Extinction Rebellion Ireland

Akrasia · 28-04-2019 9:51am

gozunda wrote: »

Yes I've done my research and reviewed the literature and the consensus is that little is known of the actual processes involved with regard to water vapour as a major greenhouse gas.

Btw no need to get personal and try the shame game tbh. The link and quote I provide above clearly details that not only are there some indications that water vapour plays a part in warming but that not enough is currently known about this.

Again funny we never hear the various protestors highlighting any of this tbh - and as a qualified scientist btw - I am far from being a 'science denier' (sic) or even worse imo a propagandist for climate misinformation. Goodnight.

Absolute nonsense. If you are in fact a qualified scientist i hope you kept the receipt for whatever course you did because you should look for a refund.

Show me a single paper that says water vapour is a driver of climate change rather than a feedback.

gozunda · 28-04-2019 9:51am

Akrasia wrote: »

Runaway climate change is just a reference to what happens if cdrtain tipping points are passed. Do you know what a tipping point is?

Yes I do. Do you?

gozunda · 28-04-2019 9:58am

Akrasia wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. If you are in fact a qualified scientist i hope you kept the receipt for whatever course you did because you should look for a refund.

Show me a single paper that says water vapour is a driver of climate change rather than a feedback.

Yeah less of the ad hominem- I could say the same for the incorrect use of "runaway climate change" terminology etc btw but I wont bother ...

As detailed in a previous comment- much of what is known is contradictory and is far from an absolute. I had already included this by way of example.

What reseach out there is conflicting at best. tbh eg

"These findings show that stratospheric water vapour is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change."

https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/bulletin/observing-water-vapour

Akrasia wrote:

Show me a single paper that says water vapour is a driver of climate change rather than a feedback.

^^ Happy now? So you can now apologise for the idiotic ad hominem which went that. Thanks

And the point I was making and which you missed - is that there is clearly little comprenensive research in the processes involved. This should be a priority considering that as known water vapour is the number one greenhouse gas.

Akrasia · 28-04-2019 9:59am

gozunda wrote: »

Ok fair enough. Yes I do.

Good. So what happens to the planet when these tipping points are passed

1. Ice free arctic summer (hint, albedo and latent heat required to melt ice)
2. Melting permafrost releasing vast amounts of methane

gozunda · 28-04-2019 10:02am

Akrasia wrote: »

Good. So what happens to the planet when these tipping points are passed

1. Ice free arctic summer (hint, albedo and latent heat required to melt ice)
2. Melting permafrost releasing vast amounts of methane

I'll stop you there. Not going down the usual rabbit hole but what If anything has this got to do with the defence that the xr movement are not a doomsday cult as per the topic of the original post?

You used the terminology 'runaway climate change' not me btw.

But to put that to bed ...

The IPCC AR5 defines a tipping point as an abrupt and irreversible change in the climate system. They state that the precise levels of climate change sufficient to trigger a tipping point, remain uncertain, and that the risk associated with crossing multiple tipping points increases with rising temperature. A more broad definition of tipping points is sometimes used as well, which includes abrupt but reversible tipping points.

markodaly · 28-04-2019 10:15am

gozunda wrote: »

I'll stop you there. Not going down the usual rabbit hole but what If anything has this got to do with the defence that the xr movement are not a doomsday cult as per the topic of the original post?

You used the terminology 'runaway climate change' not me btw.

Why?

You like to post inane amounts of whataboutery but when the topic gets pointed and direct about the reality and the facts behind climate change, you want to just revert the thread back to inane amounts of the same whataboutery.

Wonder why?

gozunda · 28-04-2019 10:21am

markodaly wrote: »

Why?You like to post inane amounts of whataboutery but when the topic gets pointed and direct about the reality and the facts behind climate change, you want to just revert the thread back to inane amounts of the same whataboutery.Wonder why?

All a bit obsessive no?
Your only other previous comment in the thread

markodaly wrote: »

The 'whataboutery' is strong in this thread.

Might be healthier to discuss the actual topic of the thread tbh.

Perhaps your like to tell us your opinion on the topic of the discussion re. current state of scientific research and the xr protest movement?

Akrasia · 28-04-2019 10:27am

gozunda wrote: »

I'll stop you there. Not going down the usual rabbit hole but what If anything has this got to do with the defence that the xr movement are not a doomsday cult as per the topic of the original post?

