Sir David Attenborough warns of climate 'crisis moment'
- Thread starter clifftaylor
- Start date
mad-moon
pfm Member
Yip..Global warming was known about then and probably long before. That's when something should have been done.. to state the obvious
Carlton
pfm Member
I had no idea that at the time of giving up smoking (19 yrs ago) I was, albeit in a very small way, helping to save the planet. Every little helps I suppose.
https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...nt-who-climate-change-pollution-a8564796.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...nt-who-climate-change-pollution-a8564796.html
rough edges
Sapere Aude
It is getting toasty on Earth. I'd recommend cooling off with a freezie made from Arctic sea ice, but that region is warming the fastest.
What a profound change in a few human lifetimes, and most of that change has been in the last 40 years.
Joe
Half of the total hydrocarbons that have ever been burned, have been burned since approximately 1990. Coincidence?
Mullardman
Moderately extreme...
Yep.. We have known or a very long time...
A well maintained Porsche creates less pollution than most whether 4 pot or 6. Are electric cars really better while we burn coal to make electricity ?
Too many people and billions more coming.
Livestock farming on an industrial scale.
Dirty industrial processes.
Deforestation.
garyi
leave blank
Here in lies the issue that I think Sir David was getting at, we are bolloxed. Carbon off set and all that shit, its too late. Now we have to stop. Stop building porches, stop building electric cars, stop, stop stop.
Lets face it, its too late now. We'll have around 100 years of dystopia, followed by extinction. Its really hard to feel positive about it. Like every other rich person, I am only glad I'll be long gone.
vuk
\o/ choose anarchy
i'm mainly of with you, but you can't let the porche people off that easily.
too many people is THE issue. if we have to stop eating meat altogether (or insert your own "bad" habit), what is the point of living? too many people is THE issue.
i don't eat very much meat these days and i only drive or ride in a car about 3 or 4 times per year (and not very far) but even if we all lived like that it wouldn't matter. it's not politically correct to to talk about population and almost all of those concerned tend to be politically correct. what do all y'all say?
vuk
\o/ choose anarchy
wise perception and response.
If we assume that the comment from "rough edges" above that half of the ever hydrocarbons burnt have been produced from 1990 until the present day is correct.
This is about the time when economies of the "emerging countries", China, Brazil, India, SE Asia, started taking off.
Who wants to tell the "emerging countries" that they cannot have all the consumers goods that the western world has enjoyed for the previous 100(?) years?
If the world cannot agree on a tax on Kerosene (aircraft fuel), similar to the vehicle fuel tax that most countries impose, how do you expect us to agree on anything more significant.
This is about the time when economies of the "emerging countries", China, Brazil, India, SE Asia, started taking off.
Who wants to tell the "emerging countries" that they cannot have all the consumers goods that the western world has enjoyed for the previous 100(?) years?
If the world cannot agree on a tax on Kerosene (aircraft fuel), similar to the vehicle fuel tax that most countries impose, how do you expect us to agree on anything more significant.
Yep. Global warming is natures way of telling us there are a couple of billion too many of us on this planet.
But forecasts are that there will be a couple of billion more than now in 30-40 years or so. And a couple of billion more after that.
Those countries in Africa, India, Indonesia, Pakistan are not going to stop population growth. Good God Hungary is actually promoting it right now as Govt. policy.
And everyone wants those same consumer goods.
Bolloxed is a good description.
Mike Reed
pfm Member
Hope my builder's not reading this. Poor bugger doesn't know he's adding to global warming. My porch adds to interior warming though !
It's a case of balancing increasing economic activity with decreasing ecological and climatic footprint. A tricky equation in this disparate world economy.
Good grief, more nonsense which, of course, the BBC promote and is lapped up on here.
