BS: climate crisis - how do we go from here?

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Dec 19 - 09:15 PM

Is it not worth protesting as well as taking personal respondsibiity for change?

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Iains
Date: 30 Oct 19 - 07:12 AM

You quote the IPCC as saying the rate of SL rise has increased. Newlyn does not show that change of rate. It has been attributed to changes in the southern oceans.That is a fact. The explanation is not as clear cut.
Data is interpolated and assumptions made. Theories have been advanced.
They may or may not be true, as I stated with the death statistics above make of it what you will. Even the alternative death statistics forInfdia due to Heatwaves pale into insignificance when contrasted with UK winter deaths. That is a fact.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334975572_Persistent_acceleration_in_global_sea-level_rise_since_the_1960s
The paper above makes a number of assumptions to derive conclusions. I would dispute them.

One very severe hurricane demonstrates very little about climate change. A pattern over several decades of hurricanes increasing in frequency and intensity is relevant. I can't tell you how many people told me during the Beast from the East (a short cold snap in the UK at the end of winter in 2018) that it proved that global warming was rubbish. Matt, it's tedious but necessary to keep on making this very basic point to naysayers who present their facile "arguments." Yes, don't feed the troll.
The World Meteorological Organization stated 2017 The relationship between climate change and the frequency of hurricanes (or tropical cyclones) is still unclear, and is the subject of continued research.

All measures of Atlantic hurricane activity have increased since 1970, although comparably high levels of activity occurred during the 1950s and 1960s, and higher levels of activity were seen in the first decades of the 20th century. Of the 13 strongest recorded hurricanes to hit the U.S. mainland, only three have occurred since 1970: Andrew (1992), Charley (2004), and Michael (2018). Four of these 13 hurricanes — including the strongest, the Labor Day hurricane that hit Florida in 1935 — occurred between 1926 and 1935, when sea-surface temperatures were substantially cooler than they’ve been in recent decades. Hence it is difficult to support an argument that man-made climate change, which has been significant only since 1970, is making hurricanes worse.

Predictions of future hurricane activity are even more uncertain. Possible scenarios in which hurricanes could incrementally worsen over the course of the 21st century are described in the WMO Report. But they don’t change the fundamental fact that hurricanes become catastrophes through a combination of large populations, land-use practices and coastal-ecosystem degradation

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: matt milton
Date: 30 Oct 19 - 05:14 AM

It is very telling that Iains picks the year 2017 to provide statistics for Indian deaths from heat. The previous Indian heatwave, 2015, had deaths of over 2000.

Reason 2017 was lower is cos of governemental measures introduced to counteract the tragic deaths of recent years! If you were a totally evil bastard, of course, you could point to that as evidence of mankind's ability to adapt, and shrug off those thousands of deaths as a lesson learned (I would like to see someone try to say that face-to-face to a bereaved victim...!)

But morality aside it would be adaptation measures used by the Indian government can't be used for ever. They required fossil fuel usage (exterior and interior cooling systems); plentiful potable and clean water; and public access to green spaces. All of which are increasingly scarce in a hot country getting ever hotter.

Cutting to the substance of Iins' last email, the UK sea level record at Newlyn.... The first critical and obvious point: this records the sea level at Newlyn in the UK only. Whereas the IPCC are drawing conclusions based on sea level records from across the whole world.

Second point: having done a brisk google of hislink to check whether sea level records at Newlyn show a rise or not over the last century the first thing I found was this quote:

"Figure 8 shows that MSL at Newlyn has risen significantly over the past century, at an average rate of 1.8 mm/year (with a standard error of approximately 0.1 mm/year; see discussion of sea level trend in this record in Rossiter (1967), Thompson (1980), Woodworth (1987), Woodworth et al. (1999, 2009a), Araújo and Pugh (2008), and Haigh et al. (2009))"

If the link he provides says 'risen significantly', then 'risen significantly' is what I take from it.

Reading back over this entire thread, it seems to me that everything Iains has stated or pointed to has been rebutted, and each time he has simply moved onto something else.