You used the terminology 'runaway climate change' not me btw.

You stopped just short of answering your own question.

Passing these tipping points represents a new climate equilibrium, also known as Hothouse earth. A departure from millions of years of interglacial periods. Runaway climate change is the transition to this new climate equibrium. Its scary because it means that humans have caused so much harm that we can no longer slow down or repair the damage. Its like what happens when you ignore tbat mole on your skin that suddenly started to change colour last summer. Runaway climate change is like metastatic cancer.

gozunda · 28-04-2019 10:35am

Akrasia wrote: »

You stopped just short of answering your own question.

Passing these tipping points represents a new climate equilibrium, also known as Hothouse earth*. A departure from millions of years of interglacial periods. Runaway climate change is the transition to this new climate equibrium. Its scary because it means that humans have caused so much harm that we can no longer slow down or repair the damage. Its like what happens when you ignore tbat mole on your skin that suddenly started to change colour last summer. Runaway climate change is like metastatic cancer.

You see there you go with that absolutist type terminology again. Tut.

It remains that the IPCC has stated that - "a 'runaway greenhouse effect'—analogous to [that of] Venus—appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities."

Anyway I have already detailed IPCC current thinking on "Tipping Points".

The IPCC AR5 defines a tipping point as an abrupt and irreversible change in the climate system. They state that the precise levels of climate change sufficient to trigger a tipping point, remain uncertain, and that the risk associated with crossing multiple tipping points increases with rising temperature. A more broad definition of tipping points is sometimes used as well, which includes abrupt but reversible tipping points.

And you still haven't answered how this relates to the xr protest movement and doomsday ccult etc - as per the topic of discussion.

Addendum: re "Hothouse Earth" ' another rather misused piece of terminology.

Hothouse Earth” scenario

This from Professor Richard Betts, Climate scientist University of Exeter

Another is that (the use of the term - Hothouse Earth)

The term "Hothouse " describes a scientific climatic extreme. The popularity of the term is growing because it allows for some to use it as a "dramatic narrative" and not surprisingly this has led to this term being used in some sensationalist articles to describe a largely doomsday scenario

"With some exceptions, much of the highest-profile coverage of the essay presents the scenario as definite and imminent. The impression is given that 2°C is a definite “point of no return”, and that beyond that the “hothouse” scenario will rapidly arrive.
Many articles ignore the caveats that the 2°C threshold is extremely uncertain, and that even if it were correct, the extreme conditions would not occur for centuries or millennia.

http://theconversation.com/hothouse-earth-heres-what-the-science-actually-does-and-doesnt-say-101341

Akrasia · 28-04-2019 10:56am

gozunda wrote: »

Yeah less of the ad hominem- I could say the same for the incorrect "runaway climate change" terminology etc you used btw but I wont bother ...

As detailed in a previous comment- much of what is known is contradictory and is far from an absolute. I had already included this by way of example.

What reseach out there is conflicting at best. tbh eg

"These findings show that stratospheric water vapour is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change."

https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/bulletin/observing-water-vapour

And the point I was making that there is clearly little comprenensive research in the processes involved. This should be a priority considering that as known water vapour is the number one greenhouse gas.

Firstly, when people refer to water vapour as a major greenhouse gas, it's mostly Tropospheric water vapour that they're talking about. Water vapour in the stratosphere is a trace gas and it's contribution to the earths atmospheric radiative forcing is small compared to the other factors.

That paper has been superceeded by others that show increases in water vapour, even in the stratosphere is a positive feedback, not a driver, like this one which was edited by the lead author of your study
https://www.pnas.org/content/110/45/18087

SWV levels can increase as a consequence of warmer air, just like in the troposphere, this is a climate change feedback. Sometimes stratospheric water vapour levels fall due to interdecadal oscillation, as discussed in your link, this is linked to internal climate variability, but regardless the changes to radiative forcing in the stratosphere are much lower compared to the amplifying feedback caused by tropospheric increases in water vapour concentration

There is a scientific consensus that water vapour is a feedback, and a major positive feedback that amplifies the consequences of human CO2 equivalent emissions

Akrasia · 28-04-2019 11:16am

gozunda wrote: »

But to put that to bed ...

