National News Extinction "Rebellion"

SteMerritt said:
Just reiterating this point in particular, as it's pretty important.
Click to expand...
The sheer speed of this climate change is one majorly significant factor.
The other is the fact that, no matter how often there have been climate changes in the past, there are now billions of people living on the planet, a fact that does not apply to previous changes. Millions are already affected, and billions will be in the coming decades and centuries.
We are officially in the Anthropocene era: the age in which our hominid species is actively changing the planet in ways that no species of animal ever has before.
 
Paul Cannell said:
You are the child of the Thoms: Malthus and Hobbes. How do you propose to engineer this reduction in the unnecessary lives surfeit, my dear chap?
Click to expand...

War, Famine..... that`s the normal route. The rate of increase & consumption is not sustainable in any way, shape or form.
 
Essexyellows said:
A global population of 7.7 BILLION. <---- there is the problem right there.

All consuming, all wanting "more", all wanting to have what somebody else has got.

Cut that back by 1.7 billion it will have a bigger impact.
Click to expand...
Again, probably very right. But that doesn't mean climate change is not happening - in fact it is part of the cause of it. If I had a solution to over-population I would be off at the UN telling them about it rather than chatting on a football forum though. I suspect that in the end, the human race's refusal to curb our own greed will cause the reduction in numbers you are talking about and more. Meanwhile those with the power will have bought the highest, most fertile plots of land and built bloody great fortified walls around them.
 
As Malthus (1766-1834) wrote:

"Assuming then, my postulata as granted, I say, that the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man. Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will show the immensity of the first process in comparison to the second.

By the law of our nature which makes food necessary to the life of man, the effects of these two unequal powers must be kept equal. This implies a strong and constantly operating check on population from the difficulty of subsistence. This difficulty must fall somewhere; and must necessarily be severely felt by a large portion of mankind . . .

This natural inequality of the two powers of population and of production in the earth, and that great law of our nature which must constantly keep their effects equal, form the great difficulty that to me appears insurmountable in the way of the perfectibility of society.

All the arguments are of slight and subordinate consideration in comparison of this. I see no way by which man can escape from the weight of this nature. No fancied equality, no agrarian regulation in their utmost extent, could remove the pressure of it even for a single century. And it appears, therefore, to be decisive against the possible existence of a society, all the members of which, should live in ease, happiness, and comparative leisure; and feel no anxiety about providing the means of subsistence for themselves and families."


Basically he thought it was fudged then..... an expert of his time. ;)
 
I think with the last 2 posts, we're beginning to agree.

Now, how do I isolate myself from the carnage?
 
Pete Burrett said:
Simply pointing out that you've misunderstood a post. Your response is your usual bluster and deflection. Out of interest, how do you propose we engineer war and famine to get this wretched Third World population down a bit?

Easy to adopt a hard man attitude from a position of privilege, as you do, but many people have more of a conscience.
Click to expand...

I pressed a button that is all. It changed nothing.

Famine - natural occurrence. Can`t stop it.

War - Just look to the East.

Position of privilege? Shows you know nothing about me.

I have a conscience, it just differs to yours and is more realistic.

Now when are YOU stopping consumerism?
 
Essexyellows said:
Position of privilege? Shows you know nothing about me.
Click to expand...
I'd suggest that merely having the good fortune to be born in the UK affords you a pretty good position of privilege when looked at on a global scale.
 
So I see that nearly 200 people (fire bugs) have been interviewed or arrested in Australia for starting the bush fires that have been running since September and a taskforce has been created to look at this further. Also, the winds/temps are highly likely down to a natural phenomenon called the Indian Ocean Dipole, rather than just being generic "climate change" - El Nina and El Nino to us northerners.

I suppose you could say that the fires are man made climate change to fit a narrative that made the dipole worse than it needed to be, but that is no consolation all of the people who have lost their lives, properties, possessions, pets, or the numerous wild animals that have died too.
 
Pete Burrett said:
You hold a managerial position in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. I don't need to know more than that to describe your existence as privileged, compared to 95%+ of the world's population.
Click to expand...

Nice try.
Brought up by a single mother in a council house in Oxford.
Left school with 7 GCSE`s and got a job as an apprentice in a trade.
Any "privilege" I now enjoy has been earnt by hard graft and my life choices.
Anyone can do that if they don`t sit on their a**e and wait to be spoon-fed.

Now when are you abandoning consumerism to "change the world" that you have harvested from for so long?
 
Gary Baldi said:
So I see that nearly 200 people (fire bugs) have been interviewed or arrested in Australia for starting the bush fires that have been running since September and a taskforce has been created to look at this further. Also, the winds/temps are highly likely down to a natural phenomenon called the Indian Ocean Dipole, rather than just being generic "climate change" - El Nina and El Nino to us northerners.

I suppose you could say that the fires are man made climate change to fit a narrative that made the dipole worse than it needed to be, but that is no consolation all of the people who have lost their lives, properties, possessions, pets, or the numerous wild animals that have died too.
Click to expand...
Yeah, climate change scientists with all of your data, stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
 
Pete Burrett said:
How about you answer this question: do you accept that while changes in the planet's climate have (probably) always occurred, the current accelerated RATE of change is due to man's activity, rather that a natural cycle?
Click to expand...

