|
Smug
Aug 17, 2019 9:24:36 GMT
Post by peterboat on Aug 17, 2019 9:24:36 GMT
Giving up a Hi-tech civilisation ain't gonna happen voluntarily. Same way stopping people having children unless they are winners of a "birthright" lottery ain't gonna happen. Either one would dramatically reduce the human element in climate change ....... On the other hand nobody knows which way the natural swing of climate change will go ...... It could suddenly get a lot hotter and we end up with a tropical climate ...... hang on ...... haven't we had that here before ? Starting at the end of the late Dryas temperatures rapidly warmed and for nearly all the Holocene the climate was a lot warmer than today. Climate campaigners conveniently, concentrate on a temperature graph taken over the last 150 years ..... and scream "we are going to fry" They ignore the earlier warm periods ..... the Minoan period, the Roman warm period and the medieval warm period when the temperatures were several degrees higher than today. (It's just unfortunate for their hypothesis that there has not been any evidence found for the ancient petrochemical industry) Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we aren't contributing and that the continued raping of natural resources isn't crazy and that we desperately need to reduce our population size or we may exterminate ourselves (and possibly quite a few other species with us) It's just the insufferable smugness of the goody two shoes and the ridiculous hype of the campaigners who all have about as much idea of the scientific method as I have of navel gazing in eastern religions. John the problem is they dont really know what temperatures they were in earlier times, at best its a guess and it could be a bad guess, the reality is we are burning old carbon based fuels that have been stored safely underground for a long time, we are doing that faster by the day, so the kickback will be we all die if we dont do something, so whilst its not a issue for you or I, for my kids it is, so go out and plant some trees it will help
|
|
|
Smug
Aug 17, 2019 9:34:18 GMT
Post by peterboat on Aug 17, 2019 9:34:18 GMT
I remain unconvinced that man can be responsible for change in a climate that has changed constantly throughout the Earth's existence. I think that suddenly pumping up vast amounts of oil and burning it and sending its waste products into the atmosphere may indeed affect the climate irreversibly. I do not think Greta Thunderbirds pissing about on a very expensive yacht is going to stop the Chinese wanting to have more and more cars. Biggest electric car/bus/lorry market in the world, along with the most wind turbines and solar panels, they are trying to change
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Aug 17, 2019 11:30:07 GMT
Giving up a Hi-tech civilisation ain't gonna happen voluntarily. Same way stopping people having children unless they are winners of a "birthright" lottery ain't gonna happen. Either one would dramatically reduce the human element in climate change ....... On the other hand nobody knows which way the natural swing of climate change will go ...... It could suddenly get a lot hotter and we end up with a tropical climate ...... hang on ...... haven't we had that here before ? Starting at the end of the late Dryas temperatures rapidly warmed and for nearly all the Holocene the climate was a lot warmer than today. Climate campaigners conveniently, concentrate on a temperature graph taken over the last 150 years ..... and scream "we are going to fry" They ignore the earlier warm periods ..... the Minoan period, the Roman warm period and the medieval warm period when the temperatures were several degrees higher than today. (It's just unfortunate for their hypothesis that there has not been any evidence found for the ancient petrochemical industry) Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we aren't contributing and that the continued raping of natural resources isn't crazy and that we desperately need to reduce our population size or we may exterminate ourselves (and possibly quite a few other species with us) It's just the insufferable smugness of the goody two shoes and the ridiculous hype of the campaigners who all have about as much idea of the scientific method as I have of navel gazing in eastern religions. John the problem is they dont really know what temperatures they were in earlier times, at best its a guess and it could be a bad guess, the reality is we are burning old carbon based fuels that have been stored safely underground for a long time, we are doing that faster by the day, so the kickback will be we all die if we dont do something, so whilst its not a issue for you or I, for my kids it is, so go out and plant some trees it will help for the two last warm periods they do know pretty accurately what the temperatures were. There may not have been thermometers in the medieval warm but we know what crops were being grown successfully in Scandinavia, Iceland, Greenland and to a lesser extent in Newfoundland and Labrador. We know there were vinyards in Britain in the Roman warm period and much much more. We know from Roman records what crops were being grown in what countries of their empire. To say we don't know is not correct. For earlier periods in the holocene there is evidence from micro fossils of insect life and for example water snails which are extremely temperature sensitive in their distribution. Because they don't fit the theories of environmentalists they are quietly forgotten. This is crazy, there is enough evidence to show that modern society is doing damage but their desire to show everything is the fault of industrialisation is flawed science.