In the seventies, the worry was a coming ice age. It never happened. Since the 80s, we have been told that 'Global Warming' (rebranded 'Climate Change' in 2004 when it was realised and proven that 'Global Warming' wasn't actually happening, and still hasn't - no recorded warming since 1998, even before that it was within the statistical margin of error) will cause all manner of disaster and catastrophe. ABSOLUTELY NONE OF WHICH HAS HAPPENED (not even the bush fires in Australia, for example, which were mostly caused by arsonists and spread due to poor management). Not a single one of the predicted disasters has happened.... and the deadlines keep being pushed back to keep us living in fear,
This article is from 2004, which predicts, among other things that didn't happen, that 'Britain will have a Siberian climate by 2020'. Guess what - it's now 2020 and the weather is pretty much as it was in 2010, 2000, 1990, 1980...... Also 'Global Warming' makes things colder, apparently, according to global warming zealots. This makes no logical sense. Anyway, here's the article: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
And now CO2. CO2 is essential for life on earth, therefore cannot be a pollutant - nature doesn't work like that, and David Attenborough must surely know this (by the way, he's a naturalist, not a climatologist). CO2 DOES NOT trap or retain heat, it's physical properties don't allow it to. Even if it could, there isn't enough of it to make the blindest bit of difference to the earth's temperature - current levels are around 400 parts per million (or 0.0000008% of the earth's atmosphere), which, as life starts to die off at around 270ppm, is dangerously low. Man's contribution to that 0.0000008% is 0.00002% - it's infinitesimally small. The biggest contribution to CO2 is humans and animals - we breathe it out, all day every day, and even then it makes no difference.
The climate does change though. VERY VERY slowly - like over millennia, not decades. The cycles are approximately 180,000 years, regardless of whether humans are here or not. The earth is essentially self-regulating.
If you still don't believe me that it's a massive con - in years to come it will be seen as a time when a large portion of mankind temporarily lost it's collective mind - then a) I will keep telling you all that it is (I have studied it for well over 25 years), and b) watch this
Then wake up to the fact you are being scammed by emotional blackmail, to create a false moral high ground as a basis for taxation ("Save the planet! Give governments your money!")
In the seventies, the worry was a coming ice age. It never happened. Since the 80s, we have been told that 'Global Warming' (rebranded 'Climate Change' in 2004 when it was realised and proven that 'Global Warming' wasn't actually happening, and still hasn't - no recorded warming since 1998, even before that it was within the statistical margin of error) will cause all manner of disaster and catastrophe. ABSOLUTELY NONE OF WHICH HAS HAPPENED (not even the bush fires in Australia, for example, which were mostly caused by arsonists and spread due to poor management). Not a single one of the predicted disasters has happened.... and the deadlines keep being pushed back to keep us living in fear,
This article is from 2004, which predicts, among other things that didn't happen, that 'Britain will have a Siberian climate by 2020'. Guess what - it's now 2020 and the weather is pretty much as it was in 2010, 2000, 1990, 1980...... Also 'Global Warming' makes things colder, apparently, according to global warming zealots. This makes no logical sense. Anyway, here's the article: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
And now CO2. CO2 is essential for life on earth, therefore cannot be a pollutant - nature doesn't work like that, and David Attenborough must surely know this (by the way, he's a naturalist, not a climatologist). CO2 DOES NOT trap or retain heat, it's physical properties don't allow it to. Even if it could, there isn't enough of it to make the blindest bit of difference to the earth's temperature - current levels are around 400 parts per million (or 0.0000008% of the earth's atmosphere), which, as life starts to die off at around 270ppm, is dangerously low. Man's contribution to that 0.0000008% is 0.00002% - it's infinitesimally small. The biggest contribution to CO2 is humans and animals - we breathe it out, all day every day, and even then it makes no difference.
The climate does change though. VERY VERY slowly - like over millennia, not decades. The cycles are approximately 180,000 years, regardless of whether humans are here or not. The earth is essentially self-regulating.
If you still don't believe me that it's a massive con - in years to come it will be seen as a time when a large portion of mankind temporarily lost it's collective mind - then a) I will keep telling you all that it is (I have studied it for well over 25 years), and b) watch this
Then wake up to the fact you are being scammed by emotional blackmail, to create a false moral high ground as a basis for taxation ("Save the planet! Give governments your money!")
3
35451
Guest
Must be More CO2 hot air and power consumption coming off the worlds forums and chat rants and data centres, than a few 6pot Porsches
You wonder what they gain from either viewpoint ?
Less pollution can only be a good thing. There is no downside.
Brexit can only be a mistake. There is no upside.
clifftaylor
Absolutely retired!
Sadly we have a PM who's a backside.