Is Climate 'Activism' Becoming a Cult?

Longing · 26-09-2019 12:20am

Akrasia wrote: »

Graphs always show change over time

thats what graphs are
old graphs use older data
newer graphs should use newer data

so you've identified a global scientific conspiracy to use the best available data

I suppose you win?

A thanks Akrasia you are very kind. Looking forward to the cheque in post;)

Akrasia · 26-09-2019 12:25am

Danno wrote: »

Either a temperature hit 10.2c on an April afternoon in 1942 or it didn't. There is no need to "homogenise" or "calibrate" that data.

Temperature is temperature, it's not a feckin Volkswagen emission test.

ok, but what about when instruments or local conditions change?

If you had a data series from an instrument that has been shown to read (for example) 1c lower than then the instrument or station that replaced it, you have to calibrate the data to bring the two datasets into agreement.

Think about it. lets say you buy two thermometers and you put them beside each other. If one of them reads 18.5c and the one beside it reads 20.5c
It's clearly the instrument that causes the difference, not that the air suddenly warms where it's being measured.

Danno · 26-09-2019 12:28am

Akrasia wrote: »

What the graph doesn't show you is that the geographic distribution of the average climate station has changed. They have drifted north. As the US climate monitoring agencies have been trying to achieve higher resolution, they have been putting in more climate stations in the sparcely populated northern and midland regions of the USA. In the northern hemisphere, the further north you go, the colder it gets, so the 'skeptics' can find a single dataset that shows USA 'average temperatures' are declining or static, when in reality, it's just an artifact of the expanding monitoring network

Seriously, are there no vast sparsely populated southern areas in the US to install stations? What is with the all Americans migrating into the hot deserts of the south? :rolleyes:

Akrasia · 26-09-2019 12:28am

Longing wrote: »

A thanks Akrasia you are very kind. Looking forward to the cheque in post;)

No problem. I'll date the cheque using an algorithm that only pays out the next time the current year is cooler than the rolling 10 year trend.

Longing · 26-09-2019 12:35am

Akrasia wrote: »

No problem. I'll date the cheque using an algorithm that only pays out the next time the current year is cooler than the rolling 10 year trend.

Nice one looking forward to it. I will donate it to help the ten thousand homeless in our country. Especially the one's on the streets who die of cold every winter in our little country.:)

Akrasia · 26-09-2019 12:35am

Danno wrote: »

Seriously, are there no vast sparsely populated southern areas in the US to install stations? What is with the all Americans migrating into the hot deserts of the south? :rolleyes:

Using the shape of the US continent on it's own, it's obvious that any attempt to provide more geographical coverage (compared to population coverage) of the USA would by definition cover more land the farther you go north.
but apart from that, here's a population distribution map of the US

Not so much space at the southern Border, loads of space further north, and acres of space in Alaska

If they double the relative number of climate stations in Alaska where it's very cold, compared to Texas (where it's very hot) that could cause the average to dip even if local average temperatures in Alaska are increasing (and they definitely are)

Birdnuts · 26-09-2019 12:36am

Akrasia wrote: »

There are some very prominent members of this forum who do not accept the seriousness of Climate change unfortunately.

These would be members that have decent knowledge of past climate change events - climate change is nothing new despite what the doom mongers would have us believe.

Danno · 26-09-2019 12:37am

Akrasia wrote: »

ok, but what about when instruments or local conditions change?

If man-made, then close the station. Just like Birr and Kilkenny.

Akrasia wrote: »

If you had a data series from an instrument that has been shown to read (for example) 1c lower than then the instrument or station that replaced it, you have to calibrate the data to bring the two datasets into agreement.

Regular checking of equipment should rule this out from happening and especially from contaminating a large dataset. You remove the dirty data from the dataset between last calibration and date of fault discovery.

Akrasia wrote: »

Think about it. lets say you buy two thermometers and you put them beside each other. If one of them reads 18.5c and the one beside it reads 20.5c
It's clearly the instrument that causes the difference, not that the air suddenly warms where it's being measured.

You clearly have a faulty thermometer in this instance. Get a RMA as soon as possible, don't wait 50 or 60 years.

Akrasia · 26-09-2019 12:40am

Longing wrote: »

Nice one looking forward to it. I will donate it to help the ten thousand homeless in our country. Especially the one's on the streets who die of cold every winter in our little country.:)

Smiley face while talking about homeless people freezing to death??

But anyway. not really on topic.

riffmongous · 26-09-2019 12:40am

Danno wrote: »

Either a temperature hit 10.2c on an April afternoon in 1942 or it didn't. There is no need to "homogenise" or "calibrate" that data.

Temperature is temperature, it's not a feckin Volkswagen emission test.

