Why the sudden hysteria over climate change?

blinding

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Some clown on here never saw grass frost in May until this year and he thought it was positive poof of climate change :rolleyes:

They really are innocents . Stuff that older people have seen happening many times in their lives and many many years ago .

They’d swallow any old guff .

blinding

20Cent wrote: »

He was clearly referring to a certain type of nationalist not anyone who "loves their country". It was spun that way of course. The EU doesn't have an open door policy why do you think all those people are drowning in the Mediterranean.

Farage er all want to privatise the NHS, remove workers rights, cut welfare and use the UK as a tax haven full of serfs for his billionaire backers. He's convinced a lot of working class people he gives a ****e about them. Patriotism the last refuge of scoundrels.

The Elite in the Eu gives two fooks about working class people . Pull the other one and what drugs are you taking .

The Eu cares about its own Elite and the Business's they are in the Pocket Of .

Jimmy Garlic

20Cent wrote: »

He was clearly referring to a certain type of nationalist not anyone who "loves their country". It was spun that way of course. The EU doesn't have an open door policy why do you think all those people are drowning in the Mediterranean.

Farage er all want to privatise the NHS, remove workers rights, cut welfare and use the UK as a tax haven full of serfs for his billionaire backers. He's convinced a lot of working class people he gives a ****e about them. Patriotism the last refuge of scoundrels.

The EUs position is most definitely an open door no questions asked approach. It was individual countries like Hungary, Greece and Italy etc that curtailed Juncker and his ilks ambition to swamp Europe with migrants at breakneck speed. He is referring to anyone who doesnt agree with that insane position. Anyone at all who questions it, not just Farage. A lot less people are drowning in the Mediterranean now that the the freeforall isn't in full swing.

batgoat

Impressive when even a thread on climate change manages to descend into racist conspiracy theories.

Seanachai

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

The EUs position is most definitely an open door no questions asked approach. It was individual countries like Hungary, Greece and Italy etc that curtailed Juncker and his ilks ambition to swamp Europe with migrants at breakneck speed. He is referring to anyone who doesnt agree with that insane position. Anyone at all who questions it, not just Farage. A lot less people are drowning in the Mediterranean now that the the freeforall isn't in full swing.

Juncker and his ilk view those refugees as cattle and nothing else, he wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if they were living in squalor in France or Italy in twenty years time. You're the worst in the world for saying this of course, an absolute monster, the people that are for open borders think they have the monopoly on compassion. Hungary's quick action saved their nation and Europe.

Jimmy Garlic

batgoat wrote: »

Impressive when even a thread on climate change manages to descend into racist conspiracy theories.

Juncker is quite open about the fact that he would like freeforall immigration into Europe. He in fact tied it to climate by using the term "climate refugees" not so long back, which is rubbish, they came because himself Merkel and and friends were singing from the rooftops that the gates were being thrown open.

SirGerryAdams

Germany needs to lose the guilt of WW2, that's why they're all for immigration trying to make up for things in the past.

20Cent

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Germany needs to lose the guilt of WW2, that's why they're all for immigration trying to make up for things in the past.

They have an ageing population and a growing economy.
When I visited Berlin I had to show my passport at the airport and there was immigration controls. Strange.

Ulysses Gaze

20Cent wrote: »

They have an ageing population and a growing economy.
When I visited Berlin I had to show my passport at the airport and there was immigration controls. Strange.

Facts, Schmacts 20Cent....

You have to look for the hidden hand and hidden agenda.

#bansoros #banopensociety #kalergiplan

Maxpfizer

Grayson wrote: »

98% of climate papers in the last 20 years agree with the three findings of the IPCC.
1) Climate change is real
2) it's getting worse
3) it is caused by humans.

That isn't propaganda, it's science. And letting young people know these facts isn't grooming, it's called education.

Is there anyone out there pushing the idea that one solution could be "less humans"?

20 years ago the worlds population was 6.1 billion.
Today it's 7.7 billion.

60 years ago it was approx 3 billion.

Surely the ever increasing number of young people is part of the problem?

Yet while we educate them on climate etc we still socially funnel them into a mindset that involves getting a good job, a car, a house and having a couple of kids themselves.

20 years ago the population of Ireland was 3.8 million.
Now it's 4.8 million.

So that's like 20% growth in two decades?
How long can that keep up?

20 years from now we may have decreased specific impacts on the environment by X but surely increasing the population by Y will have a limiting factor on any progress made?

At what point does Ireland simply have too many people?
At what point does the world have too many people?

It seems to me that the single biggest negative impact that any individual can have on the environment is to have a couple of kids?

blinding

Is Mass Immigration in any way Good for Climate Change ?

Thelonious Monk

blinding wrote: »

Is Mass Immigration in any way Good for Climate Change ?

Climate change is good for mass immigration, just you wait

blinding

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Climate change is good for mass immigration, just you wait

The Exploitation of Cheap Mass Immigration Labour will be Painted as Brilliant for Climate Change and the Green Agenda .

