Why the sudden hysteria over climate change?

gozunda

NewClareman wrote: »

I hope that the topography and soil condition hasn’t changed to the extent that we can’t grow spuds, cabbage, turnips, sprouts, onions, beetroot, and all the other crops we grew on a farm when I was growing up. No need whatsoever to import trendy whatever’s.

Most small scale production is fine. Btw thats what's know as POC gardening - Potato - Onion - Cabbage. Commercial production on many soils / topography is extremly limited. A big problem atm is all the imported foods especially the highly processed industrial stuff that makes up large percentage of our food imports

NewClareman wrote: »

Theres is more and more evidence that not only is meat production becoming bad from an environmental perspective, it is also bad for our health. The issue is not whether farming is going to change, because massive change is unavoidable. The only issue is whether farmers will lead from the front or be forced to change when even further damage is done to the environment.

Only posted about this the other day. If you read on this issue - you'll quickly come to the realisation that much of the emissions , water / land / health stuff has been fueled by massive amounts of misinformation.

Globally fossil fuel use and transport are the two single biggest contributors to emissions on the planet, and only then agriculture which actually feeds people . Other misinformation we are being fed includes the rubbish statistic that agriculture was supposedly responsible for 51% of all ghg emissions worldwide. Not only has that figure been shown to have been pure codswallop by scientists and others - it has not stopped that tagline being used again and agai. As part of a balanced wholefood diet - meat and dairy are healthy foodstuffs. Figures regarding water and land are also largely based on the US feed lot system and bear little if any resemblence to reality.

NewClareman wrote: »

I agree about importing food over longer distances, and the excessive use of cars. We spend a lot of time in a Kerry and buy fresh produce directly from farms, the difference in quality from supermarket food is astounding. Car use is a different issue. The problem here is all the one off housing in the countryside, rather than people living in large villages and towns, allowing cheaper transport and living options.

Fair enough on that.. There's much that doesn't make sense with our cities and towns. The trouble with towns is that many of them dont have proper provision for sewage, water provision or even decent broadband. It also means people are limited to what they can grow or produce themselves. There more cars on the city per head of population afaik than other areas. I'll see if I can find the bit I was reading about that

Atlantic Dawn

NIMAN wrote: »

The greens in Ireland got everyone to buy diesel cars.

In fairness the amount of people they kill each year from emissions both young and old does have benefits for the planet.

Ubbquittious

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Why isn't it mandatory to install solar panels on every new house to reduce the amount the esb have to generate

Or every new house must install rainwater harvesting tanks to use for watering, washing car, washing machine etc

Waste of time making it more expensive to build new houses again. It will take 100s of years before every house has solar panels by then. If they want to do it they'll have to offer a good grant for every existing house to get them

SEPT 23 1989

mgn wrote: »

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6993173/Actress-Emma-Thompson-spotted-carbon-spewing-BA-plane-jetting-New-York.html

People like this makes me sick.

So the plebs have to change their lifestyles and get roasted with taxes so these people can preserve their little pieces of paradise

Fcuk them

gozunda

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

So the plebs have to change their lifestyles and get roasted with taxes so these people can preserve their little pieces of paradise

Fcuk them

Yer one was all over the extiction rebellion like a rash - would want to make you puke tbh. Look up the founder Hallam. He's an anarchist and apparent professional protestor wherever he can stir ****e ...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/02/the-new-green-threat-extinction-rebellion/

Harry Palmr

NIMAN wrote: »

And surely all new houses should have no chimneys? There is no future in burning turf, coal etc in homes surely.

I dunno if you've noticed but there are estates being built with not a single chimney to be seen. They all use heat pumps. Condenser gas boilers are now old tech.

bfa1509

The amount of alarmism here is a joke. As usual, the loudest and most vocal are always the most ill-informed "We need to stop burning fossil fuels", "humans are destroying the planet", "We need to do something now before it's too late" - It's all just emotive, baseless bullsh1t, with zero solid evidence to back it up.

The temperatures and carbon levels have been fluctuating up and down for millions of years. In fact, some of the larger studies are looking into the impact of forest fires (which have been happening naturally since plants existed) increasing dissolved black carbon deposits leeching into arctic rivers causing soot deposits in the arctic. The significance of this being that the arctic ice can be darker than usual, therefore absorbing more sunlight, melting sooner and increasing sea temperatures

Other studies showed methods of using soot deposits found in ice as a measure of the amount of carbon emitted during that period, and no they did not find the largest deposits from the industrial revolution onwards, they found the largest deposits occured in the middle ages and they theorised that it was caused by volcanoes, which not only emit carbon, but also aerosols and other nasty greenhouse gases.

