Jump to content
Cold?
Local
Radar
Snow?

Report Climate change ipcc


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Back in Edmonton Alberta(via Chelmsford, Exeter & Calgary)
  • Location: Back in Edmonton Alberta(via Chelmsford, Exeter & Calgary)
    28 minutes ago, Devonian said:

    I'll try to remember that next time someone quotes a dog biologist views on polar bears (Dr Susan Crockford) or the 'watts up' views of an ex TV weatherman, or the NIPCC (99.9% non-climate scientists) or the 'no trick zone' anti climate science ramblings of that civil engineer Pierre L. Gosselin etc etc etc

    works both ways..everybody is quick to quote this and that and state in their profile all the qualifications they have in science and meteorology which is all great and dandy..but when it comes to construction and engineering for this part of the world and indeed the UK and Europe i wager my knowledge, qualifications and experience is way superior to most on here... so throwing out an article by a biologist on an engineering issue doesn't quite cut the mustard...anyway this section isn't an argument about the engineering challenges that maybe presented by climate change.

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Spotted a post you think may be an issue? Please help the team by reporting it.
    • Replies 806
    • Created
    • Last Reply

    Top Posters In This Topic

    Top Posters In This Topic

    Popular Posts

    Am a bit of a loss with this debate. Firstly, because I don't get the name-calling and mudslinging, how does that help? But secondly and more importantly, I just can't understand how much more ev

    The IPBES Global Assessment on biodiversity was released yesterday at https://www.ipbes.net/ and makes grim reading. It lists climate change as an increasing factor in the state of life on our planet.

    It's amazing really how you continue to miss the point, I don't think anyone is saying climate change isn't caused by humans in some way, but it's not the sole cause, there are other factor at play, s

    Posted Images

    Posted
  • Location: Wendover, Buckinghamshire
  • Weather Preferences: Cold Snowy Winters, Hot Thundery Summers
  • Location: Wendover, Buckinghamshire
    18 minutes ago, cheeky_monkey said:

    works both ways..everybody is quick to quote this and that and state in their profile all the qualifications they have in science and meteorology which is all great and dandy..but when it comes to construction and engineering for this part of the world and indeed the UK and Europe i wager my knowledge, qualifications and experience is way superior to most on here... so throwing out an article by a biologist on an engineering issue doesn't quite cut the mustard...anyway this section isn't an argument about the engineering challenges that maybe presented by climate change.

    Well then clearly you havn't read the articles because the first was an interview of the mayor of a northern town which is having to take down buildings because the foundations aren't there to withstand the rapid rate of permafrost melt.

    The second article was an interview with a soil biologist who was discussing recent permafrost melting events and how they can rapidly cause sinkholes or landslides. You will know a lot more then me about on engineering in building construction. However it's easy to say 'it's fine' and shrug shoulders but where is the evidence that the infrastructure is in place over the towns in permafrost regions? and can the best in engineering help buildings withstand permafrost melting. Slow permafrost with maintanence yes, but rapid permafrost that leads to more dangerous events... there is only so much we can do in such cases. 

    Edited by Quicksilver1989
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Solihull, West Midlands. - 131 m asl .
  • Weather Preferences: Sun, Snow and Storms
  • Location: Solihull, West Midlands. - 131 m asl .
    12 hours ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

    Well then clearly you havn't read the articles because the first was an interview of the mayor of a northern town which is having to take down buildings because the foundations aren't there to withstand the rapid rate of permafrost melt.

    The second article was an interview with a soil biologist who was discussing recent permafrost melting events and how they can rapidly cause sinkholes or landslides. You will know a lot more then me about on engineering in building construction. However it's easy to say 'it's fine' and shrug shoulders but where is the evidence that the infrastructure is in place over the towns in permafrost regions? and can the best in engineering help buildings withstand permafrost melting. Slow permafrost with maintanence yes, but rapid permafrost that leads to more dangerous events... there is only so much we can do in such cases. 

    QS

    People around here build houses and new infrastructure on old 'wet' land, and then wonder why people are getting flooded?

    People are getting flooded by seemingly every thunderstorm.

    Inadequate drainage provisions are very common.

    The councils and politicians  (even in this country) have a lot to answer for.

    Surely the mayor is the last person you should be quoting in a scientific debate.

    For an example look at the Californian fire reaction of various people now being heavily fined (and sued) for neglect  and failure to place enough money into maintenance.. It too was the result of climate change (according to these people) - if you remember..

    MIA 

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Wendover, Buckinghamshire
  • Weather Preferences: Cold Snowy Winters, Hot Thundery Summers
  • Location: Wendover, Buckinghamshire
    16 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

    QS

    People around here build houses and new infrastructure on old 'wet' land, and then wonder why people are getting flooded?

    People are getting flooded by seemingly every thunderstorm.

    Inadequate drainage provisions are very common.

    The councils and politicians  (even in this country) have a lot to answer for.

    Surely the mayor is the last person you should be quoting in a scientific debate.

    For an example look at the Californian fire reaction of various people now being heavily fined (and sued) for neglect  and failure to place enough money into maintenance.. It too was the result of climate change (according to these people) - if you remember..

    MIA 

    Not sure what your point is here, this was the mayor raising concerns about buildings falling due to melting permafrost, I don't think even in the 80s people were aware of just how quick the permafrost could melt.

    And yes new buildings are being built on wet land prone to flooding, I see that on new housing estates near to where I live, not sure what that has to do with melting permafrost though? you are comparing apples and oranges. If global temperatures hadn't been rising that fast they wouldn't have had to have been facing this permafrost problem?

    Finally the spate in Californian wildfires is strongly linked to climate change, yes new houses are unforgivably being built in these areas but again this is different from long standing buildings suddenly being affected by permafrost melt.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/07/climate-change-500-percent-increase-california-wildfires/594016/

    Edited by Quicksilver1989
    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Solihull, West Midlands. - 131 m asl .
  • Weather Preferences: Sun, Snow and Storms
  • Location: Solihull, West Midlands. - 131 m asl .
    5 minutes ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

    Not sure what your point is here, this was the mayor raising concerns about buildings falling due to melting permafrost, I don't think even in the 80s people were aware of just how quick the permafrost could melt.

    And yes new buildings are being built on wet land prone to flooding, I see that on new housing estates near to where I live, not sure what that has to do with melting permafrost though? and you are comparing apples and oranges. If global temperatures hadn't been rising that fast they wouldn't have had to have been facing this problem?

    Finally the spate in Californian wildfires is strongly linked to climate change, yes new houses are unforgivably being built in these areas but again this is different from long standing buildings suddenly being affected by permafrost melt.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/07/climate-change-500-percent-increase-california-wildfires/594016/

    QS...

    Again you have ignored the point.

    Which was - ignore Mayors in this debate.

    500% increase you think? The paper says 800 percent - if you believe it..

    The California wildfire was claimed to have been proof of climate change (by the mayor), two days after the event, The one I am referring too was not caused by a hammer. It was caused by lightning and arson.

    The problem was that the pylons carrying electricity were struck by lightning, and these shorted out. The scrub which had not been reduced by maintenance, immediately caught fire. They also found many trees  had not been pruned and were  touching the  power lines, again causing fires to start. 

    It turns out that the mayor had removed and not agreed to pay the power companies any maintenance and service charges - so the work had not been carried out.

    The mayor is now being sued by the people who were affected.

    His immediate reaction - that it was climate change -  appears to have been an excuse. You cannot trust politicians - even democratic global warmers.

    ALSO,  If you read the detail of YOUR paper, you will find the following -

    QUOTE

    And while autumn wildfires such as the deadly Camp Fire dominate the news—and while there is some evidence that they may be getting larger—there is still not enough data to say that any increase is statistically significant. But the climate models do suggest that autumn fires across California will get more common as climate change continues to wrack the state.

    “Revisit this in 20 more years, and we’ll almost definitely be saying, ‘Yeah, fall fires have the global-warming fingerprint on them.’ But right now we’re still emerging from the range of natural variability,” Williams said.

    Don Hankins, a professor of geography at California State University at Chico, told me that he wanted to see more data before agreeing with the paper’s results. And he said that some large-scale changes to the landscape—such as the suspension of seasonal burns by indigenous people—may be producing the rise in fire.

    end QUOTE.

    Why do you only believe people who make the most outlandish remarks? 

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Wendover, Buckinghamshire
  • Weather Preferences: Cold Snowy Winters, Hot Thundery Summers
  • Location: Wendover, Buckinghamshire
    27 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

    QS...

    Again you have ignored the point.

    Which was - ignore Mayors in this debate.

    500% increase you think? The paper says 800 percent - if you believe it..

    The California wildfire was claimed to have been proof of climate change (by the mayor), two days after the event, The one I am referring too was not caused by a hammer. It was caused by lightning and arson.

    The problem was that the pylons carrying electricity were struck by lightning, and these shorted out. The scrub which had not been reduced by maintenance, immediately caught fire. They also found many trees  had not been pruned and were  touching the  power lines, again causing fires to start. 

    It turns out that the mayor had removed and not agreed to pay the power companies any maintenance and service charges - so the work had not been carried out.

    The mayor is now being sued by the people who were affected.

    His immediate reaction - that it was climate change -  appears to have been an excuse. You cannot trust politicians - even democratic global warmers.

    ALSO,  If you read the detail of YOUR paper, you will find the following -

    QUOTE

    And while autumn wildfires such as the deadly Camp Fire dominate the news—and while there is some evidence that they may be getting larger—there is still not enough data to say that any increase is statistically significant. But the climate models do suggest that autumn fires across California will get more common as climate change continues to wrack the state.

    “Revisit this in 20 more years, and we’ll almost definitely be saying, ‘Yeah, fall fires have the global-warming fingerprint on them.’ But right now we’re still emerging from the range of natural variability,” Williams said.

    Don Hankins, a professor of geography at California State University at Chico, told me that he wanted to see more data before agreeing with the paper’s results. And he said that some large-scale changes to the landscape—such as the suspension of seasonal burns by indigenous people—may be producing the rise in fire.

    end QUOTE.

    Why do you only believe people who make the most outlandish remarks? 

    Firstly the Mendocino Complex wildfire was started by a rancher who sparked the dry grass while hammering a metal stake whilst trying to find a wasp nest.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendocino_Complex_Fire

    I'm not sure what that has got to do with the issue of climate change anyway.

    Secondly you quote a seperate part of the article that isn't referring to summer wildfires, its referring to those which can form later in the year. The peak of the Mendocino complex was during the summer months and this is when many of the wildfires burn. This is because of the heat. You are quoting a part of the article seperate to the discussion about summer wildfires and extrapolating it to cover the whole article. Here is what Park Williams says earlier in the article:

    “Each degree of warming causes way more fire than the previous degree of warming did. And that’s a really big deal,” Park Williams, a climate scientist at Columbia University and an author of the paper, told me. Every additional increment in heat in the environment speeds up evaporation, dries out soil, and parches trees and vegetation, turning them into ready fuel for a blaze. For that reason, Williams said, hot summers essentially overpower anything else happening in Northern California. Even during a wet year, an intense heat wave can choke forests so that it is as though the rain never fell.

    Heat is the most clear result of human-caused climate change,” Williams said.

    In other words, the climate models say that Northern Californian summers should be getting hotter as climate change takes hold. And that’s exactly what the data show—and exactly what’s driving an unprecedented outbreak of forest fires.

    But this outbreak of climate-addled fires is limited to summertime fires in forests; it does not extend to other types of environment or other times of the year, the paper cautions.

    Williams agreed that climate change is not the only potential driver of increased fire in the state. But he said that even if fires are burning through that excess fuel, the effects of climate change are much clearer in this study, during this time frame. That’s because the fundamental relationship between excess heat and additional fire never changes in the study’s data; the correlation is “just as strong for the last 20 years as for the first 20 years,” he said.

    And finally its ironic you accuse me of only believing people who make outlandish remarks when you never use science to back up your claims and constantly try to deny anthropogenic climate change. I don't think there is anything outlandish in suggesting that more intense heat will lead to more forest fires.

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne (Spital Tongues)
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne (Spital Tongues)

    Towns are being relocated and infrastructure is being ruined by thawing permafrost. This is a fact, and is very much separate to the engineering/constructions considerations in areas with strong seasonal freeze/thaw cycle.

    • Like 2
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Solihull, West Midlands. - 131 m asl .
  • Weather Preferences: Sun, Snow and Storms
  • Location: Solihull, West Midlands. - 131 m asl .
    3 hours ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

     

    And finally its ironic you accuse me of only believing people who make outlandish remarks when you never use science to back up your claims and constantly try to deny anthropogenic climate change. I don't think there is anything outlandish in suggesting that more intense heat will lead to more forest fires.

    You finally got it...

     It was meant to be ironic...

    I was pointing out that in answer to Roger's attempting to use actual scientific data to put forward a scientific position, you counter it by quoting what a mayor in Siberia states.

    You (and not just you,  but the normal crew) appeared to be in denial of Roger's position even before he published the data. That is not a scientific position to take.         However,  Greta would be pleased with  you.

    As for myself and your personal opinions.... do not misrepresent my views.

    Most people these days accept that  CO2 can and has caused warming. So do I. The fact is that the amount of warming it causes is still unknown.. I am a doubter of the science of the CAGW people who continually produce 'forecasts' (predictions?) based upon the greatest amount of warming that is theoretically possible, the assumption (presumably) being that we know all there is to know about climate science..  People who use this as an accurate assessment of the  'science', should be the ones that are banned from publishing.

    Only scientific papers are supposed to be published on here. 

    I just happen to  think that your mayor in Siberia does not qualify.

     

     

    By way of interest, according to WUWT. a paper has been published,  which suggests that all climate CAGW sceptics (it claims AGW deniers ) should be prevented from producing papers (silenced) . Do you call that science? or politics?

    Apparently a  list of 386 names was published as a basis for the document (by the way some people who were expecting to be on the list did not appear)!. Some of both sets of people  are very angry. They have now flocked to WUWT to complain.

    It would seem as though the list was complied by whether or not they were acceptable (or not!) to the climate action blogs!

    In a number of cases people have been totally mis-classified.

    As a result the list of names has now been withdrawn - but the damage has been done. It is clear that an attempt is being made to 'silence' anyone who dares to challenge the current 'Climate Science'.

    Other people have  suggested that it contradicts the 97% of scientist debates...!!!

    Do you think that people should be prevented from expressing a  non CAGW point of view?

    Do you think that 'doubters' should all be banned?

     

    The report you referred to above actually (re the Californian fires) states the true position that I will and do support; that we will not have enough knowledge (data) for another 20 years  before we should be taking these far-reaching decisions on a solid science foundation basis.

    MIA 

    Edited by Midlands Ice Age
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Solihull, West Midlands. - 131 m asl .
  • Weather Preferences: Sun, Snow and Storms
  • Location: Solihull, West Midlands. - 131 m asl .
    2 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

    Towns are being relocated and infrastructure is being ruined by thawing permafrost. This is a fact, and is very much separate to the engineering/constructions considerations in areas with strong seasonal freeze/thaw cycle.

    So people are going back to where they were located during the MW period.

    Perhaps Greenland is next?.

    MIA

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
    4 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

    So people are going back to where they were located during the MW period.

    Perhaps Greenland is next?.

    MIA

    Oh no! Not the MWP again! Even Brexit can't take us that far back!:gathering:

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Wendover, Buckinghamshire
  • Weather Preferences: Cold Snowy Winters, Hot Thundery Summers
  • Location: Wendover, Buckinghamshire
    29 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

    You finally got it...

     It was meant to be ironic...

    I was pointing out that in answer to Roger's attempting to use actual scientific data to put forward a scientific position, you counter it by quoting what a mayor in Siberia states.

    What are you on about? Think you are getting your threads mixed up?

    You (and not just you,  but the normal crew) appeared to be in denial of Roger's position even before he published the data. That is not a scientific position to take.         However,  Greta would be pleased with  you.

    Well he made a lot of grandiose claims without references to scientific literature and its only fair that such claims are held to scrutiny given there is no obvious physical processes underlying the claims. I passed further comment till the data was shared, I also think your dig at Greta is rather pathetic TBH.

    As for myself and your personal opinions.... do not misrepresent my views.

    Most people these days accept that  CO2 can and has caused warming. So do I. The fact is that the amount of warming it causes is still unknown.. I am a doubter of the science of the CAGW people who continually produce 'forecasts' (predictions?) based upon the greatest amount of warming that is theoretically possible, the assumption (presumably) being that we know all there is to know about climate science.. 

    Well at least that’s a start but you claim we are focusing on the worst case scenarios. That is because CO2 emissions are increasing at a rate akin to worst case scenarios when they were presented in older IPCC reports. In fact you could argue we are taking a path that is even worse!

    People who use this as an accurate assessment of the  'science', should be the ones that are banned from publishing.

    The wildfire reports were based on papers and sound solid science, do you suggest we ban publishing all papers? What a ridiculous statement to make

    Only scientific papers are supposed to be published on here. 

    Guess you had better take note then…

    I just happen to  think that your mayor in Siberia does not qualify.

    Do you think the Mayor is lying about the melting permafrost then?

     

    By way of interest, according to WUWT. a paper has been published,  which suggests that all climate CAGW sceptics (it claims AGW deniers ) should be prevented from producing papers (silenced) . Do you call that science? or politics?

    You don’t provide a link so I can’t possibly comment but there is clearly a balance to be had. If an oil lobbyist is deliberately misinforming people to fill up their fat wallets, they should be held to account, especially given how dangerous a stance that is being taken. If people want to publish then they need scientific literature to back up their point, why do deniers (ie. Piers Corbyn etc.) never do this? Do you think anti-vaxxers should be given a platform?

    Apparently a  list of 386 names was published as a basis for the document (by the way some people who were expecting to be on the list did not appear!. Some of both sets of people  are very angry. They have now flocked to WUWT to complain.

    It would seem as though the list was complied by whether or not they were acceptable (or not!) to the climate action blogs!

    In a number of cases people have been totally mis-classified.

    As a result the list of names has now been withdrawn - but the damage has been done. It is clear that an attempt is being made to 'silence' anyone who dares to challenge the current 'Climate Science'.

    Other people have  suggested that it contradicts the 97% of scientist debates...!!!

    Do you think that people should be prevented from expressing a  non CAGW point of view?

    Do you think that 'doubters' should all be banned?

    Only if its backed by scientific literature published in journals and uses verified data sources. Skepticism is healthy but deliberate misleading on such an important subject isn’t. (e.g. Piers Corbyn just labelling climate scientists frauds).

    The report you referred to above actually (re the Californian fires) states the true position that I will and do support; that we will not have enough knowledge (data) for another 20 years  before we should be taking these far-reaching decisions on a solid science foundation basis.

    MIA 

     

    Edited by Quicksilver1989
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    • 1 month later...
    Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne
    Quote

    With this week’s release of the IPCC Special Report Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC), it is useful to take a look at the current understanding of how sea level has changed in the past and may change in the future.

    In this explainer, Carbon Brief examines estimates of historical sea level rise and the evidence that rates are accelerating. It explores the drivers of historical and future sea level rise, including thermal expansion of water, melting glaciers and melting ice sheets. Finally, it compares the worst-case projections from the IPCC with other studies published before and after AR5 was released.

     

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-climate-change-is-accelerating-sea-level-rise

    Edited by knocker
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Croydon. South London. 286 ft asl
  • Weather Preferences: Thunderstorms, snow, Ice days, warm sunny days.
  • Location: Croydon. South London. 286 ft asl

    I agree with the science regarding AGW but I also agree with this guy ?

     

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
    10 hours ago, D.V.R said:

    I agree with the science regarding AGW but I also agree with this guy ?

     

    Always be aware of tu quoque...

    Sneering at people because of what they say wont change whether they are right or wrong. Nor does it provide solutions. Especially as the man doing the sneering doesn't have the faintest intention of doing anything himself bar sneer (or indeed, I'd guess) accept the reality of what is going on...

    Otoh, I guess if we blame everyone bar ourselves things will be ok.....

     

    Edited by Devonian
    • Like 2
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Croydon. South London. 286 ft asl
  • Weather Preferences: Thunderstorms, snow, Ice days, warm sunny days.
  • Location: Croydon. South London. 286 ft asl
    12 minutes ago, Devonian said:

    Always be aware of tu quoque...

    Sneering at people because of what they say wont change whether they are right or wrong. Nor does it provide solutions. Especially as the man doing the sneering doesn't have the faintest intention of doing anything himself bar sneer (or indeed, I'd guess) accept the reality of what is going on...

    Otoh, I guess if we blame everyone bar ourselves things will be ok.....

     

    Don't you ever laugh at anything, Dev? 

    Ok, I don't agree with a lot of things he says and he is offensive but he does have some valid points. 

     

     

     

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
    9 hours ago, D.V.R said:

    Don't you ever laugh at anything, Dev? 

    Ok, I don't agree with a lot of things he says and he is offensive but he does have some valid points. 

     

     

     

    What are you trying to say about me? I laugh a lot a climate sceptics, extremists, and comedy I like.

    Perhaps you've learnt from your Australian commentator that when you don't like the evidence people present you attack the people presenting it?

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Croydon. South London. 286 ft asl
  • Weather Preferences: Thunderstorms, snow, Ice days, warm sunny days.
  • Location: Croydon. South London. 286 ft asl
    1 hour ago, Devonian said:

    What are you trying to say about me? I laugh a lot a climate sceptics, extremists, and comedy I like.

    Perhaps you've learnt from your Australian commentator that when you don't like the evidence people present you attack the people presenting it?

    All I'm saying is that he makes some valid points, jeez! 

    I've already stated I trust the science on the issue so that's it. 

    Have a great evening ✌️

     

     

     

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
    12 hours ago, D.V.R said:

    Don't you ever laugh at anything, Dev? 

    Ok, I don't agree with a lot of things he says and he is offensive but he does have some valid points. 

    Well they completely passed me by, D.V.R...His twaddle sounds too much like the old colonialist, why are they not grateful for how we've civilised them? routine, for my liking?

    • Like 2
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Croydon. South London. 286 ft asl
  • Weather Preferences: Thunderstorms, snow, Ice days, warm sunny days.
  • Location: Croydon. South London. 286 ft asl
    10 hours ago, Ed Stone said:

    Well they completely passed me by, D.V.R...His twaddle sounds too much like the old colonialist, why are they not grateful for how we've civilised them? routine, for my liking?

    Hi Ed.,

    Sure, I understand he comes across that way and he's probably a racist, a bigot?

    I'm agreeing with him with regards to the younger generation spending so much time glued to their screens, having to be driven everywhere, keeping up with the latest trends, having more computers, more air con units, buying more manufactured products etc.. 

    I agree we all have to protest about AGW but if you're going home after and not contributing to curbing your carbon footprint then it's just hypocrisy. 

    Hopefully I'm wrong but I think you've chosen to ignore those points due to your inability to be objective.. If I'm right, then that makes you a bigot too? That kind of behaviour just gets people's backs up and it's non productive on this sensitive subject. 

    Have a great day ✌️

     

     

    • Like 2
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Sedgley Black country 731ft 222 metres
  • Location: Sedgley Black country 731ft 222 metres
    1 hour ago, D.V.R said:

    Hi Ed.,

    Sure, I understand he comes across that way and he's probably a racist, a bigot?

    I'm agreeing with him with regards to the younger generation spending so much time glued to their screens, having to be driven everywhere, keeping up with the latest trends, having more computers, more air con units, buying more manufactured products etc.. 

    I agree we all have to protest about AGW but if you're going home after and not contributing to curbing your carbon footprint then it's just hypocrisy. 

    Hopefully I'm wrong but I think you've chosen to ignore those points due to your inability to be objective.. If I'm right, then that makes you a bigot too? That kind of behaviour just gets people's backs up and it's non productive on this sensitive subject. 

    Have a great day ✌️

     

     

    Very Valid Point   As a human race we need to curb our carbon footprint   But as you say  the Irony is  however way you look at it  The young Generation  contribute  to climate change far more than  any generation before it.    Of course  they are probably more aware of it also  but if as you rightly say  if  they continue with their modern lives   then indeed it is hypocrisy   

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Croydon. South London. 286 ft asl
  • Weather Preferences: Thunderstorms, snow, Ice days, warm sunny days.
  • Location: Croydon. South London. 286 ft asl
    20 minutes ago, weirpig said:

    Very Valid Point   As a human race we need to curb our carbon footprint   But as you say  the Irony is  however way you look at it  The young Generation  contribute  to climate change far more than  any generation before it.    Of course  they are probably more aware of it also  but if as you rightly say  if  they continue with their modern lives   then indeed it is hypocrisy   

    It may sound down beat, but I can't see how we're going to stop AGW naturally quickly because it's going to need a monumental shift in attitudes and behaviour to save our planet and that maybe too late.. In the meantime I think we should achieve it through drastic climate engineering?  We've already negatively engineered the climate so why can't we undo it with the same process? 

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Back in Edmonton Alberta(via Chelmsford, Exeter & Calgary)
  • Location: Back in Edmonton Alberta(via Chelmsford, Exeter & Calgary)
    4 hours ago, D.V.R said:

    It may sound down beat, but I can't see how we're going to stop AGW naturally quickly because it's going to need a monumental shift in attitudes and behaviour to save our planet and that maybe too late.. In the meantime I think we should achieve it through drastic climate engineering?  We've already negatively engineered the climate so why can't we undo it with the same process? 

    Until you address the problem of China and India and not sweep it under the carpet then your peeing into the wind unfortunately 

    Edited by cheeky_monkey
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne
    34 minutes ago, cheeky_monkey said:

    Until you address the problem of China and India and not sweep it under the carpet then your peeing into the wind unfortunately 

    Not true regarding the latter. The US and EU are bigger fossil CO2 emitters

    • Like 2
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Croydon. South London. 286 ft asl
  • Weather Preferences: Thunderstorms, snow, Ice days, warm sunny days.
  • Location: Croydon. South London. 286 ft asl
    21 minutes ago, cheeky_monkey said:

    Until you address the problem of China and India and not sweep it under the carpet then your peeing into the wind unfortunately 

    Why are the Asians the problem and what do you mean we should address them? 

     

     

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now
    ×
    ×
    • Create New...