FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Climate Change - The facts
Climate Change - The facts
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I missed it sadly. Any shocking facts you can share with us? " We are all f*cked  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The last Ice age was not caused by Fred Flintstone driving a V8 Just saying...." Or even the 4 before that....probably aliens in their spaceships.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So what are some of the worst examples of BBC news not being the most balanced? Given that pretty much everyone seems to accuse the BBC of being biased suggests that it probably isn’t that biased at all. Because “bias” means a lot more than “saying something that someone happens to disagree with”. Any notion that the BBC should give equal airtime to views that go against the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed scientific research on something climate change is a nonsense." The way they Lied about and misrepresented: The Doctor's strike The police The firemen Schools GPs Nurses generally Nurses at Mid Staffs Brexit voters UKIP and its members Anyone who criticises far left ideology, particularly on gender and immigration issues. How it works together with and gets it's information from far left organisations, many of whom are funded by George Soros or which have Islamists ties such as: Hope Not Hate Tell Mama Open Societies Foundation Southern Poverty Law Centre The ACLU Council on American Islamic Relations The Muslim Council of Britain Momentum How's that for a few examples? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone watch that on BBC 1 on Thursday night ? " I didn't watch it as I'm not a huge believer in it as a recent issue. I am more a believer in the fact that climate changes.. and it would change regardless. One big volcanic eruption can cause way more issues than man made ones... I like looking at the people that study climatic history and you see a pattern that has followed many many times x ( without a single human to be blamed) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So what are some of the worst examples of BBC news not being the most balanced? Given that pretty much everyone seems to accuse the BBC of being biased suggests that it probably isn’t that biased at all. Because “bias” means a lot more than “saying something that someone happens to disagree with”. Any notion that the BBC should give equal airtime to views that go against the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed scientific research on something climate change is a nonsense. The way they Lied about and misrepresented: The Doctor's strike The police The firemen Schools GPs Nurses generally Nurses at Mid Staffs Brexit voters UKIP and its members Anyone who criticises far left ideology, particularly on gender and immigration issues. How it works together with and gets it's information from far left organisations, many of whom are funded by George Soros or which have Islamists ties such as: Hope Not Hate Tell Mama Open Societies Foundation Southern Poverty Law Centre The ACLU Council on American Islamic Relations The Muslim Council of Britain Momentum How's that for a few examples? " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So what are some of the worst examples of BBC news not being the most balanced? Given that pretty much everyone seems to accuse the BBC of being biased suggests that it probably isn’t that biased at all. Because “bias” means a lot more than “saying something that someone happens to disagree with”. Any notion that the BBC should give equal airtime to views that go against the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed scientific research on something climate change is a nonsense." Thank you, some sanity!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Any notion that the BBC should give equal airtime to views that go against the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed scientific research on something climate change is a nonsense." . They're literally legaly required to do that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So what are some of the worst examples of BBC news not being the most balanced? Given that pretty much everyone seems to accuse the BBC of being biased suggests that it probably isn’t that biased at all. Because “bias” means a lot more than “saying something that someone happens to disagree with”. Any notion that the BBC should give equal airtime to views that go against the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed scientific research on something climate change is a nonsense. The way they Lied about and misrepresented: The Doctor's strike The police The firemen Schools GPs Nurses generally Nurses at Mid Staffs Brexit voters UKIP and its members Anyone who criticises far left ideology, particularly on gender and immigration issues. How it works together with and gets it's information from far left organisations, many of whom are funded by George Soros or which have Islamists ties such as: Hope Not Hate Tell Mama Open Societies Foundation Southern Poverty Law Centre The ACLU Council on American Islamic Relations The Muslim Council of Britain Momentum How's that for a few examples? " Fish with those ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone watch that on BBC 1 on Thursday night ? " Anything we can do about it? Or will the developing world's industrial revolution kill us all? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone watch that on BBC 1 on Thursday night ? I didn't watch it as I'm not a huge believer in it as a recent issue. I am more a believer in the fact that climate changes.. and it would change regardless. One big volcanic eruption can cause way more issues than man made ones... I like looking at the people that study climatic history and you see a pattern that has followed many many times x ( without a single human to be blamed)" Well said , and it’s refreshing to see that not everyone is sucked in by the media machine propagating the scare stories . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone watch that on BBC 1 on Thursday night ? I didn't watch it as I'm not a huge believer in it as a recent issue. I am more a believer in the fact that climate changes.. and it would change regardless. One big volcanic eruption can cause way more issues than man made ones... I like looking at the people that study climatic history and you see a pattern that has followed many many times x ( without a single human to be blamed) Well said , and it’s refreshing to see that not everyone is sucked in by the media machine propagating the scare stories . " 
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hmmm, plenty of evidence. Perhaps you could go and do some research and then come back with some facts? It isn’t too hard and people don’t like being told the answer..." Evidence is there to suggest that what we are being told about climate change is our fault . All well and good as it fits the current criteria we are living with today . And no doubt there are plenty of organisations and businesses making plenty of money from proving that we are the cause of it . But , as others have said on this thread , there have always been major climate changes throughout the history of the planet . Way before we were around . And that’s a fact which I believe is what you were asking for . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hmmm, plenty of evidence. Perhaps you could go and do some research and then come back with some facts? It isn’t too hard and people don’t like being told the answer..." There are some amusing things though like the data homogenization and then destruction of original data. Independent verification of various monitoring stations proving they are no longer fit for purpose being included in datasets and cherry picking of data. (Weather stations now next to AC exhaust fans and sea level monitoring poles having suffered subsidence etc) Those things lead to untrustworthy outcomes. Satelite data is pretty much the only uncontaminated source but its just such a short time scale. Personally i ascribe to were fucked and should be preparing for the aftermath not hippy dippy "we can save everything exactly how it is" lark | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hmmm, plenty of evidence. Perhaps you could go and do some research and then come back with some facts? It isn’t too hard and people don’t like being told the answer... Evidence is there to suggest that what we are being told about climate change is our fault . All well and good as it fits the current criteria we are living with today . And no doubt there are plenty of organisations and businesses making plenty of money from proving that we are the cause of it . But , as others have said on this thread , there have always been major climate changes throughout the history of the planet . Way before we were around . And that’s a fact which I believe is what you were asking for ." That's all well and good, but what if this interglacial period came to an end and the ice age started all over again. How would you pay more tax? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hmmm, plenty of evidence. Perhaps you could go and do some research and then come back with some facts? It isn’t too hard and people don’t like being told the answer... Evidence is there to suggest that what we are being told about climate change is our fault . All well and good as it fits the current criteria we are living with today . And no doubt there are plenty of organisations and businesses making plenty of money from proving that we are the cause of it . But , as others have said on this thread , there have always been major climate changes throughout the history of the planet . Way before we were around . And that’s a fact which I believe is what you were asking for ." So plastics in the oceans, bleaching of coral reefs, massive reduction in fish stocks, increased flooding, massive reduction in glaciers, weather extremes and rising sea levels are nothing to do with us? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hmmm, plenty of evidence. Perhaps you could go and do some research and then come back with some facts? It isn’t too hard and people don’t like being told the answer... Evidence is there to suggest that what we are being told about climate change is our fault . All well and good as it fits the current criteria we are living with today . And no doubt there are plenty of organisations and businesses making plenty of money from proving that we are the cause of it . But , as others have said on this thread , there have always been major climate changes throughout the history of the planet . Way before we were around . And that’s a fact which I believe is what you were asking for . That's all well and good, but what if this interglacial period came to an end and the ice age started all over again. How would you pay more tax?" Longjohn tax? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hmmm, plenty of evidence. Perhaps you could go and do some research and then come back with some facts? It isn’t too hard and people don’t like being told the answer... Evidence is there to suggest that what we are being told about climate change is our fault . All well and good as it fits the current criteria we are living with today . And no doubt there are plenty of organisations and businesses making plenty of money from proving that we are the cause of it . But , as others have said on this thread , there have always been major climate changes throughout the history of the planet . Way before we were around . And that’s a fact which I believe is what you were asking for . So plastics in the oceans, bleaching of coral reefs, massive reduction in fish stocks, increased flooding, massive reduction in glaciers, weather extremes and rising sea levels are nothing to do with us?" What has plastic in the ocean got to do with global warming? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"climate changing,,ffs yea in Scotland it can be sunny one minute the next its pissing down then snowing,,then sunny,,then a howling gale,, "all in the space of 20 mins | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hmmm, plenty of evidence. Perhaps you could go and do some research and then come back with some facts? It isn’t too hard and people don’t like being told the answer... Evidence is there to suggest that what we are being told about climate change is our fault . All well and good as it fits the current criteria we are living with today . And no doubt there are plenty of organisations and businesses making plenty of money from proving that we are the cause of it . But , as others have said on this thread , there have always been major climate changes throughout the history of the planet . Way before we were around . And that’s a fact which I believe is what you were asking for . So plastics in the oceans, bleaching of coral reefs, massive reduction in fish stocks, increased flooding, massive reduction in glaciers, weather extremes and rising sea levels are nothing to do with us? What has plastic in the ocean got to do with global warming?" ...so you accept everything else then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hmmm, plenty of evidence. Perhaps you could go and do some research and then come back with some facts? It isn’t too hard and people don’t like being told the answer... Evidence is there to suggest that what we are being told about climate change is our fault . All well and good as it fits the current criteria we are living with today . And no doubt there are plenty of organisations and businesses making plenty of money from proving that we are the cause of it . But , as others have said on this thread , there have always been major climate changes throughout the history of the planet . Way before we were around . And that’s a fact which I believe is what you were asking for . So plastics in the oceans, bleaching of coral reefs, massive reduction in fish stocks, increased flooding, massive reduction in glaciers, weather extremes and rising sea levels are nothing to do with us? What has plastic in the ocean got to do with global warming? ...so you accept everything else then? "I thought id just start at the begining tbh | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of curiosity how would people feel about genuine massive scale intervention to prepare for outcomes rarher than simply cutting a fraction of a percent off co2 production? Things like digging up the old operation ploughshare plans to make a trench from the medeterainian to the sharah desert (its below sea level) and turning it into a gigantic inland sea in africa. Changing the local climate lowering sea levels and alowing massive new vegetative growth in africa? Have we reached the point where geological engineering is politically acceptable or are we still at the point of bottle deposits and an extra penny on fuel duty? Dumping vast quantities of fertiliser into the oceans to cause mass algae blooms to reduce co2, yeah its gonna negatively affect aquatic life but if it save millions of humans is it worth it" Didn’t the Russians try this to terrible effect with the Aral Sea? Maybe it is feasible, but the evidence of engineering on this scale is not encouraging. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Didn't see the programme. I'd like to comment on BBC bias though. In some areas the BBC is incredibly biased, working directly with the political system to promote certain agendas. Their reporting on home and foriegn affairs especially. Their stance on the Palestine/Israel brick wall is a prime example. I've always trusted and respected the BBC science departments though. Almost a hangover from Victorian days where rich eccentric explorers did it for the pure love of finding out the unknown. David Attenborough being front and centre the entire time. I don't trust the BBC, but I'd trust the BBC 4 and the natural history and science department to run the planet. " wouldn't you rather flick your tongue up my bottom | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Didn't see the programme. I'd like to comment on BBC bias though. In some areas the BBC is incredibly biased, working directly with the political system to promote certain agendas. Their reporting on home and foriegn affairs especially. Their stance on the Palestine/Israel brick wall is a prime example. I've always trusted and respected the BBC science departments though. Almost a hangover from Victorian days where rich eccentric explorers did it for the pure love of finding out the unknown. David Attenborough being front and centre the entire time. I don't trust the BBC, but I'd trust the BBC 4 and the natural history and science department to run the planet. " But bbc is pro Palestine our government is typicaly pro isreal. Out political system changes radically every few years so how do they support both? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of curiosity how would people feel about genuine massive scale intervention to prepare for outcomes rarher than simply cutting a fraction of a percent off co2 production? Things like digging up the old operation ploughshare plans to make a trench from the medeterainian to the sharah desert (its below sea level) and turning it into a gigantic inland sea in africa. Changing the local climate lowering sea levels and alowing massive new vegetative growth in africa? Have we reached the point where geological engineering is politically acceptable or are we still at the point of bottle deposits and an extra penny on fuel duty? Dumping vast quantities of fertiliser into the oceans to cause mass algae blooms to reduce co2, yeah its gonna negatively affect aquatic life but if it save millions of humans is it worth it Didn’t the Russians try this to terrible effect with the Aral Sea? Maybe it is feasible, but the evidence of engineering on this scale is not encouraging. " Diverting rivers is not rhe same as diverting an ocean | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Didn't see the programme. I'd like to comment on BBC bias though. In some areas the BBC is incredibly biased, working directly with the political system to promote certain agendas. Their reporting on home and foriegn affairs especially. Their stance on the Palestine/Israel brick wall is a prime example. I've always trusted and respected the BBC science departments though. Almost a hangover from Victorian days where rich eccentric explorers did it for the pure love of finding out the unknown. David Attenborough being front and centre the entire time. I don't trust the BBC, but I'd trust the BBC 4 and the natural history and science department to run the planet. wouldn't you rather flick your tongue up my bottom " Is it hot over there? Have you got air con? Nobody likes a sweaty crack. If you do have air con. Shame on you! We're trying to save the planet here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think we are going to get a chance ignoring climate change. Depressed reading the comments endorsing anti science views." yeap makes me weep,lol,,its almost funny | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of curiosity how would people feel about genuine massive scale intervention to prepare for outcomes rarher than simply cutting a fraction of a percent off co2 production? Things like digging up the old operation ploughshare plans to make a trench from the medeterainian to the sharah desert (its below sea level) and turning it into a gigantic inland sea in africa. Changing the local climate lowering sea levels and alowing massive new vegetative growth in africa? Have we reached the point where geological engineering is politically acceptable or are we still at the point of bottle deposits and an extra penny on fuel duty? Dumping vast quantities of fertiliser into the oceans to cause mass algae blooms to reduce co2, yeah its gonna negatively affect aquatic life but if it save millions of humans is it worth it Didn’t the Russians try this to terrible effect with the Aral Sea? Maybe it is feasible, but the evidence of engineering on this scale is not encouraging. Diverting rivers is not rhe same as diverting an ocean" Neither is the scale of the potential fuck up... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of curiosity how would people feel about genuine massive scale intervention to prepare for outcomes rarher than simply cutting a fraction of a percent off co2 production? Things like digging up the old operation ploughshare plans to make a trench from the medeterainian to the sharah desert (its below sea level) and turning it into a gigantic inland sea in africa. Changing the local climate lowering sea levels and alowing massive new vegetative growth in africa? Have we reached the point where geological engineering is politically acceptable or are we still at the point of bottle deposits and an extra penny on fuel duty? Dumping vast quantities of fertiliser into the oceans to cause mass algae blooms to reduce co2, yeah its gonna negatively affect aquatic life but if it save millions of humans is it worth it Didn’t the Russians try this to terrible effect with the Aral Sea? Maybe it is feasible, but the evidence of engineering on this scale is not encouraging. Diverting rivers is not rhe same as diverting an ocean Neither is the scale of the potential fuck up..." Well the alternative is it happens anyway after all the cities flood soooo.... Why not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of curiosity how would people feel about genuine massive scale intervention to prepare for outcomes rarher than simply cutting a fraction of a percent off co2 production? Things like digging up the old operation ploughshare plans to make a trench from the medeterainian to the sharah desert (its below sea level) and turning it into a gigantic inland sea in africa. Changing the local climate lowering sea levels and alowing massive new vegetative growth in africa? Have we reached the point where geological engineering is politically acceptable or are we still at the point of bottle deposits and an extra penny on fuel duty? Dumping vast quantities of fertiliser into the oceans to cause mass algae blooms to reduce co2, yeah its gonna negatively affect aquatic life but if it save millions of humans is it worth it Didn’t the Russians try this to terrible effect with the Aral Sea? Maybe it is feasible, but the evidence of engineering on this scale is not encouraging. Diverting rivers is not rhe same as diverting an ocean Neither is the scale of the potential fuck up... Well the alternative is it happens anyway after all the cities flood soooo.... Why not?" Do we let all the displaced people come and live in the UK? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of curiosity how would people feel about genuine massive scale intervention to prepare for outcomes rarher than simply cutting a fraction of a percent off co2 production? Things like digging up the old operation ploughshare plans to make a trench from the medeterainian to the sharah desert (its below sea level) and turning it into a gigantic inland sea in africa. Changing the local climate lowering sea levels and alowing massive new vegetative growth in africa? Have we reached the point where geological engineering is politically acceptable or are we still at the point of bottle deposits and an extra penny on fuel duty? Dumping vast quantities of fertiliser into the oceans to cause mass algae blooms to reduce co2, yeah its gonna negatively affect aquatic life but if it save millions of humans is it worth it Didn’t the Russians try this to terrible effect with the Aral Sea? Maybe it is feasible, but the evidence of engineering on this scale is not encouraging. Diverting rivers is not rhe same as diverting an ocean Neither is the scale of the potential fuck up... Well the alternative is it happens anyway after all the cities flood soooo.... Why not?" With sea level rising at 3mm per year it's not something we need to worry about anytime soon | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of curiosity how would people feel about genuine massive scale intervention to prepare for outcomes rarher than simply cutting a fraction of a percent off co2 production? Things like digging up the old operation ploughshare plans to make a trench from the medeterainian to the sharah desert (its below sea level) and turning it into a gigantic inland sea in africa. Changing the local climate lowering sea levels and alowing massive new vegetative growth in africa? Have we reached the point where geological engineering is politically acceptable or are we still at the point of bottle deposits and an extra penny on fuel duty? Dumping vast quantities of fertiliser into the oceans to cause mass algae blooms to reduce co2, yeah its gonna negatively affect aquatic life but if it save millions of humans is it worth it Didn’t the Russians try this to terrible effect with the Aral Sea? Maybe it is feasible, but the evidence of engineering on this scale is not encouraging. Diverting rivers is not rhe same as diverting an ocean Neither is the scale of the potential fuck up... Well the alternative is it happens anyway after all the cities flood soooo.... Why not? With sea level rising at 3mm per year it's not something we need to worry about anytime soon " You do know that the sea level rises at different rates throughout the world, this is why the Med has limited tides and the Severn/Channel Islands has 8m tidal range. Where does 3mm come from? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of curiosity how would people feel about genuine massive scale intervention to prepare for outcomes rarher than simply cutting a fraction of a percent off co2 production? Things like digging up the old operation ploughshare plans to make a trench from the medeterainian to the sharah desert (its below sea level) and turning it into a gigantic inland sea in africa. Changing the local climate lowering sea levels and alowing massive new vegetative growth in africa? Have we reached the point where geological engineering is politically acceptable or are we still at the point of bottle deposits and an extra penny on fuel duty? Dumping vast quantities of fertiliser into the oceans to cause mass algae blooms to reduce co2, yeah its gonna negatively affect aquatic life but if it save millions of humans is it worth it Didn’t the Russians try this to terrible effect with the Aral Sea? Maybe it is feasible, but the evidence of engineering on this scale is not encouraging. Diverting rivers is not rhe same as diverting an ocean Neither is the scale of the potential fuck up... Well the alternative is it happens anyway after all the cities flood soooo.... Why not? With sea level rising at 3mm per year it's not something we need to worry about anytime soon " Its an accelerating thing. 2m rise puts millions under water including Cambridgeshire that's the 2100 prediction | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of curiosity how would people feel about genuine massive scale intervention to prepare for outcomes rarher than simply cutting a fraction of a percent off co2 production? Things like digging up the old operation ploughshare plans to make a trench from the medeterainian to the sharah desert (its below sea level) and turning it into a gigantic inland sea in africa. Changing the local climate lowering sea levels and alowing massive new vegetative growth in africa? Have we reached the point where geological engineering is politically acceptable or are we still at the point of bottle deposits and an extra penny on fuel duty? Dumping vast quantities of fertiliser into the oceans to cause mass algae blooms to reduce co2, yeah its gonna negatively affect aquatic life but if it save millions of humans is it worth it Didn’t the Russians try this to terrible effect with the Aral Sea? Maybe it is feasible, but the evidence of engineering on this scale is not encouraging. Diverting rivers is not rhe same as diverting an ocean Neither is the scale of the potential fuck up... Well the alternative is it happens anyway after all the cities flood soooo.... Why not? With sea level rising at 3mm per year it's not something we need to worry about anytime soon You do know that the sea level rises at different rates throughout the world, this is why the Med has limited tides and the Severn/Channel Islands has 8m tidal range. Where does 3mm come from?" The med has a limited tidal range because all the water has to pass through the tiny opening to the sea. A sea level rise would affect it the same as the channel islands as its not a tide that happens in a few hours | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of curiosity how would people feel about genuine massive scale intervention to prepare for outcomes rarher than simply cutting a fraction of a percent off co2 production? Things like digging up the old operation ploughshare plans to make a trench from the medeterainian to the sharah desert (its below sea level) and turning it into a gigantic inland sea in africa. Changing the local climate lowering sea levels and alowing massive new vegetative growth in africa? Have we reached the point where geological engineering is politically acceptable or are we still at the point of bottle deposits and an extra penny on fuel duty? Dumping vast quantities of fertiliser into the oceans to cause mass algae blooms to reduce co2, yeah its gonna negatively affect aquatic life but if it save millions of humans is it worth it Didn’t the Russians try this to terrible effect with the Aral Sea? Maybe it is feasible, but the evidence of engineering on this scale is not encouraging. Diverting rivers is not rhe same as diverting an ocean Neither is the scale of the potential fuck up... Well the alternative is it happens anyway after all the cities flood soooo.... Why not? Do we let all the displaced people come and live in the UK? " Who lives in the sharah dessert?
We'd actually be creating a lot of more habitable land | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of curiosity how would people feel about genuine massive scale intervention to prepare for outcomes rarher than simply cutting a fraction of a percent off co2 production? Things like digging up the old operation ploughshare plans to make a trench from the medeterainian to the sharah desert (its below sea level) and turning it into a gigantic inland sea in africa. Changing the local climate lowering sea levels and alowing massive new vegetative growth in africa? Have we reached the point where geological engineering is politically acceptable or are we still at the point of bottle deposits and an extra penny on fuel duty? Dumping vast quantities of fertiliser into the oceans to cause mass algae blooms to reduce co2, yeah its gonna negatively affect aquatic life but if it save millions of humans is it worth it Didn’t the Russians try this to terrible effect with the Aral Sea? Maybe it is feasible, but the evidence of engineering on this scale is not encouraging. Diverting rivers is not rhe same as diverting an ocean Neither is the scale of the potential fuck up... Well the alternative is it happens anyway after all the cities flood soooo.... Why not? Do we let all the displaced people come and live in the UK? Who lives in the sharah dessert?
We'd actually be creating a lot of more habitable land"The Sahara or Sharah? Clearly sone parts of the Sahara are low, Qattara might work, but it realistically needs the Nile being diverted and not just Salt Water - but reducing the flow of fresh water to the Med will also have an impact. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Satelite data is pretty much the only uncontaminated source but its just such a short time scale." Actually, its shit data. They guess what the temperature is on earth, and when measured by a ground station they have been found to be out over and over again. There was even a big controversy over one of the algorithms one of the sat companies used to guess, the whole scientific community even called it garbage. As for them measuring ice melt? Sure but what caused it? We are told it was us, then they tell us it melted from the ground up. As for our own countries they tell you the temperature in "Climate hotspots", like what the temp is in London city, Manchester city, Paris. These the scientific community agree have higher temperatures without affecting the global climate. We do not collect the temperature of england from an unspoiled bit of land away from the cities. The whole thing is just so flawed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Satelite data is pretty much the only uncontaminated source but its just such a short time scale. Actually, its shit data. They guess what the temperature is on earth, and when measured by a ground station they have been found to be out over and over again. There was even a big controversy over one of the algorithms one of the sat companies used to guess, the whole scientific community even called it garbage. As for them measuring ice melt? Sure but what caused it? We are told it was us, then they tell us it melted from the ground up. As for our own countries they tell you the temperature in "Climate hotspots", like what the temp is in London city, Manchester city, Paris. These the scientific community agree have higher temperatures without affecting the global climate. We do not collect the temperature of england from an unspoiled bit of land away from the cities. The whole thing is just so flawed." Ok, lets follow your line. It is not man made, it is cyclical (for example), does it mean we’re not fucked then? We can ignore weather variation, coral devastation, fish stock reduction, fresh water failure, sea level rising - or do we actually have to do Something ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Satelite data is pretty much the only uncontaminated source but its just such a short time scale. Actually, its shit data. They guess what the temperature is on earth, and when measured by a ground station they have been found to be out over and over again. There was even a big controversy over one of the algorithms one of the sat companies used to guess, the whole scientific community even called it garbage. As for them measuring ice melt? Sure but what caused it? We are told it was us, then they tell us it melted from the ground up. As for our own countries they tell you the temperature in "Climate hotspots", like what the temp is in London city, Manchester city, Paris. These the scientific community agree have higher temperatures without affecting the global climate. We do not collect the temperature of england from an unspoiled bit of land away from the cities. The whole thing is just so flawed. Ok, lets follow your line. It is not man made, it is cyclical (for example), does it mean we’re not fucked then? We can ignore weather variation, coral devastation, fish stock reduction, fresh water failure, sea level rising - or do we actually have to do Something ?" If it's not man made we need to restructure our response. If it is man made we need to stop fucking about gluing ourselves to trains, and tell the Asians to stop burning coal. And use a fucking bin! Not the ocean..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Satelite data is pretty much the only uncontaminated source but its just such a short time scale. Actually, its shit data. They guess what the temperature is on earth, and when measured by a ground station they have been found to be out over and over again. There was even a big controversy over one of the algorithms one of the sat companies used to guess, the whole scientific community even called it garbage. As for them measuring ice melt? Sure but what caused it? We are told it was us, then they tell us it melted from the ground up. As for our own countries they tell you the temperature in "Climate hotspots", like what the temp is in London city, Manchester city, Paris. These the scientific community agree have higher temperatures without affecting the global climate. We do not collect the temperature of england from an unspoiled bit of land away from the cities. The whole thing is just so flawed. Ok, lets follow your line. It is not man made, it is cyclical (for example), does it mean we’re not fucked then? We can ignore weather variation, coral devastation, fish stock reduction, fresh water failure, sea level rising - or do we actually have to do Something ?" But what do you want to do? Youre opposed to massive scale enginering works so all thats left is to stick a band aid on the leaking damn and whistle | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Satelite data is pretty much the only uncontaminated source but its just such a short time scale. Actually, its shit data. They guess what the temperature is on earth, and when measured by a ground station they have been found to be out over and over again. There was even a big controversy over one of the algorithms one of the sat companies used to guess, the whole scientific community even called it garbage. As for them measuring ice melt? Sure but what caused it? We are told it was us, then they tell us it melted from the ground up. As for our own countries they tell you the temperature in "Climate hotspots", like what the temp is in London city, Manchester city, Paris. These the scientific community agree have higher temperatures without affecting the global climate. We do not collect the temperature of england from an unspoiled bit of land away from the cities. The whole thing is just so flawed. Ok, lets follow your line. It is not man made, it is cyclical (for example), does it mean we’re not fucked then? We can ignore weather variation, coral devastation, fish stock reduction, fresh water failure, sea level rising - or do we actually have to do Something ? If it's not man made we need to restructure our response. If it is man made we need to stop fucking about gluing ourselves to trains, and tell the Asians to stop burning coal. And use a fucking bin! Not the ocean....." What about the Americans, Brazilians, and everyone else? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of curiosity how would people feel about genuine massive scale intervention to prepare for outcomes rarher than simply cutting a fraction of a percent off co2 production? Things like digging up the old operation ploughshare plans to make a trench from the medeterainian to the sharah desert (its below sea level) and turning it into a gigantic inland sea in africa. Changing the local climate lowering sea levels and alowing massive new vegetative growth in africa? Have we reached the point where geological engineering is politically acceptable or are we still at the point of bottle deposits and an extra penny on fuel duty? Dumping vast quantities of fertiliser into the oceans to cause mass algae blooms to reduce co2, yeah its gonna negatively affect aquatic life but if it save millions of humans is it worth it Didn’t the Russians try this to terrible effect with the Aral Sea? Maybe it is feasible, but the evidence of engineering on this scale is not encouraging. Diverting rivers is not rhe same as diverting an ocean Neither is the scale of the potential fuck up... Well the alternative is it happens anyway after all the cities flood soooo.... Why not? Do we let all the displaced people come and live in the UK? Who lives in the sharah dessert?
We'd actually be creating a lot of more habitable land
The Sahara or Sharah? Clearly sone parts of the Sahara are low, Qattara might work, but it realistically needs the Nile being diverted and not just Salt Water - but reducing the flow of fresh water to the Med will also have an impact."No the whole point is not to divert a river but to dig a huge trench from the med. The original plan cause for several hundred nuclear bombs to be used. A trial was done to build a harbour using thermonuclear weapons and it worked very well | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of curiosity how would people feel about genuine massive scale intervention to prepare for outcomes rarher than simply cutting a fraction of a percent off co2 production? Things like digging up the old operation ploughshare plans to make a trench from the medeterainian to the sharah desert (its below sea level) and turning it into a gigantic inland sea in africa. Changing the local climate lowering sea levels and alowing massive new vegetative growth in africa? Have we reached the point where geological engineering is politically acceptable or are we still at the point of bottle deposits and an extra penny on fuel duty? Dumping vast quantities of fertiliser into the oceans to cause mass algae blooms to reduce co2, yeah its gonna negatively affect aquatic life but if it save millions of humans is it worth it Didn’t the Russians try this to terrible effect with the Aral Sea? Maybe it is feasible, but the evidence of engineering on this scale is not encouraging. Diverting rivers is not rhe same as diverting an ocean Neither is the scale of the potential fuck up... Well the alternative is it happens anyway after all the cities flood soooo.... Why not? Do we let all the displaced people come and live in the UK? Who lives in the sharah dessert?
We'd actually be creating a lot of more habitable land
The Sahara or Sharah? Clearly sone parts of the Sahara are low, Qattara might work, but it realistically needs the Nile being diverted and not just Salt Water - but reducing the flow of fresh water to the Med will also have an impact.
No the whole point is not to divert a river but to dig a huge trench from the med.
The original plan cause for several hundred nuclear bombs to be used. A trial was done to build a harbour using thermonuclear weapons and it worked very well
"Did it really!?
