Global warming? Oh no not again!!!

John Keane

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
3,196
Reaction score
6
Location
North West
I said she is autistic, which she is??! Why would that offend you?
Bit of casual labelling as a put-down? Why is her message any more or less compelling because she has a disability of sorts?

I bet if some Eco-warrior from Pakistan had a similar message and I disagreed with his viewpoint and made a note of the fact that he was a Muslim, I’d get censured and edited?
 
Last edited:

lambert1

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Messages
1,396
Reaction score
38
Location
Berkshire
Oh please don't now start pleading innocence! As someone else has pointed out it was a cheap shot. Ill informed and ignorant. Why did you need to mention her autism if it was not to try and belittle her? The cherry on the top I believe were your words. Anyone with an autistic child knows where I am coming from. There is a huge amount of ignorance about autism in its various forms and to use it in a derogatory manner is very unhelpful. The fact that she is autistic does not mean that she has to be wrong and should not be used as evidence of such. You clearly know very little about her, her autism and as previously mentioned, even her travel arrangements. The fact that she is young does not mean that she is wrong either. Age does not always bring wisdom and the young have a right to be heard too.
 

nottskev

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2016
Messages
2,862
Reaction score
194
Calling her an "autistic fifteen year old" shows ignorance of the fact that many people within the broad category "autistic" are at the higher-performing end of the spectrum of human abilities ie may well be well ahead in many ways of the mass of the public. In addition, the label as used, is clearly meant to imply that she is disqualified from advocating her environmental views because she is too young and there's something wrong with her. And I didn't find it "offensive" - we all know about these people who get offended about everything all the time and allegedly stifle free speech etc. I just took it as a sign of a sloppy argument where someone plays the man (or girl) rather then the ball.

The questions in the OP's original post show some uncertainty about the role of C02 and greenhouse gases in driving the climate and the connections between these, raised temperatures and sea levels, extreme weather etc. It would be better to do a bit more "personal research" before declaring the prospect of environmental crisis a hoax designed to cast a shadow over our enjoyment of small hatchbacks and central heating. If anything deserves scepticism, it's the denial propaganda funded by the businesses which would like to tranquilise public concern to ensure their profits flow come what may. Two useful sayings: "cui bono" and "follow the money".
 

lambert1

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Messages
1,396
Reaction score
38
Location
Berkshire
[QUOT- we all know about these people who get offended about everything all the time and allegedly stifle free speech etc.

I don't get offended about much Kev, but I do not appreciate being labelled as getting offended about everything. If you can show me any post on here from me in the past where I have been "offended", I would like to see it. I did find this particular comment offensive as I have a family member who has Asbergers and I know what she suffers from the ignorance of others. To be honest I think my time would be better spent with her from now on. I want nothing more to do with FM and its members.
 

nottskev

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2016
Messages
2,862
Reaction score
194
[QUOT- we all know about these people who get offended about everything all the time and allegedly stifle free speech etc.

I don't get offended about much Kev, but I do not appreciate being labelled as getting offended about everything. If you can show me any post on here from me in the past where I have been "offended", I would like to see it. I did find this particular comment offensive as I have a family member who has Asbergers and I know what she suffers from the ignorance of others. To be honest I think my time would be better spent with her from now on. I want nothing more to do with FM and its members.
Sorry Lambert - complete misunderstanding here. I entirely agree with your posts. My point was that it's popular these days, in some quarters, to accuse people of being offended too easily, and I thought that when the poster asked why someone might be offended, they were deflecting away from their own comment. I'm finding it hard to untangle this now, but I hope you see what I'm getting at. I thought it was right out of order to label her "an autistic 15 year old", and then asking why anyone might be offended a way to make it seem that if you did object you were in the too-easily offended camp. I hope that's cleared up the impression I've somehow given you, and apologies for causing confusion.
 

laguna

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
3,268
Reaction score
8
Location
Bradford, West Yorkshire
I'm an angler, an environmentalist, a conservationist, an heretic and a realist, what can I say.
C02 is not responsible for global warming. That big orange thing in the sky is.

Is the earth getting warmer? Probably. It's cyclic.
Is it due to increased C02 levels? No. The biggest greenhouse gas is water vapour - caused by the sun - not by C02.
So what's caused an increase in water vapour (and cloud)? That big orange thing in the sky!

The climate has been changing since the earth was formed. We've had a couple of ice ages and we were once tropic. The earth will continue changing until the day the sun stops shining.

I don't deny an increase in C02 levels, I haven't run the data. But I accept it's higher, I just don't accept the science behind what's being claimed by paid researchers.
The increase in C02 levels could be due to a number of things such as large scale deforestation and emerging economies burning more carbon fuels than ever before... it is thought to be higher now to when it was during the industrial revolution when we had deep snow and hot summers. But even if you add China into the mix and others, the simple fact remains; C02 does not cause rising temperatures or acidification of our seas which average pH 8.2 - the chemistry simply doesn't add up.