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Aug 17, 2019 12:18:05 GMT
John the problem is they dont really know what temperatures they were in earlier times, at best its a guess and it could be a bad guess, the reality is we are burning old carbon based fuels that have been stored safely underground for a long time, we are doing that faster by the day, so the kickback will be we all die if we dont do something, so whilst its not a issue for you or I, for my kids it is, so go out and plant some trees it will help for the two last warm periods they do know pretty accurately what the temperatures were. There may not have been thermometers in the medieval warm but we know what crops were being grown successfully in Scandinavia, Iceland, Greenland and to a lesser extent in Newfoundland and Labrador. We know there were vinyards in Britain in the Roman warm period and much much more. We know from Roman records what crops were being grown in what countries of their empire. To say we don't know is not correct. For earlier periods in the holocene there is evidence from micro fossils of insect life and for example water snails which are extremely temperature sensitive in their distribution. Because they don't fit the theories of environmentalists they are quietly forgotten. This is crazy, there is enough evidence to show that modern society is doing damage but their desire to show everything is the fault of industrialisation is flawed science. Chump would love you - why don't you carry on sowing the seeds of extinction? even if there is only a 10% chance that the climate change believers are right, that is still too much risk. even if it turns out that man has little effect on climate change, we, and the flora and fauna of this planet, will all be much better off if we adopt energy saving policies, and reduce carbon emissions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Smug
Aug 17, 2019 12:29:46 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2019 12:29:46 GMT
Interesting reading that the young lady is attending the climate change meeting by sail ... but her father and several crew members will be flying backwards and forwards to facilitate that.
Sound and fury signifying nothing.
Rog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Smug
Aug 17, 2019 12:45:16 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2019 12:45:16 GMT
Interesting reading that the young lady is attending the climate change meeting by sail ... but her father and several crew members will be flying backwards and forwards to facilitate that. Sound and fury signifying nothing. Rog As I said way back - she is an hypocrite, do as I say not do as I do, lots of them are the same. Being generous to her she is perhaps too young to understand that if you are going to preach to others about what we should and shouldn't be doing re environmentalism you have to ensure that your own environmental credentials are impeccable. It's simply not good enough to say ' well at least I'm doing something' which no doubt will be her defence and the defence of her by her acolytes, her physical presence at that conference in this day and age isn't even required.
|
|
|
Smug
Aug 17, 2019 13:01:15 GMT
Post by JohnV on Aug 17, 2019 13:01:15 GMT
for the two last warm periods they do know pretty accurately what the temperatures were. There may not have been thermometers in the medieval warm but we know what crops were being grown successfully in Scandinavia, Iceland, Greenland and to a lesser extent in Newfoundland and Labrador. We know there were vinyards in Britain in the Roman warm period and much much more. We know from Roman records what crops were being grown in what countries of their empire. To say we don't know is not correct. For earlier periods in the holocene there is evidence from micro fossils of insect life and for example water snails which are extremely temperature sensitive in their distribution. Because they don't fit the theories of environmentalists they are quietly forgotten. This is crazy, there is enough evidence to show that modern society is doing damage but their desire to show everything is the fault of industrialisation is flawed science. Chump would love you - why don't you carry on sowing the seeds of extinction? even if there is only a 10% chance that the climate change believers are right, that is still too much risk. even if it turns out that man has little effect on climate change, we, and the flora and fauna of this planet, will all be much better off if we adopt energy saving policies, and reduce carbon emissions. Twat !!! just read what I say not what your pygmy brain imagines I say !!! You might love to read hyped reports of what environmentalists think but if you actually believe they are telling the whole story "twat" is a deserved description There is sufficient genuine scientific information to suggest the industrial society is causing damage. Why dress it up with fake or (economical truth) hysteria. Fake news and exaggerations do not help the cause of reducing environmental impact. They just give large openings for those who disagree to blow giant size holes in it. Grow up and actually read what people say and don't jump to conclusions
