FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > The icy C4 climate debate lol
The icy C4 climate debate lol
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was soo funny! I bet that'll really hurt them in the election. " Sadly, I think the Tories will win anyway. Laughing at least cheers me up at times. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tories are threatening to look into Channel 4's broadcasting licence after tonight's "mockery" and Brexit party leader Nigel Farage has called Channel 4 unfair and alluded to them being a propaganda network. Fighting talk is happening, just how much of this country will believe them or side with them." Yeah I saw the pissy Tory response. It was pretty pathetic of them. | |||
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) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hopefully in the future channel 4 will make sure that they all confirm before announcing a leader's debate. " There won’t be a Channel 4 in future if the supreme leader has his way.. A decade of journalistic re-education in Jacob reese moggs salt mines for all staff at channel 4 should put them back on message..  | |||
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) | |||
"I missed it ...Thanks for the summary "Lol a summary on a climate change debate from someone who doesn't understand debate or climate change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I missed it ...Thanks for the summary
Lol a summary on a climate change debate from someone who doesn't understand debate or climate change."To solve climate change we must try and listen to all opinions and views . The science isn’t up for debate but the solutions should be debated .Time is of the essence.Luckily millions of Brits are onboard and want change. The millions who saw Boris absent will no doubt make if that what they will.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I missed it ...Thanks for the summary
Lol a summary on a climate change debate from someone who doesn't understand debate or climate change.". Don't spit your dummy out fella with that old chestnut again. All we proved last time is your "degree" ain't worth toffe  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I missed it ...Thanks for the summary
Lol a summary on a climate change debate from someone who doesn't understand debate or climate change.
To solve climate change we must try and listen to all opinions and views .
The science isn’t up for debate but the solutions should be debated .Time is of the essence.Luckily millions of Brits are onboard and want change.
The millions who saw Boris absent will no doubt make if that what they will.. "I agree. The problem lies with the right wing tactic of shifting the debate from what to do about the facts or climate change. To the facts themselves. This: A. Puts doubt into the minds of people who aren't paying attention. B. Causes a delay to the real debate on what we should do, while people explain the science those who aren't paying attention. The debate shouldn't be "should we do something about climate change". It should be "what should we do about climate change". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We didn't see it. Did anyone ask Sturgeon how she squares the circle of bringing an independant Scotland carbon neutral by 2040 while at the same time growing Scotland's economy through oil incomes?" This is the kind of questions people should be asking. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This from the Guardian - John Crace is brilliant! " Agreed, always very smartly observant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We didn't see it. Did anyone ask Sturgeon how she squares the circle of bringing an independant Scotland carbon neutral by 2040 while at the same time growing Scotland's economy through oil incomes? This is the kind of questions people should be asking." An independent Scotland should invest its oil revenues into renewables.Its got wind and tidal forces in abundance to be tapped.. Ms Sturgeon said: “We have to transition away from fossil fuels and that transition has to accelerate. “We’re one of the most renewable energy rich countries in the world. “If we were to stop oil production tomorrow, we would make ourselves more reliant on imports – the carbon intensity would increase. “The transition has got to be done in a way that cuts our emissions, but the one other thing that’s not been mentioned here – where we’ve taken action that other countries haven’t – Is the justice of the transition – not doing this in a way that leaves people behind and decimates people’s jobs.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I missed it ...Thanks for the summary
Lol a summary on a climate change debate from someone who doesn't understand debate or climate change." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We didn't see it. Did anyone ask Sturgeon how she squares the circle of bringing an independant Scotland carbon neutral by 2040 while at the same time growing Scotland's economy through oil incomes? This is the kind of questions people should be asking. An independent Scotland should invest its oil revenues into renewables.Its got wind and tidal forces in abundance to be tapped.. Ms Sturgeon said: “We have to transition away from fossil fuels and that transition has to accelerate. “We’re one of the most renewable energy rich countries in the world. “If we were to stop oil production tomorrow, we would make ourselves more reliant on imports – the carbon intensity would increase. “The transition has got to be done in a way that cuts our emissions, but the one other thing that’s not been mentioned here – where we’ve taken action that other countries haven’t – Is the justice of the transition – not doing this in a way that leaves people behind and decimates people’s jobs.” " Good to see that has been addressed for the question asker. All parties should be held accountable for their climate policies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"i missed it did anyone ask corbyn how he intends to plant 8.3 million trees a month for the next 20 years? because im interested how they will achieve this and where are all the saplings coming from." Surely actually trying to do something is worth much more than not turning up to the debate? BJ is a charlatan  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"i missed it did anyone ask corbyn how he intends to plant 8.3 million trees a month for the next 20 years? because im interested how they will achieve this and where are all the saplings coming from. Surely actually trying to do something is worth much more than not turning up to the debate? BJ is a charlatan "well of course but all the other parties are going for realistic targets if you are going to do what you say surely its reasonable to ask how it will be achieved.I thought that was the purpose of debates.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"i missed it did anyone ask corbyn how he intends to plant 8.3 million trees a month for the next 20 years? because im interested how they will achieve this and where are all the saplings coming from. Surely actually trying to do something is worth much more than not turning up to the debate? BJ is a charlatan well of course but all the other parties are going for realistic targets if you are going to do what you say surely its reasonable to ask how it will be achieved.I thought that was the purpose of debates. "He's right. All parties should be scrutinised on their policies and how they can achieve them. Otherwise their manifestos are nonsense. But I don't know why you're specifically suggesting that labour are the only party with an unrealistic section of their strategy? Seems they are far from the worst when it comes to climate change. If you'd enjoy a good chuckle. Go and read UKIPs climate policies. Thank fuck they're unlikely to get any seats. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"i missed it did anyone ask corbyn how he intends to plant 8.3 million trees a month for the next 20 years? because im interested how they will achieve this and where are all the saplings coming from." If Pakistan manages 2.5 million saplings in one day in September last year I think we can do 8.3 million a month.. 10 billion trees is the goal of Imran Khan and his government . We’re Great Britain we can achieve anything.. Have faith in our great nation and let’s get climate change done.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"i missed it did anyone ask corbyn how he intends to plant 8.3 million trees a month for the next 20 years? because im interested how they will achieve this and where are all the saplings coming from. Surely actually trying to do something is worth much more than not turning up to the debate? BJ is a charlatan well of course but all the other parties are going for realistic targets if you are going to do what you say surely its reasonable to ask how it will be achieved.I thought that was the purpose of debates. "Indeed, & if BJ or Farage bothered to turn up then they could have asked the question... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"i missed it did anyone ask corbyn how he intends to plant 8.3 million trees a month for the next 20 years? because im interested how they will achieve this and where are all the saplings coming from. If Pakistan manages 2.5 million saplings in one day in September last year I think we can do 8.3 million a month.. 10 billion trees is the goal of Imran Khan and his government . We’re Great Britain we can achieve anything.. Have faith in our great nation and let’s get climate change done.. "8.3 million a month every month for the next 20 years could be a job for life going there bob would suet your green fingers down to the ground mate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"i missed it did anyone ask corbyn how he intends to plant 8.3 million trees a month for the next 20 years? because im interested how they will achieve this and where are all the saplings coming from. If Pakistan manages 2.5 million saplings in one day in September last year I think we can do 8.3 million a month.. 10 billion trees is the goal of Imran Khan and his government . We’re Great Britain we can achieve anything.. Have faith in our great nation and let’s get climate change done.. 8.3 million a month every month for the next 20 years could be a job for life going there bob would suet your green fingers down to the ground mate. "Anything is possible if you have the intent to make it happen. Getting everyone involved would be great.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tories are threatening to look into Channel 4's broadcasting licence after tonight's "mockery" and Brexit party leader Nigel Farage has called Channel 4 unfair and alluded to them being a propaganda network. Fighting talk is happening, just how much of this country will believe them or side with them." I find it particularly perturbing when parties threaten the media when they don't do what they are told. I find it to be thuggish behaviour. Even for Tories I think it's a new low. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tories are threatening to look into Channel 4's broadcasting licence after tonight's "mockery" and Brexit party leader Nigel Farage has called Channel 4 unfair and alluded to them being a propaganda network. Fighting talk is happening, just how much of this country will believe them or side with them. I find it particularly perturbing when parties threaten the media when they don't do what they are told. I find it to be thuggish behaviour. Even for Tories I think it's a new low." newspapers are allowed to be bias but broadcasting companies are supposed to remain neutral and there are laws to govern them.If they have broken the law prosecute them if not they have nothing to worry about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All three parties with the big infrastructure spending are talking out there arses on the timescale, 9 million homes to be retrofitted in 10 years, entire swathes of the country to be electrified, hundreds of thousands of miles of gas pipelines to be replaced with cables, tens of thousands of sub transformers all of which are under every road in the country(good luck getting anywhere when you dig that up), thousands of pylons, billions of trees, millions of miles of broadband, and then you've gotta train millions of people in doing this shit because you'll need a work force three times the size of the NHS and they've all gotta run on tofu. Get fucked "Just as matter of interest do you know what a tipping point is? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All three parties with the big infrastructure spending are talking out there arses on the timescale, 9 million homes to be retrofitted in 10 years, entire swathes of the country to be electrified, hundreds of thousands of miles of gas pipelines to be replaced with cables, tens of thousands of sub transformers all of which are under every road in the country(good luck getting anywhere when you dig that up), thousands of pylons, billions of trees, millions of miles of broadband, and then you've gotta train millions of people in doing this shit because you'll need a work force three times the size of the NHS and they've all gotta run on tofu. Get fucked
Just as matter of interest do you know what a tipping point is?". Is it where we all might die in 12 years but definitely will in 25 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tories are threatening to look into Channel 4's broadcasting licence after tonight's "mockery" and Brexit party leader Nigel Farage has called Channel 4 unfair and alluded to them being a propaganda network. Fighting talk is happening, just how much of this country will believe them or side with them. I find it particularly perturbing when parties threaten the media when they don't do what they are told. I find it to be thuggish behaviour. Even for Tories I think it's a new low.newspapers are allowed to be bias but broadcasting companies are supposed to remain neutral and there are laws to govern them.If they have broken the law prosecute them if not they have nothing to worry about. " But the threat isn't really based on a legal question. The Government has the power to change the terms under which C4 operate. So whether what they did was legal or not, Boris could "punish" them for it. It's the hammer under which the BBC have been becoming labouring. In a more exposed position as they have no advertising income. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tories are threatening to look into Channel 4's broadcasting licence after tonight's "mockery" and Brexit party leader Nigel Farage has called Channel 4 unfair and alluded to them being a propaganda network. Fighting talk is happening, just how much of this country will believe them or side with them. I find it particularly perturbing when parties threaten the media when they don't do what they are told. I find it to be thuggish behaviour. Even for Tories I think it's a new low.newspapers are allowed to be bias but broadcasting companies are supposed to remain neutral and there are laws to govern them.If they have broken the law prosecute them if not they have nothing to worry about. But the threat isn't really based on a legal question. The Government has the power to change the terms under which C4 operate. So whether what they did was legal or not, Boris could "punish" them for it. It's the hammer under which the BBC have been becoming labouring. In a more exposed position as they have no advertising income. " You make it sound like we live in a dictatorship boris this boris that,parliament decide these things a bill is put to the vote and it either passes or doesn't.I know many on here like to portray him as a dictator but thats not how the country works as we have already witnessed with the brexit fuck up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All three parties with the big infrastructure spending are talking out there arses on the timescale, 9 million homes to be retrofitted in 10 years, entire swathes of the country to be electrified, hundreds of thousands of miles of gas pipelines to be replaced with cables, tens of thousands of sub transformers all of which are under every road in the country(good luck getting anywhere when you dig that up), thousands of pylons, billions of trees, millions of miles of broadband, and then you've gotta train millions of people in doing this shit because you'll need a work force three times the size of the NHS and they've all gotta run on tofu. Get fucked
Just as matter of interest do you know what a tipping point is?.
Is it where we all might die in 12 years but definitely will in 25 "When methane emissions cause global warming which in turn causes more global warming in a feedback loop that we will be powerless to prevent. You think we should be concentrating on fixing potholes? Well as a 'leftie' who drives a luxury German Sports car (which is also the most economical car I've ever owned. Before you go off on one) I pay £320 per tire every time I lose one to a pothole. So with you on the pothole issue. I have children and hope to have grandchildren so whether the planet lasts 12 years, 25 years or 50 years is irrelevant. The point is if we don't stop it now it will be impossible to stop it later. I have read articles (and no this isn't a dissertation so I'm not providing references) that say of the 6 major phenomenon that threaten global extinction 2 have past tipping points. 20% of the the Amazon rain forest which produces 20% of the world's oxygen is already gone. These phenomena also feed off each other thereby increasing an already exponential effect. Combine this with the human contribution to global warming and it isn't being alarmist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All three parties with the big infrastructure spending are talking out there arses on the timescale, 9 million homes to be retrofitted in 10 years, entire swathes of the country to be electrified, hundreds of thousands of miles of gas pipelines to be replaced with cables, tens of thousands of sub transformers all of which are under every road in the country(good luck getting anywhere when you dig that up), thousands of pylons, billions of trees, millions of miles of broadband, and then you've gotta train millions of people in doing this shit because you'll need a work force three times the size of the NHS and they've all gotta run on tofu. Get fucked
Just as matter of interest do you know what a tipping point is?.
Is it where we all might die in 12 years but definitely will in 25
When methane emissions cause global warming which in turn causes more global warming in a feedback loop that we will be powerless to prevent. You think we should be concentrating on fixing potholes?
Well as a 'leftie' who drives a luxury German Sports car (which is also the most economical car I've ever owned. Before you go off on one) I pay £320 per tire every time I lose one to a pothole. So with you on the pothole issue.
I have children and hope to have grandchildren so whether the planet lasts 12 years, 25 years or 50 years is irrelevant. The point is if we don't stop it now it will be impossible to stop it later.
I have read articles (and no this isn't a dissertation so I'm not providing references) that say of the 6 major phenomenon that threaten global extinction 2 have past tipping points. 20% of the the Amazon rain forest which produces 20% of the world's oxygen is already gone.
These phenomena also feed off each other thereby increasing an already exponential effect. Combine this with the human contribution to global warming and it isn't being alarmist.". Oooh you mean runaway climate change ... I leave the scary stuff for grownups.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We didn't see it. Did anyone ask Sturgeon how she squares the circle of bringing an independant Scotland carbon neutral by 2040 while at the same time growing Scotland's economy through oil incomes? This is the kind of questions people should be asking. An independent Scotland should invest its oil revenues into renewables.Its got wind and tidal forces in abundance to be tapped.. " Pitty Sturgon didn't reflect on her grilling by Neil two days ago, it must have been water off her back? He quoted the SNP gave a pre referendum manifesto promising £20bn revenue from oil, when they brought in only £300m. I can not argue with the fact that there's surplus wind up there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s pleasing to see governments and industry getting on board with climate change. Strong policies will pave the way." Yes. The outlook for the UK is bleak as fuck. But at least there was some positive feeling during this debate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All three parties with the big infrastructure spending are talking out there arses on the timescale, 9 million homes to be retrofitted in 10 years, entire swathes of the country to be electrified, hundreds of thousands of miles of gas pipelines to be replaced with cables, tens of thousands of sub transformers all of which are under every road in the country(good luck getting anywhere when you dig that up), thousands of pylons, billions of trees, millions of miles of broadband, and then you've gotta train millions of people in doing this shit because you'll need a work force three times the size of the NHS and they've all gotta run on tofu. Get fucked
Just as matter of interest do you know what a tipping point is?.
Is it where we all might die in 12 years but definitely will in 25
When methane emissions cause global warming which in turn causes more global warming in a feedback loop that we will be powerless to prevent. You think we should be concentrating on fixing potholes?
Well as a 'leftie' who drives a luxury German Sports car (which is also the most economical car I've ever owned. Before you go off on one) I pay £320 per tire every time I lose one to a pothole. So with you on the pothole issue.
I have children and hope to have grandchildren so whether the planet lasts 12 years, 25 years or 50 years is irrelevant. The point is if we don't stop it now it will be impossible to stop it later.
I have read articles (and no this isn't a dissertation so I'm not providing references) that say of the 6 major phenomenon that threaten global extinction 2 have past tipping points. 20% of the the Amazon rain forest which produces 20% of the world's oxygen is already gone.
These phenomena also feed off each other thereby increasing an already exponential effect. Combine this with the human contribution to global warming and it isn't being alarmist..
Oooh you mean runaway climate change ... I leave the scary stuff for grownups. "You have. Your hero Donald Trump announced that the U.S would cease participation in the 2015 Agreement on climate change mitigation. He, like you thinks it's more important to make America great even if it means that much of it will eventually be under water. Those Americans will be rich but dead. A weird order of priorities. To my mind every politician of every country should have climate change as their number one priority. Does it not make sense that when we are facing global extinction everything else is irrelevant? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s pleasing to see governments and industry getting on board with climate change. Strong policies will pave the way." . They've been on board with it for decades, what do you think the diesel engine Revolution for the last 30 years was about?, the fracking Revolution?. It's called lowering the c02 output from energy usage. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All three parties with the big infrastructure spending are talking out there arses on the timescale, 9 million homes to be retrofitted in 10 years, entire swathes of the country to be electrified, hundreds of thousands of miles of gas pipelines to be replaced with cables, tens of thousands of sub transformers all of which are under every road in the country(good luck getting anywhere when you dig that up), thousands of pylons, billions of trees, millions of miles of broadband, and then you've gotta train millions of people in doing this shit because you'll need a work force three times the size of the NHS and they've all gotta run on tofu. Get fucked
Just as matter of interest do you know what a tipping point is?.
Is it where we all might die in 12 years but definitely will in 25
When methane emissions cause global warming which in turn causes more global warming in a feedback loop that we will be powerless to prevent. You think we should be concentrating on fixing potholes?
Well as a 'leftie' who drives a luxury German Sports car (which is also the most economical car I've ever owned. Before you go off on one) I pay £320 per tire every time I lose one to a pothole. So with you on the pothole issue.
I have children and hope to have grandchildren so whether the planet lasts 12 years, 25 years or 50 years is irrelevant. The point is if we don't stop it now it will be impossible to stop it later.
I have read articles (and no this isn't a dissertation so I'm not providing references) that say of the 6 major phenomenon that threaten global extinction 2 have past tipping points. 20% of the the Amazon rain forest which produces 20% of the world's oxygen is already gone.
These phenomena also feed off each other thereby increasing an already exponential effect. Combine this with the human contribution to global warming and it isn't being alarmist..
Oooh you mean runaway climate change ... I leave the scary stuff for grownups.
You have. Your hero Donald Trump announced that the U.S would cease participation in the 2015 Agreement on climate change mitigation.
He, like you thinks it's more important to make America great even if it means that much of it will eventually be under water. Those Americans will be rich but dead. A weird order of priorities.
To my mind every politician of every country should have climate change as their number one priority. Does it not make sense that when we are facing global extinction everything else is irrelevant?". Oh yea a global extinction, crikey that sounds really really bad, when's it going under water then?, what's the IPCC say? , I'll contact Baywatch and let them know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s pleasing to see governments and industry getting on board with climate change. Strong policies will pave the way. Yes. The outlook for the UK is bleak as fuck. But at least there was some positive feeling during this debate " . It's not that bad, I watched that rapman film the other night without being macheted once. Wish I had to be honest, the film was shit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All three parties with the big infrastructure spending are talking out there arses on the timescale, 9 million homes to be retrofitted in 10 years, entire swathes of the country to be electrified, hundreds of thousands of miles of gas pipelines to be replaced with cables, tens of thousands of sub transformers all of which are under every road in the country(good luck getting anywhere when you dig that up), thousands of pylons, billions of trees, millions of miles of broadband, and then you've gotta train millions of people in doing this shit because you'll need a work force three times the size of the NHS and they've all gotta run on tofu. Get fucked
Just as matter of interest do you know what a tipping point is?.
