Gotta love Extinction Rebellion

[Highgate]

52 minutes ago, Archied said:

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

From those graphs it seems like the frequency of floods is level enough since then 1990s apart from a peak around 2006.  The only way of measuring the intensity of the floods would be the height the water reaches really...or the number of days land remains flooded.  I don't see that anywhere.  Obviously, number of people displaced or killed are not accurate ways to measure the intensity of a flood.  Similarly with a drought, the number of dry days and the temperature are accurate ways to measure the intensity of a drought. The number of deaths really reflects more the effectiveness of the response.  

[Gaspode]

17 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

Pretty sure the damge to the environment should be measured on totals emiited rather than a per head basis - though that evidently doesn't fit your narative so doubt you'd agree....

[Archied]

9 minutes ago, Highgate said:

From those graphs it seems like the frequency of floods is level enough since then 1990s apart from a peak around 2006.  The only way of measuring the intensity of the floods would be the height the water reaches really...or the number of days land remains flooded.  I don't see that anywhere.  Obviously, number of people displaced or killed are not accurate ways to measure the intensity of a flood.  Similarly with a drought, the number of dry days and the temperature are accurate ways to measure the intensity of a drought. The number of deaths really reflects more the effectiveness of the response.  

Research it ( and I mean that not in a sarky way I’m just not very good at keeping track of where I read or hear stuff) I’m pretty sure the ipcc data shows this but may be wrong , I am sure there is plenty of data showing severity of natural disasters has not massively grown over the last 100 years

[Archied]

Apparently this roger hallam lives off donations from fans ,,, wonder if some on here will be labelling him a grifter as they do those who they disagree with or giving him a pass because they share his opinion?

Edited November 8, 2022 by Archied

[Stive Pesley]

44 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

Pretty sure the damge to the environment should be measured on totals emiited rather than a per head basis - though that evidently doesn't fit your narative so doubt you'd agree....

If I have a "narrative" on climate change then it's that the problem is global and can only be solved globally. People who continue to look at it from the perspective of individual countries and who is worse than who - are akin to bickering toddlers blaming each other for the stink that emanates from both their nappies. It doesn't bring anything to the debate, it only detracts

 

 

[Gaspode]

30 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

If I have a "narrative" on climate change then it's that the problem is global and can only be solved globally. People who continue to look at it from the perspective of individual countries and who is worse than who - are akin to bickering toddlers blaming each other for the stink that emanates from both their nappies. It doesn't bring anything to the debate, it only detracts

 

 

Maybe I misread your comment - you seemed to be pointing out that the UK was a worse polluter per head than China - which as you say is utterly irrelevant in the big scheme of things.....

[Highgate]

3 hours 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” 

There numbers have been slightly increasing in recent years, due to greater restrictions on hunting, both commercial and sport, and better conservation practices. It's a testimony to what can be achieved with better regulations. 

[Gone]

7 minutes ago, Highgate said:

There numbers have been slightly increasing in recent years, due to greater restrictions on hunting, both commercial and sport, and better conservation practices. It's a testimony to what can be achieved with better regulations. 

Agree however it’s been widely stated that their habit is being destroyed and they will die out with or without human cruelty, this isn’t the case. 

[Highgate]

1 hour ago, Archied said:

Research it ( and I mean that not in a sarky way I’m just not very good at keeping track of where I read or hear stuff) I’m pretty sure the ipcc data shows this but may be wrong , I am sure there is plenty of data showing severity of natural disasters has not massively grown over the last 100 years

https://source.colostate.edu/climate-change-is-making-flooding-worse-3-reasons-the-world-is-seeing-more-record-breaking-deluges/

It seems to be.  But it's a gradual trend, and the high levels of natural variability make this a tricky thing to research.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/extreme-one-day-precipitation-usa

[Highgate]

7 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Agree however it’s been widely stated that their habit is being destroyed and they will die out with or without human cruelty, this isn’t the case. 

Well, like any wild animal if there habitat is decreased in size or damaged then their numbers will likely suffer.  At the moment that effect is being cancelled out by the fact that we have been shooting dead 500 less polar bears every year.  That's bound to help their population numbers!

[ketteringram]

1 hour ago, Archied said:

Apparently this roger hallam lives off donations from fans ,,, wonder if some on here will be labelling him a grifter as they do those who they disagree with or giving him a pass because they share his opinion?

