Why the sudden hysteria over climate change?

briany

gozunda wrote: »

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.

It seems as if the general public will only listen to those who are being visibly demonstrative on the issue. Scientists who deliver the information in a restrained, academic, dry way, just aren't going to hold the public attention. That's also a problem when a scientist takes that attitude into a public discussion where their researched points are too often shouted over by a climate change denier.

So it sees like we're left with the binary choice of those who are hysterical about it (well, to use the language of this thread), who the public will hear, or scientists who haven't got the personality to put their point across to the people.

markodaly

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 the planet!"

This 1000%

Its just a cheap shot really, its a way of morally absolving having to come up with solutions, when they spend so much time and energy poking holes at people who are trying to raise awareness of the issue.

I suppose its an easy thing to do, when your arse is on the couch, knock other peoples efforts while requiring yourself to do sweet **** all in return.

Pa ElGrande

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

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

Socialists are just one group out of several that I've mentioned that have attached themselves to the conspiracy theory that has a name "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming". As it happens the Green party are a socialist party that differ from others in that they use environmentalism to attack capitalism. Climate change is just another moral panic.

A moral panic is a widespread fear, most often an irrational one, that someone or something is a threat to the values, safety, and interests of a community or society at large. Typically, a moral panic is perpetuated by news media, fueled by politicians, and often results in the passage of new laws or policies that target the source of the panic. In this way, moral panic can foster increased social control.

source

And seeing as you like conspiracy facts take a look at principle 15 of Agenda 21

Principle 15

In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation

source

This allows governments including Irelands to act even if there is no evidence. Principle 15 means they don’t need evidence. If they decide it is a threat, then it is a threat. No wonder certain environmentalists are pushing for it since it allows them carte blanche to implement their beliefs without regard to the costs or consequences for the people they intend to dominate.

gozunda

briany wrote: »

It seems as if the general public will only listen to those who are being visibly demonstrative on the issue. Scientists who deliver the information in a restrained, academic, dry way, just aren't going to hold the public attention. That's also a problem when a scientist takes that attitude into a public discussion where their researched points are too often shouted over by a climate change denier.

So it sees like we're left with the binary choice of those who are hysterical about it (well, to use the language of this thread), who the public will hear, or scientists who haven't got the personality to put their point across to the people.

I'd agree tbh. The OP uses the word hysteria - however it's the the usual screamers imo who are holding to the whole bs 'if your not with us - your against us' type rubbish and claiming that those who point this out are rather hilariously 'not doing anything'(sic) etc etc. Pure mob tactics tbh. Valid criticisms gets generally steamrolled and thrown under the proverbial bus of innuendo and childish tantrum.

I'm unconvinced if all of those are really so blind that they cannot see this. What is especially concerning is the extinction rebellion groupies being directed by a guy in London who has declared he wants "to take out the system" and topple the UK system of goverment. The other individual involved has detailed how she developed her idea for the movenent after taking psychedelic drugs. This makes for a bit of sobering reading tbh.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/02/the-new-green-threat-extinction-rebellion/

Wanderer78

Pa ElGrande wrote:

Socialists are just one group out of several that I've mentioned that have attached themselves to the conspiracy theory that has a name "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming". As it happens the Green party are a socialist party that differ from others in that they use environmentalism to attack capitalism. Climate change is just another

Hahaha ffs, people are fcuking weird!

jochenstacker

markodaly wrote: »

This 1000%

Its just a cheap shot really, its a way of morally absolving having to come up with solutions, when they spend so much time and energy poking holes at people who are trying to raise awareness of the issue.

I suppose its an easy thing to do, when your arse is on the couch, knock other peoples efforts while requiring yourself to do sweet **** all in return.

Guttersnipes who have contributed exactly fcuk all to the subject in question and the only way for them to get even near greatness is to sling mud at people who have done something constructive and of worth.
To the poster on the first page, if you think PhD thesis aren't worth a *****te, well they are published and peer reviewed.
If you can find holes in a theory, you are welcome to debunk it with your clearly superior intellect.
As for myself, I don't even pretend to understand climate science (unlike the oh so smart sceptics), but if 97% of scientists agree and the future of the planet is at stake, I'll believe them until someone can disprove it with facts and rational arguments.
The hysteria is all on the side of the deniers.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

batgoat

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

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

Also Russia Today invariably have their own agenda with such videos...

moonage

markodaly wrote: »

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.

No, the topic is not that humans are harming the natural environment by various means, which few would disagree with.

The topic is specifically about catastrophic human-made global warming. Conflating the two just muddies the waters.

The global warming (which suddenly became climate change) agenda is political rather than scientific, where more centralised control is the real aim.