Is it where we all might die in 12 years but definitely will in 25
When methane emissions cause global warming which in turn causes more global warming in a feedback loop that we will be powerless to prevent. You think we should be concentrating on fixing potholes?
Well as a 'leftie' who drives a luxury German Sports car (which is also the most economical car I've ever owned. Before you go off on one) I pay £320 per tire every time I lose one to a pothole. So with you on the pothole issue.
I have children and hope to have grandchildren so whether the planet lasts 12 years, 25 years or 50 years is irrelevant. The point is if we don't stop it now it will be impossible to stop it later.
I have read articles (and no this isn't a dissertation so I'm not providing references) that say of the 6 major phenomenon that threaten global extinction 2 have past tipping points. 20% of the the Amazon rain forest which produces 20% of the world's oxygen is already gone.
These phenomena also feed off each other thereby increasing an already exponential effect. Combine this with the human contribution to global warming and it isn't being alarmist..
Oooh you mean runaway climate change ... I leave the scary stuff for grownups.
You have. Your hero Donald Trump announced that the U.S would cease participation in the 2015 Agreement on climate change mitigation.
He, like you thinks it's more important to make America great even if it means that much of it will eventually be under water. Those Americans will be rich but dead. A weird order of priorities.
To my mind every politician of every country should have climate change as their number one priority. Does it not make sense that when we are facing global extinction everything else is irrelevant?.
Oh yea a global extinction, crikey that sounds really really bad, when's it going under water then?, what's the IPCC say? , I'll contact Baywatch and let them know.
"Yup it's all a myth right? Why are you so fixated on a doomsday date? You can stick your head in the sand (or a pothole) and carry on believing that we can breathe methane instead of oxygen. You're on the same planet as the rest of us (in a physical sense at least) Are you part of the solution, part of the problem or part of the scenery? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s pleasing to see governments and industry getting on board with climate change. Strong policies will pave the way.. They've been on board with it for decades, what do you think the diesel engine Revolution for the last 30 years was about?, the fracking Revolution?. It's called lowering the c02 output from energy usage. "In a half hearted way maybe they did in the past .You can see now all parties want a piece of the green vote. There’s greater momentum then ever before and greater pressure from the public to make governments make the change.. It’s a long haul but worth it.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All three parties with the big infrastructure spending are talking out there arses on the timescale, 9 million homes to be retrofitted in 10 years, entire swathes of the country to be electrified, hundreds of thousands of miles of gas pipelines to be replaced with cables, tens of thousands of sub transformers all of which are under every road in the country(good luck getting anywhere when you dig that up), thousands of pylons, billions of trees, millions of miles of broadband, and then you've gotta train millions of people in doing this shit because you'll need a work force three times the size of the NHS and they've all gotta run on tofu. Get fucked
Just as matter of interest do you know what a tipping point is?.
Is it where we all might die in 12 years but definitely will in 25
When methane emissions cause global warming which in turn causes more global warming in a feedback loop that we will be powerless to prevent. You think we should be concentrating on fixing potholes?
Well as a 'leftie' who drives a luxury German Sports car (which is also the most economical car I've ever owned. Before you go off on one) I pay £320 per tire every time I lose one to a pothole. So with you on the pothole issue.
I have children and hope to have grandchildren so whether the planet lasts 12 years, 25 years or 50 years is irrelevant. The point is if we don't stop it now it will be impossible to stop it later.
I have read articles (and no this isn't a dissertation so I'm not providing references) that say of the 6 major phenomenon that threaten global extinction 2 have past tipping points. 20% of the the Amazon rain forest which produces 20% of the world's oxygen is already gone.
These phenomena also feed off each other thereby increasing an already exponential effect. Combine this with the human contribution to global warming and it isn't being alarmist..
Oooh you mean runaway climate change ... I leave the scary stuff for grownups.
You have. Your hero Donald Trump announced that the U.S would cease participation in the 2015 Agreement on climate change mitigation.
He, like you thinks it's more important to make America great even if it means that much of it will eventually be under water. Those Americans will be rich but dead. A weird order of priorities.
To my mind every politician of every country should have climate change as their number one priority. Does it not make sense that when we are facing global extinction everything else is irrelevant?.
Oh yea a global extinction, crikey that sounds really really bad, when's it going under water then?, what's the IPCC say? , I'll contact Baywatch and let them know.
Yup it's all a myth right?
Why are you so fixated on a doomsday date?
You can stick your head in the sand (or a pothole) and carry on believing that we can breathe methane instead of oxygen. You're on the same planet as the rest of us (in a physical sense at least)
Are you part of the solution, part of the problem or part of the scenery?". I'm just passing through and yes to both. Technically speaking I do breath methane, it's in "air", if I were to only breath oxygen I'd die. Methane breaks down into c02 and H20 in the atmosphere and technically speaking I breath them as well. As a greenhouse gas both c02 and H20 should be limited so I'm on board with trying our best to control methane outputs. However suicide is no solution to escape death, so honestly, I'm not on board with leftwing nonsense over climate emergency/doomsday cult tripe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s pleasing to see governments and industry getting on board with climate change. Strong policies will pave the way." Well every little helps as they say but whatever anyone does is not going to change much, history shows us that civilizations have been wiped out in the past by climate change and non of them were man made.Man made climate change is good for keeping the masses minds concentrated if they actually said there is fuck all we can do about it apart from slow it up a bit there would be anarchy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s pleasing to see governments and industry getting on board with climate change. Strong policies will pave the way.Well every little helps as they say but whatever anyone does is not going to change much, history shows us that civilizations have been wiped out in the past by climate change and non of them were man made.Man made climate change is good for keeping the masses minds concentrated if they actually said there is fuck all we can do about it apart from slow it up a bit there would be anarchy." Do you believe the situation is hopeless and we are beyond the point of no return already? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All three parties with the big infrastructure spending are talking out there arses on the timescale, 9 million homes to be retrofitted in 10 years, entire swathes of the country to be electrified, hundreds of thousands of miles of gas pipelines to be replaced with cables, tens of thousands of sub transformers all of which are under every road in the country(good luck getting anywhere when you dig that up), thousands of pylons, billions of trees, millions of miles of broadband, and then you've gotta train millions of people in doing this shit because you'll need a work force three times the size of the NHS and they've all gotta run on tofu. Get fucked
Just as matter of interest do you know what a tipping point is?.
Is it where we all might die in 12 years but definitely will in 25
When methane emissions cause global warming which in turn causes more global warming in a feedback loop that we will be powerless to prevent. You think we should be concentrating on fixing potholes?
Well as a 'leftie' who drives a luxury German Sports car (which is also the most economical car I've ever owned. Before you go off on one) I pay £320 per tire every time I lose one to a pothole. So with you on the pothole issue.
I have children and hope to have grandchildren so whether the planet lasts 12 years, 25 years or 50 years is irrelevant. The point is if we don't stop it now it will be impossible to stop it later.
I have read articles (and no this isn't a dissertation so I'm not providing references) that say of the 6 major phenomenon that threaten global extinction 2 have past tipping points. 20% of the the Amazon rain forest which produces 20% of the world's oxygen is already gone.
These phenomena also feed off each other thereby increasing an already exponential effect. Combine this with the human contribution to global warming and it isn't being alarmist..
Oooh you mean runaway climate change ... I leave the scary stuff for grownups.
You have. Your hero Donald Trump announced that the U.S would cease participation in the 2015 Agreement on climate change mitigation.
He, like you thinks it's more important to make America great even if it means that much of it will eventually be under water. Those Americans will be rich but dead. A weird order of priorities.
To my mind every politician of every country should have climate change as their number one priority. Does it not make sense that when we are facing global extinction everything else is irrelevant?.
Oh yea a global extinction, crikey that sounds really really bad, when's it going under water then?, what's the IPCC say? , I'll contact Baywatch and let them know.
Yup it's all a myth right?
Why are you so fixated on a doomsday date?
You can stick your head in the sand (or a pothole) and carry on believing that we can breathe methane instead of oxygen. You're on the same planet as the rest of us (in a physical sense at least)
Are you part of the solution, part of the problem or part of the scenery?.
I'm just passing through and yes to both.
Technically speaking I do breath methane, it's in "air", if I were to only breath oxygen I'd die.
Methane breaks down into c02 and H20 in the atmosphere and technically speaking I breath them as well.
As a greenhouse gas both c02 and H20 should be limited so I'm on board with trying our best to control methane outputs.
However suicide is no solution to escape death, so honestly, I'm not on board with leftwing nonsense over climate emergency/doomsday cult tripe."Scientists who study climate change aren't political with their findings. So labelling people who study climate as "leftwing nonsense" only shows that you're angry and you don't understand the situation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All three parties with the big infrastructure spending are talking out there arses on the timescale, 9 million homes to be retrofitted in 10 years, entire swathes of the country to be electrified, hundreds of thousands of miles of gas pipelines to be replaced with cables, tens of thousands of sub transformers all of which are under every road in the country(good luck getting anywhere when you dig that up), thousands of pylons, billions of trees, millions of miles of broadband, and then you've gotta train millions of people in doing this shit because you'll need a work force three times the size of the NHS and they've all gotta run on tofu. Get fucked
Just as matter of interest do you know what a tipping point is?.
Is it where we all might die in 12 years but definitely will in 25
When methane emissions cause global warming which in turn causes more global warming in a feedback loop that we will be powerless to prevent. You think we should be concentrating on fixing potholes?
Well as a 'leftie' who drives a luxury German Sports car (which is also the most economical car I've ever owned. Before you go off on one) I pay £320 per tire every time I lose one to a pothole. So with you on the pothole issue.
I have children and hope to have grandchildren so whether the planet lasts 12 years, 25 years or 50 years is irrelevant. The point is if we don't stop it now it will be impossible to stop it later.
I have read articles (and no this isn't a dissertation so I'm not providing references) that say of the 6 major phenomenon that threaten global extinction 2 have past tipping points. 20% of the the Amazon rain forest which produces 20% of the world's oxygen is already gone.
These phenomena also feed off each other thereby increasing an already exponential effect. Combine this with the human contribution to global warming and it isn't being alarmist..
Oooh you mean runaway climate change ... I leave the scary stuff for grownups.
You have. Your hero Donald Trump announced that the U.S would cease participation in the 2015 Agreement on climate change mitigation.
He, like you thinks it's more important to make America great even if it means that much of it will eventually be under water. Those Americans will be rich but dead. A weird order of priorities.
To my mind every politician of every country should have climate change as their number one priority. Does it not make sense that when we are facing global extinction everything else is irrelevant?.
Oh yea a global extinction, crikey that sounds really really bad, when's it going under water then?, what's the IPCC say? , I'll contact Baywatch and let them know.
Yup it's all a myth right?
Why are you so fixated on a doomsday date?
You can stick your head in the sand (or a pothole) and carry on believing that we can breathe methane instead of oxygen. You're on the same planet as the rest of us (in a physical sense at least)
Are you part of the solution, part of the problem or part of the scenery?.
I'm just passing through and yes to both.
Technically speaking I do breath methane, it's in "air", if I were to only breath oxygen I'd die.
Methane breaks down into c02 and H20 in the atmosphere and technically speaking I breath them as well.
As a greenhouse gas both c02 and H20 should be limited so I'm on board with trying our best to control methane outputs.
However suicide is no solution to escape death, so honestly, I'm not on board with leftwing nonsense over climate emergency/doomsday cult tripe."Part of the problem then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s pleasing to see governments and industry getting on board with climate change. Strong policies will pave the way.Well every little helps as they say but whatever anyone does is not going to change much, history shows us that civilizations have been wiped out in the past by climate change and non of them were man made.Man made climate change is good for keeping the masses minds concentrated if they actually said there is fuck all we can do about it apart from slow it up a bit there would be anarchy. Do you believe the situation is hopeless and we are beyond the point of no return already?" I believe what will be will be as i do not buy the theory that all climate change is man made it doesnt help i grant you but your not going to change it very much. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s pleasing to see governments and industry getting on board with climate change. Strong policies will pave the way.Well every little helps as they say but whatever anyone does is not going to change much, history shows us that civilizations have been wiped out in the past by climate change and non of them were man made.Man made climate change is good for keeping the masses minds concentrated if they actually said there is fuck all we can do about it apart from slow it up a bit there would be anarchy." Apathy has always been the enemy of mankind and progress. It is possible that the problem can’t be solved by us but we can buy future generations more time to solve it.Lets not give up on humanity just yet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s pleasing to see governments and industry getting on board with climate change. Strong policies will pave the way.Well every little helps as they say but whatever anyone does is not going to change much, history shows us that civilizations have been wiped out in the past by climate change and non of them were man made.Man made climate change is good for keeping the masses minds concentrated if they actually said there is fuck all we can do about it apart from slow it up a bit there would be anarchy. Do you believe the situation is hopeless and we are beyond the point of no return already?I believe what will be will be as i do not buy the theory that all climate change is man made it doesnt help i grant you but your not going to change it very much." If you read about some of the science behind it. You would see why it's directly related to human activity. And that we've dramatically increased the speed with which the planet is heading. It's a cascade effect, so a small temperature increase due to CO2 etc kicks off other factors that increase the speed with which the climate changes. The science is 100% on this. Of course, you may choose not to believe this regardless of the information. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All three parties with the big infrastructure spending are talking out there arses on the timescale, 9 million homes to be retrofitted in 10 years, entire swathes of the country to be electrified, hundreds of thousands of miles of gas pipelines to be replaced with cables, tens of thousands of sub transformers all of which are under every road in the country(good luck getting anywhere when you dig that up), thousands of pylons, billions of trees, millions of miles of broadband, and then you've gotta train millions of people in doing this shit because you'll need a work force three times the size of the NHS and they've all gotta run on tofu. Get fucked
Just as matter of interest do you know what a tipping point is?.
Is it where we all might die in 12 years but definitely will in 25
When methane emissions cause global warming which in turn causes more global warming in a feedback loop that we will be powerless to prevent. You think we should be concentrating on fixing potholes?
Well as a 'leftie' who drives a luxury German Sports car (which is also the most economical car I've ever owned. Before you go off on one) I pay £320 per tire every time I lose one to a pothole. So with you on the pothole issue.
I have children and hope to have grandchildren so whether the planet lasts 12 years, 25 years or 50 years is irrelevant. The point is if we don't stop it now it will be impossible to stop it later.
I have read articles (and no this isn't a dissertation so I'm not providing references) that say of the 6 major phenomenon that threaten global extinction 2 have past tipping points. 20% of the the Amazon rain forest which produces 20% of the world's oxygen is already gone.
These phenomena also feed off each other thereby increasing an already exponential effect. Combine this with the human contribution to global warming and it isn't being alarmist..
Oooh you mean runaway climate change ... I leave the scary stuff for grownups.
You have. Your hero Donald Trump announced that the U.S would cease participation in the 2015 Agreement on climate change mitigation.
He, like you thinks it's more important to make America great even if it means that much of it will eventually be under water. Those Americans will be rich but dead. A weird order of priorities.
To my mind every politician of every country should have climate change as their number one priority. Does it not make sense that when we are facing global extinction everything else is irrelevant?.
Oh yea a global extinction, crikey that sounds really really bad, when's it going under water then?, what's the IPCC say? , I'll contact Baywatch and let them know.
Yup it's all a myth right?
Why are you so fixated on a doomsday date?
You can stick your head in the sand (or a pothole) and carry on believing that we can breathe methane instead of oxygen. You're on the same planet as the rest of us (in a physical sense at least)
Are you part of the solution, part of the problem or part of the scenery?.
I'm just passing through and yes to both.
Technically speaking I do breath methane, it's in "air", if I were to only breath oxygen I'd die.
Methane breaks down into c02 and H20 in the atmosphere and technically speaking I breath them as well.
As a greenhouse gas both c02 and H20 should be limited so I'm on board with trying our best to control methane outputs.
However suicide is no solution to escape death, so honestly, I'm not on board with leftwing nonsense over climate emergency/doomsday cult tripe.
Scientists who study climate change aren't political with their findings.
So labelling people who study climate as "leftwing nonsense" only shows that you're angry and you don't understand the situation."These people who study climate are they really impartial or all trying to provr their own little theories.Ive yet to find anyone who can explain how man made climate change wiped out the bronze age in the middle east,n africa and the med or the assyirian empire in the 7th century bc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All three parties with the big infrastructure spending are talking out there arses on the timescale, 9 million homes to be retrofitted in 10 years, entire swathes of the country to be electrified, hundreds of thousands of miles of gas pipelines to be replaced with cables, tens of thousands of sub transformers all of which are under every road in the country(good luck getting anywhere when you dig that up), thousands of pylons, billions of trees, millions of miles of broadband, and then you've gotta train millions of people in doing this shit because you'll need a work force three times the size of the NHS and they've all gotta run on tofu. Get fucked
Just as matter of interest do you know what a tipping point is?.
Is it where we all might die in 12 years but definitely will in 25
When methane emissions cause global warming which in turn causes more global warming in a feedback loop that we will be powerless to prevent. You think we should be concentrating on fixing potholes?
Well as a 'leftie' who drives a luxury German Sports car (which is also the most economical car I've ever owned. Before you go off on one) I pay £320 per tire every time I lose one to a pothole. So with you on the pothole issue.
I have children and hope to have grandchildren so whether the planet lasts 12 years, 25 years or 50 years is irrelevant. The point is if we don't stop it now it will be impossible to stop it later.
I have read articles (and no this isn't a dissertation so I'm not providing references) that say of the 6 major phenomenon that threaten global extinction 2 have past tipping points. 20% of the the Amazon rain forest which produces 20% of the world's oxygen is already gone.
These phenomena also feed off each other thereby increasing an already exponential effect. Combine this with the human contribution to global warming and it isn't being alarmist..
Oooh you mean runaway climate change ... I leave the scary stuff for grownups.
You have. Your hero Donald Trump announced that the U.S would cease participation in the 2015 Agreement on climate change mitigation.
He, like you thinks it's more important to make America great even if it means that much of it will eventually be under water. Those Americans will be rich but dead. A weird order of priorities.
To my mind every politician of every country should have climate change as their number one priority. Does it not make sense that when we are facing global extinction everything else is irrelevant?.
Oh yea a global extinction, crikey that sounds really really bad, when's it going under water then?, what's the IPCC say? , I'll contact Baywatch and let them know.
Yup it's all a myth right?
Why are you so fixated on a doomsday date?
You can stick your head in the sand (or a pothole) and carry on believing that we can breathe methane instead of oxygen. You're on the same planet as the rest of us (in a physical sense at least)
Are you part of the solution, part of the problem or part of the scenery?.
I'm just passing through and yes to both.
Technically speaking I do breath methane, it's in "air", if I were to only breath oxygen I'd die.
Methane breaks down into c02 and H20 in the atmosphere and technically speaking I breath them as well.
As a greenhouse gas both c02 and H20 should be limited so I'm on board with trying our best to control methane outputs.
However suicide is no solution to escape death, so honestly, I'm not on board with leftwing nonsense over climate emergency/doomsday cult tripe.
