Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

Tell me how

Tuisceanch wrote: »

In fairness George Carlin was making the point that the earth will adapt to abrupt climate change but humans not so much.

I know, but I figured it would be pointless trying to point out to the poster that that too is kinda the point which Greta is making.

SafeSurfer

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Tuisceanch wrote: »

I keep seeing variants of the following argument "The climate has been changing since time began" insinuating that the human impact on climate change is negligible or irrelevant or that it's even a hoax. This is a very strange argument since nobody with any credibility would dispute that.
An extract from the following link https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page2.php might help to illustrate that point.

"As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."

In brief it's the rate of change that is unprecedented. This would be a more useful starting point to base your arguments against the human impact on climate change.

lola85 wrote: »

Seriously who the **** was around 1 million years ago holding a thermometer in the air?

The reply to my post was thanked by three individual posters! Do they all think that measurements of temperature were performed using a thermometer? Surely nobody in this day and age is that ignorant? I can understand someone being skeptical and suspicious about ulterior motives regarding the case for "Anthropogenic Climate Change" and its potential consequences but is this the extent of their argument? Is the educational system really that bad in this country (Republic of Ireland)? I can't believe that is the case so are these people being paid to spout this drivel or are they just trolls. Genuine question because in truth I could do with making some easy money on the side.

I can’t find any evidence to support your assertion that the rate of climate change is unprecedented. I looked at one report that said it is unprecedented and the amount of Co2 is also unprecedented. I stopped reading then because the amount of current Co2 is demonstrably not unprecedented.

Pa ElGrande

Tell me how wrote: »

In that video, the strongest claim to help things immediately, is to plant trees, I have seen this ridiculed in some locations but I think we should be doing it immediately and planting native trees or at least a mix instead of one type of spruce with no variation.

Wind Turbines and Trees that's the new 21st century subsidy farming business model.

Plan to plant a whopping 22m trees (more than 6,000 Croke Park pitches) a year to beat greenhouse gases

Most of the planting will be done by the State, farmers and other large landowners by spurring renewed interest in existing grant schemes, but anyone with a quarter acre can apply and there are schemes to assist community groups.

One-third of the trees are to be broadleaves, which would help restore some of the native woodland lost to the near monopoly of conifers.

source

BarryD2

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Wind Turbines and Trees that's the new 21st century subsidy farming business model.

We should be restoring our bogs as best we can as well. We have naturally wet lands where trees don't thrive, just look at some of the failed plantations on the western blanket bogs. Bogs are good carbon sinks.

Bord na Móna can either be regarded as a successful semi state enterprise that utilised a natural resource and provided local employment or one of the great destructive forces of modern Ireland, that drained many great bogs and rendered them wastelands. All depends on how you look at it.

But either way, even if we restored bogs and planted large areas of trees, would we get any credit for that in terms of EU and UN etc policies on carbon?

KyussB

MrMusician18 wrote: »

What are the solutions? because I'd like to hear them.
Every solution I've seen involved reducing living standards, be that either through taxation and/or the introduction of new more expensive technologies. The alternative is to shrink the human population, which brings it's own problems.

There is no solution that allows for carbon reduction whilst at the same time elevating or even maintaining living standards.

The entire Green New Deal (and all the variations worldwide) gives a gist of the template that is needed - imo it doesn't go far enough, but it's more than a good enough start. The lie is that all the funding has to come through taxes - that's not how government finances work - and it never has been.

Of course there are solutions for reducing carbon emissions, while maintaining living standards: Efficiency improvements and replacing existing power infrastructure/generation with renewables, among loads more things...

Engaging in all of this at a big enough scale to make a difference (which requires enormous government spending) is considered 'Communism' by the Libertarians here, though - who render discussion unmaintainable, with the constant insistence that everything is Communism - something you never really encounter from actual/real people, in Ireland, because it's imported US McCarthyite bollocks.

Tuisceanch

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I can’t find any evidence to support your assertion that the rate of climate change is unprecedented. I looked at one report that said it is unprecedented and the amount of Co2 is also unprecedented. I stopped reading then because the amount of current Co2 is demonstrably not unprecedented.

Actually I wasn't making that assertion. I'm not qualified to do so. This assertion was made by NASA and I quote "The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1" Link is here:https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
As you can see the trend they are referring to is temperature as was also stipulated in the original extract I quoted. Not sure why you have interpreted that as meaning the amount of co2 in the atmosphere is unprecedented. That was never mentioned. Also the point being made in this post was that there was no mention of measurements of temperature changes in the distant past being made by use of thermometers. Why would anybody think that? That's beyond ..... (fill in the blank). I have no agenda besides being interested in understanding how others are informing themselves about this issue and how they are applying their critical faculties to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Thelonious Monk

Rockbeast2 wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockbeast2 View Post
Living standards have gone down in Ireland in last 30 years.
Really? By what metric?

Maybe you mean 'quality of life' but even so I'm not sure it's an accurate statement.

I'll tell you exactly how.

Very few of my peers can afford kids. That's with him and her working good jobs.

The ones that can have to put their kids in creches from 3 months old.

* You're correct, "quality of life"

Time is all you've got, and there's not so much anymore.

** Not fighting with you :-)

When could anyone afford kids? When I was a child in the 80s we ate some kind of horrible stew every day for dinner and scrimped and saved but we got by. We didn't have much but we were happy. People have vastly different expectations now and spend money on things that people didn't have in the past. I don't buy this thing that it's harder to have kids now.
It may be harder to have kids and live the life that seems to be pushed upon us.

SafeSurfer

Tuisceanch wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I can’t find any evidence to support your assertion that the rate of climate change is unprecedented. I looked at one report that said it is unprecedented and the amount of Co2 is also unprecedented. I stopped reading then because the amount of current Co2 is demonstrably not unprecedented.

Actually I wasn't making that assertion. I'm not qualified to do so. This assertion was made by NASA and I quote "The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1" Link is here:https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
As you can see the trend they are referring to is temperature as was also stipulated in the original extract I quoted. Not sure why you have interpreted that as meaning the amount of co2 in the atmosphere is unprecedented. That was never mentioned. Also the point being made in this post was that there was no mention of measurements of temperature changes in the distant past being made by use of thermometers. Why would anybody think that? That's beyond ..... (fill in the blank). I have no agenda besides being interested in understanding how others are informing themselves about this issue and how they are applying their critical faculties to sort the wheat from the chaff.

So to clarify it is not unprecedented. Just because something might be unprecedented over millennia, in the context of the history of climate, does not make the current rate of climate change unprecedented.

Tell me how

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So to clarify it is not unprecedented. Just because something might be unprecedented over millennia, in the context of the history of climate, does not make the current rate of climate change unprecedented.

So are you suggesting that the scientists who say there is an issue with the current rate of change are wrong?

SafeSurfer

Tell me how wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So to clarify it is not unprecedented. Just because something might be unprecedented over millennia, in the context of the history of climate, does not make the current rate of climate change unprecedented.

So are you suggesting that the scientists who say there is an issue with the current rate of change are wrong?

Is that what I am saying?

No, that is what you are saying I am saying.

I am questioning the validity of the argument that it is unprecedented.

Thelonious Monk

Meanwhile this is happening in Dublin, but it's ok because the Amazon and India and China

https://twitter.com/HerpSocIreland/status/1175391629097754625

Rockbeast2

So much nonsense.

BUT "scientists" say the climate is changing..??

Imagine the arguments when our sentient ancestors first discussed the sun going down...

- It's gone
- We ruined it, lads
- It'll be back
- Shut up, Uggabugga
- Where is kallakalla? It's his fault. I told him not to make fire that way.
- It'll be back

< Uggabugga's throat is slit>

- Uggabugga for dinner!

handlemaster

Greta is cashing in now with her book. More trees to be cut down for this

Tuisceanch

Tuisceanch wrote: »

I keep seeing variants of the following argument "The climate has been changing since time began" insinuating that the human impact on climate change is negligible or irrelevant or that it's even a hoax. This is a very strange argument since nobody with any credibility would dispute that.
An extract from the following link https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page2.php might help to illustrate that point.

"As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."

In brief it's the rate of change that is unprecedented. This would be a more useful starting point to base your arguments against the human impact on climate change.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So to clarify it is not unprecedented. Just because something might be unprecedented over millennia, in the context of the history of climate, does not make the current rate of climate change unprecedented.

Ok I would surmise that you found the highlighted text contentious. You have in mind,I presume, other examples within the geological record that demonstrates a comparable or even more extreme rate of temperature change. I concede that it was not the most considered response.Would you mind citing the examples you have in mind to illustrate your valid point? Also do you concur with my original assertion that stating ""The climate has been changing since time began" is not the basis for an informed or useful debate?

Tell me how

Rockbeast2 wrote: »

So much nonsense.

BUT "scientists" say the climate is changing..??

Imagine the arguments when our sentient ancestors first discussed the sun going down...

- It's gone
- We ruined it, lads
- It'll be back
- Shut up, Uggabugga
- Where is kallakalla? It's his fault. I told him not to make fire that way.
- It'll be back

< Uggabugga's throat is slit>

- Uggabugga for dinner!

You're certainly doing your part for showing the intellect on one side of the argument here...

Tuisceanch

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Meanwhile this is happening in Dublin, but it's ok because the Amazon and India and China

https://twitter.com/HerpSocIreland/status/1175391629097754625

Do you know why this happened?

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

The entire Green New Deal (and all the variations worldwide) gives a gist of the template that is needed - imo it doesn't go far enough, but it's more than a good enough start. The lie is that all the funding has to come through taxes - that's not how government finances work - and it never has been.

Of course there are solutions for reducing carbon emissions, while maintaining living standards: Efficiency improvements and replacing existing power infrastructure/generation with renewables, among loads more things...

