Climate Change thread

[Padders]

Sometimes I think this climate change debate is a load of nonsense, I reckon it's been happening for millions of years, look at some facts, once upon time, Britain was joined by a land mass to Europe, rising sea levels caused the North sea to erode this land mass and create the English Channel.  so that's nowt new..

The conservationist's argue that our children will grow up and never see a Tiger in the wild, and that is really sad.

Is it?

I have never seen a duck-billed platypus in the wild or a rattlesnake.  I've never seen any number of creatures that I know to exist..

So why should I care if my children never see a Tiger?

In fact, come to think of it, if they're on a gap year trekking through the jungles of Burma, I fervently hope they don't.

 

There's an awful lot of sentimentality around the concept of extinction. We have a sense that when a species dies out we should all fall to our knees and spend some time wailing.

Why!  Apart from a few impotent middle-class Chinamen (Tiger parts Are eaten by millions of Chinamen to cure impotency)

Or if someone wants a nice rug, it makes not the slightest bit of difference if Johnny Tiger dies out, it won't upset our power supplies, or heal the rift with Russia, it is as irrelevant as the death of a faraway star.

 

So far this century we've waved goodbye to the Pyrenean Ibex-did you notice?- and the mouthful that is the Red Colobus Monkey,

Undoubtedly, both extinctions can be blamed on Shell, McDonalds, the trade in illegal diamonds, Deutsche Bank or some other spurious shareholder attempt to turn all of the World into money and Carbon Dioxide.

But if we look back in time before oil, steam and German bankers, we find that species were managing to die off all on their own.

The Brontosaurus, for example, and who honestly think's it's sad that their children will never get to see a Brontosaurus in the wild?

In the nineteenth century 27 species went West, including the Great Auk, the Thicktailed Chubb, the Quagga, the Cape Lion and the Polish primitive horse.

Eco-Mentalists ignore the fact that between 1914/18 we lost most of the young men in Europe, and prattle on about the passing of the passenger pigeon, the Carolina parakeet, and the Tasmania Wolf.

 

Honestly, who cares, because there are quite literally millions more fish in the sea.

Only a couple of weeks ago we heard that scientist's in the South American rainforest have found 24 previously unknown species including 12 dung beetles, a whole new ant, some fish, and a rather fetching frog.

It may not be as cuddly as a baby Tiger, but it's groovier since it has purple fluorescent hoop marking's.

So is the World rejoicing at the sensational news that we've been joined on Earth by a Hippie frog? is it ekkers like, What the World is doing instead is crying into it's Eco-Handkerchief because of what's happening in the Artic...

We're told that because of the Range Rover, and HSBC all the ice is melting and as a result the Polar Bear has nowhere to live, apart, that is, for the 3 million square miles of Northern Canada that is completely untouched by any form of human encroachment.

Anyway, ignoring that, whose bothered about the Polar Bear, contrary to what you may think, the Polar Bear is not some cute and squishy thing, It's a big savage brute, the colour of nicotine, with a mean ugly pointed face and claws that, if they were to be found in Nottingham on a Saturday night would be confiscated as an offensive weapon..

If the Polar Bear dies out it will not make a jot of difference to you or anyone you've ever met.

The only people who'll ever notice is the Inuits , and it's passing will actually improve their lives because they'll be able to go out fishing without running the risk of being eaten to death..

I'm sorry, but I just don't get this Climate Change thing........

[Mr Bloke]

31 minutes ago, Padders said:

Sometimes I think this climate change debate is a load of nonsense, I reckon it's been happening for millions of years, look at some facts, once upon time, Britain was joined by a land mass to Europe, rising sea levels caused the North sea to erode this land mass and create the English Channel.  so that's nowt new..

The conservationist's argue that our children will grow up and never see a Tiger in the wild, and that is really sad.

Is it?

I have never seen a duck-billed platypus in the wild or a rattlesnake.  I've never seen any number of creatures that I know to exist..

So why should I care if my children never see a Tiger?

In fact, come to think of it, if they're on a gap year trekking through the jungles of Burma, I fervently hope they don't.

 

There's an awful lot of sentimentality around the concept of extinction. We have a sense that when a species dies out we should all fall to our knees and spend some time wailing.

Why!  Apart from a few impotent middle-class Chinamen (Tiger parts Are eaten by millions of Chinamen to cure impotency)

Or if someone wants a nice rug, it makes not the slightest bit of difference if Johnny Tiger dies out, it won't upset our power supplies, or heal the rift with Russia, it is as irrelevant as the death of a faraway star.