I acknowledge my fellow Mudcatters' suggestions of 'not feeding the troll' but it seems to me that we are starving rather than feeding. This thread is a good record advert for the necessity of taking urgent action in getting to net-zero carbon as soon as possible; it provides excellent rebuttals of many sprurious arguments.

Iain's last email says "I do not have an issue with climate change". I'm glad to hear that because I have a 6-year-old son who, if he lives a long life will still be around in the year 2090. I cannot afford to be blase. The crazy thing about climate-change sceptic arguments is that i want them to be true but they never stand up.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Oct 19 - 12:11 PM

The Russian model of social media sculpting is to promote as much in fighting or disruptive "facts" as possible and end with an ultimate accusation before an election. It looks like we all have more callouses this time around.

Without a useful idiot or successfully squeezing social media, Putin is a one trick pony.

To me the strategy is more than Trollism but names don't matter.

To me Iains doesn't fit all the parameters of a provocateur but can still be provocative.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Iains
Date: 29 Oct 19 - 11:59 AM

Matt Milton The point I make is that, having dealt with reams of geolgical data all my working life, I have learnt that before you utilize the data you need to know what it actually represents. Climate change data is of variable accuracy. Some manually collected data is accurate, some satellite data is not always what it seems. Accurate climate data manually collected goes back nominally to the 17thcentury. Paleo clmatic data is by proxies of variable accuracy.
The story of Dobson's photometer and the ozone hole is quite telling.
Uk death statisics are reasonably accurate
Indian death statistics for a given cause probably far less accurate.
I cannot prove this assertion, it just seems quite likely.How much do you believe , what conclusions can be drawn? As old programmers are wont to say BS in, BS out!
For climate science raw data of variable validity is often massaged, obviously for "good Reason". Such modification when input into models generate further modification. Wherein lies the truth?
Acedemia lives on grants. Who gives a grant to have research concluding "No Problem? Academia is skewed and I am sceptical.
I quoted those raw figures in my previous post to demonstrate a point.

We are told by the IPCC that:"Despite numerous   problems   associated   with estimates   of   globally coherent, secular changes   in sea level based on tide gauge records, we conclude that it is highly likely that sea level has been rising over the last 100 years   There is no new evidence that would alter substantially the conclusions of earlier assess-ments regarding the rate of change Our judgement is that The average rate of rise over the last 100 years has been 1 0 2 0 mm yr ' There is no firm evidence ol accelerations in sea level rise during this century (although there is some evidence that sea level   rose faster   in this century   compared   to the previous two centuries) As to the possible causes and their specific contributions to past sea level rise, the uncertainties are very large, particularly for Antarctica    However   in general it appears that the observed rise can be explained by thermal expansion of the oceans   and by the increased melting ol mountain glaciers and the margin ot the Greenland ice sheet   
Sept. 2019 IPCC
“We need to take immediate and drastic actions – already next year,”
In 2007, they predicted a 59 centimetres rise by the end of the century. But Antarctica is melting faster than expected, and new forecasts are now predicting a 110cm rise if current greenhouse gas emissions levels do not change.
The current man-made sea rise is 16cm, but analyses show that the increase is accelerating sharply. Without a reduction in global emissions, the increase at the end of this century would be ten times faster than in the last century.
In the worst-case scenario, sea levels could even be 5.4 metres higher in 2300, compared to sea levels today.
Yet tide gauge records at Newlyn the Ordnance Datum for England show Below a virtual straight line trend. Prior to about 1830 all tidal data is by proxies of varying validity so graphs going back centuries need treating with a degree of "Caution" With Newlyn it is only an assumption that the ground is stable and the datum point is fixed. Prior to accurate surveying again proxy data must be used. https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/image41.png
The original data is here:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01490419.2015.1121175
We left the little ice age around 1850. I wonder how long it takes the oceans to respond by way of thermal expansion? Even ocean temperature measurements are not always what they seem, as shown below https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190717142639.htm    The above takes no account of ocean currents and they show significant temperature variation. I know first hand if you walk 100m down the beach/desert to the sea in the Namib desert the air temperature drops significantly due to the Benguela current.
I do not have an issue with climate change, I have an issue with scare stories and blaming everything entirely on the anthropogenic component.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Oct 19 - 11:41 AM

