Why the sudden hysteria over climate change?

Shefwedfan

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Well then the concept of sarcasm goes over your head and most of the others who don't think I know what the 21st century means

Ahh it took you a while to come up with sarcasm as an excuse

Hahahahahaha

Tell me how

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Well then the concept of sarcasm goes over your head and most of the others who don't think I know what the 21st century means

I believe you.













See, I can do sarcasm as well.

tibruit

I was born in the late 60`s and I`ve seen all the weather events you refer to before. In fact for a number of years I was beginning to wonder where the storms had gone, but sure enough they came back again. Maybe it`s cyclical, maybe it`s El Nino. I`m an agnostic on man made global warming. Maybe we`re a degree warmer now than we were in 1880. All I know is that only 12000 years ago we were under a sheet of ice and the evidence of that is everywhere on the landscape.

What I find interesting is that the early alarmists with their hockey stick graphs are now being shown to be a bit too hysterical.

gozunda

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I grew up on a farm which is still run in my family.
Are you trying to say the current weather patterns haven’t changed? I did post more details
This morning I woke up to frost in the garden, frost in May, that seem strange to you?
If you look at one thing in isolation then yes of course it happened previously, did you happen to ask the older man if he seen the last 24 months of weather before with a mixture of storms/flooding/snow storm/long mild winters/vey hot summers etc etc

Frost in May in Ideland is not unusual no. It a fact the weather changes all the time but pinning down an isolated event as proof of a major looming catastrophe is rubbish. I remember previous droughts such as the one in 70s when the ground was baked so hard it so couldn't be dug or ploughed. Droughts and floods are part of the normal weather cycle.

It stuff like that result in much if the hysteria we are seeing tbh. Theres kids now thinking that think we're all going to be dead in 12 years time and are scared out of their wits. The child Greta was told about this kinda stuff when she was 8 years old, stopped eating and was diagnosed as clinically depressed by the time she was 11as s result.

Tell me how

tibruit wrote: »

I was born in the late 60`s and I`ve seen all the weather events you refer to before. In fact for a number of years I was beginning to wonder where the storms had gone, but sure enough they came back again. Maybe it`s cyclical, maybe it`s El Nino. I`m an agnostic on man made global warming. Maybe we`re a degree warmer now than we were in 1880. All I know is that only 12000 years ago we were under a sheet of ice and the evidence of that is everywhere on the landscape.

What I find interesting is that the early alarmists with their hockey stick graphs are now being shown to be a bit too hysterical.

Ok. Can you show some expert opinion which supports your position that alarmed people are being hysterical. Because, if not, and if you're not qualified to declare this yourself, then all you are doing is giving anecdotal evidence which is of no value.

What you have is an opinion (which you are entitled to have) but policy should not be based on opinions but on fact.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Ok. Can you show some expert opinion which supports your position that alarmed people are being historical. Because, if not, and if you're not qualified to declare this yourself, then all you are doing is giving anecdotal evidence which is of no value.

What you have is an opinion (which you are entitled to have) but policy should not be based on opinions but on fact.

To be fair the poster never claimed the alarmed people are being historical

Tbh the alarmed never go away ...;)

Alarmed people may often be hysterical though - much like the ones claiming we're all going to die in 12 years / 12 years to save earth etc.

tibruit

Tell me how wrote: »

Ok. Can you show some expert opinion which supports your position that alarmed people are being historical. Because, if not, and if you're not qualified to declare this yourself, then all you are doing is giving anecdotal evidence which is of no value.

What you have is an opinion (which you are entitled to have) but policy should not be based on opinions but on fact.

Moving statues ...1980`s.....I witnessed mass hysteria...thousands of people claiming they saw inanimate objects moving. There was one a few miles away and I went along one night and I`d estimate that there were at least a few thousand people there and most of them saw the statue moving. The whole thing was frankly ridiculous but there you go. There were a lot of people there that would have considered it a FACT that the statue was moving.