Scientists who study climate change aren't political with their findings.
So labelling people who study climate as "leftwing nonsense" only shows that you're angry and you don't understand the situation.". You should try reading, I didn't label people who study climate change anything, I label people like you and the other guy leftwing liars and purveyors of climate nonsense. Take this paragraph he wrote. "he, like you thinks it's more important to make America great even if it means that much of it will eventually be under water. Those Americans will be rich but dead. A weird order of priorities". There's no science at all that man made c02 outputs will cause this to happen in any way shape or form, it is scaremongering leftist lying that both of you should be ashamed about.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All three parties with the big infrastructure spending are talking out there arses on the timescale, 9 million homes to be retrofitted in 10 years, entire swathes of the country to be electrified, hundreds of thousands of miles of gas pipelines to be replaced with cables, tens of thousands of sub transformers all of which are under every road in the country(good luck getting anywhere when you dig that up), thousands of pylons, billions of trees, millions of miles of broadband, and then you've gotta train millions of people in doing this shit because you'll need a work force three times the size of the NHS and they've all gotta run on tofu. Get fucked
Just as matter of interest do you know what a tipping point is?.
Is it where we all might die in 12 years but definitely will in 25
When methane emissions cause global warming which in turn causes more global warming in a feedback loop that we will be powerless to prevent. You think we should be concentrating on fixing potholes?
Well as a 'leftie' who drives a luxury German Sports car (which is also the most economical car I've ever owned. Before you go off on one) I pay £320 per tire every time I lose one to a pothole. So with you on the pothole issue.
I have children and hope to have grandchildren so whether the planet lasts 12 years, 25 years or 50 years is irrelevant. The point is if we don't stop it now it will be impossible to stop it later.
I have read articles (and no this isn't a dissertation so I'm not providing references) that say of the 6 major phenomenon that threaten global extinction 2 have past tipping points. 20% of the the Amazon rain forest which produces 20% of the world's oxygen is already gone.
These phenomena also feed off each other thereby increasing an already exponential effect. Combine this with the human contribution to global warming and it isn't being alarmist..
Oooh you mean runaway climate change ... I leave the scary stuff for grownups.
You have. Your hero Donald Trump announced that the U.S would cease participation in the 2015 Agreement on climate change mitigation.
He, like you thinks it's more important to make America great even if it means that much of it will eventually be under water. Those Americans will be rich but dead. A weird order of priorities.
To my mind every politician of every country should have climate change as their number one priority. Does it not make sense that when we are facing global extinction everything else is irrelevant?.
Oh yea a global extinction, crikey that sounds really really bad, when's it going under water then?, what's the IPCC say? , I'll contact Baywatch and let them know.
Yup it's all a myth right?
Why are you so fixated on a doomsday date?
You can stick your head in the sand (or a pothole) and carry on believing that we can breathe methane instead of oxygen. You're on the same planet as the rest of us (in a physical sense at least)
Are you part of the solution, part of the problem or part of the scenery?.
I'm just passing through and yes to both.
Technically speaking I do breath methane, it's in "air", if I were to only breath oxygen I'd die.
Methane breaks down into c02 and H20 in the atmosphere and technically speaking I breath them as well.
As a greenhouse gas both c02 and H20 should be limited so I'm on board with trying our best to control methane outputs.
However suicide is no solution to escape death, so honestly, I'm not on board with leftwing nonsense over climate emergency/doomsday cult tripe.
Scientists who study climate change aren't political with their findings.
So labelling people who study climate as "leftwing nonsense" only shows that you're angry and you don't understand the situation.These people who study climate are they really impartial or all trying to provr their own little theories.Ive yet to find anyone who can explain how man made climate change wiped out the bronze age in the middle east,n africa and the med or the assyirian empire in the 7th century bc. "google says the Assyrian empire rose during an unusually wet period for the region .It collapsed during an unusually long drought The climate changed and the empire wasn’t prepared for it is my take away from it . A short summary admittedly.No doubt the empire over extended it self as most do prior to downfall. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All three parties with the big infrastructure spending are talking out there arses on the timescale, 9 million homes to be retrofitted in 10 years, entire swathes of the country to be electrified, hundreds of thousands of miles of gas pipelines to be replaced with cables, tens of thousands of sub transformers all of which are under every road in the country(good luck getting anywhere when you dig that up), thousands of pylons, billions of trees, millions of miles of broadband, and then you've gotta train millions of people in doing this shit because you'll need a work force three times the size of the NHS and they've all gotta run on tofu. Get fucked
Just as matter of interest do you know what a tipping point is?.
Is it where we all might die in 12 years but definitely will in 25
When methane emissions cause global warming which in turn causes more global warming in a feedback loop that we will be powerless to prevent. You think we should be concentrating on fixing potholes?
Well as a 'leftie' who drives a luxury German Sports car (which is also the most economical car I've ever owned. Before you go off on one) I pay £320 per tire every time I lose one to a pothole. So with you on the pothole issue.
I have children and hope to have grandchildren so whether the planet lasts 12 years, 25 years or 50 years is irrelevant. The point is if we don't stop it now it will be impossible to stop it later.
I have read articles (and no this isn't a dissertation so I'm not providing references) that say of the 6 major phenomenon that threaten global extinction 2 have past tipping points. 20% of the the Amazon rain forest which produces 20% of the world's oxygen is already gone.
These phenomena also feed off each other thereby increasing an already exponential effect. Combine this with the human contribution to global warming and it isn't being alarmist..
Oooh you mean runaway climate change ... I leave the scary stuff for grownups.
You have. Your hero Donald Trump announced that the U.S would cease participation in the 2015 Agreement on climate change mitigation.
He, like you thinks it's more important to make America great even if it means that much of it will eventually be under water. Those Americans will be rich but dead. A weird order of priorities.
To my mind every politician of every country should have climate change as their number one priority. Does it not make sense that when we are facing global extinction everything else is irrelevant?.
Oh yea a global extinction, crikey that sounds really really bad, when's it going under water then?, what's the IPCC say? , I'll contact Baywatch and let them know.
Yup it's all a myth right?
Why are you so fixated on a doomsday date?
You can stick your head in the sand (or a pothole) and carry on believing that we can breathe methane instead of oxygen. You're on the same planet as the rest of us (in a physical sense at least)
Are you part of the solution, part of the problem or part of the scenery?.
I'm just passing through and yes to both.
Technically speaking I do breath methane, it's in "air", if I were to only breath oxygen I'd die.
Methane breaks down into c02 and H20 in the atmosphere and technically speaking I breath them as well.
As a greenhouse gas both c02 and H20 should be limited so I'm on board with trying our best to control methane outputs.
However suicide is no solution to escape death, so honestly, I'm not on board with leftwing nonsense over climate emergency/doomsday cult tripe.
Scientists who study climate change aren't political with their findings.
So labelling people who study climate as "leftwing nonsense" only shows that you're angry and you don't understand the situation..
You should try reading, I didn't label people who study climate change anything, I label people like you and the other guy leftwing liars and purveyors of climate nonsense.
Take this paragraph he wrote.
"he, like you thinks it's more important to make America great even if it means that much of it will eventually be under water. Those Americans will be rich but dead. A weird order of priorities".
There's no science at all that man made c02 outputs will cause this to happen in any way shape or form, it is scaremongering leftist lying that both of you should be ashamed about.
"Who should I believe? A man with his cock out on a swinging site or David Attenborough? Difficult decision | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All three parties with the big infrastructure spending are talking out there arses on the timescale, 9 million homes to be retrofitted in 10 years, entire swathes of the country to be electrified, hundreds of thousands of miles of gas pipelines to be replaced with cables, tens of thousands of sub transformers all of which are under every road in the country(good luck getting anywhere when you dig that up), thousands of pylons, billions of trees, millions of miles of broadband, and then you've gotta train millions of people in doing this shit because you'll need a work force three times the size of the NHS and they've all gotta run on tofu. Get fucked
Just as matter of interest do you know what a tipping point is?.
Is it where we all might die in 12 years but definitely will in 25
When methane emissions cause global warming which in turn causes more global warming in a feedback loop that we will be powerless to prevent. You think we should be concentrating on fixing potholes?
Well as a 'leftie' who drives a luxury German Sports car (which is also the most economical car I've ever owned. Before you go off on one) I pay £320 per tire every time I lose one to a pothole. So with you on the pothole issue.
I have children and hope to have grandchildren so whether the planet lasts 12 years, 25 years or 50 years is irrelevant. The point is if we don't stop it now it will be impossible to stop it later.
I have read articles (and no this isn't a dissertation so I'm not providing references) that say of the 6 major phenomenon that threaten global extinction 2 have past tipping points. 20% of the the Amazon rain forest which produces 20% of the world's oxygen is already gone.
These phenomena also feed off each other thereby increasing an already exponential effect. Combine this with the human contribution to global warming and it isn't being alarmist..
Oooh you mean runaway climate change ... I leave the scary stuff for grownups.
You have. Your hero Donald Trump announced that the U.S would cease participation in the 2015 Agreement on climate change mitigation.
He, like you thinks it's more important to make America great even if it means that much of it will eventually be under water. Those Americans will be rich but dead. A weird order of priorities.
To my mind every politician of every country should have climate change as their number one priority. Does it not make sense that when we are facing global extinction everything else is irrelevant?.
Oh yea a global extinction, crikey that sounds really really bad, when's it going under water then?, what's the IPCC say? , I'll contact Baywatch and let them know.
Yup it's all a myth right?
Why are you so fixated on a doomsday date?
You can stick your head in the sand (or a pothole) and carry on believing that we can breathe methane instead of oxygen. You're on the same planet as the rest of us (in a physical sense at least)
Are you part of the solution, part of the problem or part of the scenery?.
I'm just passing through and yes to both.
Technically speaking I do breath methane, it's in "air", if I were to only breath oxygen I'd die.
Methane breaks down into c02 and H20 in the atmosphere and technically speaking I breath them as well.
As a greenhouse gas both c02 and H20 should be limited so I'm on board with trying our best to control methane outputs.
However suicide is no solution to escape death, so honestly, I'm not on board with leftwing nonsense over climate emergency/doomsday cult tripe.
Scientists who study climate change aren't political with their findings.
So labelling people who study climate as "leftwing nonsense" only shows that you're angry and you don't understand the situation.These people who study climate are they really impartial or all trying to provr their own little theories.Ive yet to find anyone who can explain how man made climate change wiped out the bronze age in the middle east,n africa and the med or the assyirian empire in the 7th century bc. "I'm currently working in the aerospace industry and work directly with scientists who are responsible for collecting some of the data from satellites, specifically the Copernicus Programme. The scientists I work with say that what we are being told is understated rather than exaggerated. But what does a scientist with multiple PhDs know compared to a fab forimite..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All three parties with the big infrastructure spending are talking out there arses on the timescale, 9 million homes to be retrofitted in 10 years, entire swathes of the country to be electrified, hundreds of thousands of miles of gas pipelines to be replaced with cables, tens of thousands of sub transformers all of which are under every road in the country(good luck getting anywhere when you dig that up), thousands of pylons, billions of trees, millions of miles of broadband, and then you've gotta train millions of people in doing this shit because you'll need a work force three times the size of the NHS and they've all gotta run on tofu. Get fucked
Just as matter of interest do you know what a tipping point is?.
Is it where we all might die in 12 years but definitely will in 25
When methane emissions cause global warming which in turn causes more global warming in a feedback loop that we will be powerless to prevent. You think we should be concentrating on fixing potholes?
Well as a 'leftie' who drives a luxury German Sports car (which is also the most economical car I've ever owned. Before you go off on one) I pay £320 per tire every time I lose one to a pothole. So with you on the pothole issue.
I have children and hope to have grandchildren so whether the planet lasts 12 years, 25 years or 50 years is irrelevant. The point is if we don't stop it now it will be impossible to stop it later.
I have read articles (and no this isn't a dissertation so I'm not providing references) that say of the 6 major phenomenon that threaten global extinction 2 have past tipping points. 20% of the the Amazon rain forest which produces 20% of the world's oxygen is already gone.
These phenomena also feed off each other thereby increasing an already exponential effect. Combine this with the human contribution to global warming and it isn't being alarmist..
Oooh you mean runaway climate change ... I leave the scary stuff for grownups.
You have. Your hero Donald Trump announced that the U.S would cease participation in the 2015 Agreement on climate change mitigation.
He, like you thinks it's more important to make America great even if it means that much of it will eventually be under water. Those Americans will be rich but dead. A weird order of priorities.
To my mind every politician of every country should have climate change as their number one priority. Does it not make sense that when we are facing global extinction everything else is irrelevant?.
Oh yea a global extinction, crikey that sounds really really bad, when's it going under water then?, what's the IPCC say? , I'll contact Baywatch and let them know.
Yup it's all a myth right?
Why are you so fixated on a doomsday date?
You can stick your head in the sand (or a pothole) and carry on believing that we can breathe methane instead of oxygen. You're on the same planet as the rest of us (in a physical sense at least)
Are you part of the solution, part of the problem or part of the scenery?.
I'm just passing through and yes to both.
Technically speaking I do breath methane, it's in "air", if I were to only breath oxygen I'd die.
Methane breaks down into c02 and H20 in the atmosphere and technically speaking I breath them as well.
As a greenhouse gas both c02 and H20 should be limited so I'm on board with trying our best to control methane outputs.
However suicide is no solution to escape death, so honestly, I'm not on board with leftwing nonsense over climate emergency/doomsday cult tripe.
Scientists who study climate change aren't political with their findings.
So labelling people who study climate as "leftwing nonsense" only shows that you're angry and you don't understand the situation.These people who study climate are they really impartial or all trying to provr their own little theories.Ive yet to find anyone who can explain how man made climate change wiped out the bronze age in the middle east,n africa and the med or the assyirian empire in the 7th century bc.
google says the Assyrian empire rose during an unusually wet period for the region .It collapsed during an unusually long drought
The climate changed and the empire wasn’t prepared for it is my take away from it .
A short summary admittedly.No doubt the empire over extended it self as most do prior to downfall.
"Exactly bob had about 200 years of wet weather after a period of 4000 years of dry weather then had a drought now was that man made? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All three parties with the big infrastructure spending are talking out there arses on the timescale, 9 million homes to be retrofitted in 10 years, entire swathes of the country to be electrified, hundreds of thousands of miles of gas pipelines to be replaced with cables, tens of thousands of sub transformers all of which are under every road in the country(good luck getting anywhere when you dig that up), thousands of pylons, billions of trees, millions of miles of broadband, and then you've gotta train millions of people in doing this shit because you'll need a work force three times the size of the NHS and they've all gotta run on tofu. Get fucked
Just as matter of interest do you know what a tipping point is?.
Is it where we all might die in 12 years but definitely will in 25
When methane emissions cause global warming which in turn causes more global warming in a feedback loop that we will be powerless to prevent. You think we should be concentrating on fixing potholes?
Well as a 'leftie' who drives a luxury German Sports car (which is also the most economical car I've ever owned. Before you go off on one) I pay £320 per tire every time I lose one to a pothole. So with you on the pothole issue.
I have children and hope to have grandchildren so whether the planet lasts 12 years, 25 years or 50 years is irrelevant. The point is if we don't stop it now it will be impossible to stop it later.
I have read articles (and no this isn't a dissertation so I'm not providing references) that say of the 6 major phenomenon that threaten global extinction 2 have past tipping points. 20% of the the Amazon rain forest which produces 20% of the world's oxygen is already gone.
These phenomena also feed off each other thereby increasing an already exponential effect. Combine this with the human contribution to global warming and it isn't being alarmist..
Oooh you mean runaway climate change ... I leave the scary stuff for grownups.
You have. Your hero Donald Trump announced that the U.S would cease participation in the 2015 Agreement on climate change mitigation.
He, like you thinks it's more important to make America great even if it means that much of it will eventually be under water. Those Americans will be rich but dead. A weird order of priorities.
To my mind every politician of every country should have climate change as their number one priority. Does it not make sense that when we are facing global extinction everything else is irrelevant?.
Oh yea a global extinction, crikey that sounds really really bad, when's it going under water then?, what's the IPCC say? , I'll contact Baywatch and let them know.
Yup it's all a myth right?
Why are you so fixated on a doomsday date?
You can stick your head in the sand (or a pothole) and carry on believing that we can breathe methane instead of oxygen. You're on the same planet as the rest of us (in a physical sense at least)
Are you part of the solution, part of the problem or part of the scenery?.
I'm just passing through and yes to both.
Technically speaking I do breath methane, it's in "air", if I were to only breath oxygen I'd die.
Methane breaks down into c02 and H20 in the atmosphere and technically speaking I breath them as well.
As a greenhouse gas both c02 and H20 should be limited so I'm on board with trying our best to control methane outputs.
However suicide is no solution to escape death, so honestly, I'm not on board with leftwing nonsense over climate emergency/doomsday cult tripe.
Scientists who study climate change aren't political with their findings.
So labelling people who study climate as "leftwing nonsense" only shows that you're angry and you don't understand the situation..
You should try reading, I didn't label people who study climate change anything, I label people like you and the other guy leftwing liars and purveyors of climate nonsense.
Take this paragraph he wrote.
"he, like you thinks it's more important to make America great even if it means that much of it will eventually be under water. Those Americans will be rich but dead. A weird order of priorities".
There's no science at all that man made c02 outputs will cause this to happen in any way shape or form, it is scaremongering leftist lying that both of you should be ashamed about.
Who should I believe? A man with his cock out on a swinging site or David Attenborough? Difficult decision ". Neither, you should believe the science and the data .
Although my cock is a massive distraction, that's scientific fact | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All three parties with the big infrastructure spending are talking out there arses on the timescale, 9 million homes to be retrofitted in 10 years, entire swathes of the country to be electrified, hundreds of thousands of miles of gas pipelines to be replaced with cables, tens of thousands of sub transformers all of which are under every road in the country(good luck getting anywhere when you dig that up), thousands of pylons, billions of trees, millions of miles of broadband, and then you've gotta train millions of people in doing this shit because you'll need a work force three times the size of the NHS and they've all gotta run on tofu. Get fucked
Just as matter of interest do you know what a tipping point is?.
Is it where we all might die in 12 years but definitely will in 25
When methane emissions cause global warming which in turn causes more global warming in a feedback loop that we will be powerless to prevent. You think we should be concentrating on fixing potholes?
Well as a 'leftie' who drives a luxury German Sports car (which is also the most economical car I've ever owned. Before you go off on one) I pay £320 per tire every time I lose one to a pothole. So with you on the pothole issue.
I have children and hope to have grandchildren so whether the planet lasts 12 years, 25 years or 50 years is irrelevant. The point is if we don't stop it now it will be impossible to stop it later.
I have read articles (and no this isn't a dissertation so I'm not providing references) that say of the 6 major phenomenon that threaten global extinction 2 have past tipping points. 20% of the the Amazon rain forest which produces 20% of the world's oxygen is already gone.
These phenomena also feed off each other thereby increasing an already exponential effect. Combine this with the human contribution to global warming and it isn't being alarmist..
Oooh you mean runaway climate change ... I leave the scary stuff for grownups.
You have. Your hero Donald Trump announced that the U.S would cease participation in the 2015 Agreement on climate change mitigation.
He, like you thinks it's more important to make America great even if it means that much of it will eventually be under water. Those Americans will be rich but dead. A weird order of priorities.
To my mind every politician of every country should have climate change as their number one priority. Does it not make sense that when we are facing global extinction everything else is irrelevant?.