Engaging in all of this at a big enough scale to make a difference (which requires enormous government spending) is considered 'Communism' by the Libertarians here, though - who render discussion unmaintainable, with the constant insistence that everything is Communism - something you never really encounter from actual/real people, in Ireland, because it's imported US McCarthyite bollocks.

you probably need to stop talking so much about communism tbh

Tony EH

walshb wrote: »

Just another fad that people have latched onto for attention, likes, approval and a sense of belonging...

The earth is doing fine...the people? #georgecarlin..

The planet isn't going anywhere...we are. <- Also George Carlin.

Tackling climate change isn't about "saving the planet". It's about saving ourselves.

SafeSurfer

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Tuisceanch wrote: »

I keep seeing variants of the following argument "The climate has been changing since time began" insinuating that the human impact on climate change is negligible or irrelevant or that it's even a hoax. This is a very strange argument since nobody with any credibility would dispute that.
An extract from the following link https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page2.php might help to illustrate that point.

"As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."

In brief it's the rate of change that is unprecedented. This would be a more useful starting point to base your arguments against the human impact on climate change.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So to clarify it is not unprecedented. Just because something might be unprecedented over millennia, in the context of the history of climate, does not make the current rate of climate change unprecedented.

Ok I would surmise that you found the highlighted text contentious. You have in mind,I presume, other examples within the geological record that demonstrates a comparable or even more extreme rate of temperature change. I concede that it was not the most considered response.Would you mind citing the examples you have in mind to illustrate your valid point? Also do you concur with my original assertion that stating ""The climate has been changing since time began" is not the basis for an informed or useful debate?

You claimed the current rate of change is unprecedented. Your word, not mine. I am asking how can you know this. You cite a report saying it is unprecedented for from decades to millennia, neither of which are long periods in the context of climate.

So, in summary, do you still contend that the current rate of change is unprecedented?

Tuisceanch

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You claimed the current rate of change is unprecedented. Your word, not mine. I am asking how can you know this. You cite a report saying it is unprecedented for from decades to millennia, neither of which are long periods in the context of climate.

So, in summary, do you still contend that the current rate of change is unprecedented?

No offense but I think you would agree we have nothing more of interest to say to each other. Time is ticking by and all that so no point wasting it on worthless exercises.

Rockbeast2

Tetchy-Tetchy

I mark that round to SafeSurfer

Tell me how

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You claimed the current rate of change is unprecedented. Your word, not mine. I am asking how can you know this. You cite a report saying it is unprecedented for from decades to millennia, neither of which are long periods in the context of climate.

So, in summary, do you still contend that the current rate of change is unprecedented?

You can get caught up in the wider time scales (given the earth is over 4B years old) if you wish to try to validate your undermining of the concern but if the rate of change we have seen in the last 50 to 70 years or so is dramatically different than anything which went on in the 10,000+ years before that then calling it unprecedented is perfectly fine.

If it is ok for a Chief Scientific Adviser to state it as such, it is ok for me.

Rockbeast2

"You can get caught up in the wider time scales"

HA HA HA

Do you reckon? LOL

Spoofer

Tell me how

Rockbeast2 wrote: »

"You can get caught up in the wider time scales"

HA HA HA

Do you reckon? LOL

Spoofer

You can't even manage to quote posts......

Rockbeast2

I hope Smell Me Why is getting paid for spewing this nonsense.

Rockbeast2

There are a lot of things I can't do.

Change the climate is one.

Tell me how

Rockbeast2 wrote: »

I hope Smell Me Why is getting paid for spewing this nonsense.

Oooh, good response. For a 12 year old.

Also, on the subject of nonsense, this is your work.

Rockbeast2 wrote: »

So much nonsense.

BUT "scientists" say the climate is changing..??

Imagine the arguments when our sentient ancestors first discussed the sun going down...

- It's gone
- We ruined it, lads
- It'll be back
- Shut up, Uggabugga
- Where is kallakalla? It's his fault. I told him not to make fire that way.
- It'll be back

< Uggabugga's throat is slit>

- Uggabugga for dinner!

Every one of your posts is proving a point at this stage. Thanks.

Later, I'll leave you to it.

Rockbeast2

Bye, Greta

Jimmy Garlic

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Meanwhile this is happening in Dublin, but it's ok because the Amazon and India and China

https://twitter.com/HerpSocIreland/status/1175391629097754625

Same thing is happening to upland bogs with all the wind turbines , thousands of tonnes of concrete and miles of service roads and cable trenchs cut through them, but that's grand, its not in Dublin so it won't bother you.

Tell me how

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Same thing is happening to upland bogs with all the wind turbines , thousands of tonnes of concrete and miles of service roads and cable trenchs cut through them, but that's grand, its not in Dublin so it won't bother you.

I think the reason the poster mentioned about what happened in Tallaght is because it was only tweeted out today.

Every action could be said to impact on the environment but that is not to say that they are ultimately invalid or pointless or even hypocritical.

Yes there is destructive work involved in raising wind turbines, but ultimately the damage is much less than not doing so. That makes it a worthwhile exercise.