Lots of hot air

[Valhalla]

It can never be proved unless the unseen hand chooses to pop in and admit or deny it. He (She ) might say "no that's not one of mine"!

" It can never be proved" - True (at the moment), but as every day passes there is more and more evidence that supports an evolutionary theory and less and less evidence to support a creationist one

 

[Jacob]

" It can never be proved" - True (at the moment), but as every day passes there is more and more evidence that supports an evolutionary theory and less and less evidence to support a creationist one

There is no evidence at all of a "creationist" one, nor ever was.

 

[Sachakins]

Snip.... this goes back to people having to give up choice, far more efficient if just a handful of companys produce a certain product.

Telling people to give up choice, will immediately cause an outcry of denying my rights.
I think a different approach is need, namely the use of persuasion.
Just like companies "Convince you of a need to update, update and update" by massive marketing campaigns.
Then we need similar campaigns to "Convince you of the benefits to not update."
Not just socio-economic and sustainability mantras, as people just switch off to that, and leave it up to others.
It first needs to target the individual, define the benefits to the them, define immediate gains they can get, not long term benefits to others.
We need to break the short term upgrade cycle, and take it out of the hands of the manufacturers.
One way, especially on the technology front, is to force manufacturers into providing support for their products for a minimum time, say 8 years from the date of last production. During which time the must be made responsible to provide spares to enable fair cost repairs, they must provide continuous security and software updates and patches to keep the products in a safe, secure and usable state, without cost to the users.

The individual must be incentivised to not upgrade, show them the financial gain they get, by keeping products longer.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

Looking at ancient civilizations is always fun, but did you know that the Romans enjoyed a significant warm period which allowed them to feed their empire (using slaves to do the dirty work, obviously)?

Things cooled down, and the empire declined. A random link:
https://climatechangedispatch.com/roman-warm-period-3-6f-warmer-than-today-new-study/
"The Mediterranean Sea was 3.6°F (2°C) hotter during the Roman Empire than other average temperatures at the time, a new study claims.

The Empire coincided with a 500-year period, from AD 1 to AD 500, which was the warmest period of the last 2,000 years in the almost completely land-locked sea.

The climate later progressed towards colder and arid conditions that coincided with the historical fall of the Empire, scientists claim."

2°C warmer than now. This was a good thing for the Roman Empire, but spells catastrophe for us. Hmm. ...

 

[Chris152]

 

[John Brown]

If you are of the opinion that CO2 levels have risen because of human activity, you can proudly point to the fact that plants do much, much better with high levels of CO2. There has been a significant, measurable greening of the entire planet over the last 50 years, due to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Below 180 ppm all photosynthesis stops, with predictably dire consequences for most life on the planet. Plants actually do best at about 1,200ppm. Well done you for keeping the planet alive.

According to the Lancet, half a million people die globally from excess heat, but 4.5 million from cold. The assumption is that global warming saves 166,000 lives per year, and rising. Given that we want to reduce CO2, who do we nominate to die?

I read that 20% of road accidents are caused by people who've drunk too much, so by my reckoning, 80% are caused by people who haven't drunk enough.

 

[Rorschach]

2°C warmer than now. This was a good thing for the Roman Empire, but spells catastrophe for us. Hmm. ...

Yeah bit that's natural warming, that's ok, manmade warming is bad. It's just like the organic anti GMO arguments, nature good, man bad. All nonsense of course.

 

[RobinBHM]

Things cooled down, and the empire declined. A random link

a random link, not a good link
“Overall, we rate Climate Change Dispatch as a Conspiracy and Quackery level Pseudoscience source for the promotion of false or misleading information that is not in line with the consensus of science”

 

[RobinBHM]

Yeah bit that's natural warming, that's ok, manmade warming is bad. It's just like the organic anti GMO arguments, nature good, man bad. All nonsense of course.

yeah you are correct, that link from TN is all nonsense.

your arguments on climate change are the same misleading garbage arguments you use on Covid.

you ignore facts and evidence on Covid endlessly, so climate change will be the same.