”Now you're making a statement, using very selective and partial statistics,”

Yes, it’s the standard modus operandi of a troll. He’s a PoW who’s best completely blanked.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: matt milton
Date: 29 Oct 19 - 10:50 AM

As you say, tedious but necessary. Otherwise an observer could stumble across a thread like this one and conclude there might something in said troll's rumblings.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 19 - 10:19 AM

The science of climate change does not take into account extreme events in isolation. They have always occurred and always will. What matters is patterns emerging with regard to their increasing frequency and intensity. One very severe hurricane demonstrates very little about climate change. A pattern over several decades of hurricanes increasing in frequency and intensity is relevant. I can't tell you how many people told me during the Beast from the East (a short cold snap in the UK at the end of winter in 2018) that it proved that global warming was rubbish. Matt, it's tedious but necessary to keep on making this very basic point to naysayers who present their facile "arguments." Yes, don't feed the troll.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Oct 19 - 09:18 AM

Being sold down the river is an old story
but when the rich lose their money
things change in a hurry.

Oil Barons don't believe that their money
buys nothing when there's
no viable Earth,

Money's bound to buy something.
Amber waves of grain, fish in the sea,
the trees with low hanging fruit.

They think their money will always protect them
When fortunes won't buy comfort, safety and food,
climate denying will suddenly end.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Stanron
Date: 29 Oct 19 - 06:14 AM

That's an interesting point but it's only part of the picture. Rising temperature leads to rising sea levels and islands ceasing to be islands. Loss of habitat numbers will be nowhere near the numbers of deaths from a bad winter but it will be devastating to the displaced people and difficult for the societies that take them in. Even a small increase in sea temperature can kill huge swathes of coral and it's dependent inhabitants.

I belong to the group who think that there are far far far too many humans alive on the planet right now. I have this sneaking suspicion that global warming might be the planet's attempt to redress it's damaging infection of swarming humans. We aren't going to do it ourselves are we?

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 19 - 04:08 PM

Good for you. The naysayers are clutchers at straws who studiously ignore what is staring them in the face. And their attitude is criminally irresponsible.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Oct 19 - 11:30 AM

It seems to be suggested by climate change deniers that the changes in weather conditions over the last few decades is too short a period to truly reflect climate change. That this particular generation of people can't really see it. But noticing those changes is what started this whole discussion, and this generation has backed it up with the numbers collected in the last 100-200 years is a way to show rapid change. Scientists are able to show fluctuations over millennia and in some instances show geological reasons (volcanic eruptions, asteroids hitting the planet, etc.) but it is the very nature of human memory and stories (that go back a lot farther than the weather service) that give one source of evidence. Coastal dwellers have hard evidence, as long-standing communities are being pushed back (where possible) to higher ground.

Telling people not to believe their eyes and stories and history is a way to dismiss this change; those who do dismiss it have a powerful reason - their pocketbooks. Now lets take a closer look at those pocketbooks . . .

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 19 - 06:41 AM

Before someone leaps in to correct me, I should have referred to the warming of the last 100-plus years, not the beginning of the industrial revolution. I'm getting old and time flies faster... :-(

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 19 - 06:29 AM

There isn't any credible evidence that natural cycles are the exclusive or even the predominant cause of this episode of warming. The current pace of warming is far exceeding anything in the last 800,000 years, a period which includes a number of glaciations. If you set a graph of temperature rise since the start of the industrial revolution against a graph of atmospheric carbon dioxide increase, the match is shudderingly close. That doesn't prove cause and effect, of course, but you'd have an uphill struggle to disprove the connection for several reasons: we know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; we know that warming is continuing despite the fact that solar output has decreased slightly over the last forty years; we know that solar warming would heat the whole atmosphere, yet the troposphere is warming whilst the stratosphere is cooling - and guess what? It's in the troposphere where the extra CO2 is being generated, almost all of it produced by us...

