Gotta love Extinction Rebellion

[Archied]

19 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

And we’re going to potentially pay £11B of British tax payers hard earned money to repatriate countries effected by eligible climate change, disgrace. 

Perhaps the only answer to save the planet is to nuke China 

[Archied]

7 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

Here's Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion and "the brains" behind Just Stop Oil:

[content warning - he's an absolute nutter so he's talking yesterday about some very grotesque sexual acts, but for those who don't understand how wacko these people are, it seems important to show them]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And yet it’s people like me who want to kick the can down the road that are driving kids and vulnerable people into a rabid state of fear and anxiety, sorry but this 5 minutes to midnight gang ( including politicians at cop who pour out carbon at a rate the ordinary could just dream of) are a dangerous cult 

[Gone]

36 minutes ago, Archied said:

Perhaps the only answer to save the planet is to nuke China 

I just don’t get the clamour to chuck good well earned tax payers money to other nations when it’s apparent we are just a dot on the map when it comes to the relatively small human impact of global warming. 

[Archied]

19 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

I just don’t get the clamour to chuck good well earned tax payers money to other nations when it’s apparent we are just a dot on the map when it comes to the relatively small human impact of global warming. 

Because we are in the age of insanity, it started with covid and won’t stop until people stand up 

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour ago, TexasRam said:

I just don’t get the clamour to chuck good well earned tax payers money to other nations when it’s apparent we are just a dot on the map when it comes to the relatively small human impact of global warming. 

But will you welcome all the refugees when their countries become uninhabitable?

The myopia of those who still view climate change from the perspective of individual countries is astounding. This is a global issue that won't be resolved until we stop bickering as pathetic nation states and act globally

Edited November 8, 2022 by Stive Pesley

[Gone]

3 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

But will you welcome all the refugees when their countries become uninhabitable?

The myopia of those who still view climate change from the perspective of individual countries is astounding. This is a global issue that won't be resolved until we stop bickering as pathetic nation states and act globally

Ok question for you, should we be giving money or taking in refugees due to the Pakistan floods this year based on apparently “climate change”?

According to the Federal Flood Commission, Pakistan has witnessed 28 super riverine floods in its 75-year history. The first recorded super flood was witnessed in 1950, followed by 1955, 1956, 1957, 1959, 1973, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1994, 1995 and then every year since 2010. Is it down to climate change caused by the UK or is it Humans living in an area extremely  liable to flooding. 

 

[Archied]

2 hours ago, TexasRam said:

Ok question for you, should we be giving money or taking in refugees due to the Pakistan floods this year based on apparently “climate change”?

According to the Federal Flood Commission, Pakistan has witnessed 28 super riverine floods in its 75-year history. The first recorded super flood was witnessed in 1950, followed by 1955, 1956, 1957, 1959, 1973, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1994, 1995 and then every year since 2010. Is it down to climate change caused by the UK or is it Humans living in an area extremely  liable to flooding. 

 

One wonders whether they should be spending money on flood prevention systems as it’s an historic recurring problem ,rather than on nuclear arms and space programs 

just heard someone say on talk radio monty Pythonesque, what’s the industrial revaluation ever done for us ??????

[Archied]

2 hours ago, TexasRam said:

Ok question for you, should we be giving money or taking in refugees due to the Pakistan floods this year based on apparently “climate change”?

According to the Federal Flood Commission, Pakistan has witnessed 28 super riverine floods in its 75-year history. The first recorded super flood was witnessed in 1950, followed by 1955, 1956, 1957, 1959, 1973, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1994, 1995 and then every year since 2010. Is it down to climate change caused by the UK or is it Humans living in an area extremely  liable to flooding. 

 

People killed in natural disasters since 1900 has dropped by 95%

https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters

Edited November 8, 2022 by Archied

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour ago, TexasRam said:

Is it down to climate change caused by the UK

Weird question. I assume you are deliberately doubling down on my comment that we're daft if we continue to view climate change from the perspective of individual countries.

My point is that the effect of climate change will raise sea levels and increase the risks of flooding for many countries, and as more and more areas become uninhabitable, the populations will be forced to migrate to higher land, or at least protect themselves from the water

So we (globally - not the UK) have a choice of doing nothing but accept refugees to our safer areas when they are displaced, or if we don't think we can cope with refugees en masse then we should help them with aid for flood defences. 

 

[Archied]

5 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Weird question. I assume you are deliberately doubling down on my comment that we're daft if we continue to view climate change from the perspective of individual countries.

My point is that the effect of climate change will raise sea levels and increase the risks of flooding for many countries, and as more and more areas become uninhabitable, the populations will be forced to migrate to higher land, or at least protect themselves from the water

So we (globally - not the UK) have a choice of doing nothing but accept refugees to our safer areas when they are displaced, or if we don't think we can cope with refugees en masse then we should help them with aid for flood defences. 