Thank you for editing your post to include that quote from the IPCC. I'm glad you did even though it clearly harms your own argument and supports my position. Not sure how it 'puts it to bed' though given my argument is that tipping points can cause runaway climate change, and the IPCC defines tipping points as potentially causing abrupt and irreversible changes to climate

gozunda · 28-04-2019 11:32am

Akrasia wrote: »

Firstly, when people refer to water vapour as a major greenhouse gas, it's mostly Tropospheric water vapour that they're talking about. Water vapour in the stratosphere is a trace gas and it's contribution to the earths atmospheric radiative forcing is small compared to the other factors.

That paper has been superceeded by others that show increases in water vapour, even in the stratosphere is a positive feedback, not a driver, like this one which was edited by the lead author of your study ....
https://www.pnas.org/content/110/45/18087

Getting seriously off track here tbh. But just one small observation

The article I linked was published in 2016 and is therefore later that the paper you detailed above which was published in 2013.

Observing Water Vapour

Author: Ed Dlugokencky, Sander Houweling, Ruud Dirksen, Marc Schröder, Dale Hurst, Piers Forster, and WMO Secretariat

Bulletin nº : Vol 65 (2) - 2016

Stratospheric water vapor feedback

A. E. Dessler, M. R. Schoeberl, T. Wang, S. M. Davis, and K. H. Rosenlof

PNAS November 5, 2013 110 (45) 18087-18091; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1310344110

Edited by Susan Solomon, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, and approved September 9, 2013 (received for review May 30, 2013)

Both interesting but yeah to point - much of the current research is at best contradictory and therefore water vapour as one of the most significant Greenhouse gases requires urgent research imo.

gozunda · 28-04-2019 11:46am

Akrasia wrote: »

Thank you for editing your post to include that quote from the IPCC. I'm glad you did even though it clearly harms your own argument and supports my position. Not sure how it 'puts it to bed' though given my argument is that tipping points can cause runaway climate change, and the IPCC defines tipping points as potentially causing abrupt and irreversible changes to climate

Well nope - it doesn't. Because not only do they clearly say nothing about "runaway climate change (sic) the IPCC clearly allow some for uncertainty and state that some TP may be "reversible" - and I'll quote again;

the precise levels of climate change sufficient to trigger a tipping point, remain uncertain, and that the risk associated with crossing multiple tipping points increases with rising temperature. A more broad definition of tipping points is sometimes used as well, which includes abrupt but reversible tipping points.

So no there are no absolutes there.

Now that we've had this lovely long chat about something else entirely

Could you detail exactly all this relates to the xr protest movement and doomsday cult etc - as per the topic of discussion.

Thanks.

Akrasia · 28-04-2019 11:47am

gozunda wrote: »

You see there you go with that terminology again. Tut.

It remains that the IPCC has stated that - "a 'runaway greenhouse effect'—analogous to [that of] Venus—appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities."

The average temperature on Venus is about 460 degrees c.
We don't need venusian levels of runaway climate change to cause serious problems down here. When I say runaway climate change, I mean climate change where the earth is out of equilibrium and natural forces are driving the climate to a new equilibrium state which will continue regardless of human efforts to lower our CO2 emissions.

It's runaway because we can not do anything to stabalise it

Anyway I have already derailed IPCC current thinking on "Tipping Points". See above:

And you still haven't answer how this relates to the xr protest movement and doomsday ccult etc - as per the topic of discussion.

They're not a doomsday cult because doomsday cults are fatalistic and dogmatic with no basis in evidence or reason. This movement is trying to agitate for action to listen to the worlds foremost scientists and act now to prevent the worst consequences of climate change

Addendum: re "Hothouse Earth" ' another rather misused piece of terminology.

This from Professor Richard Betts, Climate scientist University of Exeter

I use it in the correct way. The hothouse earth is a new climate equilibrium where global average temperatures are sufficient to prevent the existence of continental glaciers. It's the opposite of an ice age. The temperature can be at hothouse earth levels for thousands of years before the last glaciers finish melting. This could be at about 4-5c above pre-industrial levels. And yes there is uncertainty about exactly when these tipping points could be reached, but uncertainty is bad, not good. The uncertainty goes in both directions, we could be lucky and it won't be as bad as predicted (by which i mean the predcted bad things take a bit longer to happen), or we could be unlucky and things could be much worse and the changes could be sudden abrupt shifts (for which there is increasing evidence for)

The prudent thing to do is to take action on the very significant risks that climate change poses rather than burying our heads in the sand and pretending it will all be fine while vilifying well meaning activists and turning 16 year old girls into social media pariahs.