Oh yea a global extinction, crikey that sounds really really bad, when's it going under water then?, what's the IPCC say? , I'll contact Baywatch and let them know.
Yup it's all a myth right?
Why are you so fixated on a doomsday date?
You can stick your head in the sand (or a pothole) and carry on believing that we can breathe methane instead of oxygen. You're on the same planet as the rest of us (in a physical sense at least)
Are you part of the solution, part of the problem or part of the scenery?.
I'm just passing through and yes to both.
Technically speaking I do breath methane, it's in "air", if I were to only breath oxygen I'd die.
Methane breaks down into c02 and H20 in the atmosphere and technically speaking I breath them as well.
As a greenhouse gas both c02 and H20 should be limited so I'm on board with trying our best to control methane outputs.
However suicide is no solution to escape death, so honestly, I'm not on board with leftwing nonsense over climate emergency/doomsday cult tripe.
Scientists who study climate change aren't political with their findings.
So labelling people who study climate as "leftwing nonsense" only shows that you're angry and you don't understand the situation.These people who study climate are they really impartial or all trying to provr their own little theories.Ive yet to find anyone who can explain how man made climate change wiped out the bronze age in the middle east,n africa and the med or the assyirian empire in the 7th century bc.
google says the Assyrian empire rose during an unusually wet period for the region .It collapsed during an unusually long drought
The climate changed and the empire wasn’t prepared for it is my take away from it .
A short summary admittedly.No doubt the empire over extended it self as most do prior to downfall.
Exactly bob had about 200 years of wet weather after a period of 4000 years of dry weather then had a drought now was that man made?"Nobody is arguing the climate hasn’t change before We know that the Sahara was once lush and green and great place to live at the end of the last ice age .It quickly became desert in a blink of an eye.It wasnt down to man. We today have evidence we are altering the atmosphere and the c02 has a fingerprint that points at us rather naturally occurring sources. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All three parties with the big infrastructure spending are talking out there arses on the timescale, 9 million homes to be retrofitted in 10 years, entire swathes of the country to be electrified, hundreds of thousands of miles of gas pipelines to be replaced with cables, tens of thousands of sub transformers all of which are under every road in the country(good luck getting anywhere when you dig that up), thousands of pylons, billions of trees, millions of miles of broadband, and then you've gotta train millions of people in doing this shit because you'll need a work force three times the size of the NHS and they've all gotta run on tofu. Get fucked
Just as matter of interest do you know what a tipping point is?.
Is it where we all might die in 12 years but definitely will in 25
When methane emissions cause global warming which in turn causes more global warming in a feedback loop that we will be powerless to prevent. You think we should be concentrating on fixing potholes?
Well as a 'leftie' who drives a luxury German Sports car (which is also the most economical car I've ever owned. Before you go off on one) I pay £320 per tire every time I lose one to a pothole. So with you on the pothole issue.
I have children and hope to have grandchildren so whether the planet lasts 12 years, 25 years or 50 years is irrelevant. The point is if we don't stop it now it will be impossible to stop it later.
I have read articles (and no this isn't a dissertation so I'm not providing references) that say of the 6 major phenomenon that threaten global extinction 2 have past tipping points. 20% of the the Amazon rain forest which produces 20% of the world's oxygen is already gone.
These phenomena also feed off each other thereby increasing an already exponential effect. Combine this with the human contribution to global warming and it isn't being alarmist..
Oooh you mean runaway climate change ... I leave the scary stuff for grownups.
You have. Your hero Donald Trump announced that the U.S would cease participation in the 2015 Agreement on climate change mitigation.
He, like you thinks it's more important to make America great even if it means that much of it will eventually be under water. Those Americans will be rich but dead. A weird order of priorities.
To my mind every politician of every country should have climate change as their number one priority. Does it not make sense that when we are facing global extinction everything else is irrelevant?.
Oh yea a global extinction, crikey that sounds really really bad, when's it going under water then?, what's the IPCC say? , I'll contact Baywatch and let them know.
Yup it's all a myth right?
Why are you so fixated on a doomsday date?
You can stick your head in the sand (or a pothole) and carry on believing that we can breathe methane instead of oxygen. You're on the same planet as the rest of us (in a physical sense at least)
Are you part of the solution, part of the problem or part of the scenery?.
I'm just passing through and yes to both.
Technically speaking I do breath methane, it's in "air", if I were to only breath oxygen I'd die.
Methane breaks down into c02 and H20 in the atmosphere and technically speaking I breath them as well.
As a greenhouse gas both c02 and H20 should be limited so I'm on board with trying our best to control methane outputs.
However suicide is no solution to escape death, so honestly, I'm not on board with leftwing nonsense over climate emergency/doomsday cult tripe.
Scientists who study climate change aren't political with their findings.
So labelling people who study climate as "leftwing nonsense" only shows that you're angry and you don't understand the situation.These people who study climate are they really impartial or all trying to provr their own little theories.Ive yet to find anyone who can explain how man made climate change wiped out the bronze age in the middle east,n africa and the med or the assyirian empire in the 7th century bc.
google says the Assyrian empire rose during an unusually wet period for the region .It collapsed during an unusually long drought
The climate changed and the empire wasn’t prepared for it is my take away from it .
A short summary admittedly.No doubt the empire over extended it self as most do prior to downfall.
Exactly bob had about 200 years of wet weather after a period of 4000 years of dry weather then had a drought now was that man made?
Nobody is arguing the climate hasn’t change before We know that the Sahara was once lush and green and great place to live at the end of the last ice age .It quickly became desert in a blink of an eye.It wasnt down to man.
We today have evidence we are altering the atmosphere and the c02 has a fingerprint that points at us rather naturally occurring sources.
". That is correct, evidence that puts the range of warming between 1.5 degrees to 4 degrees by 2100, America isn't under water, billions don't die, no global extinction. To halt the worse scenario (4 degrees) we should be looking to halve (or preferably more) our c02 emissions by 2050.(Boris has committed to much more than that). Although personally I doubt they'll manage it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All three parties with the big infrastructure spending are talking out there arses on the timescale, 9 million homes to be retrofitted in 10 years, entire swathes of the country to be electrified, hundreds of thousands of miles of gas pipelines to be replaced with cables, tens of thousands of sub transformers all of which are under every road in the country(good luck getting anywhere when you dig that up), thousands of pylons, billions of trees, millions of miles of broadband, and then you've gotta train millions of people in doing this shit because you'll need a work force three times the size of the NHS and they've all gotta run on tofu. Get fucked
Just as matter of interest do you know what a tipping point is?.
Is it where we all might die in 12 years but definitely will in 25
When methane emissions cause global warming which in turn causes more global warming in a feedback loop that we will be powerless to prevent. You think we should be concentrating on fixing potholes?
Well as a 'leftie' who drives a luxury German Sports car (which is also the most economical car I've ever owned. Before you go off on one) I pay £320 per tire every time I lose one to a pothole. So with you on the pothole issue.
I have children and hope to have grandchildren so whether the planet lasts 12 years, 25 years or 50 years is irrelevant. The point is if we don't stop it now it will be impossible to stop it later.
I have read articles (and no this isn't a dissertation so I'm not providing references) that say of the 6 major phenomenon that threaten global extinction 2 have past tipping points. 20% of the the Amazon rain forest which produces 20% of the world's oxygen is already gone.
These phenomena also feed off each other thereby increasing an already exponential effect. Combine this with the human contribution to global warming and it isn't being alarmist..
Oooh you mean runaway climate change ... I leave the scary stuff for grownups.
You have. Your hero Donald Trump announced that the U.S would cease participation in the 2015 Agreement on climate change mitigation.
He, like you thinks it's more important to make America great even if it means that much of it will eventually be under water. Those Americans will be rich but dead. A weird order of priorities.
To my mind every politician of every country should have climate change as their number one priority. Does it not make sense that when we are facing global extinction everything else is irrelevant?.
Oh yea a global extinction, crikey that sounds really really bad, when's it going under water then?, what's the IPCC say? , I'll contact Baywatch and let them know.
Yup it's all a myth right?
Why are you so fixated on a doomsday date?
You can stick your head in the sand (or a pothole) and carry on believing that we can breathe methane instead of oxygen. You're on the same planet as the rest of us (in a physical sense at least)
Are you part of the solution, part of the problem or part of the scenery?.
I'm just passing through and yes to both.
Technically speaking I do breath methane, it's in "air", if I were to only breath oxygen I'd die.
Methane breaks down into c02 and H20 in the atmosphere and technically speaking I breath them as well.
As a greenhouse gas both c02 and H20 should be limited so I'm on board with trying our best to control methane outputs.
However suicide is no solution to escape death, so honestly, I'm not on board with leftwing nonsense over climate emergency/doomsday cult tripe.
Scientists who study climate change aren't political with their findings.
So labelling people who study climate as "leftwing nonsense" only shows that you're angry and you don't understand the situation.These people who study climate are they really impartial or all trying to provr their own little theories.Ive yet to find anyone who can explain how man made climate change wiped out the bronze age in the middle east,n africa and the med or the assyirian empire in the 7th century bc.
google says the Assyrian empire rose during an unusually wet period for the region .It collapsed during an unusually long drought
The climate changed and the empire wasn’t prepared for it is my take away from it .
A short summary admittedly.No doubt the empire over extended it self as most do prior to downfall.
Exactly bob had about 200 years of wet weather after a period of 4000 years of dry weather then had a drought now was that man made?
Nobody is arguing the climate hasn’t change before We know that the Sahara was once lush and green and great place to live at the end of the last ice age .It quickly became desert in a blink of an eye.It wasnt down to man.
We today have evidence we are altering the atmosphere and the c02 has a fingerprint that points at us rather naturally occurring sources.
"Exactly bob the natural cycle of climate change is ongoing and unavoidable i do agree we should do everything possible to try to slow it but i just dont buy into all this hysteria about it and scaring kids out of there wits.I remember being a kid and all the tv ads telling you what to do in case of a nuclear attack, lying in bed worrying about it i dont want that for my grandkids when there is no need for it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All three parties with the big infrastructure spending are talking out there arses on the timescale, 9 million homes to be retrofitted in 10 years, entire swathes of the country to be electrified, hundreds of thousands of miles of gas pipelines to be replaced with cables, tens of thousands of sub transformers all of which are under every road in the country(good luck getting anywhere when you dig that up), thousands of pylons, billions of trees, millions of miles of broadband, and then you've gotta train millions of people in doing this shit because you'll need a work force three times the size of the NHS and they've all gotta run on tofu. Get fucked
Just as matter of interest do you know what a tipping point is?.
Is it where we all might die in 12 years but definitely will in 25
When methane emissions cause global warming which in turn causes more global warming in a feedback loop that we will be powerless to prevent. You think we should be concentrating on fixing potholes?
Well as a 'leftie' who drives a luxury German Sports car (which is also the most economical car I've ever owned. Before you go off on one) I pay £320 per tire every time I lose one to a pothole. So with you on the pothole issue.
I have children and hope to have grandchildren so whether the planet lasts 12 years, 25 years or 50 years is irrelevant. The point is if we don't stop it now it will be impossible to stop it later.
I have read articles (and no this isn't a dissertation so I'm not providing references) that say of the 6 major phenomenon that threaten global extinction 2 have past tipping points. 20% of the the Amazon rain forest which produces 20% of the world's oxygen is already gone.
These phenomena also feed off each other thereby increasing an already exponential effect. Combine this with the human contribution to global warming and it isn't being alarmist..
Oooh you mean runaway climate change ... I leave the scary stuff for grownups.
You have. Your hero Donald Trump announced that the U.S would cease participation in the 2015 Agreement on climate change mitigation.
He, like you thinks it's more important to make America great even if it means that much of it will eventually be under water. Those Americans will be rich but dead. A weird order of priorities.
To my mind every politician of every country should have climate change as their number one priority. Does it not make sense that when we are facing global extinction everything else is irrelevant?.
Oh yea a global extinction, crikey that sounds really really bad, when's it going under water then?, what's the IPCC say? , I'll contact Baywatch and let them know.
Yup it's all a myth right?
Why are you so fixated on a doomsday date?
You can stick your head in the sand (or a pothole) and carry on believing that we can breathe methane instead of oxygen. You're on the same planet as the rest of us (in a physical sense at least)
Are you part of the solution, part of the problem or part of the scenery?.
I'm just passing through and yes to both.
Technically speaking I do breath methane, it's in "air", if I were to only breath oxygen I'd die.
Methane breaks down into c02 and H20 in the atmosphere and technically speaking I breath them as well.
As a greenhouse gas both c02 and H20 should be limited so I'm on board with trying our best to control methane outputs.
However suicide is no solution to escape death, so honestly, I'm not on board with leftwing nonsense over climate emergency/doomsday cult tripe.
Scientists who study climate change aren't political with their findings.
So labelling people who study climate as "leftwing nonsense" only shows that you're angry and you don't understand the situation.These people who study climate are they really impartial or all trying to provr their own little theories.Ive yet to find anyone who can explain how man made climate change wiped out the bronze age in the middle east,n africa and the med or the assyirian empire in the 7th century bc.
google says the Assyrian empire rose during an unusually wet period for the region .It collapsed during an unusually long drought
The climate changed and the empire wasn’t prepared for it is my take away from it .
A short summary admittedly.No doubt the empire over extended it self as most do prior to downfall.
Exactly bob had about 200 years of wet weather after a period of 4000 years of dry weather then had a drought now was that man made?
Nobody is arguing the climate hasn’t change before We know that the Sahara was once lush and green and great place to live at the end of the last ice age .It quickly became desert in a blink of an eye.It wasnt down to man.
We today have evidence we are altering the atmosphere and the c02 has a fingerprint that points at us rather naturally occurring sources.
Exactly bob the natural cycle of climate change is ongoing and unavoidable i do agree we should do everything possible to try to slow it but i just dont buy into all this hysteria about it and scaring kids out of there wits.I remember being a kid and all the tv ads telling you what to do in case of a nuclear attack, lying in bed worrying about it i dont want that for my grandkids when there is no need for it."So nuclear proliferation was a myth? What about the Cuban missile crisis? Do you think if Donald Trump was the president instead of Kennedy, planet earth would have survived the situation? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All three parties with the big infrastructure spending are talking out there arses on the timescale, 9 million homes to be retrofitted in 10 years, entire swathes of the country to be electrified, hundreds of thousands of miles of gas pipelines to be replaced with cables, tens of thousands of sub transformers all of which are under every road in the country(good luck getting anywhere when you dig that up), thousands of pylons, billions of trees, millions of miles of broadband, and then you've gotta train millions of people in doing this shit because you'll need a work force three times the size of the NHS and they've all gotta run on tofu. Get fucked
Just as matter of interest do you know what a tipping point is?.
Is it where we all might die in 12 years but definitely will in 25
When methane emissions cause global warming which in turn causes more global warming in a feedback loop that we will be powerless to prevent. You think we should be concentrating on fixing potholes?
Well as a 'leftie' who drives a luxury German Sports car (which is also the most economical car I've ever owned. Before you go off on one) I pay £320 per tire every time I lose one to a pothole. So with you on the pothole issue.
I have children and hope to have grandchildren so whether the planet lasts 12 years, 25 years or 50 years is irrelevant. The point is if we don't stop it now it will be impossible to stop it later.
I have read articles (and no this isn't a dissertation so I'm not providing references) that say of the 6 major phenomenon that threaten global extinction 2 have past tipping points. 20% of the the Amazon rain forest which produces 20% of the world's oxygen is already gone.
These phenomena also feed off each other thereby increasing an already exponential effect. Combine this with the human contribution to global warming and it isn't being alarmist..
Oooh you mean runaway climate change ... I leave the scary stuff for grownups.
You have. Your hero Donald Trump announced that the U.S would cease participation in the 2015 Agreement on climate change mitigation.
He, like you thinks it's more important to make America great even if it means that much of it will eventually be under water. Those Americans will be rich but dead. A weird order of priorities.
To my mind every politician of every country should have climate change as their number one priority. Does it not make sense that when we are facing global extinction everything else is irrelevant?.
Oh yea a global extinction, crikey that sounds really really bad, when's it going under water then?, what's the IPCC say? , I'll contact Baywatch and let them know.
Yup it's all a myth right?
Why are you so fixated on a doomsday date?
You can stick your head in the sand (or a pothole) and carry on believing that we can breathe methane instead of oxygen. You're on the same planet as the rest of us (in a physical sense at least)
Are you part of the solution, part of the problem or part of the scenery?.
I'm just passing through and yes to both.
Technically speaking I do breath methane, it's in "air", if I were to only breath oxygen I'd die.
Methane breaks down into c02 and H20 in the atmosphere and technically speaking I breath them as well.
As a greenhouse gas both c02 and H20 should be limited so I'm on board with trying our best to control methane outputs.
However suicide is no solution to escape death, so honestly, I'm not on board with leftwing nonsense over climate emergency/doomsday cult tripe.
Scientists who study climate change aren't political with their findings.
So labelling people who study climate as "leftwing nonsense" only shows that you're angry and you don't understand the situation.These people who study climate are they really impartial or all trying to provr their own little theories.Ive yet to find anyone who can explain how man made climate change wiped out the bronze age in the middle east,n africa and the med or the assyirian empire in the 7th century bc.
google says the Assyrian empire rose during an unusually wet period for the region .It collapsed during an unusually long drought
The climate changed and the empire wasn’t prepared for it is my take away from it .
A short summary admittedly.No doubt the empire over extended it self as most do prior to downfall.
Exactly bob had about 200 years of wet weather after a period of 4000 years of dry weather then had a drought now was that man made?
Nobody is arguing the climate hasn’t change before We know that the Sahara was once lush and green and great place to live at the end of the last ice age .It quickly became desert in a blink of an eye.It wasnt down to man.
We today have evidence we are altering the atmosphere and the c02 has a fingerprint that points at us rather naturally occurring sources.
Exactly bob the natural cycle of climate change is ongoing and unavoidable i do agree we should do everything possible to try to slow it but i just dont buy into all this hysteria about it and scaring kids out of there wits.I remember being a kid and all the tv ads telling you what to do in case of a nuclear attack, lying in bed worrying about it i dont want that for my grandkids when there is no need for it.
So nuclear proliferation was a myth? What about the Cuban missile crisis? Do you think if Donald Trump was the president instead of Kennedy, planet earth would have survived the situation?"Whos saying it was a myth and whats trump got do do with it?Mate sort yourself out, always looking for a disagreement and a chance to bring your favourite subject trump into it.If you like banging on about him so much just start a thread about him. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All three parties with the big infrastructure spending are talking out there arses on the timescale, 9 million homes to be retrofitted in 10 years, entire swathes of the country to be electrified, hundreds of thousands of miles of gas pipelines to be replaced with cables, tens of thousands of sub transformers all of which are under every road in the country(good luck getting anywhere when you dig that up), thousands of pylons, billions of trees, millions of miles of broadband, and then you've gotta train millions of people in doing this shit because you'll need a work force three times the size of the NHS and they've all gotta run on tofu. Get fucked
Just as matter of interest do you know what a tipping point is?.
Is it where we all might die in 12 years but definitely will in 25
When methane emissions cause global warming which in turn causes more global warming in a feedback loop that we will be powerless to prevent. You think we should be concentrating on fixing potholes?
Well as a 'leftie' who drives a luxury German Sports car (which is also the most economical car I've ever owned. Before you go off on one) I pay £320 per tire every time I lose one to a pothole. So with you on the pothole issue.
I have children and hope to have grandchildren so whether the planet lasts 12 years, 25 years or 50 years is irrelevant. The point is if we don't stop it now it will be impossible to stop it later.
I have read articles (and no this isn't a dissertation so I'm not providing references) that say of the 6 major phenomenon that threaten global extinction 2 have past tipping points. 20% of the the Amazon rain forest which produces 20% of the world's oxygen is already gone.
These phenomena also feed off each other thereby increasing an already exponential effect. Combine this with the human contribution to global warming and it isn't being alarmist..
Oooh you mean runaway climate change ... I leave the scary stuff for grownups.
You have. Your hero Donald Trump announced that the U.S would cease participation in the 2015 Agreement on climate change mitigation.
He, like you thinks it's more important to make America great even if it means that much of it will eventually be under water. Those Americans will be rich but dead. A weird order of priorities.
To my mind every politician of every country should have climate change as their number one priority. Does it not make sense that when we are facing global extinction everything else is irrelevant?.
Oh yea a global extinction, crikey that sounds really really bad, when's it going under water then?, what's the IPCC say? , I'll contact Baywatch and let them know.
Yup it's all a myth right?
Why are you so fixated on a doomsday date?
You can stick your head in the sand (or a pothole) and carry on believing that we can breathe methane instead of oxygen. You're on the same planet as the rest of us (in a physical sense at least)
Are you part of the solution, part of the problem or part of the scenery?.
I'm just passing through and yes to both.
Technically speaking I do breath methane, it's in "air", if I were to only breath oxygen I'd die.
Methane breaks down into c02 and H20 in the atmosphere and technically speaking I breath them as well.
As a greenhouse gas both c02 and H20 should be limited so I'm on board with trying our best to control methane outputs.
However suicide is no solution to escape death, so honestly, I'm not on board with leftwing nonsense over climate emergency/doomsday cult tripe.
Scientists who study climate change aren't political with their findings.
So labelling people who study climate as "leftwing nonsense" only shows that you're angry and you don't understand the situation..
You should try reading, I didn't label people who study climate change anything, I label people like you and the other guy leftwing liars and purveyors of climate nonsense.
Take this paragraph he wrote.
"he, like you thinks it's more important to make America great even if it means that much of it will eventually be under water. Those Americans will be rich but dead. A weird order of priorities".
There's no science at all that man made c02 outputs will cause this to happen in any way shape or form, it is scaremongering leftist lying that both of you should be ashamed about.
Who should I believe? A man with his cock out on a swinging site or David Attenborough? Difficult decision .
Neither, you should believe the science and the data .
Although my cock is a massive distraction, that's scientific fact "I do believe the science and data? Is it a fact? It hasn’t helped you meet anyone on here though | |||
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) | |||
"All three parties with the big infrastructure spending are talking out there arses on the timescale, 9 million homes to be retrofitted in 10 years, entire swathes of the country to be electrified, hundreds of thousands of miles of gas pipelines to be replaced with cables, tens of thousands of sub transformers all of which are under every road in the country(good luck getting anywhere when you dig that up), thousands of pylons, billions of trees, millions of miles of broadband, and then you've gotta train millions of people in doing this shit because you'll need a work force three times the size of the NHS and they've all gotta run on tofu. Get fucked
Just as matter of interest do you know what a tipping point is?.
Is it where we all might die in 12 years but definitely will in 25
When methane emissions cause global warming which in turn causes more global warming in a feedback loop that we will be powerless to prevent. You think we should be concentrating on fixing potholes?
Well as a 'leftie' who drives a luxury German Sports car (which is also the most economical car I've ever owned. Before you go off on one) I pay £320 per tire every time I lose one to a pothole. So with you on the pothole issue.
I have children and hope to have grandchildren so whether the planet lasts 12 years, 25 years or 50 years is irrelevant. The point is if we don't stop it now it will be impossible to stop it later.
I have read articles (and no this isn't a dissertation so I'm not providing references) that say of the 6 major phenomenon that threaten global extinction 2 have past tipping points. 20% of the the Amazon rain forest which produces 20% of the world's oxygen is already gone.
These phenomena also feed off each other thereby increasing an already exponential effect. Combine this with the human contribution to global warming and it isn't being alarmist..
Oooh you mean runaway climate change ... I leave the scary stuff for grownups.
You have. Your hero Donald Trump announced that the U.S would cease participation in the 2015 Agreement on climate change mitigation.
He, like you thinks it's more important to make America great even if it means that much of it will eventually be under water. Those Americans will be rich but dead. A weird order of priorities.
To my mind every politician of every country should have climate change as their number one priority. Does it not make sense that when we are facing global extinction everything else is irrelevant?.
Oh yea a global extinction, crikey that sounds really really bad, when's it going under water then?, what's the IPCC say? , I'll contact Baywatch and let them know.
Yup it's all a myth right?
Why are you so fixated on a doomsday date?
You can stick your head in the sand (or a pothole) and carry on believing that we can breathe methane instead of oxygen. You're on the same planet as the rest of us (in a physical sense at least)
Are you part of the solution, part of the problem or part of the scenery?.
I'm just passing through and yes to both.
Technically speaking I do breath methane, it's in "air", if I were to only breath oxygen I'd die.
Methane breaks down into c02 and H20 in the atmosphere and technically speaking I breath them as well.
As a greenhouse gas both c02 and H20 should be limited so I'm on board with trying our best to control methane outputs.
However suicide is no solution to escape death, so honestly, I'm not on board with leftwing nonsense over climate emergency/doomsday cult tripe.
Scientists who study climate change aren't political with their findings.
So labelling people who study climate as "leftwing nonsense" only shows that you're angry and you don't understand the situation..
You should try reading, I didn't label people who study climate change anything, I label people like you and the other guy leftwing liars and purveyors of climate nonsense.
Take this paragraph he wrote.
"he, like you thinks it's more important to make America great even if it means that much of it will eventually be under water. Those Americans will be rich but dead. A weird order of priorities".
There's no science at all that man made c02 outputs will cause this to happen in any way shape or form, it is scaremongering leftist lying that both of you should be ashamed about.
Who should I believe? A man with his cock out on a swinging site or David Attenborough? Difficult decision .
Neither, you should believe the science and the data .
Although my cock is a massive distraction, that's scientific fact
I do believe the science and data? Is it a fact? It hasn’t helped you meet anyone on here though ". The data gets put into unlikely/likely outcomes, that one is unlikely... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Want IPCC quotes? https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/19/16908402/global-warming-2-degrees-climate-change "The IPCC report and the Earth System Dynamics study confirm what many scientists have been warning for years: 2 degrees is not a “safe” threshold. Negative impacts are already underway and will only get worse." "At our present rate of emissions, our carbon budget for a good (66 percent) chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees will be used up in six years. Except, oops, that graphic is two years old, so now it’s down to four years." "To hit the brakes at 1.5 degrees, global carbon emissions would need to immediately begin plunging, faster than they ever have, and hit zero by 2050 (and then go negative)" " . So much of the USA isn't underwater and all Americans aren't dead then .
Finally we agree | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Want IPCC quotes? https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/19/16908402/global-warming-2-degrees-climate-change "The IPCC report and the Earth System Dynamics study confirm what many scientists have been warning for years: 2 degrees is not a “safe” threshold. Negative impacts are already underway and will only get worse." "At our present rate of emissions, our carbon budget for a good (66 percent) chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees will be used up in six years. Except, oops, that graphic is two years old, so now it’s down to four years." "To hit the brakes at 1.5 degrees, global carbon emissions would need to immediately begin plunging, faster than they ever have, and hit zero by 2050 (and then go negative)" . So much of the USA isn't underwater and all Americans aren't dead then .
Finally we agree "Well it all depends. Two of the world's largest are New York and Los Angeles. Both costal cities. In fact 8 of the 10 largest cities are located on the coast and London isn't one of them. Bangkok which is is only 1.5m above sea level could be under water in the next 15 years. 44% of the world's population live within 150km of the coast. What do you think will happen when our exponentially increasing population is faced with exponentially decreasing dry land? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you googled the photo of rising sea levels at Sydney harbour? Terrible. We need to do something to prevent this further!" What's your suggestion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you googled the photo of rising sea levels at Sydney harbour? Terrible. We need to do something to prevent this further! What's your suggestion?" Well for a start fix the potholes! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tories are threatening to look into Channel 4's broadcasting licence after tonight's "mockery" and Brexit party leader Nigel Farage has called Channel 4 unfair and alluded to them being a propaganda network. Fighting talk is happening, just how much of this country will believe them or side with them. I find it particularly perturbing when parties threaten the media when they don't do what they are told. I find it to be thuggish behaviour. Even for Tories I think it's a new low.newspapers are allowed to be bias but broadcasting companies are supposed to remain neutral and there are laws to govern them.If they have broken the law prosecute them if not they have nothing to worry about. But the threat isn't really based on a legal question. The Government has the power to change the terms under which C4 operate. So whether what they did was legal or not, Boris could "punish" them for it. It's the hammer under which the BBC have been becoming labouring. In a more exposed position as they have no advertising income. You make it sound like we live in a dictatorship boris this boris that,parliament decide these things a bill is put to the vote and it either passes or doesn't.I know many on here like to portray him as a dictator but thats not how the country works as we have already witnessed with the brexit fuck up. " When the Government has a clear majority, it can in fact dictate to a large degree. Particularly the Tories who generally (until Brexit) manage to herd their MPs well, however poor the legislation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Want IPCC quotes? https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/19/16908402/global-warming-2-degrees-climate-change "The IPCC report and the Earth System Dynamics study confirm what many scientists have been warning for years: 2 degrees is not a “safe” threshold. Negative impacts are already underway and will only get worse." "At our present rate of emissions, our carbon budget for a good (66 percent) chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees will be used up in six years. Except, oops, that graphic is two years old, so now it’s down to four years." "To hit the brakes at 1.5 degrees, global carbon emissions would need to immediately begin plunging, faster than they ever have, and hit zero by 2050 (and then go negative)" . So much of the USA isn't underwater and all Americans aren't dead then .
Finally we agree
Well it all depends. Two of the world's largest are New York and Los Angeles. Both costal cities. In fact 8 of the 10 largest cities are located on the coast and London isn't one of them. Bangkok which is is only 1.5m above sea level could be under water in the next 15 years.
44% of the world's population live within 150km of the coast.
What do you think will happen when our exponentially increasing population is faced with exponentially decreasing dry land?
". 1 I don't believe there's any data for an exponentially increasing population, in fact I think the data shows by 2100 we'll be below 4 billion. 2 sea level rise is problematic because coasts are great to live on but there's very little data that shows large sea increases (over 300mm in any short (50 years)time scale). 3 were on the technological "hamster wheel" we have been for 200,000 years, we'll innovate or die. That's life | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you googled the photo of rising sea levels at Sydney harbour? Terrible. We need to do something to prevent this further! What's your suggestion? Well for a start fix the potholes!"  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Want IPCC quotes? https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/19/16908402/global-warming-2-degrees-climate-change "The IPCC report and the Earth System Dynamics study confirm what many scientists have been warning for years: 2 degrees is not a “safe” threshold. Negative impacts are already underway and will only get worse." "At our present rate of emissions, our carbon budget for a good (66 percent) chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees will be used up in six years. Except, oops, that graphic is two years old, so now it’s down to four years." "To hit the brakes at 1.5 degrees, global carbon emissions would need to immediately begin plunging, faster than they ever have, and hit zero by 2050 (and then go negative)" . So much of the USA isn't underwater and all Americans aren't dead then .
Finally we agree
Well it all depends. Two of the world's largest are New York and Los Angeles. Both costal cities. In fact 8 of the 10 largest cities are located on the coast and London isn't one of them. Bangkok which is is only 1.5m above sea level could be under water in the next 15 years.
44% of the world's population live within 150km of the coast.
What do you think will happen when our exponentially increasing population is faced with exponentially decreasing dry land?
.
1 I don't believe there's any data for an exponentially increasing population, in fact I think the data shows by 2100 we'll be below 4 billion.
2 sea level rise is problematic because coasts are great to live on but there's very little data that shows large sea increases (over 300mm in any short (50 years)time scale).
3 were on the technological "hamster wheel" we have been for 200,000 years, we'll innovate or die.
That's life "1 you're right. It's steeper than that. Where do you get your data? I have 990 million in 1800. 4 billion by 1975. 6 billion in 1999. And 7.7 billion in 2019. 2 I have two studies showing 30cm rise by 2050 (low emission) and 34cm (high emission) which is 30 years time not 50. So for the maldives for instance where no ground surface is above 3 meters and 80% of land lying below 1 meter this is a problem. 3. And what technological invention will solve an exodus of people from densely populated coastal areas inland with inadequate infrastructure, sanitation, hospitals etc. Not that any initiative is going to come from the private sector since it is the private sector causing the problems in the first place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Want IPCC quotes? https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/19/16908402/global-warming-2-degrees-climate-change "The IPCC report and the Earth System Dynamics study confirm what many scientists have been warning for years: 2 degrees is not a “safe” threshold. Negative impacts are already underway and will only get worse." "At our present rate of emissions, our carbon budget for a good (66 percent) chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees will be used up in six years. Except, oops, that graphic is two years old, so now it’s down to four years." "To hit the brakes at 1.5 degrees, global carbon emissions would need to immediately begin plunging, faster than they ever have, and hit zero by 2050 (and then go negative)" . So much of the USA isn't underwater and all Americans aren't dead then .
Finally we agree
Well it all depends. Two of the world's largest are New York and Los Angeles. Both costal cities. In fact 8 of the 10 largest cities are located on the coast and London isn't one of them. Bangkok which is is only 1.5m above sea level could be under water in the next 15 years.
44% of the world's population live within 150km of the coast.
What do you think will happen when our exponentially increasing population is faced with exponentially decreasing dry land?
.
1 I don't believe there's any data for an exponentially increasing population, in fact I think the data shows by 2100 we'll be below 4 billion.
2 sea level rise is problematic because coasts are great to live on but there's very little data that shows large sea increases (over 300mm in any short (50 years)time scale).
3 were on the technological "hamster wheel" we have been for 200,000 years, we'll innovate or die.
That's life "In 140 years, the sea level recorded at Sydney harbour, has risen at a uniform rate, by 0.65mm per annum. Thats 9.1cm | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have you googled the photo of rising sea levels at Sydney harbour? Terrible. We need to do something to prevent this further! What's your suggestion? Well for a start fix the potholes! "Chopping down the Amazon rain forests is something we could do today if we were really serious about climate change. But that would require pressure from politicians who get their funding from.... wait for it... the same sector that is chopping down the forests. The only way we will ever force the politicians into taking action is if we, the electorate force them into doing something or losing office. For this to happen we need to stand together as a people determined to save the planet rather than squabbling over petty issues. When half of us are denying we're in trouble when the facts are in front of us is scary. Will we in years to come be known as the generation who shat the ecological bed? When people look back to 2019 and think that's when we could have changed things but we were too busy squabbling over economic policy and our politicians were owned by industrialists. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Want IPCC quotes? https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/19/16908402/global-warming-2-degrees-climate-change "The IPCC report and the Earth System Dynamics study confirm what many scientists have been warning for years: 2 degrees is not a “safe” threshold. Negative impacts are already underway and will only get worse." "At our present rate of emissions, our carbon budget for a good (66 percent) chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees will be used up in six years. Except, oops, that graphic is two years old, so now it’s down to four years." "To hit the brakes at 1.5 degrees, global carbon emissions would need to immediately begin plunging, faster than they ever have, and hit zero by 2050 (and then go negative)" . So much of the USA isn't underwater and all Americans aren't dead then .
Finally we agree
Well it all depends. Two of the world's largest are New York and Los Angeles. Both costal cities. In fact 8 of the 10 largest cities are located on the coast and London isn't one of them. Bangkok which is is only 1.5m above sea level could be under water in the next 15 years.
44% of the world's population live within 150km of the coast.
What do you think will happen when our exponentially increasing population is faced with exponentially decreasing dry land?
.
1 I don't believe there's any data for an exponentially increasing population, in fact I think the data shows by 2100 we'll be below 4 billion.
2 sea level rise is problematic because coasts are great to live on but there's very little data that shows large sea increases (over 300mm in any short (50 years)time scale).
3 were on the technological "hamster wheel" we have been for 200,000 years, we'll innovate or die.
That's life
In 140 years, the sea level recorded at Sydney harbour, has risen at a uniform rate, by 0.65mm per annum. Thats 9.1cm "We will one day look back at the linear times as the good old days. Methane from the permafrost will cause global warming which will cause more release of more methane in a viscous loop. The headline should read "The Amazon forest can't grow fast enough to keep up with a population that increases by a billion every 10 years". But instead it reads "Burned areas of the Amazon could take centuries to recover. And it's centuries we don't have" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Want IPCC quotes? https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/19/16908402/global-warming-2-degrees-climate-change "The IPCC report and the Earth System Dynamics study confirm what many scientists have been warning for years: 2 degrees is not a “safe” threshold. Negative impacts are already underway and will only get worse." "At our present rate of emissions, our carbon budget for a good (66 percent) chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees will be used up in six years. Except, oops, that graphic is two years old, so now it’s down to four years." "To hit the brakes at 1.5 degrees, global carbon emissions would need to immediately begin plunging, faster than they ever have, and hit zero by 2050 (and then go negative)" . So much of the USA isn't underwater and all Americans aren't dead then .
Finally we agree
Well it all depends. Two of the world's largest are New York and Los Angeles. Both costal cities. In fact 8 of the 10 largest cities are located on the coast and London isn't one of them. Bangkok which is is only 1.5m above sea level could be under water in the next 15 years.
44% of the world's population live within 150km of the coast.
What do you think will happen when our exponentially increasing population is faced with exponentially decreasing dry land?
.
1 I don't believe there's any data for an exponentially increasing population, in fact I think the data shows by 2100 we'll be below 4 billion.
2 sea level rise is problematic because coasts are great to live on but there's very little data that shows large sea increases (over 300mm in any short (50 years)time scale).
3 were on the technological "hamster wheel" we have been for 200,000 years, we'll innovate or die.
That's life
In 140 years, the sea level recorded at Sydney harbour, has risen at a uniform rate, by 0.65mm per annum. Thats 9.1cm "The figures from the tidal gauge the battery new york are very similar and consistent since 1850. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Want IPCC quotes? https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/19/16908402/global-warming-2-degrees-climate-change "The IPCC report and the Earth System Dynamics study confirm what many scientists have been warning for years: 2 degrees is not a “safe” threshold. Negative impacts are already underway and will only get worse." "At our present rate of emissions, our carbon budget for a good (66 percent) chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees will be used up in six years. Except, oops, that graphic is two years old, so now it’s down to four years." "To hit the brakes at 1.5 degrees, global carbon emissions would need to immediately begin plunging, faster than they ever have, and hit zero by 2050 (and then go negative)" . So much of the USA isn't underwater and all Americans aren't dead then .
Finally we agree
Well it all depends. Two of the world's largest are New York and Los Angeles. Both costal cities. In fact 8 of the 10 largest cities are located on the coast and London isn't one of them. Bangkok which is is only 1.5m above sea level could be under water in the next 15 years.
44% of the world's population live within 150km of the coast.
What do you think will happen when our exponentially increasing population is faced with exponentially decreasing dry land?
.
1 I don't believe there's any data for an exponentially increasing population, in fact I think the data shows by 2100 we'll be below 4 billion.