Thelonious Monk

Chopping down forests contributes to climate change. It's all linked.

Wanderer78

moonage wrote:

The global warming (which suddenly became climate change) agenda is political rather than scientific, where more centralised control is the real aim.

Control by who?

Pa ElGrande

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Control by who?

I for one welcome our new Vegan overlords.


Mary Robinson: People need to become 'aspiring vegetarians' to combat climate change

She said that she was doing her best to do the same, but admitted that she was very tempted by "lamb from the West of Ireland".

"I'm someone who talks all the time about climate justice, so I have to change my own behaviour.

"I'm very tempted by lamb from the West of Ireland, to be honest, that's the only red meat I'd consider.

"But I know that by taking actions myself and reminding myself how important it is, that this is for my children and grandchildren.

source

Humans will eat maggot sausages as a meat alternative: scientists


Would you eat insects to save the planet from global warming?

Reducing our meat intake is crucial to avoiding climate breakdown, since food production accounts for about a quarter of all human-related greenhouse gas emissions, and is predicted to rise. In western countries, this means eating 90% less beef and five times as many beans and pulses.

Edible insects have been hailed as a solution to both global food shortages and reducing emissions from animal agriculture, but despite the industry’s best efforts, our response when faced with a cockroach is disgust. Even in London edible insects are seen as nothing more than a gimmick, and there are only a handful of restaurants serving them up.

source

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6LsoiyVTII

markodaly

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

I for one welcome our new Vegan overlords.

So, again, who?

Anteayer

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

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

Hmm, yes, Russia would definitely not have any interest in selling oil and gas.

In all seriousness though, an RT report that opens up with a reference to the "main stream media". It might as well be a Tweet from Trump or the Daily Express.

ohnonotgmail

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Control by who?

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

I for one welcome our new Vegan overlords.


Mary Robinson: People need to become 'aspiring vegetarians' to combat climate change





Humans will eat maggot sausages as a meat alternative: scientists


Would you eat insects to save the planet from global warming?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6LsoiyVTII

Is George Soros a vegan? he seems to be a favourite with the conspiracy crowd.

Thelonious Monk

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Is George Soros a vegan? he seems to be a favourite with the conspiracy crowd.

So wait the vast vast majority of scientists are now the conspiracy crowd or am I reading you wrong?

ohnonotgmail

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

So wait the vast vast majority of scientists are now the conspiracy crowd or am I reading you wrong?

More than likely you are.

Say my name

markodaly wrote: »

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.

I think you'll find it's the non farming population who use words such as denial, dinosaur outlook and anti-intellectualism to describe farmers in this country that really gets farmers backs up.

As farmers in this country understand is that grassland and herbivores contribute hugely to carbon sequestration in soils.
If that land is ploughed up you can see how easy, friable, dark and loose that soil is compared to land continually tilled.
This is because of the animals grazing the grass which then triggers the grass plants to send out root exudates (sugars) to feed bacteria and fungi which in turn supply nutrients from the soil. The bacteria and fungi action causes some exudates to turn to humus and become a stable carbon and also it produces glamobin which keeps the soil free draining leading to less flooding and stay aerobic. The animals dung supplies much needed bacteria and carbon too and feeds all the various soil organisms from worms and nematodes to bacteria and fungi.

In the plants good - animals bad debate. This is all forgotten nor never even mentioned by the non farming elements.
The farming elements mightn't have all the words for it but they'll know what good healthy soil looks like and smells like.

markodaly

markodaly wrote: »

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:

Is that a true percentage of export ?

So does the 10% not exported cover all beef needs of the Irish consumer ?

If not then are Ireland importing a poor quality beef but exporting a better quality beef ?

You must be off with that 90% ?

No way Irish tax payers could be happy with that arrangement. Don’t they cover huge farming subsidies ?

Seems like the Irish tax payer is getting screwed twice if your figure is correct.

Deebles McBeebles

Deleted User wrote: »

Is that a true percentage of export ?

So does the 10% not exported cover all beef needs of the Irish consumer ?

If not then are Ireland importing a poor quality beef but exporting a better quality beef ?

You must be off with that 90% ?

No way Irish tax payers could be happy with that arrangement. Don’t they cover huge farming subsidies ?

Seems like the Irish tax payer is getting screwed twice if your figure is correct.

Ireland exports 90%
of the beef produced here.

https://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/.../Meat2025backgroundpaper.doc

And yes, we do subsidise farmers. All 140,000 of them, even the bigger farmers who don't need it.

Rvsmmnps

Remember that big volcano that went off in Iceland in 2010..it gave off the equivalent of 150 years worth of co2 emitted by mankind in 24hrs.

