Why the sudden hysteria over climate change?

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

lol, he has sent me two, in one he inferred that I fancied him. Weirdo.

And you suggested in another thread which you also showed up in to make snide remarks - that I and another poster should get a room!

Seriously do you normally follow strangers around?. I suppose it's as good as an question as anything else ...

Thelonious Monk

gozunda wrote: »

Well you have been following all over boards tbh really since you got here tbh. it's as good as an question as anything else l suppose ...

Posting on the same threads doesn't mean I'm following you. Stop sending me PMs please.

Pa ElGrande

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Taxes are taxes and one of the few certainties in life. Governments collecting money is just them collecting money. They could have just increased income tax and they could have at the time. So using tax as an excuse is silly.

Death and taxation might well be the only certainties in this world. You live on an island that is cold and damp for much of the year so you need heat to stay alive, you need food and since you don't grow or hunt it you need a means to harvest it and transport it to you therefore carbon tax is a direct tax on your existence and to add insult to injury it's a tax on a tax because you have the carbon tax on the VAT as well and that's on top of carbon credits which get priced in to the end goods.

Like all taxes they start off small and then they grow over time until eventually there is a tax revolt or mass migration where people simply leave. It does not matter how much taxation governments pull in, modern welfare states never balance the books and continue to borrow money, therefore they are always looking for ways to expand the tax system. So tax is just tax until someone dons a yellow jacket or God forbid has to pay for water.

briany

What has science ever done for us?

TV off.

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Posting on the same threads doesn't mean I'm following you. Stop sending me PMs please.

Following posters from forum to forum and repeatedly asking the same stupid questions does. No worries though. Hopefully you've got the message. Though tbh I wouldn't take a bet on that

WinnyThePoo

gozunda wrote: »

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

I have

Alot of incoherent nonsense. Though so funny.

Absolutly you're a loss of incoherent nonsense for sure

You should stop messaging people. It doesn't do you any favors.

pjohnson

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

You should stop messaging people. It doesn't do you any favors.

Tbf it clarifies quite a lot about him.

Thelonious Monk

Every thread about meat, vegetarianism, or climate change, seems to turn into the Gozunda thread from what I can see on boards

gozunda

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

You should stop messaging people. It doesn't do you any favors.

You should stop bothering posters and actually start to engage in the discussion. It doesn't do you or anyone having to read that type of rubbish any favours. But hey there seems to be a bit of a theme there.

20Cent

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

It's a modern version of indulgences . The politicians create an atmosphere of fear, uncertainty and doubt and claim they can relieve your unease by taxation so that the climate remains static. And if the weather is too hot, too cold or too mild, well you didn't pay enough tax.

That's only part of the story, the Malthusians have attached themselves to the cause and claim the solution is eliminating the human population see birthstrike for details.

There are the NGOs, Socialists, Financiers and snake oil salesmen who use it as a vehicle for their own ends. No one really cares about the weather except for the fishermen, gardeners, farmers and airline pilots.

You reckon the IPCC findings are false then?
Massive conspiracy there.

WinnyThePoo

gozunda wrote: »

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

You should stop messaging people. It doesn't do you any favors.

You should stop bothering posters and actually start engage in the discussion. It doesn't do you or anyone having to read that type of rubbish any favours But hey there seems to be a bit of a theme there. :pac:

What discussion? ...any one who asks you a question gets accused of stalking you.

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Every thread about meat, vegetarianism, or climate change, seems to turn into the Gozunda thread from what I can see on boards

There goes my very own personal follower again :rolleyes: You just don't get it do you? Jeez you're Lol.

Telling posters to get a room together- even where only one poster was posting

And what were you doing in all those threads telling posters what they can or cant post??

gozunda

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

What discussion? ...any one who asks you a question gets accused of stalking you.

Well you are certainly following thats without doubt. Great to have a fan club. Great but slightly creepy at the same time lol. :pac:
Are you sure you pair are not twins? Hmmm. You're a great double act!

Lads it's been a hoot but you derailed the thread and many others enough for the present. You're on yer own - together

briany

The topic of climate change is one of such huge potential consequences that some people don't even want to countenance the idea that it could be real. The result is that it's met by a lot of sarcasm and derision, and nay-saying.

This is human nature. We take it for granted, now, that smoking cigarettes is injurious to one's health, but this was also disputed at one time. If you'd had Boards in the 60s, you'd have had the same type of discussion, i.e. "Latest scientific journals links smoking and lung cancer", first reply - "Well, I've been smoking 40 years and have a clean bill of health!" (40 thanks). It's a fatal flaw with people, we evolved to prioritise the short term, which worked well enough when we were hunter gatherers, but as we live longer and our actions have more effects, it can work against us. It seems to be very often that with people, there's not a problem until there really is a problem.