2 sea level rise is problematic because coasts are great to live on but there's very little data that shows large sea increases (over 300mm in any short (50 years)time scale).
3 were on the technological "hamster wheel" we have been for 200,000 years, we'll innovate or die.
That's life
In 140 years, the sea level recorded at Sydney harbour, has risen at a uniform rate, by 0.65mm per annum. Thats 9.1cm The figures from the tidal gauge the battery new york are very similar and consistent since 1850. "And what do these figures tell us about climate change? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Want IPCC quotes? https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/19/16908402/global-warming-2-degrees-climate-change "The IPCC report and the Earth System Dynamics study confirm what many scientists have been warning for years: 2 degrees is not a “safe” threshold. Negative impacts are already underway and will only get worse." "At our present rate of emissions, our carbon budget for a good (66 percent) chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees will be used up in six years. Except, oops, that graphic is two years old, so now it’s down to four years." "To hit the brakes at 1.5 degrees, global carbon emissions would need to immediately begin plunging, faster than they ever have, and hit zero by 2050 (and then go negative)" . So much of the USA isn't underwater and all Americans aren't dead then .
Finally we agree
Well it all depends. Two of the world's largest are New York and Los Angeles. Both costal cities. In fact 8 of the 10 largest cities are located on the coast and London isn't one of them. Bangkok which is is only 1.5m above sea level could be under water in the next 15 years.
44% of the world's population live within 150km of the coast.
What do you think will happen when our exponentially increasing population is faced with exponentially decreasing dry land?
.
1 I don't believe there's any data for an exponentially increasing population, in fact I think the data shows by 2100 we'll be below 4 billion.
2 sea level rise is problematic because coasts are great to live on but there's very little data that shows large sea increases (over 300mm in any short (50 years)time scale).
3 were on the technological "hamster wheel" we have been for 200,000 years, we'll innovate or die.
That's life
In 140 years, the sea level recorded at Sydney harbour, has risen at a uniform rate, by 0.65mm per annum. Thats 9.1cm The figures from the tidal gauge the battery new york are very similar and consistent since 1850.
And what do these figures tell us about climate change?"It's naturally occurring? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Want IPCC quotes? https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/19/16908402/global-warming-2-degrees-climate-change "The IPCC report and the Earth System Dynamics study confirm what many scientists have been warning for years: 2 degrees is not a “safe” threshold. Negative impacts are already underway and will only get worse." "At our present rate of emissions, our carbon budget for a good (66 percent) chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees will be used up in six years. Except, oops, that graphic is two years old, so now it’s down to four years." "To hit the brakes at 1.5 degrees, global carbon emissions would need to immediately begin plunging, faster than they ever have, and hit zero by 2050 (and then go negative)" . So much of the USA isn't underwater and all Americans aren't dead then .
Finally we agree
Well it all depends. Two of the world's largest are New York and Los Angeles. Both costal cities. In fact 8 of the 10 largest cities are located on the coast and London isn't one of them. Bangkok which is is only 1.5m above sea level could be under water in the next 15 years.
44% of the world's population live within 150km of the coast.
What do you think will happen when our exponentially increasing population is faced with exponentially decreasing dry land?
.
1 I don't believe there's any data for an exponentially increasing population, in fact I think the data shows by 2100 we'll be below 4 billion.
2 sea level rise is problematic because coasts are great to live on but there's very little data that shows large sea increases (over 300mm in any short (50 years)time scale).
3 were on the technological "hamster wheel" we have been for 200,000 years, we'll innovate or die.
That's life
1 you're right. It's steeper than that. Where do you get your data? I have 990 million in 1800. 4 billion by 1975. 6 billion in 1999. And 7.7 billion in 2019.
2 I have two studies showing 30cm rise by 2050 (low emission) and 34cm (high emission) which is 30 years time not 50. So for the maldives for instance where no ground surface is above 3 meters and 80% of land lying below 1 meter this is a problem.
3. And what technological invention will solve an exodus of people from densely populated coastal areas inland with inadequate infrastructure, sanitation, hospitals etc. Not that any initiative is going to come from the private sector since it is the private sector causing the problems in the first place.
". The UN rarely get demographics and fast pace changes correct they always overestimate then twenty years later correct there overestimation. Birth rates have been in rapid decline in the West for decades, fertility rates have dropped for decades, women don't want kids when they get wealthier and have birth control as India is showing the Chinese have relaxed the one birth rate and there's no sign anybody's going to change,2.2 children per woman is the replenishment rate the only place in the world with high birth rates is Africa and even there you see great big drops from 6,7,8 children down to 3,4 and 5, everywhere else is either on 2.2 or way below, by 2100 the population will be in terminal decline by our own making. Were not gonna go extinct like but the party is coming to a close and were on the smooching song .
Secondly the Maldives was never gonna make it anyway the ocean always takes back archipelagos eventually.
Chill now sister and have a beer, it's Friday  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Want IPCC quotes? https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/19/16908402/global-warming-2-degrees-climate-change "The IPCC report and the Earth System Dynamics study confirm what many scientists have been warning for years: 2 degrees is not a “safe” threshold. Negative impacts are already underway and will only get worse." "At our present rate of emissions, our carbon budget for a good (66 percent) chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees will be used up in six years. Except, oops, that graphic is two years old, so now it’s down to four years." "To hit the brakes at 1.5 degrees, global carbon emissions would need to immediately begin plunging, faster than they ever have, and hit zero by 2050 (and then go negative)" . So much of the USA isn't underwater and all Americans aren't dead then .
Finally we agree
Well it all depends. Two of the world's largest are New York and Los Angeles. Both costal cities. In fact 8 of the 10 largest cities are located on the coast and London isn't one of them. Bangkok which is is only 1.5m above sea level could be under water in the next 15 years.
44% of the world's population live within 150km of the coast.
What do you think will happen when our exponentially increasing population is faced with exponentially decreasing dry land?
.
1 I don't believe there's any data for an exponentially increasing population, in fact I think the data shows by 2100 we'll be below 4 billion.
2 sea level rise is problematic because coasts are great to live on but there's very little data that shows large sea increases (over 300mm in any short (50 years)time scale).
3 were on the technological "hamster wheel" we have been for 200,000 years, we'll innovate or die.
That's life
In 140 years, the sea level recorded at Sydney harbour, has risen at a uniform rate, by 0.65mm per annum. Thats 9.1cm
We will one day look back at the linear times as the good old days. Methane from the permafrost will cause global warming which will cause more release of more methane in a viscous loop.
"Why didn't that happen in 1300? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Want IPCC quotes? https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/19/16908402/global-warming-2-degrees-climate-change "The IPCC report and the Earth System Dynamics study confirm what many scientists have been warning for years: 2 degrees is not a “safe” threshold. Negative impacts are already underway and will only get worse." "At our present rate of emissions, our carbon budget for a good (66 percent) chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees will be used up in six years. Except, oops, that graphic is two years old, so now it’s down to four years." "To hit the brakes at 1.5 degrees, global carbon emissions would need to immediately begin plunging, faster than they ever have, and hit zero by 2050 (and then go negative)" . So much of the USA isn't underwater and all Americans aren't dead then .
Finally we agree
Well it all depends. Two of the world's largest are New York and Los Angeles. Both costal cities. In fact 8 of the 10 largest cities are located on the coast and London isn't one of them. Bangkok which is is only 1.5m above sea level could be under water in the next 15 years.
44% of the world's population live within 150km of the coast.
What do you think will happen when our exponentially increasing population is faced with exponentially decreasing dry land?
.
1 I don't believe there's any data for an exponentially increasing population, in fact I think the data shows by 2100 we'll be below 4 billion.
2 sea level rise is problematic because coasts are great to live on but there's very little data that shows large sea increases (over 300mm in any short (50 years)time scale).
3 were on the technological "hamster wheel" we have been for 200,000 years, we'll innovate or die.
That's life
In 140 years, the sea level recorded at Sydney harbour, has risen at a uniform rate, by 0.65mm per annum. Thats 9.1cm
We will one day look back at the linear times as the good old days. Methane from the permafrost will cause global warming which will cause more release of more methane in a viscous loop.
Why didn't that happen in 1300?"Why didn't what happen? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Want IPCC quotes? https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/19/16908402/global-warming-2-degrees-climate-change "The IPCC report and the Earth System Dynamics study confirm what many scientists have been warning for years: 2 degrees is not a “safe” threshold. Negative impacts are already underway and will only get worse." "At our present rate of emissions, our carbon budget for a good (66 percent) chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees will be used up in six years. Except, oops, that graphic is two years old, so now it’s down to four years." "To hit the brakes at 1.5 degrees, global carbon emissions would need to immediately begin plunging, faster than they ever have, and hit zero by 2050 (and then go negative)" . So much of the USA isn't underwater and all Americans aren't dead then .
Finally we agree
Well it all depends. Two of the world's largest are New York and Los Angeles. Both costal cities. In fact 8 of the 10 largest cities are located on the coast and London isn't one of them. Bangkok which is is only 1.5m above sea level could be under water in the next 15 years.
44% of the world's population live within 150km of the coast.
What do you think will happen when our exponentially increasing population is faced with exponentially decreasing dry land?
.
1 I don't believe there's any data for an exponentially increasing population, in fact I think the data shows by 2100 we'll be below 4 billion.
2 sea level rise is problematic because coasts are great to live on but there's very little data that shows large sea increases (over 300mm in any short (50 years)time scale).
3 were on the technological "hamster wheel" we have been for 200,000 years, we'll innovate or die.
That's life
In 140 years, the sea level recorded at Sydney harbour, has risen at a uniform rate, by 0.65mm per annum. Thats 9.1cm
We will one day look back at the linear times as the good old days. Methane from the permafrost will cause global warming which will cause more release of more methane in a viscous loop.
Why didn't that happen in 1300?
Why didn't what happen?"Why didn't the released methane go into a "vicious loop"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Want IPCC quotes? https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/19/16908402/global-warming-2-degrees-climate-change "The IPCC report and the Earth System Dynamics study confirm what many scientists have been warning for years: 2 degrees is not a “safe” threshold. Negative impacts are already underway and will only get worse." "At our present rate of emissions, our carbon budget for a good (66 percent) chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees will be used up in six years. Except, oops, that graphic is two years old, so now it’s down to four years." "To hit the brakes at 1.5 degrees, global carbon emissions would need to immediately begin plunging, faster than they ever have, and hit zero by 2050 (and then go negative)" . So much of the USA isn't underwater and all Americans aren't dead then .
Finally we agree
Well it all depends. Two of the world's largest are New York and Los Angeles. Both costal cities. In fact 8 of the 10 largest cities are located on the coast and London isn't one of them. Bangkok which is is only 1.5m above sea level could be under water in the next 15 years.
44% of the world's population live within 150km of the coast.
What do you think will happen when our exponentially increasing population is faced with exponentially decreasing dry land?
.
1 I don't believe there's any data for an exponentially increasing population, in fact I think the data shows by 2100 we'll be below 4 billion.
2 sea level rise is problematic because coasts are great to live on but there's very little data that shows large sea increases (over 300mm in any short (50 years)time scale).
3 were on the technological "hamster wheel" we have been for 200,000 years, we'll innovate or die.
That's life
In 140 years, the sea level recorded at Sydney harbour, has risen at a uniform rate, by 0.65mm per annum. Thats 9.1cm
We will one day look back at the linear times as the good old days. Methane from the permafrost will cause global warming which will cause more release of more methane in a viscous loop.
Why didn't that happen in 1300?
Why didn't what happen?
Why didn't the released methane go into a "vicious loop"?"This thread is getting more and more rediculous. We're a gnats pube away from people demanding to see proof that the earth isn't flat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why didn't the polar bears die out in 1100? " Why didn't Batman elbow Julius Augustus in the nuts in 27BC? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why didn't the polar bears die out in 1100? Why didn't Batman elbow Julius Augustus in the nuts in 27BC?" some say the decline of the roman empire was partly due to climate change too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why didn't the polar bears die out in 1100? Why didn't Batman elbow Julius Augustus in the nuts in 27BC?some say the decline of the roman empire was partly due to climate change too. "People say a lot of things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why didn't the polar bears die out in 1100? Why didn't Batman elbow Julius Augustus in the nuts in 27BC?some say the decline of the roman empire was partly due to climate change too. "The timelines do fit. The Roman era was warmer than it is today at it's apex, the known world entered the "dark ages" as temperatures declined. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why didn't the polar bears die out in 1100? Why didn't Batman elbow Julius Augustus in the nuts in 27BC?some say the decline of the roman empire was partly due to climate change too.
The timelines do fit. The Roman era was warmer than it is today at it's apex, the known world entered the "dark ages" as temperatures declined. "If you can give me the satellite data from those times then I know people who will be able to tell you why. Why are there ancient cities under the ocean? Did they build them under water or did sea levels rise? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why didn't the polar bears die out in 1100? Why didn't Batman elbow Julius Augustus in the nuts in 27BC?some say the decline of the roman empire was partly due to climate change too.
The timelines do fit. The Roman era was warmer than it is today at it's apex, the known world entered the "dark ages" as temperatures declined. "Perhaps the Romans didn't have as many CFCs in their aerosols, refrigerators and air conditioners? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why didn't the polar bears die out in 1100? Why didn't Batman elbow Julius Augustus in the nuts in 27BC?some say the decline of the roman empire was partly due to climate change too.
The timelines do fit. The Roman era was warmer than it is today at it's apex, the known world entered the "dark ages" as temperatures declined.
If you can give me the satellite data from those times then I know people who will be able to tell you why.
Why are there ancient cities under the ocean? Did they build them under water or did sea levels rise?"Just use the ice core data. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why didn't the polar bears die out in 1100? Why didn't Batman elbow Julius Augustus in the nuts in 27BC?some say the decline of the roman empire was partly due to climate change too.
The timelines do fit. The Roman era was warmer than it is today at it's apex, the known world entered the "dark ages" as temperatures declined.
If you can give me the satellite data from those times then I know people who will be able to tell you why.
Why are there ancient cities under the ocean? Did they build them under water or did sea levels rise?
Just use the ice core data."A lot of the points raised in this thread are in isolation. We are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. We are burning the rainforests. We are fracking. We are hunting and fishing sealife into extinction. We are polluting the environment with plastics, industrial waste etc. We are seriously over populated and still going strong. It's not just the average global temperature, it's ocean currents, changes of salinity which affects sea cooling Etc etc etc You have to take all of these things in combination. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why didn't the polar bears die out in 1100? Why didn't Batman elbow Julius Augustus in the nuts in 27BC?some say the decline of the roman empire was partly due to climate change too.
The timelines do fit. The Roman era was warmer than it is today at it's apex, the known world entered the "dark ages" as temperatures declined.
If you can give me the satellite data from those times then I know people who will be able to tell you why.
Why are there ancient cities under the ocean? Did they build them under water or did sea levels rise?
Just use the ice core data.
A lot of the points raised in this thread are in isolation.
We are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
We are burning the rainforests.
We are fracking.
We are hunting and fishing sealife into extinction.
We are polluting the environment with plastics, industrial waste etc.
We are seriously over populated and still going strong.
It's not just the average global temperature, it's ocean currents, changes of salinity which affects sea cooling
Etc etc etc
You have to take all of these things in combination. "They are in isolation because they happened in different time lines which further proves that climate change is an unpredictable natural cycle you may slow it but you as sure as hell are not going to stop it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why didn't the polar bears die out in 1100? Why didn't Batman elbow Julius Augustus in the nuts in 27BC?some say the decline of the roman empire was partly due to climate change too.
The timelines do fit. The Roman era was warmer than it is today at it's apex, the known world entered the "dark ages" as temperatures declined.
If you can give me the satellite data from those times then I know people who will be able to tell you why.
Why are there ancient cities under the ocean? Did they build them under water or did sea levels rise?
Just use the ice core data.
A lot of the points raised in this thread are in isolation.
We are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
We are burning the rainforests.
We are fracking.
We are hunting and fishing sealife into extinction.
We are polluting the environment with plastics, industrial waste etc.
We are seriously over populated and still going strong.
It's not just the average global temperature, it's ocean currents, changes of salinity which affects sea cooling
Etc etc etc
You have to take all of these things in combination. They are in isolation because they happened in different time lines which further proves that climate change is an unpredictable natural cycle you may slow it but you as sure as hell are not going to stop it."The misunderstanding is strong with this one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why didn't the polar bears die out in 1100? Why didn't Batman elbow Julius Augustus in the nuts in 27BC?some say the decline of the roman empire was partly due to climate change too.
The timelines do fit. The Roman era was warmer than it is today at it's apex, the known world entered the "dark ages" as temperatures declined.
If you can give me the satellite data from those times then I know people who will be able to tell you why.
Why are there ancient cities under the ocean? Did they build them under water or did sea levels rise?
Just use the ice core data.
A lot of the points raised in this thread are in isolation.
We are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
We are burning the rainforests.
We are fracking.
We are hunting and fishing sealife into extinction.
We are polluting the environment with plastics, industrial waste etc.
We are seriously over populated and still going strong.
It's not just the average global temperature, it's ocean currents, changes of salinity which affects sea cooling
Etc etc etc
You have to take all of these things in combination. They are in isolation because they happened in different time lines which further proves that climate change is an unpredictable natural cycle you may slow it but you as sure as hell are not going to stop it.
The misunderstanding is strong with this one.
". Why didn't you use your usual line of the tinfoil hat is strong on this one?. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To those who believe that the problems of rising sea levels only affect us when the sea rises over the level of our roofs.... As previously pointed out 44% of our population live within 150m of the coast. If the world population is 7.7 billion we are talking 3.388 billion people. If all of those people move inland will we have the infrastructure to cope? Can we build hospitals, houses etc for this influx? If not we are talking about people with no housing, no sanitation, no hospitals..... this is a scenario today. With zero population growth. So when is this happening 2050? 2100? https://psmag.com/.amp/environment/confronting-climate-change-louisiana-shifts-from-resilience-to-retreat " How many nuclear reactors are built in low lying areas next to rivers or the sea so they can utilise water to cool them and have any of you considers what happens if storms increase in ferocity (which is the more immediate effect of global warming rather than rising sea levels) with the potential for tsunamis or breaching of sea defences and flooding of these facilities? Just a thought for all of the climate change deniers - remember what happened at fukushima - that was a tsunami brought on by an earthquake but a storm surge could be just as disastrous. If you want a historic example of what can happen you could look back to 1362 where an enormous storm re-shaped European coastlines permanently or 1703 when most of the british navy was destroyed by a storm of intense ferocity and bear in mind that these were pre-global warming as we currently know it. I guess some will sat y that this example refutes climate change whereas my own point of view is that it demonstrates what could happen more readily and frequently in the future. The climate change debate should be viewed as an opportunity to make efficiencies rather than carry on wasting our resources. | |||
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) | |||
"Why does the sea level only rise at temporary volcanic atolls like the Marshal islands, and not Sydney harbour, or Southampton?" You know for a fact sea levels haven't risen? https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/photo-meme-of-sydney-harbour-incorrectly-claims-no-sea-level-rise-has-occurred/ But yes sea levels do not rise a the same level all over the world. There are a number of reasons for that. There is undeniable proof that sea levels are rising. I think that debate is long gone. Also the argument that climate changes are naturally occurring is lost in the speed that changes are occurring. If the earth were NOT suffering from the damage that humanity is causing, now that would be puzzling. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Greta is a Marxist tool, she's already said it's not about the environment. Her handlers want a new system of politics. " It's irrelevant. I don't care if she is exposed as an alien from outer space trying to get us to save the planet so it's worth capturing. The point is that whenever an entity stands up to save our planet they encounter opposition from the rich industrialists. An example is Sea Shepherd. In trying to prevent whaling ships from refuelling they have been branded as terrorists. Not just by the Japanese but by Trump. I watched Shark Extinction with absolute horror and a sick feeling in my gut. Probably the sadest thing I've ever watched. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think you need to do some unbiased research based on science which isn't backed by oil or climate alarmists before you worry yourself out of pocket, and into an early grave. " I work with scientists on a daily basis on a project that is solely dedicated to obtaining accurate data. The town I grew up in was originally a fishing village. The old timers spoke about how fish would literally jump into the boat. The place then became industrialized with 5 major industries established and a common effluent pipeline that fed into the sea. After that you could fish for entire day and not get a bite. Deep sea fishermen were complaining how far they needed to go to catch fish. That was in the 80's.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think you need to do some unbiased research based on science which isn't backed by oil or climate alarmists before you worry yourself out of pocket, and into an early grave. I work with scientists on a daily basis on a project that is solely dedicated to obtaining accurate data. The town I grew up in was originally a fishing village. The old timers spoke about how fish would literally jump into the boat. The place then became industrialized with 5 major industries established and a common effluent pipeline that fed into the sea. After that you could fish for entire day and not get a bite. Deep sea fishermen were complaining how far they needed to go to catch fish. That was in the 80's. "Are you blaming over fishing on climate change to? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Climate change is a political lever for the globalists, whilst yes we do contrubute to it, remember that we are not killing the planet only ourself, the planet will return to its normal self after few cycles." Invented by Sweden, jealous of Norway's prosperity no doubt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think you need to do some unbiased research based on science which isn't backed by oil or climate alarmists before you worry yourself out of pocket, and into an early grave. I work with scientists on a daily basis on a project that is solely dedicated to obtaining accurate data. The town I grew up in was originally a fishing village. The old timers spoke about how fish would literally jump into the boat. The place then became industrialized with 5 major industries established and a common effluent pipeline that fed into the sea. After that you could fish for entire day and not get a bite. Deep sea fishermen were complaining how far they needed to go to catch fish. That was in the 80's.
Are you blaming over fishing on climate change to? "No. Once the town was industrialized commercial fishing stopped. The only fishermen were deepsea fishermen who fished as a sport on weekends. Theoretically fish populations should have increased. This was in the 80's. It wasn't because of climate change is was the direct result of pollution. The industries however released a ton of scientific data to prove the environment was not being affected. The town's top environmentalist confirmed this data was correct and stopped her campaigning and coincidentally became rich for no apparent reason. Call me cynical  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Climate change is a political lever for the globalists, whilst yes we do contrubute to it, remember that we are not killing the planet only ourself, the planet will return to its normal self after few cycles." What would you like to deny... That the Amazon produces 20% of the world's oxgen? Or that 20% of that forest has been destroyed for farming? Or as one person has argued that we don't need oxygen to live? Or perhaps one could argue that the 77 000 fires recorded by NASA last year were naturally occurring? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Climate change is a political lever for the globalists, whilst yes we do contrubute to it, remember that we are not killing the planet only ourself, the planet will return to its normal self after few cycles. What would you like to deny... That the Amazon produces 20% of the world's oxgen? Or that 20% of that forest has been destroyed for farming? Or as one person has argued that we don't need oxygen to live? Or perhaps one could argue that the 77 000 fires recorded by NASA last year were naturally occurring?" Is 77000 fires more or less than occurred during the medieval warm period which was warmer than it is now? Or the golden years of Egypt, which were warmer than it is now? Unless there's a comparison it's meaningless. I agree the destruction of the rain forest is terrible. But short of going to war with Brazil, what can we do? Pay them not to i assume... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Climate change is a political lever for the globalists, whilst yes we do contrubute to it, remember that we are not killing the planet only ourself, the planet will return to its normal self after few cycles. What would you like to deny... That the Amazon produces 20% of the world's oxgen? Or that 20% of that forest has been destroyed for farming? Or as one person has argued that we don't need oxygen to live? Or perhaps one could argue that the 77 000 fires recorded by NASA last year were naturally occurring? Is 77000 fires more or less than occurred during the medieval warm period which was warmer than it is now? Or the golden years of Egypt, which were warmer than it is now? Unless there's a comparison it's meaningless. I agree the destruction of the rain forest is terrible. But short of going to war with Brazil, what can we do? Pay them not to i assume..." Sorry I wasn't specific. It's 77 000 fires in the same region around the Amazon. This is a 85% increase year on year. There was noticeable darkening over Sao Paulo over 1700 miles away as viewed from Satellite imagery. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Climate change is a political lever for the globalists, whilst yes we do contrubute to it, remember that we are not killing the planet only ourself, the planet will return to its normal self after few cycles. What would you like to deny... That the Amazon produces 20% of the world's oxgen? Or that 20% of that forest has been destroyed for farming? Or as one person has argued that we don't need oxygen to live? Or perhaps one could argue that the 77 000 fires recorded by NASA last year were naturally occurring? Is 77000 fires more or less than occurred during the medieval warm period which was warmer than it is now? Or the golden years of Egypt, which were warmer than it is now? Unless there's a comparison it's meaningless. I agree the destruction of the rain forest is terrible. But short of going to war with Brazil, what can we do? Pay them not to i assume... Sorry I wasn't specific. It's 77 000 fires in the same region around the Amazon. This is a 85% increase year on year. There was noticeable darkening over Sao Paulo over 1700 miles away as viewed from Satellite imagery. " Not much of it only that you shouldnt read into it so much of what these "scientist" are telling you as they have a political agenda behind it, as I said we are not destroying earth only ourself, we can ofcourse make our time here easier by focusing on the pollution that yes we are causing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Climate change is a political lever for the globalists, whilst yes we do contrubute to it, remember that we are not killing the planet only ourself, the planet will return to its normal self after few cycles. What would you like to deny... That the Amazon produces 20% of the world's oxgen? Or that 20% of that forest has been destroyed for farming? Or as one person has argued that we don't need oxygen to live? Or perhaps one could argue that the 77 000 fires recorded by NASA last year were naturally occurring? Is 77000 fires more or less than occurred during the medieval warm period which was warmer than it is now? Or the golden years of Egypt, which were warmer than it is now? Unless there's a comparison it's meaningless. I agree the destruction of the rain forest is terrible. But short of going to war with Brazil, what can we do? Pay them not to i assume... Sorry I wasn't specific. It's 77 000 fires in the same region around the Amazon. This is a 85% increase year on year. There was noticeable darkening over Sao Paulo over 1700 miles away as viewed from Satellite imagery. Not much of it only that you shouldnt read into it so much of what these "scientist" are telling you as they have a political agenda behind it, as I said we are not destroying earth only ourself, we can ofcourse make our time here easier by focusing on the pollution that yes we are causing." The first step to solving the problem is electing leaders who acknowledge climate change. If Trump declared sanctions on Brazil until the issue was resolved, it would stop tomorrow. Instead Trump left the 2015 Paris accord in favour of American jobs and salaries. It's all good and well to point to the political agendas of these scientists but do you not think that rich industrialists are not ploughing money into turning environmentalists into nutcases. Once you provide data that contradicts other data it becomes a debate. Once it's a debate nothing happens. Which buys time for the industrialists. Not only do the industrialists have a dog in this fight, they have the money to win it. I take everything I read with a bucket of salt. But the scientists I work with have no reason to lie in front of me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Climate change is a political lever for the globalists, whilst yes we do contrubute to it, remember that we are not killing the planet only ourself, the planet will return to its normal self after few cycles. What would you like to deny... That the Amazon produces 20% of the world's oxgen? Or that 20% of that forest has been destroyed for farming? Or as one person has argued that we don't need oxygen to live? Or perhaps one could argue that the 77 000 fires recorded by NASA last year were naturally occurring? Is 77000 fires more or less than occurred during the medieval warm period which was warmer than it is now? Or the golden years of Egypt, which were warmer than it is now? Unless there's a comparison it's meaningless. I agree the destruction of the rain forest is terrible. But short of going to war with Brazil, what can we do? Pay them not to i assume... Sorry I wasn't specific. It's 77 000 fires in the same region around the Amazon. This is a 85% increase year on year. There was noticeable darkening over Sao Paulo over 1700 miles away as viewed from Satellite imagery. Not much of it only that you shouldnt read into it so much of what these "scientist" are telling you as they have a political agenda behind it, as I said we are not destroying earth only ourself, we can ofcourse make our time here easier by focusing on the pollution that yes we are causing." Science is apolitical. It's only interested in truth. People take their findings and politicise it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Climate change is a political lever for the globalists, whilst yes we do contrubute to it, remember that we are not killing the planet only ourself, the planet will return to its normal self after few cycles. What would you like to deny... That the Amazon produces 20% of the world's oxgen? Or that 20% of that forest has been destroyed for farming? Or as one person has argued that we don't need oxygen to live? Or perhaps one could argue that the 77 000 fires recorded by NASA last year were naturally occurring? Is 77000 fires more or less than occurred during the medieval warm period which was warmer than it is now? Or the golden years of Egypt, which were warmer than it is now? Unless there's a comparison it's meaningless. I agree the destruction of the rain forest is terrible. But short of going to war with Brazil, what can we do? Pay them not to i assume... Sorry I wasn't specific. It's 77 000 fires in the same region around the Amazon. This is a 85% increase year on year. There was noticeable darkening over Sao Paulo over 1700 miles away as viewed from Satellite imagery. Not much of it only that you shouldnt read into it so much of what these "scientist" are telling you as they have a political agenda behind it, as I said we are not destroying earth only ourself, we can ofcourse make our time here easier by focusing on the pollution that yes we are causing. Science is apolitical. It's only interested in truth. People take their findings and politicise it. " Agreed science is science. Data is data. But those scientists need funding and it can't come from industry. The industrialists are not going to regulate themselves and so long as they own our politicians they won't be regulated by government either. Right now we need pressure on the Brazilian government to stop Amazon fires which are illegal but they turn a blind eye to. And also Japan's official return to whaling. I read a report that says that local activists have been murdered in a drive by shooting. Another assassinated. And the world has it's head in the sand! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think you need to do some unbiased research based on science which isn't backed by oil or climate alarmists before you worry yourself out of pocket, and into an early grave. I work with scientists on a daily basis on a project that is solely dedicated to obtaining accurate data. The town I grew up in was originally a fishing village. The old timers spoke about how fish would literally jump into the boat. The place then became industrialized with 5 major industries established and a common effluent pipeline that fed into the sea. After that you could fish for entire day and not get a bite. Deep sea fishermen were complaining how far they needed to go to catch fish. That was in the 80's.
Are you blaming over fishing on climate change to?
No. Once the town was industrialized commercial fishing stopped. The only fishermen were deepsea fishermen who fished as a sport on weekends. Theoretically fish populations should have increased.
This was in the 80's. It wasn't because of climate change is was the direct result of pollution. The industries however released a ton of scientific data to prove the environment was not being affected. The town's top environmentalist confirmed this data was correct and stopped her campaigning and coincidentally became rich for no apparent reason. Call me cynical ". I would have gone with nuts but cynical! Probably not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Climate change is a political lever for the globalists, whilst yes we do contrubute to it, remember that we are not killing the planet only ourself, the planet will return to its normal self after few cycles. What would you like to deny... That the Amazon produces 20% of the world's oxgen? Or that 20% of that forest has been destroyed for farming? Or as one person has argued that we don't need oxygen to live? Or perhaps one could argue that the 77 000 fires recorded by NASA last year were naturally occurring? Is 77000 fires more or less than occurred during the medieval warm period which was warmer than it is now? Or the golden years of Egypt, which were warmer than it is now? Unless there's a comparison it's meaningless. I agree the destruction of the rain forest is terrible. But short of going to war with Brazil, what can we do? Pay them not to i assume... Sorry I wasn't specific. It's 77 000 fires in the same region around the Amazon. This is a 85% increase year on year. There was noticeable darkening over Sao Paulo over 1700 miles away as viewed from Satellite imagery. Not much of it only that you shouldnt read into it so much of what these "scientist" are telling you as they have a political agenda behind it, as I said we are not destroying earth only ourself, we can ofcourse make our time here easier by focusing on the pollution that yes we are causing. The first step to solving the problem is electing leaders who acknowledge climate change. If Trump declared sanctions on Brazil until the issue was resolved, it would stop tomorrow. Instead Trump left the 2015 Paris accord in favour of American jobs and salaries. It's all good and well to point to the political agendas of these scientists but do you not think that rich industrialists are not ploughing money into turning environmentalists into nutcases. Once you provide data that contradicts other data it becomes a debate. Once it's a debate nothing happens. Which buys time for the industrialists. Not only do the industrialists have a dog in this fight, they have the money to win it. I take everything I read with a bucket of salt. But the scientists I work with have no reason to lie in front of me." Yes we need leaders that does that but also leaders to accept other views too, wasnt there a report that we should be more worried about global cooling rather than warming? You never hear about that from the globalists tho. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Climate change is a political lever for the globalists, whilst yes we do contrubute to it, remember that we are not killing the planet only ourself, the planet will return to its normal self after few cycles. What would you like to deny... That the Amazon produces 20% of the world's oxgen? Or that 20% of that forest has been destroyed for farming? Or as one person has argued that we don't need oxygen to live? Or perhaps one could argue that the 77 000 fires recorded by NASA last year were naturally occurring? Is 77000 fires more or less than occurred during the medieval warm period which was warmer than it is now? Or the golden years of Egypt, which were warmer than it is now? Unless there's a comparison it's meaningless. I agree the destruction of the rain forest is terrible. But short of going to war with Brazil, what can we do? Pay them not to i assume... Sorry I wasn't specific. It's 77 000 fires in the same region around the Amazon. This is a 85% increase year on year. There was noticeable darkening over Sao Paulo over 1700 miles away as viewed from Satellite imagery. Not much of it only that you shouldnt read into it so much of what these "scientist" are telling you as they have a political agenda behind it, as I said we are not destroying earth only ourself, we can ofcourse make our time here easier by focusing on the pollution that yes we are causing. The first step to solving the problem is electing leaders who acknowledge climate change. If Trump declared sanctions on Brazil until the issue was resolved, it would stop tomorrow. Instead Trump left the 2015 Paris accord in favour of American jobs and salaries. It's all good and well to point to the political agendas of these scientists but do you not think that rich industrialists are not ploughing money into turning environmentalists into nutcases. Once you provide data that contradicts other data it becomes a debate. Once it's a debate nothing happens. Which buys time for the industrialists. Not only do the industrialists have a dog in this fight, they have the money to win it. I take everything I read with a bucket of salt. But the scientists I work with have no reason to lie in front of me.Yes we need leaders that does that but also leaders to accept other views too, wasnt there a report that we should be more worried about global cooling rather than warming? You never hear about that from the globalists tho." Nope. Non-scientific views that oppose known facts should be absolutely ignored by politicians. They should spend their time discussing what to do about what we know. Not listening to maniacs who think that science isn't real, the moon is made of cheese, the earth is flat and climate is warming faster than in all of history for no reason. | |||
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) | |||
" Non-scientific views that oppose known facts should be absolutely ignored by politicians. climate is warming faster than in all of history for no reason. " . False. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Non-scientific views that oppose known facts should be absolutely ignored by politicians. climate is warming faster than in all of history for no reason. . False." Thank you. Right on cue. An excellent example of some nonsense that needs to be ignored. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Non-scientific views that oppose known facts should be absolutely ignored by politicians. climate is warming faster than in all of history for no reason. . False. Thank you. Right on cue. An excellent example of some nonsense that needs to be ignored." . Your the one writing lies. Cmon your the one with a university degree in this shit, you know that's a lie surely?. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What happened last time it melted?" Why are there cities under water? Did they build them under water or did sea levels rise? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Non-scientific views that oppose known facts should be absolutely ignored by politicians. climate is warming faster than in all of history for no reason. . False. Thank you. Right on cue. An excellent example of some nonsense that needs to be ignored.. Your the one writing lies. Cmon your the one with a university degree in this shit, you know that's a lie surely?." You are incorrect. Searching the NASA website will tell you that you are wrong. They are well known conspiracy theorists though. There are lots and lots of other scientific organisations that agree including The Royal Society. However, as you are so good with the internet you can reference the data that confirms your position. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What happened last time it melted?" I got more ice from the freezer, added more lime and more vodka. https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php This saves us going through them one at a time.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Non-scientific views that oppose known facts should be absolutely ignored by politicians. climate is warming faster than in all of history for no reason. . False. Thank you. Right on cue. An excellent example of some nonsense that needs to be ignored.. Your the one writing lies. Cmon your the one with a university degree in this shit, you know that's a lie surely?. You are incorrect. Searching the NASA website will tell you that you are wrong. They are well known conspiracy theorists though. There are lots and lots of other scientific organisations that agree including The Royal Society. However, as you are so good with the internet you can reference the data that confirms your position." Ever heard of the Copernicus project? Sentinel 4? Sentinel 5? Hundreds of millions £ on a conspiracy? The work currently being done is not secret, it's part funded by university laboratories. If you want you can go to Harwell near Oxford and ask the scientists yourself. Nothing stopping you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What happened last time it melted? I got more ice from the freezer, added more lime and more vodka. https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php This saves us going through them one at a time...." This "science" is undeniable! "science" says so... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Non-scientific views that oppose known facts should be absolutely ignored by politicians. climate is warming faster than in all of history for no reason. . False. Thank you. Right on cue. An excellent example of some nonsense that needs to be ignored.. Your the one writing lies. Cmon your the one with a university degree in this shit, you know that's a lie surely?. You are incorrect. Searching the NASA website will tell you that you are wrong. They are well known conspiracy theorists though. " . Go on then brainiac,find me this fact "climate is warming faster than in all of history" on the NASA website | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What happened last time it melted? I got more ice from the freezer, added more lime and more vodka. https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php This saves us going through them one at a time.... This "science" is undeniable! scientists have changed our way of life more drastically than television stars, statesmen or generals."science" says so..."science and scientists have changed your way of life more drastically than any tv stars or generals or politicians.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Non-scientific views that oppose known facts should be absolutely ignored by politicians. climate is warming faster than in all of history for no reason. . False. Thank you. Right on cue. An excellent example of some nonsense that needs to be ignored.. Your the one writing lies. Cmon your the one with a university degree in this shit, you know that's a lie surely?. You are incorrect. Searching the NASA website will tell you that you are wrong. They are well known conspiracy theorists though. . Go on then brainiac,find me this fact "climate is warming faster than in all of history" on the NASA website "Search "global warming nasa earth observatory" It's the first result. "As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming." Your turn. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What happened last time it melted? I got more ice from the freezer, added more lime and more vodka. https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php This saves us going through them one at a time.... This "science" is undeniable! "science" says so..."So polar bears increasing in numbers as opposed to nearly being extinct is "science"? Sounds like math to me. You're backing the 3% of scientists who say what you want to hear rather than the 97% who report the inconvenient truth? For example, your science uses the "bathtub" approach to sea levels. There's plenty of websites explaining why it is an unsuitable theory. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What happened last time it melted? I got more ice from the freezer, added more lime and more vodka. https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php This saves us going through them one at a time.... This "science" is undeniable! "science" says so...
So polar bears increasing in numbers as opposed to nearly being extinct is "science"? Sounds like math to me.