Akrasia · 28-04-2019 12:00pm

gozunda wrote: »

Well nope - it doesn't. Because not only do they clearly say nothing about "runaway climate change (sic) the IPCC clearly allow some for uncertainty and state that some TP may be "reversible" - and I'll quote again;

the precise levels of climate change sufficient to trigger a tipping point, remain uncertain, and that the risk associated with crossing multiple tipping points increases with rising temperature. A more broad definition of tipping points is sometimes used as well, which includes abrupt but reversible tipping points.

So no there are no absolutes there.

Now that we've had this lovely long chat about something else entirely

Could you detail exactly all this relates to the xr protest movement and doomsday ccult etc - as per the topic of discussion.

Thanks.

The reason I called you a science denialist before was because this is what science denialists do. You focus on uncertainty relating to climate change while randomly throwing out unsupported facts about climate change on other planets without even the hint of skepticism relating to those uncertainties.

The uncertainties relating to tipping points relate to us not knowing exactly what needs to happen to trigger them. It is to do with timing, not whether or not they are real threats. With these tipping points we will only know for certain we have passed them, after they have already been observed to have taken place (and probably multiple years after). While you're denying there's a problem waiting for certainty, that mole in your arm has turned from treatable skin cancer into metastatic melanoma which is much harder to treat and has much higher mortality rates.

Science is about probability, not certainty, and uncertainty just means we do not have all the information yet, it doesn't mean we can't make judgements based on the probability of events occuring.

gozunda · 28-04-2019 12:08pm

Akrasia wrote: »

The reason I called you a science denialist before was because this is what science denialists do. You focus on uncertainty relating to climate change while randomly throwing out unsupported facts about climate change on other planets without even the hint of skepticism relating to those uncertainties....

Really lol and the last dig because you lost an argument? I showed you where water vapour was indeed believed to be involved in warming.
You owe me an apology on that one for sure.

I know what science is thanks. And it was the IPCC referring to uncertainties btw not I. All the facts I have detailed are supported by scientific reseach. The text regarding venus etc was an IPCC quote and is detailed. If you dont like those IPCC findings - then have an argument with them about it.

So don't try that clap trap as a defence of using hyperbole and inaccurate/ irrelevant terminology. It doesn't wash.

We can all imagineer our favourite scenarios about 'moles' and 'houses burning down'. (sic). However It is not always helpful that we present those as absolutes.

http://theconversation.com/hothouse-earth-heres-what-the-science-actually-does-and-doesnt-say-101341

gozunda · 28-04-2019 12:08pm

Akrasia wrote: »

...

They're not a doomsday cult because doomsday cults are fatalistic and dogmatic with no basis in evidence or reason. This movement is trying to agitate for action to listen to the worlds foremost scientists and act now to prevent the worst consequences of climate change

I'd disagree. What they are preaching is misinformation based on fear and scare. They taken the available science and either have misunderstood it and / or bastardised it. That helps no one.

....

The prudent thing to do is to take action on the very significant risks that climate change poses rather than burying our heads in the sand and pretending it will all be fine while vilifying well meaning activists and turning 16 year old girls into social media pariahs.

As stated I do not believe that this groups mobilisation amounts to any effective action. All it has done is scare people as in the case of the 11 year old in the example given and created confusion. Btw the Swedish kid is not without valid criticism. I've seen it repeatedly pointed out that any such criticism is unfair and shouldn't be allowed because she is 'young'. And that doesnt wash especially when using what is in effect misinformation to influence and direct others.

Jimmy Garlic · 28-04-2019 1:10pm

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

This Extinction Rebellion thing appears to be a protest movement, but it's really just sending up an appeal to the political and financial power: "More controls, please. More taxes. More globalism.".

News round up on BBC news the other night just stopped short of apologising for not covering ER even more than they already do. Brainwashed fanatics sent in videos requesting that the BBC lead all of its news bulletins with a "Climate Crisis" related story. Of course this group is approved and given the green light. Any group that really was a threat to the establishment in Britain and elsewhere wouldn't be given such a soft ride and have massive media coverage. It is not a grass roots movement taking on the establishment. It is establishment approved social engineering to soften people up for more poverty, and less freedom ,"for their own good" and to "save the planet" of course.

