opinion of many others! It has held back public transport, led to people requiring a car to live, etc. etc.
    I can't find my post to see why I brought it up, but cars often come up in discussions on climate change.
    The number of cars being sold and on the road is higher than ever, so it's not like anything is going to drastically change any time soon, it doesn't mean some people think we should be doing things in other ways.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    I wouldn't say it's been a complete backward step, but designing societies around the private car is a complete disaster in my opinion, and the opinion of many others! It has held back public transport, led to people requiring a car to live, etc. etc.
    I can't find my post to see why I brought it up, but cars often come up in discussions on climate change.
    The number of cars being sold and on the road is higher than ever, so it's not like anything is going to drastically change any time soon, it doesn't mean some people think we should be doing things in other ways.

    Your post was 4 months ago. So what's your solution to the scenario in my previous post?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,477 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    Your post was 4 months ago. So what's your solution to the scenario in my previous post?

    I never said I had a solution to people living in the middle of nowhere, they are car reliant, I simply believe we should be encouraged and should plan better so people can live in ways where owning a car is not a requirement, we have failed badly in that sense in Ireland in my opinion which has led to congestion and pollution in urban areas.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    I never said I had a solution to people living in the middle of nowhere, they are car reliant, I simply believe we should be encouraged and should plan better so people can live in ways where owning a car is not a requirement, we have failed badly in that sense in Ireland in my opinion which has led to congestion and pollution in urban areas.

    That's all fluff, but what about actual practical solutions? How can we plan better so people live in a way that owning a car is not a requirement? You made the sweeping statement that you want things to go that way, but how? You can't make a statement like that without having actual practical solutions in mind. People live where theye live, so should we get them to up stick and move to the city?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,477 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    That's all fluff, but what about actual practical solutions? How can we plan better so people live in a way that owning a car is not a requirement? You made the sweeping statement that you want things to go that way, but how? You can't make a statement like that without having actual practical solutions in mind. People live where theye live, so should we get them to up stick and move to the city?

    Look if you think everyone owning a car is sustainable and wont lead and hasn't already led to all kinds of problems that's fine, I don't want to discuss this with you here, the discussion has been done to death in other threads, you win this argument that's fine.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Look if you think everyone owning a car is sustainable and wont lead and hasn't already led to all kinds of problems that's fine, I don't want to discuss this with you here, the discussion has been done to death in other threads, you win this argument that's fine.

    I must have a look for that discussion to see if someone else had solution to no cars. It was done to death, so if it's viable then there must be a way. The science is settled, afterall, and a clear pathway ahead has been set. Just not on roads, it seems.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,584 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    It's as simple as this -- you aren't free if you cannot go where you want to go, when you want to go there. We have an elite class now who want to make this primary foundation of freedom a thought crime. But I note that they always give themselves an exemption, the stay at home regime will be for the peasants, not the new aristocracy, who will be quite free to go where they want, and enjoy the uncluttered landscape as they do so.

    This pandemic has given this mentality a legal foundation and now there will be considerable difficulty in removing its presence even after the COVID is gone.

    What follows is obviously that owning property is "anti-social" and then it's on to diets, lifestyles, within decades they will be rounding people up if they aren't growing carrots on their balcony.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,570 ✭✭✭Tyrone212


    Too much Internet for one day.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    It's as simple as this -- you aren't free if you cannot go where you want to go, when you want to go there. We have an elite class now who want to make this primary foundation of freedom a thought crime. But I note that they always give themselves an exemption, the stay at home regime will be for the peasants, not the new aristocracy, who will be quite free to go where they want, and enjoy the uncluttered landscape as they do so.

    This pandemic has given this mentality a legal foundation and now there will be considerable difficulty in removing its presence even after the COVID is gone.

    What follows is obviously that owning property is "anti-social" and then it's on to diets, lifestyles, within decades they will be rounding people up if they aren't growing carrots on their balcony.

    JQOjpNk.png

    Though if I had my way M.T, I'd round up anyone that did grow carrots.

    New Moon



  • Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    No private cars ? What a miserable backwards leap. Especially with electric cars being manufactured today. They'll come down in price eventually too.

    That's exactly the sort of stuff that makes people wonder if there is an alternate agenda. Alot of people would also prefer, if given the option, of a warmer world with private transport rather than a soylent green/1984 type of so called eco friendly existence where nobody can have a car or light a fire or eat meat and all live crammed in tower blocks.