How does a thermometer work? Are all thermometers the same? How does the accuracy and precision change across the various types, and according to time? Earlier you accused me of being condescending to people who apparently don't have the right education, well then, let's see what people do know if they are going to try tell the rest of us how things work

Gaoth Laidir · 26-09-2019 12:41am

Is climate activism becoming a cult? The type we saw last Friday and we're seeing on a regular basis from Greta is pretty much a cult at this stage. Take away the subject matter for a second and just look at their behaviour and you have a typical cult. Masses of hysterical kids with banners showing hyperbolic slogans all following every word of an eccentric leader. To see the scenes of the past week has been pretty disturbing. How Greta is being allowed to behave like that, regardless of her message, is disgraceful. She's a kid with issues but should still be allowed to be a kid and do what kids do. But no, she's reading scripted speeches full of hysterical statements of mass extinction and stolen childhoods, and you've got masses of kids (and adults) blindly applauding her every word without question. They are behaving like they're brainwashed, unable to think for themselves but simply follow her word as Gospel. Make your point, but make it accurately.

Promoting this type of behaviour is not healthy for our future. What these kids are really being robbed of is the ability to think rationally for themselves, question things at face value and form their own opinions. You now have these Irish kids with American twangs using phrases way beyond their years, the type you hear only in a Dáil debate. Just go and be kids ffs.

PS It's not only the kids that go for the hyperbolic fear mongering tales of impending doom. There's a specialist in that right here on the forum. And for that other poster, you don't have to read this thread. Scroll on by.

Birdnuts · 26-09-2019 12:41am

Akrasia wrote: »

Someone like Ray Bates has made a prediction which, by nothing more than the passage of time, is already completely disproven, yet still refuses to adjust his theories to account for the evidence, and because he used to be a reputable scientist, others accept his analysis as truth even when it's blatantly obvious that he was wrong.

Bates actually amended his original article to cover up some of the obvious errors as pointed out by Peter Thorne, but he did so to paper over the cracks, amazingly, despite the basis of his arguments being shown to be false, he still finished with the same conclusion.

Prof Bates is an independent climate scientist with a slew of peer reviewed papers behind him. Can you tell me how many of the Armageddon predictions from the likes of yourself have come to past over the last 30 years??

Longing · 26-09-2019 12:45am

Akrasia wrote: »

Smiley face while talking about homeless people freezing to death??

But anyway. not really on topic.

If you want to be picky. The smiley face was for the help we can give them Akrasia.

Birdnuts · 26-09-2019 12:46am

Akrasia wrote: »

Smiley face while talking about homeless people freezing to death??

But anyway. not really on topic.

Crocodile tears when one supports energy poverty generating carbon taxes:rolleyes:

Akrasia · 26-09-2019 12:47am

Danno wrote: »

If man-made, then close the station. Just like Birr and Kilkenny.

Ok, but how do you integrate the Birr or Kilkenny data into modern records? Do you just pretend there was a 1c change the day the stations closed?

Regular checking of equipment should rule this out from happening and especially from contaminating a large dataset. You remove the dirty data from the dataset between last calibration and date of fault discovery.

I think you're nearly getting it. Yes, you do remove the 'dirty' data and replace it with a more reliable technology for future measurements.

But what happens to the old temperature data? Do you just leave it there knowing that the sensors were reading the wrong temperature?

You clearly have a faulty thermometer in this instance. Get a RMA as soon as possible, don't wait 50 or 60 years.

That's exactly what they do. They replace the old out dated models, replace them with newer ones, and then adjust the old readings to account for the false readings from the old inaccurate measurements.

I'm glad I could be on this journey with you as you walk yourself through the understanding of why old graphs are different to newer graphs over the same time

riffmongous · 26-09-2019 12:47am

Danno wrote: »

If man-made, then close the station. Just like Birr and Kilkenny.

Regular checking of equipment should rule this out from happening and especially from contaminating a large dataset. You remove the dirty data from the dataset between last calibration and date of fault discovery.

You clearly have a faulty thermometer in this instance. Get a RMA as soon as possible, don't wait 50 or 60 years.

1) you'll end up with very few stations then, and short time records. Not much use if you want to study climate. There's not even enough stations as it is

2) your device will drift if it's electrical, you can't control that exactly unless you calibrate it, not check it, every single day, this is just not possible for a weather service. Manned stations are better but then you are back to problem one, lack of data

3) not necessarily even, depends on the accuracy of the thermometer model.

Hobosan · 26-09-2019 12:49am

Any time there's a major issue or a potential major issue unfolding, you'll have some do gooders who'll do anything in the name of the cause without any consideration for the consequences.

The whole live aid concert, with all the celebrities singing, smiling and linking arms, ultimateky decimated many indigenous textile and food producers in Africa, as they couldn't compete with the massive amounts of free food and clothing which temporarily flooded the continent, which ended up exacerbating starvation.

That's what happens when you listen to celebrities instead of experts, and even the experts admit that tackling major problems is not easy. Best laid plans that sound great on paper do not transpire in the real world.

Paraphrasing a quote from the book 'Bad Samaritans' , if every problem could be fixed by throwing money at it, we wouldn't have any problems.

It doesn't matter if you believe in climate change or not. Ultimately, it is the clever people that understand the problem who are best equipped to fix it. The most hysterical climate protestors are no better at tackling the problem than deniers. That's what these online conversations always revolve around.

You don't believe scientists so you're part of the problem! Well no, it's not that simple. I'm sure Bob Geldof would rage at someone who didn't believe there was a starvation problem in Africa, and would wax lyrical about inaction, but the starvation denier certainly wouldn't have done as much damage as Sir Bob.

Gaoth Laidir · 26-09-2019 12:50am

Akrasia wrote: »

Ok, but how do you integrate the Birr or Kilkenny data into modern records? Do you just pretend there was a 1c change the day the stations closed?

I think you're nearly getting it. Yes, you do remove the 'dirty' data and replace it with a more reliable technology for future measurements.

But what happens to the old temperature data? Do you just leave it there knowing that the sensors were reading the wrong temperature?

That's exactly what they do. They replace the old out dated models, replace them with newer ones, and then adjust the old readings to account for the false readings from the old inaccurate measurements.

I'm glad I could be on this journey with you as you walk yourself through the understanding of why old graphs are different to newer graphs over the same time

You missed the point completely. If a station is being properly maintained and regularly calibrated then it doesn't get to the stage that it's reading 1 degree out. If you upgrade the sensor with a new one, both new and old will be reading the same if they're both properly calibrated.

Danno · 26-09-2019 12:51am

Akrasia wrote: »

here's a population distribution map of the US

I much prefer this map:

And take note of the map projection too, much better! :cool:

Akrasia · 26-09-2019 12:53am

Birdnuts wrote: »

Crocodile tears when one supports energy poverty generating carbon taxes:rolleyes:

I don't support energy poverty at all.

When you realise that carbon taxes are taxes on products not people, it becomes obvious that carbon taxes should be revenue neutral, and that all the taxes raised should be returned to the public through tax refunds or credits, to allow them to use market forces to reward less polluting energy suppliers because they're cheaper than the heavily taxed suppliers.

This way, the taxes only penalise producers polluting behaviour to incentivise consumers to choose less polluting producers.

Seriously. It's basic economics. Adam Smith would agree with everything I have just said.

riffmongous · 26-09-2019 12:58am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

You missed the point completely. If a station is being properly maintained and regularly calibrated then it doesn't get to the stage that it's reading 1 degree out. If you upgrade the sensor with a new one, both new and old will be reading the same if they're both properly calibrated.

Not necessarily, first electrical sensors drift, you can not realistically control that entirely with calibration on an outdoor thermometer. 2nd device accuracy and precision tend to change for the better over time (aspirated shields for an example from the last year's) and 3rd certain devices can be found to be biased

Akrasia · 26-09-2019 12:59am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

You missed the point completely. If a station is being properly maintained and regularly calibrated then it doesn't get to the stage that it's reading 1 degree out. If you upgrade the sensor with a new one, both new and old will be reading the same if they're both properly calibrated.

Ok, how do you account for drift then

If you calibrate the newer modern thermometer to match the old one that is later known to have been reading cold* then the newly installed station will be reading lower temperatures than nearby stations that are calibrated using the best available technology

Stations aren't calibrated to match the old instruments, the old data is calibrated to match the newer more accurate readings.

Otherwise you would have garbage in, out, everywhere.

*(a design flaw with the model, not a user error)

Gaoth Laidir · 26-09-2019 1:00am

For the record, I firmly agree we need to get away from the finite resource that is fossil fuels and fully switch to renewables or nuclear. It just makes sense. What doesn't make sense is the way the climate argument is being hyperbolised (is that a word?).

Gaoth Laidir · 26-09-2019 1:02am

Akrasia wrote: »

Ok, how do you account for drift then

If you calibrate the newer modern thermometer to match the old one that is later known to have been reading cold* then the newly installed station will be reading lower temperatures than nearby stations that are calibrated using the best available technology

Stations aren't calibrated to match the old instruments, the old data is calibrated to match the newer more accurate readings.

Otherwise you would have garbage in, out, everywhere.

*(a design flaw with the model, not a user error)

Again, missing the point of regular calibration schedules. Every 6 months you check your sensor against a verified standard and either adjust it to within the tolerances or immediately take it out of commission and replace it with one that is within tolerances. No drift can occur this way.

Akrasia · 26-09-2019 1:06am

Danno wrote: »

I much prefer this map:

And take note of the map projection too, much better! :cool:

It makes absolutely no difference to my point. Old records were distributed by population. Newer stations are distributed by distance

Highly populated areas, the east and west coast and the midlands to southern Border will have had lots of stations based on a population distribution, but proportionally fewer stations than the less dense regions in the mid to northern parts of America

Gaoth Laidir · 26-09-2019 1:09am

Akrasia wrote: »

It makes absolutely no difference to my point. Old records were distributed by population. Newer stations are distributed by distance

Highly populated areas, the east and west coast and the midlands to southern Border will have had lots of stations based on a population distribution, but proportionally fewer stations than the less dense regions in the mid to northern parts of America

So are you conceding that the stations in populated centres may have been adversely affected by urban development over time? And do you have a reliable map or table listing all these new northerly stations and the magnitude of their effect on the stats?

Danno · 26-09-2019 1:10am

Akrasia wrote: »

Ok, but how do you integrate the Birr or Kilkenny data into modern records? Do you just pretend there was a 1c change the day the stations closed?

Not at all. You disregard the data from the date of the environmental change. In Kilkenny's case, the date the buldozers moved in to clear the land for housing.

Akrasia wrote: »

I think you're nearly getting it. Yes, you do remove the 'dirty' data and replace it with a more reliable technology for future measurements.

But what happens to the old temperature data? Do you just leave it there knowing that the sensors were reading the wrong temperature?

Without sounding like a broken record, the data is invalid, gone, not used for calculations. Garbage in=garbage out.

Akrasia wrote: »

That's exactly what they do. They replace the old out dated models, replace them with newer ones, and then adjust the old readings to account for the false readings from the old inaccurate measurements.

Why include data that firstly is known to be incorrect and secondly known to be tampered with? especially when one is using the said data for projections and predictions. It smacks of underhandedness and agenda setting.

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm glad I could be on this journey with you as you walk yourself through the understanding of why old graphs are different to newer graphs over the same time

No need to be condescending, it does nothing but alienate you and your message.

Akrasia · 26-09-2019 1:12am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Again, missing the point of regular calibration schedules. Every 6 months you check your sensor against a verified standard and either adjust it to within the tolerances or immediately take it out of commission and replace it with one that is within tolerances. No drift can occur this way.

This accounts for modern records using best practise, not the old records which had to be manipulated to bring calibrate them

And its nowhere near as simple as you make it out to be. There isn't one single standard calibration system. If North Carolina used one system for 30 years and then moved to align their records with S Carolina, they might find that there are big gaps along border stations between the N Carolina standard vs the S Carolina standard, a few miles down the road should these just be ignored or should one or both data-sets be analysed and re-calibrated?

riffmongous · 26-09-2019 1:13am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Again, missing the point of regular calibration schedules. Every 6 months you check your sensor against a verified standard and either adjust it to within the tolerances or immediately take it out of commission and replace it with one that is within tolerances. No drift can occur this way.

Tell us, is drift linear and constant?

Gaoth Laidir · 26-09-2019 1:18am

Akrasia wrote: »

This accounts for modern records using best practise, not the old records which had to be manipulated to bring calibrate them

And its nowhere near as simple as you make it out to be. There isn't one single standard calibration system. If North Carolina used one system for 30 years and then moved to align their records with S Carolina, they might find that there are big gaps along border stations between the N Carolina standard vs the S Carolina standard, a few miles down the road should these just be ignored or should one or both data-sets be analysed and re-calibrated?

It seems you're coming around to the idea that historical data trends may not be as reliable or simple as made out to be.

We have the WMO with their standards for consistent station siting rules, but yes, many stations included in the datasets have less than ideal sitings. You'd hope these would be disregarded as unreliable but no, they're included in favour of applying some fudge factor to paper over the cracks. It makes that argument you made about 1.1 degrees above pre-industrial levels (whatever that is; no one quite agrees on it) a bit foggy.

Danno · 26-09-2019 1:20am

riffmongous wrote: »

1) you'll end up with very few stations then, and short time records. Not much use if you want to study climate. There's not even enough stations as it is

2) your device will drift if it's electrical, you can't control that exactly unless you calibrate it, not check it, every single day, this is just not possible for a weather service. Manned stations are better but then you are back to problem one, lack of data

Yet predictions are being made from "not enough stations" - sorry but that does not compute.

As regards not enough manned stations and calibration of equipment, well there is a big slush fund from carbon taxes that could sort this out, wouldn't you agree?

Danno · 26-09-2019 1:29am

That is all I'm contributing to this for now. I guess at this juncture nobody knows whether they're the weather man or the Ojibwe man in all of this:

Preparing for Winter

One year, a young Ojibwe boy was given the task of ensuring the entire village had enough wood for winter. This was the first time he had been given such an honor and he wanted to do it right. Before he went to work he decided to call the weatherman to ask what kind of a winter was to be expected. The weather man told him it was going to be a warm and uneventful winter. The boy thought to himself, ‘this is great. I won’t have to work too hard and I’ll be able to look good in front of the whole tribe.’

Just to be safe, he gathered a few of his friends and they went to work for a week. At the end of the week, after chopping and piling the wood, the boy decided to give the weatherman a second call. The weatherman told him it was going to be a very cold winter. Shocked at this sudden change and not wanting to disappoint the elders of his village, he gathered more of his friends and they went to work. For two weeks they cut and piled wood, hoping that it would be enough to last the whole winter.

Once again the boy called the weatherman and this time the weatherman told him, “Son, its going to be a very bitter, cold and long winter. Maybe the worst winter on record.”

Exasperated, the boy had to ask, “What makes you say that sir?”

The weatherman replies, “The Indians are gathering wood like crazy!”

G'night.

riffmongous · 26-09-2019 1:30am

Danno wrote: »

Yet predictions are being made from "not enough stations" - sorry but that does not compute.

As regards not enough manned stations and calibration of equipment, well there is a big slush fund from carbon taxes that could sort this out, wouldn't you agree?

Why doesn't it compute? What changes on a prediction when we change the number of stations?

Its still wouldn't solve the time series problem though and what to do with the old data. Nor is it realistic to pay dozens of people to take manual measurements that would still needed to be controlled afterwards versus paying a handful of people to analyse entire regions

But I do totally agree the money should be directed towards this direction
But people need to be able to make the distinction between the science and the need for action and the politicians and corporatists looking to take advantage of it.

gozunda · 26-09-2019 1:34am

Is Climate 'Activism' Becoming a Cult?

I would suggest that the home for the bewildered is missing a fair few residents...

M.T. Cranium · 26-09-2019 1:35am

Let's just say it's complicated. We are being asked to assert our certainty about that which cannot be known with a lot of precision.

I expect it will continue to warm slightly, overall, with a few ups and downs along the way. As to reaching some catastrophic tipping point, that is less certain. The atmospheric system is of course a very complicated mechanism, like the human body, just stressing one part in one way can have entirely unknown and unpredictable consequences as the complex organism deals with that stress.

The heat waves of the 1930s are not that buried and out of sight, lots of people know about them, but the severity of them was partially due to poor farming practices that allowed large scale erosion, turning large parts of the central plains states into desert-like environments. This fed back into the temperatures that were already going to be elevated, and made them more extreme. So that is partly why we won't see that again even in a warming climate, at least until some later stage possibly. Nowadays the hottest weather in that region maintains a higher humidity which for temperatures over 35 C makes it difficult to achieve much higher temperatures (takes more work to heat up humid air than dry air).

There is a cult-like atmosphere surrounding the political side of this question. As to the scientific portion, there is a good deal of pressure on people to conform or risk losing their positions, in some sectors, but this pressure does not apply to broadcast meteorologists as much, and may just spark an opposite reaction from enthusiasts, who by and large seem to be skeptical of at least the full volume claims of climate change. You certainly run into people with mixed opinions, which probably includes myself, I don't dismiss the whole thing as a hoax, but I do find it exaggerated. Whether my level of concern would be enough to justify the political response is questionable, I think if the experts all sounded like me on this question, a lot of politicians (and therefore the media and general public) might be more likely to take a wait and see approach. Yet I can grasp the concept that wait and see is only a good choice if what you see is not a crisis.

People should perhaps focus more on mitigation strategies than tax to modify behaviour approaches. As even the more enthusiastic proponents would likely admit, the tax to modify approach will only have small actual consequences for global climate, either because it's not enough, or because the theory is wrong. So it makes more sense to me to have mitigation approaches ready for use in the event that for example sea levels begin to rise faster. We should be desalinating ocean water at a much greater rate than is currently the case. We should be irrigating dryland areas and increasing agricultural production from them (it would have a slight beneficial impact on climate too).

Those are some responses I would have to this question but I should emphasize that all questions of future climate are murky at best, and until we have accepted theories of why natural variations occur and we are able to predict them, we really have no strong foundation for the part of climate science that then adds a human signal to trend curves, since we really don't know what those trend curves (a) will be, or (b) should have been from 1990 to 2019 without us being here. People say they know this, but I know they don't know.