Akrasia · 28-04-2019 1:44pm

gozunda wrote: »

Really lol and the last dig because you lost an argument? I know what science is thanks. And it was the IPCC referring to uncertainties btw not I. All the facts I have detailed are supported by scientific reseach. The text regarding venus etc was an IPCC quote and is detailed. So don't try that clap trap as a defence of using hyperbole and inaccurate/ irrelevant terminology. It doesn't wash.

We can all imagineer our favourite scenarios about 'moles' and 'houses burning down'. (sic). However It is not always helpful that we present those as absolutes.

Where have I presented them as absolutes. I have said they are risks where the consequences of said risks are so devastating and the likelyhood of them occuring are so high, that it warrants that we take emergency measures to avoid it.
while you're demanding certainty and absolute knowledge, I'm talking about risks and probabilities.

The higher the CO2 concentrations increase, the higher the risk that these negative consequences will become reality. And there are very real risks that some of these changes can happen abruptly and within our own lifetimes.

Yurt2 · 28-04-2019 1:50pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Where have I presented them as absolutes. I have said they are risks where the consequences of said risks are so devastating and the likelyhood of them occuring are so high, that it warrants that we take emergency measures to avoid it.
while you're demanding certainty and absolute knowledge, I'm talking about risks and probabilities.

The higher the CO2 concentrations increase, the higher the risk that these negative consequences will become reality. And there are very real risks that some of these changes can happen abruptly and within our own lifetimes.

Yeah but you have electricity in your home you hypocrite - practice what you preach and live like a 19th century Russian serf.

I was talking to a hippie the other day and he even owned a George Foreman grill to cook his organic string beans. THAT'S CAPITALISM YOU HYPOCRITE, I said to him. You should have seen the look on his face.

Akrasia · 28-04-2019 2:19pm

Yurt! wrote: »

Yeah but you have electricity in your home you hypocrite - practice what you preach and live like a 19th century Russian serf.

I was talking to a hippie the other day and he even owned a George Foreman grill to cook his organic string beans. THAT'S CAPITALISM YOU HYPOCRITE, I said to him. You should have seen the look on his face.

he probably bartered some homegrown weed for the grill

gozunda · 28-04-2019 4:02pm

Akrasia wrote: »

he probably bartered some homegrown weed for the grill

You know when reflecting on the whole thing - there's a good probability - that it's actually those darn moles who are really responsible for the runaway climate change by causing the house to catch fire because the little feckers obviously instigated the tipping point where hothouse earth went up in flames. Who knew eh ...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

RHJ · 28-04-2019 4:22pm

Nice to see that Gemma has weighed in with her opinion on Greta and has shown how ****ing crazy some on the denial side are.

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1122235176216682497?s=19

Akrasia · 28-04-2019 5:35pm

gozunda wrote: »

You know when reflecting on the whole thing - there's a good probability - that it's actually those darn moles who are really responsible for the runaway climate change by causing the house to catch fire because the little feckers obviously instigated the tipping point where hothouse earth went up in flames. Who knew eh ...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'd say it was the gophers myself. Those little feckers are up to no good

Akrasia · 28-04-2019 5:54pm

RHJ wrote: »

Nice to see that Gemma has weighed in with her opinion on Greta and has shown how ****ing crazy some on the denial side are.

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1122235176216682497?s=19

wow. Greta's a Nazi. who would have thought eh?

Blueshoe · 28-04-2019 6:10pm

All these protests will achieve is walking us into another tax.
That won't affect the crusties and students who are out protesting though.

Akrasia · 28-04-2019 6:39pm

Blueshoe wrote: »

All these protests will achieve is walking us into another tax.
That won't affect the crusties and students who are out protesting though.

Why not? Carbon taxes are taxes on consumption, not income tax. If anythng, it would affect crusties and students even more than it affects you.

Blueshoe · 28-04-2019 6:50pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Why not? Carbon taxes are taxes on consumption, not income tax. If anythng, it would affect crusties and students even more than it affects you.

Where will the tax take be spent?
Will big businesses who have a large carbon footprint be also taxed?

We don't tax corporations at the advertised rate so I won't hold my breath. Joe public will be hit again.