I recall an interview of a group of scientists in Antarctica all laughing at the idea of man's effect on the earth's climate.. Then you have scientists on various payrolls.. Staying on narrative.

Airlines boasting a 3percent increase in efficiency on that new a320neo but flight volumes are forever increasing.. The virtue stuff..

Why hasn't the sea risen? When do crops start failing? Wild fires apparently its been worse in the past...

I don't buy it.

I do belive in keeping our oceans clean.. Keep emmisions down.. Pick up trash,, and not purchasing too much plastic ****e.. All good practice.

You won't fix this with a tax,, and ignore China and India not really caring at all..

Deebles McBeebles

Rvsmmnps wrote: »

I recall an interview of a group of scientists in Antarctica all laughing at the idea of man's effect on the earth's climate..

Can you recall the link?

Baggly

Mod

Gozunda, name calling like that isn't on. Don't post in this thread again.

Baggly

markodaly wrote: »

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:

Mod

Mark, ill give you the same warning I gave Gozunda before today's thread ban. Cut out the personal attacks. Attack the post not the poster.

20Cent

Rvsmmnps wrote: »

Remember that big volcano that went off in Iceland in 2010..it gave off the equivalent of 150 years worth of co2 emitted by mankind in 24hrs.

I recall an interview of a group of scientists in Antarctica all laughing at the idea of man's effect on the earth's climate.. Then you have scientists on various payrolls.. Staying on narrative.

Airlines boasting a 3percent increase in efficiency on that new a320neo but flight volumes are forever increasing.. The virtue stuff..

Why hasn't the sea risen? When do crops start failing? Wild fires apparently its been worse in the past...

I don't buy it.

I do belive in keeping our oceans clean.. Keep emmisions down.. Pick up trash,, and not purchasing too much plastic ****e.. All good practice.

You won't fix this with a tax,, and ignore China and India not really caring at all..

The stuff about the volcano isn't true.
It was less than a third of one percent if global emissions.
Goes to show how much humans are doing though.

Rvsmmnps

20Cent wrote: »

The stuff about the volcano isn't true.
It was less than a third of one percent if global emissions.
Goes to show how much humans are doing though.

Can you confirm the co2 output from the erruption of Eyjafjallajokull in 2010.
From memory i recall the figure being at 150.000 to 200.000 tons per day.

Fighting Tao

Rvsmmnps wrote: »

Can you confirm the co2 output from the erruption of Eyjafjallajokull in 2010.
From memory i recall the figure being at 150.000 to 200.000 tons per day.

A quick google: “According to the SMMT New Car Report 2017, UK cars: Emitted 68.5 MtCO2e (Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent) during 2016 – that's the same amount. The average new car emits 120.1g/km of CO2”

So taking the average in 2016. You recall the eruption emoting the same amount of CO2 as 2190-2920 cars per year. So per day it would be the same amount as 799,350-1,065,800 cars worth per day.

You might need some time to mull over how tiny the co2 emissions from the eruption really were in comparison to all human activities.

ETA: another quick google specifies an estimated 150,000 tonnes per day. Therefore the equivalent of 799,350 cars per day. How many cars do you think there are in the world, yet alone all other human activity that emits CO2?

20Cent

Rvsmmnps wrote: »

Can you confirm the co2 output from the erruption of Eyjafjallajokull in 2010.
From memory i recall the figure being at 150.000 to 200.000 tons per day.

In 2010 human activity was responsible for 30.6 billion tons of c02. The volcano is estimated to have been 110 million..

Nobelium

Yes climate change and preserving the planet is a genuine issue, but far from everyone pushing it ( i.e. more carbon taxes for ordinary people but none for the wealthy) has a genuine motive or agenda.

Look at the shape of this thread. They have you exactly where they want you.

Divided and conquered as usual so they can do as they please and whatever they want to you.

Nobelium

Nobelium wrote: »

Yes climate change and preserving the planet is a genuine issue, but far from everyone pushing it ( i.e. more carbon taxes for ordinary people but none for the wealthy) has a genuine motive or agenda.

Look at the shape of this thread. They have you exactly where they want you.

Divided and conquered as usual so they can do as they please and whatever they want to you.

Well hopefully the thread will be less argumentative now and people can be more civil in their discussion.

bfa1509

Deleted User wrote: »

Well hopefully the thread will be less argumentative now and people can be more civil in their discussion.

I think the problem here is that everyone wants everyone else to pay.

I personally think most people are overreacting about climate change, as in, I think there is little we as humans can do about it. But there is nothing stopping those who think otherwise from donating a little more of their hard earned cash if they think the cause is worthy enough.