Beyond that, I don't really get the confidence of some people to dismiss peer-reviewed material out of hand. Fair enough, to cite other studies of an opposing view - y'know actual evidence - but to say all PHDs are a pack of eejits or whatever, is that a valid way of criticising their research?

gozunda

briany wrote: »

The topic of climate change is one of such huge potential consequences that some people don't even want to countenance the idea that it could be real. The result is that it's met by a lot of sarcasm and derision, and nay-saying.

This is human nature. We take it for granted, now, that smoking cigarettes is injurious to one's health, but this was also disputed at one time. If you'd had Boards in the 60s, you'd have had the same type of discussion, i.e. "Latest scientific journals links smoking and lung cancer", first reply - "Well, I've been smoking 40 years and have a clean bill of health!" (40 thanks). It's a fatal flaw with people, we evolved to prioritise the short term, which worked well enough when we were hunter gatherers, but as we live longer and our actions have more effects, it can work against us. It seems to be very often that with people, there's not a problem until there really is a problem.

Beyond that, I don't really get the confidence of some people to dismiss peer-reviewed material out of hand. Fair enough, to cite other studies of an opposing view - y'know actual evidence - but to say all PHDs are a pack of eejits or whatever, is that a valid way of criticising their research?

To be fair a lot of what has been discussed is not about the scientists from the IPCC or elsewhere. It's the idiots who have taken up some deranged version of it eitherway and are running around like headless chickens. Hence the thread title.

WinnyThePoo

gozunda wrote: »

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

What discussion? ...any one who asks you a question gets accused of stalking you.

Well you are certainly following thats without doubt. Great to have a fan club. Great but slightly creepy at the same time lol. :pac:
Are you sure you pair are not twins? Hmmm. You're a great double act!

Lads it's been a hoot but you derailed the thread and many others enough for the present. You're on yer own - together

You must be the most paranoid poster on boards. You have no fan club and no stalkers.

briany

gozunda wrote: »

To be fair a lot of what has been discussed is not about the scientists from the IPCC or elsewhere. It's the idiots who have taken up some deranged version of it eitherway and are running around like headless chickens. Hence the thread title.

The problem is that too many people are using the behaviour of certain individuals to justify a scepticism about climate change or inaction on their own part, e.g. "This lad's out here giving lectures on the polar icecaps, but he's drinking coffee out of a non-biodegradable cup. Well, so much for saving the planet!"

Baggly

gozunda wrote: »

Well you are certainly following thats without doubt. Great to have a fan club. Great but slightly creepy at the same time lol. :pac:
Are you sure you pair are not twins? Hmmm. You're a great double act!

Lads it's been a hoot but you derailed the thread and many others enough for the present. You're on yer own - together

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

You must be the most paranoid poster on boards. You have no fan club and no stalkers.

Mod

Both of ye cut this out. Play the post, not the poster. If you can't stick to the topic at hand without commenting on who you are talking to, then don't post. Issues with another poster? Leave them out of the thread and use the report button.

Pa ElGrande

20Cent wrote: »

You reckon the IPCC findings are false then?
Massive conspiracy there.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change makes many projections. How these stack up against reality is the question you should be asking . . .


As you can see from the structure there are several working groups, they don't just cover reporting on climate science, if you go digging you will find that the apocalyptic hype in the media does not match what they say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8lCWDeoWzo

Why he resigned in his own words.

As a Convening Lead Author of one of the chapters, I was automatically on the team to draft the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). AR5 is a literature review of 2,600 pages long. It assesses a large body of scholarly publication. In some places, the chapters are so condensed that there are a few words per article in the learned literature. The SPM then distills the key messages into 44 pages – but everyone knows that policy and media will only pick up a few sentences. This leads to a contest between chapters – my impact is worst, so I will get the headlines.

In the earlier drafts of the SPM, there was a key message that was new, snappy and relevant: Many of the more worrying impacts of climate change really are symptoms of mismanagement and underdevelopment.
<snip>
Other delegations have a political agenda too. The international climate negotiations of 2013 in Warsaw concluded that poor countries might be entitled to compensation for the impacts of climate change. It stands to reason that the IPCC would be asked to assess the size of those impacts and hence the compensation package. This led to an undignified bidding war among delegations – my country is more vulnerable than yours – that descended into farce when landlocked countries vigorously protested that they too would suffer from sea level rise.