In the 1980s a team of american researchers found massive oil, coal and gas deposits in the antarctic suggesting that the region once had a tropical climate, likely around 55 million years ago according to carbon dated samples taken 1km below the ice sheets. The research also suggested that the carbon levels on earth at the time were likey around 1000 ppm (as opposed to around 300-400ppm today), caused by plumes of carbon dioxide flowing into the seas from underwater cracks in the the continental plate boundaries. But the plant life thrived off it and reduced the levels to what they are today. (plants need carbon dioxide to live remember)

While I'm not saying we don't have a problem here, I am saying the current hysteria is pointless. We have zero unbiased proof that humans are the sole cause of the climate change. We have no proof that cutting down on fossil fuel burning or agriculture slows down the increase in temperatures. It's like in those old cartoons where they would hold up a tiny umbrella to stop an anvil falling on their head. Installing solar panels, driving electric cars, not eating meat etc. while it may be saving you money, do you really believe it makes the blindest bit of difference to the earth's climate?

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2015.00063/full
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/23/the-medieval-warm-period-in-the-arctic/
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V1/N4/C1.php
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/17/antarctica-tropical-climate-co2-research

SEPT 23 1989

bfa1509 wrote: »

The amount of alarmism here is a joke. As usual, the loudest and most vocal are always the most ill-informed "We need to stop burning fossil fuels", "humans are destroying the planet", "We need to do something now before it's too late" - It's all just emotive, baseless bullsh1t, with zero solid evidence to back it up.

The temperatures and carbon levels have been fluctuating up and down for millions of years. In fact, some of the larger studies are looking into the impact of forest fires (which have been happening naturally since plants existed) increasing dissolved black carbon deposits leeching into arctic rivers causing soot deposits in the arctic. The significance of this being that the arctic ice can be darker than usual, therefore absorbing more sunlight, melting sooner and increasing sea temperatures

Other studies showed methods of using soot deposits found in ice as a measure of the amount of carbon emitted during that period, and no they did not find the largest deposits from the industrial revolution onwards, they found the largest deposits occured in the middle ages and they theorised that it was caused by volcanoes, which not only emit carbon, but also aerosols and other nasty greenhouse gases.

In the 1980s a team of american researchers found massive oil, coal and gas deposits in the antarctic suggesting that the region once had a tropical climate, likely around 55 million years ago according to carbon dated samples taken 1km below the ice sheets. The research also suggested that the carbon levels on earth at the time were likey around 1000 ppm (as opposed to around 300-400ppm today), caused by plumes of carbon dioxide flowing into the seas from underwater cracks in the the continental plate boundaries. But the plant life thrived off it and reduced the levels to what they are today. (plants need carbon dioxide to live remember)

While I'm not saying we don't have a problem here, I am saying the current hysteria is pointless. We have zero unbiased proof that humans are the sole cause of the climate change. We have no proof that cutting down on fossil fuel burning or agriculture slows down the increase in temperatures. It's like in those old cartoons where they would hold up a tiny umbrella to stop an anvil falling on their head. Installing solar panels, driving electric cars, not eating meat etc. while it may be saving you money, do you really believe it makes the blindest bit of difference to the earth's climate?

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2015.00063/full
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/23/the-medieval-warm-period-in-the-arctic/
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V1/N4/C1.php
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/17/antarctica-tropical-climate-co2-research

I don't think people have a concept of time

Some on this thread can't see it

Maybe the rest of us are cursed to see the long game

Xodar

bfa1509 wrote: »

The amount of alarmism here is a joke. As usual, the loudest and most vocal are always the most ill-informed "We need to stop burning fossil fuels", "humans are destroying the planet", "We need to do something now before it's too late" - It's all just emotive, baseless bullsh1t, with zero solid evidence to back it up.

The temperatures and carbon levels have been fluctuating up and down for millions of years. In fact, some of the larger studies are looking into the impact of forest fires (which have been happening naturally since plants existed) increasing dissolved black carbon deposits leeching into arctic rivers causing soot deposits in the arctic. The significance of this being that the arctic ice can be darker than usual, therefore absorbing more sunlight, melting sooner and increasing sea temperatures

Other studies showed methods of using soot deposits found in ice as a measure of the amount of carbon emitted during that period, and no they did not find the largest deposits from the industrial revolution onwards, they found the largest deposits occured in the middle ages and they theorised that it was caused by volcanoes, which not only emit carbon, but also aerosols and other nasty greenhouse gases.