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: matt milton
Date: 26 Oct 19 - 06:06 PM

Interesting report recently published, commissioned by General Mark Milley, Donald Trump's new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the highest-ranking military officer in the US:


https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbmkz8/us-military-could-collapse-within-20-years-due-to-climate-change-report-commissioned-by-pentagon-says?fbclid=IwAR30_jCLhO-c-wB5A_fX-uEFBrfWXCN5h_38Yn9a8zbZbHS2NTISjveIZEA

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Oct 19 - 08:19 PM

A speck of good news is that the southern ozone hole is getting gradually smaller which translates into lower antarctic temps as well as a drop in flourine. :^/

The carbon footprint to make electric cars is the same as gas cars for about 7+ years and then goes lower than gas cars.

PS Lewis Black is an emotional master of comedy but if I want to be intellectually challenged I have to listen to Colin Quinn.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: matt milton
Date: 23 Oct 19 - 06:14 PM

I've now read the first of your links:
https://assets.gov.ie/6740/96a264d9ee6f427b8d53c6d9d966f0fb.pdf

I did ask for a link to significant scientific evidence that global temperature increase is caused purely by cyclical variations of the earth and sun.

The above link doesn't provide me with that.

It puts forward a hypothesis that periods of high solar activity (as recorded in records of numbers of sunspots) coincide with higher temperatures - at least, I think that's what he's saying, he's not very clear - and that this could be responsible for global warming.

The most obvious point to say about that is that even if this hypothesis were correct, it does not preclude CO2 emissions (man-made or otherwise) having an effect. Does he or does he not think CO2 emissions increase global temperature? He presumably thinks so but doesn't say much on it. (More on this later)

He does say "The twin effects of NRSA & RHO must be taken jointly into account as climate influencers. As yet there is no consensus on how the size of these effects compares with that of CO2 as a greenhouse gas." That's a very ambiguous statement but it certainly admits that not many people think these effects are comparable with CO2!

The idea that, whether or not his hypothesis on solar variation is true or not, it says nothing about the existence or potency of man-made carbon, it turns out did not just occur to me: it has, google reveals, also occurred to plenty of those criticising the theories of Willie Sooner, who your man Tony quotes.

He makes a lot of fuss about a more severe winter in 2017-2018 (in specific parts of the world, Ireland being - I'd have to check whether these were more severe across the globe) but says absolutely nothing about the summer of 2017. Or any other summers. Talk of wether other parts of the year back up his cooling idea are conspicuously absent. The summer of 2018 certainly has not inspired confidence in the idea of a cooling sun.

He has a page where he talks about how climate models should discount El Nino event years. Many climate scientists do this in their modelling, and can still point to global surface temperature rises as worrying. Plenty of climate scientists have been factoring El Nino before this guy pointed that out.
e.g.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/interactive-much-el-nino-affect-global-temperature


What I can't understand is his assertion that "This over-estimation [i.e. due to El Nino events] means that some other factor or factors were co-contributors to 20th century warming". Eh? No, surely it just means that it's hard to draw firm conclusions about what is happening to global temperatures in specific El Nino event years!

Reading around the topic, there seems to be many more scientists sceptical about solar influence of this kind:
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/how-does-sun-affect-our-climate

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: matt milton
Date: 23 Oct 19 - 09:17 AM

At first glance: can’t find anywhere that suggests slow variations in earth’s orbit with the sun is a more likely explanation for the alarmingly fast rise in global temperature than man-made build-up of greenhouse gases.

But I will dutifully wade through those long dense documents on the off-chance.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Iains
Date: 23 Oct 19 - 07:55 AM

Link as requested.

https://assets.gov.ie/6740/96a264d9ee6f427b8d53c6d9d966f0fb.pdf


https://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/full_html/2017/01/swsc170014/swsc170014.html


https://www.clim-past.net/2/145/2006/cp-2-145-2006.pdf

You have to bear in mind proxy data is always slightly suspect. How many times has carbon dating been subject to modification?

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: matt milton
Date: 23 Oct 19 - 07:36 AM

If you don't want to read the Guardian, how about the Royal Society?

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-6/

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: matt milton
Date: 23 Oct 19 - 07:26 AM

Consensus doesn't make science (that's more empirical research, testing and experimentation) but consensus does assess its worth,via peer review.

I'll skirt over your unilateral flat out rejection of reading anything published in the Guardian (despite yr expectation of others to read features stuffed with unattributed miscellanies).