Speaking as someone who is committed to doing all they can and a firm believer that man is (at least in significant part) responsible for the current rate of climate change I think we need to be careful and considered with the above.

Firstly there is no 'probably' that climate change has always occurred. It's very clear in the geological record and has certainly been more 'extreme' than what we are seeing today.

Secondly, it will never be possible to 'prove' that man is responsible for current events - simply because we have no experimental 'control'!

Like I say, I'm not in the least sceptical about man-made climate change, but do worry that 'our' claims are not as irrefutable as they could and should be.
 
Pete Burrett said:
"You are still better off than 99% of the world's population. You currently exist in a position of privilege. The vast majority of the world's population do not sit to wait to be 'spoon fed', they are just poor. Your response highlights the lack of empathy for others that you constantly display on here."
Click to expand...

I have empathy with those who deserve it thank you. I also have sympathy with those who deserve it as well. Just because those situations don`t appear on here doesn`t mean they don`t happen.
Better off than "99%" is stretching it to the extreme. "Better off" also requires definition............. financially, quality of life??

When are you giving up consumerism having raped your share of the planet and its poor populations? ;)
 
m said:
Speaking as someone who is committed to doing all they can and a firm believer that man is (at least in significant part) responsible for the current rate of climate change I think we need to be careful and considered with the above.

Firstly there is no 'probably' that climate change has always occurred. It's very clear in the geological record and has certainly been more 'extreme' than what we are seeing today.

Secondly, it will never be possible to 'prove' that man is responsible for current events - simply because we have no experimental 'control'!

Like I say, I'm not in the least sceptical about man-made climate change, but do worry that 'our' claims are not as irrefutable as they could and should be.
Click to expand...

Current human influence is due to an unsustainable level of population but nobody says that because those people are consumers.......

theconversation.com

7.5 billion and counting: How many humans can the Earth support?

The global population is climbing faster and faster. What will this mean for future generations?
theconversation.com theconversation.com
 
Gary Baldi said:
So I see that nearly 200 people (fire bugs) have been interviewed or arrested in Australia for starting the bush fires that have been running since September and a taskforce has been created to look at this further. Also, the winds/temps are highly likely down to a natural phenomenon called the Indian Ocean Dipole, rather than just being generic "climate change" - El Nina and El Nino to us northerners.

I suppose you could say that the fires are man made climate change to fit a narrative that made the dipole worse than it needed to be, but that is no consolation all of the people who have lost their lives, properties, possessions, pets, or the numerous wild animals that have died too.
Click to expand...

Why would you assume that climate change would not affect “natural” phenomena like ocean temperature oscillations? We have changing acidification of oceans, melting of glaciers into those oceans. These are exactly the kinds of drivers of climate that man made greenhouse emissions are affecting.

You smirked at the guardian article from 20 years ago that ”natural” changes in the Gulf Stream could result in Northern Europe developing a polar climate, but it is still a distinct possibility, driven by exactly the same sort of changes in southern ocean currents and oscillations (and La Niña and El Niño are pacific oscillations, not Indian Ocean.)

What is most tedious in these types of conversation is the way that the Murdoch press dismisses all scientific interpretation of what’s going on until something comes along that they think supports a climate change denial view, at which point it suddenly spreads across the internet and contrarians jump up and say “aha - what about the IOD”?

The whole arson angle is a classic Murdoch one too. Australia has always had problems with arsonists - they are sadly occasionally even volunteer firefighters. What arsonists can do is start a fire. What they can’t do is make them burn for weeks. Far more fires (most) are caused by lightning which happens spontaneously and randomly.

You don’t burn an area the side of England with a few arsonists. You burn that much by having hotter and dryer weather that has been predicted for decades as a result of climate change, even in the research commissioned by Australian Liberal governments.

It is so convenient, lazy and reactionary to blame things on petty criminals, the mentally ill, and on “nature”, isn’t it, rather than corporations, profit-making enterprises and ideologues.
 
Last edited:
Pete Burrett said:
Fair challenge, and definitive evidence about how bad the climate crisis really is is something that is unlikely to emerge any time soon. I can only read what's in the public domain, and I read a lot from scientists and meteorologists who seem certain that climate change is both real, caused by man and accelerating. Against that, plenty of non-experts claim the rate of change is fake or exaggerated. It's up to the individual who they choose to believe.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, and I've made my decision - it's the same as yours.

It's a case of calling out the (obvious) bullshit from sceptics whilst stating that although it's only a balance of probabilities, the risks of not taking action are extreme.
 
SteMerritt said:
Yeah, climate change scientists with all of your data, stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Click to expand...
Flippantly, one can say their data is always rather wrong on what will happen so why listen to them until they can produce a reasonable set of correct predictions!

Realistically, one can say their models are still very new and unstable (requiring human tweaks to produce an answer), so this befits the inaccuracy of the data they produce. Like we see in the apocalyptical papers and news pieces that tend to be duds.

I don't why people are so snippy about it. Al Gore really got into people's heads didn't he?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom