Why the sudden hysteria over climate change?

Tell me how

SeaBreezes wrote: »

The science bit. But this solar physicist with an algorithm of 96% accuracy says we are heading into an ice age and she is trying to warn people. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M_yqIj38UmY

False.

In plain English, the small change in sunlight reaching the Earth during a new Maunder minimum wouldn’t be enough to reverse climate change. For the technically minded, even a 3 W per m2 change in irradiance corresponds to a radiative forcing of just 0.5 W per m2 (because the Earth is a sphere and not a flat circle), which is less than the radiative forcing produced by anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

To be blunt: no mini ice age for us. The real story of the impending mini ice age isn’t about climate at all. It is a cautionary tale, of how science should and shouldn’t be communicated.

Tell me how

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Miss T is nothing short of a disaster from a PR side of things. A 16 year old from socialist Sweden jetsetting around the World, talking to the already-converted. She says nothing new or interesting at all. If she's what those of us on the Climate Change acceptance side of the debate are pushing then imo we've lost the debate, not that there should even be one.
.

She isn't jet-setting. She has travelled all over Europe so far without leaving the ground.

She has motivated millions of younger people to take an interest in the environment. All these will be heading in to the workplace and towards university in a few short years, I trust that they will be much more considerate towards developing practical solutions than those currently in a position to promote action.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

She isn't jet-setting. She has travelled all over Europe so far without leaving the ground.She has motivated millions of younger people to take an interest in the environment. All these will be heading in to the workplace and towards university in a few short years, I trust that they will be much more considerate towards developing practical solutions than those currently in a position to promote action.

The thing is- she is a kid. A young intelligent but highly impressionable kid who is been held up by some as some near Joan of Arc figure. I get it that she's scared by the doomsday stories she's been brought up on and which she is pushing and which I detailed earlier. I don't get it that the kid is being made into a figure head by others including at least one individual who have already tried to make her the symbol of a mass marketing campaign. I personally find the whole cult thing which has developed around her to be truely deeply unsettling.

moonage

RobertKK wrote: »

There is far too much of every form of pollution being put into the environment. CO2 is just one

CO2 isn't a pollutant. It's the gas of life.

We breathe it out and plants need it to survive. More CO2 leads to a greening of the planet. Current CO2 levels are fine and a further modest increase will do no harm.

This human-made climate change hoax was cooked up to instill fear in people and pave the way for more centralised government of the planet.

Tell me how

moonage wrote: »

CO2 isn't a pollutant. It's the gas of life.

We breathe it out and plants need it to survive. More CO2 leads to a greening of the planet. Current CO2 levels are fine and a further modest increase will do no harm.

This human-made climate change hoax was cooked up to instill fear in people and pave the way for more centralised government of the planet.

Ok, so, my view is that this opinion is complete and utter bullsh*t.

Just today from the BBC News website.

1. The world's biodiversity is vanishing fast
2. Among the biggest threats to wildlife are habitat loss, climate change and pollution.
3. Animals and plants are disappearing and so is the land they rely upon for natural habitat.
4. Habitat conversion drives biodiversity loss
5. Some of the last great rainforests are being wiped out

The felling of forests, the plundering of seas and soils, and the pollution of air and water are together pushing the natural world to the brink.

That's the warning more than 500 experts in 50 countries are expected to give in a major UN-backed report, due to be published on Monday.

The assessment will highlight the losses that have hit the natural world over the past 50 years and how the future is looking bleak for tens to hundreds of thousands of species.

circadian

I think we're in the midst of a natural change in the climate cycle that operates over many hundreds of years. However, I think mankind, especially since the Industrial Revolution has caused these changes to accelerate, become unpredictable and amplify any changes that would have occured naturally.