Charles Ingles

Tell me how wrote: »

Ok. Can you show some expert opinion which supports your position that alarmed people are being hysterical. Because, if not, and if you're not qualified to declare this yourself, then all you are doing is giving anecdotal evidence which is of no value.

What you have is an opinion (which you are entitled to have) but policy should not be based on opinions but on fact.

Eyewitness opinion is the most credible source of information.
Not a scientific journal written by an academic with an agenda

Tell me how

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Eyewitness opinion is the most credible source of information.
Not a scientific journal written by an academic with an agenda

Those scientific journals are specifically such because they declare the methodology of the research such that it can be repeated or debunked. That is literally what scientific research is.

Natural and environmental scientists are literally observing, measuring the natural environment every day. They are the eyewitnesses.

Tell me how

tibruit wrote: »

Moving statues ...1980`s.....I witnessed mass hysteria...thousands of people claiming they saw inanimate objects moving. There was one a few miles away and I went along one night and I`d estimate that there were at least a few thousand people there and most of them saw the statue moving. The whole thing was frankly ridiculous but there you go. There were a lot of people there that would have considered it a FACT that the statue was moving.

Unless those people were holding scientific papers documenting and proving the movement of statues, it is irrelevant to this discussion.

Charles Ingles

Tell me how wrote: »

Unless those people were holding scientific papers documenting and proving the movement of statues, it is irrelevant to this discussion.

I seen the statute moving with my own eyes on two occasions.
I don't need a scientific report to prove it.
I know what I saw

Anteayer

I don't think it's all of a sudden. I'm around over 30 years and it's been a topic for my entire life.

The only thing that's changing is its becoming more urgent as populations rise, industrialisation rises and there's been massive inertia over the decades where we've done a lot of talking and nothing to improve things.

Also it's been turned into an American political football which has started to spread into Europe. The rest of the world wasn't debating climate change as a quasi-religious issue, that's very much coming from US politics.

There's definitely a huge problem but I don't think we're politically capable of doing much about it as people don't think beyond one lifetime at the best for times and most in the rapidly developing world don't have the resources to make choices. We're all making short term choices.

I tend to think it will only be dealt with when we start to see major damage to big centres of population by extreme weather or higher sea levels. People don't proactively respond to danger.

tibruit

Tell me how wrote: »

Unless those people were holding scientific papers documenting and proving the movement of statues, it is irrelevant to this discussion.

You mean apart from actually seeing (as they believed) the statues moving?
It`s completely relevant to the discussion because scientists are human too you know and are open to being influenced by a bit of hysteria. Some of the biggest nuts I know have phd`s.

Tell me how

Charles Ingles wrote: »

I seen the statute moving with my own eyes on two occasions.
I don't need a scientific report to prove it.
I know what I saw

Well played. You're obviously playing a part here. Fair commitment to it to hold it across several threads over the time since you joined.

I am somewhat entertained but not really impressed if I'm being honest.

NewClareman

bfa1509 wrote: »

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

You need to relax, and take a deep breath, now read the article you just referenced.

"When we look at the Antarctic's past, we get a vision of what our planet might be like in a couple of hundred years: a hot, drowned world. " Please tell me that you don’t want this for our children.

You might also want to read about the debunked claims from CO2 Science. “the white paper was not published in a peer-reviewed journal because it obviously would not withstand scrutiny by scientific experts.”

The changes required go far beyond farmers planting trees!!

tibruit

Charles Ingles wrote: »

I seen the statute moving with my own eyes on two occasions.
I don't need a scientific report to prove it.
I know what I saw

Brilliant:D:D:D

Nobelium

We do need to take more care of our environment, but there is another agenda at play than just caring for our shared planet . .

The plutocracy have realised that climate change will be no threat to their riches, in fact it's an opportunity to increase them, if they tax ordinary people for the causes and effects of climate change instead of sacrificing any profits on making environmental changes on their industrial practices.

p1akuw47h5r3it

bfa1509 wrote: »

I know a lot of PhD's. I would give more worth to toilet paper than to their thesises.