As fishkeepers we know for example that calcium carbonate acts as a buffer and prevents acidification and spikes.
And again, the term 'bleaching' of coral reefs could be due to shifting weather patterns and pollution carried on currents around the globe. I read recently that most reef corals are dying due to pollutants and runoff. The hard coral substrates aren't dissolving in acid as some would have us believe, the life it supports (that is, the live animal) is simply dying - perhaps, due in part to an increase in anaerobic bacteria in direct relation to a decrease in aerobic bacteria in our oceans from pollutants and the efficiency in which removing nitrates and nitrites has become detrimental to a multitude of marine organisms.. The delicate 'balance' that breathes life into living rocks. Deep-sea corals (don't depend on warm water or sunlight) are also said to be dying go figure.

The global warming movement has captured imaginations, earth system computer modelling have wrongly attributed C02 as the primary cause for what is a natural cyclic phenomenon as far as I'm concerned. Remember, those same paid experts in the 70's? they were preparing us for another ice age and now Greta has been put forward as their prodigy child in order to stifle that debate. She's being used by profiteers to further a Globalist agenda - politically driven based on pseudoscience by grant recipients - routinely manipulating data from earth system models (garbage in garbage out) and taxing everyone to pay for their private green vanity projects. Greta is every bit a victim like the rest of us in that respect.

The real concerns we can all reunite around and agree on: habitat destruction, invasive species, plastic pollution, pesticides, GMO's, over-fishing, clearcutting, deforestation, destruction of whole eco systems (dredging), wildlife poaching, fracking, the list goes on..



Merry Christmas to one and all!

YouTube
 

bennygesserit

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
5,727
Reaction score
40
Location
.
try doing the research with an open mind and you will come to a different conclusion - you have already made your mind up so nothing I say will change your mind
 

mikench

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
15,178
Reaction score
1,345
Location
leafy cheshire
Can I just state for the benefit of Lambert1 and repeat what I have stated before in other posts , that human communication to be effective needs eye contact , facial expression and tone of voice. The written word can sometimes come across as tactless or blunt and can then be misinterpreted . I know this only too well from my own shortcomings.Having read this post from the beginning I agreed with your irritation at the dismissive description of Greta Thunberg and that her views and actions were less deserving because she was 15 and autistic. Nottskev did too, and, without putting print on the page/ words in his mouth, he wasn't being critical of you or referring to you as someone offended too easily. His posts, at least to me, made no such intimation at all and could not and should not be interpreted as such. There is thus a great irony in your last post which I'm sure you would not have intended. Nottskev doesn't need me to explain his actions as imo no explanation is needed. He was supporting you and this was palpably obvious from his posts.

I suggest you reread the thread and hopefully think again and remain as a valuable contributor to the forum.
 
Last edited:

mikench

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
15,178
Reaction score
1,345
Location
leafy cheshire
C02 is not responsible for global warming. That big orange thing in the sky is.
You are probably more of a biochemist than I Chris, but the sun on its own isn't to blame. The world at the last ice age had between 1 and 10 million people, vast swathes of forest, clean oceans, no plastic, no use of fossil fuels, no internal combustion engines etc etc. Now we have over 8 billion people breathing out co2, driving cars, burning coal, gas , oil and wood, cutting down millions of trees, keeping animals which create methane and eat valuable vegetable foodstuffs. Our activities coupled with the power of the sun create chemical reactions mainly detrimental.

TV programmes can be created to convey any message you like and I don't believe anything they say in isolation. We cannot comment on what the world was like 10,000 years ago because we don't know and people at that time were as scarce as wild tigers and were largely ignorant. We can only comment on today to protect our world for us and for our kids and their kids. I would rather err on the side of caution than ignore what we see because it's a natural phenomenon which occurs periodically. I don't subscribe to that view.
 

steve2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
2,950
Reaction score
372
Location
on the move
try doing the research with an open mind and you will come to a different conclusion - you have already made your mind up so nothing I say will change your mind
Problem is that all that research comes down on one side or the other so you will always end believing one side or the other.

What ever we say or do we have to face the fact that this planet is dying but it will exist long after we have all died off. It as happened in the past and it will happen again and we have no control over that. So enjoy it while you can nothing lasts forever.
 

John Keane

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
3,196
Reaction score
6
Location
North West
I'm an angler, an environmentalist, a conservationist, an heretic and a realist, what can I say.
C02 is not responsible for global warming. That big orange thing in the sky is.

Is the earth getting warmer? Probably. It's cyclic.
Is it due to increased C02 levels? No. The biggest greenhouse gas is water vapour - caused by the sun - not by C02.
So what's caused an increase in water vapour (and cloud)? That big orange thing in the sky!

The climate has been changing since the earth was formed. We've had a couple of ice ages and we were once tropic. The earth will continue changing until the day the sun stops shining.

I don't deny an increase in C02 levels, I haven't run the data. But I accept it's higher, I just don't accept the science behind what's being claimed by paid researchers.
The increase in C02 levels could be due to a number of things such as large scale deforestation and emerging economies burning more carbon fuels than ever before... it is thought to be higher now to when it was during the industrial revolution when we had deep snow and hot summers. But even if you add China into the mix and others, the simple fact remains; C02 does not cause rising temperatures or acidification of our seas which average pH 8.2 - the chemistry simply doesn't add up.