I have absolutely no problem in paying for more, being taxed more in the name of trying to change peoples behaviour. The worlds population continues to grow, we continue to use oil in literally everything and industrial processes are massively harmful to the enviornment and climate. I hope that my own generation and the younger generation can get a handle on it. I suspect that we may all have to cut back of lifes luxuries to ensure our survival and not surprisingly, humans have so far shown themselves to be a very selfish and short sighted species so I wouldn't be surprised at the backlash to these ideas at all.

We already see it, people claiming that it isn't happening, it's a hoax, it's a means to strike fear and tax more blah blah blah. People are happy with their comfort, all while the world literally burns around them.

I've been actively reducing waste at home, recycling properly (do you know how hard it is to get polystyrene packaging recycled??), driving less etc.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Ok, so, my view is that this opinion is complete and utter bullsh*t.

Just today from the BBC News website.

1. The world's biodiversity is vanishing fast
2. Among the biggest threats to wildlife are habitat loss, climate change and pollution.
3. Animals and plants are disappearing and so is the land they rely upon for natural habitat.
4. Habitat conversion drives biodiversity loss
5. Some of the last great rainforests are being wiped out

I think all that has been well documented tbh. It is been referred to as the Sixth Great Extinction and is believed to have been ongoing for about 100 years or so. And it has been directly linked to human overpopulation and over consumption.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/10/earths-sixth-mass-extinction-event-already-underway-scientists-warn

Scientists analysed both common and rare species and found billions of regional or local populations have been lost. They blame human overpopulation and overconsumption for the crisis and warn that it threatens the survival of human civilisation, 

Should our behaviour change because of this? Absolutely no doubt about it.

circadian

moonage wrote: »

CO2 isn't a pollutant. It's the gas of life.

We breathe it out and plants need it to survive. More CO2 leads to a greening of the planet. Current CO2 levels are fine and a further modest increase will do no harm.

This human-made climate change hoax was cooked up to instill fear in people and pave the way for more centralised government of the planet.

No, it's not.

Shefwedfan

fxotoole wrote: »

The Night King

Personally I would blame the children of the forest

20Cent

gozunda wrote: »

The thing is- she is a kid. A young intelligent but highly impressionable kid who is been held up by some as some near Joan of Arc figure. I get it that she's scared by the doomsday stories she's been brought up on and which she is pushing and which I detailed earlier. I don't get it that the kid is being made into a figure head by others including at least one individual who have already tried to make her the symbol of a mass marketing campaign. I personally find the whole cult thing which has developed around her to be truely deeply unsettling.

The old "cult of personality" theme, same was said about Obama. Used to imply that agreeing with her is irrational.
All the criticism of Greta Thunberg seems to be about her age, her parents etc. Not many challenging on the content of what she is saying which is backed up by science.

Nobelium

Is everyone here happy to pay substantially more carbon tax in the next budget ? Or is there a better way than taxing ordinary people and making them pay ? Will the money actually go to saving the environment instead of political stunts and PR . . I doubt it.

gozunda

20Cent wrote: »

The old "cult of personality" theme, same was said about Obama. Used to imply that agreeing with her is irrational. All the criticism of Greta Thunberg seems to be about her age, her parents etc. Not many challenging on the content of what she is saying which is backed up by science.

And that's not the point made. However what I see is that no one can say anything "cos she's just a kid" & etc :rolleyes:

Btw the most important thing is a lot of what she is pushing is Not backed up by scientists ...

I already posted this but I'll post it again by way of example.

Ms Thunberg

Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it."

This is what one of the scientists responsible for the IPCC report said.

Please stop saying something globally bad is going to happen in 2030. Bad stuff is already happening and every half a degree of warming matters, but the IPCC does not draw a “planetary boundary” at 1.5°C beyond which lie climate dragons.

And again an independent scientist

As much as climate scientists see the necessity for broad and immediate action to address global warming, they do not agree on an imminent point of no return.The (IPCC) panel “did not say we have 12 years left to save the world.”...

20Cent

Nobelium wrote: »

Is everyone here happy to pay substantially more carbon tax in the next budget ? Or is there a better way than taxing ordinary people and making them pay ? Will the money actually go to saving the environment instead of political stunts and PR . . I doubt it.