fanot a right wing libertarian like yourself having exactly the views as right wing libertarian funded think tanks…..you’ve been manipulated.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

a random link, not a good link
“Overall, we rate Climate Change Dispatch as a Conspiracy and Quackery level Pseudoscience source for the promotion of false or misleading information that is not in line with the consensus of science”

So their wasn't a Roman warm period? Are you sure?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22040-tree-rings-suggest-roman-world-was-warmer-than-thought/
And my favourite: Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now - and world has been cooling for 2,000 years

The problem with fact checking is that the fact checkers are just gatekeepers. They cheat, lie and change their facts just as much as everyone else, but they smugly claim to have the sole repository of all knowledge at the same time.

That being said, I quite agree that I should have paid more attention and put up the New Scientist link instead - can't argue with New Scientist, now, can you.

 

[highwood122]

You entirely misunderstood. The resources are there to be used and of course we can and should use them but they have been exploited and plundered beyond our immediate need. A wolf doesn't limit its intake but nor does it kill more than it needs.

a fox does

 

[Rorschach]

a fox does

no they dont.

 

[Keith Cocker]

We belief the universe was created for us by an all seeing all knowing benevolent dung beetle in the sky.

That a load of

 

[Jacob]

Telling people to give up choice, will immediately cause an outcry of denying my rights.
.........

Not if they've got any sense, make an effort to understand the issues and have them well presented. People recognise emergencies and generally rise to the occasion.

 

[Jacob]

Looking at ancient civilizations is always fun, but did you know that the Romans enjoyed a significant warm period which allowed them to feed their empire (using slaves to do the dirty work, obviously)?

Things cooled down, and the empire declined. A random link:
https://climatechangedispatch.com/roman-warm-period-3-6f-warmer-than-today-new-study/
"The Mediterranean Sea was 3.6°F (2°C) hotter during the Roman Empire than other average temperatures at the time, a new study claims.

The Empire coincided with a 500-year period, from AD 1 to AD 500, which was the warmest period of the last 2,000 years in the almost completely land-locked sea.

The climate later progressed towards colder and arid conditions that coincided with the historical fall of the Empire, scientists claim."

2°C warmer than now. This was a good thing for the Roman Empire, but spells catastrophe for us. Hmm. ...

It's from a 100% loony sceptic site. There's a lot of it about.
Ditto the Daily Mail.
Yes there have been big variations during the holocene but the current trend takes us off the scale and there has been massive research over the last 50 years or so.

 

[Rorschach]

People recognise emergencies and generally rise to the occasion.

Well they might if they weren't gaslighted about every "emergency" that turned it wasn't really an emergency it was just a good excuse to grab power and make money.

 

[Jacob]

Well they might if they weren't gaslighted about every "emergency" that turned it wasn't really an emergency it was just a good excuse to grab power and make money.

You mean all that stuff about fires in Greece and America and a lot of other places, and floods and droughts, are all gaslighting and the people there have nothing to worry about? Are they leaving their homes to soon, is it a mass panic and everything is OK really?
Maybe government agencies, or Jeremy Corbyn, are setting them off deliberately? Who is making money out of them, except emergency services on overtime?
https://www.space.com/2021-record-wildfire-season-from-spacehttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/todays-wildfires-are-taking-us-into-uncharted-territory/
PS there is some truth in the gaslighting notion - but the other way around. The main stream media have been extremely slow on reporting on this and generally sceptical. Even the BBC has until recently felt it should show a "balanced" picture and every comment on climate change was accompanied by counter comments from an ignorant sceptical fruit cake such as Nigel Lawson. By and large climate change has been under reported and derided by the media.

 

[Chris152]

It's the green energy lobby Jacob, trying to rob the fossil-fuel industries of their meagre incomes.

 

[Rorschach]

@Jacob you know exactly what I meant but don't let that stop you doing your usual rants

 

[Jacob]

@Jacob you know exactly what I meant but don't let that stop you doing your usual rants

Er - what exactly did you mean or is this just another of your meaningless silly comments?