Climate Change - record World temp. rises in Feb.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Damien

When we talk about climate change we largely talk about it's impact on humans, given the time of geology then the Earth will correct itself but what has happened to us in the meantime is the cause of concern.

The main issue is whether mankind is causing it. That link has not been proved. And the elephant in the room is that the atmosphere still only has 0.04% of carbon in it.

---------- Post added at 22:35 ---------- Previous post was at 22:29 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr K

Head in the sand from you OB. I suspect the main reason you and others won't accept it as the people protesting and providing evidence, don't come from a generation or political background you like. All a bit short sighted, we'lll all be affected, rich and poor alike.

Oh, do stop making it up, Mr K! It has nothing whatsoever to do with who is marching. What evidence is anyone providing that proves we are responsible for climate change? There is no direct evidence and that is what thinking people are calling for.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The main issue is whether mankind is causing it. That link has not been proved. And the elephant in the room is that the atmosphere still only has 0.04% of carbon in it.

It's been accepted by the scientific community but whatever evidence they come up, I fear it won't cut it for you before it's too late.
What is the significance of 0.04%? Is there a universal rule that says things only make a difference to the environment if they're X% or higher?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Oh, do stop making it up, Mr K! It has nothing whatsoever to do with who is marching. What evidence is anyone providing that proves we are responsible for climate change? There is no direct evidence and that is what thinking people are calling for.

I'm not sure that disagreeing with people who know more in their field than you and I put together qualifies anyone as "thinking". Would you not call Greta Thunberg and Michael Gove thinkers?

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

So how come it's been hotter in the past? The planet didn't blow up then.

You are getting carried away, Mr K.

Looking at some graphs, it looks like the last time we were at current temperatures was the Eemian Interglacial period around 120,000 years ago where sea levels rose 6 to 9m. Could get wet for a lot of people if it hits these levels

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Looking at some graphs, it looks like the last time we were at current temperatures was the Eemian Interglacial period around 120,000 years ago where sea levels rose 6 to 9m. Could get wet for a lot of people if it hits these levels

Trump's home town New York is particularly vulnerable. London too. I'm alright for a bit, I'm 150m up and I won't be accepting lodgers

Originally Posted by Mr K

The 'debate' is now between scientists and those with political/commercial interests. I know who I trust more.

I'm not making any comment on the climate change debate here, but simply pointing out that scientists are as open to political and commercial considerations as anyone else. They're not saints, and to treat them as if they are ... well, it's not scientific.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Chris

I'm not making any comment on the climate change debate here, but simply pointing out that scientists are as open to political and commercial considerations as anyone else. They're not saints, and to treat them as if they are ... well, it's not scientific.

Didn't say they were, just said who I trusted more.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Looking at some graphs, it looks like the last time we were at current temperatures was the Eemian Interglacial period around 120,000 years ago where sea levels rose 6 to 9m. Could get wet for a lot of people if it hits these levels

You've missed my point. If you look a little further, you will see is that it is not the case that a 3.5C temperature rise or above is irreversible.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You've missed my point. If you look a little further, you will see is that it is not the case that a 3.5C temperature rise or above is irreversible.

Of course climate change is reversible as previous temperature changes due to greenhouse gasses and changes in insolation show. However, the rate of change downwards is geologic and damage will still be done.

[ianch99]

It is amazing that a 16 year old from Sweden can show so much more wisdom than some of the older generation with all this "life experience".

As she says:

Miss Thunberg said her generation's future had been "stolen" so that "a small number of people could make unimaginable amounts of money".

She told MPs: "You don't listen to the science because you are only interested in the answers that will allow you to carry on as if nothing has happened."

Miss Thunberg is being used by her mother’s PR agency. Her mother, in case you didn’t know, has just published a book about climate change that she’s naturally quite keen to sell.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by ianch99

It is amazing that a 16 year old from Sweden can show so much more wisdom than some of the older generation with all this "life experience".

As she says:

You are bound to say that because you agree with her.

Older and wiser, they say. The older generation tends not to jump to conclusions. It's that simple, really.

---------- Post added at 18:21 ---------- Previous post was at 18:16 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Miss Thunberg is being used by her mother’s PR agency. Her mother, in case you didn’t know, has just published a book about climate change that she’s naturally quite keen to sell.

That says it all, really. Children are easily manipulated, either by their parents or by their teachers quite often. Until they have experienced life a bit and realise that things are not as straight forward as they thought, they are not really in a position to make these big judgements on issues.

It is only natural for them to accept what adults tell them. These are the people they trust.

Originally Posted by Chris

Miss Thunberg is being used by her mother’s PR agency. Her mother, in case you didn’t know, has just published a book about climate change that she’s naturally quite keen to sell.

It wasn’t her mother’s PR Agency, it was a non-profit foundation, which she (Greta) resigned from when she realised it was using her name image without her knowledge or permission.

https://www.svd.se/rentzhog-darfor-b...berg-om-ursakt

Greta Thunberg: Has no contact with the company anymore

Entrepreneur Ingmar Rentzhog apologizes to Greta Thunberg after SvD's review, which showed that his company used her as a tie for a new share issue that attracted over SEK 10 million.

- I have no contact with the company anymore. Not my family either, writes Greta Thunberg on Facebook on Monday night.

The attention has been great following SvD's article that the company We Don't Have Time had the climate phenomenon Greta Thunberg as a drawback in a new issue which has drawn in over SEK 10 million - without the family's knowledge.

https://www.politico.eu/article/gret...her-knowledge/

A Swedish climate startup admitted to using teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg to attract investments without her knowledge.

The company, called We Don't Have Time, rejected accusations by Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet that it had exploited 16-year-old Thunberg, but did admit that it “failed to inform the Thunberg family in advance that Greta would be mentioned in our financial prospectus, a document aimed at raising funds for the company."

Chief Executive Ingmar Rentzhog said the company is "very sorry that we didn’t inform them of this." We Don't Have Time describes itself as a "good-cause company," which is building a for-profit climate-focused social media network. "Our goal is to become the Facebook of climate change," the founders say in a blog post.

Greta's father Svante Thunberg told POLITICO over the phone that neither Greta nor her parents had been informed by the company. "They have confessed that they've not told us. Greta has not been informed and nobody has informed me or her mother."

Svante Thunberg said Greta won't take part in any organizations, whether voluntary or otherwise, to ensure her independence. "She does not receive any money and she will not receive any money," he said.

---------- Post added at 20:20 ---------- Previous post was at 20:19 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You are bound to say that because you agree with her.

Older and wiser, they say. The older generation tends not to jump to conclusions. It's that simple, really.

---------- Post added at 18:21 ---------- Previous post was at 18:16 ----------



That says it all, really. Children are easily manipulated, either by their parents or by their teachers quite often. Until they have experienced life a bit and realise that things are not as straight forward as they thought, they are not really in a position to make these big judgements on issues.

It is only natural for them to accept what adults tell them. These are the people they trust.

You’re right - Sir David Attenborough is very wise.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

Miss Thunberg is being used by her mother’s PR agency. Her mother, in case you didn’t know, has just published a book about climate change that she’s naturally quite keen to sell.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It is only natural for them to accept what adults tell them. These are the people they trust.

Originally Posted by Hugh

It wasn’t her mother’s PR Agency, it was a non-profit
foundation, which she (Greta) resigned from when she realised it was using her name image without her knowledge or permission.

Looks like it's actually adults who are just accepting what other adults tell them.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Looks like it's actually adults who are just accepting what other adults tell them.

gullible definition: 1. easily deceived or tricked, and too willing to believe everything that other people say: 2. easily deceived or tricked, and too willing to believe ...

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

gullible definition: 1. easily deceived or tricked, and too willing to believe everything that other people say: 2. easily deceived or tricked, and too willing to believe ...

mmm, sounds like the definition of a Daily Fail/Express reader or a Trump disciple.