    When TM doesn’t want everyone owning a car he means the ordinary bloke. He defended private jets on another thread while supporting a carbon tax. There’s a lot of class war in the green movement which probably explains where their support is based.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,477 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    fvp4 wrote: »
    When TM doesn’t want everyone owning a car he means the ordinary bloke. He defended private jets on another thread while supporting a carbon tax. There’s a lot of class war in the green movement which probably explains where their support is based.

    I think I may have said that flights are too cheap nowadays as Eamon Ryan had brought it up, and it's leading to unfettered expansion of the airline industry which apparently isn't good for the planet.
    They don't even tax aviation fuel. You completely fabricated the private jets thing, I think they're obscene.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I think I may have said that flights are too cheap nowadays as Eamon Ryan had brought it up, and it's leading to unfettered expansion of the airline industry which apparently isn't good for the planet.
    They don't even tax aviation fuel. You completely fabricated the private jets thing, I think they're obscene.

    The problem is that 1% of people take 20% of flights, 10% take 50% of flights. That’s in any one year. 47% only fly every other year. A punitive tax won’t help that much.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    fvp4 wrote: »
    There’s a lot of class war in the green movement which probably explains where their support is based.

    Spot on.

    New Moon



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,584 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    I suppose this may be an over-simplification, but consider this -- if you heard there was a one in three chance of a nearby river overflowing its banks and affecting your property, you would very likely start rounding up sandbags or moving vulnerable items to higher ground.

    When we hear that there's a one in three chance of the seas rising, our response is to tax gasoline and airline flights.

    I tuned in some program which promised (or threatened) a Dutch environmentalist touring Greenland to look into the climate change situation. Yes, I am somewhat of a masochist. But actually, I was rather surprised that he blended into his presentation a mixture of the usual stuff and interviews with more practical-minded Dutch government officials who were talking basically the way I tend to do, the seas are probably going to rise, so what should we be doing about that?

    Of course in the Netherlands, they can't afford to fool around with impractical solutions, the bulk of the country could be floating away if they don't plan ahead.


  • Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I suppose this may be an over-simplification, but consider this -- if you heard there was a one in three chance of a nearby river overflowing its banks and affecting your property, you would very likely start rounding up sandbags or moving vulnerable items to higher ground.

    When we hear that there's a one in three chance of the seas rising, our response is to tax gasoline and airline flights.

    I tuned in some program which promised (or threatened) a Dutch environmentalist touring Greenland to look into the climate change situation. Yes, I am somewhat of a masochist. But actually, I was rather surprised that he blended into his presentation a mixture of the usual stuff and interviews with more practical-minded Dutch government officials who were talking basically the way I tend to do, the seas are probably going to rise, so what should we be doing about that?

    Of course in the Netherlands, they can't afford to fool around with impractical solutions, the bulk of the country could be floating away if they don't plan ahead.

    I did see a map once where rising seas by 2100 put parts of Europe under water. Holland was the worst affected but of course it is already under sea in parts.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The Netherlands is a great example, your can deal with rising seal levels. Expensive but it can be done. A warmer world is preferable to a colder one if given the choice. You can't do a thing about a mile of ice above Europe etc. Not a thing. But we already do have air conditioning.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    fvp4 wrote: »
    There’s a lot of class war in the green movement which probably explains where their support is based.

    The world's biggest cruise liner company Carnival Corporation emits ten times more pollution than all European cars on the road every year. In Ireland, fuels for such industries are exempt from Mineral Oil Taxes. The second largest cruise liner company Royal Caribbean is a wee bit more environmentally friendly with just four times more pollution than all European cars on the road every year. Gotta make sure the wealthy going on their jollies from port to port are not emptying their pockets for the privilege, however Jane Doe driving her modest car to the local SuperValu to serve you your groceries will be forced to pay top carbon-tax €uro just to keep a roof over her head.

    Why are airliners exempt from carbon taxes? Well, if the costs of flying in cheap labour into western Europe hinders such movement of cheap labour and you've several factories to run - just threaten to cut the party political donations and hey presto, a press statement is released stating that such a move would "prove difficult" and would require a cross-EU "consensus" on such matters. €64bln banking debt - they'll stay on 'til 2am to get that one around the necks of taxpayers.

