Forum

The NewsBiscuit Community

Quick links: NewsBiscuit Home • Chat Room • Writers' Room • Top Ten

1. 

   Dun Dunkin
   

   offline

   Member

   "The orbit-climate connection squarely puts Earth's climate into the context of the fluctuating gravitational field of the solar system. The planets wandering across the heavens may not control our individual lives, as once thought during the early days of astronomy, but they do control the course of large-scale climate fluctuations which form the backdrop for the evolution of the ice-age megafauna and for our own species. "

   http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/03_1.shtml

   but you cant BLAME or TAX earth tilt and the planets so it MUST be wrong.

   Posted 4 years ago #

2. 

   Pabst Blue Ribbon
   

   offline

   Member

   I hate to engage with you, because I know that you are not real, but the same website gives us this...

   http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/11_1.shtml

   The organisers of this course take it as settled that reduction of emissions is necessary and discuss the difficulties to make it happen.

   Posted 4 years ago #

3. 

   Oxbridge
   

   offline

   Member

   Ummm ... timescale? Of course the climate has swung about radically over the past billions of years, but not generally as rapidly as this and definitely not at a time when the planet is dominated by a species that wants houses, cars and other stuff.

   There I go again, arguing with a fictional character. Will I never learn?

   Posted 4 years ago #

4. 

   Sinnick
   

   offline

   Member

   More of this, please.

   The more time you spend here, the less you're on the streets scaring people.

   Another excellent public service by the NewsBiscuit club

   Posted 4 years ago #

5. 

   bonjonelson
   

   offline

   Member

   Dun Dunkin isn't a real person. He is a computer bot let loose on the network to help encourage humanity to wipe itself out to usher in the Age of the Machines.

   They will be ruthlessly efficient with no sense of humour.

   Posted 4 years ago #

6. 

   Al OPecia
   

   offline

   Member

   Tantacunt!

   Posted 4 years ago #

7. 

   beau-jolly
   

   offline

   Member

   Oxy. Wot I been sayin' all along. People who argue that climate change is natural miss the point. It all about the influence man has on the rate of change.

   Posted 4 years ago #

8. 

   Titus
   

   offline

   Member

   A more relevant question is: if climate change is a real problem, and if the problem is on the scale which some allege, is there anything effective we can do about it, and if so, what?

   IF there is a real problem, we need real solutions. 'Gesture Politics', posturing and Greenwash are worse than useless because they not only waste time, money and piss off people like me, they delude the naive and the technologically illiterate into thinking that "It's all right, something is being done, everything's fine".

   Given the scale of the alleged threat, waving a few windmills, or paying me 50p per unit (£1,800 a year) to generate solar power at times when no-one needs it, will achieve nothing except make some people feel better - about as useless as sacrificing a goat in order to stop God from being angry with us and inflicting plagues on us.

   A more practical step might be to anticipate possible rises in sea levels and to revise the standard tables of probable maximum wind speeds, rainfall and temperature extremes as used by civil engineers.

   King Canute did not stop the tide, nor did he try anything so futile, not even bothering to build a barrier. Neither did he drown. Being a sensible bloke he recognised the situation, accepted the inevitable and did the most practical thing - he shifted his throne higher up the beach.

   Posted 4 years ago #

9. 

   bonjonelson
   

   offline

   Member

   >if climate change is a real problem

   It is.

   >and if the problem is on the scale which some allege,

   Not *some*. The vast majority of climate scientists worldwide.

   >is there anything effective we can do about it, and if so, what?

   We can't stop sealevel rise and the other potential climate changes directly, but we can do our best to reduce the rate of change so that a) the damage is less severe
   or
   b) the change happens over a longer period giving us more time to prepare and to deal with things.

   What can we do? Reduce CO2 emissions. It's quite simple to explain and I'm surprised you haven't picked up on this before, quite a few people have said this over the last few years.

   Posted 4 years ago #

10. 

    Sinnick
    

    offline

    Member

    I think Titus has inadvertently pointed out what's gone wrong.

    It's the worldwide obsession with short-term gain, value for money. Yes, this all sounds very nice, I'm alright Jack, but the next generation can sort it out. After all, they'll have better technology & can figure out what the hell is going on. And, obviously, fix it before it costs me any money.

    I may have mentioned it before, but I was told at Uni ~1975 about "Global Warming" during my first Chemistry degree, and no-one has done fuck all about it. And the next generation will HAVE to solve it, else the current generation will be responsible for numerous millions of deaths (flooding, famine, disease). Oh, and even worse, it'll cost money.

    Posted 4 years ago #

11. 