 

So far this century we've waved goodbye to the Pyrenean Ibex-did you notice?- and the mouthful that is the Red Colobus Monkey,

Undoubtedly, both extinctions can be blamed on Shell, McDonalds, the trade in illegal diamonds, Deutsche Bank or some other spurious shareholder attempt to turn all of the World into money and Carbon Dioxide.

But if we look back in time before oil, steam and German bankers, we find that species were managing to die off all on their own.

The Brontosaurus, for example, and who honestly think's it's sad that their children will never get to see a Brontosaurus in the wild?

In the nineteenth century 27 species went West, including the Great Auk, the Thicktailed Chubb, the Quagga, the Cape Lion and the Polish primitive horse.

Eco-Mentalists ignore the fact that between 1914/18 we lost most of the young men in Europe, and prattle on about the passing of the passenger pigeon, the Carolina parakeet, and the Tasmania Wolf.

 

Honestly, who cares, because there are quite literally millions more fish in the sea.

Only a couple of weeks ago we heard that scientist's in the South American rainforest have found 24 previously unknown species including 12 dung beetles, a whole new ant, some fish, and a rather fetching frog.

It may not be as cuddly as a baby Tiger, but it's groovier since it has purple fluorescent hoop marking's.

So is the World rejoicing at the sensational news that we've been joined on Earth by a Hippie frog? is it ekkers like, What the World is doing instead is crying into it's Eco-Handkerchief because of what's happening in the Artic...

We're told that because of the Range Rover, and HSBC all the ice is melting and as a result the Polar Bear has nowhere to live, apart, that is, for the 3 million square miles of Northern Canada that is completely untouched by any form of human encroachment.

Anyway, ignoring that, whose bothered about the Polar Bear, contrary to what you may think, the Polar Bear is not some cute and squishy thing, It's a big savage brute, the colour of nicotine, with a mean ugly pointed face and claws that, if they were to be found in Nottingham on a Saturday night would be confiscated as an offensive weapon..

If the Polar Bear dies out it will not make a jot of difference to you or anyone you've ever met.

The only people who'll ever notice is the Inuits , and it's passing will actually improve their lives because they'll be able to go out fishing without running the risk of being eaten to death..

I'm sorry, but I just don't get this Climate Change thing........

Absolutely BRILLIANT, once again Mr Padders!

 

Now if only you could convince all the little Greta's...

[trastrick]

1 hour ago, Padders said:

Sometimes I think this climate change debate is a load of nonsense, I reckon it's been happening for millions of years, look at some facts, once upon time, Britain was joined by a land mass to Europe, rising sea levels caused the North sea to erode this land mass and create the English Channel.  so that's nowt new..

The conservationist's argue that our children will grow up and never see a Tiger in the wild, and that is really sad.

Is it?

I have never seen a duck-billed platypus in the wild or a rattlesnake.  I've never seen any number of creatures that I know to exist..

So why should I care if my children never see a Tiger?

In fact, come to think of it, if they're on a gap year trekking through the jungles of Burma, I fervently hope they don't.

 

There's an awful lot of sentimentality around the concept of extinction. We have a sense that when a species dies out we should all fall to our knees and spend some time wailing.

Why!  Apart from a few impotent middle-class Chinamen (Tiger parts Are eaten by millions of Chinamen to cure impotency)

Or if someone wants a nice rug, it makes not the slightest bit of difference if Johnny Tiger dies out, it won't upset our power supplies, or heal the rift with Russia, it is as irrelevant as the death of a faraway star.

 

So far this century we've waved goodbye to the Pyrenean Ibex-did you notice?- and the mouthful that is the Red Colobus Monkey,

Undoubtedly, both extinctions can be blamed on Shell, McDonalds, the trade in illegal diamonds, Deutsche Bank or some other spurious shareholder attempt to turn all of the World into money and Carbon Dioxide.

But if we look back in time before oil, steam and German bankers, we find that species were managing to die off all on their own.

The Brontosaurus, for example, and who honestly think's it's sad that their children will never get to see a Brontosaurus in the wild?

In the nineteenth century 27 species went West, including the Great Auk, the Thicktailed Chubb, the Quagga, the Cape Lion and the Polish primitive horse.

