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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

1…7475777980…94

Comments

  • #2282
    Thargor
    Registered Users Posts: 17,863 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    Errrr... I know Im speaking to a deranged chatbot here but you do realise it was you that was bawling about Russia and I never mentioned them?

    Have you given up on your ballet memes already though? But they were so clever and hilarious, I suppose you'll be denying ever mentioning them soon like the compulsive liar that you are...


  • #2283
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Thargor wrote: »
    Errrr... I know Im speaking to a deranged chatbot here but you do realise it was you that was bawling about Russia and I never mentioned them?
    .

    Yeah yeah blah blah

    51afd05e23578b77de29e5f35d86bc80.jpg

    New Moon



  • #2284
    Danno
    Registered Users Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    Lads, tone it down a tad - some banter is okay, but play the ball, not the "person"


  • #2285
    Thargor
    Registered Users Posts: 17,863 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    Yeah yeah
    Ah excellent you agree then, thats the first step.


  • #2286
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,231 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Thargor wrote: »
    Ah excellent you agree then, thats the first step.

    Right, now that everyone agrees, let’s get back to the topic. I have loads of very serious concerns about the Gibbs/Moore documentary. Seeing as he asked me to watch it, I’m interested in Onerics unbiased review. Do you think there are any elements that they could have done better?


  • Advertisement
  • #2287
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Seeing as he asked me to watch it, I’m interested in Onerics unbiased review.

    Where exactly did I ask you to 'watch it'? :confused:

    New Moon



  • #2288
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,231 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    Where exactly did I ask you to 'watch it'? :confused:

    Generally when someone introduces a source to a discussion, i would consider that they want people to actually read or watch the content of that source
    Here's where you introduced Moore's documentary to the discussion
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113305896&postcount=2155
    You then went on to spend 2 weeks trying to get me to respond to Mann's spat with Moore regarding his documentary
    and here is where you told me to make sure I watch it before it gets removed from youtube, but that you can also send me a link if it's too late

    "By the way, did you watch Planet of the Humans last night? Moore said he would only keep it on youtube for a limited time, so if it is taken down by now, do not worry, I have a full HD copy of it if you'd like me to pass it on.
    "

    So yes, I would be interested in your review of his film to see if you are recommending it as something that informs the debate, or if you referred to it purely because it's gotten 'climate experts' 'rattled'

    Do you think those 'climate experts' are justifiably 'rattled'?


  • #2289
    Hooter23
    Registered Users Posts: 1,488 ✭✭✭Hooter23


    Seems all we have to do to fix our climate is to stop all cars and planes and weather patterns change instantly...if recent weather is anything to go by...


  • #2290
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    I'm getting a little tired of your distortions of what was said by me Akrasia in order to steer context in a way you want it to go. But let me once again waste my time and energy having to explain myself.

    1. I posted the video, along with my opinion of it - that is all. I didn't ask you or anyone to watch it.

    2. Regarding Mann's conspiracy nonsense regarding Moore, I simply asked why you selectively choose to ignore it while you were busy defending his garbage (which was almost word for word what the likes of Maddow has been repeating for the last 3 year which is curious in itself) with regards his similar comments towards the US President.

    3. I asked did you get to watch the video because it was just the night before that you said you were going to, which does not in anyway translate to ' go watch the video'.

    Anymore of this trollish crap and I'll have no choice but to ignore you, My views on PotH are pretty clear. Nowhere in that doc was the concept of climate change belittled or denied, so why it that we have climate change 'experts' up in arms about it? Is climate science and the 'green movement' - which is very much ideological driven - one and the same thing? if so, then that in itself would put into question the idea of an objective, non-partisan approach to climate as a scientific study.

    New Moon



  • #2291
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,231 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    I'm getting a little tired of your distortions of what was said by me Akrasia in order to steer context in a way you want it to go. But let me once again waste my time and energy having to explain myself.

