National News Extinction "Rebellion"

Gary Baldi said:
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!
Click to expand...

No!

The extreme predictions of a zealous few are the cases you refer to. They are also most commonly quoted by the media.

Not all Brexiteers wished to be judged by the tiny racist minority did they?
 
chuckbert said:
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 also 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.
Click to expand...
Your response atypical of the climate change worries. But thanks for the time taken, and the usual Murdoch media/conspiracy slurs, it's comforting to know that's all you have!

These fires were started by people, made worse by people, exacerbated by policies of not allowing fire breaks or restricted burning to remove brush, etc, so how is the cause climate change? And storms contributed but they are natural aren't they? Further, the IO Dipole caused a perfect storm for the idiots and the environmental policy.

Clearly the issue is more complex and nuanced than "climate change" - but the desperation to align with that desire is part of the problem we have. Was climate change for Black Thursday?

This article from May 2019 provided ample warning of what the dipole was going to do:
www.abc.net.au

A positive climate phenomenon means bad news for Australia's winter rainfall

Cool seas off WA's north-west could kick off a climatic phenomenon that may exacerbate a winter drought across central and southern Australia.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

There is a discussion about the effects of man on the earth and the effects we may or may not have on natural weather patterns, but until people like yourself are able to accept that not all bad weather = climate change and can be adults about it, it's not worth the effort... And frankly it's why people switch off to the ever increasing hysteria.
 
m said:
No!

The extreme predictions of a zealous few are the cases you refer to. They are also most commonly quoted by the media.

Not all Brexiteers wished to be judged by the tiny racist minority did they?
Click to expand...
No. But we are all labelled as such, time and time again.

If you try and have a debate on climate change on here, the desire to push the agenda stops debate. I guess people like myself and EssexYellows are close to environmentalists in certain areas, but we're seen as deniers because we don't buy in fully to the hysteria.
 
Gary Baldi said:
No. But we are all labelled as such, time and time again.

If you try and have a debate on climate change on here, the desire to push the agenda stops debate. I guess people like myself and EssexYellows are close to environmentalists in certain areas, but we're seen as deniers because we don't buy in fully to the hysteria.
Click to expand...

That's quite a persecution complex you've got there.
 
m said:
That's quite a persecution complex you've got there.
Click to expand...

Or a realistic outlook on life?
Despite everything I do "my bit" with recycling, energy consumption etc........ however I am realistic enough to realise that with 7.7 billion folk consuming "stuff" it is the proverbial drop of urine in the torrential shower of rain.
Will it fudge the planet? Probably.
Can we stop it? Unlikely.
Can we reverse it? No chance.

The industrial revolution started it and the consumerist society that grew from that will finish it.
 
Essexyellows said:
Or a realistic outlook on life?
Despite everything I do "my bit" with recycling, energy consumption etc........ however I am realistic enough to realise that with 7.7 billion folk consuming "stuff" it is the proverbial drop of urine in the torrential shower of rain.
Will it fudge the planet? Probably.
Can we stop it? Unlikely.
Can we reverse it? No chance.

The industrial revolution started it and the consumerist society that grew from that will finish it.
Click to expand...

ah, but Oxford City Council will save the entire world!

as Oxford city centre is going 100% zero-emissions zone from Dec 2020

well, except, apparently, it isnt in reality, instead it'll be a £10 per day fee for internal combustion engine-powered vehicles entering the zero-emissions zone! which will expand from a few city centre roads to the entire city centre in a relatively short time span!
 
Essexyellows said:
Or a realistic outlook on life?
Despite everything I do "my bit" with recycling, energy consumption etc........ however I am realistic enough to realise that with 7.7 billion folk consuming "stuff" it is the proverbial drop of urine in the torrential shower of rain.
Will it fudge the planet? Probably.
Can we stop it? Unlikely.
Can we reverse it? No chance.

The industrial revolution started it and the consumerist society that grew from that will finish it.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you meant to quote me there @Essexyellows , I was replying to a specific post from @Gary Baldi

In my more nihilist moments I agree with what you say entirely!

For the record I've never called anyone on this thread a denier.
 
The issue is not total global population per se, but the rise and success of the super consumer in the West. We’re the ones with the biggest carbon footprint.

If you’re a living a rural life in, say, Botswana, it really doesn’t matter how many children you have. They’re more likely to live sustainably without even trying because they want for nothing more – they grow their own or shop locally, don’t drive and certainly don’t travel beyond their community. The numbers rising there don’t have much impact because their carbon footprint is negligible in the first place. Compare that with the family of two parents and 2.2 children in the West which is more likely to be one of owning two 4x4s, international flights, obesity from a red meat-rich diet and producing a yearly tonne of single use plastic and throwaway crap and there you hit the problem. Their footprint will be more of entire communities in less developed areas of the world. The crunch point is still to hit as the growing economies in Asia see their populations reach super consumer status.

That said, a species that fails to control itself eventually is culpable. It creates users exponentially and we do as humans have the power within us to control it. However, without resorting to genocide, there is no way to click your fingers and drop the human population back down to a ‘sustainable level’ (if there is such a thing bearing in mind we’re just takers from this planet) since we’ve now clearly gone beyond it, so it’ll have to happen organically with either a seismic culture shift or severe government legislation such as legislating who can procreate. Will that ever happen? Not likely – its akin to the rule of an extremists state.

There are a few easy solutions that could kick it off though. The old celibate guy in the Holy See telling his inexplicably large legion of followers to pop a jonny on for carnal pleasure for starters ….