In the 1980s a team of american researchers found massive oil, coal and gas deposits in the antarctic suggesting that the region once had a tropical climate, likely around 55 million years ago according to carbon dated samples taken 1km below the ice sheets. The research also suggested that the carbon levels on earth at the time were likey around 1000 ppm (as opposed to around 300-400ppm today), caused by plumes of carbon dioxide flowing into the seas from underwater cracks in the the continental plate boundaries. But the plant life thrived off it and reduced the levels to what they are today. (plants need carbon dioxide to live remember)

While I'm not saying we don't have a problem here, I am saying the current hysteria is pointless. We have zero unbiased proof that humans are the sole cause of the climate change. We have no proof that cutting down on fossil fuel burning or agriculture slows down the increase in temperatures. It's like in those old cartoons where they would hold up a tiny umbrella to stop an anvil falling on their head. Installing solar panels, driving electric cars, not eating meat etc. while it may be saving you money, do you really believe it makes the blindest bit of difference to the earth's climate?

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2015.00063/full
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/23/the-medieval-warm-period-in-the-arctic/
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V1/N4/C1.php
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/17/antarctica-tropical-climate-co2-research

Recently, on a very prominent forum I asked:

"This is quite interesting! Genuine curiosity drives me to ask:
Our ancestors were on earth about 6 million years ago, modern man has been around for 200,000 years and civilization around 6000 years, this data is for a period of 168 years (about 2.6% of the time civilization has been around).

What do we know about the fluctuations in temperatures in any 168 year period in the 200,000 years prior to 1850? And how do we know that the temperature fluctuations are extraordinary relative to a randomly selected 168 year period 125,000 years ago (or even 1 billion years ago)?

This subject really is fascinating."


The response received was:
"Core samples I believe"

Now, I'm not a scientist or very intelligent and do not pretend to understand everything - how can we trust that this is unnatural ?

From my tiny little brain it seems like the fluctuations in temps over a time period that most cannot comprehend really cannot be determinate of weather what we are experiencing now is out of the ordinary for the time range that the earth has been inhabited.

That being said, I'm sure there will be many more people on this thread that will prove me very, very wrong (with core samples)

Canis Lupus

Xodar wrote: »

Now, I'm not a scientist or very intelligent

I guess this is the 'core' issue.

stefanovich

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Yes and that's what's wrong with politics. On a positive note, the Greens did really well in the elections in the UK yesterday. So maybe people's priorities are changing.

The greens here are less about environment and more about progressive politics.

Atoms for Peace

NIMAN wrote: »

The greens in Ireland got everyone to buy diesel cars.

And crucified those who just wanted to keep their current car on the road, through higher taxes and insurance.

Wanderer78

Atoms for Peace wrote:

And crucified those who just wanted to keep their current car on the road, through higher taxes and insurance.

Politics has fallen into the trap of, let's tax everything to solve our problems, this won't work on its own, there's a strong backlash with this approach, and understandably so

M.T. Cranium

Over long periods of time, climate shifts can be related to changes in latitude, as continents drift around on the planet.

Glaciation of polar regions can vary for a number of reasons including those identified by Milankovitch, orbital variables of the earth, but also the distribution of land and sea in high latitudes can play a role.

As to the original theme of this thread, I think the situation is partly political and partly scientific, with one concern driving the other, and that the political process will sort out the relative priorities, with each voter having the responsibility to balance the economic and scientific claims and concerns. It won't be an easy process but by the time it is sorted out there may also be new technology that makes the debate somewhat irrelevant. My own opinion is that the "hysteria" as it is called is somewhat alarmist and that the reality is perhaps more subdued than the worst case scenarios. We are already three or four decades into this period of "catastrophic climate change" and we are seeing only subtle changes. But there's no guarantee that will continue to be the case.

Shefwedfan

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

And crucified those who just wanted to keep their current car on the road, through higher taxes and insurance.

Not really

The tax didn’t increase on older cars. The issue was a 2 let diesel was 600-700 in tax in 2007 and suddenly was 300 in 2008. The 2007 car was still the same price as before

Irish people decided they didn’t care what they bought as long as they got cheap tax so the ass fell out of the second user market for cars older than 2008

Insurance didn’t increase either, that’s only a recent thing brought in my insurance companies

listermint

The common factor with threads like this is science, well researched research's. Years and decades worth of data all goes out the window.

