They Knew. They Lied.

Status
Not open for further replies.
carmanmemoranda said:
I have family abroad, so not knocking it on the head. But we now fly less often but stay for longer, so have tried to cut that too.

Id like to think it was the same as everybody else. But reading the comments in here, we both know it's a lot more than some do, or are prepared to do
Click to expand...
If all 8 billion people in the world lived like you then we'd all be cooked to death by the end of the year.

You're making vastly more contribution to the ending of human life than you are entitled to. All you're doing is making token painless compromises to your very wealthy and massively polluting lifestyle.

Anyone who flies anywhere ever has absolutely no right to go spouting on about how super they are. The same goes for anyone who drives a car, eats supermarket food or, honestly, just lives in a house with less than 10 others. I do many of these things, but at least I'm honest enough to admit it's ultimately going to end life as we know it at some unknown future time.

The human race is utterly unsustainable. Putting your yogurt pots in the recycle bin is going to make absolutely "net zero" difference to the outcome.
 
Sponsored Links
Ivor Windybottom said:
If all 8 billion people in the world lived like you then we'd all be cooked to death by the end of the year.

You're making vastly more contribution to the ending of human life than you are entitled to. All you're doing is making token painless compromises to your very wealthy and massively polluting lifestyle.

Anyone who flies anywhere ever has absolutely no right to go spouting on about how super they are. The same goes for anyone who drives a car, eats supermarket food or, honestly, just lives in a house with less than 10 others. I do many of these things, but at least I'm honest enough to admit it's ultimately going to end life as we know it at some unknown future time.

The human race is utterly unsustainable. Putting your yogurt pots in the recycle bin is going to make absolutely "net zero" difference to the outcome.
Click to expand...
you can do a little. Doing a little might just help.

or you can do nothing. Doing nothing will definitely not help
 
It definitely won't make any tangible difference. The change has come about since we started digging up fossil fuels and setting fire to them. If we all went back to pre-industrial lifestyles then perhaps everything would be fine. That would require no cars, planes or gas heating for starters. But this lifestyle wouldn't sustain the vast population that's currently in existence.

There's absolutely no point in ever-so-slightly reducing the pace at which we head towards where we're definitely going to end up. Your token eco efforts such as flying "less often" are so utterly pointless and laughable, and definitely don't give you the platform to spout at and lecture everyone else.

The earth will balance things out and find a new equilibrium. It's likely that this will involve far fewer humans. Re-using a carrier bag won't change anything.
 
denso13 said:
The argument is over.


skepticalscience.com

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.
skepticalscience.com
Click to expand...
The rise in Co2 in the atmosphere is actually beneficial to humanity.
Co2 encourages plant growth which is why it is called Greenhouse gas.
Is there a correlation between the decline in traditional religious belief and the rise of the new religion of man made Climate change.
The use of the term 'denier' to describe anyone who questions the new 'truth' should be a clue.
Back the old days, people who questioned the infallibility of the Pope and his enforcers were called deniers of the truth and usually ended up being burned alive.
 
Sponsored Links
There is a theory that there may be plants whose growth rate is limited by a shortage of CO2 in the atmosphere, so they may grow faster and take up the surplus CO2, turning it back into oxygen.

I don't know how credible this theory is - it sounds logical to me and it would be nice if it was true but there's probably some reason the eco lobby have decided it can't possibly happen.
 
Vinty said:
The use of the term 'denier' to describe anyone who questions the new 'truth' should be a clue.
Click to expand...
The new "truth"? Ignore the facts if you want, I'm not really bothered.


Vinty said:
Back the old days, people who questioned the infallibility of the Pope and his enforcers were called deniers of the truth and usually ended up being burned alive.
Click to expand...
Religion is barbaric in all its forms.
 
denso13 said:
yaleclimateconnections.org

More CO2 in the atmosphere hurts key plants and crops more than it helps » Yale Climate Connections

The familiar adage - too much of a good thing is a bad thing - applies to atmospheric carbon dioxide: In higher concentrations, it is a damaging pollutant.
yaleclimateconnections.org yaleclimateconnections.org
Click to expand...
That sounds very much like one of those articles where they've decided the conclusion before selecting the evidence that supports it.

Obviously some plants will be negatively affected by higher CO2. But others will thrive.

The most worrying thing about the whole climate debate is just how polarised things have become. Just suggesting that things may not be as is suggested by those in power is seen as a threat. It's become a lot like a religion, you are required to believe without daring to question it. Lots of science has headed the same way - those who have questioned the government's approach to covid are angrily cast out into the wilderness. As ever, big money is probably calling the shots.

Is it possible to be climate-neutral? Or does everyone now divide neatly into nice eco-hippies vs denyer crackpots?
 
Ivor Windybottom said:
There is a theory that there may be plants whose growth rate is limited by a shortage of CO2 in the atmosphere, so they may grow faster and take up the surplus CO2, turning it back into oxygen.

I don't know how credible this theory is - it sounds logical to me and it would be nice if it was true but there's probably some reason the eco lobby have decided it can't possibly happen.
Click to expand...
It's junk, it was rubbished about a decade ago after various oil firms used it as part of a PR campaign.

In short: not many plants are limited by CO2 levels and the increase isn't enough to make any appreciable difference to plant growth. It is enough however to mess with ecosystems yo cause significant biome loss.
 
Ivor Windybottom said:
Is it possible to be climate-neutral? Or does everyone now divide neatly into nice eco-hippies vs denyer crackpots?
Click to expand...
As in you aren't sure about climate change happening?

Or you aren't sure if it's man made?

Or you aren't sure it's a bad thing?

I'm guessing you aren't a climate scientist. Why do you think you know better than > 97% of them?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top