“When paleoclimates are known to the nth degree.....” No: the implications of the instrumental temperature record alone are worrying enough. I’d go further, the temperature rises in the last 20 years are worrying enough for it to be foolish not to be rapidly decarbonizing.

“When climate models work flawlessly” No: models will always be models and there will always be some discrepancy between modelling and practice. We don’t have time.

“When all cyclical variations both of the earth and sun are fully understood”. Is there significant scientific evidence that the numerous worrying phenomena of species extinction, global surface temperature increase, Arctic ice cover retreat, coral bleaching and extreme weather events are caused purely by cyclical variations of the earth and sun? If so, please link to it, I’m very interested to read it.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Iains
Date: 23 Oct 19 - 06:56 AM

As soon as the Guardian is quoted to validate any kind of argument the I am afraid credibility has gone for a hike.

Intelligent conversations about these things depends on intelligent and critical appraisal of sources, otherwise we're wasting our time.

This to some is blindingly obvious! Alas alack many just hoover up the given narrative like sheep.

When paleoclimates are known to the nth degree.....
When climate models work flawlessly........
When all cyclical variations both of the earth and sun are fully understood......... to name but a few

Then perhaps meaningful discussion can begin. Until such time all we have are opinions.
and consensus does not a science make! even when rubber stamped by the IPCC

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 19 - 06:08 AM

There's a world of difference between serious science predicated on mountains of solid evidence and a random bunch of prophesies, some based on a bit of hearsay science and others the spoutings of publicity-seeking contrarians. Intelligent conversations about these things depends on intelligent and critical appraisal of sources, otherwise we're wasting our time.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: matt milton
Date: 23 Oct 19 - 05:56 AM

What that adamsmith article tells me is this:

If even the sceptics are no longer questioning that climate change is happening, and are reduced just to citing worst-case-scenario predictions that have not (yet) come to pass, then there’s your proof that we are well and truly screwed.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: matt milton
Date: 23 Oct 19 - 05:24 AM

It strikes me that you could just as easily write a feature citing any number of climate scientists shocked by arctic ice melting much quicker than they had anticipated. That’s the trouble with selectively reporting predictions as a rhetorical device.
Related:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jun/25/30-years-later-deniers-are-still-lying-about-hansens-amazing-global-warming-prediction

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: matt milton
Date: 23 Oct 19 - 05:10 AM

It’s a wide-ranging collation of mostly unattributed ‘predictions’. I prefer to stick to the IPCC thanks.

“Some of these came from reputable scientists, and some from headline-hungry popularizers”. Great, well done there AdamSmith.org. Who says quality journalism is dead?

And the ones that are attributed vary in their sources from Prince Charles to Al Gore to Gordon Brown, though do include James Hansen.
I will give that article the benefit of the doubt over what it says Hansen said, and whether it was indeed a wholesale ‘prediction’ or not. But the fact is, sea levels are rising and arctic ice sheets are melting, global temperature is increasing.

It’s typical of this kind of article: they don’t try to engage with expert opinion on what is actually happening now, but throw in a potpourri of random distracting unattributed stuff by people who aren’t experts, some of it pretty ancient.
Species extinction, melting Arctic ice sheets, ocean acidification, coral bleaching, increases in extreme weather events, an alarming global increase in temperature since 1900 (and an alarming increase in global temp since 1960). All actually happening.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Iains
Date: 23 Oct 19 - 04:25 AM

A slightly different perspective


https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/the-end-is-nigh-again

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: matt milton
Date: 23 Oct 19 - 03:24 AM

Just finished reading Naomi Klein's 'On Fire: the Burning Case for a Green New Deal'. That sets out detailed, eloquent ways to address climate change (asdp pretty much any of George Monbiot's books).

The Green New Deal is eminently googleable and I suggest anyone interested does so. In the UK,Labour and the Green Party have been drafting a comparable proposal.

It's gratifying that the UK has set itself a zero emissions target of 2050, and that Labour would wish to do so by 2030. However, Labour aren't in power and the current government is not acting in ways that will get us to net zero by 2050.