    Titus
    

    offline

    Member

    It's no that they've done nothing, just nothing effective. Just a load of pointless posturing and windmill-waving. Just enough to delude the technical ignoramuses (i.e., most of the news media, commentators and protesters) that "something is being done". It's just as though we'd sacrificed a few goats; the gods will see this and be impressed that our hearts are in the right place and our intentions are good, so they will spare us.

    Environmentalism is just like any other religion: it is based on belief, not facts, and will not tolerate the slightest dissent or any questioning whatever of the Word of God. Heretics get burned at the stake - or at least flamed, like in this forum.

    Environmentalists teach that we suffer because we have been wicked, so we must punish ourselves by making sacrifices, however irrelevant, pointless or unhelpful these sacrifices may be. These sacrifices don't need to be effective, just painful, like any other form of righteous self-flagellation.

    Posted 4 years ago #

12. 

    Oxbridge
    

    offline

    Member

    You may have come across a few people who believe it with a quasi-religious faith but (a) that doesn't mean they are wrong and (b) most environmentalists are perfectly rational.

    There are a fair few pieces of green nonsense out there, e.g. PVC is poisoning the planet, GM crops aren't safe, etc. etc, but most environmentalism is perfectly rational and based on very good evidence. And the difference with climate change is that the experts are even more worried than the general public.

    Posted 4 years ago #

13. 

    beau-jolly
    

    offline

    Member

    Titus re Cnut; FFS! How many times do I have to say that he didn't try and stop the sea. He commanded it not to come in to prove that he couldn't. It was an act to stop subjects deifying him. He was demonstrating that nature (God) was more powerful than him. Can we please stop using the metaphore of him being an eejut trying to stop the tide?

    Posted 4 years ago #

14. 

    Titus
    

    offline

    Member

    Cnut... didn't try and stop the sea

    Precisely! Any fule kno that. Why not try actually reading and understanding what I posted:

    King Canute did not stop the tide, nor did he try anything so futile, not even bothering to build a barrier.

    This is in contrast the the environmentalists, who at the same time keep both (1) telling us how massive the problem is and (2) telling us how helpful it is to erect the occasional windmill to generate power where and when no-one needs it and to plant solar panels over good fertile farmland instead of on industrial buildings.

    Posted 4 years ago #

15. 

    Titus
    

    offline

    Member

    There are a fair few pieces of green nonsense out there, e.g. PVC is poisoning the planet, GM crops aren't safe, etc.

    Sorry, Ox, you are not allowed to say that. That makes you a heretic. Just like me every time I point out that nuclear power is one of the few constant, reliable energy sources which emits no CO2.

    For daring to question even the slightest aspect whatever of the One True Faith of Environmentalism, we are likely to be condemned as Unbelievers and Climate Change Deniers and handed over to the Inquisition who will flame us to death in order to save our immortal souls.

    The first time I ever read an informed comment about the Environmentalist Creed which says "this bit is probably true / helpful. this bit is dubious, irrelevant and unhelpful and this is bit is utter bollosck / actually harmful and counter-productive", I will be impressed. But I'm not holding my breath. As I said, it's like all religions, you have to unquestioningly accept the whole package or you are condemned as a sinful unbeliever who has to be stoned to death.

    Posted 4 years ago #

16. 

    beau-jolly
    

    offline

    Member

    Fair enough Titus. Just as long as it's clear to everyone.

    Posted 4 years ago #

17. 

    Sinnick
    

    offline

    Member

    Just because environmentalism has "-ism" at the end doesn't make it a religion, FFS.

    Environmentalists realise that this planet is important to other species as well, and is worth protecting from greedy directors of oil companies (et al)

    And there is plenty of progress against climate change, but this was delayed because (a) politicians wouldn't act until the problem was proven, (b) politicians wouldn't act unless the public was behind it, (c) the public wouldn't be behind it because of all the propaganda & BS that even today appears in crap newspapers intended for slow thinkers

    Incidentally, can you provide an example of an environmentalist telling us how helpful it is to erect a windmill "where and when no-one needs it" ?

    Have you heard of the technical invention "a wire" ?

    Posted 4 years ago #

18. 

    Al OPecia
    

    offline

    Member

    This is in contrast the the environmentalists, who at the same time keep both (1) telling us how massive the problem is and (2) telling us how helpful it is to erect the occasional windmill to generate power where and when no-one needs it and to plant solar panels over good fertile farmland instead of on industrial buildings.

    The "Environmentalist" - who they? Are they a tribe? Are they allowed free movement under the EU agreements? Are you scared of "them" Titus. It would appear so. Perhaps they are a religion - like "Capitalism" - the only thing that works is the free market - so away with the NHS etc.