I assume it's perfectly acceptable, if I track him down, and seriously screw up his day a few days in a row. 

[Archied]

22 minutes ago, ketteringram said:

I assume it's perfectly acceptable, if I track him down, and seriously screw up his day a few days in a row. 

Good idea,,, I was more interested if people would dismiss climate crisis as opposed to climate change as grift in the same way they dismiss anything people they call a grifter peddle

[I am Ram]

3 hours 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

It will not mean a thing if we went 100% green tomorrow, if China, Usa, India, Russia and Iran don't. It's a global issue, just stop oil should protest in the worst offending countries first.

[Archied]

1 minute ago, I am Ram said:

It will not mean a thing if we went 100% green tomorrow, if China, Usa, India, Russia and Iran don't. It's a global issue, just stop oil should protest in the worst offending countries first.

Like present day Egypt ( sharmel shakedown town)?

[I am Ram]

1 minute ago, Archied said:

Like present day Egypt ( sharmel shakedown town)?

I mean if they were serious, instead of an all expense paid pissup. Couldn't they have had this conference over the internet lol. I think it's the usual message, we the plebs cut down and the rich\well off and famous carry on. Hypocrites.

[Gone]

1 hour ago, Highgate said:

Well, like any wild animal if there habitat is decreased in size or damaged then their numbers will likely suffer.  At the moment that effect is being cancelled out by the fact that we have been shooting dead 500 less polar bears every year.  That's bound to help their population numbers!

There numbers have increased to around 36k from 21k when in fact the WWF thought they would be nearing extinction. Look I’m so glad they are not and they’re blossoming, however the prediction even with the hunting cessation they would die out isn’t happening. Another doomsday scenario that isn’t coming to fruition that’s been conveniently swept under the carpet.  

[Highgate]

18 minutes ago, I am Ram said:

It will not mean a thing if we went 100% green tomorrow, if China, Usa, India, Russia and Iran don't. It's a global issue, just stop oil should protest in the worst offending countries first.

 It would mean clean air, less illness and death from respiratory and cardiac illness in the UK.  It would mean energy security for the UK, a domestic energy production industry and jobs, and not having to pay Russia, Iran and Saudi £billions for their fossil fuels.  It would mean the UK would be a world leader and an example to the rest of the world on how to make the transition to a green energy sector. 

You are right about Net Zero in the UK alone having a negligible impact on global climate change but there are loads of good reasons for the UK to crack on with going green.

[Highgate]

7 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

There numbers have increased to around 36k from 21k when in fact the WWF thought they would be nearing extinction. Look I’m so glad they are not and they’re blossoming, however the prediction even with the hunting cessation they would die out isn’t happening. Another doomsday scenario that isn’t coming to fruition that’s been conveniently swept under the carpet.  

We are both happy that their numbers are recovering then, although I might suddenly change my mind if I ever encounter one in the wild.

The real doomsday scenarios that we should we worried about when talking about the Arctic are the potential complete loss of sea ice during the summer (which would mean the planet will then reflect less sunlight back in to space as open seas are far less reflective than ice) and especially the likelihood that methane reserves will be released from sea beds and permafrost as ground temperatures warm up.  Both of these are examples of positive feedback loops which accelerate global warming. It happens to be the case that the Arctic is experiencing temperature increases far faster than the global average.

[I am Ram]

14 minutes ago, Highgate said:

 It would mean clean air, less illness and death from respiratory and cardiac illness in the UK.  It would mean energy security for the UK, a domestic energy production industry and jobs, and not having to pay Russia, Iran and Saudi £billions for their fossil fuels.  It would mean the UK would be a world leader and an example to the rest of the world on how to make the transition to a green energy sector. 

You are right about Net Zero in the UK alone having a negligible impact on global climate change but there are loads of good reasons for the UK to crack on with going green.

If we did go all in (green), and say China, Russia and Iran never did, would this weaken us at a security and defensive level  ?

[Highgate]

1 minute ago, I am Ram said:

If we did go all in (green), and say China, Russia and Iran never did, would this weaken us at a security and defensive level  ?

I don't see how it would. Maybe you have ideas about that yourself.

For starters if you are producing your own power, then oil producing nations can't charge you whatever the want for their oil and Russia can't turn off the gas when there is a war on.  I think any country would want to be self sufficient in terms of energy production from a national security point of view.