Because someone had their own opinion backed up by nothing.


Everyone knows that in today's internet world where you can literally find all the research in the world and drill down into studies yourself , opinion > facts.



Sure the absolute decimation of fish and wildlife doesnt factor in opinion world

pjohnson

Theres an extremely amusing overlap of people who dont believe in climate change and people who are anti-vax.

Education is bad.

nice_guy80

Ubbquittious wrote: »

Waste of time making it more expensive to build new houses again. It will take 100s of years before every house has solar panels by then. If they want to do it they'll have to offer a good grant for every existing house to get them

Not for private houses though.
That's why I was in favour of water charges after a certain level.
It would force people to use the rainwater and conserve water.

By installing solar panels and rainwater harvesting you should be able to claim the cost off the VAT of building a private house

Xodar

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I guess this is the 'core' issue.

jackboy

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Not for private houses though.
That's why I was in favour of water charges after a certain level.
It would force people to use the rainwater and conserve water.

By installing solar panels and rainwater harvesting you should be able to claim the cost off the VAT of building a private house

Rainwater harvesting is cheap and simple technology. It should be compulsory for all new builds.

Charles Ingles

pjohnson wrote: »

Theres an extremely amusing overlap of people who dont believe in climate change and people who are anti-vax.

Education is bad.

There is also a large population who act like sheep and swallow project fear

Dakota Dan

rossie1977 wrote: »

How can anyone who lives on this island deny it when we were hit with eastern most Atlantic hurricane

That is most certainly not normal

A hurricane? We’re doomed. Even professor John Sweeney in Maynooth had to admit climate change didn’t cause the hurricane but it contributed to it, which is a bit like saying a chip pan caused a house fire and the box of matched in the house contributed to it

Tell me how

Charles Ingles wrote: »

There is also a large population who act like sheep and swallow project fear

So, who do you listen to in order to understand what is going on?

What paper do you read? What news site do you visit? What news or current affairs tv show do you watch? What current affairs show do you listen to on the radio?

Dakota Dan

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Pity people still refer to it as road tax then even though road tax hasn’t been in existence for decades upon decades.

Motor tax.

Dakota Dan

rossie1977 wrote: »

Eventually maybe but many of the major cities on Earth would be devastated if the ice caps melted. Gone would be NYC, Los Angeles, London, DC, Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, whole of Florida, Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium.

Ireland itself would be a vastly different country as most of the urban areas like Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Belfast, Derry, Galway cities would be completely uninhabitable



And nobody can predict what would happen the climate if that much cold fresh water is dumped into the salt water oceans of the world.

After Al Gore went around crying to people about the ice melting and coasts getting flooded he went and bought a seaside mansion. Big Al knows it all bullsh1t.

Charles Ingles

Tell me how wrote: »

So, who do you listen to in order to understand what is going on?

What paper do you read? What news site do you visit? What news or current affairs tv show do you watch? What current affairs show do you listen to on the radio?

I like a mix of all news to make up my own mind.
Rte, BBC, fox news, RT
Big fan is David icke and Gemma o Dwyer always have very interesting points of view on current events.

Shefwedfan

Charles Ingles wrote: »

There is also a large population who act like sheep and swallow project fear

A bigger problem with lack of education in the population

Dakota Dan

Tell me how wrote: »

So, who do you listen to in order to understand what is going on?

What paper do you read? What news site do you visit? What news or current affairs tv show do you watch? What current affairs show do you listen to on the radio?

All sources you mention are the ones that are exaggerating it.

Charles Ingles

Shefwedfan wrote: »

A bigger problem with lack of education in the population

Last time I checked we all get the same level of education up until doing the leaving cert.
Don't dismiss people as uneducated because they don't believe everything fed to them my main stream media.
Galileo was mocked as well by his "enlightened" peers

Shefwedfan

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Last time I checked we all get the same level of education up until doing the leaving cert.
Don't dismiss people as uneducated because they don't believe everything fed to them my main stream media.
Galileo was mocked as well by his "enlightened" peers

Everyone gets the same chance of education, not everyone takes the chance. A large percentage of the population seem to get education by John down the pub.

This saying comes to mind “ looking into a field full of thistles

The more enlightened research and educate themselves, don't rely on a 20 something year old teacher fresh out of college for education

Galileo would be part of the research and educate themselves. The people that mocked him got educated by John.....