Climate Protests

[Purple]

Al Gore has been guilty of exaggerating but the accusation that he predicted the North Pole will be ice free by 2014 is false. He did predict that there would be no summer ice by 2014 and that was false (or certainly not the scientific consensus) .
I can't see any evidence that he predicted that New York would be underwater by 2012 but I stand to be corrected. It's also worth noting that he isn't a climate scientist.

 

[michaelm]

This, more composed less dramatic, twelve year old made a similar plea to the UN 27 years ago . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f17Tc1IwWuQ

 

[joe sod]

All the attention was on Greta Thornburg, at the un last week and the "climate emergency" but maybe we should be paying more attention to the Iranian leader rouhani's speech , after all this is a guy with power and potentially nuclear weapons and the willingness to use them. In other words nuclear proliferation and not climate change is the real emergency, at least we have some control potentially over nuclear weapons and they would cause an emergency immediately if they were used. The climate we don't have control over and even if we spent all that money and effort on it, it might still come to nothing or be futile if somebody decides to use nuclear weapons.
Warren buffet has said that nuclear proliferation and not climate change is the greatest threat facing mankind today

 

[BilliamD75]

You never explained how that volcano caused the famine here 30 years later. That site provides no data or evidence to support the hypothesis, perhaps you could explain?

Let's get something straight I never mentioned anything about the famine, I supplied a link to a source for an alternative view. The source made the connection not me. I showed a link to volcanic activity, if you are interested in the alternative view to get a balanced opinion I suggest spending 30 mins looking at the blog on climate change with links to nasa and other scientific bodies and then you can contradict there conclusions, I simply said that volcanoes have emitted more c02 that cars have, do you really need a link to prove this.

 

[BilliamD75]

She asked that we listen to the science. That's all.
One blog about global cooling doesn't weigh up against NASA, The US Geological Survey (their volcano guys), Scientific American, [broken link removed] the EU, the World Bank, the OECD, the CIA, NSA and FBI... maybe it is just willful ignorance.

The CIA and the FBI really, you forgot Jessica fletcher, she was into climate change as she cycled everywhere.

 

[Ceist Beag]

I simply said that volcanoes have emitted more c02 that cars have, do you really need a link to prove this.

Except that of course volcanoes have been around for just a little bit longer than cars. Do you really need anyone to point out the fallacy of comparing the two?

 

[Leo]

I supplied a link to a source for an alternative view. The source made the connection not me.

You provided that link as evidence to support your viewpoint, in fact you have provided it multiple times at this stage. One of the main theories on that site is that a volcano 30 years earlier was responsible for the famine. Do you now acknowledge that the material posted on that site is complete nonsense, or can you back up the claim with any evidence?

I simply said that volcanoes have emitted more c02 that cars have

Do you honestly think that is a surprise to anyone? Do you understand how meaningless that statistic is in terms of recent climate change? Unless you're one of those who also believe the earth is only 6000 years old, surely you understand that the emissions of a volcano 4 billion years ago isn't of any significance?

Seeing as you seem to like volcanoes, you might like this article.

 

[Purple]

Let's get something straight I never mentioned anything about the famine, I supplied a link to a source for an alternative view. The source made the connection not me. I showed a link to volcanic activity, if you are interested in the alternative view to get a balanced opinion I suggest spending 30 mins looking at the blog on climate change with links to nasa and other scientific bodies and then you can contradict there conclusions, I simply said that volcanoes have emitted more c02 that cars have, do you really need a link to prove this.

So in order to support your views you linked to a source which supports your views but you don't agree with the source. Is that what you are saying?

 

[Purple]

Except that of course volcanoes have been around for just a little bit longer than cars. Do you really need anyone to point out the fallacy of comparing the two?

I already pointed it out to him. So did Leo.

 

[Purple]

The CIA and the FBI really, you forgot Jessica fletcher, she was into climate change as she cycled everywhere.

Is that the best you can do?

Why not just admit that there is no scientific evidence supporting your views but they are like, your views?

 

[Leo]

I already pointed it out to him. So did Leo.

I think we need to keep saying it, penny might drop at some point...

 

[Purple]

I think we need to keep saying it, penny might drop at some point...

At this stage I doubt it. This is like discussing evolution with a creationist.

 

[BilliamD75]

I have giving my point of view, I do not believe any of the information provided by both sides. I have stated many times you have to research all the information to get a balanced point of view, I do not supply links to prove or disprove facts or opinions, however here is a link against climate change (abc net 2009 29320), the question is the information creditable,.I do not believe any of it. I am simply pointing out a opposite view.
I have simply stated that volcanoes have emitted more c02 that cars (fossil fuels), for the avoidance of any doubt over the last 100 years, yes fossil fuels have emmited more co2 than volcanoes, over 500 years or even with the expansive nature of this what I said is more credible, over the next 100 years who knows, what I do know is volcanoes will still be emmiting c02 and the fossil fuel cycle will be over as we are running out of its primary source, to me climate change catastrophe is a fallacy as there are more important issues facing us as excellently pointed out by Joe sod earlier in this thread.

 

[WolfeTone]

is it hyperbole that the best scientists available to Al gore stating that new York will be under water or is the stuff of science fiction, clearly beyond all doubt they were wrong.

I can understand somewhat the scepticism when outlandish predictions of pending Armageddon are peddled, and then dont come true (there is probably a better way of saying that, but I hope the point isnt lost).

But reasonable people should be able to take a step back and assess the underlying message.
Perhaps start with the mundane, the obvious and work up to the big picture rather than relying on the sensationalists.
For instance there is are very good, obvious reasons why we dispose of our waste in bins. And very good reasons why in recent decades have moved to separate our waste into different bins.
Growing up in Dublin in the 1980's there were very good and obvious reasons why smoky coal was banned. There are very good reasons why the petroleum and motor industry moved to take lead out of the fumes of vehicles, and very good reasons why the motor industry is moving from petroleum to electric powered vehicles.
When you consider the moves to invest more and more in green, renewable energies, it doesn't take a scientist to figure that there are very good, obvious, reasons for it.

And as for Al Gore, there were probably very good reasons why, in 2006 aged 58 (nearing retirement and probably unlikely to ever hold a position anywhere as prestigious as vice president of the United States) decided that in order to maximize publicity and raise awareness of an issue close to his heart, his documentary would need to contain some outlandish predictions - to raise funding to make his documentary and to ensure a $$ return for his investors.

Bums on seats!

But that shouldn't take away from the very good, obvious reasons, why the way we operate globally in the production of goods and services needs to be radically overhauled.

 

[Leo]

I do not supply links to prove or disprove facts or opinions, however here is a link against climate change (abc net 2009 29320), the question is the information creditable,.I do not believe any of it.

So try to provide a link with peer reviewed science, not the ramblings of a nut job.

97%-99.9% of peer reviewed science backs climate change. It really would be a conspiracy greater than that of the faked moon landing to influence that many scientists.

 

[Firefly]

I have a feeling mosquitos could do a lot more damage to us in the short term than rising sea levels and air pollution..... For anyone with a few minutes to spare I would highly recommend reading the following article from The Guardian.

People v mosquitos: what to do about our biggest killer

The long read: These tiny pests adapt so successfully to changing conditions that they have become humankind’s deadliest predator. We might soon be able to eradicate them – but should we?

www.theguardian.com

Then note this:

The West Nile virus has been found in Germany for the first time, after years of a warming climate that scientists believe encouraged the mosquitoes which carry the deadly disease to move further north.

West Nile virus reaches Germany in 'sign of climate change'

Unusually warm summers mean mosquitos carrying deadly infection moving further north

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Purple]

All the attention was on Greta Thornburg, at the un last week and the "climate emergency" but maybe we should be paying more attention to the Iranian leader rouhani's speech , after all this is a guy with power and potentially nuclear weapons and the willingness to use them. In other words nuclear proliferation and not climate change is the real emergency, at least we have some control potentially over nuclear weapons and they would cause an emergency immediately if they were used. The climate we don't have control over and even if we spent all that money and effort on it, it might still come to nothing or be futile if somebody decides to use nuclear weapons.
Warren buffet has said that nuclear proliferation and not climate change is the greatest threat facing mankind today

Climate change is a bigger problem. Though the fact that it will displace hundreds of millions of people will certainly add to geopolitical uncertainty around the more unstable parts of the world.

As for Iran; the Americans are the ones causing the problem there.

 

[Purple]

I have a feeling mosquitos could do a lot more damage to us in the short term than rising sea levels and air pollution..... For anyone with a few minutes to spare I would highly recommend reading the following article from The Guardian.

People v mosquitos: what to do about our biggest killer

The long read: These tiny pests adapt so successfully to changing conditions that they have become humankind’s deadliest predator. We might soon be able to eradicate them – but should we?

www.theguardian.com

Then note this:

The West Nile virus has been found in Germany for the first time, after years of a warming climate that scientists believe encouraged the mosquitoes which carry the deadly disease to move further north.

West Nile virus reaches Germany in 'sign of climate change'

Unusually warm summers mean mosquitos carrying deadly infection moving further north

www.independent.co.uk

Yep, mosquitos may have killed half of the people who ever lived.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Climate change is a bigger problem.

Trying to figure that one. If you mean bigger than proliferation i.e. the mad mullahs getting their hands on one, well maybe.
But in both terms of likelihood and impact a global nuclear holocaust is surely the much greater risk to mankind.
And yet if I was given the choice of a nuclear free world or a carbon neutral world I would choose the latter. For nuclear weapons have at least for the last 74 years prevented WWIII. Will it prevent it for the next 700 years? 70 years? 7 years? It's coming, just a matter of when.

 

[Purple]

Trying to figure that one. If you mean bigger than proliferation i.e. the mad mullahs getting their hands on one, well maybe.
But in both terms of likelihood and impact a global nuclear holocaust is surely the much greater risk to mankind.
And yet if I was given the choice of a nuclear free world or a carbon neutral world I would choose the latter. For nuclear weapons have at least for the last 74 years prevented WWIII. Will it prevent it for the next 700 years? 70 years? 7 years? It's coming, just a matter of when.

Well aren't you just a ray of sunshine.