Hooter23 · 26-09-2019 11:09am

We cant even predict the weather 2 weeks in advance...the whole climate change predictions seem to be based just on what the weather has been doing over the passed few years...first the temperatures were rising so they called it "Global Warming"...now that they got it wrong and we have seen much colder winters in recent years it was changed to "Climate Change"...So now that covers all weather if we have hot..cold..dry..wet weather...its all because of climate change they can never be wrong again...:rolleyes:

Carol25 · 26-09-2019 11:34am

I started off as a climate change sceptic years ago, sure the Earth might warm slightly but no major harm done was my motto. We all needed fossil fuels to live, and economic growth to earn a living and survive.
However since that time I’ve done a lot of travel and research and I’ve come to the conclusion that two major issues are being confused into one:
1. Man made pollution
2. Climate change
1. My personal opinion is that man made pollution is at completely unsustainable levels and have been for years. Saw a recent documentary on vegetables being grown in PLASTIC in Spain, it’s left in the soil once vegetables are taken and eventually ends up in the Mediterranean. Which ends up in fish’s diets, etc. This is just one example of how we’re just not doing enough as a human race against waste, pollution and destroying the Earth’s environment. The amazon, fish stocks, species extinctions, etc. These are all happening and we are destroying our planet.
2. Climate change is a very real issue, and the data and research shows that clearly to me. Ice percentages worldwide are falling, the earth is getting hotter, more extremes of everything.

In conclusion, you can call it a Planetary crisis, climate crisis, pollution crisis, a ‘cult’ or anything you want. It’s happening, it’s real and we are not creating a sustainable future for our children. We owe them better than this.

P.s. I’m also genuinely shocked that an autistic 16 year old girl who has managed to mobilise the youth of today to help their future - a very worthy cause, is the subject of such abuse on other social media sites from adults (a huge amount of them being men) who should hang their heads in shame. The internet has truly created a way to divide and conquer us and people are jumping in head first without a thought for their actions.

NSAman · 26-09-2019 11:36am

No it is not becoming a cult.

It is becoming a business. When the likes of Mary Robinson start making a living from it, you know there are big bucks being made.

Graces7 · 26-09-2019 11:58am

Agree totally

Maybe folk forget that these young people are the citizens, parents, leaders of tomorrow and are inheriting the state we are leaving the world in.
It is very much their concern and good to see them out in the streets and with a strong and sincere leader of their own generation.

Whatever your beliefs, we know that we are polluting and doing harm and each needs to curb that damage for the next generation's sake. Rather than arguing and mocking.

Thank you

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. My pers[/S]onal opinion is that man made pollution is at completely unsustainable levels and have been for years. Saw a recent documentary on vegetables being grown in PLASTIC in Spain, it’s left in the soil once vegetables are taken and eventually ends up in the Mediterranean. Which ends up in fish’s diets, etc. This is just one example of how we’re just not doing enough as a human race against waste, pollution and destroying the Earth’s environment. The amazon, fish stocks, species extinctions, etc. These are all happening and we are destroying our planet.
2. Climate change is a very real issue, and the data and research shows that clearly to me. Ice percentages worldwide are falling, the earth is getting hotter, more extremes of everything.

In conclusion, you can call it a Planetary crisis, climate crisis, pollution crisis, a ‘cult’ or anything you want. It’s happening, it’s real and we are not creating a sustainable future for our children. We owe them better than this.

P.s. I’m also genuinely shocked that an autistic 16 year old girl who has managed to mobilise the youth of today to help their future - a very worthy cause, is the subject of such abuse on other social media sites from adults (a huge amount of them being men) who should hang their heads in shame. The internet has truly created a way to divide and conquer us and people are jumping in head first without a thought for their actions.[/QUOTE]

vistafinder · 26-09-2019 12:29pm

Ask the people that are still living directly off the land and off the seasons around the world. Its changing and our modern way of living is causing it. The ones that are still connected to the planet that is supporting us.

From experience its the human ego thats causing it and its the people with the big big egos love money the most and its them that are going to keep going.

That young girl has no ego. She is working from a different place the place where the vast majority of children live their lives from. Can ye not remember?

Someone mentioned brainwashed. Sorry to say its most of us that are brainwashed to have no connection or respect for the planet or anyone that is coming after us and its the egos that waste all this time arguing on the internet over and over again.

Its the ego that is stopping us from living a modest life style. From experience.

riffmongous · 26-09-2019 12:45pm

Hooter23 wrote: »

We cant even predict the weather 2 weeks in advance...the whole climate change predictions seem to be based just on what the weather has been doing over the passed few years...first the temperatures were rising so they called it "Global Warming"...now that they got it wrong and we have seen much colder winters in recent years it was changed to "Climate Change"...So now that covers all weather if we have hot..cold..dry..wet weather...its all because of climate change they can never be wrong again...:rolleyes:

How do climate models and predictions work and how are they different to weather forecasts? What are the key differences there considering we can't predict the weather 2 weeks in advance, explain how it works to us since you are so sure it's wrong.

Much colder winters.. where exactly? Maybe they had to change the phrasing because some people can't distinguish between 'global' warming and their local winters. Or because these people don't get that you can have colder winters and still have warming over the year on average.