**** this country

Sawduck · 28-04-2019 6:53pm

I agree with trying to protect the planet and the environment but these people are just going to irritate everyone and make people care less about the environment

Sawduck · 28-04-2019 6:56pm

Also think the whole Extinction thing is a bit of an overreaction,some of these people just enjoy a good ol' protest

Akrasia · 29-04-2019 12:12am

Sawduck wrote: »

Also think the whole Extinction thing is a bit of an overreaction,some of these people just enjoy a good ol' protest

The earth is about 4 billion years old, there had been 5 previous mass extinction events. Humans are now causing the 6th.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/10/earths-sixth-mass-extinction-event-already-underway-scientists-warn?CMP=share_btn_tw

Jimmy Garlic · 29-04-2019 1:07am

Sawduck wrote: »

I agree with trying to protect the planet and the environment but these people are just going to irritate everyone and make people care less about the environment

The co-founder flys to South America to get fu(ked up on hallucinogenic cactus juice. Apparently according to herself she got her ideas on how to change society when panned out in the jungle. I have no doubt designer hippies like herself don't think the no-flying that they are pressing for applies to them.

Harika · 29-04-2019 3:16am

Sawduck wrote: »

Also think the whole Extinction thing is a bit of an overreaction,some of these people just enjoy a good ol' protest

You won't raise any eye brow by protesting to keep the earth warming to 1 degree.

s7ryf3925pivug · 29-04-2019 3:25am

Sawduck wrote: »

Also think the whole Extinction thing is a bit of an overreaction,some of these people just enjoy a good ol' protest

True, I reckon thousands of people will survive all but the most absolute worst case scenarios. But they will be billionaires with giant doomsday bunkers and their staff. [You're not anyone until you've a giant doomsday bunker.]

I saw a billionaire once.

Subcomandante Marcos · 29-04-2019 3:34am

markodaly wrote: »

The 'whataboutery' is strong in this thread.

And the same old heads are brazen in their inability to hide their blatant conflict of interest.

Everything boils down to "omg WAB China!?!?!?!!?!" Like a country that contains 1 out of every 5 people on earth wouldn't logically have the highest net emissions.

Subcomandante Marcos · 29-04-2019 3:45am

The most mental thing about a beef and/or dairy farmer from Ireland whinging about action to try avert catastrophic warming is the complete ignorance on the effects of higher temperatures on beef and dairy yields.

Good luck with your production, minus subsidies + temperature over the next 15 years.

You'll have nobody but yourself to blame when you go bust.

gozunda · 29-04-2019 7:09am

Akrasia wrote: »

The earth is about 4 billion years old, there had been 5 previous mass extinction events. Humans are now causing the 6th.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/10/earths-sixth-mass-extinction-event-already-underway-scientists-warn?CMP=share_btn_tw

Scientists analysed both common and rare species and found billions of regional or local populations have been lost. They blame human overpopulation and overconsumption for the crisis

And the amazing thing about this is that the Earth will go on it's way without a bother. Hopefully the next succesive ecology doesn't include placard waving millennials and born again hippies, whose leader likes to fly around the world getting smashed out of their little head. But somehow believe that waving banners, misinformation and fear and scare tactics are going to save the planet.

Harika · 29-04-2019 7:19am

gozunda wrote: »

And the amazing thing about this is that the Earth will go on it's way without a bother. Hopefully the next succesive ecology doesn't include placard waving millennials and born again hippies, who like to fly around the world getting smashed out of their little heads. But somehow believe that waving banners, misinformation and fear and scare tactics are going to save the planet.

So what about us humans going extinct?

gozunda · 29-04-2019 7:20am

Harika wrote: »

So what about us humans going extinct?

Exactly. There's a need to think that one trough though...

Harika · 29-04-2019 8:32am

gozunda wrote: »

Harika wrote: »

So what about us humans going extinct?

Exactly. There's a need to think that one trough though...

How about having some protests with a catchy name to bring spotlight to the issue.

gozunda · 29-04-2019 8:37am

Harika wrote: »

How about having some protests with a catchy name to bring spotlight to the issue.

Lol. Did you read the article?

Akrasia · 29-04-2019 10:31am

gozunda wrote: »

Exactly. There's a need to think that one trough though...