    You can see where this is going, right?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Below are actual videos from Davos/World Economic Forum:



    The world economic forum agenda for the year was "the great reset" I.e how can they reshape the world economy to make it greener.

    The big take from it online is their phrase "you'll own nothing and you'll be happy"

    Basically using climate change and covid as excuses to make more money. It would be conspiracy theory stuff if it wasn't so transparent and open.

    https://www.weforum.org/great-reset/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3



    Basically using climate change and covid as excuses to make more money. It would be conspiracy theory stuff if it wasn't so transparent and open.

    Welcome to capitalism!

    New Moon



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    Welcome to capitalism!

    Capitalism is a necessary evil. Thinking of it from an evolutionary perspective it makes perfect sense: The poor will die and the rich will survive, i.e. the fittest.

    Has anyone managed to pray themselves out of poverty? :confused:


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Danno wrote: »
    Capitalism is a necessary evil. Thinking of it from an evolutionary perspective it makes perfect sense: The poor will die and the rich will survive, i.e. the fittest.

    Has anyone managed to pray themselves out of poverty? :confused:

    Preserve the rich, even if the rich are stupid idiots like Donald Trump who inherit all there wealth from actual business people and subsequently blow it, and simply machine gun the poor what an idiotic grasp you have on things Danno, aka the moderator.

    Has anyone prayed there way out of poverty?
    Answer: The Catholic Church.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Preserve the rich, even if the rich are stupid idiots like Donald Trump who inherit all there wealth from actual business people and subsequently blow it, and simply machine gun the poor what an idiotic grasp you have on things Danno, aka the moderator.

    Has anyone prayed there way out of poverty?
    Answer: The Catholic Church.

    What an idiotic grasp of English you have there, Banana Republic.

    I'm not sure what Trump has to do with anything and how he's machine-gunned the poor. Maybe I'm just an idiot too. We're all idiots!


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    What an idiotic grasp of English you have there, Banana Republic.

    I'm not sure what Trump has to do with anything and how he's machine-gunned the poor. Maybe I'm just an idiot too. We're all idiots!

    Well at least you admitted it!

    Whenever you login here does the theme tune from the Bill play in the background?

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l_Qa9dN3mI0


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,142 ✭✭✭OldRio


    Danno wrote: »
    Capitalism is a necessary evil. Thinking of it from an evolutionary perspective it makes perfect sense: The poor will die and the rich will survive, i.e. the fittest.

    Has anyone managed to pray themselves out of poverty? :confused:

    Your fundemental theory is seriously flawed. The rich are not necessarily the fittest. Or the fittest rich.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Danno wrote: »
    Capitalism is a necessary evil. Thinking of it from an evolutionary perspective it makes perfect sense: The poor will die and the rich will survive, i.e. the fittest.

    Has anyone managed to pray themselves out of poverty? :confused:

    So you think Jane Doe is expendable then Danno? :P

    "Gotta make sure the wealthy going on their jollies from port to port are not emptying their pockets for the privilege, however Jane Doe driving her modest car to the local SuperValu to serve you your groceries will be forced to pay top carbon-tax €uro just to keep a roof over her head.


    I don't believe you do and I think you will agree with this lass as much as I do:

    ZVjPk07.png
    https://twitter.com/caitoz/status/1406059108550144000

    New Moon



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Preserve the rich, even if the rich are stupid idiots like Donald Trump who inherit all there wealth from actual business people and subsequently blow it, and simply machine gun the poor what an idiotic grasp you have on things Danno, aka the moderator.

    Has anyone prayed there way out of poverty?
    Answer: The Catholic Church.

    It is the rich that are pushing the politics of climate (dressed up as science) down our throat every day, while they continue to flaunt in our faces how they don't really do anything about it themselves, because it wouldn't do for them to give up their luxurious lifestyles, because, unlike us plebs, they have places to go and people to see.

    Note the contemptable arrogance of this cretin for example:

    "President Biden’s new climate czar John Kerry took a gas-guzzling private jet to collect a climate change leadership award in Iceland in 2019, defending his mode of transport as “the only choice for someone like me.”

    https://nypost.com/2021/02/03/john-kerry-took-private-jet-to-iceland-for-climate-award/

    New Moon



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    It is the rich that are pushing the politics of climate (dressed up as science) down our throat every day, while they continue to flaunt in our faces how they don't really do anything about it themselves, because it wouldn't do for them to give up their luxurious lifestyles, because, unlike us plebs, they have places to go and people to see.