I think whats pissing me off is the hypocrisy, especially from (admittedly mostly female) people at work who drone on about what a disaster it is, and how we're not doing enough and yet they, in their range rovers, guzzle away the diesel of which the fumes have proven links to asthma

Theses in what?

Charles Ingles

Tell me how wrote: »

Well played. You're obviously playing a part here. Fair commitment to it to hold it across several threads over the time since you joined.

I am somewhat entertained but not really impressed if I'm being honest.

Or maybe I'm just myself which is why I'm consistent.

Dohnjoe

Charles Ingles wrote: »

I seen the statute moving with my own eyes on two occasions.
I don't need a scientific report to prove it.
I know what I saw

Was it on Grafton street? was there a hat with some change in front of it?

Charles Ingles

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Was it on Grafton street? was there a hat with some change in front of it?

Ballinspittle 1985 hundreds of people seen the same thing at the same time

rossie1977

When the icecaps are melting in the Arctic it doesn't resonate with majority of people because it's far away and not their problem.

When you have an unprecedented 20 year drought in the American west and the once mighty Colorado River is reduced to a trickle in places and Lake Mead the water source for Las Vegas and Southern California reaches it lowest level of all time then people start to take notice.



We have already seen Cape Town nearly run out of water. Cities like Atlanta, Sydney, Beijing, Cairo, Mexico City, Moscow will all likely experience major water shortages over next few years.

Shefwedfan

gozunda wrote: »

Frost in May in Ideland is not unusual no. It a fact the weather changes all the time but pinning down an isolated event as proof of a major looming catastrophe is rubbish. I remember previous droughts such as the one in 70s when the ground was baked so hard it so couldn't be dug or ploughed. Droughts and floods are part of the normal weather cycle.

It stuff like that result in much if the hysteria we are seeing tbh. Theres kids now thinking that think we're all going to be dead in 12 years time and are scared out of their wits. The child Greta was told about this kinda stuff when she was 8 years old, stopped eating and was diagnosed as clinically depressed by the time she was 11.

What hysteria?

Thelonious Monk

They're also moving the Indonesian capital out of Jakarta because they've drained all the water out from underneath the city and it's prone to collapsing at some stage. I'm not sure if that's climate related but it's scary, I think it has 30 million people or something living in Jakarta.

Shefwedfan

Charles Ingles wrote: »

I seen the statute moving with my own eyes on two occasions.
I don't need a scientific report to prove it.
I know what I saw

So did I, when they moved the Phil Lynott statue and brought it back

I seen it with my own two eyes, the ones in my head

Dohnjoe

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Ballinspittle 1985 hundreds of people seen the same thing at the same time

Moving statues, ghosts, aliens.. a lot of people "saw" this stuff. Amazingly now that virtually everyone has a video camera in the form of a smart phone, we don't see them any more

What a coincidence

Shefwedfan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Moving statues, ghosts, aliens.. a lot of people "saw" this stuff. Amazingly now that virtually everyone has a video camera in the form of a smart phone, we don't see them any more

What a coincidence

A few years back in my home county a mass amount of reported aliens sighting got reported to the Garda, big deal and a few squad cars sent to investigate

Myself and brother seen, took us maybe 10 sec to figure out....not for some others

Anyway the local night club had bought 2 huge lights for a special party night and shined them up into the sky, the lights moved around

To this day some people still believe it was 2 alien ships flying around

tibruit

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Moving statues, ghosts, aliens.. a lot of people "saw" this stuff. Amazingly now that virtually everyone has a video camera in the form of a smart phone, we don't see them any more

What a coincidence

They didn`t use video cameras to record global temperatures 140 years ago either.

gozunda

Shefwedfan wrote: »

What hysteria?

The screaming eejits claiming all over the media saying we all about to die in 12 years / 12 years to save earth or whatever. That's just an example but yeah there is hysteria. Go take a look online. I presume yer not looking to be hand fed?

p1akuw47h5r3it

gozunda wrote: »

The screaming eejits claiming we all about to die in 12 years or whatever. That's just an example but yeah there is hysteria. Go take a look online.

A tiny, tiny minority of people believe this.