Why would a saline inland sea make any change in a reasonable time? How would soil would be created, how would nutrition arrive, where does the flora and fauna come from - especially if someone detonates a nuclear bomb - see Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Satelite data is pretty much the only uncontaminated source but its just such a short time scale. Actually, its shit data. They guess what the temperature is on earth, and when measured by a ground station they have been found to be out over and over again. There was even a big controversy over one of the algorithms one of the sat companies used to guess, the whole scientific community even called it garbage. As for them measuring ice melt? Sure but what caused it? We are told it was us, then they tell us it melted from the ground up. As for our own countries they tell you the temperature in "Climate hotspots", like what the temp is in London city, Manchester city, Paris. These the scientific community agree have higher temperatures without affecting the global climate. We do not collect the temperature of england from an unspoiled bit of land away from the cities. The whole thing is just so flawed. Ok, lets follow your line. It is not man made, it is cyclical (for example), does it mean we’re not fucked then? We can ignore weather variation, coral devastation, fish stock reduction, fresh water failure, sea level rising - or do we actually have to do Something ? If it's not man made we need to restructure our response. If it is man made we need to stop fucking about gluing ourselves to trains, and tell the Asians to stop burning coal. And use a fucking bin! Not the ocean..... What about the Americans, Brazilians, and everyone else?" Yep. The lot. I don't think Europe is the problem here. But then we'd be causing their economy to shrink. Or is that the point? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of curiosity how would people feel about genuine massive scale intervention to prepare for outcomes rarher than simply cutting a fraction of a percent off co2 production? Things like digging up the old operation ploughshare plans to make a trench from the medeterainian to the sharah desert (its below sea level) and turning it into a gigantic inland sea in africa. Changing the local climate lowering sea levels and alowing massive new vegetative growth in africa? Have we reached the point where geological engineering is politically acceptable or are we still at the point of bottle deposits and an extra penny on fuel duty? Dumping vast quantities of fertiliser into the oceans to cause mass algae blooms to reduce co2, yeah its gonna negatively affect aquatic life but if it save millions of humans is it worth it Didn’t the Russians try this to terrible effect with the Aral Sea? Maybe it is feasible, but the evidence of engineering on this scale is not encouraging. Diverting rivers is not rhe same as diverting an ocean Neither is the scale of the potential fuck up... Well the alternative is it happens anyway after all the cities flood soooo.... Why not? Do we let all the displaced people come and live in the UK? Who lives in the sharah dessert?
We'd actually be creating a lot of more habitable land
The Sahara or Sharah? Clearly sone parts of the Sahara are low, Qattara might work, but it realistically needs the Nile being diverted and not just Salt Water - but reducing the flow of fresh water to the Med will also have an impact.
No the whole point is not to divert a river but to dig a huge trench from the med.
The original plan cause for several hundred nuclear bombs to be used. A trial was done to build a harbour using thermonuclear weapons and it worked very well
Did it really!?
Why would a saline inland sea make any change in a reasonable time? How would soil would be created, how would nutrition arrive, where does the flora and fauna come from - especially if someone detonates a nuclear bomb - see Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island..."To be fair flora and fauna is doing very well in Chernobyl. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone watch that on BBC 1 on Thursday night ? I didn't watch it as I'm not a huge believer in it as a recent issue. I am more a believer in the fact that climate changes.. and it would change regardless. One big volcanic eruption can cause way more issues than man made ones... I like looking at the people that study climatic history and you see a pattern that has followed many many times x ( without a single human to be blamed)"  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Surely human survival isn’t about which economy does best? If I was being sane I’d suggest we stayed in the EU and got them to back fixing climate change through the UN. But that would assume I was living in a sane world. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of curiosity how would people feel about genuine massive scale intervention to prepare for outcomes rarher than simply cutting a fraction of a percent off co2 production? Things like digging up the old operation ploughshare plans to make a trench from the medeterainian to the sharah desert (its below sea level) and turning it into a gigantic inland sea in africa. Changing the local climate lowering sea levels and alowing massive new vegetative growth in africa? Have we reached the point where geological engineering is politically acceptable or are we still at the point of bottle deposits and an extra penny on fuel duty? Dumping vast quantities of fertiliser into the oceans to cause mass algae blooms to reduce co2, yeah its gonna negatively affect aquatic life but if it save millions of humans is it worth it Didn’t the Russians try this to terrible effect with the Aral Sea? Maybe it is feasible, but the evidence of engineering on this scale is not encouraging. Diverting rivers is not rhe same as diverting an ocean Neither is the scale of the potential fuck up... Well the alternative is it happens anyway after all the cities flood soooo.... Why not? Do we let all the displaced people come and live in the UK? Who lives in the sharah dessert?
We'd actually be creating a lot of more habitable land
The Sahara or Sharah? Clearly sone parts of the Sahara are low, Qattara might work, but it realistically needs the Nile being diverted and not just Salt Water - but reducing the flow of fresh water to the Med will also have an impact.
No the whole point is not to divert a river but to dig a huge trench from the med.
The original plan cause for several hundred nuclear bombs to be used. A trial was done to build a harbour using thermonuclear weapons and it worked very well
Did it really!?
Why would a saline inland sea make any change in a reasonable time? How would soil would be created, how would nutrition arrive, where does the flora and fauna come from - especially if someone detonates a nuclear bomb - see Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island...
To be fair flora and fauna is doing very well in Chernobyl. "Is it, can we have some pic’s of your visit? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of curiosity how would people feel about genuine massive scale intervention to prepare for outcomes rarher than simply cutting a fraction of a percent off co2 production? Things like digging up the old operation ploughshare plans to make a trench from the medeterainian to the sharah desert (its below sea level) and turning it into a gigantic inland sea in africa. Changing the local climate lowering sea levels and alowing massive new vegetative growth in africa? Have we reached the point where geological engineering is politically acceptable or are we still at the point of bottle deposits and an extra penny on fuel duty? Dumping vast quantities of fertiliser into the oceans to cause mass algae blooms to reduce co2, yeah its gonna negatively affect aquatic life but if it save millions of humans is it worth it Didn’t the Russians try this to terrible effect with the Aral Sea? Maybe it is feasible, but the evidence of engineering on this scale is not encouraging. Diverting rivers is not rhe same as diverting an ocean Neither is the scale of the potential fuck up... Well the alternative is it happens anyway after all the cities flood soooo.... Why not? Do we let all the displaced people come and live in the UK? Who lives in the sharah dessert?
We'd actually be creating a lot of more habitable land
The Sahara or Sharah? Clearly sone parts of the Sahara are low, Qattara might work, but it realistically needs the Nile being diverted and not just Salt Water - but reducing the flow of fresh water to the Med will also have an impact.
No the whole point is not to divert a river but to dig a huge trench from the med.
The original plan cause for several hundred nuclear bombs to be used. A trial was done to build a harbour using thermonuclear weapons and it worked very well
Did it really!?
Why would a saline inland sea make any change in a reasonable time? How would soil would be created, how would nutrition arrive, where does the flora and fauna come from - especially if someone detonates a nuclear bomb - see Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island...
To be fair flora and fauna is doing very well in Chernobyl.
Is it, can we have some pic’s of your visit? "Couldn't you just google it... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of curiosity how would people feel about genuine massive scale intervention to prepare for outcomes rarher than simply cutting a fraction of a percent off co2 production? Things like digging up the old operation ploughshare plans to make a trench from the medeterainian to the sharah desert (its below sea level) and turning it into a gigantic inland sea in africa. Changing the local climate lowering sea levels and alowing massive new vegetative growth in africa? Have we reached the point where geological engineering is politically acceptable or are we still at the point of bottle deposits and an extra penny on fuel duty? Dumping vast quantities of fertiliser into the oceans to cause mass algae blooms to reduce co2, yeah its gonna negatively affect aquatic life but if it save millions of humans is it worth it Didn’t the Russians try this to terrible effect with the Aral Sea? Maybe it is feasible, but the evidence of engineering on this scale is not encouraging. Diverting rivers is not rhe same as diverting an ocean Neither is the scale of the potential fuck up... Well the alternative is it happens anyway after all the cities flood soooo.... Why not? Do we let all the displaced people come and live in the UK? Who lives in the sharah dessert?
We'd actually be creating a lot of more habitable land
The Sahara or Sharah? Clearly sone parts of the Sahara are low, Qattara might work, but it realistically needs the Nile being diverted and not just Salt Water - but reducing the flow of fresh water to the Med will also have an impact.
No the whole point is not to divert a river but to dig a huge trench from the med.
The original plan cause for several hundred nuclear bombs to be used. A trial was done to build a harbour using thermonuclear weapons and it worked very well
Did it really!?
Why would a saline inland sea make any change in a reasonable time? How would soil would be created, how would nutrition arrive, where does the flora and fauna come from - especially if someone detonates a nuclear bomb - see Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island...
To be fair flora and fauna is doing very well in Chernobyl.
Is it, can we have some pic’s of your visit?
Couldn't you just google it... "Much like you, I don’t believe stuff on the internet, so I am relying on you to do sone original research, apparently it is fine for flora and fauna, so you should be fine... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of curiosity how would people feel about genuine massive scale intervention to prepare for outcomes rarher than simply cutting a fraction of a percent off co2 production? Things like digging up the old operation ploughshare plans to make a trench from the medeterainian to the sharah desert (its below sea level) and turning it into a gigantic inland sea in africa. Changing the local climate lowering sea levels and alowing massive new vegetative growth in africa? Have we reached the point where geological engineering is politically acceptable or are we still at the point of bottle deposits and an extra penny on fuel duty? Dumping vast quantities of fertiliser into the oceans to cause mass algae blooms to reduce co2, yeah its gonna negatively affect aquatic life but if it save millions of humans is it worth it Didn’t the Russians try this to terrible effect with the Aral Sea? Maybe it is feasible, but the evidence of engineering on this scale is not encouraging. Diverting rivers is not rhe same as diverting an ocean Neither is the scale of the potential fuck up... Well the alternative is it happens anyway after all the cities flood soooo.... Why not? Do we let all the displaced people come and live in the UK? Who lives in the sharah dessert?
We'd actually be creating a lot of more habitable land
The Sahara or Sharah? Clearly sone parts of the Sahara are low, Qattara might work, but it realistically needs the Nile being diverted and not just Salt Water - but reducing the flow of fresh water to the Med will also have an impact.
No the whole point is not to divert a river but to dig a huge trench from the med.
The original plan cause for several hundred nuclear bombs to be used. A trial was done to build a harbour using thermonuclear weapons and it worked very well
Did it really!?
Why would a saline inland sea make any change in a reasonable time? How would soil would be created, how would nutrition arrive, where does the flora and fauna come from - especially if someone detonates a nuclear bomb - see Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island...
To be fair flora and fauna is doing very well in Chernobyl.
Is it, can we have some pic’s of your visit?
Couldn't you just google it...
Much like you, I don’t believe stuff on the internet, so I am relying on you to do sone original research, apparently it is fine for flora and fauna, so you should be fine..."You get soo touchy when you're wrong. It kinda explains your attitude. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of curiosity how would people feel about genuine massive scale intervention to prepare for outcomes rarher than simply cutting a fraction of a percent off co2 production? Things like digging up the old operation ploughshare plans to make a trench from the medeterainian to the sharah desert (its below sea level) and turning it into a gigantic inland sea in africa. Changing the local climate lowering sea levels and alowing massive new vegetative growth in africa? Have we reached the point where geological engineering is politically acceptable or are we still at the point of bottle deposits and an extra penny on fuel duty? Dumping vast quantities of fertiliser into the oceans to cause mass algae blooms to reduce co2, yeah its gonna negatively affect aquatic life but if it save millions of humans is it worth it Didn’t the Russians try this to terrible effect with the Aral Sea? Maybe it is feasible, but the evidence of engineering on this scale is not encouraging. Diverting rivers is not rhe same as diverting an ocean Neither is the scale of the potential fuck up... Well the alternative is it happens anyway after all the cities flood soooo.... Why not? Do we let all the displaced people come and live in the UK? Who lives in the sharah dessert?
We'd actually be creating a lot of more habitable land
The Sahara or Sharah? Clearly sone parts of the Sahara are low, Qattara might work, but it realistically needs the Nile being diverted and not just Salt Water - but reducing the flow of fresh water to the Med will also have an impact.
No the whole point is not to divert a river but to dig a huge trench from the med.
The original plan cause for several hundred nuclear bombs to be used. A trial was done to build a harbour using thermonuclear weapons and it worked very well
Did it really!?
Why would a saline inland sea make any change in a reasonable time? How would soil would be created, how would nutrition arrive, where does the flora and fauna come from - especially if someone detonates a nuclear bomb - see Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island...
To be fair flora and fauna is doing very well in Chernobyl.
Is it, can we have some pic’s of your visit?
Couldn't you just google it...
Much like you, I don’t believe stuff on the internet, so I am relying on you to do sone original research, apparently it is fine for flora and fauna, so you should be fine...
You get soo touchy when you're wrong. It kinda explains your attitude. "Why won’t you go? We could do crowd surfing to help you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of curiosity how would people feel about genuine massive scale intervention to prepare for outcomes rarher than simply cutting a fraction of a percent off co2 production? Things like digging up the old operation ploughshare plans to make a trench from the medeterainian to the sharah desert (its below sea level) and turning it into a gigantic inland sea in africa. Changing the local climate lowering sea levels and alowing massive new vegetative growth in africa? Have we reached the point where geological engineering is politically acceptable or are we still at the point of bottle deposits and an extra penny on fuel duty? Dumping vast quantities of fertiliser into the oceans to cause mass algae blooms to reduce co2, yeah its gonna negatively affect aquatic life but if it save millions of humans is it worth it Didn’t the Russians try this to terrible effect with the Aral Sea? Maybe it is feasible, but the evidence of engineering on this scale is not encouraging. Diverting rivers is not rhe same as diverting an ocean Neither is the scale of the potential fuck up... Well the alternative is it happens anyway after all the cities flood soooo.... Why not? Do we let all the displaced people come and live in the UK? Who lives in the sharah dessert?
We'd actually be creating a lot of more habitable land
The Sahara or Sharah? Clearly sone parts of the Sahara are low, Qattara might work, but it realistically needs the Nile being diverted and not just Salt Water - but reducing the flow of fresh water to the Med will also have an impact.
No the whole point is not to divert a river but to dig a huge trench from the med.
The original plan cause for several hundred nuclear bombs to be used. A trial was done to build a harbour using thermonuclear weapons and it worked very well
Did it really!?
Why would a saline inland sea make any change in a reasonable time? How would soil would be created, how would nutrition arrive, where does the flora and fauna come from - especially if someone detonates a nuclear bomb - see Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island...
To be fair flora and fauna is doing very well in Chernobyl.
Is it, can we have some pic’s of your visit?
Couldn't you just google it...
Much like you, I don’t believe stuff on the internet, so I am relying on you to do sone original research, apparently it is fine for flora and fauna, so you should be fine...
You get soo touchy when you're wrong. It kinda explains your attitude.
Why won’t you go? We could do crowd surfing to help you "Crowd surfing eh? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of curiosity how would people feel about genuine massive scale intervention to prepare for outcomes rarher than simply cutting a fraction of a percent off co2 production? Things like digging up the old operation ploughshare plans to make a trench from the medeterainian to the sharah desert (its below sea level) and turning it into a gigantic inland sea in africa. Changing the local climate lowering sea levels and alowing massive new vegetative growth in africa? Have we reached the point where geological engineering is politically acceptable or are we still at the point of bottle deposits and an extra penny on fuel duty? Dumping vast quantities of fertiliser into the oceans to cause mass algae blooms to reduce co2, yeah its gonna negatively affect aquatic life but if it save millions of humans is it worth it Didn’t the Russians try this to terrible effect with the Aral Sea? Maybe it is feasible, but the evidence of engineering on this scale is not encouraging. Diverting rivers is not rhe same as diverting an ocean Neither is the scale of the potential fuck up... Well the alternative is it happens anyway after all the cities flood soooo.... Why not? Do we let all the displaced people come and live in the UK? Who lives in the sharah dessert?
We'd actually be creating a lot of more habitable land
The Sahara or Sharah? Clearly sone parts of the Sahara are low, Qattara might work, but it realistically needs the Nile being diverted and not just Salt Water - but reducing the flow of fresh water to the Med will also have an impact.
No the whole point is not to divert a river but to dig a huge trench from the med.
The original plan cause for several hundred nuclear bombs to be used. A trial was done to build a harbour using thermonuclear weapons and it worked very well
Did it really!?
Why would a saline inland sea make any change in a reasonable time? How would soil would be created, how would nutrition arrive, where does the flora and fauna come from - especially if someone detonates a nuclear bomb - see Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island...
To be fair flora and fauna is doing very well in Chernobyl.
Is it, can we have some pic’s of your visit?
Couldn't you just google it...
Much like you, I don’t believe stuff on the internet, so I am relying on you to do sone original research, apparently it is fine for flora and fauna, so you should be fine...