    1. I posted the video, along with my opinion of it - that is all. I didn't ask you or anyone to watch it.

    2. Regarding Mann's conspiracy nonsense regarding Moore, I simply asked why you selectively choose to ignore it while you were busy defending his garbage (which was almost word for word what the likes of Maddow has been repeating for the last 3 year which is curious in itself) with regards his similar comments towards the US President.

    3. I asked did you get to watch the video because it was just the night before that you said you were going to, which does not in anyway translate to ' go watch the video'.

    Anymore of this trollish crap and I'll have no choice but to ignore you, My views on PotH are pretty clear. Nowhere in that doc was the concept of climate change belittled or denied, so why it that we have climate change 'experts' up in arms about it? Is climate science and the 'green movement' - which is very much ideological driven - one and the same thing? if so, then that in itself would put into question the idea of an objective, non-partisan approach to climate as a scientific study.
    Asking your opinion on a documentary you introduced to the topic is ‘trollish crap’
    But posting random YouTube videos of Russian folk dance isn’t?

    Do you think Moore’s film was an accurate representation of the current alternative energy market?

    Do you think his portrayal of specific American charities is a good representation of the overall green movement?

    If you think that taking statistics from pilot, proof of concept, schemes And using them to discredit all derivative technology is reasonable then you have a lot of explaining to do
    (Hint: the first touch screen smartphones were terrible by current standards...)


  • Advertisement
  • #2292
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Asking your opinion on a documentary you introduced to the topic is ‘trollish crap’


    Why do you do this? Once again, you totally distort my words. No more.

    But why ask for my opinion? Why not just give your own unbiased one? I don't see any reason as to why Jeff Gibbs would show us anything but the truth of what is going on regarding the vested interests in so-called 'green energy? Unless.. like Moore, he is part of some great Kremlin funded misinformation campaign?

    But again I ask, why are 'climate experts' so 'interested' in these revelations? Gibbs did not attack climate science, so what's the dig?

    New Moon



  • #2293
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Firstly, let us recall this.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/17/technology/jeff-bezos-climate-change-earth-fund.html

    Praised for his 'philanthropy' by the sickeningly servile to the rich NYT as he pours billions into 'climate research and activism'.

    Now, consider this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpKNE8k628o


    The fire is rising.

    New Moon



  • #2294
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,783 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Oneiric 3 wrote:
    The fire is rising.


    We can't keep going like this, we can't keep continuing with these levels of inequality, something will give eventually


  • #2295
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    We can't keep going like this, we can't keep continuing with these levels of inequality, something will give eventually
    This is why globalisation will be challenged by more and more people in the future.
    The wealth pyramid works OK when businesses remain local and you end up with large numbers of small business leaders with maybe a million or so each.
    But when all the money is funnelled into ONE person's pocket, then it becomes obscene!


  • #2296
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,783 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    dolanbaker wrote: »
    This is why globalisation will be challenged by more and more people in the future.
    The wealth pyramid works OK when businesses remain local and you end up with large numbers of small business leaders with maybe a million or so each.
    But when all the money is funnelled into ONE person's pocket, then it becomes obscene!

    wealth inequality is far more complex than just the accumulation of the wealthy, we have created a highly complex network of wealth accumulators in the form of institutions and corporations, in which maximum wealth accumulation is the main aim, at all costs, including environmental degradation, this is starting to fail in many ways, and also for the wealthy themselves.


  • #2297
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Yes, only the little people pay taxes!


  • #2298
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Agree with all of the above, but just to steer us back to the 'topic' a little, the question I was trying to ask is why are billions being poured into 'climate research and activism' by this guy, while at the same time, extracting what he can, in the form of labour and money, from the ordinary worker? It is worth keeping in mind that this money is created by what is effectively slave labour (but labour that is of actual use to society) and being distributed back to an already well funded (primarily by the tax payer) body.

    And when you think of it, this could lead to an even bigger question, like for all of the funding and corporate donations given to climate scientists, what exactly are they giving back in return that is of any real value to society at large, or even the economy?