There are 20th century historical precedents for the systemic change governments have adapted in short amounts of time: World War II; the Marshall Plan; Roosevelt's New Deal. All of which prove that, when governments really want to, they can transform their nation's economies, manufacturing, energy generation, infrastructure etc in an incredibly short space of time. We could get to net zero sooner than 2050 if the real political will was there but it requires wholesale reshaping of industry.

The fact that nice middle-class people like me are increasingly terrified by the urgency of this situation, and are baffled by the inaction of governments, make it increasingly likely that peaceful protests will eventually turn into violent protests. There's only so many times you can lie to your 6-year-old son when he asks you if there's still time to fix climate change.

We're on a path to a situation where hundreds of thousands will die and life as we know it will irrevocably change. We know what to do. We have known what to do for over 30 years.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: gillymor
Date: 21 Oct 19 - 09:11 AM

I haven't seen his act in a while but I recall that Lewis Black was actually funny.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Perry_P
Date: 21 Oct 19 - 09:11 AM

I see the usage of electric cars and renewable energy is getting more and more popular every day. I expect people will follow a new path regarding the climate crisis and I'm optimistic about the future.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Oct 19 - 07:15 AM

Taking the piss means making fun of, Donuel.

Google can be you friend if you are ever unsure of these things. I had no idea who Lewis Black is until I looked him up. You are nothing like him.

So, how does taking the piss of people who are trying to help improve the climate crisis?

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Oct 19 - 07:05 AM

I hear that if Bercow does allow the MV and any amendments to it, the Government will withdraw it.

So they are not prepared to have amendments proposed even though they could vote them down. That suggests they are not at all confident that they would win the amendment votes.

I accept that any amendment passed would probably put the Government is such a tricky place that they would rather not take the risk, but it hardly oozes confidence, does it?

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Oct 19 - 06:45 AM

Hitler had similar concerns. His plan - Exterminate and then perpetuate with Eugenics. Of course the Nazi elite were exempt.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Iains
Date: 21 Oct 19 - 06:09 AM

One easy contribution, many posting here could make, is simply to go on a diet.
Overweight people are a drain on valuable resources, especially half the world has insufficient food.
Overweight people cost more to transport
Overweight people put an unfair strain on medical facilities

Inevitably overweight people have a larger carbon footprint than thinner people.

Perhaps in this modern politically correct world overweight people should be fat shamed for squandering the world's resources.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Oct 19 - 03:43 PM

Pete you remind me of the idealism I felt when I first heard the song 'Imagine'. Perhaps the song could be tweaked for global warming.
Kudos

What I say or do feels like it won't really matter. Don't you think others feel that way about something as enormous as global warming?
This may be the issue that needs to be front and center.
Global warming will take hundreds of years to slow down before reversal even begins.

If only there was some instant gratification by doing our bit to defeat our eventual killer of our great grand children. I know less about their future lives than my great grand father.

Instead of isolating one sentence in quotes and debating it, we should see a discussion as a evolutionary discovery process and not a true or false credo to live by.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Oct 19 - 03:22 PM

I do not know the phrase "taking the piss of people". Perhaps you meant pissing on people.
When I write some posts I hear a comedy stand up routine but many people do not find a Lewis Black sarcastic style funny. That I do find it funny, is what matters to me. Just like a post of your own that matters to you.

Many people get their news from comedy tonight while a petulant president calls the NYT and the Washington Post fake news.

In these Orwellian times, up is down and right is to the left of left which does not feel right.

On the other hand I still wish you wierd and wonderful healing even in your hips.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: peteglasgow
Date: 19 Oct 19 - 02:55 PM

indeed. imagine if you made some changes to your personal life to live more healthily and to be more environmentally aware. imagine if at a national level our govt made real efforts to reduce emissions and to pursue greener cleaner policies. and imagine that was replicated across large parts of the world. then, surprisingly, the climate change deniers and the people who now oppose making an effort were proved to be right. how foolish would you feel if you had got yourself, your environment and the world all healthy and green , and local communities all united in positive endeavours and all along there had been no need as the planet was fine all along. imagine how shit that would be........