Why do you have to pay more carbon tax?
Why not just change to more sustainable solutions like solar and wind. Get a cleaner car etc.
Tax can be used to encourage a change in behaviour. Getting rid of a gas guzzler car will probably save people money.

20Cent

gozunda wrote: »

And that's not the point made. However what I see is that no one can say anything "cos she's just a kid" & etc :rolleyes:

Btw the most important thing is a lot of what she is pushing is Not backed up by scientists ...

I already posted this but I'll post it again by way of example.

Ms Thunberg


This is what one of the scientists responsible for the IPCC report said.



And again an independent scientist

She's getting plenty of stick.

The rest is semantics. A point of no return, how many years away that is etc can be desputed of course. The main point is that we do need drastic change quickly or we are facing big trouble in the future. That's not really in dispute.

gozunda

20Cent wrote: »

She's getting plenty of stick.The rest is semantics. A point of no return, how many years away that is etc can be desputed of course. The main point is that we do need drastic change quickly or we are facing big trouble in the future. That's not really in dispute.

What the scientists have said there is not 'stick' - it's simply telling us how it is. As for semantics? Its direct quotes. I can't get any closer than that.

p1akuw47h5r3it

20Cent wrote: »

The old "cult of personality" theme, same was said about Obama. Used to imply that agreeing with her is irrational.
All the criticism of Greta Thunberg seems to be about her age, her parents etc. Not many challenging on the content of what she is saying which is backed up by science.

My criticism of her is not of her per se. It's of those who hold her up as a figure head. I'm sorry, but a vegan teenager from socialist Sweden is not going to change the minds of climate change deniers, the majority of whom are conservatives.

Regardless, climate change has been as issue for years, and has been in the news for as long as I've been alive on a relatively consistent basis. So it's not as if it's an issue that necessarily needs anymore highlighting in the first place. What we need is ideas and solutions as opposed to mere activism.

Also, yes, my jetsetting comment was incorrect.

20Cent

gozunda wrote: »

What the scientists have said there is not 'stick' - it's simply telling us how it is. As for semantics? Its direct quotes. I can't get any closer than that.

Regarding stick I meant in the media she's been criticised roundly by the right wing press.

Semantics as in how many years until the point of no return, that of course would be very hard to estimate and will always be debated. She is referring to the IPCC report.

As your quote says "As much as climate scientists see the necessity for broad and immediate action to address global warming, they do not agree on an imminent point of no return".

The larger message is clear.

20Cent

DanDan6592 wrote: »

My criticism of her is not of her per se. It's of those who hold her up as a figure head. I'm sorry, but a vegan teenager from socialist Sweden is not going to change the minds of climate change deniers, the majority of whom are conservatives.

Regardless, climate change has been as issue for years, and has been in the news for as long as I've been alive on a relatively consistent basis. So it's not as if it's an issue that necessarily needs anymore highlighting in the first place. What we need is ideas and solutions as opposed to mere activism.

Also, yes, my jetsetting comment was incorrect.

She has brought it to the attention of a lot of people and inspired a lot of young people in particular. Don't think anything will change the minds of climate skeptics at this stage they are the same are the flat earth society.

p1akuw47h5r3it

20Cent wrote: »

She has brought it to the attention of a lot of people and inspired a lot of young people in particular. Don't think anything will change the minds of climate skeptics at this stage they are the same are the flat earth society.

Do you really believe that people out there were not aware of climate change already? And inspired them to do what?

moonage

20Cent wrote: »

The main point is that we do need drastic change quickly or we are facing big trouble in the future. That's not really in dispute.

It is in dispute because lots of scientists do not believe that human activity is the main driver of global warming.

20Cent wrote: »

She has brought it to the attention of a lot of people and inspired a lot of young people in particular

She's just reinforcing their indoctrination.