Eco-Mentalists ignore the fact that between 1914/18 we lost most of the young men in Europe, and prattle on about the passing of the passenger pigeon, the Carolina parakeet, and the Tasmania Wolf.

 

Honestly, who cares, because there are quite literally millions more fish in the sea.

Only a couple of weeks ago we heard that scientist's in the South American rainforest have found 24 previously unknown species including 12 dung beetles, a whole new ant, some fish, and a rather fetching frog.

It may not be as cuddly as a baby Tiger, but it's groovier since it has purple fluorescent hoop marking's.

So is the World rejoicing at the sensational news that we've been joined on Earth by a Hippie frog? is it ekkers like, What the World is doing instead is crying into it's Eco-Handkerchief because of what's happening in the Artic...

We're told that because of the Range Rover, and HSBC all the ice is melting and as a result the Polar Bear has nowhere to live, apart, that is, for the 3 million square miles of Northern Canada that is completely untouched by any form of human encroachment.

Anyway, ignoring that, whose bothered about the Polar Bear, contrary to what you may think, the Polar Bear is not some cute and squishy thing, It's a big savage brute, the colour of nicotine, with a mean ugly pointed face and claws that, if they were to be found in Nottingham on a Saturday night would be confiscated as an offensive weapon..

If the Polar Bear dies out it will not make a jot of difference to you or anyone you've ever met.

The only people who'll ever notice is the Inuits , and it's passing will actually improve their lives because they'll be able to go out fishing without running the risk of being eaten to death..

I'm sorry, but I just don't get this Climate Change thing........

The same folks who shed crocodile tears for the "cute" Polar Bear, are the same folks (in Canada, anyway) who are hell bent on maintaining the  "traditional rights of  Indigenous  Peoples" to hunt them down.

 

Which they not only do, but have profitable industry going to sell their licenses to American big game hunters, and outfit them with all the mod cons, including giant RV snowmobiles and helicopters to chase them down until they drop from exhaustion, and are finally given the coup de gras of a bullet from an assault rifle.

 

Then they leave the cubs to fend for themselves and strap the carcase of the mother to the back, and go back to celebrate with bear steaks, cooked for them by their willing hosts.

 

Much the same is going on in Africa!

 

Saving the planet has an appeal to children, and child like minds in the coddled West, who follow heroes like Algore and Greta!

 

The unintended consequences of fundamentally changing the World as we know it, the capitalistic system in place across the globe, that is presently feeding the Earth's billions has no place in their agenda!

 

It must be done ACT NOW! BEFORE IT IS TO LATE!

 

(You see that on a lot of advertising for dubious products flogged in markets and on TV.)

 

But in this case, There is No Money Back Guarantee! 

 

Edited March 7, 2023 by trastrick

[Chekhov]

1 hour ago, Padders said:

Sometimes I think this climate change debate is a load of nonsense, I reckon it's been happening for millions of years, look at some facts, once upon time, Britain was joined by a land mass to Europe, rising sea levels caused the North sea to erode this land mass and create the English Channel.  so that's nowt new..

The conservationist's argue that our children will grow up and never see a Tiger in the wild, and that is really sad.

Is it?

I have never seen a duck-billed platypus in the wild or a rattlesnake.  I've never seen any number of creatures that I know to exist..

So why should I care if my children never see a Tiger?

In fact, come to think of it, if they're on a gap year trekking through the jungles of Burma, I fervently hope they don't.

There's an awful lot of sentimentality around the concept of extinction. We have a sense that when a species dies out we should all fall to our knees and spend some time wailing.

Why!  Apart from a few impotent middle-class Chinamen (Tiger parts Are eaten by millions of Chinamen to cure impotency)

Or if someone wants a nice rug, it makes not the slightest bit of difference if Johnny Tiger dies out, it won't upset our power supplies, or heal the rift with Russia, it is as irrelevant as the death of a faraway star.

I'm sorry, but I just don't get this Climate Change thing........

As I've said before these Nett Zero zealots are totally inconsistent anyway, either that or they're completely divorced from reality. A MASSIVE dose of pragmatism woudl do them a world of good. :

 

1 - The most environmentally friendly form of transport is the electrfied railway. So, far from protesting against HS2 they should be 'effing volunteering on it for free.

 

2 - The most reliable form of green energy is tidal power, but they're against it "because of the wading birds habitat".
I thought they said it was a climate emergency ? ! ?

 

Get real.

Edited March 7, 2023 by Chekhov

[trastrick]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

As I've said before these Nett Zero zealots are totally inconsistent anyway, either that or they're completely divorced from reality. A MASSIVE dose of pragmatism woudl do them a world of good. :

 

1 - The most environmentally friendly form of transport is the electrfied railway. So, far from protesting against HS2 they should be 'effing volunteering on it for free.

 

2 - The most reliable form of green energy is tidal power, but they're against it "because of the wading birds habitat".
I thought they said it was a climate emergency ? ! ?

 

Get real.

This might throw a little light on the subject!

 

THE SPECTATOR

 

The green movement faces a painful confrontation with reality

 

Environmentalism is the ruling ideology of our times. Forget neoliberalism. That peaked around 2000 and was definitively dethroned by the financial crisis in 2008, the same year Parliament passed the Climate Change Act which paved the way for Net Zero. Since then, environmentalism has won victory after victory, so it might appear paradoxical that one of the founders of the British green movement struck a defeatist note. Speaking at an event to celebrate the Green Party’s 50th anniversary, Michael Benfield suggested that the ‘battle for the world’s environmental survival is, at this moment, lost.’ The Greens had succeeded in raising consciousness, Benfield said, ‘but we have failed in dealing with the battle for environmental survival.’

 

Any ideology claiming to represent the sole path to salvation from an otherwise inevitable apocalypse – in this case a planetary one – is bound to have a sobering confrontation with reality. As Benfield admits, the scale of the solutions he believes necessary are too unpalatable for any political party.

 

Economic growth is the biggest wedge dividing committed greens from their more pragmatic fellow travellers and the vested interests supporting and often financing them. In his recent Net Zero Review, Tory MP Chris Skidmore calls net zero ‘the growth opportunity of the 21^st century.’ Instead of analysing the costs of net zero, the Skidmore report is little more than a wish-list drawn up by rent-seeking renewable energy interests (‘the prize on offer to UK industry’).....

 

..........The net zero target was adopted on the basis of the Committee on Climate Change’s fairy tale of ever cheaper renewable costs. The realisation is now dawning that, like everything else, renewables need cheap fossil fuels. With news that Ørsted, the Danish wind energy company, could shelve the Hornsey Three offshore wind project unless the government provides more subsidy, it is becoming clearer each day that this particular fairy tale is shaping up to be one with a dark, unhappy ending.

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-green-movement-faces-a-painful-confrontation-with-reality/

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Padders said:

Sometimes I think this climate change debate is a load of nonsense, I reckon it's been happening for millions of years, look at some facts, once upon time, Britain was joined by a land mass to Europe, rising sea levels caused the North sea to erode this land mass and create the English Channel.  so that's nowt new..

 

You spoil your entire argument in your very own first paragraph.

 

Britain was joined to Europe and rising sea levels eroded the land mass but that happened very slowly and the world warmed up very slowly.

Guess what's causing sea levels to rise much faster than ever before?

It's the melting of the polar ice caps, which is caused by the rise in the planet's temperature.

As the sea rises, peoples land mass will get smaller and some countries will be greatly affected by the loss of land.

It is predicted that China will lose a third of it's land and India will lose almost a half.

They are the 2 highest populated countries in the world with a total population of 2.8 Billion people which is rising very fast.

They are not only going to lose land to live on but land to grow food on and that's why we need to worry about world starvation.

Weather changes are already causing problems for food production world wide.  It's easy to sit back and think, If I've got a few pints of beer and a plate of chips, I'Il be alright.

Problems being foreseen are mass movement of people flooding (pardon the pun) out of affected countries, into other areas which are not suffering as greatly from rising seas.

Events like that usually cause wars and you could soon find that the "little boat people" are no problem at all when the really mass movement starts.

Weather events will affect us anyway, as they are doing already but mass movement will make it much worse.

The polar ice caps have melted at a far faster rate in the last 100 years  and released far more water into the oceans.

This is intensifying and turning into something we won't have to wait 100 years for, so it affects us, our children , grandchildren and so on.

Do you think so little of your offspring that you are happy to leave them to it, just so that you can carry on with your cars and foreign holidays?

It's not surprising then, that polar bears and tigers come so low on your chart of what's important.

You may not like the message but, it wont help to stick your head in the sand and ignore it.  

The human race has shown it's stupidity in so many ways already, but to more or less welcome it's own destruction, is unbelievable just because you don't like the message.

Little Greta knows what she's taking about no matter what people's opinions of her are.

 

I know I'm badly outnumbered on here, in this subject at least but it won't be the first time when lot's of people have been proved wrong.

Are you all in the flat earth society?

 

 

 

 

Edited March 7, 2023 by Organgrinder

[Mr Bloke]

8 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

You spoil your entire argument in your very own first paragraph.

 

Britain was joined to Europe and rising sea levels eroded the land mass but that happened very slowly and the world warmed up very slowly.

Guess what's causing sea levels to rise much faster than ever before?

It's the melting of the polar ice caps, which is caused by the rise in the planet's temperature.

As the sea rises, peoples land mass will get smaller and some countries will be greatly affected by the loss of land.

It is predicted that China will lose a third of it's land and India will lose almost a half.

They are the 2 highest populated countries in the world with a total population of 2.8 Billion people which is rising very fast.

They are not only going to lose land to live on but land to grow food on and that's why we need to worry about world starvation.

Weather changes are already causing problems for food production world wide.  It's easy to sit back and think, If I've got a few pints of beer and a plate of chips, I'Il be alright.

Problems being foreseen are mass movement of people flooding (pardon the pun) out of affected countries, into other areas which are not suffering as greatly from rising seas.

Events like that usually cause wars and you could soon find that the "little boat people" are no problem at all when the really mass movement starts.

Weather events will affect us anyway, as they are doing already but mass movement will make it much worse.

The polar ice caps have melted at a far faster rate in the last 100 years  and released far more water into the oceans.

This is intensifying and turning into something we won't have to wait 100 years for, so it affects us, our children , grandchildren and so on.

Do you think so little of your offspring that you are happy to leave them to it, just so that you can carry on with your cars and foreign holidays?

It's not surprising then, that polar bears and tigers come so low on your chart of what's important.

You may not like the message but, it wont help to stick your head in the sand and ignore it.  

The human race has shown it's stupidity in so many ways already, but to more or less welcome it's own destruction, is unbelievable just because you don't like the message.

Little Greta knows what she's taking about no matter what people's opinions of her are.

 

I know I'm badly outnumbered on here, in this subject at least but it won't be the first time when lot's of people have been proved wrong.

Are you all in the flat earth society?

 

 

 

 

Hmmm...

It's a bit ironic then that (according to Mr Google) both China and India are in the top 3 CO2 polluters(by country)...

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Mr Bloke said:

Hmmm...

It's a bit ironic then that (according to Mr Google) both China and India are in the top 3 CO2 polluters(by country)...

Yes I know,  together with America and Russia.  Amazing how stupid people can be isn't it.

But if they decide to move, there are not many with the capability of stopping them.

That could actually be their plan for all we know.

 

 

 

Edited March 7, 2023 by Organgrinder

[trastrick]

20 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

Yes I know,  together with America and Russia.  Amazing how stupid people can be isn't it.

But if they decide to move, there are not many with the capability of stopping them.

That could actually be their plan for all we know.

 

 

 

Modern humans have been inhabiting the Earth for at least 200,000 years, (their ancestors for some 3,000,000 years)

 

They, modern humans, have survived at least 3 "ice ages" and "warm ages", during that time. They have thrived in all environments from the steaming  equatorial jungles to the deserts, flood plains,  and the Arctic.

 

It would be a co-incidence indeed if, given today's technology, humankind could not survive this latest interglacial warming period during the lifetime of a Greta, or an AlGore, "special" though they are! 

 

Especially an average warming of 1 or 2 degrees!

 

Here's the latest from the NOAA/NASA satellite record of the last 44 years.

 

 

 

Ice Ages

 

 

Edited March 8, 2023 by trastrick

[Magilla]

1 hour ago, trastrick said:

They, modern humans, have survived at least 3 "ice ages" and "warm ages", during that time. They have thrived in all environments from the steaming  equatorial jungles to the deserts, flood plains,  and the Arctic.

There is no evidence whatsoever to say, or even suggest, they "thrived".

 

Quote

It would be a co-incidence indeed if, given today's technology, humankind could not survive this latest interglacial warming period during the lifetime of a Greta, or an AlGore, "special" though they are! 

Under the ice, or below the sea... or on top?

 

What would be the cost of that, BTW?

 

 

Quote

Here's the latest from the NOAA/NASA satellite record of the last 44 years.

What does Dr Roy say on the matter?

 

Quote

Ice Ages

Quora... did they tell you what to type too?

Edited March 8, 2023 by Magilla