    Note the contemptable arrogance of this cretin for example:

    "President Biden’s new climate czar John Kerry took a gas-guzzling private jet to collect a climate change leadership award in Iceland in 2019, defending his mode of transport as “the only choice for someone like me.”

    https://nypost.com/2021/02/03/john-kerry-took-private-jet-to-iceland-for-climate-award/

    In what context is my post, which quoted danno by the why, at all relevant to what your saying?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    In what context is my post, which quoted danno by the why, at all relevant to what your saying?

    My post is well in context of your reply. Either you can't see it or you simply just don't want to.

    New Moon



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    My post is well in context of your reply. Either you can't see it or you simply just don't want to.

    No, I can’t see it….


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,477 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    It is the rich that are pushing the politics of climate (dressed up as science) down our throat every day, while they continue to flaunt in our faces how they don't really do anything about it themselves, because it wouldn't do for them to give up their luxurious lifestyles, because, unlike us plebs, they have places to go and people to see.

    Note the contemptable arrogance of this cretin for example:

    "President Biden’s new climate czar John Kerry took a gas-guzzling private jet to collect a climate change leadership award in Iceland in 2019, defending his mode of transport as “the only choice for someone like me.”

    https://nypost.com/2021/02/03/john-kerry-took-private-jet-to-iceland-for-climate-award/

    I know these people are hypocrites, Leonardo DiCarprio etc., but it doesn't mean that our current rates of consumption and lifestyles are not completely unsustainable, especially in rich countries.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,597 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    I haven't had the time to post much on boards recently but as usual, these threads tend to descend pretty quickly into a bit of a 'skeptic' circle jerk
    In the real world, we're heading into the obligatory bi-annual 'heatwaves and wildfires are nothing to do with climate change' debate

    Here's a recent paper by Michael Wehner a senior scientist at the
    Computational Research Division in Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
    It attributes the human influence on North American extreme heatwaves to be in the region of 2-2.5c above what they would be under natural circumstances
    https://crd.lbl.gov/assets/Uploads/CONUS-2021-heat-wave-attribution-statement1.pdf
    Currently, climate change has caused rare heat waves to be 3 to 5 degrees warmer over most of the United States (adapted from Wehner et al 2018 using the high resolution version of CAM5.1 described in Wehner et al. 2014)
    As any self respecting weather enthusiast should know, it's the 'rare'(extreme) events that do the damage. A stormy night might keep the chickens awake, but a hurricane will blow down the coop, and a hurricane with a a sting jet can blow the roof off many houses and flatten forests.

    He also projects, using the peer reviewed methodology he referred to above, an additional 2.7c on top of this across most of the US (but more importantly across areas that are already under severe heat stress) in the next 50 years if we do not meet our targets for very low carbon emissions

    In contrast, under the low emissions scenario, he projects the increase in heatwave intensity to be mostly confined to the northern lattitudes with midland and gulf regions experiencing increases on less than 1 degree C from the current maximums

    And of course, 2080 is not 'climate equilibrium, it is merely an arbitrary round number. heatwaves are likely to continue to worsen beyond 2080, moreso the more we delay investing properly in the carbon neutral global energy system

    Someone on this thread said earlier 'Sure global warming is better than global cooling where we have 6 mile thick ice sheets covering Much of the northern hemisphere

    I completely agree with this. We do not want to go into another Ice age any time soon. But as a point to make on a thread about climate change in the current, actually existing real world, it was so laughable that I won't even mention the poster by name for fear of embarrassing them.
    We do not live in a world where we have to choose between causing an ice age, or causing a 'hothouse earth' Nor do we live in a world where if we weren't emitting greenhouse gasses,we are in imminent danger of a sudden 'day after tomorrow' scenario of instant ice age. We are in a world where we have had stable and mostly favourable climate for the past 6000 years and our actions in the next decade or two will dictate whether our children will raise their children in a damaged but still hospitable planet (mostly) or one where vast swathes of habitable land becomes inhospitable for humans, and we have unimaginable conflict as hundreds of millions of people are displaced and need to find shelter


Advertisement