It will be done . Logic / Facts will not be allowed to get in the way !

Seanachai

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Is there anyone out there pushing the idea that one solution could be "less humans"?

20 years ago the worlds population was 6.1 billion.
Today it's 7.7 billion.

60 years ago it was approx 3 billion.

Surely the ever increasing number of young people is part of the problem?

Yet while we educate them on climate etc we still socially funnel them into a mindset that involves getting a good job, a car, a house and having a couple of kids themselves.

20 years ago the population of Ireland was 3.8 million.
Now it's 4.8 million.

So that's like 20% growth in two decades?
How long can that keep up?

20 years from now we may have decreased specific impacts on the environment by X but surely increasing the population by Y will have a limiting factor on any progress made?

At what point does Ireland simply have too many people?
At what point does the world have too many people?

It seems to me that the single biggest negative impact that any individual can have on the environment is to have a couple of kids?

The usual answer to that is a mathematical one, in that there is enough room in a technical sense to accommodate a lot more people. Quality of life, resources and just general privacy don't really come into it.

Dakota Dan

batgoat wrote: »

Impressive when even a thread on climate change manages to descend into racist conspiracy theories.

You mean like how the greens are doing so well in Ireland and Europe going by the news but in the real world they were bottom of the heap?

Dakota Dan

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Is there anyone out there pushing the idea that one solution could be "less humans"?

20 years ago the worlds population was 6.1 billion.
Today it's 7.7 billion.

60 years ago it was approx 3 billion.

Surely the ever increasing number of young people is part of the problem?

Yet while we educate them on climate etc we still socially funnel them into a mindset that involves getting a good job, a car, a house and having a couple of kids themselves.

20 years ago the population of Ireland was 3.8 million.
Now it's 4.8 million.

So that's like 20% growth in two decades?
How long can that keep up?

20 years from now we may have decreased specific impacts on the environment by X but surely increasing the population by Y will have a limiting factor on any progress made?

At what point does Ireland simply have too many people?
At what point does the world have too many people?

It seems to me that the single biggest negative impact that any individual can have on the environment is to have a couple of kids?

The population of Ireland didn’t increase through breeding it was fueled by immigrants, they would still be here whether they camevto Ireland or not.

blinding

Dakota Dan wrote: »

You mean like how the greens are doing so well in Ireland and Europe going by the news but in the real world they were bottom of the heap?

There is no doubt the Political and Media establishments have pushed the Green agenda . The best place for them for a protest / revolt vote to go .

Give it awhile and steal the Greens policies that happen to be Taxing Mug Punter .

Bend Over Folks , Ya might as well enjoy it .

friendlyfun

stefanovich wrote: »

It is totally relevant. The green party are far left and using the climate as a trojan horse.

This is bs

xckjoo

blinding wrote: »

There is no doubt the Political and Media establishments have pushed the Green agenda . The best place for them for a protest / revolt vote to go .

Give it awhile and steal the Greens policies that happen to be Taxing Mug Punter .

Bend Over Folks , Ya might as well enjoy it .

Are you honestly suggesting that the likes of FG, FF, etc have actively been pushing people towards the Green party? Even indirectly through pushing agendas that aren't a core part of their own party?

blinding

xckjoo wrote: »

Are you honestly suggesting that the likes of FG, FF, etc have actively been pushing people towards the Green party? Even indirectly through pushing agendas that aren't a core part of their own party?

Yes . They will build up the Greens , Give it awhile , Steal the Greens Tax Policies , Blame the Greens and back to normal .

The Greens are also a great safety valve for the Eu . Ditto as above .

People are being led by the nose to Tax themselves more . What Politician won’t get a warm feeling about that ?

xckjoo

blinding wrote: »

Yes . They will build up the Greens , Give it awhile , Steal the Greens Tax Policies , Blame the Greens and back to normal .

The Greens are also a great safety valve for the Eu . Ditto as above .

People are being led by the nose to Tax themselves more . What Politician won’t get a warm feeling about that ?

Have you had any involvement in politics over the years?

blinding

xckjoo wrote: »

Have you had any involvement in politics over the years?

Interested in Politics for nearly 45 years .

Its not even the first time I have seen the Green Push Done .

Nice little safety valve .

xckjoo

blinding wrote: »

Interested in Politics for nearly 45 years .

Its not even the first time I have seen the Green Push Done .

Nice little safety valve .

You're assuming a far higher level of competence in the parties than exists in reality. They're reactionary monoliths, not some collection of omniscient uber-beings

blinding

xckjoo wrote: »

You're assuming a far higher level of competence in the parties than exists in reality. They're reactionary monoliths, not some collection of omniscient uber-beings

Enjoy paying your higher taxes . The Greens getting the blame and when it suits some other Agenda becoming the Tour de Force of the Day .

donaghs

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Grayson wrote: »

98% of climate papers in the last 20 years agree with the three findings of the IPCC.
1) Climate change is real
2) it's getting worse
3) it is caused by humans.

