ChatterBank0 min ago
Climate Emergency?
34 Answers
Is it really an emergency or as some say a catastrophe? I don't think so, I think it's been blown out of all proportion by people who have another agenda and using the environmentalists as useful idiots. The destruction of capitalism is what they really want.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dave50. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This business of 'temperatures on record'. I can't remember exactly, but I know that they started again and abandoned many older weather/temperature recordings about a century and a bit more ago. I distinctly remember reading about it.
So 'since records began' isn't really that long ago and I am certain that higher/lower temperatures were recorded before the modern epoch.
The Earth swings, is a living organism. On its way it changes. Yes, we shouldn't pollute it etc., etc. (don't want to get involved in all that) but underneath whatever we do - the climate will still change.
So 'since records began' isn't really that long ago and I am certain that higher/lower temperatures were recorded before the modern epoch.
The Earth swings, is a living organism. On its way it changes. Yes, we shouldn't pollute it etc., etc. (don't want to get involved in all that) but underneath whatever we do - the climate will still change.
Why do people choose to believe science when it enables them to fly on holidays but disbelieve it when it suggests that that might be a bad thing? I think it's because people believe what they want to believe, e.g. when we die we meet all our lovely relations and pets (and exes!), or we meet a loving god who makes us happy forever.
// The Earth swings, is a living organism. On its way it changes. Yes, we shouldn't pollute it etc., etc. (don't want to get involved in all that) but underneath whatever we do - the climate will still change. //
There is no debate about the last point at all. The climate changes naturally. But we're responsible for the current period of change, and we therefore have the ability to do something about it.
Put another way: "yes we shouldn't pollute it etc., etc.". I agree. Human emissions of greenhouse gases is a form of pollution.
There is no debate about the last point at all. The climate changes naturally. But we're responsible for the current period of change, and we therefore have the ability to do something about it.
Put another way: "yes we shouldn't pollute it etc., etc.". I agree. Human emissions of greenhouse gases is a form of pollution.
The data is concerning. The situation demands we act. But so far the action tends to be knee jerk, show we are doing something, anything, type of action. (Much the same as we saw for the pandemic, as it happens, so proving how inept authorities are.) Yes there is a major issue and we need to set a good example (but not a stupid extreme one), but the fact is that the ball is really in the court of those nations who are failing most, and who at best pay lip service to changing their behaviour. We can do very little, but on the downside we can make life awful & difficult for ourselves by trying the unreasonable & of minimum effect on the problem. Until certain governments are replaced by more rational, more moral alternative ones, there is little hope for avoiding many disasters.
There are some temperature records in the UK that go back to the 1680's. More comprehensive records from the early 19th C onwards.
There have been warmer and colder periods in the earth's history but it is the SPEED of the current warming trend that is unprecedented.
There was a little ice age from the 13th C to the mid 19th C that led to significantly colder winters than we have now. The last frost fair on the Thames was in 1814. However during the average human life they would not have noticed any significant change in climate
There have been warmer and colder periods in the earth's history but it is the SPEED of the current warming trend that is unprecedented.
There was a little ice age from the 13th C to the mid 19th C that led to significantly colder winters than we have now. The last frost fair on the Thames was in 1814. However during the average human life they would not have noticed any significant change in climate
The data from the past used to show at least three warmer periods in human history, called climate optimums, where we thrived, which were replaced with Michael Mann's hockey stick by the UN, and all previous charts were unofficially abandoned. However the absence of any historic or present connection between warming and extreme weather, the decrease of climate related disasters and increase in food production tells you whatever the climate may or may not be doing it's clearly good. Had CO2 remained stable the current minor rise in temperature and sea level would never have been considered unusual and is part of a regular 100,000 year cycle of warm peaks.
//There are none so blind etc,etc.//
Well that could be argued both ways.
//So our burning of fossil fuels has made no difference to how mother nature reacts 10clarionst?//
Whilst Mother nature may react the issue is whether or not it can deal with it or push it over the edge. No one really knows this.
All these alarming prophesies are extrapolated from computer modelling, and we all know from the recent covid ones how that can be misused. Two main problems being you can make a computer program deliver whatever you want and then you can only take the predictions you want and toss the rest as 'wrong'.
They should release the code and full calcs to the general public who can then look at them. Problem is when they have in the past they are pulled part.
The whole thing is being done wrong. Pollution is the real issue, that can be easily measured and monitored but for some reason this clear method of cleaning up isnt used, instead preferring to sue something that cant reliably me measured. And then we all have to pay tax on this.
And there is the other problem, pay tax and its all ok, just tough on the poor
Well that could be argued both ways.
//So our burning of fossil fuels has made no difference to how mother nature reacts 10clarionst?//
Whilst Mother nature may react the issue is whether or not it can deal with it or push it over the edge. No one really knows this.
All these alarming prophesies are extrapolated from computer modelling, and we all know from the recent covid ones how that can be misused. Two main problems being you can make a computer program deliver whatever you want and then you can only take the predictions you want and toss the rest as 'wrong'.
They should release the code and full calcs to the general public who can then look at them. Problem is when they have in the past they are pulled part.
The whole thing is being done wrong. Pollution is the real issue, that can be easily measured and monitored but for some reason this clear method of cleaning up isnt used, instead preferring to sue something that cant reliably me measured. And then we all have to pay tax on this.
And there is the other problem, pay tax and its all ok, just tough on the poor
1ozzy I have been on AB for 20 years, and as such do not want to urinate in my reputation's swimming pool by posting bad information, least of all give AB a bad name for allowing members to do such. If I say extreme weather events are not increasing it's because I have files of graphs saying so. If the bloody TV bothered to report it it wouldn't be down to mugs like me to and be shot down for daring to say so.