|
|
|
Smug
Aug 17, 2019 13:10:42 GMT
Post by peterboat on Aug 17, 2019 13:10:42 GMT
John the problem is they dont really know what temperatures they were in earlier times, at best its a guess and it could be a bad guess, the reality is we are burning old carbon based fuels that have been stored safely underground for a long time, we are doing that faster by the day, so the kickback will be we all die if we dont do something, so whilst its not a issue for you or I, for my kids it is, so go out and plant some trees it will help for the two last warm periods they do know pretty accurately what the temperatures were. There may not have been thermometers in the medieval warm but we know what crops were being grown successfully in Scandinavia, Iceland, Greenland and to a lesser extent in Newfoundland and Labrador. We know there were vinyards in Britain in the Roman warm period and much much more. We know from Roman records what crops were being grown in what countries of their empire. To say we don't know is not correct. For earlier periods in the holocene there is evidence from micro fossils of insect life and for example water snails which are extremely temperature sensitive in their distribution. Because they don't fit the theories of environmentalists they are quietly forgotten. This is crazy, there is enough evidence to show that modern society is doing damage but their desire to show everything is the fault of industrialisation is flawed science. John we have vineyards here now we dont know if the early plant and animal life was the same as today because its a fossil, it could have had a far bigger temp resistance or it might have been the same, but the answer is we dont know because we wernt there and it was before real records began. What we do know is that we have effected to planet in a huge way and within a short time it will reward us by wiping us out, pollution from millions of years ago is being released at an ever increasing rate and the weather is showing us what happens when release gases that are best left locked in the ground. In reality we will become the oil/coal of the future unless we change out ways
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Smug
Aug 17, 2019 13:16:40 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2019 13:16:40 GMT
for the two last warm periods they do know pretty accurately what the temperatures were. There may not have been thermometers in the medieval warm but we know what crops were being grown successfully in Scandinavia, Iceland, Greenland and to a lesser extent in Newfoundland and Labrador. We know there were vinyards in Britain in the Roman warm period and much much more. We know from Roman records what crops were being grown in what countries of their empire. To say we don't know is not correct. For earlier periods in the holocene there is evidence from micro fossils of insect life and for example water snails which are extremely temperature sensitive in their distribution. Because they don't fit the theories of environmentalists they are quietly forgotten. This is crazy, there is enough evidence to show that modern society is doing damage but their desire to show everything is the fault of industrialisation is flawed science. John we have vineyards here now we dont know if the early plant and animal life was the same as today because its a fossil, it could have had a far bigger temp resistance or it might have been the same, but the answer is we dont know because we wernt there and it was before real records began. What we do know is that we have effected to planet in a huge way and within a short time it will reward us by wiping us out, pollution from millions of years ago is being released at an ever increasing rate and the weather is showing us what happens when release gases that are best left locked in the ground. In reality we will become the oil/coal of the future unless we change out ways So basically what you are saying is we have to believe the science when it suits the human effect on climate change agenda (even though it's a prediction) but ignore the science that shows that in fact there is more to this than simply man's influence? And that's despite the fact it's based on tangible evidence. A pretty typical stance if I may say so (even of course if you wont see this but it warrants challenging anyway).