Finally, I’ll make the point again that it is unrealistic to ask the global population to suddenly give up on the modern world for the sake of climate change. We’re too entrenched in a world of cars, plastics, planes and technology and too selfish to consider the wider impact and society would break down if all this was suddenly taken away. However, through small actions from the majority, funding in the right places and legislation from government, society can change for the better – banning CFCs saw the ozone hole repair itself, southern right whale populations in the Antarctic shot back up again once commercial whaling was outlawed, scientists have uncovered that small amounts of seaweed can reduce the emissions from cattle by 80-99% and everyone We’re an adaptable species and can solve the problems we create. Ban disposable coffee cups tomorrow and mankind will come up with a solution to it as they’ll put funds into R&D for a sustainable version instead.
 
Sarge said:
ah, but Oxford City Council will save the entire world!

as Oxford city centre is going 100% zero-emissions zone from Dec 2020

well, except, apparently, it isnt in reality, instead it'll be a £10 per day fee for internal combustion engine-powered vehicles entering the zero-emissions zone! which will expand from a few city centre roads to the entire city centre in a relatively short time span!
Click to expand...

So "climate change" is just being used as another excuse for taxation............. ;)

They have done the vehicle surveys in Leicester as well, we`ll be next.

Then they wonder why Town Centres are dying.
 
Pete Burrett said:
India and China are amongst the biggest polluters. But why shouldn't they develop as we did 200 years ago?
Click to expand...
I believe if you look at the per capita figures, they aren't much more polluting than us. There are, of course, a few more of them however.
 
Pete Burrett said:
Very good post, if I might say so. Realistic without being preachy or smug. The inter-dependencies are so complex now that it's difficult to see a solution to continuing climate change.

India and China are amongst the biggest polluters (EDIT - thanks @SteMerritt - as nations, not per capita). But why shouldn't they develop as we did 200 years ago? Australia is suffering as a result of changing climatic patterns, yet they supply their coal to the Chinese and Indian polluters. And why does Australia export coal and China and India use that coal to produce consumer goods? Because WE all want those goods.

Like @Essexyellows I do what I reasonably can to reduce my own carbon footprint, but I've just bought a new 65" TV and will drive into town for a curry later, rather than walk.

We are all responsible for climate change. It is not, in my considered view based on virtually every coherent article I've read on the subject, a natural occurrence. It is accelerating and will kill us all at some stage in the future.
Click to expand...

Surely, the opportunity is for China and India to develop with climate change in mind and develop new technologies especially for energy production, as they know the likely outcome using old technologies?
 
SteMerritt said:
www.economicshelp.org

Top CO2 polluters and highest per capita - Economics Help

Graphs and stats to show countries with most pollution in absolute and per capita terms. Highest polluters per capita include US and Japan. Lowest levels of pollution - Madagascar and Burundi. How China has become major polluter.
www.economicshelp.org www.economicshelp.org
Click to expand...

was looking at this the other day after I said it would be interesting to see per capita as opposed to simply who the biggest emitters are. Quite interesting reading!
 
m said:
That's quite a persecution complex you've got there.
Click to expand...
No, my mindset is to roll with it, but I only highlight as needed because there are some that do not want a debate or have passive aggressive anger towards those who don't buy into it all. Let me put it this way, it doesn't keep me up at night if someone thinks I'm a climate change denier or a Brexiteer.

The unseasonal warmth and torrential rain? Sure, damned annoyance...
 
Sheik djibouti said:
www.bbc.co.uk

Debunking Australia 'arson emergency' claims

The BBC's Ros Atkins explains why the arson claims around Australia's fires are inaccurate.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

Again it is another combination of factors that have a bad outcome.
The environmental lobby reduced the amount of clearing allowed around habitation.
They had a dry Spring.
They are having a hot,dry Summer.
Chuck in some folk with a box of matches and natural bush fires (that have happened for centuries) and we get what there is now.
It was a dry,barren, inhospitable place way before anyone thought of "climate change", its why we used to send convicts there, as punishment!
 
Pete Burrett said:
Very good post, if I might say so. Realistic without being preachy or smug. The inter-dependencies are so complex now that it's difficult to see a solution to continuing climate change.

India and China are amongst the biggest polluters (EDIT - thanks @SteMerritt - as nations, not per capita). But why shouldn't they develop as we did 200 years ago? Australia is suffering as a result of changing climatic patterns, yet they supply their coal to the Chinese and Indian polluters. And why does Australia export coal and China and India use that coal to produce consumer goods? Because WE all want those goods.

Like @Essexyellows I do what I reasonably can to reduce my own carbon footprint, but I've just bought a new 65" TV and will drive into town for a curry later, rather than walk.

We are all responsible for climate change. It is not, in my considered view based on virtually every coherent article I've read on the subject, a natural occurrence. It is accelerating and will kill us all at some stage in the future.
Click to expand...

Consumerist destroying the planet!! :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: ?
 
Essexyellows said:
Again it is another combination of factors that have a bad outcome.
The environmental lobby reduced the amount of clearing allowed around habitation.
They had a dry Spring.
They are having a hot,dry Summer.
Chuck in some folk with a box of matches and natural bush fires (that have happened for centuries) and we get what there is now.
It was a dry,barren, inhospitable place way before anyone thought of "climate change", its why we used to send convicts there, as punishment!
Click to expand...
I suppose we should at least be grateful that you acknowledge the existence of Australia....baby steps[emoji6]

www.indy100.com

Flat Earthers have some very weird thoughts about Australia

Another day, another flat Earth story. And by this stage, things are really starting to get weird. Yesterday, we reported on a story from the UK's first ever Flat Earth Convention, which took place last weekend in Birmingham, where the concept of gravity was accused of being a hoax.Yes, really...
www.indy100.com www.indy100.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom