The Climate Crisis v C19

[The PNP]

Quote (United Nations): 'Climate change is the defining crisis of our time and it is happening even more quickly that we feared'.

Quote (Antonio Guterres UN Sec. Gen.): 'The climate emergency is a race we are losing, but it is a race we can win'.

Billions of tons of CO2 are being released every year, from burning coal, oil and gas. Greenhouse gas emissions have reached a record high level, with no sign of slowing down. The last four years were the hottest on record. Ice is melting faster than ever, accelerating sealevel rise. In many regions, crops that have thrived for centuries are struggling to survive. Ninety percent of disasters are now classed as weather and climate related.

But where is the leadership, and the urgent action necessary to deal with all of this? Why, tied up dealing with the political fallout from Covid 19 of course. Without trying to downgrade the pandemic in any way, it is a huge mistake to lose focus on the goal of CO2 reduction at this time.....Because unless significant action is taken now, global warming will take the planet into a disastrous future. Let's not forget, this issue is not going away, it will be with us long after C19 has been dealt with.

[Toodles McGinty]

I think climate change is one of those issues that we're all aware of, but do little about on a personal level. Or can do. We all recycle, do our bit to conserve energy, but I don't think the enormity of the problem has really hit home.

We aren't really seeing huge changes in our weather, bit more flooding, maybe, lots more extreme weather stories on the news from 1000s of miles away, but not a huge amount that affects our day to day life. Until our food security is threatened, or climate refugees start turning up in their thousands, I don't think people generally notice.

There are also wildly differing attitudes to the harbingers of doom who deliver the message: Attenborough is met with reverence, Greta Thunberg is met with abuse. Same message.

We are meeting our current targets, according to the Committee on Climate Change. Might not in the future so much, but for now we're doing quite well. The government has promised massive investment in wind power, which I applaud. We could do with governments around the world really hammering home how devastating climate change will be. And how our treatment of the planet doesn't just end with weather and extinctions, but pandemics and health crises too.

[duncet]

I think climate change is one of those issues that we're all aware of, but do little about on a personal level. Or can do. We all recycle, do our bit to conserve energy, but I don't think the enormity of the problem has really hit home.

We aren't really seeing huge changes in our weather, bit more flooding, maybe, lots more extreme weather stories on the news from 1000s of miles away, but not a huge amount that affects our day to day life. Until our food security is threatened, or climate refugees start turning up in their thousands, I don't think people generally notice.

There are also wildly differing attitudes to the harbingers of doom who deliver the message: Attenborough is met with reverence, Greta Thunberg is met with abuse. Same message.

We are meeting our current targets, according to the Committee on Climate Change. Might not in the future so much, but for now we're doing quite well. The government has promised massive investment in wind power, which I applaud. We could do with governments around the world really hammering home how devastating climate change will be. And how our treatment of the planet doesn't just end with weather and extinctions, but pandemics and health crises too.

Sure, we all recycle - as best we can - and that makes sense. But lets make no mistake, we aren't making any difference whatsoever to climate change.
Whilst humans like to think that, as superior beings, we have control over nature - we are wrong. Our climate probably is changing, as it always has throughout the ages.
Way, way before the Industrial Revolution when we began "contaminating" our atmosphere with that nasty CO2 (without it, by the way, all living things couldn't survive) the Earth has experienced a wide range of climatic extremes - all without mans influence.
Why should it be any different now?

[said]

I think climate change is one of those issues that we're all aware of, but do little about on a personal level. Or can do. We all recycle, do our bit to conserve energy, but I don't think the enormity of the problem has really hit home.

We aren't really seeing huge changes in our weather, bit more flooding, maybe, lots more extreme weather stories on the news from 1000s of miles away, but not a huge amount that affects our day to day life. Until our food security is threatened, or climate refugees start turning up in their thousands, I don't think people generally notice.

There are also wildly differing attitudes to the harbingers of doom who deliver the message: Attenborough is met with reverence, Greta Thunberg is met with abuse. Same message.

We are meeting our current targets, according to the Committee on Climate Change. Might not in the future so much, but for now we're doing quite well. The government has promised massive investment in wind power, which I applaud. We could do with governments around the world really hammering home how devastating climate change will be. And how our treatment of the planet doesn't just end with weather and extinctions, but pandemics and health crises too.

Is your response a wind up or is it for real? Did you have, or have you lost the ability to reason and to think? If you were to spit into the North Sea - would it cause a tsunami on Ireland? That is a similar scenario to that of man made carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Climate will always change -as it has done for millions of years.

As for Thunberg - it has been pointed out many times that whoever created her part has created a hypocrite, employing the use of highly polluting appliances and machines while blaming everyone else. Her mother is a writer and her father is an activist - exactly the same as Severn Cullis-Suzuki, who preceded her three decades ago. Thunberg has very limited knowledge, and the Swedish people claim she is an embarrassment to their country.

Attenborough is a Historian, not a scientist. His views are personal, without any scientific basis, and his views are not respected among those who know better.

Wind power is not a good option. It provides fluctuating power according to wind speed, wind farms need to be set up in rural areas away from urban areas where the power is needed, they cause noise and aesthetic pollution, have a poor and often lethal impact on wild life, are not as cost effective as other forms of power and are only 50% efficient. The inland wind farms use land which could be put to use for agricultural products.

Source of information - GCSE Science.

[Anon]

If you were to spit into the North Sea - would it cause a tsunami on Ireland?

I think you mean the Irish Sea

[said]

I think you mean the Irish Sea

Yeah! That one as well!

[The PNP]

lets make no mistake, we aren't making any difference whatsoever to climate change....Whilst humans like to think that, as superior beings, we have control over nature - we are wrong..... Earth has experienced a wide range of climatic extremes - all without mans influence.....Why should it be any different now?

Why?

Because compared to previous episodes of climate change, it's occurring at an entirely unprecedented rate. Not to mention the fact that it just happens to be in progress, at a time that precisely coincides with man-made doubling of atmospheric CO2......

In case you hadn't noticed, the planet's in meltdown mate - and the window for mitigative action is closing fast!

[Toodles McGinty]

Is your response a wind up or is it for real? Did you have, or have you lost the ability to reason and to think? If you were to spit into the North Sea - would it cause a tsunami on Ireland? That is a similar scenario to that of man made carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Climate will always change -as it has done for millions of years.

Yes, so you've said many times. I'll still go with the 97% of climate scientists who seem quite convinced about the human contribution.

As for Thunberg - it has been pointed out many times that whoever created her part has created a hypocrite, employing the use of highly polluting appliances and machines while blaming everyone else. Her mother is a writer and her father is an activist - exactly the same as Severn Cullis-Suzuki, who preceded her three decades ago. Thunberg has very limited knowledge, and the Swedish people claim she is an embarrassment to their country.

Attenborough is a Historian, not a scientist. His views are personal, without any scientific basis, and his views are not respected among those who know better.

'Swedish people claim she's an embarrassment'? Citation? Nobel nominations, Swedish Woman of the Year Award?

Isn't it a coincidence, the same middle aged / older men that so despise Thunberg also bristle at BLM, call hoax on Covid, and are fully engorged at the thought of Brexit.

Attenborough is a journalist. His views are generally respected by most of the country, hence him still making 'must see' wildlife programmes into his 90s. Who are 'those who know better'?

Wind power is not a good option. It provides fluctuating power according to wind speed, wind farms need to be set up in rural areas away from urban areas where the power is needed, they cause noise and aesthetic pollution, have a poor and often lethal impact on wild life, are not as cost effective as other forms of power and are only 50% efficient. The inland wind farms use land which could be put to use for agricultural products.

I'd say most renewables fluctuate. Wind, tide, solar. Still better than burning fossil fuels. There's the NIMBY objection, but I'd rather see turbines than a coal mine. I rather think those who object need to get used to them. They aren't going away.

Source of information - GCSE Science.

You've taken a GCSE in 'science'? I'd guess an 'o' level, or more likely a 'school certificate'.

[said]

Why?

Because compared to previous episodes of climate change, it's occurring at an entirely unprecedented rate. Not to mention the fact that it just happens to be in progress, at a time that precisely coincides with man-made doubling of atmospheric CO2......

In case you hadn't noticed, the planet's in meltdown mate - and the window for mitigative action is closing fast!

Every industry on the planet could be churning out CO2 all day long, everyday. It would not affect the climate.

Have you forgotten the similar headlines of the 1980's where the world was heading for a 'Global Freezing'? Also occurring 'at an unprecedented rate'

Remember too, that there is a modern day interest in presenting 'Computer Models'

Climate change is one such model. Climate itself is so complicated that it is practically impossible to foretell what the future climate will be. It only needs a tiny change in one tiny factor and the climate could veer off in another direction completely. Since climatologists do not know, nor could comprehend what each and every factor is, or what their presence means - then no computer model on climate would ever be accurate.

How many long term weather forecasts have you ever known to be accurate? and the government spent £billions on the technology.

The Covid 19 virus is yet another computer model which has had so many corrections made to it, it has been re-written several times. The human body and mind is also a very complex machine - impossible to predict.

A computer model capable of predicting an outcome precisely, would be the forerunner of a thinking robot, an area of technology which is receiving much interest at present.

Politics is a multi headed monster requiring food for the long or short term, in the form of financial gain.

[The PNP]

A) Every industry on the planet could be churning out CO2 all day long, everyday. It would not affect the climate.

B) Have you forgotten the similar headlines of the 1980's where the world was heading for a 'Global Freezing'? Also occurring 'at an unprecedented rate'

C) Climate itself is so complicated that it is practically impossible to foretell what the future climate will be. It only needs a tiny change in one tiny factor and the climate could veer off in another direction completely. Since climatologists do not know, etc.

A) So you're effectively saying that CO2, a gas whose properties have been known of for many years, is suddenly not a greenhouse gas....How do you come to that conclusion?

B) The long-term ice-age cycle (approx every 10,000 years) suggests we should expect another ice-age. However, with so much man-made CO2 in the atmosphere, that cycle has been completely over-ridden.

C) There's nothing complicated about it, you're confusing weather forecasting (extremely complex) with climate prediction (relatively simple)....Because the level of atmospheric CO2 is directly proportional to the amount of warming it produces, within a fairly narrow margin.

True to say, that predictions of how many degs we'll have warmed by end of century (2 to 5degs) do vary. This is because we don't know how much more CO2 will have been added to the atmosphere by then. The principle is simple enough to understand: more CO2 = more warming. That is, unless CO2 decides to disobey the laws of physics!

[duncet]

Why?

Because compared to previous episodes of climate change, it's occurring at an entirely unprecedented rate. Not to mention the fact that it just happens to be in progress, at a time that precisely coincides with man-made doubling of atmospheric CO2......

In case you hadn't noticed, the planet's in meltdown mate - and the window for mitigative action is closing fast!

It may have escaped your attention but temperatures had risen just as fast and far back in the 1920s and 1930s, long before there was any measurable rise in CO2. If CO2 was not the cause of warming at that time, what had caused the pre-war temperature rise?
Surely it couldn't be the excessive expiration of cyclists - although the hot air they produce has to be taken into consideration.

[The PNP]

A) It may have escaped your attention but temperatures had risen just as fast and far back in the 1920s and 1930s, long before there was any measurable rise in CO2. If CO2 was not the cause of warming at that time, what had caused the pre-war temperature rise?

B) Surely it couldn't be the excessive expiration of cyclists - although the hot air they produce has to be taken into consideration.

A) The rise in manmade CO2 became a significant (and measurable) factor even earlier, i.e. around time the industrial revolution got under way......Fyi, we've gained 1 degree over the last 100 years.

B) Never mind cyclists, for 'excessive expiration' check out The Gasworks (Parliament)!

[seivad]

Is your response a wind up or is it for real? Did you have, or have you lost the ability to reason and to think? If you were to spit into the North Sea - would it cause a tsunami on Ireland? That is a similar scenario to that of man made carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Climate will always change -as it has done for millions of years.

As for Thunberg - it has been pointed out many times that whoever created her part has created a hypocrite, employing the use of highly polluting appliances and machines while blaming everyone else. Her mother is a writer and her father is an activist - exactly the same as Severn Cullis-Suzuki, who preceded her three decades ago. Thunberg has very limited knowledge, and the Swedish people claim she is an embarrassment to their country.

Attenborough is a Historian, not a scientist. His views are personal, without any scientific basis, and his views are not respected among those who know better.

Wind power is not a good option. It provides fluctuating power according to wind speed, wind farms need to be set up in rural areas away from urban areas where the power is needed, they cause noise and aesthetic pollution, have a poor and often lethal impact on wild life, are not as cost effective as other forms of power and are only 50% efficient. The inland wind farms use land which could be put to use for agricultural products.

Source of information - GCSE Science.

It's usually a waste of time to correct your 'facts', but difficult to ignore them.