Tell me how

DanDan6592 wrote: »

My criticism of her is not of her per se. It's of those who hold her up as a figure head. I'm sorry, but a vegan teenager from socialist Sweden is not going to change the minds of climate change deniers, the majority of whom are conservatives.

Regardless, climate change has been as issue for years, and has been in the news for as long as I've been alive on a relatively consistent basis. So it's not as if it's an issue that necessarily needs anymore highlighting in the first place. What we need is ideas and solutions as opposed to mere activism.

Also, yes, my jetsetting comment was incorrect.

Greta visited the UK Parliament two or three weeks ago and gave a widely covered speech. Theresa May declined (refused) to meet her.

Last week, it was announced that the UK Parliament has declared a Climate Emergency based on a motion tabled by Corbyn who met with Greta.

BBC News

Of course she is not going to change everything. She is not going to fix everything. But, she is doing more than many have done and it seems is forcing people to act based on the attention her actions have brought about.

20Cent

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Do you really believe that people out there were not aware of climate change already? And inspired them to do what?

When I was a kid everything was thrown in one bin, petrol had led in it, Dublin used to get terrible smog until smokey fuel was banned, smoking was commonplace everywhere, loads of other things have changed. They changed because they became an issue to enough people for something to be done about it. Same with this, big changes are possible.

Tell me how

moonage wrote: »

It is in dispute because lots of scientists do not believe that human activity is the main driver of global warming.

Can you link to evidence of this please?

gozunda

20Cent wrote: »

She has brought it to the attention of a lot of people and inspired a lot of young people in particular. Don't think anything will change the minds of climate skeptics at this stage they are the same are the flat earth society.

No as pointed out she is encouraging hysteria by using hyperbole / misinformation. And no I don't think that's a good thing. If anything she is causing harm to message that scientists are saying and derailing it. You may have your own opinion on that - I reckon we will just have to disagree.

20Cent

moonage wrote: »

It is in dispute because lots of scientists do not believe that human activity is the main driver of global warming.



She's just reinforcing their indoctrination.

I'll go with the IPCC rather than vague "lots of scientists".

20Cent

gozunda wrote: »

No as pointed out she is encouraging hysteria by using hyperbole / misinformation. And no I don't think that's a good thing. If anything she is causing harm to message that scientists are saying and derailing it. You may have your own opinion on that - I reckon we will just have to disagree.

What has she said that the IPCC haven't?
What "hysteria"?

gozunda

20Cent wrote: »

What has she said that the IPCC haven't?What "hysteria"?

This

Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it."

That has been strongly refuted by the scientists I quoted.

And btw that just an example but they type of hysterical thinking she's pushed. However if you obviously can't see the issue there well ...

20Cent wrote: »

I'll go with the IPCC rather than vague "lots of scientists".

And I'll go with the scientists as opposed to some kid from Sweden who has admitted she is obsessed with her own imaginings...

20Cent

gozunda wrote: »

This


That has been strongly refuted by the scientists I quoted.

And btw that just an example but they type of hysterical thinking she's pushed. However if you obviously can't see the issue there well ...

The IPCC say the same thing. Are they also causing "hysteria"?

gozunda

20Cent wrote: »

The IPCC say the same thing. Are they also causing "hysteria"?

Ok let's try this again- just in case you missed it the first time. This is the hysteria ...

Ms Thunberg

Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it."

And this is what one of the scientists responsible for theIPCC report said.

Please stop saying something globally bad is going to happen in 2030. Bad stuff is already happening and every half a degree of warming matters, but the IPCC does not draw a “planetary boundary” at 1.5°C beyond which lie climate dragons.

And again an independent scientist

As much as climate scientists see the necessity for broad and immediate action to address global warming, they do not agree on an imminent point of no return.The (IPCC) panel “did not say we have 12 years left to save the world.”...

If you dont see this - fine... :rolleyes: We will leave it there...

Fighting Tao

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Motor tax.

Whoosh.