You get soo touchy when you're wrong. It kinda explains your attitude.
Why won’t you go? We could do crowd surfing to help you
Crowd surfing eh?"Yep, pretty sure you’d get loads & you could come back with a healthy glow and ‘real facts’ to help your argument - I mean, why wouldn’t you go?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of curiosity how would people feel about genuine massive scale intervention to prepare for outcomes rarher than simply cutting a fraction of a percent off co2 production? Things like digging up the old operation ploughshare plans to make a trench from the medeterainian to the sharah desert (its below sea level) and turning it into a gigantic inland sea in africa. Changing the local climate lowering sea levels and alowing massive new vegetative growth in africa? Have we reached the point where geological engineering is politically acceptable or are we still at the point of bottle deposits and an extra penny on fuel duty? Dumping vast quantities of fertiliser into the oceans to cause mass algae blooms to reduce co2, yeah its gonna negatively affect aquatic life but if it save millions of humans is it worth it Didn’t the Russians try this to terrible effect with the Aral Sea? Maybe it is feasible, but the evidence of engineering on this scale is not encouraging. Diverting rivers is not rhe same as diverting an ocean Neither is the scale of the potential fuck up... Well the alternative is it happens anyway after all the cities flood soooo.... Why not? Do we let all the displaced people come and live in the UK? Who lives in the sharah dessert?
We'd actually be creating a lot of more habitable land
The Sahara or Sharah? Clearly sone parts of the Sahara are low, Qattara might work, but it realistically needs the Nile being diverted and not just Salt Water - but reducing the flow of fresh water to the Med will also have an impact.
No the whole point is not to divert a river but to dig a huge trench from the med.
The original plan cause for several hundred nuclear bombs to be used. A trial was done to build a harbour using thermonuclear weapons and it worked very well
Did it really!?
Why would a saline inland sea make any change in a reasonable time? How would soil would be created, how would nutrition arrive, where does the flora and fauna come from - especially if someone detonates a nuclear bomb - see Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island...
To be fair flora and fauna is doing very well in Chernobyl.
Is it, can we have some pic’s of your visit?
Couldn't you just google it...
Much like you, I don’t believe stuff on the internet, so I am relying on you to do sone original research, apparently it is fine for flora and fauna, so you should be fine...
You get soo touchy when you're wrong. It kinda explains your attitude.
Why won’t you go? We could do crowd surfing to help you
Crowd surfing eh?
Yep, pretty sure you’d get loads & you could come back with a healthy glow and ‘real facts’ to help your argument - I mean, why wouldn’t you go? "Crowd "surfing"..? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of curiosity how would people feel about genuine massive scale intervention to prepare for outcomes rarher than simply cutting a fraction of a percent off co2 production? Things like digging up the old operation ploughshare plans to make a trench from the medeterainian to the sharah desert (its below sea level) and turning it into a gigantic inland sea in africa. Changing the local climate lowering sea levels and alowing massive new vegetative growth in africa? Have we reached the point where geological engineering is politically acceptable or are we still at the point of bottle deposits and an extra penny on fuel duty? Dumping vast quantities of fertiliser into the oceans to cause mass algae blooms to reduce co2, yeah its gonna negatively affect aquatic life but if it save millions of humans is it worth it Didn’t the Russians try this to terrible effect with the Aral Sea? Maybe it is feasible, but the evidence of engineering on this scale is not encouraging. Diverting rivers is not rhe same as diverting an ocean Neither is the scale of the potential fuck up... Well the alternative is it happens anyway after all the cities flood soooo.... Why not? Do we let all the displaced people come and live in the UK? Who lives in the sharah dessert?
We'd actually be creating a lot of more habitable land
The Sahara or Sharah? Clearly sone parts of the Sahara are low, Qattara might work, but it realistically needs the Nile being diverted and not just Salt Water - but reducing the flow of fresh water to the Med will also have an impact.
No the whole point is not to divert a river but to dig a huge trench from the med.
The original plan cause for several hundred nuclear bombs to be used. A trial was done to build a harbour using thermonuclear weapons and it worked very well
Did it really!?
Why would a saline inland sea make any change in a reasonable time? How would soil would be created, how would nutrition arrive, where does the flora and fauna come from - especially if someone detonates a nuclear bomb - see Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island...
To be fair flora and fauna is doing very well in Chernobyl.
Is it, can we have some pic’s of your visit?
Couldn't you just google it...
Much like you, I don’t believe stuff on the internet, so I am relying on you to do sone original research, apparently it is fine for flora and fauna, so you should be fine...
You get soo touchy when you're wrong. It kinda explains your attitude.
Why won’t you go? We could do crowd surfing to help you
Crowd surfing eh?
Yep, pretty sure you’d get loads & you could come back with a healthy glow and ‘real facts’ to help your argument - I mean, why wouldn’t you go?
Crowd "surfing"..? "? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of curiosity how would people feel about genuine massive scale intervention to prepare for outcomes rarher than simply cutting a fraction of a percent off co2 production? Things like digging up the old operation ploughshare plans to make a trench from the medeterainian to the sharah desert (its below sea level) and turning it into a gigantic inland sea in africa. Changing the local climate lowering sea levels and alowing massive new vegetative growth in africa? Have we reached the point where geological engineering is politically acceptable or are we still at the point of bottle deposits and an extra penny on fuel duty? Dumping vast quantities of fertiliser into the oceans to cause mass algae blooms to reduce co2, yeah its gonna negatively affect aquatic life but if it save millions of humans is it worth it Didn’t the Russians try this to terrible effect with the Aral Sea? Maybe it is feasible, but the evidence of engineering on this scale is not encouraging. Diverting rivers is not rhe same as diverting an ocean Neither is the scale of the potential fuck up... Well the alternative is it happens anyway after all the cities flood soooo.... Why not? Do we let all the displaced people come and live in the UK? Who lives in the sharah dessert?
We'd actually be creating a lot of more habitable land
The Sahara or Sharah? Clearly sone parts of the Sahara are low, Qattara might work, but it realistically needs the Nile being diverted and not just Salt Water - but reducing the flow of fresh water to the Med will also have an impact.
No the whole point is not to divert a river but to dig a huge trench from the med.
The original plan cause for several hundred nuclear bombs to be used. A trial was done to build a harbour using thermonuclear weapons and it worked very well
Did it really!?
Why would a saline inland sea make any change in a reasonable time? How would soil would be created, how would nutrition arrive, where does the flora and fauna come from - especially if someone detonates a nuclear bomb - see Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island...
To be fair flora and fauna is doing very well in Chernobyl.
Is it, can we have some pic’s of your visit?
Couldn't you just google it...
Much like you, I don’t believe stuff on the internet, so I am relying on you to do sone original research, apparently it is fine for flora and fauna, so you should be fine...
You get soo touchy when you're wrong. It kinda explains your attitude.
Why won’t you go? We could do crowd surfing to help you
Crowd surfing eh?
Yep, pretty sure you’d get loads & you could come back with a healthy glow and ‘real facts’ to help your argument - I mean, why wouldn’t you go?
Crowd "surfing"..?
?"I'd have understood crowd "funding", I'm just not seeing how crowd "surfing" would work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of curiosity how would people feel about genuine massive scale intervention to prepare for outcomes rarher than simply cutting a fraction of a percent off co2 production? Things like digging up the old operation ploughshare plans to make a trench from the medeterainian to the sharah desert (its below sea level) and turning it into a gigantic inland sea in africa. Changing the local climate lowering sea levels and alowing massive new vegetative growth in africa? Have we reached the point where geological engineering is politically acceptable or are we still at the point of bottle deposits and an extra penny on fuel duty? Dumping vast quantities of fertiliser into the oceans to cause mass algae blooms to reduce co2, yeah its gonna negatively affect aquatic life but if it save millions of humans is it worth it Didn’t the Russians try this to terrible effect with the Aral Sea? Maybe it is feasible, but the evidence of engineering on this scale is not encouraging. Diverting rivers is not rhe same as diverting an ocean Neither is the scale of the potential fuck up... Well the alternative is it happens anyway after all the cities flood soooo.... Why not? Do we let all the displaced people come and live in the UK? Who lives in the sharah dessert?
We'd actually be creating a lot of more habitable land
The Sahara or Sharah? Clearly sone parts of the Sahara are low, Qattara might work, but it realistically needs the Nile being diverted and not just Salt Water - but reducing the flow of fresh water to the Med will also have an impact.
No the whole point is not to divert a river but to dig a huge trench from the med.
The original plan cause for several hundred nuclear bombs to be used. A trial was done to build a harbour using thermonuclear weapons and it worked very well
Did it really!?
Why would a saline inland sea make any change in a reasonable time? How would soil would be created, how would nutrition arrive, where does the flora and fauna come from - especially if someone detonates a nuclear bomb - see Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island...
To be fair flora and fauna is doing very well in Chernobyl.
Is it, can we have some pic’s of your visit?
Couldn't you just google it...
Much like you, I don’t believe stuff on the internet, so I am relying on you to do sone original research, apparently it is fine for flora and fauna, so you should be fine...
You get soo touchy when you're wrong. It kinda explains your attitude.
Why won’t you go? We could do crowd surfing to help you
Crowd surfing eh?
Yep, pretty sure you’d get loads & you could come back with a healthy glow and ‘real facts’ to help your argument - I mean, why wouldn’t you go?
Crowd "surfing"..?
?
I'd have understood crowd "funding", I'm just not seeing how crowd "surfing" would work. "We can pay for your trip! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of curiosity how would people feel about genuine massive scale intervention to prepare for outcomes rarher than simply cutting a fraction of a percent off co2 production? Things like digging up the old operation ploughshare plans to make a trench from the medeterainian to the sharah desert (its below sea level) and turning it into a gigantic inland sea in africa. Changing the local climate lowering sea levels and alowing massive new vegetative growth in africa? Have we reached the point where geological engineering is politically acceptable or are we still at the point of bottle deposits and an extra penny on fuel duty? Dumping vast quantities of fertiliser into the oceans to cause mass algae blooms to reduce co2, yeah its gonna negatively affect aquatic life but if it save millions of humans is it worth it Didn’t the Russians try this to terrible effect with the Aral Sea? Maybe it is feasible, but the evidence of engineering on this scale is not encouraging. Diverting rivers is not rhe same as diverting an ocean Neither is the scale of the potential fuck up... Well the alternative is it happens anyway after all the cities flood soooo.... Why not? Do we let all the displaced people come and live in the UK? Who lives in the sharah dessert?
We'd actually be creating a lot of more habitable land
The Sahara or Sharah? Clearly sone parts of the Sahara are low, Qattara might work, but it realistically needs the Nile being diverted and not just Salt Water - but reducing the flow of fresh water to the Med will also have an impact.
No the whole point is not to divert a river but to dig a huge trench from the med.
The original plan cause for several hundred nuclear bombs to be used. A trial was done to build a harbour using thermonuclear weapons and it worked very well
Did it really!?
Why would a saline inland sea make any change in a reasonable time? How would soil would be created, how would nutrition arrive, where does the flora and fauna come from - especially if someone detonates a nuclear bomb - see Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island...
To be fair flora and fauna is doing very well in Chernobyl.
Is it, can we have some pic’s of your visit?
Couldn't you just google it...
Much like you, I don’t believe stuff on the internet, so I am relying on you to do sone original research, apparently it is fine for flora and fauna, so you should be fine...
You get soo touchy when you're wrong. It kinda explains your attitude.
Why won’t you go? We could do crowd surfing to help you
Crowd surfing eh?
Yep, pretty sure you’d get loads & you could come back with a healthy glow and ‘real facts’ to help your argument - I mean, why wouldn’t you go?
Crowd "surfing"..?
?
I'd have understood crowd "funding", I'm just not seeing how crowd "surfing" would work.
We can pay for your trip! "So, not crowd surfing? Shame. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of curiosity how would people feel about genuine massive scale intervention to prepare for outcomes rarher than simply cutting a fraction of a percent off co2 production? Things like digging up the old operation ploughshare plans to make a trench from the medeterainian to the sharah desert (its below sea level) and turning it into a gigantic inland sea in africa. Changing the local climate lowering sea levels and alowing massive new vegetative growth in africa? Have we reached the point where geological engineering is politically acceptable or are we still at the point of bottle deposits and an extra penny on fuel duty? Dumping vast quantities of fertiliser into the oceans to cause mass algae blooms to reduce co2, yeah its gonna negatively affect aquatic life but if it save millions of humans is it worth it Didn’t the Russians try this to terrible effect with the Aral Sea? Maybe it is feasible, but the evidence of engineering on this scale is not encouraging. Diverting rivers is not rhe same as diverting an ocean Neither is the scale of the potential fuck up... Well the alternative is it happens anyway after all the cities flood soooo.... Why not? Do we let all the displaced people come and live in the UK? Who lives in the sharah dessert?
We'd actually be creating a lot of more habitable land
The Sahara or Sharah? Clearly sone parts of the Sahara are low, Qattara might work, but it realistically needs the Nile being diverted and not just Salt Water - but reducing the flow of fresh water to the Med will also have an impact.
No the whole point is not to divert a river but to dig a huge trench from the med.
The original plan cause for several hundred nuclear bombs to be used. A trial was done to build a harbour using thermonuclear weapons and it worked very well
Did it really!?
Why would a saline inland sea make any change in a reasonable time? How would soil would be created, how would nutrition arrive, where does the flora and fauna come from - especially if someone detonates a nuclear bomb - see Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island...
To be fair flora and fauna is doing very well in Chernobyl.
Is it, can we have some pic’s of your visit?
Couldn't you just google it...
Much like you, I don’t believe stuff on the internet, so I am relying on you to do sone original research, apparently it is fine for flora and fauna, so you should be fine...
You get soo touchy when you're wrong. It kinda explains your attitude.
Why won’t you go? We could do crowd surfing to help you
Crowd surfing eh?
Yep, pretty sure you’d get loads & you could come back with a healthy glow and ‘real facts’ to help your argument - I mean, why wouldn’t you go?
Crowd "surfing"..?
?
I'd have understood crowd "funding", I'm just not seeing how crowd "surfing" would work.
We can pay for your trip!
So, not crowd surfing? Shame. "Pedant - sort your tickets out and we’ll transfer the funds to you when we see the pic’s... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of curiosity how would people feel about genuine massive scale intervention to prepare for outcomes rarher than simply cutting a fraction of a percent off co2 production? Things like digging up the old operation ploughshare plans to make a trench from the medeterainian to the sharah desert (its below sea level) and turning it into a gigantic inland sea in africa. Changing the local climate lowering sea levels and alowing massive new vegetative growth in africa? Have we reached the point where geological engineering is politically acceptable or are we still at the point of bottle deposits and an extra penny on fuel duty? Dumping vast quantities of fertiliser into the oceans to cause mass algae blooms to reduce co2, yeah its gonna negatively affect aquatic life but if it save millions of humans is it worth it Didn’t the Russians try this to terrible effect with the Aral Sea? Maybe it is feasible, but the evidence of engineering on this scale is not encouraging. Diverting rivers is not rhe same as diverting an ocean Neither is the scale of the potential fuck up... Well the alternative is it happens anyway after all the cities flood soooo.... Why not? Do we let all the displaced people come and live in the UK? Who lives in the sharah dessert?
We'd actually be creating a lot of more habitable land
The Sahara or Sharah? Clearly sone parts of the Sahara are low, Qattara might work, but it realistically needs the Nile being diverted and not just Salt Water - but reducing the flow of fresh water to the Med will also have an impact.
No the whole point is not to divert a river but to dig a huge trench from the med.
The original plan cause for several hundred nuclear bombs to be used. A trial was done to build a harbour using thermonuclear weapons and it worked very well
Did it really!?
Why would a saline inland sea make any change in a reasonable time? How would soil would be created, how would nutrition arrive, where does the flora and fauna come from - especially if someone detonates a nuclear bomb - see Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island...