Attenborough is a natural historian. He studied zoology and geology and has a degree in natural sciences from Cambridge. He is eminently qualified to study and draw conclusions on the environmental impact on the flora and fauna of this planet.

Greta Thunberg's mother is an opera singer. Her father is an actor. Severn Cullis-Suzuki's parents do not have the same occupations. Her father is well known in Canada. He was a professor in genetics at UBC until he retired in 2001, when Severn was 22. When Severn, at 12 years of age, addressed the UN in 1992, it was in regard to environmental changes resulting in the mass extinction of animals and plants.

Severn has always excelled academically. She studied at Yale where she obtained a degree in ecology and evolutionary biology. Both David, his wife Tara and Severn work for the David Suzuki Foundation, where, with a team of scientists, they pursue David's lifetime work. He's a bit of an icon in this country. I've enjoyed watching his series 'The Nature of Things' for decades.

[said]

Yes, so you've said many times. I'll still go with the 97% of climate scientists who seem quite convinced about the human contribution.




'Swedish people claim she's an embarrassment'? Citation? Nobel nominations, Swedish Woman of the Year Award?

Isn't it a coincidence, the same middle aged / older men that so despise Thunberg also bristle at BLM, call hoax on Covid, and are fully engorged at the thought of Brexit.

Attenborough is a journalist. His views are generally respected by most of the country, hence him still making 'must see' wildlife programmes into his 90s. Who are 'those who know better'?



I'd say most renewables fluctuate. Wind, tide, solar. Still better than burning fossil fuels. There's the NIMBY objection, but I'd rather see turbines than a coal mine. I rather think those who object need to get used to them. They aren't going away.



You've taken a GCSE in 'science'? I'd guess an 'o' level, or more likely a 'school certificate'.

First of all check out the U-tube video Greta Thunberg Crumbles without her script. Millions tuned into this. As I have said before - Ms. Grunberg is not the first, her predecessor, also a young girl of a similar age and background also made temporarily famous for the same claims has now faded into obscurity.

The media is full of that which you are meant to believe. Ms. Thunberg may well have won a Swedish award from the authorities - but the general public of Sweden are the people you should be asking about her popularity. Considering there are many highly educated people in Sweden, as there are across the world - Ms. Thunberg can only convince those at, or below her own level.

I have little patience with arrogant fools. Ms. Thunberg has a childish knowledge of history, science and politics -her espousing an erroneous populistic topic to young, vulnerable people is highly dangerous encouraging young children to believe the World is about to end.

BLM have become popular claiming yet another populistic view - the fact that they neither understand Black People's History nor what racism actually is, since they display such activity themselves, does not seem to matter. But such protests are again dangerous to the vulnerable and younger Black People, which could lead to serious rioting as it has done in the USA.

Cornavirus, as it has come to be known, is a family of a multitude of diseases. The virus responsible for each of these has been around since before humans. Every life form has these viruses and millions of others in their biological make up. In fact, life would not survive without viruses. The RNA and DNA of each life form, from various environments feature mutations of these viruses. A translation from one life form from one environment to another, causes further mutation. The greatest protection for all life forms is to contract the disease and recover from it to build up immunity, just as we have done for thousands of years with every other epidemic/pandemic. The period of activity for many such epidemics, has been successfully reduced by medical technology, although several of these diseases are now said to be making a comeback.



Very few journalists/historians are scientists. Unless people understand science they have no knowledge of empirical facts and can only apply their own personal view which is seldom accurate. Mr. Attenborough does not understand science - and I do not have his knowledge on wild life, I am sure if I attempted to give a public address on wild life - Mr. Attenborough would be the first to criticise me.

The objections to alternative fuel is not based on its panoramic perspective -it is the act that as yet these are not economic compared to costs involved. They each have low efficiency, affect wild life, are costly to repair and maintain compared to fossil fuels. But technology is moving fast - in fact the old coal mines have come under review to be used once again.

Brexit - water into wine scenario. Are you aware that the EU is funding almost all of the Coronavirus events in the UK. That is, funding is available providing UK central and local leaders follow the guidance of the EU. It is the EU who are forecasting when this outbreak will end. It is the EU who have created greater unemployment under the furloughed staff arrangement and more business closures among the weaker businesses. While technology has created streamlining in ventilators and other medical equipment which the NHS has purchased, but which has not been required at this time -means that the World will be better prepared in the near future.

[sandGroundZero]

"I have little patience with arrogant fools." — post #14