You're backing the 3% of scientists who say what you want to hear rather than the 97% who report the inconvenient truth?
For example, your science uses the "bathtub" approach to sea levels. There's plenty of websites explaining why it is an unsuitable theory."Im simply asking you what happened the last time the glacier melted? As its not as warm now as it was in the medieval warm period, or the time of the great pharaohs of Egypt, what happend last time it melted? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What happened last time it melted?" It went to the Antartic for a holiday. When that starts melting in a few thousand years it eill go back again | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What happened last time it melted? I got more ice from the freezer, added more lime and more vodka. https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php This saves us going through them one at a time.... This "science" is undeniable! "science" says so...
So polar bears increasing in numbers as opposed to nearly being extinct is "science"? Sounds like math to me.
You're backing the 3% of scientists who say what you want to hear rather than the 97% who report the inconvenient truth?
For example, your science uses the "bathtub" approach to sea levels. There's plenty of websites explaining why it is an unsuitable theory.
Im simply asking you what happened the last time the glacier melted? As its not as warm now as it was in the medieval warm period, or the time of the great pharaohs of Egypt, what happend last time it melted?"They are good questions. But if I don't know the answers it's probably because I'm not Google. The earth goes through natural warming and cooling cycles. True. Were these global warm periods or localised warm periods? If they were global, how was satellite data collected in medieval times and the times of the pharaohs? Who is saying there wasn't a previous global warming with catastrophic consequences? I read somewhere that the pyramids had water damage... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Non-scientific views that oppose known facts should be absolutely ignored by politicians. climate is warming faster than in all of history for no reason. . False. Thank you. Right on cue. An excellent example of some nonsense that needs to be ignored.. Your the one writing lies. Cmon your the one with a university degree in this shit, you know that's a lie surely?. You are incorrect. Searching the NASA website will tell you that you are wrong. They are well known conspiracy theorists though. . Go on then brainiac,find me this fact "climate is warming faster than in all of history" on the NASA website
Search "global warming nasa earth observatory"
It's the first result.
"As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."
Your turn.". That's a piss poor effort. You know I was very specific on wording. "Climate is moving faster than in all of history" was the wording, not than of natural ice age temperature increases. And not to piss on your chips even more but errr you know all of history, it's a little bit longer than a million years .
Over to you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Non-scientific views that oppose known facts should be absolutely ignored by politicians. climate is warming faster than in all of history for no reason. . False. Thank you. Right on cue. An excellent example of some nonsense that needs to be ignored.. Your the one writing lies. Cmon your the one with a university degree in this shit, you know that's a lie surely?. You are incorrect. Searching the NASA website will tell you that you are wrong. They are well known conspiracy theorists though. . Go on then brainiac,find me this fact "climate is warming faster than in all of history" on the NASA website
Search "global warming nasa earth observatory"
It's the first result.
"As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."
Your turn..
That's a piss poor effort.
You know I was very specific on wording.
"Climate is moving faster than in all of history" was the wording, not than of natural ice age temperature increases.
And not to piss on your chips even more but errr you know all of history, it's a little bit longer than a million years .
Over to you."I'll also add 'faster than the average rate' doesn't mean mucg, it might of been really exceptionally fast for one year than really slow for 4999. What was the fastest rate during ice age recovery warming? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Non-scientific views that oppose known facts should be absolutely ignored by politicians. climate is warming faster than in all of history for no reason. . False. Thank you. Right on cue. An excellent example of some nonsense that needs to be ignored.. Your the one writing lies. Cmon your the one with a university degree in this shit, you know that's a lie surely?. You are incorrect. Searching the NASA website will tell you that you are wrong. They are well known conspiracy theorists though. . Go on then brainiac,find me this fact "climate is warming faster than in all of history" on the NASA website
Search "global warming nasa earth observatory"
It's the first result.
"As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."
Your turn..
That's a piss poor effort.
You know I was very specific on wording.
"Climate is moving faster than in all of history" was the wording, not than of natural ice age temperature increases.
And not to piss on your chips even more but errr you know all of history, it's a little bit longer than a million years .
Over to you."
...and there it is. The pedant arrives and trys to get himself a micro-victory.
Your argument is what exactly? That because we don't know what happened since the beginning of time we can't find any way to comprehend the world around us?
You're just not very bright then.
So, where is your data? You've been very noisy but unable to do anything other than try to piss on a lamp post
Now, where's your logic thread? Why is all this data being generated about climate change?
What's this great conspiracy? What are we being hoodwinked into doing, by whom and why?
How come the entire petrochemical industry hasn't been able to stop it?
There must be something right? You couldn't possibly just be raving incoherently to try to look clever | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Non-scientific views that oppose known facts should be absolutely ignored by politicians. climate is warming faster than in all of history for no reason. . False. Thank you. Right on cue. An excellent example of some nonsense that needs to be ignored.. Your the one writing lies. Cmon your the one with a university degree in this shit, you know that's a lie surely?. You are incorrect. Searching the NASA website will tell you that you are wrong. They are well known conspiracy theorists though. . Go on then brainiac,find me this fact "climate is warming faster than in all of history" on the NASA website
Search "global warming nasa earth observatory"
It's the first result.
"As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."
Your turn..
That's a piss poor effort.
You know I was very specific on wording.
"Climate is moving faster than in all of history" was the wording, not than of natural ice age temperature increases.
And not to piss on your chips even more but errr you know all of history, it's a little bit longer than a million years .
Over to you.
I'll also add 'faster than the average rate' doesn't mean mucg, it might of been really exceptionally fast for one year than really slow for 4999. What was the fastest rate during ice age recovery warming?"Where in history did the earth change 3°C in one year? What caused that? Our current ecological damage is warming the earth roughly 50 times faster than natural cycles. When else did this happen? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Non-scientific views that oppose known facts should be absolutely ignored by politicians. climate is warming faster than in all of history for no reason. . False. Thank you. Right on cue. An excellent example of some nonsense that needs to be ignored.. Your the one writing lies. Cmon your the one with a university degree in this shit, you know that's a lie surely?. You are incorrect. Searching the NASA website will tell you that you are wrong. They are well known conspiracy theorists though. . Go on then brainiac,find me this fact "climate is warming faster than in all of history" on the NASA website
Search "global warming nasa earth observatory"
It's the first result.
"As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."
Your turn..
That's a piss poor effort.
You know I was very specific on wording.
"Climate is moving faster than in all of history" was the wording, not than of natural ice age temperature increases.
And not to piss on your chips even more but errr you know all of history, it's a little bit longer than a million years .
Over to you.
I'll also add 'faster than the average rate' doesn't mean mucg, it might of been really exceptionally fast for one year than really slow for 4999. What was the fastest rate during ice age recovery warming?"When you work with big data sets you look at averages. The other stuff is called noise. Go and have a read. Thanks for your input though  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What happened last time it melted? I got more ice from the freezer, added more lime and more vodka. https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php This saves us going through them one at a time.... This "science" is undeniable! "science" says so...
So polar bears increasing in numbers as opposed to nearly being extinct is "science"? Sounds like math to me.
You're backing the 3% of scientists who say what you want to hear rather than the 97% who report the inconvenient truth?
For example, your science uses the "bathtub" approach to sea levels. There's plenty of websites explaining why it is an unsuitable theory.
Im simply asking you what happened the last time the glacier melted? As its not as warm now as it was in the medieval warm period, or the time of the great pharaohs of Egypt, what happend last time it melted?
They are good questions. But if I don't know the answers it's probably because I'm not Google.
The earth goes through natural warming and cooling cycles. True.
Were these global warm periods or localised warm periods? If they were global, how was satellite data collected in medieval times and the times of the pharaohs?
Who is saying there wasn't a previous global warming with catastrophic consequences? I read somewhere that the pyramids had water damage..."Indeed, the sphinx has what looks like water erosion. Could it all tie in with Noah's flood and atlantis..? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What happened last time it melted? I got more ice from the freezer, added more lime and more vodka. https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php This saves us going through them one at a time.... This "science" is undeniable! "science" says so...
So polar bears increasing in numbers as opposed to nearly being extinct is "science"? Sounds like math to me.
You're backing the 3% of scientists who say what you want to hear rather than the 97% who report the inconvenient truth?
For example, your science uses the "bathtub" approach to sea levels. There's plenty of websites explaining why it is an unsuitable theory.
Im simply asking you what happened the last time the glacier melted? As its not as warm now as it was in the medieval warm period, or the time of the great pharaohs of Egypt, what happend last time it melted?
They are good questions. But if I don't know the answers it's probably because I'm not Google.
The earth goes through natural warming and cooling cycles. True.
Were these global warm periods or localised warm periods? If they were global, how was satellite data collected in medieval times and the times of the pharaohs?
Who is saying there wasn't a previous global warming with catastrophic consequences? I read somewhere that the pyramids had water damage...
Indeed, the sphinx has what looks like water erosion. Could it all tie in with Noah's flood and atlantis..?"To my knowledge they never found Atlantis but there is a lot to suggest that there was a great flood, the problem being that if this were the case we have the dates that pyramids were built very wrong indeed. In recent times they discovered an underwater city off the coast of India. Some historians believe this may have been Krishnas city meaning that what we believed to be myth may have some truth to it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Non-scientific views that oppose known facts should be absolutely ignored by politicians. climate is warming faster than in all of history for no reason. . False. Thank you. Right on cue. An excellent example of some nonsense that needs to be ignored.. Your the one writing lies. Cmon your the one with a university degree in this shit, you know that's a lie surely?. You are incorrect. Searching the NASA website will tell you that you are wrong. They are well known conspiracy theorists though. . Go on then brainiac,find me this fact "climate is warming faster than in all of history" on the NASA website
Search "global warming nasa earth observatory"
It's the first result.
"As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."
Your turn..
That's a piss poor effort.
You know I was very specific on wording.
"Climate is moving faster than in all of history" was the wording, not than of natural ice age temperature increases.
And not to piss on your chips even more but errr you know all of history, it's a little bit longer than a million years .
Over to you.
...and there it is. The pedant arrives and trys to get himself a micro-victory.
Your argument is what exactly? That because we don't know what happened since the beginning of time we can't find any way to comprehend the world around us?
You're just not very bright then.
So, where is your data? You've been very noisy but unable to do anything other than try to piss on a lamp post
Now, where's your logic thread? Why is all this data being generated about climate change?
What's this great conspiracy? What are we being hoodwinked into doing, by whom and why?
How come the entire petrochemical industry hasn't been able to stop it?
There must be something right? You couldn't possibly just be raving incoherently to try to look clever ". Now stop getting your knickers in a twist, if you read back to the beginning I corrected somebody else who clearly lied when he specifically stated only facts should be followed. What he wrote was not fact, YOU butted in to the conversation still claiming it was fact, neither of you were correct on that fact. Pedantry over | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Non-scientific views that oppose known facts should be absolutely ignored by politicians. climate is warming faster than in all of history for no reason. . False. Thank you. Right on cue. An excellent example of some nonsense that needs to be ignored.. Your the one writing lies. Cmon your the one with a university degree in this shit, you know that's a lie surely?. You are incorrect. Searching the NASA website will tell you that you are wrong. They are well known conspiracy theorists though. . Go on then brainiac,find me this fact "climate is warming faster than in all of history" on the NASA website
Search "global warming nasa earth observatory"
It's the first result.
"As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."
Your turn..
That's a piss poor effort.
You know I was very specific on wording.
"Climate is moving faster than in all of history" was the wording, not than of natural ice age temperature increases.
And not to piss on your chips even more but errr you know all of history, it's a little bit longer than a million years .
Over to you.
I'll also add 'faster than the average rate' doesn't mean mucg, it might of been really exceptionally fast for one year than really slow for 4999. What was the fastest rate during ice age recovery warming?
When you work with big data sets you look at averages. The other stuff is called noise.
Go and have a read.
Thanks for your input though "Learn to read and comprehend. You have used an average of 100 years and compared it to 5000 years, that is not comparable averages. Come back with either a comparison of the last 5000 years to compare, or a comparable 100 years from the warming period at the end of the last ice age to compare. Otherwise the averages are meaningless. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Non-scientific views that oppose known facts should be absolutely ignored by politicians. climate is warming faster than in all of history for no reason. . False. Thank you. Right on cue. An excellent example of some nonsense that needs to be ignored.. Your the one writing lies. Cmon your the one with a university degree in this shit, you know that's a lie surely?. You are incorrect. Searching the NASA website will tell you that you are wrong. They are well known conspiracy theorists though. . Go on then brainiac,find me this fact "climate is warming faster than in all of history" on the NASA website
Search "global warming nasa earth observatory"
It's the first result.
"As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."
Your turn..
That's a piss poor effort.
You know I was very specific on wording.
"Climate is moving faster than in all of history" was the wording, not than of natural ice age temperature increases.
And not to piss on your chips even more but errr you know all of history, it's a little bit longer than a million years .
Over to you.
I'll also add 'faster than the average rate' doesn't mean mucg, it might of been really exceptionally fast for one year than really slow for 4999. What was the fastest rate during ice age recovery warming?
Where in history did the earth change 3°C in one year? What caused that?
Our current ecological damage is warming the earth roughly 50 times faster than natural cycles. When else did this happen?"I don't know. When did the earth's temperature change 3°C in one year? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What happened last time it melted? I got more ice from the freezer, added more lime and more vodka. https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php This saves us going through them one at a time.... This "science" is undeniable! "science" says so...
So polar bears increasing in numbers as opposed to nearly being extinct is "science"? Sounds like math to me.
You're backing the 3% of scientists who say what you want to hear rather than the 97% who report the inconvenient truth?
For example, your science uses the "bathtub" approach to sea levels. There's plenty of websites explaining why it is an unsuitable theory.
Im simply asking you what happened the last time the glacier melted? As its not as warm now as it was in the medieval warm period, or the time of the great pharaohs of Egypt, what happend last time it melted?
They are good questions. But if I don't know the answers it's probably because I'm not Google.
The earth goes through natural warming and cooling cycles. True.
Were these global warm periods or localised warm periods? If they were global, how was satellite data collected in medieval times and the times of the pharaohs?
Who is saying there wasn't a previous global warming with catastrophic consequences? I read somewhere that the pyramids had water damage...
Indeed, the sphinx has what looks like water erosion. Could it all tie in with Noah's flood and atlantis..?
To my knowledge they never found Atlantis but there is a lot to suggest that there was a great flood, the problem being that if this were the case we have the dates that pyramids were built very wrong indeed.
In recent times they discovered an underwater city off the coast of India. Some historians believe this may have been Krishnas city meaning that what we believed to be myth may have some truth to it."Im sure i remember reading the sphinx predated the pyramids? Probably mistaken. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What happened last time it melted? I got more ice from the freezer, added more lime and more vodka. https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php This saves us going through them one at a time.... This "science" is undeniable! "science" says so...
So polar bears increasing in numbers as opposed to nearly being extinct is "science"? Sounds like math to me.
You're backing the 3% of scientists who say what you want to hear rather than the 97% who report the inconvenient truth?
For example, your science uses the "bathtub" approach to sea levels. There's plenty of websites explaining why it is an unsuitable theory.
Im simply asking you what happened the last time the glacier melted? As its not as warm now as it was in the medieval warm period, or the time of the great pharaohs of Egypt, what happend last time it melted?
They are good questions. But if I don't know the answers it's probably because I'm not Google.
The earth goes through natural warming and cooling cycles. True.
Were these global warm periods or localised warm periods? If they were global, how was satellite data collected in medieval times and the times of the pharaohs?
Who is saying there wasn't a previous global warming with catastrophic consequences? I read somewhere that the pyramids had water damage...
Indeed, the sphinx has what looks like water erosion. Could it all tie in with Noah's flood and atlantis..?"This ties into your denial of man-made climate change how? You do have some research to refute man-made climate change though don't you? Like Boy-faintly flickering. You have a theory about why there is a global conspiracy against burning oil, right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What happened last time it melted? I got more ice from the freezer, added more lime and more vodka. https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php This saves us going through them one at a time.... This "science" is undeniable! "science" says so...
So polar bears increasing in numbers as opposed to nearly being extinct is "science"? Sounds like math to me.
You're backing the 3% of scientists who say what you want to hear rather than the 97% who report the inconvenient truth?
For example, your science uses the "bathtub" approach to sea levels. There's plenty of websites explaining why it is an unsuitable theory.
Im simply asking you what happened the last time the glacier melted? As its not as warm now as it was in the medieval warm period, or the time of the great pharaohs of Egypt, what happend last time it melted?
They are good questions. But if I don't know the answers it's probably because I'm not Google.
The earth goes through natural warming and cooling cycles. True.
Were these global warm periods or localised warm periods? If they were global, how was satellite data collected in medieval times and the times of the pharaohs?
Who is saying there wasn't a previous global warming with catastrophic consequences? I read somewhere that the pyramids had water damage...
Indeed, the sphinx has what looks like water erosion. Could it all tie in with Noah's flood and atlantis..?
To my knowledge they never found Atlantis but there is a lot to suggest that there was a great flood, the problem being that if this were the case we have the dates that pyramids were built very wrong indeed.
In recent times they discovered an underwater city off the coast of India. Some historians believe this may have been Krishnas city meaning that what we believed to be myth may have some truth to it.
Im sure i remember reading the sphinx predated the pyramids? Probably mistaken. ". Nobody actually knows how old either of them are, it's all educated guesswork mostly based on archeologist past findings on human civilisations ability to create them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Non-scientific views that oppose known facts should be absolutely ignored by politicians. climate is warming faster than in all of history for no reason. . False. Thank you. Right on cue. An excellent example of some nonsense that needs to be ignored.. Your the one writing lies. Cmon your the one with a university degree in this shit, you know that's a lie surely?. You are incorrect. Searching the NASA website will tell you that you are wrong. They are well known conspiracy theorists though. . Go on then brainiac,find me this fact "climate is warming faster than in all of history" on the NASA website
Search "global warming nasa earth observatory"
It's the first result.
"As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."
Your turn..
That's a piss poor effort.
You know I was very specific on wording.
"Climate is moving faster than in all of history" was the wording, not than of natural ice age temperature increases.
And not to piss on your chips even more but errr you know all of history, it's a little bit longer than a million years .
Over to you.
I'll also add 'faster than the average rate' doesn't mean mucg, it might of been really exceptionally fast for one year than really slow for 4999. What was the fastest rate during ice age recovery warming?
When you work with big data sets you look at averages. The other stuff is called noise.
Go and have a read.
Thanks for your input though
Learn to read and comprehend. You have used an average of 100 years and compared it to 5000 years, that is not comparable averages. Come back with either a comparison of the last 5000 years to compare, or a comparable 100 years from the warming period at the end of the last ice age to compare. Otherwise the averages are meaningless."I haven't used anything. It's the simpletons at NASA. You're cleverer than them though. Lots of people tell you I suppose. Perhaps you need to read up about gradients and rates of change? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ps brainiac. Footnotes on temperature increases measured over geological era. Start of end of+temperature increase, nowhere in science does it say it was a linearly increase, it could possibly be but it also could possibly be not, it could have been 3 degrees in a year and then nothing for 500. I mean if you want to compare our current geological increase to past ones then fine go ahead that would be relative, comparing a measured century increase over a geological measured increase is worthless. Bad data, badly interpreted as you like to say. "Actually, there is annual banding in ice core data, corals, lake sediment and marine sediment. None of your rambling disproves the data attesting to anthropomorphic climate change. Give it a try at least. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