As long as there are a breeding human pair on some island somewhere, global warming was a con

gozunda · 29-04-2019 10:43am

Akrasia wrote: »

As long as there are a breeding human pair on some island somewhere, global warming was a con

Interesting conclusion. Why do you believe that?

Jimmy Garlic · 29-04-2019 11:09am

Harika wrote: »

So what about us humans going extinct?

Might as well be extinct if the hypocriteical fanatics that comprise ER got their way. Who wants to be a serf in their heavily restrictive neo-feudal world?

Akrasia · 29-04-2019 10:19pm

gozunda wrote: »

Interesting conclusion. Why do you believe that?

Was just pointing out the sillyness of opposing the extinction rebellion protests because of a belief that humans probably wont go extinct any time soon. If climate change isn't tackled, a huge number of animal species will be lost to extinction directly because of climate change and there will be large areas of land where humans can no longer live due to oppressivel heat and water shortages.

In more good (read bad) news, the next generation of climate models are showing that climate sensitivity is higher than previously thought. Previous models had it between 1.5c and 4.5c, with 3c being most likely, but the latest runs have warming of at least 5c, completly ruling out the lower estimates

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/new-climate-models-predict-warming-surge

Its still not confirmed, the scientists are reviewing all the data looking for errors that may have skewed the models, but in 8 independently run models, the warming appears much faster than we had predicted before now.

Its not certain, and the findings of CMiP 6 are yet to be published but when they are, it is certainly something that should concern us and motivate us to act faster unless or until those models are shown to be wrong

gozunda · 29-04-2019 11:00pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Was just pointing out the sillyness of opposing the extinction rebellion protests because of a belief that humans probably wont go extinct any time soon. If climate change isn't tackled, a huge number of animal species will be lost to extinction directly because of climate change and there will be large areas of land where humans can no longer live due to oppressivel heat and water shortages.

"Was just pointing out the sillyness of opposing the extinction rebellion protests because of a belief that humans probably wont go extinct any time soon

"Sillyness"? of whose "belief"?
The first thing is - an opinion that humans are going to be variously wiped out is being proposed variously by the XR protest movement - along the lines of extinction is just around the corner and as suggested by official banners proclaiming "are we the last generation" etc etc

However the article you linked in support of the idea of the "Sixth Great Extinction" doesn't mention humans not "go(ing) extinct any time soon" however it does point to the dangers of mass overpopulation and this as a threat leading to the extinction of animals.

Interestingly the earth has already lost many species of animals and as the article you linked to details - that has been put down to erosion of habitats etc with the overriding issue being the planet being overpopulated by humans.

Wildlife is dying out due to habitat destruction, overhunting, toxic pollution, invasion by alien species and climate change. But the ultimate cause of all of these factors is “human overpopulation and continued population growth, and overconsumption

The article detailing the reseach of Prof Gerardo Ceballos also states that:

Nearly half of the 177 mammal species surveyed lost more than 80% of their distribution between 1900 and 2015 ..

A “biological annihilation” of wildlife in recent decades means a sixth mass extinction in Earth’s history is under way and is more severe than previously feared, according to research

The time to act is very short,” he said. “It will, sadly, take a long time to humanely begin the population shrinkage required if civilisation is to long survive, but much could be done on the consumption front and with ‘band aids’ – wildlife reserves, diversity protection laws – in the meantime

To summarise that article is about effects of overpopulation on an already stretched planetary system

The article finishes by quoting another scientist as saying

“Show me a scientist who claims there is no population problem and I’ll show you an idiot.”

s7ryf3925pivug · 30-04-2019 9:34am

Climate emergency declared in Wales now as well as Scotland. A good few people saying the movement is pointless and ineffective here, but this shows the opposite.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-48093720

Akrasia · 30-04-2019 10:44am

gozunda wrote: »

"Was just pointing out the sillyness of opposing the extinction rebellion protests because of a belief that humans probably wont go extinct any time soon

"Sillyness"? of whose "belief"?
The first thing is - an opinion that humans are going to be variously wiped out is being proposed variously by the XR protest movement - along the lines of extinction is just around the corner and as suggested by official banners proclaiming "are we the last generation" etc etc

However the article you linked in support of the idea of the "Sixth Great Extinction" doesn't mention humans not "go(ing) extinct any time soon" however it does point to the dangers of mass overpopulation and this as a threat leading to the extinction of animals.