Danno · 26-09-2019 12:48pm

Carol25 wrote: »

I started off as a climate change sceptic years ago, sure the Earth might warm slightly but no major harm done was my motto. We all needed fossil fuels to live, and economic growth to earn a living and survive.
However since that time I’ve done a lot of travel and research and I’ve come to the conclusion that two major issues are being confused into one:
1. Man made pollution
2. Climate change
1. My personal opinion is that man made pollution is at completely unsustainable levels and have been for years. Saw a recent documentary on vegetables being grown in PLASTIC in Spain, it’s left in the soil once vegetables are taken and eventually ends up in the Mediterranean. Which ends up in fish’s diets, etc. This is just one example of how we’re just not doing enough as a human race against waste, pollution and destroying the Earth’s environment. The amazon, fish stocks, species extinctions, etc. These are all happening and we are destroying our planet.
2. Climate change is a very real issue, and the data and research shows that clearly to me. Ice percentages worldwide are falling, the earth is getting hotter, more extremes of everything.

In conclusion, you can call it a Planetary crisis, climate crisis, pollution crisis, a ‘cult’ or anything you want. It’s happening, it’s real and we are not creating a sustainable future for our children. We owe them better than this.

P.s. I’m also genuinely shocked that an autistic 16 year old girl who has managed to mobilise the youth of today to help their future - a very worthy cause, is the subject of such abuse on other social media sites from adults (a huge amount of them being men) who should hang their heads in shame. The internet has truly created a way to divide and conquer us and people are jumping in head first without a thought for their actions.

Some reasonable arguments made here, and I think you've made an important point in separating two separate issues - 1: The Pollution and 2: The Climate.

1: The Pollution: This I feel is something we all as individual citizens can work on and to be fair to the Irish people we are keen recyclers and our countryside, rivers, lakes and beaches are kept fairly clean and tidy. Yes there are blackspots and there could be more done but we're going in the right direction overall. I did make a point earlier about participation, there is a large part of the population that don't have much civic pride and don't go out into their communities and volunteer time to help and that certainly is true for most of the communities - only a small dedicated cohort doing anything.

2: Climate Change: Yes there are changes in the climate system, but to say that humans are directly responsible for all of it is OTT. Many doom-and-gloom predictions have been made and looking back at those predictions which have expired now puts the credibility of such claims in the comedy section. Talk in the late 80s and early 90s that entire nations would be gone under water by the year 2000, talk in the early 2000s that British children just won't know what snow is come 2010, and so forth... all hyperbole. Then there is a huge void of trust in the IPCC when their impartiality was questioned a decade ago when leaked documents certainly raised eyebrows then.

RE: Greta. Yes there have been nasty things said, but that is par for the course. I see extremists on both sides knock pretty nasty lumps out of the other, remember the smirking US kid and how many people wanted to smack the face off him, etc... horrible stuff too. I'm a firm believer of being critical of the message, not the messenger. I would actually agree with Ryan Tubridy (shock) on what he said on the radio the other day, and I'm not much of a Tubbs fan.

Overall I feel the whole thing has become overly politicised and one doesn't have to scratch much under the surface to realise this. All the pressure to "do something" is on caucasian majority nations. Very little if any finger-wagging is directed at Asian, African or south American nations who are by and far the worst polluters, biggest C02 emitters and so forth... As stated earlier, moving away from fossil fuels should be a long term goal, they are dirty in the main and they'll eventually run out anyway.

Gaoth Laidir · 26-09-2019 1:28pm

I have a problem with the exaggeration and misrepresentation that occurs now daily - especially in the media, but on here too - regarding attribution of literally every weather event as more "evidence" of the impending doom. They do a piece on clumate change and they include clips of a hurricane, snow, a flood, people on a beach, etc. No questions asked. This seems to be so subliminal at this stage that the message is being believed that if we get a winter storm, if a Cat 3 hurricane comes near the States, that this is all a sign. People now automatically see a hurricane flatten the Bahamas and use this as ammunition that yep, see, there's more evidence for ya. There is zero policing of what the media are portraying as "fact", which of course suits the narrative.

I'm being accused here of beating the same old "denial" climate drum any chance I get, yet the other argument gets away with it. Most recently I posted actual trends in arctic sea ice minima that show a flattened or even slightly increasing trend over the past decade, yet you'll never see this anywhere else. Only yesterday evening RTE radio did a piece on Drivetime with the guy from UCC, and Mary introduced it mentioning record levels of sea-ice loss occuring now. At least the guy from UCC spoke about land ice in relation to sea-level rise, but the headline on sea ice will probably stay out there.

Yes, there is some warming occuring over a long period, but the exact magnitude is not known with high accuracy. I do not trust the anecdotal "evidence" of people's memory of days gone by as this is a totally unreliable metric. Local climate variations can occur over scales of years to decades (e.g. AMO, PDO, etc.), which themselves are totally natural and influencers of the longer-term trend. They have strong influences on hurricane activity, yet this sort of stuff is not known by most of the public who now get their "facts" from the clueless mainstream media and social media.