Many countries send a single person delegation. Some countries can afford to send many delegates. They work in shifts, exhausting the other delegations with endless discussions about trivia, so that all important decisions are made in the final night with only a few delegations left standing. The IPCC authors, who technically have the right to veto text that contradicts their chapter, suffer from tiredness too.

source

It is important to note the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are not experts on climate. The IPCC was formed in the late '80s, NOT to test the assumption that carbon emissions were driving heat and heat was driving dangerous "climate change" or catastrophic anthropogenic "global warming" as they branded it back then, BUT to broadcast it. It is a politicised forum, pushing out people who are frustrated by the way discussions of findings and theories in its working papers are distilled into political alarms in the summary materials used by politicians and the press. The IPCCs terms of reference are only to report on climate change caused by human activity, other factors that affect climate are excluded.


The scheme works as follows: Working group 1 is told to provide the scientific basis for human caused global warming, the other two groups have to accept the findings of working group 1 and it’s from these other groups that the “we’re all gonna’ drown”, “go extinct due to roasting to death” unless we pay money to these special interest groups. There is an additional twist the IPCC committee releases a policy document for government first before the findings of working group 1 are released which must then be changed so there is no contradiction with the policy group.



FYI. You can register to be a reviewer for IPCC Sixth Assessment climate report – AR6, you have until June 15th

https://apps.ipcc.ch/comments/ar6wg1/fod/register.php

MrMusician18

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Anyone who isn't stupid knows it's down to overconsumption.

And/or Overpopulation.

We are way beyond the Earth's carrying capacity. We can look to the past to see what happens when am issue like this is ignored: the population will eventually collapse.

Essentially if we do not confront this as humans we will have a huge resource war with the outcome being massive famine and a hugely reduced human population

gozunda

briany wrote: »

The problem is that too many people are using the behaviour of certain individuals to justify a scepticism about climate change or inaction on their own part, e.g. "This lad's out here giving lectures on the polar icecaps, but he's drinking coffee out of a non-biodegradable cup. Well, so much for saving
Planet !"

And tbh thats fairly close to one of the points I made earlier. The IPCC scientist I quoted stated that this was one of the main dangers of using exaggerated Rhetoric such as "12 years to save earth" (and thats just one example btw).

The problem lies in the fact that such hysterics do not match with what the IPCC is saying and some others can see this for what it is - completely inaccurate misinformation.

Unfortunately it allows for the whole message to then be questioned because we have one side screaming that these type of headline banners are true and another side pointing out they're bulk****e. And then theres lots of people who don't know who to believe. Yeah I know we should say believe the scientists however the ones screaming the loudest here are not scientists tbh and they are getting all the media attention unfortunately.

feargale

Charles Ingles wrote: »

I've watched 40 years of this climate change nonsense.
Academics justifying their existence end governments using it as a way to introduce new taxes.
Carbon taxes will fix the world,, ye right
Man hasn't been around long enough and records don't go back far enough, who cause the last ice age??
Nobody, the earth will regulate itself with the helping hand ofGod

It's reassuring that God has had a chat with you and put your mind at ease.
Did he say anything to you about Philip Morris and that and kindred organisations' somewhat successful attempts to silence the scare about the cancer-tobacco link? Do you seriously think oil companies etc wouldn't pull a similar stunt today re climate change? You prefer to believe that a tiny number of academics are dissenting for pure motives, that they're not in the pockets of the profiteers, than to credit the vast majority of scientists with a modicum of integrity? Too many people are in denial and don't deserve the survival of this planet. Unfortunately they will drag those who care down with them.

20Cent

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change makes many projections. How these stack up against reality is the question you should be asking . . .


As you can see from the structure there are several working groups, they don't just cover reporting on climate science, if you go digging you will find that the apocalyptic hype in the media does not match what they say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8lCWDeoWzo

Why he resigned in his own words.





It is important to note the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are not experts on climate. The IPCC was formed in the late '80s, NOT to test the assumption that carbon emissions were driving heat and heat was driving dangerous "climate change" or catastrophic anthropogenic "global warming" as they branded it back then, BUT to broadcast it. It is a politicised forum, pushing out people who are frustrated by the way discussions of findings and theories in its working papers are distilled into political alarms in the summary materials used by politicians and the press. The IPCCs terms of reference are only to report on climate change caused by human activity, other factors that affect climate are excluded.


The scheme works as follows: Working group 1 is told to provide the scientific basis for human caused global warming, the other two groups have to accept the findings of working group 1 and it’s from these other groups that the “we’re all gonna’ drown”, “go extinct due to roasting to death” unless we pay money to these special interest groups. There is an additional twist the IPCC committee releases a policy document for government first before the findings of working group 1 are released which must then be changed so there is no contradiction with the policy group.



FYI. You can register to be a reviewer for IPCC Sixth Assessment climate report – AR6, you have until June 15th

https://apps.ipcc.ch/comments/ar6wg1/fod/register.php

There is a conspiracy forum somewhere else on this website.
Yer man in the video is an economist.

gozunda

20Cent wrote: »

There is a conspiracy forum somewhere else on this website.Yer man in the video is an economist.

And there is also a creative writing forum on this website.

At least we should try to stick to the facts that are known: I'll just leave this here.

Richard S. J. Tolis a professor of economics at the University of Sussex. He is also professor of the economics of climate change at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. He is a member of the Academia Europaea...His field of study is in Environmental economics.

20Cent

gozunda wrote: »

And there is also a creative writing forum on this website.

At least we should try to stick to the facts that are known: I'll just leave this here.

Like I said an economist.

How come you believe some scientists but not the majority?

WinnyThePoo

20Cent wrote: »

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change makes many projections. How these stack up against reality is the question you should be asking . . .


As you can see from the structure there are several working groups, they don't just cover reporting on climate science, if you go digging you will find that the apocalyptic hype in the media does not match what they say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8lCWDeoWzo

Why he resigned in his own words.





It is important to note the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are not experts on climate. The IPCC was formed in the late '80s, NOT to test the assumption that carbon emissions were driving heat and heat was driving dangerous "climate change" or catastrophic anthropogenic "global warming" as they branded it back then, BUT to broadcast it. It is a politicised forum, pushing out people who are frustrated by the way discussions of findings and theories in its working papers are distilled into political alarms in the summary materials used by politicians and the press. The IPCCs terms of reference are only to report on climate change caused by human activity, other factors that affect climate are excluded.


The scheme works as follows: Working group 1 is told to provide the scientific basis for human caused global warming, the other two groups have to accept the findings of working group 1 and it’s from these other groups that the “we’re all gonna’ drown”, “go extinct due to roasting to death” unless we pay money to these special interest groups. There is an additional twist the IPCC committee releases a policy document for government first before the findings of working group 1 are released which must then be changed so there is no contradiction with the policy group.



FYI. You can register to be a reviewer for IPCC Sixth Assessment climate report – AR6, you have until June 15th

https://apps.ipcc.ch/comments/ar6wg1/fod/register.php

There is a conspiracy forum somewhere else on this website.
Yer man in the video is an economist.

There's a actually a 'climate change is a conspiracy by the new socialist nwo' thread in the conspiracy forum .

gozunda

20Cent wrote: »

Like I said an economist.How come you believe some scientists but not the majority?

Assume much?

I believe in a fair and transparent review of the facts. Such as the details of Professor R. Tol's. academic qualifications.

Claiming he is an 'economist' when the fact is that his field of study is in Environmental economics - is similar to saying that the Stephen Hawking was a 'Relativitist'.

It is also possibly relevant to this discussion that he worked for the IPCC where he was a coordinating lead author for the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Working Group II.

Tbh it's that type of inaccurate information that discredited much of what you are saying tbh.

markodaly

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

lol, he has sent me two, in one he inferred that I fancied him. Weirdo.

WTF? Why would someone send you random PM's?
It's a bit creepy tbh.

markodaly

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Every thread about meat, vegetarianism, or climate change, seems to turn into the Gozunda thread from what I can see on boards

He/She is smart enough not be a climate change denier, but instead they are just the ultimate climate change contrarian. Like a fly to a pile of $hit, if any thread or topic on the above is mentioned.

Apparently, the fact that Irish farmers export 90% of their beef is good for the environment. :pac:

markodaly

As to the topic itself, well it is beyond dispute that humans are slowly but surely destroying the natural environment and along with it, its animal and plant species that we depend on.

It's not hysteria, it's just a recognition that in order to save the natural environment we will have to take some action and sooner rather than later.
Simple things like banning single-use plastics is one thing that can be done. Carbon taxes would be another. Taxing carbon intensive foods, like Brazilian Beef would be another.

It is also no harm for people to examine their own lifestyle and personal contribution to the problem, as it will take collective action to change. That would mean eating less imported meat as one example and sourcing more local foods.

Farmers are denial mode though. A bunch of them called Leo Varadkar a Vegan in Cork the other day, even though he eats meat on a regular basis, but had the audacity to state that he personally would be eating less red meat... oh the horror!
They would need to cop on and not look like the DUP in their dinosaur outlook at life and anti-intellectualism.

This is why we have arch contrarians posting here, because they feel threatened.