    New Moon



  • #2299
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Short answer, any economic activity involves money being moved from one pocket to another, each and every transaction is counted towards GDP and other economic indicators.
    It's this growth that the current economic system requires to function, also facilitates the continual transfer of wealth to the top.

    With climate change, big money can be made by backing both sides in the battle, just like an arms dealer who sells weapons to both sides in a war.


  • #2300
    M.T. Cranium
    Registered Users Posts: 14,319 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    I suppose part of my motivation is political rather than scientific, as I observe that the response to climate change seems to be that governments see an opportunity to raise taxes without saying so, as the carbon taxes however portrayed are flowing into general revenues and have no real connection to any attempts to modify climate (in part because there is no realistic way to modify climate, our efforts in that regard can be described as totally ineffectual, whether you believe we could do much or not).

    It cannot go on forever to hide the taxation increase behind smoke and mirror schemes, but if these revenues are actually needed and not an opportunistic cash grab, then structure this into openly declared taxation schemes (income tax, various forms of VAT or GST) rather than blaming climate and further distorting a scientific debate that seems to be going around in circles.

    At the same time, a reasonable person would concede that for whatever reasons, sea levels could rise enough to require a response, and within half a century. So why not have very specific and detailed plans in place to deal with this, if it does come to pass, rather than waving magic wands like carbon taxes that are like Harry Potter spells designed to ward off the inevitable?

    This is an unprecedented situation in that governments and their electorates really cannot be sure that the "science" advising them is real science or just another political actor in another form. This has also become partially if not entirely true in the pandemic. Science insists on being taken very seriously and literally, but there is widespread doubt that it has the knowledge as fully developed as they claim. This is widely understood and not just my eccentric personal opinion (if it were, nobody would be reading this thread).


  • #2301
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Interesting.. in more ways that one:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Yz8nZbZPE8


    I've noticed that in the last few months, there seems to be a slight steer away from the narrative of excess and dangerous warming towards one that that is now trying to fill us with fear about a potentially dangerous cooling... if we don't repent of our sins.

    The plot thickens.

    New Moon



  • Advertisement
  • #2302
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    That's amazing. I was looking through current sst charts and came across this very nice one that shows the sharp thermal contrast between the gulf stream and the still cold water around the Canadian maritimes. I go to post it and I see your post!

    https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/ocean/ohc/images/sst_naQG3_ddc.gif

    515430.gif


  • #2303
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    Interesting.. in more ways that one:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Yz8nZbZPE8


    I've noticed that in the last few months, there seems to be a slight steer away from the narrative of excess and dangerous warming towards one that that is now trying to fill us with fear about a potentially dangerous cooling... if we don't repent of our sins.

    The plot thickens.

    So wait, it could cause a massive cooling of the northern hemisphere by 2300, which would cause a 0.5-metre rise in sea levels around the north Atlantic basin? So warming and now cooling both cause a rise in sea levels? Hmmm...


    Current Arctic extent has just about caught up with 2012 and is above 2016 and 2019, along the same line as 2018. He conveniently left out those years.

    515432.png

    515433.png


  • #2304
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    I remember stories about the imminent collapse of the gulf stream from at least 30 years ago.
    It was the fact that melting glaciers reduce the salinity of the sea water causing it to sink quicker and slowing down the flow northwards.
    now to watch the video to see if the same story is being repeated.

    Edit: nothing new in the video, but the only comment I do have is the sea ice extent measurement, if at the start of the melt season in march the extent figures are higher than "usual" (whatever that is) then it probably means that the ice is very fragmented and spread out.
    When the sea ice is fragmented and spread out it will melt much quicker than if it was tight and having a lower extent.
    2020 figures then could be suggesting a tight formation of sea ice that will be slow to melt later in the season, we'll find out in September.