Birdnuts · 26-09-2019 1:38pm

vistafinder wrote: »

Ask the people that are still living directly off the land and off the seasons around the world. Its changing and our modern way of living is causing it. The ones that are still connected to the planet that is supporting us.

From experience its the human ego thats causing it and its the people with the big big egos love money the most and its them that are going to keep going.

That young girl has no ego. She is working from a different place the place where the vast majority of children live their lives from. Can ye not remember?

Someone mentioned brainwashed. Sorry to say its most of us that are brainwashed to have no connection or respect for the planet or anyone that is coming after us and its the egos that waste all this time arguing on the internet over and over again.

Its the ego that is stopping us from living a modest life style. From experience.

Bad/unusual weather did not suddenly appear a few years ago - the climate related famines in Ireland in the 18 and 19th centuary are a testiment to that - plus data from Greenland ice - cores dated 15k years ago show massive swings in averge temps of several C in the space of only a few decades. The planet does indeed currently face many enironmental challenges caused by us, but these like plastic pollution, over fishing, industrial farming, deforestation etc. are not getting the neccessary time and resources devoted to solving them due to the current hysteria around the climate cult

Oneiric 3 · 26-09-2019 3:01pm

Danno wrote: »

remember the smirking US kid and how many people wanted to smack the face off him, etc... horrible stuff too.

The most disturbing aspect of that 'incident' was just how easily people gobble up, without question or any semblance of critical thought, everything the media tells them, which tells you as much about them as it does the media itself.

Oneiric 3 · 26-09-2019 3:15pm

Pigs really do walk on two legs...

https://twitter.com/James7Holland/status/1176782949150273536

One of the most notable traits of the most vociferous advocates of climate alarmism is that 'do as I say and not as I do' approach they all seem to have.

compsys · 26-09-2019 3:18pm

Carol25 wrote: »

I started off as a climate change sceptic years ago, sure the Earth might warm slightly but no major harm done was my motto. We all needed fossil fuels to live, and economic growth to earn a living and survive.
However since that time I’ve done a lot of travel and research and I’ve come to the conclusion that two major issues are being confused into one:
1. Man made pollution
2. Climate change
1. My personal opinion is that man made pollution is at completely unsustainable levels and have been for years. Saw a recent documentary on vegetables being grown in PLASTIC in Spain, it’s left in the soil once vegetables are taken and eventually ends up in the Mediterranean. Which ends up in fish’s diets, etc. This is just one example of how we’re just not doing enough as a human race against waste, pollution and destroying the Earth’s environment. The amazon, fish stocks, species extinctions, etc. These are all happening and we are destroying our planet.
2. Climate change is a very real issue, and the data and research shows that clearly to me. Ice percentages worldwide are falling, the earth is getting hotter, more extremes of everything.

In conclusion, you can call it a Planetary crisis, climate crisis, pollution crisis, a ‘cult’ or anything you want. It’s happening, it’s real and we are not creating a sustainable future for our children. We owe them better than this.

P.s. I’m also genuinely shocked that an autistic 16 year old girl who has managed to mobilise the youth of today to help their future - a very worthy cause, is the subject of such abuse on other social media sites from adults (a huge amount of them being men) who should hang their heads in shame. The internet has truly created a way to divide and conquer us and people are jumping in head first without a thought for their actions.

Hear, hear. Well said

Also, as someone else posted, even if climate change isn't a thing (and the world isn't getting hotter and the ice caps are just pretending to melt :rolleyes:) surely finding ways to live in a more clean and sustainable way, which treats our planet better is in everyone's interests?

Oneiric 3 · 26-09-2019 3:22pm

compsys wrote: »

Hear, hear. Well said

Also, as someone else posted, even if climate change isn't a thing (and the world isn't getting hotter and the ice caps are just pretending to melt :rolleyes:) surely finding ways to live in a more clean and sustainable way, which treats our planet better is in everyone's interests?

Winter will be here soon, so time for you to top up your oil supply, or whatever planet damaging fossil fuel you choose to warm your arse with as the days become colder and colder..

compsys · 26-09-2019 3:28pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Yes, there is some warming occuring over a long period, but the exact magnitude is not known with high accuracy. I do not trust the anecdotal "evidence" of people's memory of days gone by as this is a totally unreliable metric. .

Climate change is based on science and data. Not on people's memories. If you think the data is wrong or being misinterpreted that's fine. But there's nothing anecdotal about it. Unless you can point to a leading report on climate change which had in the Reference section people's memories :rolleyes:

compsys · 26-09-2019 3:30pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Winter will be here soon, so time for you to top up your oil supply, or whatever planet damaging fossil fuel you choose to warm your arse with as the days become colder and colder..

No one here is saying we should ban fossil fuels.

Is Climate 'Activism' Becoming a Cult?

Comments