 

I’m originally from the west of Scotland, do you know the damage done to the population financially,,, stocking up on Bermuda shorts and Hawaiian shirts ready for it becoming the new Costa del sol by the nineties ,,,,,, grrrrrr  or rather brrrrrrrr it’s bloody cold

Edited November 8, 2022 by Archied

[Stive Pesley]

In an attempt to share some positive news - we don't actually hear much in the news about carbon sink solutions

On other words, rather than concentrating on reducing carbon emissions, there are alternate shorter term solutions being explored which concentrate on absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere. This could actually buy the time required to come up with longer term renewable energy solutions

https://www.climate-kic.org/news/co-action-carbon-capture-project-opens-new-field-plots/

[Gone]

59 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Weird question. I assume you are deliberately doubling down on my comment that we're daft if we continue to view climate change from the perspective of individual countries.

My point is that the effect of climate change will raise sea levels and increase the risks of flooding for many countries, and as more and more areas become uninhabitable, the populations will be forced to migrate to higher land, or at least protect themselves from the water

So we (globally - not the UK) have a choice of doing nothing but accept refugees to our safer areas when they are displaced, or if we don't think we can cope with refugees en masse then we should help them with aid for flood defences. 

 

Didn’t answer my question but ok fair enough it was a tough one.  

[Gone]

1 hour ago, Archied said:

One wonders whether they should be spending money on flood prevention systems as it’s an historic recurring problem ,rather than on nuclear arms and space programs 

just heard someone say on talk radio monty Pythonesque, what’s the industrial revaluation ever done for us ??????

Why would they want to spend money on flood defence when it’s obviously global warming and no stopping it. It’s another example in a long line of spin to sell the climate cause (which is valid but we seem to do it all wrong). Remember polar bears ? The poster boy/girl for global warming, don’t hear to much about them now do we? That’s because their population is actually increasing and not decreasing that was previously predicted due to “global warming” 

[Highgate]

2 hours ago, Archied said:

People killed in natural disasters since 1900 has dropped by 95%

https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters

That's true, but it's not because the disasters are less common or severe, it's just that we are better at responding to them to save lives.

As it said in the link you posted;

'This trend does not mean that disasters have become less frequent, or less intense. It means the world today is much better at preventing deaths from disasters than in the past. This will become increasingly important in our response and adaptation to climate change.'

So at least that's one aspect of the modern world that we should be thankful for.

The severity of some natural disasters are entirely unaffected by climate change of course, like volcanic eruptions and earthquakes.  However droughts are likely to be more severe and floods (due to the fact that warm air carries more moisture than cooler air) are predicted to be worse.  

[Archied]

53 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Why would they want to spend money on flood defence when it’s obviously global warming and no stopping it. It’s another example in a long line of spin to sell the climate cause (which is valid but we seem to do it all wrong). Remember polar bears ? The poster boy/girl for global warming, don’t hear to much about them now do we? That’s because their population is actually increasing and not decreasing that was previously predicted due to “global warming” 

And Canary Wharf was going to be flooded up to the 23 rd floor of buildings, we were going into the next ice age , idiot scammers flying into sharmel shake down on private jets , eating the best of beefs and fish in wonderfully air conditioned luxury hotels making speeches saying we are on the road to hell or 1 minute to midnight , is it any wonder we have young kids full of anxiety and on the verge of mental and emotional breakdowns in the clutches of cult loons like this roger hallam ,,,,,,,,,,, jeez

[Archied]

5 minutes ago, Highgate said:

That's true, but it's not because the disasters are less common or severe, it's just that we are better at responding to them to save lives.

As it said in the link you posted;

'This trend does not mean that disasters have become less frequent, or less intense. It means the world today is much better at preventing deaths from disasters than in the past. This will become increasingly important in our response and adaptation to climate change.'

So at least that's one aspect of the modern world that we should be thankful for.

The severity of some natural disasters are entirely unaffected by climate change of course, like volcanic eruptions and earthquakes.  However droughts are likely to be more severe and floods (due to the fact that warm air carries more moisture than cooler air) are predicted to be worse.  

Look it up the frequency and severity of these events is not up either

[I am Ram]

China has emitted more pollution in 14 years, than the UK has in the past 220 years. Brush up on your Mandarin chaps, some countries are not getting the message.

[Ram-Alf]

1 hour ago, TexasRam said:

Remember polar bears ? The poster boy/girl for global warming, don’t hear to much about them now do we? That’s because their population is actually increasing and not decreasing that was previously predicted due to “global warming” 

LOL, Mum and Dad are out fishing and when we grow up we'll be Grizzley Bears

[Stive Pesley]

18 minutes ago, I am Ram said:

China has emitted more pollution in 14 years, than the UK has in the past 220 years. Brush up on your Mandarin chaps, some countries are not getting the message.

Or brush up on your cockney. China is 39 times bigger than the UK, so by size you're saying that we are worse polluters

[Gone]

2 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Or brush up on your cockney. China is 39 times bigger than the UK, so by size you're saying that we are worse polluters

Ok so you’re argument is C02/person in the UK is worse or close to that in China. It makes no different on the global impact, it’s the mass population that’s doing the damage.
 

Another question for you, how many coal powered power stations and intergrated Steel plants has the UK built in the last 10 years? Same question about China? I’ll doubt you’ll know, so ill ask it in another way who’s doing more in the past 10 years to make the world a better place environmentally and who in the next 10 years will do so also? ( even at a huge cost to it’s population) and from that country doing more to make it a better place, how much overall impact do you think it will have?