To be fair flora and fauna is doing very well in Chernobyl.
Is it, can we have some pic’s of your visit?
Couldn't you just google it...
Much like you, I don’t believe stuff on the internet, so I am relying on you to do sone original research, apparently it is fine for flora and fauna, so you should be fine...
You get soo touchy when you're wrong. It kinda explains your attitude.
Why won’t you go? We could do crowd surfing to help you
Crowd surfing eh?
Yep, pretty sure you’d get loads & you could come back with a healthy glow and ‘real facts’ to help your argument - I mean, why wouldn’t you go?
Crowd "surfing"..?
?
I'd have understood crowd "funding", I'm just not seeing how crowd "surfing" would work.
We can pay for your trip!
So, not crowd surfing? Shame.
Pedant - sort your tickets out and we’ll transfer the funds to you when we see the pic’s..."Not really being a pedant. You're just wrong again. Im used to it now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of curiosity how would people feel about genuine massive scale intervention to prepare for outcomes rarher than simply cutting a fraction of a percent off co2 production? Things like digging up the old operation ploughshare plans to make a trench from the medeterainian to the sharah desert (its below sea level) and turning it into a gigantic inland sea in africa. Changing the local climate lowering sea levels and alowing massive new vegetative growth in africa? Have we reached the point where geological engineering is politically acceptable or are we still at the point of bottle deposits and an extra penny on fuel duty? Dumping vast quantities of fertiliser into the oceans to cause mass algae blooms to reduce co2, yeah its gonna negatively affect aquatic life but if it save millions of humans is it worth it Didn’t the Russians try this to terrible effect with the Aral Sea? Maybe it is feasible, but the evidence of engineering on this scale is not encouraging. Diverting rivers is not rhe same as diverting an ocean Neither is the scale of the potential fuck up... Well the alternative is it happens anyway after all the cities flood soooo.... Why not? Do we let all the displaced people come and live in the UK? Who lives in the sharah dessert?
We'd actually be creating a lot of more habitable land
The Sahara or Sharah? Clearly sone parts of the Sahara are low, Qattara might work, but it realistically needs the Nile being diverted and not just Salt Water - but reducing the flow of fresh water to the Med will also have an impact.
No the whole point is not to divert a river but to dig a huge trench from the med.
The original plan cause for several hundred nuclear bombs to be used. A trial was done to build a harbour using thermonuclear weapons and it worked very well
Did it really!?
Why would a saline inland sea make any change in a reasonable time? How would soil would be created, how would nutrition arrive, where does the flora and fauna come from - especially if someone detonates a nuclear bomb - see Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island...
To be fair flora and fauna is doing very well in Chernobyl.
Is it, can we have some pic’s of your visit?
Couldn't you just google it...
Much like you, I don’t believe stuff on the internet, so I am relying on you to do sone original research, apparently it is fine for flora and fauna, so you should be fine...
You get soo touchy when you're wrong. It kinda explains your attitude.
Why won’t you go? We could do crowd surfing to help you
Crowd surfing eh?
Yep, pretty sure you’d get loads & you could come back with a healthy glow and ‘real facts’ to help your argument - I mean, why wouldn’t you go?
Crowd "surfing"..?
?
I'd have understood crowd "funding", I'm just not seeing how crowd "surfing" would work.
We can pay for your trip!
So, not crowd surfing? Shame.
Pedant - sort your tickets out and we’ll transfer the funds to you when we see the pic’s...
Not really being a pedant. You're just wrong again. Im used to it now. "So I make an error on Crowd Surfing vs Crowd Funding, but you can’t prove your assertion that all is rosy in the world of Chernobyl & it is me that is in the wrong. You really do have a warped sense of normal, I think you need to get out more - Chernobyl? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of curiosity how would people feel about genuine massive scale intervention to prepare for outcomes rarher than simply cutting a fraction of a percent off co2 production? Things like digging up the old operation ploughshare plans to make a trench from the medeterainian to the sharah desert (its below sea level) and turning it into a gigantic inland sea in africa. Changing the local climate lowering sea levels and alowing massive new vegetative growth in africa? Have we reached the point where geological engineering is politically acceptable or are we still at the point of bottle deposits and an extra penny on fuel duty? Dumping vast quantities of fertiliser into the oceans to cause mass algae blooms to reduce co2, yeah its gonna negatively affect aquatic life but if it save millions of humans is it worth it Didn’t the Russians try this to terrible effect with the Aral Sea? Maybe it is feasible, but the evidence of engineering on this scale is not encouraging. Diverting rivers is not rhe same as diverting an ocean Neither is the scale of the potential fuck up... Well the alternative is it happens anyway after all the cities flood soooo.... Why not? Do we let all the displaced people come and live in the UK? Who lives in the sharah dessert?
We'd actually be creating a lot of more habitable land
The Sahara or Sharah? Clearly sone parts of the Sahara are low, Qattara might work, but it realistically needs the Nile being diverted and not just Salt Water - but reducing the flow of fresh water to the Med will also have an impact.
No the whole point is not to divert a river but to dig a huge trench from the med.
The original plan cause for several hundred nuclear bombs to be used. A trial was done to build a harbour using thermonuclear weapons and it worked very well
Did it really!?
Why would a saline inland sea make any change in a reasonable time? How would soil would be created, how would nutrition arrive, where does the flora and fauna come from - especially if someone detonates a nuclear bomb - see Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island..."You get that a nuclear reactor meltdown is very differnt to a nuclear bomb? The radioactive material being a few kg in one case vs hundreds of tonnes in the other. See Hiroshima, Nagasaki and las vegas. But as things are a bit more advanced than the 60s and a global effort it could be done conventionally instead of with nuclear weapons. A saline sea in an incredibly hot place evaporates and makes clouds and rain which alows microbes to thrive which in turns alows plants and other organisms to spread. This isnt a "started on monday done by friday" thing we're talking geological engineering designed to combat planet wide changes. Its much more a "civilization grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they will never sit" kind of thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... To be fair flora and fauna is doing very well in Chernobyl. Is it, can we have some pic’s of your visit?
Couldn't you just google it...
Much like you, I don’t believe stuff on the internet, so I am relying on you to do sone original research, apparently it is fine for flora and fauna, so you should be fine..."You can take tours around Chernobyl and Pripyat. Lots of tourists and photographers go there drones are getting some amazing footage too. Its very surreal seeing a Forrest growing through city streets and apartment blocks. Its on my to do list so if i go ill make sure to send you the lics | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Surely human survival isn’t about which economy does best? If I was being sane I’d suggest we stayed in the EU and got them to back fixing climate change through the UN. But that would assume I was living in a sane world. "Of course it is. Humanity was nearly wiped out not that long ago by just 2 competing economies. Quite luckily for humanity the genocidal one ran out of cash first | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry I meant to add this curious snippet: Around the 16th Century you used to get those people stamping in a barrel of grapes, to get the juice out. I get the impression Britain was much warmer in those days. So, is there a cycle of natural cooling and warming? Aren't LED streetlights (which seem much lower for some reason) and 5G damaging to the environment with their radiation? " What radiation are you thinking LEDs make aside from visible light? Light intensity reduced by inverse square law a loer lightmeans it can be significantly less powerful assuming kt doesnt need to cover a wide area (unlike a motorway light which needs to be very high up ) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hmmm, plenty of evidence. Perhaps you could go and do some research and then come back with some facts? It isn’t too hard and people don’t like being told the answer... There are some amusing things though like the data homogenization and then destruction of original data. Independent verification of various monitoring stations proving they are no longer fit for purpose being included in datasets and cherry picking of data. (Weather stations now next to AC exhaust fans and sea level monitoring poles having suffered subsidence etc) Those things lead to untrustworthy outcomes. Satelite data is pretty much the only uncontaminated source but its just such a short time scale. Personally i ascribe to were fucked and should be preparing for the aftermath not hippy dippy "we can save everything exactly how it is" lark" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
What other laws will be brought into effect, which by coincidence can also help keep us dissenting lot in check?!
Tune in next time to find out. Same bat time. Same bat channel! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I hope there is a lot of trolls in this thread. The planets biota has always been a factor in atmospheric changes throughout life’s existence. Planning for defenses rather than prevention is insane at 5% carbon dioxide we are all dead with out assisted breathing. Top 0.0001% maybe survive as money talks. "But we're already past the point of flooding. There is no question in even the most ludicrous predictions of co2 production where it reaches 5%. We're at 0.04% for gods sake | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I We have seen it time and time again going back in history, civilizations rise with the cilmate and fall with it. Like the aztecs fell due to rain shortage etc. So what actual proof is there that man has any impact on it whatsoever?" Scientists reckon climate change allowed Homo Sapiens to migrate from Africa. They had been unable to work out how Homo Sapiens manage to navigate the huge uninhabitable area of desert across northern Africa. Until they discovered the area we know today as desert was fertile in the past for thousands of years because of climate change. That meant there was food and resources that drew people northwards and into Asia/Europe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Surely human survival isn’t about which economy does best? If I was being sane I’d suggest we stayed in the EU and got them to back fixing climate change through the UN. But that would assume I was living in a sane world.
Of course it is.
Humanity was nearly wiped out not that long ago by just 2 competing economies. Quite luckily for humanity the genocidal one ran out of cash first"I assume you mean the threat of nuclear war? I agree it felt very real at the time, but it didn’t come that close to wiping out humanity. If we genuinely aim to act for the planet and not individuals, the an equivalent of the UN has to take over from abstract regional governments. Politics, freedom and choice as we know it has to go and our future will be decided by a small elite - who may be doing it for the ‘greater good’, but nonetheless they will be remote. The world is over populated, not surprisingly people aspire to having mobile phones, cars, concrete buildings, roads, washing machines, etc. People are essentially only interested in self, selflessness is genuinely a rare commodity, so making change happen in a way that is not dictatorial/autocratic is not likely to happen. We are dreamers, but we aren’t living the dream | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So what are some of the worst examples of BBC news not being the most balanced? Given that pretty much everyone seems to accuse the BBC of being biased suggests that it probably isn’t that biased at all. Because “bias” means a lot more than “saying something that someone happens to disagree with”. Any notion that the BBC should give equal airtime to views that go against the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed scientific research on something climate change is a nonsense. The way they Lied about and misrepresented: The Doctor's strike The police The firemen Schools GPs Nurses generally Nurses at Mid Staffs Brexit voters UKIP and its members Anyone who criticises far left ideology, particularly on gender and immigration issues. How it works together with and gets it's information from far left organisations, many of whom are funded by George Soros or which have Islamists ties such as: Hope Not Hate Tell Mama Open Societies Foundation Southern Poverty Law Centre The ACLU Council on American Islamic Relations The Muslim Council of Britain Momentum How's that for a few examples? " That’s just a list of things. You’d need to say what the BBC said, and what you understand the truth to be in order to demonstrate bias though.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone watch that on BBC 1 on Thursday night ? I didn't watch it as I'm not a huge believer in it as a recent issue. I am more a believer in the fact that climate changes.. and it would change regardless. One big volcanic eruption can cause way more issues than man made ones... I like looking at the people that study climatic history and you see a pattern that has followed many many times x ( without a single human to be blamed)" Only if you willfully ignore all the scientific evidence to the contrary. Why would you do that? It’s the equivalent of believing that smoking doesn’t massively increase the chances of getting cancer because your Nan smoked 40 a day, and lived til she was 103. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So what are some of the worst examples of BBC news not being the most balanced? Given that pretty much everyone seems to accuse the BBC of being biased suggests that it probably isn’t that biased at all. Because “bias” means a lot more than “saying something that someone happens to disagree with”. Any notion that the BBC should give equal airtime to views that go against the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed scientific research on something climate change is a nonsense. The way they Lied about and misrepresented: The Doctor's strike The police The firemen Schools GPs Nurses generally Nurses at Mid Staffs Brexit voters UKIP and its members Anyone who criticises far left ideology, particularly on gender and immigration issues. How it works together with and gets it's information from far left organisations, many of whom are funded by George Soros or which have Islamists ties such as: Hope Not Hate Tell Mama Open Societies Foundation Southern Poverty Law Centre The ACLU Council on American Islamic Relations The Muslim Council of Britain Momentum How's that for a few examples? " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Didn't see the programme. I'd like to comment on BBC bias though. In some areas the BBC is incredibly biased, working directly with the political system to promote certain agendas. Their reporting on home and foriegn affairs especially. Their stance on the Palestine/Israel brick wall is a prime example. I've always trusted and respected the BBC science departments though. Almost a hangover from Victorian days where rich eccentric explorers did it for the pure love of finding out the unknown. David Attenborough being front and centre the entire time. I don't trust the BBC, but I'd trust the BBC 4 and the natural history and science department to run the planet. " Everything you say here is absolutely 100% bang on the money | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Any notion that the BBC should give equal airtime to views that go against the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed scientific research on something climate change is a nonsense.. They're literally legaly required to do that." Actually no, they’re not. There is more coverage of climate change being the effect man made because that is what the evidence shows. The BBC absolutely has an obligation to not show bias, but giving more airtime to facts as they are overwhelmingly believed to be at the expense of largely disproven conspiracy nonsense. If there’s a documentary about the moon, that tells us about the geological make up of the moon, presumably the BBC isn’t obligated to also air another documentary representing the fringe minority who believe the moon is made of cheese? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... To be fair flora and fauna is doing very well in Chernobyl. Is it, can we have some pic’s of your visit?
Couldn't you just google it...
Much like you, I don’t believe stuff on the internet, so I am relying on you to do sone original research, apparently it is fine for flora and fauna, so you should be fine...
You can take tours around Chernobyl and Pripyat. Lots of tourists and photographers go there drones are getting some amazing footage too. Its very surreal seeing a Forrest growing through city streets and apartment blocks.
Its on my to do list so if i go ill make sure to send you the lics"Do you have Netflix? There’s a show on there, Dark Tourist. It’s a bit Louis Theroux, where he visits off the beaten path places. One episode is about a visit to Chernobyl. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have a thought. They say the speed up in melting ice is caused by the industrial age, then they show a chart of ice melting next to the industrial age and it spikes up.. However, what if global warming caused the industrial age, not the other way around? What if the EU/UK/Ireland entered an increasingly good climate. No longer did they have to concern themselves with mere survival but they could travel large distances, create lots of food, and flourish. We have seen it time and time again going back in history, civilizations rise with the cilmate and fall with it. Like the aztecs fell due to rain shortage etc. So what actual proof is there that man has any impact on it whatsoever?" Like, absolutely masses of peer reviewed research and data on the subject. No one is saying there haven’t been warmer and cooler periods before. That’s a total straw man. The point is that: a. the warming we are seeing just now is over and above that; b. it just so happens to coincide with the massive increases in CO2 released into the atmosphere in the last 100 years it so, and: c. an increase in CO2 has been shown to result in a warmer climate globally. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"climate changing,,ffs yea in Scotland it can be sunny one minute the next its pissing down then snowing,,then sunny,,then a howling gale,, "Yeah, that’s called the weather.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The demonstrators say we have a climate catastrophe but they have been saying this for 20 years and I can't say I have experienced a single effect of 'climate change' in all that time. It's all just predictions of widely varying climate models. If they weren't harping on about it in the whole time in the media, we would be able to get on with enjoying ourselves." I don’t suppose you’ve ever experienced any effect of drought or famine either. So maybe those aren’t issues either. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The demonstrators say we have a climate catastrophe but they have been saying this for 20 years and I can't say I have experienced a single effect of 'climate change' in all that time. It's all just predictions of widely varying climate models. If they weren't harping on about it in the whole time in the media, we would be able to get on with enjoying ourselves. I don’t suppose you’ve ever experienced any effect of drought or famine either. So maybe those aren’t issues either. " Billions of people are no longer at risk of drought or famine because of the availability of cheap energy. This is now being denied to those who need it most. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Any notion that the BBC should give equal airtime to views that go against the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed scientific research on something climate change is a nonsense.. They're literally legaly required to do that. Actually no, they’re not. There is more coverage of climate change being the effect man made because that is what the evidence shows. The BBC absolutely has an obligation to not show bias, but giving more airtime to facts as they are overwhelmingly believed to be at the expense of largely disproven conspiracy nonsense. If there’s a documentary about the moon, that tells us about the geological make up of the moon, presumably the BBC isn’t obligated to also air another documentary representing the fringe minority who believe the moon is made of cheese?" because the Earth is flat we will never be able to get to the cheese | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So what are some of the worst examples of BBC news not being the most balanced? Given that pretty much everyone seems to accuse the BBC of being biased suggests that it probably isn’t that biased at all. Because “bias” means a lot more than “saying something that someone happens to disagree with”. Any notion that the BBC should give equal airtime to views that go against the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed scientific research on something climate change is a nonsense." Agreed. If the people of both extremities on an issue hurl bias as a complaint, you're probably trying to be objective and an empiricist | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The demonstrators say we have a climate catastrophe but they have been saying this for 20 years and I can't say I have experienced a single effect of 'climate change' in all that time. It's all just predictions of widely varying climate models. If they weren't harping on about it in the whole time in the media, we would be able to get on with enjoying ourselves. I don’t suppose you’ve ever experienced any effect of drought or famine either. So maybe those aren’t issues either. Billions of people are no longer at risk of drought or famine because of the availability of cheap energy. This is now being denied to those who need it most." With all due respect, cheap energy will lift people out of danger. But in the mid term, two to three generations later they will face the same issues brought on by anthropogenic climate change, water table pollution/miss management, air pollution ect. Nobody likes it, but you either invest heavily now on expensive, but clean energy, and do the same in developing countries, or you kick the can further. Hard choices for some. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I hope there is a lot of trolls in this thread. The planets biota has always been a factor in atmospheric changes throughout life’s existence. Planning for defenses rather than prevention is insane at 5% carbon dioxide we are all dead with out assisted breathing. Top 0.0001% maybe survive as money talks.
