Off Topic Climate change/ pollution
- Thread starter bradymk2
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
It's been around for a while, it's sort of blended into the whole chem trails and HAARP nonsense. It's circular and these people often react to whatever global event is happening and then put out the kind of reasoning you'd hear from Dr Evil in Austin Powers. Besides, if the government was manipulating the weather, why would ours choose the ****test weather on the planet? The government of Eritrea be like "yeah, we'll go for another drought again this year."
Remember [HASHTAG]#savethechildren[/HASHTAG]? The idea being that there were children being trafficked for "adrenochrome" by East Coast elites in underground tunnels in order to sustain a blood ritual to the demi god Baal? They got bored of that pretty quickly, but that's the grift; hype up outrage, get clicks and views on monetised videos, they make money off these rubes. Number of children saved by that movement? Zero. The number of complaints from actual anti-CSE charities and support networks being blocked from doing their jobs by these morons? More than zero.
If you are lead guitarist with The Tragically Hip, I claim the fiver
You must log in or register to see media
Last edited:
I’ve currently got two staff in Dubai for the whole week for meetings and a conference. The weather has indeed been ridiculous and only in the last day or so have they even been able to get about, and the slowly. I told them they have to get a weeks worth of meetings into 2 days!
Carbon offsetting, you're (they're) having a laugh.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-61300708
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-61300708
That is compounded by a number of other factors, including of the trees that survive, many are non-indigenous, which means the local flora and fauna that rely on the woodland for their survival can't exist with them, and their numbers decline too. It's been asked of some local initiatives if they are environmental solutions or tree museums, as they do not support local wildlife.
Counter-intuitively, if they are planted in the wrong place, trees can also have a negative impact on local air quality, by their own emissions or by limiting air flow.
Another thing worth looking into, is how they actually calculate carbon emissions. It is laughably weak and prone to abuse. Carbon neutral can be achieved with some judicious strokes of the pen to reassign the emission factors, or by simply removing the activity from the inventory by passing its ownership to other parties. Both would appear to reduce so called 'carbon' emissions with nothing changing in reality, which if you look at the science, is the wrong term anyway as carbon on it's own does not impact the climate. If you doubt that, ignoring their extraction, consider how much impact eliminating diamonds would have.
You must log in or register to see images
It's going to be absolutely roasting for the next few days to get the average up.
Met Office issues April heatwave verdict with UK to predicted to 'bake'
https://www.aberdeenlive.news/news/uk-world-news/met-office-issues-april-heatwave-9203629
Met Office issues April heatwave verdict with UK to predicted to 'bake'
- 14:43, 3 APR 2024
https://www.aberdeenlive.news/news/uk-world-news/met-office-issues-april-heatwave-9203629
Well unless the world ends, that's clearly bollocks. It may be a crap one, but I'd bet my house summer will occur.
BBC panorama didn't have much good to say about carbon credits and off setting.
As a source of investigative reporting Panorama is about as reliable as the Sunday Sport.
Is it? Don't really watch but that surprises me to read.
And on carbon credits specifically it seems pretty believable that there'd be a lot of skullduggery going on around that, sadly.
They're part of the BBC, so some, from both sides of the political divide, start with the opinion that whatever they do/say they're biased and wrong.
The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.
Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I refer to it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise
have.)
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward–reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story–and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.
But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190908145438/http://www.omsj.org/blogs/gell-mann-effect
have.)
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward–reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story–and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.
But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190908145438/http://www.omsj.org/blogs/gell-mann-effect
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a60819842/50000-year-old-block-of-ice/That'd **** up the climate narrative.
This doesn't though. Well it does in the way that you try to spin it.