It’s already here though, you’re just choosing to ignore it. You didn’t notice the flooding in Pakistan, or the wildfires in ****ing ENGLAND last summer, or the record high temperatures, or the swing to record lows in North America a week or so ago. Just completely ignoring it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.
Temperatures and climates have always fluctuated. Since the earth began. Doesn’t mean we are all going to die
I read it and thought they meant unless the trend towards increasing temperature and greenhouse gas emissions was reversed by the year 2000, then low lying nations would be flooded etc. The trend wasn't reversed in time, and now we're seeing the flooding a few decades later so to my eyes, the article seemed like it was on the right track. Whether the changes to climate are a natural cycle that we couldn't avoid or were caused by human activity is actually irrelevant to the coming human tragedy however we still ought to be trying to slow the changes if possible and reducing/stopping fossil fuel exploitation still ought to be top of the list of things we could be trying in my opinion.
I'll go with David Attenborough, the WEF and NASA. Frozen planet 2 is on now worth watching climate change effects sceptic or not. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/09/rising-sea-levels-global-threat Over 410 million people are predicted to be at risk from rising sea levels by 2100. "Sea levels have been rising faster since about 1850 when people started burning coal." "Rising seas are a global challenge from small island developing states to developed economies. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ "Key Takeaway: Global sea levels are rising as a result of human-caused global warming, with recent rates being unprecedented over the past 2,500-plus years."
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-change-oil-industry-environment-warning-1968 "The Stanford Research Institute presented a report to the American Petroleum Institute (API) in 1968 that warned the release of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels could carry an array of harmful consequences for the planet." "The emergence of this stark advice follows a series of revelations that the fossil fuel industry was aware of climate change for decades, only to publicly deny its scientific basis." “Significant temperature changes are almost certain to occur by the year 2000 and these could bring about climatic change,” the 1968 Stanford report, found and republished by the Center for International Environmental Law, states. “If the Earth’s temperature increases significantly, a number of events might be expected to occur including the melting of the Antarctic ice cap, a rise in sea levels, warming of the oceans and an increase in photosynthesis."
Luckily now my ex MP, moved the colossal distance from New Forest East to Southampton Test. Although I hear he has been knighted for his efforts to office paper supplies (The only MP who doesn’t have an email address, or at least that was the case).
Ok, I’m done with you. I can’t put you on ignore because I’m a moderator, but I won’t waste any more energy engaging with someone so far down your particular rabbit hole. You will wake up eventually, if that I am sure.
You actually wrote a quote and replaced the word “could” with “will”. It’s almost funny how muddled you are.
I guess that’s the good thing with this mass hysteria. At least we will know in the next 20 years who is correct . You are all betting that the same people that have predicted the apocalypse over and over again will prove to be correct. I am more optimistic. I think they are wrong again. I’m sad that you feel the need to put me on ignore chilcs. I’m entitled to my opinions, I haven’t been rude to anyone. I’m just fearful of this slow March toward climate communism. Fake Science has been used through history by governments to claim more and more unfettered power. I see that there was a breakthrough in nuclear fusion recently. Hopefully that will be a technological breakthrough that makes this entire conversation a moot point anyway. I will stop commenting on this thread now as clearly my opinions make people angry.
As I explained in words with one syllable, I can’t put you on ignore. I have to read every post on this forum because I’m a moderator. But you have once again twisted plain English to justify your apparent paranoia. I hope you’re right about nuclear fusion, but unless it happens on a large scale very soon, or unless governments across the world ditch fossil fuels completely very soon, it will be too late. That’s not my view, that’s scientific consensus. Baffled, and a bit sad, not angry mate.
The reason that apocalyptic damage hasn't occurred is that we've actually responded to impending crises. And the responses to those crises demonstrate that we can do so without any dire effect on the economy, as well. Major air quality initiatives were put in place beginning in the 1960s, including pollution controls on cars and on industry. Some suggested that it would ruin the economy. It didn't. The economy kept ticking along, and air quality has improved dramatically. Major initiatives aimed at reducing ambient lead were introduced in the 1970s, mainly removing it from fuel. Some suggested it would kill the automotive industry. It didn't. Industry adapted, and the amount of lead in the environment diminished drastically. In the late 1980s, after it had become clear that the ozone layer was being depleted by CFCs, the Montreal Protocol was created. Industry balked, suggesting there was no scientific consensus, and the costs would be too high. That wasn't the case. Life just kept going, and the ozone layer has healed significantly. In the early 1990s, programs targeted sulfur dioxide emissions, which were resulting in acid rain. It was suggested that reducing coal-fired plants that generated much of the SO2 would destroy the energy market, and thus the economy. It didn't. Cleaner energy-generation methods were substituted, life went on apace, just with far less acid rain and far fewer polluted lakes. The people who want action on climate change aren't the alarmists; the people suggesting that action on climate change will destroy the economy -- or lead to whatever the **** "climate communism" is -- are. If you actually believe in capitalism, you should be confident that industry can innovate to adapt to a low-carbon future, just as industry adapted to reduce smog, lead pollution, CFC pollution, and SO2 pollution. And yeah, industry had to be dragged kicking and screaming in each instance, but it got there in the end. It turns out regulation is good and it works!
People who ignore science and prefer to follow their own beliefs are a strange bunch that's for sure. I think some do it because they have an agenda of their own or just want to look self righteous, but what is worrying is that once one or two loudmouth know-it-alls lead the way the gullible easily fall into line. You then end up with whole groups spouting ridiculous beliefs despite science proving otherwise. The Emperor's new clothes phenomenon in action. Why, there are people out there claiming that men can become women just by putting on a dress or by signing a piece of paper. You can't get much more ridiculous than that, but some actually believe it. Science eh? Easy to ignore when it suits.
Ah, yes, the one or two loudmouths known as...the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, National Institute of Health, Royal College of Psychiatrists, World Professional Association, World Health Organization, et al.
Because the ozone layer problem never occurred... That's why CFCs were banned and it's recovered. Yes there is some sensationalization by the media but the trends for all of this is true: rising sea levels, increased warming etc. The problem is that someone will always find a hole and use it as an excuse to deny the period we are in. Think about most of those lobby groups strongly fighting this and you will see it is for their own agenda. Soon you will tell me you don't believe Global warming is real.
I missed these programs I'll try and find a stream for them. https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2022/big-oil-vs-the-world