That isn't propaganda, it's science. And letting young people know these facts isn't grooming, it's called education.

Is there anyone out there pushing the idea that one solution could be "less humans"?

20 years ago the worlds population was 6.1 billion.
Today it's 7.7 billion.

60 years ago it was approx 3 billion.

Surely the ever increasing number of young people is part of the problem?

Yet while we educate them on climate etc we still socially funnel them into a mindset that involves getting a good job, a car, a house and having a couple of kids themselves.

20 years ago the population of Ireland was 3.8 million.
Now it's 4.8 million.

So that's like 20% growth in two decades?
How long can that keep up?

20 years from now we may have decreased specific impacts on the environment by X but surely increasing the population by Y will have a limiting factor on any progress made?

At what point does Ireland simply have too many people?
At what point does the world have too many people?

It seems to me that the single biggest negative impact that any individual can have on the environment is to have a couple of kids?

All valid points except for the last bits. If everyone tried to have 2 kids only, the population would fall - not everyone can have kids, not all those kids will make it to adulthood, etc.
Excluding immigration, the populations of developed countries are basically stable or falling.
Look deeper, population growth is out of control in specific parts of the world.

The stats on world population are shocking. It took millennia to reach 3 billion, right now we are adding almost 1 billon every 10 years.

Roger_007

donaghs wrote: »

All valid points except for the last bits. If everyone tried to have 2 kids only, the population would fall - not everyone can have kids, not all those kids will make it to adulthood, etc.
Excluding immigration, the populations of developed countries are basically stable or falling.
Look deeper, population growth is out of control in specific parts of the world.

The stats on world population are shocking. It took millennia to reach 3 billion, right now we are adding almost 1 billon every 10 years.

I find it very strange that human population control or reduction never figure in whole debate on the environment and climate change.
I think that it is by far the most important factor. They very existence of each human generates a demand on the earths resources no matter how environmentally friendly we get.
If every human being on earth is to be properly fed and housed and clothed and provided with adequate water supplies etc., the earth does not have enough resources to provide these things in an 'environmentally friendly' way.
If we revert back to restoring the forests and stop using insecticides, herbicides and artificial fertilisers, we simply do not have enough land to grow enough food because of the dramatic fall in yields.
If we stop using fossil fuels to run farm machinery and revert to 'sustainable farming methods', the world would starve.

I have never heard any environment activists address these issues.

SirGerryAdams

Roger_007 wrote: »

I find it very strange that human population control or reduction never figure in whole debate on the environment and climate change.
I think that it is by far the most important factor. They very existence of each human generates a demand on the earths resources no matter how environmentally friendly we get.
If every human being on earth is to be properly fed and housed and clothed and provided with adequate water supplies etc., the earth does not have enough resources to provide these things in an 'environmentally friendly' way.
If we revert back to restoring the forests and stop using insecticides, herbicides and artificial fertilisers, we simply do not have enough land to grow enough food because of the dramatic fall in yields.
If we stop using fossil fuels to run farm machinery and revert to 'sustainable farming methods', the world would starve.

I have never heard any environment activists address these issues.

I'm amazed really.

I wonder if someone came out and said we should restrict immigration to combat climate change, how would that go down?

In 20 years they say population will grow by 1m. That means if the population increased by 1m tomorrow, we'd have to cut our emissions by nearly 20% just to stay at TODAYS LEVEL.

So it's a massive challenge just to do that.

But if you go around saying we should restrict immigration or restrict childbirths then people will go on about how we have enough resources to sustain more but that's useless today and implementing those changes will massively impact people already here.

Maybe we could add a child tax, pay 5 euro a week if you have a kid because of your impact on the climate.

blinding

Say restrict Immigration , and you are Immediately a racist even if you as a white person said restrict all immigration including white immigration .

Its just a tool to stop debate that the establishment Politicians don’t want to have .

Seanachai

Roger_007 wrote: »

I find it very strange that human population control or reduction never figure in whole debate on the environment and climate change.
I think that it is by far the most important factor. They very existence of each human generates a demand on the earths resources no matter how environmentally friendly we get.
If every human being on earth is to be properly fed and housed and clothed and provided with adequate water supplies etc., the earth does not have enough resources to provide these things in an 'environmentally friendly' way.
If we revert back to restoring the forests and stop using insecticides, herbicides and artificial fertilisers, we simply do not have enough land to grow enough food because of the dramatic fall in yields.
If we stop using fossil fuels to run farm machinery and revert to 'sustainable farming methods', the world would starve.

I have never heard any environment activists address these issues.

Unless there's a major breakthrough in hydroponic agriculture, we're going to struggle to get crops from failing soils for huge populations. The ruling\political classes love large populations because it means consumers and cheap labour.

Jimmy Garlic

Seanachai wrote: »

Unless there's a major breakthrough in hydroponic agriculture, we're going to struggle to get crops from failing soils for huge populations. The ruling\political classes love large populations because it means consumers and cheap labour.

They actually want a lot less people. They don't need as many peasants in an automated post industrial technocracy.