Climate Protests

BilliamD75 said:
Co2 levels have been higher before industrialised times the ice core samples taken from Antarctica prove this beyond doubt
Click to expand...
I think you are referring to the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 which was written about in 1997. That has been shown to be incorrect (to say the least). The science deniers have used it many times since but it remains incorrect. Details here.
 
You have to do your research on all the facts. Here is one source, Armstrong economics /climate change - volcanoes part 2 December 2017 or just look at his whole blog on climate change. If you need more sources let me know as it's important to get all the information for a balanced view, I hope this helps
 
I do have some sympathy with the skeptics insofar as I dont believe the science can be anyway accurate to the extent of human activity contributing to climate change, as distinct from measuring the carbon emissions being released into the atmosphere from human activity.
It is not beyond reason, in my opinion, that the effects may be exaggerated. But if its not possible to accurately measure the extent of human activity contributing to climate change then its also quite possible that the effects are being underestimated.
So my sympathy only goes so far and stops abruptly when I hear people denying it or dismissive of it altogether.

It is hard for some to take the global perspective, that is not a fault, just a trait. But it shouldn't be hard for the same people to look at themselves individually and see what they can do themselves to reduce carbon footprint.
Im a slow learner with this admittedly, with the exception of water. Thanks to the water charges debacle I studiously observed mine, and my households, water usage. It transpired we were wasting very little, if any at all. We washed and showered as we required, flushed toilets, cooked food. We set our dishwasher and washing machine to 'eco' levels. After that, some watering in the garden during summer (which isnt waste, just a relocating of a natural substance from one area back to mother nature).
And if any of us heard a tap running, we did what I guess 99.999% of the population would do - turn it off.
After that we have improved lots on food wastage, using leftovers for next day lunches, compost etc. We still have a way to go to reduce plastic and packaging overall.

But regardless of the true extent of climate change, or human activity contributing to it, its a bit of a no-brainer to not realise that the planet is being heavily polluted and that that is wholly unsustainable long-term. The bare minimum anyone can do is to become more aware of their own activity.

If it takes Greta, or school kids or whoever to raise the awareness, then im all for it. Good on them.
 
Surely the biggest mistake is to use Greta Thornburg as a sort of "This post will be deleted if not edited immediately Christ" figure, repent repent for your sins or you will spend eternity in damnation. There is a definite hysteria and religious fervour about the whole thing.
She is just a child and does not really understand , if there is going to be climate change, then there is going to be climate change.
So our forefathers started the industrial revolution , brought into existence the modern world powered from fossil fuels. Maybe Greta Thornburg should focus her ire at the fathers of the industrial revolution, people like Isaac Newton, George Stevenson, Nicholas Tesla, James watt. After all if those people were not born there would be no industrial revolution, low life expectancy, low global population, and of course little human produced co2 in the atmosphere. Those are the guys she needs to blame. Then when she has done all that possibly another meteor hits the earth like what wiped out the dinosaurs so we all get killed off anyways.
 
joe sod said:
Surely the biggest mistake is to use Greta Thornburg
Click to expand...

I think it is a mistake to focus unduly on the individual that is Greta Thornburg. Or any emotive reaction that she may be trying to invoke in her campaign.
Instead, the underlying message needs to be heard. We produce more waste and pollution than we can effectively deal with in a manner that is shown to release carbon emissions, that are scientifically linked to changing the climate.
Either we change the way we do things or we risk severe environmental damage, the consequences of which are probably incalculable.
 
WolfeTone said:
I dont believe the science can be anyway accurate to the extent of human activity contributing to climate change, as distinct from measuring the carbon emissions being released into the atmosphere from human activity.
Click to expand...
You'll have to explain that to me.
 
Thirsty said:
"Why not a Saturday"

Ah but then they'd miss football/GAA/hockey/pick-your-sport training or worse still wouldn't be hanging out with their mates in the local shopping centre...
Click to expand...

Or work - kids in secondary from 15 years old onwards are now working on weekends - they always were . My family all have p/t jobs to fund clothing etc from 4th yr onwards... believe it if you like!!

I think it’s superb that the children recognise and mobilise for change that is badly needed.
 
Purple said:
You'll have to explain that to me.
Click to expand...

Some people get skin cancer. The rays of the sun are known contributory factor in causing skin cancer. It is hard to quantify however, exactly to what extent the sun contributed to someones skin cancer without considering other factors eg did the person smoke, work with hazardous chemicals etc.
 
Yea, not really the same thing though. We know how much CO2 human activity produces and we know how much CO2 contributes to climate change.
 
BilliamD75 said:
You have to do your research on all the facts. Here is one source, Armstrong economics /climate change - volcanoes part 2 December 2017
Click to expand...

So a random collection of unproven theories is more compelling than science?

The problem with trying to link climate change with volcanic activity is that there is no evidence that volcanic activity is increasing. The crackpot theorists are using increased reporting to suggest that there is an increase without any scientific evidence to back it up, but guess what, there was no internet where everything was logged back in the 1400s!
 
Yep, my 21 year son old has a part time job. So does by 15 year old daughter.
 
Despite the chastisement of the climate change poster child, IPCC reports of planetary doom, and the lauded Paris Agreement I expect the response from governments, rich and poor, will be superficial.

For sure we should reduce, re-use & recycle but people aren't going to drastically change their lifestyles. We cannot tell poor countries not to develop. Methinks answer lies with raising living standards in poorer countries so they may better cope with climate change and a myriad of mostly technological solutions to remove carbon from the atmosphere.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately higher living standards are built on the back of higher energy usage and so more carbon. I agree with you though; nothing much will change.
 
Firstly on the climate change deniers and the stuff about volcanos and CO2 etc, the attached gives a very different view

Sadly I am one of those people who have a long commute daily but have tried to do my bit by moving from diesal to hybrid. Cost is largely neutral as well due to reduced insurance costs and higher resale value. We've also tried to reduce the volume of plastics bought, are avid recyclers and have really focused on reducing food waste. My kids are very tuned in on waste and recycling as well and to be honest, regardless of climate change, we are probably saving money as a result.

What I find sad is the amount of rubbish thrown around the place. If people actually binned their rubbish it would be a start
 
michaelm said:
Methinks answer lies with raising living standards in poorer countries so they may better cope with climate change and a myriad of mostly technological solutions to remove carbon from the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

If only it were that simple, it would have been done decades ago. There are no easy technological solutions to decarbonising and resource depletion, I will go further there are no technological solutions, once living standards increase the use of resources and carbon production increase. That is the primary reason why it has increased so much since 1990 because China and India have globalised.
The advance in technology actually increases energy consumption and carbon production. All those data centres are monumental consumers of energy.
 
I'm also trying to do my bit.

However it is difficult to source products that don't contain palm oil or at least contain sustainable palm oil.

Because it's cheap it seems to be in everything from soaps, shampoos, toothpaste, cosmetics, cereals, pizzas, chocolate, ice cream, butter substitutes, bread, etc.

It can also be disguised in the ingredients list under a confusing number of names such as vegetable oil, stearic acid, sodium kernelate, etc.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register