Interestingly the earth has already lost many species of animals and as the article you linked to details - that has been put down to erosion of habitats etc with the overriding issue being the planet being overpopulated by humans.

The article detailing the reseach of Prof Gerardo Ceballos also states that:

To summarise that article is about effects of overpopulation on an already stretched planetary system

The article finishes by quoting another scientist as saying

“Show me a scientist who claims there is no population problem and I’ll show you an idiot.”

Overpopulation and wasteful consumption are both big problems too, but not too many people live on coral reefs.

With overpopulation and over consumption, we are reducing the abundance of life on our planet. With climate change, we are reducing the capacity of the planet to sustain complex biological systems. Overpopulation is an extremely complex issue that has no clear solution and no obvious road-map to implement whatever changes would be required. One thing I can guarantee is that the same people who complain about increasing taxes to pay for climate change would also complain about increasing taxes to pay for the kinds of development aid necessary to reduce population growth in the 'developing' world.

Would you support huge increases in funding to Africa and Asia to change the the cultural, religious and economic factors that lead them to have large and unsustainable families?

Climate change on the other hand is an issue that can be much more easily nailed down as a scientific problem. It is an issue that has a known cause, and a known solution (even if the means to arrive at that solution is still uncertain) that will continue to get worse for centuries and has the potential to spiral completely out of control if we do not act immediately.

And on top of that, addressing the problem of climate change could be done in conjunction with addressing overpopulation and over-consumption at the same time. Declaring a climate emergency and committing to spend the resources required to solve climate change will necessarily include measures to reduce population growth and over consumption.

There has been staggering losses of invertebrate populations in the even the most remote places in the world. Invertebrates form the foundation of complex food webs and are necessary for the propagation of many plant species, often co-evolved so that when the insects disappear, those plants are doomed to go extinct too.

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/44/E10397

Akrasia · 30-04-2019 10:53am

Daxton Scrawny Plow wrote: »

Climate emergency declared in Wales now as well as Scotland. A good few people saying the movement is pointless and ineffective here, but this shows the opposite.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-48093720

Great news. There were plenty of people who said the sufferagettes were counter productive because they used civil disobedience to force the government to pay attention to them. Non Violent Direct action has a long history of forcing important issues onto the national agenda and forcing governments to act.

When the spectre of war haunted the world in 1914 and again in 1939, people were prepared to invest the resources required to protect themselves from an existential threat to their freedom and way of life.

When America decided it was important to beat the russians to the moon, they spent the equivalent of hundreds of billion dollars to win what was essentially a pissing contest with the USSR. Now instead of spending our resources competing with each other or trying to kill each other, we need global cooperation to make the investments required to transition away from fossil fuels within a generation. Individuals on our own can't do a thing to stop climate change. The most important thing we an do is to use our votes to vote for policy that puts climate change at the top of the agenda, and to attend protests and talk about climate change and raise the issue to that there is constant pressure to force us to keep up the momentum to tackle this issue.

gozunda · 30-04-2019 11:18am

Akrasia wrote: »

Great news. There were plenty of people who said the sufferagettes were counter productive because they used civil disobedience to force the government to pay attention to them. Non Violent Direct action has a long history of forcing important issues onto the national agenda and forcing governments to act.

When the spectre of war haunted the world in 1914 and again in 1939, people were prepared to invest the resources required to protect themselves from an existential threat to their freedom and way of life.

When America decided it was important to beat the russians to the moon, they spent the equivalent of hundreds of billion dollars to win what was essentially a pissing contest with the USSR. Now instead of spending our resources competing with each other or trying to kill each other, we need global cooperation to make the investments required to transition away from fossil fuels within a generation. Individuals on our own can't do a thing to stop climate change. The most important thing we an do is to use our votes to vote for policy that puts climate change at the top of the agenda, and to attend protests and talk about climate change and raise the issue to that there is constant pressure to force us to keep up the momentum to tackle this issue.

Nice speech. Unfortunately most of that falls into the hole of false equivalence.

Not too sure how many 'people in WW1/WW2 had the choice whether or not to join up, 'invest resources' (sic) or be slaughtered tbh. Some did - most were drafted whether they wanted to or otherwise by the powers at war...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

WW2 and the exploration of space are not comparable to a bunch of people waving flags and claiming we are all about to die.

Extinction Rebellion Ireland

Comments