  • #2305
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,231 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    Interesting.. in more ways that one:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Yz8nZbZPE8


    I've noticed that in the last few months, there seems to be a slight steer away from the narrative of excess and dangerous warming towards one that that is now trying to fill us with fear about a potentially dangerous cooling... if we don't repent of our sins.

    The plot thickens.

    Did you actually watch this video?

    He said that according to our best available science, it is very unlikely that there will be a full shutdown of the gulf stream in at least the next 300 years, and even a weakening of the gulf stream would not cause cooling because the reduction in transported heat would be more than offset by the warming caused AGW

    And this isn't new, Scientists have known about the potential weakenig of the gulf stream due to meltwater from Greenland for decades and are measuring it to get a better undestanding of what the tipping points could be and what effects such weakening will have


  • #2306
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Did you actually watch this video?
    I wouldn't have posted a link to it if I didn't.

    New Moon



  • #2307
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,231 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    I wouldn't have posted a link to it if I didn't.

    So where did you get the narrative that we have switched from global warming to ‘a potentially dangerous cooling’

    That was nowhere in the video you posted


  • #2308
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Akrasia wrote: »
    So where did you get the narrative that we have switched from global warming to ‘a potentially dangerous cooling’

    That was nowhere in the video you posted
    It is implied throughout the entire that Northern Europe could experience cooling if the Gulf stream is weakened.


    It is a regional affect, not global.


  • #2309
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Akrasia wrote: »
    So where did you get the narrative that we have switched from global warming to ‘a potentially dangerous cooling’

    That was nowhere in the video you posted

    Pretty obvious you didn't watch the video. All options are on the table now. Only 200 years ago, the climate was in a colder state, so it isn't surprising that the climate could enter another such phase in another 200 years time.

    Away from that, and assuming this long range forecast is correct, but this looks like some pretty serious temps in Antarctica forecast for the middle part of the month. Any explanation? or is this just down to 'natural variability'?

    e1Hflzx.png

    New Moon



  • #2310
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,231 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    I did watch the video
    The AMOC transports heat. If the AMOC shuts down in 3 hundred years time, it won't cool the planet, it could cause the north atlantic to cool down, but that heat in the tropics won't simply disappear, it could lead to catestrophic warming in other parts of the world

    People who are concerned with Climate Change are not just worried that it will get hotter, we are concerned that it destabalises existing climate systems causing mass disruption to ecology, economies and agriculture

    Climate change, or Global warming, whatever you want to call it, risks destablaising climate systems all around the world, this is why it needs to be taken extremely seriously because if you think the social and economic disruption caused by Coronavirus is bad, it would be absolutely nothing compared to what we will see if we allow the planet to warm by 2c+ over preindustrial levels.

    I don't know why antarctica is projected to be so cold this year. Its the middle of winter there, and weather is weather It could be 20c warmer than average the week after
    You need to look at climate, not weather when talking about climate change


  • Advertisement
  • #2311
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    I did watch the video
    The AMOC transports heat. If the AMOC shuts down in 3 hundred years time, it won't cool the planet, it could cause the north atlantic to cool down, but that heat in the tropics won't simply disappear, it could lead to catestrophic warming in other parts of the world

    People who are concerned with Climate Change are not just worried that it will get hotter, we are concerned that it destabalises existing climate systems causing mass disruption to ecology, economies and agriculture

    Climate change, or Global warming, whatever you want to call it, risks destablaising climate systems all around the world, this is why it needs to be taken extremely seriously because if you think the social and economic disruption caused by Coronavirus is bad, it would be absolutely nothing compared to what we will see if we allow the planet to warm by 2c+ over preindustrial levels.

    I don't know why antarctica is projected to be so cold this year. Its the middle of winter there, and weather is weather It could be 20c warmer than average the week after
    You need to look at climate, not weather when talking about climate change

    So what about the statement in the video that a cooling of the Atlantic could cause a 0.5-metre rise in sea level in the Atlantic basin?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement