Climate Change - record World temp. rises in Feb.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Mr K

And will you still be sceptical when the flood waters come through your door?

Trouble is there is a point of no return with climate change ( the ' tipping point'). We are very close to that point. Even if sceptics are eventually convinced it may be too late to do anything. Action not words is required.

Yes, the planet will look after itself as it has for millenia and we will die.

Not so much looking after the planet now is it?

The planet has a way of looking after itself.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You should be really pleased that the scientists are saying you can eat butter again after years of telling you it was bad for you. Now it appears that butter should never have been 'banned' and that the Flora we turned to years ago was doing you no good at all!

There are plenty more examples where that came from, so you shouldn't just blindly accept everything you are told by scientists. A little healthy scepticism is required.

The current recommendation is still for it to be a smaller part of an overall diet.

The NHS breaks down these kinds of stories quite well: https://www.nhs.uk/news/heart-and-lu...link-unproven/

But in the end it is further scientific research that has (slightly) change how people view saturated fats. They also told you that smoking is bad, asbestos is bad and red meat can be bad. Do you suggest we ignore that too in case it's later revised? All we can do is go on the best information we have until such a time as we learn more. (Although I still eat red meat I just don't resent scientists for informing me of the health impact, ditto alcohol).

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, clearly, it hasn't ended the debate, Andrew.

I see no "debate"?

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Scientif...ific_consensus

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[129]

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[130]

The real danger here is the risk of delay and obfuscation caused by those to refuse to accept that the planet is in last chance saloon.

Here's a new report with more bad news:

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...e-impact-study

The release of methane and carbon dioxide from thawing permafrost will accelerate global warming and add up to $70tn (£54tn) to the world’s climate bill, according to the most advanced study yet of the economic consequences of a melting Arctic.

If countries fail to improve on their Paris agreement commitments, this feedback mechanism, combined with a loss of heat-deflecting white ice, will cause a near 5% amplification of global warming and its associated costs, says the paper, which was published on Tuesday in Nature Communications.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Damien

The current recommendation is still for it to be a smaller part of an overall diet.

The NHS breaks down these kinds of stories quite well: https://www.nhs.uk/news/heart-and-lu...link-unproven/

But in the end it is further scientific research that has (slightly) change how people view saturated fats. They also told you that smoking is bad, asbestos is bad and red meat can be bad. Do you suggest we ignore that too in case it's later revised? All we can do is go on the best information we have until such a time as we learn more. (Although I still eat red meat I just don't resent scientists for informing me of the health impact, ditto alcohol).

Name one case of death or proven health problem due to white asbestos.

Originally Posted by pip08456

Name one case of death or proven health problem due to white asbestos.

Well my understanding is that it's the blue asbestos that's especially bad and is linked to cancer.

Originally Posted by pip08456

Name one case of death or proven health problem due to white asbestos.

He said asbestos, not white asbestos.

https://www.nationalasbestos.co.uk/n...deaths-a-year/

It is estimated that an average of 13 people a day in the UK die from conditions caused by previous exposure to asbestos – more than double the number of people who die on the roads

The World Health Organization estimates that 107,000 people die every year as a result of occupational exposure to asbestos. In the UK, the Health and Safety Executive puts the number of asbestos-related deaths at around 5,000 deaths per year.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Name one case of death or proven health problem due to white asbestos.

Why? He never mentioned white asbestos ..

Meanwhile, back on topic, people claim that it is unfair to protest against the UK's climate change record. What they forget is the historical carbon debt from the first world countries since the 1700's.

Of course, the best way of making progress on a global scale is when countries get together and agree common standards and plans. They also are able to push through more reform from countries like China, Russia when their collective trading & political clout is larger. Good job we are part of the EU .. ah, no .. wait ...

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Hugh

He said asbestos, not white asbestos.

https://www.nationalasbestos.co.uk/n...deaths-a-year/

He also said blue asbestos which is less (albeit small) of a health problem than brown asbestos.

That said, white asbestos was also put on he list thanks to the companies that charge a fortune to clear it.

Funny that.

Originally Posted by pip08456

He also said blue asbestos which is less (albeit small) of a health problem than brown asbestos.

That said, white asbestos was also put on he list thanks to the companies that charge a fortune to clear it.

Funny that.

Isn't it the case that all the forms involve it being breathed into the lungs but the 'bad' asbestos is particular sharp/strong compared to white so causes scarring and just gets stuck there forever more? So even if the white is less/not dangerous it's still probably not great to breath in something that'll be on the walls of your lungs forever.

I know white asbestos is not banned in some countries though.

[pip08456]

You are the one who made a blanket statement, surely it is up to you to show the veracity of it.

Originally Posted by pip08456

You are the one who made a blanket statement, surely it is up to you to show the veracity of it.

I was asking a genuine question about how the different types of asbestos works. I am pretty happy with the initial statement of asbestos being bad and since it seems the World Health Organisation agrees I don’t really think the onus is on me to prove it.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If esteemed natural historians like Sir David Attenborough can't convince Old Boy to stop lapping up the misinformation of the fossil fuel lobby, I suspect there's little we can do to convince him.

Once again, you divert the subject. It doesn't matter where the view you disagree with comes from. What matters is the content of what they say.

---------- Post added at 18:13 ---------- Previous post was at 18:09 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

The current recommendation is still for it to be a smaller part of an overall diet.

The NHS breaks down these kinds of stories quite well: https://www.nhs.uk/news/heart-and-lu...link-unproven/

But in the end it is further scientific research that has (slightly) change how people view saturated fats. They also told you that smoking is bad, asbestos is bad and red meat can be bad. Do you suggest we ignore that too in case it's later revised? All we can do is go on the best information we have until such a time as we learn more. (Although I still eat red meat I just don't resent scientists for informing me of the health impact, ditto alcohol).

I'm not saying we should ignore anything. I am simply saying that you shouldn't suck up everything you hear without engaging your brain, no matter who says it.

As far as the butter thing is concerned, no need for you to do a cover-up on behalf of others. The scientists have already admitted they were wrong.

Whatever happened to the day when scientists had to prove their theories before getting their pronouncements confirmed?

---------- Post added at 18:19 ---------- Previous post was at 18:13 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

Why? He never mentioned white asbestos ..

Meanwhile, back on topic, people claim that it is unfair to protest against the UK's climate change record. What they forget is the historical carbon debt from the first world countries since the 1700's.

Of course, the best way of making progress on a global scale is when countries get together and agree common standards and plans. They also are able to push through more reform from countries like China, Russia when their collective trading & political clout is larger. Good job we are part of the EU .. ah, no .. wait ...

What exactly is the point of protesting about what people were doing over 300 years ago? The protesters cannot change their actions now, can they?

The protesters would do better to protest at countries that are big polluters and not doing enough to reduce their emissions.

[Mr K]

Asbestos? Butter? I think some are trying to change the goalposts /subject here !

---------- Post added at 19:11 ---------- Previous post was at 19:10 ----------

Originally Posted by pip08456

Floods in certain areas may lead to death but reduce the population at the same time.

We need a bit more of that then problem solved!

I hope that post wasn't for real.

---------- Post added at 19:13 ---------- Previous post was at 19:11 ----------

Originally Posted by pip08456

Yes, the planet will look after itself as it has for millenia and we will die.

Not so much looking after the planet now is it?

The planet has a way of looking after itself.

The planet will look after itself, because we won't? That's heck of an assumption.

---------- Post added at 19:24 ---------- Previous post was at 19:13 ----------

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.

It's been hotter in the past and we weren't around, as we wouldn't and won't survive under such conditions.

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.

Have a read of William Hague's piece in the Torygraph if you like , at least he has woken up to the threat.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...sis-seriously/
(DT readers don't like his article though !)

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Asbestos? Butter? I think some are trying to change the goalposts /subject here !

---------- Post added at 19:11 ---------- Previous post was at 19:10 ----------



I hope that post wasn't for real.

---------- Post added at 19:13 ---------- Previous post was at 19:11 ----------



The planet will look after itself, because we won't? That's heck of an assumption.

---------- Post added at 19:24 ---------- Previous post was at 19:13 ----------



It's been hotter in the past and we weren't around, as we wouldn't and won't survive under such conditions.

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.

Have a read of William Hague's piece in the Torygraph if you like , at least he has woken up to the threat.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...sis-seriously/
(DT readers don't like his article though !)

True, but I was questioning the reversibility of the warming process. It reversed all by itself before, so why could it not do the same now? Sounds to me like scare tactics.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

True, but I was questioning the reversibility of the warming process. It reversed all by itself before, so why could it not do the same now? Sounds to me like scare tactics.

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.