As fishkeepers we know for example that calcium carbonate acts as a buffer and prevents acidification and spikes.
And again, the term 'bleaching' of coral reefs could be due to shifting weather patterns and pollution carried on currents around the globe. I read recently that most reef corals are dying due to pollutants and runoff. The hard coral substrates aren't dissolving in acid as some would have us believe, the life it supports (that is, the live animal) is simply dying - perhaps, due in part to an increase in anaerobic bacteria in direct relation to a decrease in aerobic bacteria in our oceans from pollutants and the efficiency in which removing nitrates and nitrites has become detrimental to a multitude of marine organisms.. The delicate 'balance' that breathes life into living rocks. Deep-sea corals (don't depend on warm water or sunlight) are also said to be dying go figure.

The global warming movement has captured imaginations, earth system computer modelling have wrongly attributed C02 as the primary cause for what is a natural cyclic phenomenon as far as I'm concerned. Remember, those same paid experts in the 70's? they were preparing us for another ice age and now Greta has been put forward as their prodigy child in order to stifle that debate. She's being used by profiteers to further a Globalist agenda - politically driven based on pseudoscience by grant recipients - routinely manipulating data from earth system models (garbage in garbage out) and taxing everyone to pay for their private green vanity projects. Greta is every bit a victim like the rest of us in that respect.

The real concerns we can all reunite around and agree on: habitat destruction, invasive species, plastic pollution, pesticides, GMO's, over-fishing, clearcutting, deforestation, destruction of whole eco systems (dredging), wildlife poaching, fracking, the list goes on..



Merry Christmas to one and all!

YouTube
If it wasn’t for “the big orange thing in the sky” greenhouse gases wouldn’t be an issue. I’m in the global warming camp and think that the “big orange thing in the sky” is only half of the problem and we are the catalyst for other half.
 

nottskev

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2016
Messages
2,862
Reaction score
194
There's something comical but disturbing about climate change skeptics dismissing the overwhelming scientific consensus about the real-world developments we are witnessing as "paid experts", given the clearly documented history of the attempts to undermine public confidence in science by "science" emanating from conservative think-tanks funded by business money. There's more than a passing resemblance to the way the tobacco industries invested in "science" to bamboozle the public about the health risks of smoking. The conspiratorial view on global warming - "It's just what THEY want us to believe -" is transparently connected, in the main, to vested interests, and often adopted by those who think that dismissing the experts is somehow sticking it to the man.
 

lambert1

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Messages
1,396
Reaction score
38
Location
Berkshire
Can I just state for the benefit of Lambert1 and repeat what I have stated before in other posts , that human communication to be effective needs eye contact , facial expression and tone of voice. The written word can sometimes come across as tactless or blunt and can then be misinterpreted . I know this only too well from my own shortcomings.Having read this post from the beginning I agreed with your irritation at the dismissive description of Greta Thunberg and that her views and actions were less deserving because she was 15 and autistic. Nottskev did too, and, without putting print on the page/ words in his mouth, he wasn't being critical of you or referring to you as someone offended too easily. His posts, at least to me, made no such intimation at all and could not and should not be interpreted as such. There is thus a great irony in your last post which I'm sure you would not have intended. Nottskev doesn't need me to explain his actions as imo no explanation is needed. He was supporting you and this was palpably obvious from his posts.

I suggest you reread the thread and hopefully think again and remain as a valuable contributor to the forum.
Yes Mike guilty of the above and for over reacting in general. It is something I feel strongly about but that should not get in the way of reason. Kind regards to you and Kev.
 

David Rogers 3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
465
Reaction score
75
Location
Cheshire

nottskev

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2016
Messages
2,862
Reaction score
194
Thanks for reminding me the Express is still out there. Here it is, in the words of Salford's greatest living poet.


YOU NEVER SEE A NIPPLE IN THE DAILY EXPRESS

I’ve seen the poison letters of the horrible hacks
About the yellow peril and the reds and the blacks
And the TUC and its treacherous acts
Kremlin money – All right Jack
I’ve seen how democracy is under duress
But I’ve never seen a nipple in the Daily Express

I’ve seen the suede jack boot the verbal cosh
Whitehouse Whitelaw whitewash
Blood uptown where the vandals rule
Classroom mafia scandal school
They accuse – I confess
I’ve never seen a nipple in the Daily Express

Angry columns scream in pain
Love in vain domestic strain
Divorce disease it eats away
The family structure day by day
In the grim pursuit of happiness
I’ve never seen a nipple in the Daily Express

This paper’s boring mindless mean
Full of pornography the kind that’s clean
Where William Hickey meets Michael Caine
Again and again and again and again
I’ve seen millionaires on the DHSS
But I’ve never seen a nipple in the Daily Express
 

fishface1

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 13, 2011
Messages
127
Reaction score
0
And you have to remember that very nearly half the people in this country are below average intelligence.....
 
Top