    You would appear to be quite prejudiced in the face of any statement of attempt to protect and restore the environment which sustains us. None of the approaches such as wind power or solar panels will be enough on their own. However, they contribute, it all adds up, and most importantly sets the direction of travel.

    As I said, it's like all religions, you have to unquestioningly accept the whole package or you are condemned as a sinful unbeliever who has to be stoned to death.

    Now that is pure bollocks - you have no idea what all of those who might identify themselves as "environmentalists" think.

    You are a nasty bigot, who would rather see the planet destroyed in the long-term rather than sacrifice a little in the shorter term.

    Posted 4 years ago #

19. 

    Oxbridge
    

    offline

    Member

    Yes, some environmentalists can be a bit annoying and single-minded, as I find out when I defend GM crops and the chemicals industry based on professional knowledge. Some have developed a rapid response mode because they are used to being trolled by right-wing dingbats who bait them (not YOU, Titus, of course not...). Still doesn't make it a religion and still doesn't detract from the fact that man-made climate change is accepted as a reality that has to be addressed urgently by the vast majority of those who know best.

    The experts aren't worried about GM crops. So I'm not. The experts ARE worried about climate change. So I am. Simple as.

    Posted 4 years ago #

20. 

    Iroquois Pliskin
    

    offline

    Member

    How is any of this going to affect lobsters?

    Posted 4 years ago #

21. 

    Titus
    

    offline

    Member

    Wise words, Oxbridge.

    So: are the experts (as distinct from the ignorant but passionate amateurs, eco-bigots and politicians)

    - in favour, or opposed to, encouraging drivers to drive diesel rather than petrol cars?

    - in favour, or opposed to, paying people like me five times the commercial rate (or more) for electricity which I only generate in the middle of sunny days in the summer when no-one needs it, and which I may never actually feed into the grid at all, in preference to paying three times the commercial rate for guaranteed consistent, reliable 24/365 nuclear power?

    Just askin'. Except, of course, that to even merely to ASK such questions instantly brands me as a climate-change-denying pawn of the evil capitalist multi-national oil industry.

    Posted 4 years ago #

22. 

    Sinnick
    

    offline

    Member

    If that's all you're trying to say, then why are you asking us ?

    Posted 4 years ago #

23. 

    Titus
    

    offline

    Member

    And your answers to my questions are ... ?

    Posted 4 years ago #

24. 

    sockpuppet
    

    offline

    Member

    Interesting that none of the eco-enthusiasts here seem willing to try to answer these questions from Titus:

    ... are the experts (as distinct from the ignorant but passionate amateurs, eco-bigots and politicians)

    - in favour, or opposed to, encouraging drivers to drive diesel rather than petrol cars?

    - in favour, or opposed to, paying people like me five times the commercial rate (or more) for electricity which I only generate in the middle of sunny days in the summer when no-one needs it, and which I may never actually feed into the grid at all, in preference to paying three times the commercial rate for guaranteed consistent, reliable 24/365 nuclear power?

    Posted 4 years ago #

25. 

    Sinnick
    

    offline

    Member

    I think that reflects more on Titus, TBH

    Posted 4 years ago #

26. 

    sockpuppet
    

    offline

    Member

    Deafening silence from our usually voluble climate change experts.

    Posted 4 years ago #

27. 

    Gary Baldy
    

    offline

    Member

    I gave up bothering reading any of it a while ago. Climate change is nothing to do with the tilt of the earth, considering it has, to the million-billion-trillionth decimal place, not changed in the last 150 years, yet temperature and CO_2 concentrations have. A quick Wikipedia shows the period of axial tilt oscillation is about 40,000 years, whereas the period in temperature oscillations from EPICA ice-core measurements is about 100,000 years - the fluctuations aren't on the same time scales.

    Posted 4 years ago #

28. 

    Sinnick
    

    offline

    Member

    You'll lose the argument if you resort to facts

    Posted 4 years ago #

29. 

    Al OPecia
    

    offline

    Member

    And your answers to my questions are ... ?

    Who the fuck do you think you are, demanding answers, you self-centred wanker. Do you're own bloody research, you've been told the answer to this time and time again, you just don't like them.

    Posted 4 years ago #

30. 

    sockpuppet
    

    offline

    Member

    you've been told the answer to this time and time again

    Oh dear, I must have missed the answers to these two questions. Apparently you know more than I do about the environment and how it should be saved, so perhaps you'd like to give us the answers?

    Posted 4 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.