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Aug 17, 2019 13:21:32 GMT
It doesn't really matter, we're all going to die clogged up with plastic nano particles.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Aug 17, 2019 13:31:57 GMT
for the two last warm periods they do know pretty accurately what the temperatures were. There may not have been thermometers in the medieval warm but we know what crops were being grown successfully in Scandinavia, Iceland, Greenland and to a lesser extent in Newfoundland and Labrador. We know there were vinyards in Britain in the Roman warm period and much much more. We know from Roman records what crops were being grown in what countries of their empire. To say we don't know is not correct. For earlier periods in the holocene there is evidence from micro fossils of insect life and for example water snails which are extremely temperature sensitive in their distribution. Because they don't fit the theories of environmentalists they are quietly forgotten. This is crazy, there is enough evidence to show that modern society is doing damage but their desire to show everything is the fault of industrialisation is flawed science. John we have vineyards here now we dont know if the early plant and animal life was the same as today because its a fossil,s Peter, animal breeds and plant species from the medieval period are not fossils ..... most of them are still around now including many varietie that have not changes. the shells of species of water snail in freshwater deposits are shells of the identical species that are still with us today and we know their range. Yes our industrial society is clearly having an effect on the environment but to deny evidence that contradicts some of the hype is very poor quality thinking. Hype is Hype whichever side is putting it out. I like to deal with facts. and the facts are that we are making things warmer but by how much is not clear. I prefer to know as many genuine facts that are available. However one thing is clear, if I bought myself a nice new Tesla electric car, with all the materials needed being freshly manufactured plus contributed to the increasing demand for more of a "green electricity supply and all the new manufacturing that goes with that ........ I would be causing vastly more pollution to the environment from the production of all these "new" bits of technology than if I continue to drive my 20 year old Volvo until it actually dies. Change is needed but the hype is wrong ....... I posted a report by the Geological department of the Natural History museum a while ago which pointed out that the proposed switch to all electric everything by the environmentalist brigade would mean that Britain alone would consume all of the worlds production of many critical raw materials for many years. By all means advocate change but it has to have a practical basis otherwise we just end up in an even deeper shit pit, all be it different variety of manure
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Smug
Aug 17, 2019 13:39:14 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2019 13:39:14 GMT
|
|
|
Smug
Aug 17, 2019 15:40:48 GMT
Post by peterboat on Aug 17, 2019 15:40:48 GMT
John we have vineyards here now we dont know if the early plant and animal life was the same as today because its a fossil,s Peter, animal breeds and plant species from the medieval period are not fossils ..... most of them are still around now including many varietie that have not changes. the shells of species of water snail in freshwater deposits are shells of the identical species that are still with us today and we know their range. Yes our industrial society is clearly having an effect on the environment but to deny evidence that contradicts some of the hype is very poor quality thinking. Hype is Hype whichever side is putting it out. I like to deal with facts. and the facts are that we are making things warmer but by how much is not clear. I prefer to know as many genuine facts that are available. However one thing is clear, if I bought myself a nice new Tesla electric car, with all the materials needed being freshly manufactured plus contributed to the increasing demand for more of a "green electricity supply and all the new manufacturing that goes with that ........ I would be causing vastly more pollution to the environment from the production of all these "new" bits of technology than if I continue to drive my 20 year old Volvo until it actually dies. Change is needed but the hype is wrong ....... I posted a report by the Geological department of the Natural History museum a while ago which pointed out that the proposed switch to all electric everything by the environmentalist brigade would mean that Britain alone would consume all of the worlds production of many critical raw materials for many years. By all means advocate change but it has to have a practical basis otherwise we just end up in an even deeper shit pit, all be it different variety of manure I am not saying scrap good cars, what I am saying is phase them out when they die, and it will accelerate as time goes on and fossil fuel attracts bigger costs. Google formula e generator fuel its cleaner than diesel by a long way and will allow boats to continue as they are. To stop future sales of large engined cars put large road tax on the new cars and very small tax on clean and small engined cars, very quickly people will change their buying habits. In the meantime hopefully tech will find a way to sort out future clean transport, if not we all die quicker than we hoped for. In this case 200 hundred years of burning fossil fuels has really caught up with us fast. Here is a linkt o have a gander at
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Aug 17, 2019 15:56:04 GMT
If we took thousands of shots of your phizzog we could come up with a shot, just possibly, against all odds, of you looking normal. You are cruel with your CnPs. I do understand that you get them from somewhere, but two wrongs don't make a right.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Aug 17, 2019 16:01:50 GMT
John we have vineyards here now we dont know if the early plant and animal life was the same as today because its a fossil, it could have had a far bigger temp resistance or it might have been the same, but the answer is we dont know because we wernt there and it was before real records began. What we do know is that we have effected to planet in a huge way and within a short time it will reward us by wiping us out, pollution from millions of years ago is being released at an ever increasing rate and the weather is showing us what happens when release gases that are best left locked in the ground. In reality we will become the oil/coal of the future unless we change out ways So basically what you are saying is we have to believe the science when it suits the human effect on climate change agenda (even though it's a prediction) but ignore the science that shows that in fact there is more to this than simply man's influence? And that's despite the fact it's based on tangible evidence. A pretty typical stance if I may say so (even of course if you wont see this but it warrants challenging anyway). The current rise in temperatures, the storms we are seeing, aren't a prediction now, they are facts. Our effects are on top of what nature does naturally. (even of course if you wont see this but it warrants challenging anyway). Martin, don't make me giggle again.
|
|