It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
It's not the case that we'll always have time to get serious about it and to unite as one to reverse the damage. Climate change isn't something you can just put the brakes on to make it stop. Once the point is reached where the trapped methane in the ocean floor starts bubbling up (it's already starting in places) it's a runaway train. Nothing humans can do can stop it then. The more methane that reaches the atmosphere, the hotter it gets - which causes more methane release and so on.
The planet is on that cliff edge right NOW. That's it.... We are out of time.
In theory, the whole of humanity could unite and immediately cease all activities that feed global warming and maybe that might be enough to pull the earth back from the brink. However there is more chance of me laying laminate in every home in the UK on my own by this Friday than there is of that happening.
In short - it's game over time.
Homo Sapiens; 300,000 BC to 2500 AD.
Offset "(Emp) - a little heavy on the hyperbole."
I find it amazing that all the climate scientist who have a vested interest in being right and not having their models questioned in any way shape or form continue to find that they are right and any dissenting science or scientific opinion is pure conspiracy theory and 100% certainly not right as they have the science "settled"
Long may the funding continue...
Hold on..so you're actually saying that people only go into science to provide proof for their agenda? And that there is a network of peers willing to review your papers and lie? And that hypotheses are not tested?
I do not trust any scientist that says the science is settled and there is no doubt in what they are saying, that is bad science.
I have read enough and seen enough of the modelling to know that it is suspect. having worked within a university environment I know how framing of a study can significantly impact the potential funding of that study, ie "A study on understanding the difference between elbows and arseholes" is unlikely to get funding but "A study in the understanding of the impact of climate change in the differences between elbows and arseholes" is much more likely to.
I am not saying that we are not seeing differences in weather/climate etc I am saying that it is 100% certain that human production of Co2 is to blame and that we should all go vegan and walk everywhere or be taxed to within an inch of our lives if we choose not to is suspect.
Heavy rain and droughts Hmmmmm.
Then he went and admitted, that the temperature hadn't risen as fast as the thought.
I looked out the window today in August and it isn't any warmer than usual for a summer. Yet in the 1970's summers where always scorching and lasted months.
What's the worst that can happen - we end up with cleaner air and cleaner oceans ?
Or is barking about it all being down to vested interests etc whilst doing nothing the best way ?
Offset "(Emp) - a little heavy on the hyperbole."
He meant droughts in one place and heavy rains elsewhere not in the same place at the same time obviously.
But it was the way he said it. It sounded daft. And he never came across as an expert lol
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/ending-the-climate-crisis/exxon-and-the-oil-industry-knew-about-climate-change/exxons-climate-denial-history-a-timeline/
Knock herself out...
My point is if you can predict that the outcome of the science is that joe public are going to be taxed more then the science is not to be trusted.
Any science that says we are the only answer and anyone that questions the "correct" narrative is not to be trusted, and again that goes for both sides of the story.
As an example one of the common themes has been we need to plant more trees as they convert Co2 to oxygen. Well actually the planet is about 30% greener now than it was in 2000, isn't that a good thing?
Apparently not - so all you tree huggers are bad for the environment.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/science/climate-change-plants-global-greening.html
(For the record I think more trees are better.)
Taxation has it place in the solution, for example I think we should tax anything produced in china at an exorbitant rate.
But that doesn't mean we need *more* people. The projected peak of around 10 to 11 billion is at the upper end of what is truly sustainable, and if it stabilises there or very slowly falls, that will not be a bad thing. We still have to raise 90% of the population out of their relative poverty and to something approaching current Western standards, which will increase resource use per head again, so you will still have economic growth for a very long time - but even that cannot continue literally indefinitely. The Earth is a finite size.
Unless we really have started to colonise the other planets by then, possibly.
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
LOL
That's amazingly funny.
1 of the doctors tells you probably nothing to worry about. Whose advice would you listen to the 999 or the "dissenting" doctor?
what a ridiculous strawman that is!
and yeah - no money in climate change at all...
https://climatefundsupdate.org/the-funds/