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Oct 19 - 11:44 AM

Some people think, however briefly, that their post, tweet or clicking 'like' will change the evolution of climate change. Sure it will

The thing is, Donuel, that everyone understands that these small insignificant actions will not in themselves prevent climate change. No one is pretending that they will. The cumulative effect of tiny changes by millions of people can however can be significant.

How is your taking the piss of people who are trying to do their bit in their own way help in any way, shape or form?

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: gillymor
Date: 19 Oct 19 - 09:54 AM

As long as you know what the hell you're talking about.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Oct 19 - 09:24 AM

Stay tuned for other deinspirational rants about: Love is a long term lie, Why empathy will never win and other foibles :^/

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Oct 19 - 08:46 AM

Some people think, however briefly, that their post, tweet or clicking 'like' will change the evolution of climate change. Sure it will :^/

The only person you can influence is yourself. How do you go from here? Will you use your savings? Can you buy influence with 100 billion dollars?

Or do you really honestly care. Does extinction of Tigers really motivate you to your core. Do Tigers care if you live or die? Well they probably do if you are tasty.
Do you care about animals? If you hit a Squirel with your car, do you stop the car and help?

If you live for your cause thats great. All I am saying is that most people will devote 5 hours or 5 dollars and thats about it.

I bet Iains has done both but thats about it. Whatever we have done for the cause I am confident that we spend more time carping about it than ever possibly changing the world.

oops have I been too honest again? :^/

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Iains
Date: 19 Oct 19 - 04:08 AM

This is an argument over the change in atmospheric CO2 from 0.03 to 0.04%. The value 0.04% is the same as that of water vapour, another greenhouse gas. Does such a change really have impact suggested?
Much of the time PROXIES are used to construct paleo data. This has its own inherent problems when it comes to extrapolation. The IPCC and MSM may claim the science is settled, I am still sceptical

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/paleotemperature

You should also ask why "Global Warming" morphed to "climate change".
Climate has always changed, the evidence is irrefutable.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Oct 19 - 01:32 AM

The coverage of the XR demos they do show does have a marked tendency to concentrate on the ‘sensational’ incidents - people climbing of the roofs of trains, groups of individuals blocking emergency services’ access, etc. - which is understandable - sensation sells news after all, and ‘people behaving peacefully’ aren’t really ‘sensational’, are they?

But there’s a far deeper message that is affecting us all and which our national broadcaster ought to be putting across, and it’s a shameful fact that they seem, once again, to be avoiding reporting fairly on an issue our government, headed as it is by Mastro Gepetto Trump’s Pinocchio, don’t want us to hear.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 19 - 06:13 PM

BBC getting it in the neck on Feedback, rightly in my view, for giving Extinction Rebellion scant coverage. One comment was that the recent spat between two footballers' wives had received even more coverage. You can give coverage without it being assumed that you're biased in favour. I'm a big supporter of the Beeb, but that criticism is well deserved.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 18 Oct 19 - 11:05 AM

That isn't news - that's some crackpot's opinion telling about other crackpots.

"NewsTarget.com is not responsible for content written by contributing authors. The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. NewsTarget.com assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. All trademarks, registered trademarks and service marks mentioned on this site are the property of their respective owners."

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Iains
Date: 18 Oct 19 - 06:47 AM

Others appear to share my views about Greta:


https://www.newstarget.com/2019-10-16-citizens-report-greta-thunbergs-parents-to-child-services.html

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Oct 19 - 06:25 AM

In an effort to know our own mind better I suggest googling human negative bias. Its natural and organic

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 19 - 06:23 PM

As I used to bollock Keith for misspelling names, I really must correct myself. It's Grant Shapps.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Oct 19 - 05:59 PM

Jane Fonda was arrested on the Capitol steps today for protesting climate change.
She has planned a fire alarm friday and get arrested every friday.

Subject: RE: climate crisis - how do we go from here?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 19 - 05:13 PM

Rupert Read of Extinction Rebellion was excellent on Question Time last night, measured, reasonable and articulate, in complete contrast with the dreadful and disreputable Julia Hartley-Brewer, who appears to be a climate-change denier of the I'm-proud-of-my-pig-ignorance school of non-thought, and the waffly archetypally-smug Toryboy Grant Crapps...oops, Schapps...