But we're already past the point of flooding.
There is no question in even the most ludicrous predictions of co2 production where it reaches 5%.
We're at 0.04% for gods sake"We’re not past the flood points and scientists are concerned as climate effects can be exponential. Greenhouse gases, stored potential methane and water acidification. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I hope there is a lot of trolls in this thread. The planets biota has always been a factor in atmospheric changes throughout life’s existence. Planning for defenses rather than prevention is insane at 5% carbon dioxide we are all dead with out assisted breathing. Top 0.0001% maybe survive as money talks.
But we're already past the point of flooding.
There is no question in even the most ludicrous predictions of co2 production where it reaches 5%.
We're at 0.04% for gods sake
We’re not past the flood points and scientists are concerned as climate effects can be exponential. Greenhouse gases, stored potential methane and water acidification."Climate effects cannot be exponential or the earth would have burnt to crisp many millions of years ago as we have had co2 levels of 8000 parts per million in the past compared to the 400 we have now. The climate is self regulating and will manage just fine. I feel sorry for the younger generation who are being told the world is heading for disaster when you only have to look around to realise life has never been better. This is a classic 'too good to last' guilt trip. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The demonstrators say we have a climate catastrophe but they have been saying this for 20 years and I can't say I have experienced a single effect of 'climate change' in all that time. It's all just predictions of widely varying climate models. If they weren't harping on about it in the whole time in the media, we would be able to get on with enjoying ourselves. I don’t suppose you’ve ever experienced any effect of drought or famine either. So maybe those aren’t issues either. Billions of people are no longer at risk of drought or famine because of the availability of cheap energy. This is now being denied to those who need it most. With all due respect, cheap energy will lift people out of danger. But in the mid term, two to three generations later they will face the same issues brought on by anthropogenic climate change, water table pollution/miss management, air pollution ect. Nobody likes it, but you either invest heavily now on expensive, but clean energy, and do the same in developing countries, or you kick the can further. Hard choices for some." It is impossible to know what the world will be like in 50 years time. It's quite possible that it would be better and cheaper to keep lifting people out of poverty with cheap energy and then deal with a slightly warmer world in 50 years. There a far more deaths from cold in the world than heat. A warmer world will actually save lives. Also you shouldn't conflate pollution with climate change. A modern Euro5 diesel engine produces very little pollution. The bigger problem is people in Africa breathing in wood smoke from heating and cooking in their huts due to a lack of access to cheap electricity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So what are some of the worst examples of BBC news not being the most balanced? Given that pretty much everyone seems to accuse the BBC of being biased suggests that it probably isn’t that biased at all. Because “bias” means a lot more than “saying something that someone happens to disagree with”. Any notion that the BBC should give equal airtime to views that go against the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed scientific research on something climate change is a nonsense. Agreed. If the people of both extremities on an issue hurl bias as a complaint, you're probably trying to be objective and an empiricist" Exactly. Someone also mentioned supposed BBC bias regarding the Israeli / Palestine situation, about the wall IIRC. Again, given that the BBC is accused of both pro Israeli and pro Palestinian bias it’s probably neither. It’s far more likely that someone who is generally pro Israeli sees bias whenever the BBC reports that don’t out and out condemn the Palestinians, and vice versa. More often than not, the BBC is simply reporting what had happened. With the wall, if it sounds bad if they report what is happening and the illegal expansionist policies that Israel pursued in breach of numerous UN sanctions, that’s because it is bad. If it sounds bad if they report that a suicide bomber has killed innocent Israeli citizens, that’s because it is bad. Reporting on either does not, in and of itself, demonstrate bias in either direction. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The demonstrators say we have a climate catastrophe but they have been saying this for 20 years and I can't say I have experienced a single effect of 'climate change' in all that time. It's all just predictions of widely varying climate models. If they weren't harping on about it in the whole time in the media, we would be able to get on with enjoying ourselves. I don’t suppose you’ve ever experienced any effect of drought or famine either. So maybe those aren’t issues either. Billions of people are no longer at risk of drought or famine because of the availability of cheap energy. This is now being denied to those who need it most." You’re coming complete missing the point, which was fairly straightforward: The fact that you, or any given individual, has not experienced the negative effect of something, is not evidence that the thing you have had no experience of does not exist, or is not happening. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone's worried about climate change - yet we should be far more worried about the next 'black plague' Research and development funding isn't great. Without this, we'll likely all be wiped out by a highly contagious virus or bacteria " Not to mention be worried about the decline in new developments in the area of antibiotics, and so many of them becoming less and less effective, to the point where the WHO etc is seriously worried about the health implications of that. Although I’m sure I read something fairly recently about them maybe getting back ahead in that game? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The demonstrators say we have a climate catastrophe but they have been saying this for 20 years and I can't say I have experienced a single effect of 'climate change' in all that time. It's all just predictions of widely varying climate models. If they weren't harping on about it in the whole time in the media, we would be able to get on with enjoying ourselves. I don’t suppose you’ve ever experienced any effect of drought or famine either. So maybe those aren’t issues either. Billions of people are no longer at risk of drought or famine because of the availability of cheap energy. This is now being denied to those who need it most. You’re coming complete missing the point, which was fairly straightforward: The fact that you, or any given individual, has not experienced the negative effect of something, is not evidence that the thing you have had no experience of does not exist, or is not happening. " Firstly if I haven't experienced it and nobody I know has experienced it then why should I personally be worried. Secondly if nobody has experienced it then it's not happening, they are just telling us it is going to happen in the future, but then they have been telling us it's going to be bad for years now and it fails to come true. It's the Chicken Little scenario. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone's worried about climate change - yet we should be far more worried about the next 'black plague' Research and development funding isn't great. Without this, we'll likely all be wiped out by a highly contagious virus or bacteria Not to mention be worried about the decline in new developments in the area of antibiotics, and so many of them becoming less and less effective, to the point where the WHO etc is seriously worried about the health implications of that. Although I’m sure I read something fairly recently about them maybe getting back ahead in that game?" Be positive, be optimistic. Human ingenuity is boundless. Everything is going to be fine. Don't let the media get you down. They know bad news sells so they are constantly feeding us bad news stories. Ignore the pessimists and enjoy yourself. But then if you're on this site then I'm sure you do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hmmm, plenty of evidence. Perhaps you could go and do some research and then come back with some facts? It isn’t too hard and people don’t like being told the answer... Evidence is there to suggest that what we are being told about climate change is our fault . All well and good as it fits the current criteria we are living with today . And no doubt there are plenty of organisations and businesses making plenty of money from proving that we are the cause of it . But , as others have said on this thread , there have always been major climate changes throughout the history of the planet . Way before we were around . And that’s a fact which I believe is what you were asking for ." I don't know if you are willfully ignorant or not but you seem to relish taking a contrary view no matter how idiotic. Science really doesn't care about your ill informed opinion. I don't know who these organisations and businesses are who are profiting from signalling climate change but there are plenty profiting from 'business as usual' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone's worried about climate change - yet we should be far more worried about the next 'black plague' Research and development funding isn't great. Without this, we'll likely all be wiped out by a highly contagious virus or bacteria Not to mention be worried about the decline in new developments in the area of antibiotics, and so many of them becoming less and less effective, to the point where the WHO etc is seriously worried about the health implications of that. Although I’m sure I read something fairly recently about them maybe getting back ahead in that game? Be positive, be optimistic. Human ingenuity is boundless. Everything is going to be fine. Don't let the media get you down. They know bad news sells so they are constantly feeding us bad news stories. Ignore the pessimists and enjoy yourself. But then if you're on this site then I'm sure you do. " Hope your idiocy keeps you warm at night but climate catastrophe is coming. This isn't opinion, it's physics. If you fall off the edge of a cliff you keep falling until you hit something. Please read the IPCC report. An increase of the planets temp beyond 1.5 degrees C doesn't make for a nicer holiday, it will set off an accelerating cycle of events that you'll be lucky to survive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone's worried about climate change - yet we should be far more worried about the next 'black plague' Research and development funding isn't great. Without this, we'll likely all be wiped out by a highly contagious virus or bacteria Not to mention be worried about the decline in new developments in the area of antibiotics, and so many of them becoming less and less effective, to the point where the WHO etc is seriously worried about the health implications of that. Although I’m sure I read something fairly recently about them maybe getting back ahead in that game? Be positive, be optimistic. Human ingenuity is boundless. Everything is going to be fine. Don't let the media get you down. They know bad news sells so they are constantly feeding us bad news stories. Ignore the pessimists and enjoy yourself. But then if you're on this site then I'm sure you do. Hope your idiocy keeps you warm at night but climate catastrophe is coming. This isn't opinion, it's physics. If you fall off the edge of a cliff you keep falling until you hit something. Please read the IPCC report. An increase of the planets temp beyond 1.5 degrees C doesn't make for a nicer holiday, it will set off an accelerating cycle of events that you'll be lucky to survive." You're right 1.5 degrees doesn't make for a nicer holiday, it will still be too cold in the UK for a reliable summer holiday. If 1.5 degrees rise in temperature set off runaway warming the world would have burnt up long ago. Remember that the earth experiences an ice age every 40,000 years or so, the last one was 20,000 years ago so it might not be long before temperature turns downwards again. We have a lot more to worry about from global cooling. Anyway, all of this is of no consequence. We will all be long dead before any of this has an effect on us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone's worried about climate change - yet we should be far more worried about the next 'black plague' Research and development funding isn't great. Without this, we'll likely all be wiped out by a highly contagious virus or bacteria Not to mention be worried about the decline in new developments in the area of antibiotics, and so many of them becoming less and less effective, to the point where the WHO etc is seriously worried about the health implications of that. Although I’m sure I read something fairly recently about them maybe getting back ahead in that game? Be positive, be optimistic. Human ingenuity is boundless. Everything is going to be fine. Don't let the media get you down. They know bad news sells so they are constantly feeding us bad news stories. Ignore the pessimists and enjoy yourself. But then if you're on this site then I'm sure you do. " Oh, I’m generally pretty optimistic about things. But neither climate change nor the concerns about antibiotics are throwaway media scare stories, with a quote (that no-one ever reads) from an expert right at the bottom of the Daily Mail scare story saying it’s not really that scary at all. They are both potentially very serious. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone's worried about climate change - yet we should be far more worried about the next 'black plague' Research and development funding isn't great. Without this, we'll likely all be wiped out by a highly contagious virus or bacteria Not to mention be worried about the decline in new developments in the area of antibiotics, and so many of them becoming less and less effective, to the point where the WHO etc is seriously worried about the health implications of that. Although I’m sure I read something fairly recently about them maybe getting back ahead in that game? Be positive, be optimistic. Human ingenuity is boundless. Everything is going to be fine. Don't let the media get you down. They know bad news sells so they are constantly feeding us bad news stories. Ignore the pessimists and enjoy yourself. But then if you're on this site then I'm sure you do. Hope your idiocy keeps you warm at night but climate catastrophe is coming. This isn't opinion, it's physics. If you fall off the edge of a cliff you keep falling until you hit something. Please read the IPCC report. An increase of the planets temp beyond 1.5 degrees C doesn't make for a nicer holiday, it will set off an accelerating cycle of events that you'll be lucky to survive. You're right 1.5 degrees doesn't make for a nicer holiday, it will still be too cold in the UK for a reliable summer holiday. If 1.5 degrees rise in temperature set off runaway warming the world would have burnt up long ago. Remember that the earth experiences an ice age every 40,000 years or so, the last one was 20,000 years ago so it might not be long before temperature turns downwards again. We have a lot more to worry about from global cooling. Anyway, all of this is of no consequence. We will all be long dead before any of this has an effect on us." Define “us”? Because parts of the world already seem to be seeing the effect by way of increased severe weather events. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone's worried about climate change - yet we should be far more worried about the next 'black plague' Research and development funding isn't great. Without this, we'll likely all be wiped out by a highly contagious virus or bacteria Not to mention be worried about the decline in new developments in the area of antibiotics, and so many of them becoming less and less effective, to the point where the WHO etc is seriously worried about the health implications of that. Although I’m sure I read something fairly recently about them maybe getting back ahead in that game? Be positive, be optimistic. Human ingenuity is boundless. Everything is going to be fine. Don't let the media get you down. They know bad news sells so they are constantly feeding us bad news stories. Ignore the pessimists and enjoy yourself. But then if you're on this site then I'm sure you do. Hope your idiocy keeps you warm at night but climate catastrophe is coming. This isn't opinion, it's physics. If you fall off the edge of a cliff you keep falling until you hit something. Please read the IPCC report. An increase of the planets temp beyond 1.5 degrees C doesn't make for a nicer holiday, it will set off an accelerating cycle of events that you'll be lucky to survive. You're right 1.5 degrees doesn't make for a nicer holiday, it will still be too cold in the UK for a reliable summer holiday. If 1.5 degrees rise in temperature set off runaway warming the world would have burnt up long ago. Remember that the earth experiences an ice age every 40,000 years or so, the last one was 20,000 years ago so it might not be long before temperature turns downwards again. We have a lot more to worry about from global cooling. Anyway, all of this is of no consequence. We will all be long dead before any of this has an effect on us." But what about your children and grandchildren? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If cows would stop farting we will be fine." However they continue to fart despite exhortations not to, we'll need to grow less cows.... and replace capitalism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have a thought. They say the speed up in melting ice is caused by the industrial age, then they show a chart of ice melting next to the industrial age and it spikes up.. However, what if global warming caused the industrial age, not the other way around? What if the EU/UK/Ireland entered an increasingly good climate. No longer did they have to concern themselves with mere survival but they could travel large distances, create lots of food, and flourish. We have seen it time and time again going back in history, civilizations rise with the cilmate and fall with it. Like the aztecs fell due to rain shortage etc. So what actual proof is there that man has any impact on it whatsoever?" Holy fuck, there's still people asking that question?
*Flips table* | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Didn't see the programme. I'd like to comment on BBC bias though. In some areas the BBC is incredibly biased, working directly with the political system to promote certain agendas. Their reporting on home and foriegn affairs especially. Their stance on the Palestine/Israel brick wall is a prime example. I've always trusted and respected the BBC science departments though. Almost a hangover from Victorian days where rich eccentric explorers did it for the pure love of finding out the unknown. David Attenborough being front and centre the entire time. I don't trust the BBC, but I'd trust the BBC 4 and the natural history and science department to run the planet. " Seconded. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have a thought. They say the speed up in melting ice is caused by the industrial age, then they show a chart of ice melting next to the industrial age and it spikes up.. However, what if global warming caused the industrial age, not the other way around? What if the EU/UK/Ireland entered an increasingly good climate. No longer did they have to concern themselves with mere survival but they could travel large distances, create lots of food, and flourish. We have seen it time and time again going back in history, civilizations rise with the cilmate and fall with it. Like the aztecs fell due to rain shortage etc. So what actual proof is there that man has any impact on it whatsoever? Holy fuck, there's still people asking that question?
*Flips table*"You’ll be telling us next that there’s, like, absolutely masses of peer reviewed research and data on the subject, pretty much telling us precisely that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone's worried about climate change - yet we should be far more worried about the next 'black plague' Research and development funding isn't great. Without this, we'll likely all be wiped out by a highly contagious virus or bacteria Not to mention be worried about the decline in new developments in the area of antibiotics, and so many of them becoming less and less effective, to the point where the WHO etc is seriously worried about the health implications of that. Although I’m sure I read something fairly recently about them maybe getting back ahead in that game? Be positive, be optimistic. Human ingenuity is boundless. Everything is going to be fine. Don't let the media get you down. They know bad news sells so they are constantly feeding us bad news stories. Ignore the pessimists and enjoy yourself. But then if you're on this site then I'm sure you do. Hope your idiocy keeps you warm at night but climate catastrophe is coming. This isn't opinion, it's physics. If you fall off the edge of a cliff you keep falling until you hit something. Please read the IPCC report. An increase of the planets temp beyond 1.5 degrees C doesn't make for a nicer holiday, it will set off an accelerating cycle of events that you'll be lucky to survive. You're right 1.5 degrees doesn't make for a nicer holiday, it will still be too cold in the UK for a reliable summer holiday. If 1.5 degrees rise in temperature set off runaway warming the world would have burnt up long ago. Remember that the earth experiences an ice age every 40,000 years or so, the last one was 20,000 years ago so it might not be long before temperature turns downwards again. We have a lot more to worry about from global cooling. Anyway, all of this is of no consequence. We will all be long dead before any of this has an effect on us. But what about your children and grandchildren?" Imagine if, 200 years ago when we were building ships out of oak to sail the world, there had been a movement to save the trees. If they had decided that they would not chop any more trees down to save them for future generations. Development would have stopped and we would be living a feudal existence dying in middle age from illness. Instead they built their wooden ships and then moved on to steel ships and world trade exploded. Oh, and we still have plenty of trees. Human ingenuity solves anything it sets its mind too. We can't know what technology will be available in the future but I'm betting windmills won't be part of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have a thought. They say the speed up in melting ice is caused by the industrial age, then they show a chart of ice melting next to the industrial age and it spikes up.. However, what if global warming caused the industrial age, not the other way around? What if the EU/UK/Ireland entered an increasingly good climate. No longer did they have to concern themselves with mere survival but they could travel large distances, create lots of food, and flourish. We have seen it time and time again going back in history, civilizations rise with the cilmate and fall with it. Like the aztecs fell due to rain shortage etc. So what actual proof is there that man has any impact on it whatsoever? Holy fuck, there's still people asking that question?
*Flips table*"Do you have links to that actual research - along with in depth analysis its limitations. Not denying man-made climate change - just that I've never actually critically examined any of the research | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone's worried about climate change - yet we should be far more worried about the next 'black plague' Research and development funding isn't great. Without this, we'll likely all be wiped out by a highly contagious virus or bacteria Not to mention be worried about the decline in new developments in the area of antibiotics, and so many of them becoming less and less effective, to the point where the WHO etc is seriously worried about the health implications of that. Although I’m sure I read something fairly recently about them maybe getting back ahead in that game? Be positive, be optimistic. Human ingenuity is boundless. Everything is going to be fine. Don't let the media get you down. They know bad news sells so they are constantly feeding us bad news stories. Ignore the pessimists and enjoy yourself. But then if you're on this site then I'm sure you do. Hope your idiocy keeps you warm at night but climate catastrophe is coming. This isn't opinion, it's physics. If you fall off the edge of a cliff you keep falling until you hit something. Please read the IPCC report. An increase of the planets temp beyond 1.5 degrees C doesn't make for a nicer holiday, it will set off an accelerating cycle of events that you'll be lucky to survive. You're right 1.5 degrees doesn't make for a nicer holiday, it will still be too cold in the UK for a reliable summer holiday. If 1.5 degrees rise in temperature set off runaway warming the world would have burnt up long ago. Remember that the earth experiences an ice age every 40,000 years or so, the last one was 20,000 years ago so it might not be long before temperature turns downwards again. We have a lot more to worry about from global cooling. Anyway, all of this is of no consequence. We will all be long dead before any of this has an effect on us. But what about your children and grandchildren? Imagine if, 200 years ago when we were building ships out of oak to sail the world, there had been a movement to save the trees. If they had decided that they would not chop any more trees down to save them for future generations. Development would have stopped and we would be living a feudal existence dying in middle age from illness. Instead they built their wooden ships and then moved on to steel ships and world trade exploded. Oh, and we still have plenty of trees. Human ingenuity solves anything it sets its mind too. We can't know what technology will be available in the future but I'm betting windmills won't be part of it." But what if human ingenuity says we should all adopt a vegan diet and drastically reduce consumption, air and road travel? You just want to carry on as normal and desperately hope science can scoop up your shit. It can't. Society has to fundamentally change. So we are fucked. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Do you have links to that actual research - along with in depth analysis its limitations. Not denying man-made climate change - just that I've never actually critically examined any of the research " If you want to read the sceptical side of things look at the site wattsupwiththat | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hmmm, plenty of evidence. Perhaps you could go and do some research and then come back with some facts? It isn’t too hard and people don’t like being told the answer... Evidence is there to suggest that what we are being told about climate change is our fault . All well and good as it fits the current criteria we are living with today . And no doubt there are plenty of organisations and businesses making plenty of money from proving that we are the cause of it . But , as others have said on this thread , there have always been major climate changes throughout the history of the planet . Way before we were around . And that’s a fact which I believe is what you were asking for . I don't know if you are willfully ignorant or not but you seem to relish taking a contrary view no matter how idiotic. Science really doesn't care about your ill informed opinion. I don't know who these organisations and businesses are who are profiting from signalling climate change but there are plenty profiting from 'business as usual'" I think I may be wilfully ignorant because I’m certainly not an idiot . And I give not one shit whether you , or science care one iota about my opinion , however idiotic it may be . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hmmm, plenty of evidence. Perhaps you could go and do some research and then come back with some facts? It isn’t too hard and people don’t like being told the answer... Evidence is there to suggest that what we are being told about climate change is our fault . All well and good as it fits the current criteria we are living with today . And no doubt there are plenty of organisations and businesses making plenty of money from proving that we are the cause of it . But , as others have said on this thread , there have always been major climate changes throughout the history of the planet . Way before we were around . And that’s a fact which I believe is what you were asking for . I don't know if you are willfully ignorant or not but you seem to relish taking a contrary view no matter how idiotic. Science really doesn't care about your ill informed opinion. I don't know who these organisations and businesses are who are profiting from signalling climate change but there are plenty profiting from 'business as usual' I think I may be wilfully ignorant because I’m certainly not an idiot . And I give not one shit whether you , or science care one iota about my opinion , however idiotic it may be . " That is patently clear. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have a thought. They say the speed up in melting ice is caused by the industrial age, then they show a chart of ice melting next to the industrial age and it spikes up.. However, what if global warming caused the industrial age, not the other way around? What if the EU/UK/Ireland entered an increasingly good climate. No longer did they have to concern themselves with mere survival but they could travel large distances, create lots of food, and flourish. We have seen it time and time again going back in history, civilizations rise with the cilmate and fall with it. Like the aztecs fell due to rain shortage etc. So what actual proof is there that man has any impact on it whatsoever? Holy fuck, there's still people asking that question?
*Flips table*
You’ll be telling us next that there’s, like, absolutely masses of peer reviewed research and data on the subject, pretty much telling us precisely that. "Pshaw! I don't need to tell em that? It's all over teh interweb by now surely? No? *Continues flipping tables until UN Climate Report and analysis of measures utterly necessary to survival of humanity drops into everyone's lap* There's a lovely website folks at the UN made. Basically we need to- Recycle EVERYTHING(repair is good too). Eat less meat. Replace capitalism with something less horrific and damaging. Fly less Drive less Use an alternative to Palm oil Make shark fin soup a thing of the past (I have an idea on that one) Protect in perpetuity the remaining grasslands, rainforests, rivers, savanna's, mountain ranges, oceans etc. Buy less shit you don't need. Ban single use plastics (unless for medical use) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Do you have links to that actual research - along with in depth analysis its limitations. Not denying man-made climate change - just that I've never actually critically examined any of the research If you want to read the sceptical side of things look at the site wattsupwiththat " I’ll take peer reviewed science over I’ll informed scepticism any day of the week. So what other near universally agreed by science things are you as sceptical about? Maybe you are also sceptical about the so called experts who say the earth is spherical, when it’s actually flat? Or maybe you like to jump from the roofs of tall buildings because gravity is just some made up nonsense? Because it baffles me that so many people still seem to disbelieve what is happening with climate change, despite it now being near universally accepted scientific fact. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have a thought. They say the speed up in melting ice is caused by the industrial age, then they show a chart of ice melting next to the industrial age and it spikes up.. However, what if global warming caused the industrial age, not the other way around? What if the EU/UK/Ireland entered an increasingly good climate. No longer did they have to concern themselves with mere survival but they could travel large distances, create lots of food, and flourish. We have seen it time and time again going back in history, civilizations rise with the cilmate and fall with it. Like the aztecs fell due to rain shortage etc. So what actual proof is there that man has any impact on it whatsoever? Holy fuck, there's still people asking that question?
*Flips table*
Do you have links to that actual research - along with in depth analysis its limitations.
Not denying man-made climate change - just that I've never actually critically examined any of the research "Absolutely. United Nations has reams of info, peer reviewed research, projections(more of a when than an if unfortunately) available to read online. If you get lost in all the articles remember to check the writers names and you can crosscheck data too. Have a pencil handy for notes. Once you go down the rabbit hole there are multiple paths. If you come across articles saying everything is fine and people are just whiny tree hugging hippies who need to wear less hemp and buy a condo then crosscheck the article, see if it turns up in any actual peer reviewed journals and also find who wrote it and look at the history of their publishing. There are a very few crappy(or not actually) climate scientists out there with deep pockets and no personal moral code. Happy to pm you some starter articles. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Do you have links to that actual research - along with in depth analysis its limitations. Not denying man-made climate change - just that I've never actually critically examined any of the research If you want to read the sceptical side of things look at the site wattsupwiththat I’ll take peer reviewed science over I’ll informed scepticism any day of the week. So what other near universally agreed by science things are you as sceptical about? Maybe you are also sceptical about the so called experts who say the earth is spherical, when it’s actually flat? Or maybe you like to jump from the roofs of tall buildings because gravity is just some made up nonsense? Because it baffles me that so many people still seem to disbelieve what is happening with climate change, despite it now being near universally accepted scientific fact." As someone who has Master's of Science and has spent 5+ years conducting research - I'd rather hear all the angles. Ironically, I've actually become significantly more skeptical of 'scientific fact' since studying science | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Do you have links to that actual research - along with in depth analysis its limitations. Not denying man-made climate change - just that I've never actually critically examined any of the research If you want to read the sceptical side of things look at the site wattsupwiththat I’ll take peer reviewed science over I’ll informed scepticism any day of the week. So what other near universally agreed by science things are you as sceptical about? Maybe you are also sceptical about the so called experts who say the earth is spherical, when it’s actually flat? Or maybe you like to jump from the roofs of tall buildings because gravity is just some made up nonsense? Because it baffles me that so many people still seem to disbelieve what is happening with climate change, despite it now being near universally accepted scientific fact. As someone who has Master's of Science and has spent 5+ years conducting research - I'd rather hear all the angles. Ironically, I've actually become significantly more skeptical of 'scientific fact' since studying science" Conducted by research into climate change? As someone who has Masters or Science do you also seek out “all the angles” into other scientifically contentious debates, such as whether the earth is flat or not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Do you have links to that actual research - along with in depth analysis its limitations. Not denying man-made climate change - just that I've never actually critically examined any of the research If you want to read the sceptical side of things look at the site wattsupwiththat "
But seriously..
A blogger who used to be a weatherman but has no university degree and is directly funded by USA right wing climate deniers.
How about you try
IPCC
United Nations
Actually opcr.ca.gov has a comprehensive list of all science orgs worldwide who agree that cc exists and is a very real threat.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Do you have links to that actual research - along with in depth analysis its limitations. Not denying man-made climate change - just that I've never actually critically examined any of the research If you want to read the sceptical side of things look at the site wattsupwiththat I’ll take peer reviewed science over I’ll informed scepticism any day of the week. So what other near universally agreed by science things are you as sceptical about? Maybe you are also sceptical about the so called experts who say the earth is spherical, when it’s actually flat? Or maybe you like to jump from the roofs of tall buildings because gravity is just some made up nonsense? Because it baffles me that so many people still seem to disbelieve what is happening with climate change, despite it now being near universally accepted scientific fact. As someone who has Master's of Science and has spent 5+ years conducting research - I'd rather hear all the angles. Ironically, I've actually become significantly more skeptical of 'scientific fact' since studying science" Its like when people see "peer reviewed" and automatically assume is 100% true and universally accepted rather than it being the absolutle minimum standard and even then not that reliable unless tested. For instance in femininist studies it is peer reviewed and published in a leading journal (and there for absolute fact) that chapter 12 of Hitler's Mien kampf translated into English, and Jews changed to white men and Germans to women, is an accurate an excellent peice of feminist research | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Do you have links to that actual research - along with in depth analysis its limitations. Not denying man-made climate change - just that I've never actually critically examined any of the research If you want to read the sceptical side of things look at the site wattsupwiththat I’ll take peer reviewed science over I’ll informed scepticism any day of the week. So what other near universally agreed by science things are you as sceptical about? Maybe you are also sceptical about the so called experts who say the earth is spherical, when it’s actually flat? Or maybe you like to jump from the roofs of tall buildings because gravity is just some made up nonsense? Because it baffles me that so many people still seem to disbelieve what is happening with climate change, despite it now being near universally accepted scientific fact. As someone who has Master's of Science and has spent 5+ years conducting research - I'd rather hear all the angles. Ironically, I've actually become significantly more skeptical of 'scientific fact' since studying science Conducted by research into climate change? As someone who has Masters or Science do you also seek out “all the angles” into other scientifically contentious debates, such as whether the earth is flat or not?" Thats not a contentious debate it can be tested in 10 mins with a laser and a detector. Btw if it turns out to bw true your instantly gonna be rich by abusing the stock market | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Do you have links to that actual research - along with in depth analysis its limitations. Not denying man-made climate change - just that I've never actually critically examined any of the research If you want to read the sceptical side of things look at the site wattsupwiththat I’ll take peer reviewed science over I’ll informed scepticism any day of the week. So what other near universally agreed by science things are you as sceptical about? Maybe you are also sceptical about the so called experts who say the earth is spherical, when it’s actually flat? Or maybe you like to jump from the roofs of tall buildings because gravity is just some made up nonsense? Because it baffles me that so many people still seem to disbelieve what is happening with climate change, despite it now being near universally accepted scientific fact. As someone who has Master's of Science and has spent 5+ years conducting research - I'd rather hear all the angles. Ironically, I've actually become significantly more skeptical of 'scientific fact' since studying science Conducted by research into climate change? As someone who has Masters or Science do you also seek out “all the angles” into other scientifically contentious debates, such as whether the earth is flat or not?" No - mainly neuroscience. And yes. I've listened to the all arguments flat earthers have made and none have convinced me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Do you have links to that actual research - along with in depth analysis its limitations. Not denying man-made climate change - just that I've never actually critically examined any of the research If you want to read the sceptical side of things look at the site wattsupwiththat I’ll take peer reviewed science over I’ll informed scepticism any day of the week. So what other near universally agreed by science things are you as sceptical about? Maybe you are also sceptical about the so called experts who say the earth is spherical, when it’s actually flat? Or maybe you like to jump from the roofs of tall buildings because gravity is just some made up nonsense? Because it baffles me that so many people still seem to disbelieve what is happening with climate change, despite it now being near universally accepted scientific fact. As someone who has Master's of Science and has spent 5+ years conducting research - I'd rather hear all the angles. Ironically, I've actually become significantly more skeptical of 'scientific fact' since studying science Its like when people see "peer reviewed" and automatically assume is 100% true and universally accepted rather than it being the absolutle minimum standard and even then not that reliable unless tested. For instance in femininist studies it is peer reviewed and published in a leading journal (and there for absolute fact) that chapter 12 of Hitler's Mien kampf translated into English, and Jews changed to white men and Germans to women, is an accurate an excellent peice of feminist research " Reminds me of the "Conceptual Penis" paper that was peer reviewed and published | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Do you have links to that actual research - along with in depth analysis its limitations. Not denying man-made climate change - just that I've never actually critically examined any of the research If you want to read the sceptical side of things look at the site wattsupwiththat I’ll take peer reviewed science over I’ll informed scepticism any day of the week. So what other near universally agreed by science things are you as sceptical about? Maybe you are also sceptical about the so called experts who say the earth is spherical, when it’s actually flat? Or maybe you like to jump from the roofs of tall buildings because gravity is just some made up nonsense? Because it baffles me that so many people still seem to disbelieve what is happening with climate change, despite it now being near universally accepted scientific fact. As someone who has Master's of Science and has spent 5+ years conducting research - I'd rather hear all the angles. Ironically, I've actually become significantly more skeptical of 'scientific fact' since studying science" Absolutely, but Andrew Watt is imo a dangerous greedy idiot. Defo a fan of healthy scepticism, it's essential that facts are backed by multiple studies, peer reviews, robust checks of figures etc. We're also short on time tho so if y'all could read fast pls | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have a thought. They say the speed up in melting ice is caused by the industrial age, then they show a chart of ice melting next to the industrial age and it spikes up.. However, what if global warming caused the industrial age, not the other way around? What if the EU/UK/Ireland entered an increasingly good climate. No longer did they have to concern themselves with mere survival but they could travel large distances, create lots of food, and flourish. We have seen it time and time again going back in history, civilizations rise with the cilmate and fall with it. Like the aztecs fell due to rain shortage etc. So what actual proof is there that man has any impact on it whatsoever? Holy fuck, there's still people asking that question?
*Flips table*
You’ll be telling us next that there’s, like, absolutely masses of peer reviewed research and data on the subject, pretty much telling us precisely that.
Pshaw! I don't need to tell em that? It's all over teh interweb by now surely? No?
*Continues flipping tables until UN Climate Report and analysis of measures utterly necessary to survival of humanity drops into everyone's lap*
There's a lovely website folks at the UN made.
Basically we need to-
Recycle EVERYTHING(repair is good too).
Eat less meat.
Replace capitalism with something less horrific and damaging.
Fly less
Drive less
Use an alternative to Palm oil
Make shark fin soup a thing of the past (I have an idea on that one)
Protect in perpetuity the remaining grasslands, rainforests, rivers, savanna's, mountain ranges, oceans etc.
Buy less shit you don't need.
Ban single use plastics (unless for medical use)
"There is no way in hell the UN an organisation made up of entirely capitalist countries with 3 out of 5 security council members who fought a decades long ear for capitalism says "get rid of capitalism for something less horrific" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of curiosity how would people feel about genuine massive scale intervention to prepare for outcomes rarher than simply cutting a fraction of a percent off co2 production? Things like digging up the old operation ploughshare plans to make a trench from the medeterainian to the sharah desert (its below sea level) and turning it into a gigantic inland sea in africa. Changing the local climate lowering sea levels and alowing massive new vegetative growth in africa? Have we reached the point where geological engineering is politically acceptable or are we still at the point of bottle deposits and an extra penny on fuel duty? Dumping vast quantities of fertiliser into the oceans to cause mass algae blooms to reduce co2, yeah its gonna negatively affect aquatic life but if it save millions of humans is it worth it Didn’t the Russians try this to terrible effect with the Aral Sea? Maybe it is feasible, but the evidence of engineering on this scale is not encouraging. Diverting rivers is not rhe same as diverting an ocean Neither is the scale of the potential fuck up... Well the alternative is it happens anyway after all the cities flood soooo.... Why not? Do we let all the displaced people come and live in the UK? Who lives in the sharah dessert?
We'd actually be creating a lot of more habitable land
The Sahara or Sharah? Clearly sone parts of the Sahara are low, Qattara might work, but it realistically needs the Nile being diverted and not just Salt Water - but reducing the flow of fresh water to the Med will also have an impact.
No the whole point is not to divert a river but to dig a huge trench from the med.
The original plan cause for several hundred nuclear bombs to be used. A trial was done to build a harbour using thermonuclear weapons and it worked very well
Did it really!?
Why would a saline inland sea make any change in a reasonable time? How would soil would be created, how would nutrition arrive, where does the flora and fauna come from - especially if someone detonates a nuclear bomb - see Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island...
To be fair flora and fauna is doing very well in Chernobyl.
Is it, can we have some pic’s of your visit?
Couldn't you just google it...
Much like you, I don’t believe stuff on the internet, so I am relying on you to do sone original research, apparently it is fine for flora and fauna, so you should be fine...
You get soo touchy when you're wrong. It kinda explains your attitude.
Why won’t you go? We could do crowd surfing to help you
Crowd surfing eh?
Yep, pretty sure you’d get loads & you could come back with a healthy glow and ‘real facts’ to help your argument - I mean, why wouldn’t you go? "If your willing to crowd fun me one of the guided tours of the exclusion zone fuck yea I'll 100% go. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have a thought. They say the speed up in melting ice is caused by the industrial age, then they show a chart of ice melting next to the industrial age and it spikes up.. However, what if global warming caused the industrial age, not the other way around? What if the EU/UK/Ireland entered an increasingly good climate. No longer did they have to concern themselves with mere survival but they could travel large distances, create lots of food, and flourish. We have seen it time and time again going back in history, civilizations rise with the cilmate and fall with it. Like the aztecs fell due to rain shortage etc. So what actual proof is there that man has any impact on it whatsoever? Holy fuck, there's still people asking that question?
*Flips table*
You’ll be telling us next that there’s, like, absolutely masses of peer reviewed research and data on the subject, pretty much telling us precisely that.
Pshaw! I don't need to tell em that? It's all over teh interweb by now surely? No?
*Continues flipping tables until UN Climate Report and analysis of measures utterly necessary to survival of humanity drops into everyone's lap*
There's a lovely website folks at the UN made.
Basically we need to-
Recycle EVERYTHING(repair is good too).
Eat less meat.
Replace capitalism with something less horrific and damaging.
Fly less
Drive less
Use an alternative to Palm oil
Make shark fin soup a thing of the past (I have an idea on that one)
Protect in perpetuity the remaining grasslands, rainforests, rivers, savanna's, mountain ranges, oceans etc.
Buy less shit you don't need.
Ban single use plastics (unless for medical use)
There is no way in hell the UN an organisation made up of entirely capitalist countries with 3 out of 5 security council members who fought a decades long ear for capitalism says "get rid of capitalism for something less horrific""Ummmm, their scientists did. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have a thought. They say the speed up in melting ice is caused by the industrial age, then they show a chart of ice melting next to the industrial age and it spikes up.. However, what if global warming caused the industrial age, not the other way around? What if the EU/UK/Ireland entered an increasingly good climate. No longer did they have to concern themselves with mere survival but they could travel large distances, create lots of food, and flourish. We have seen it time and time again going back in history, civilizations rise with the cilmate and fall with it. Like the aztecs fell due to rain shortage etc. So what actual proof is there that man has any impact on it whatsoever? Holy fuck, there's still people asking that question?
*Flips table*
You’ll be telling us next that there’s, like, absolutely masses of peer reviewed research and data on the subject, pretty much telling us precisely that.
Pshaw! I don't need to tell em that? It's all over teh interweb by now surely? No?
*Continues flipping tables until UN Climate Report and analysis of measures utterly necessary to survival of humanity drops into everyone's lap*
There's a lovely website folks at the UN made.
Basically we need to-
Recycle EVERYTHING(repair is good too).
Eat less meat.
Replace capitalism with something less horrific and damaging.
Fly less
Drive less
Use an alternative to Palm oil
Make shark fin soup a thing of the past (I have an idea on that one)
Protect in perpetuity the remaining grasslands, rainforests, rivers, savanna's, mountain ranges, oceans etc.
Buy less shit you don't need.
Ban single use plastics (unless for medical use)
There is no way in hell the UN an organisation made up of entirely capitalist countries with 3 out of 5 security council members who fought a decades long ear for capitalism says "get rid of capitalism for something less horrific""I thought the same | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone's worried about climate change - yet we should be far more worried about the next 'black plague' Research and development funding isn't great. Without this, we'll likely all be wiped out by a highly contagious virus or bacteria Not to mention be worried about the decline in new developments in the area of antibiotics, and so many of them becoming less and less effective, to the point where the WHO etc is seriously worried about the health implications of that. Although I’m sure I read something fairly recently about them maybe getting back ahead in that game?" Research is trying to move into phages (viruses that attack bacteria) for new biological antibiotic approaches. The problem with anti biotics is people are stupid. The problem with phages is even smart people are stupid. Monsanto nearly turned the earth into a dessert with one. I'd be willing to bet thats in a few "doomsday" weapon stockpiles now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Do you have links to that actual research - along with in depth analysis its limitations. Not denying man-made climate change - just that I've never actually critically examined any of the research If you want to read the sceptical side of things look at the site wattsupwiththat I’ll take peer reviewed science over I’ll informed scepticism any day of the week. So what other near universally agreed by science things are you as sceptical about? Maybe you are also sceptical about the so called experts who say the earth is spherical, when it’s actually flat? Or maybe you like to jump from the roofs of tall buildings because gravity is just some made up nonsense? Because it baffles me that so many people still seem to disbelieve what is happening with climate change, despite it now being near universally accepted scientific fact. As someone who has Master's of Science and has spent 5+ years conducting research - I'd rather hear all the angles. Ironically, I've actually become significantly more skeptical of 'scientific fact' since studying science Its like when people see "peer reviewed" and automatically assume is 100% true and universally accepted rather than it being the absolutle minimum standard and even then not that reliable unless tested. For instance in femininist studies it is peer reviewed and published in a leading journal (and there for absolute fact) that chapter 12 of Hitler's Mien kampf translated into English, and Jews changed to white men and Germans to women, is an accurate an excellent peice of feminist research " It's an important part of the checks but not, thank bast, the only way veracity is ascertained. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have a thought. They say the speed up in melting ice is caused by the industrial age, then they show a chart of ice melting next to the industrial age and it spikes up.. However, what if global warming caused the industrial age, not the other way around? What if the EU/UK/Ireland entered an increasingly good climate. No longer did they have to concern themselves with mere survival but they could travel large distances, create lots of food, and flourish. We have seen it time and time again going back in history, civilizations rise with the cilmate and fall with it. Like the aztecs fell due to rain shortage etc. So what actual proof is there that man has any impact on it whatsoever? Holy fuck, there's still people asking that question?
*Flips table*
You’ll be telling us next that there’s, like, absolutely masses of peer reviewed research and data on the subject, pretty much telling us precisely that.
Pshaw! I don't need to tell em that? It's all over teh interweb by now surely? No?
*Continues flipping tables until UN Climate Report and analysis of measures utterly necessary to survival of humanity drops into everyone's lap*
There's a lovely website folks at the UN made.
Basically we need to-
Recycle EVERYTHING(repair is good too).
Eat less meat.
Replace capitalism with something less horrific and damaging.
Fly less
Drive less
Use an alternative to Palm oil
Make shark fin soup a thing of the past (I have an idea on that one)
Protect in perpetuity the remaining grasslands, rainforests, rivers, savanna's, mountain ranges, oceans etc.
Buy less shit you don't need.
Ban single use plastics (unless for medical use)
There is no way in hell the UN an organisation made up of entirely capitalist countries with 3 out of 5 security council members who fought a decades long ear for capitalism says "get rid of capitalism for something less horrific"
Ummmm, their scientists did."Can you quote the paragraph? What alternative did they suggest? As in terms of "horror" communism is a much worse option | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Imma go leave you guys to your reading. Got a chess set and some pigeons outside were talking smack about my moves..." So thats a no on being able to reference your quote then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Imma go leave you guys to your reading. Got a chess set and some pigeons outside were talking smack about my moves..." Ok i did it for you the 2018 un climate report pdf has 0 uses of the word capitalism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I went with the 2018 report as "UN Climate Report and analysis of measures utterly necessary to survival of humanity" this report doesnt seem to exist as far as the un are concerned jist the ipcc reports" Yay you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I went with the 2018 report as "UN Climate Report and analysis of measures utterly necessary to survival of humanity" this report doesnt seem to exist as far as the un are concerned jist the ipcc reports Yay you. " So im going to go out on a limb here. You never read this report or any other report in fact you read a blog, a vlog, podcast or article about this report and took what that author said as gospel? As you cant even reference the report your refering to let alone what section. Its not like im asking for the Harvard system in your posts just a title at this point or even a web link | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mmm. It's more a case of your apparent ability to work the internet. I've read over 30 articles and reports and projections on this one aspect that you cherry picked out of my post. I found em. You can too. " So you cant name one report then... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fundamentally climate change is just a convenient excuse for the government to tax us more. Remember how the government decided how, to save the planet from aircraft emissions, they would introduce air passenger duty. £13 of your shorthaul ticket goes to the government for doing fuck all, £75 pounds for a long haul ticket. Take your family of four to Disney and the government take £300 out of your holiday money. They now take in 3 to 4 billion pounds from this tax each year and half they people thank the government for taxing them to save the planet. They don't want us to stop flying, they just want more of our money. Thanks to these 'useful idiots' protesting in London, I expect the government will say that they have listened to the people and they are going to raise 'green taxes' even higher. Doesn't make any difference to the climate, just gives more money to the government to waste." Yes it's all a conspiracy. Science is conspiring with government to add a few quid to flights. All these reports, peer reviewed papers - a total con so government can chisel a few bob out of you. You are as dumb as cheese | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fundamentally climate change is just a convenient excuse for the government to tax us more. Remember how the government decided how, to save the planet from aircraft emissions, they would introduce air passenger duty. £13 of your shorthaul ticket goes to the government for doing fuck all, £75 pounds for a long haul ticket. Take your family of four to Disney and the government take £300 out of your holiday money. They now take in 3 to 4 billion pounds from this tax each year and half they people thank the government for taxing them to save the planet. They don't want us to stop flying, they just want more of our money. Thanks to these 'useful idiots' protesting in London, I expect the government will say that they have listened to the people and they are going to raise 'green taxes' even higher. Doesn't make any difference to the climate, just gives more money to the government to waste." Ffs no. Governments are not organising a global conspiracy to whack a few extra pence on duty thats ring fenced anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
