|
Post by SeanBroseley on Oct 26, 2021 20:35:49 GMT 1
I'm glad the government is hosting COP26 whilst it is sanctioning this
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Oct 27, 2021 10:57:18 GMT 1
-The leader of the world's most populous country, President Xi Jinping of China, is not expected to be there in person. He has not left China since the COVID-19 pandemic began. He is likely to make an appearance by video. China is likely to be represented by vice-environment minister Zhao Yingmin and climate envoy Xie Zhenhua, who has confirmed he will attend.
-The Kremlin has said Russian President Vladimir Putin will not travel to Glasgow.
-Britain's Queen Elizabeth has pulled out of the summit after being advised by doctors to rest. She will deliver an address to the assembled delegates via a recorded message, Buckingham Palace said.
-Pope Francis is not expected to attend. A Vatican source said there was a possibility that the pope would address the conference by video or that Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Parolin would read a message on his behalf.
-Iranian President Ebraham Raisi will not attend COP26 after reports in the British media that local politicians were calling for a criminal investigation if he set foot in Scotland.
-Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro and Vice President Hamilton Mourao, sometimes the point man for environment, are not going.
-Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador is not going. Mexico may not send anyone because of pandemic restrictions and costs.
-South African President Cyril Ramaphosa is not going because of local elections on Nov. 1.
-New Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has said he is considering how he will participate, possibly taking part online. The daily Yomiuri reported that Kishida was making arrangements to try to attend in person.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Oct 27, 2021 17:17:06 GMT 1
The shift from talking about “global warming” to a “climate crisis” in my lifetime reflects how the rhetoric of campaigners has become increasingly panicked. Teenagers and children growing up in, ahem, a climate shaped by constant predications of apocalyptic weather and polar bear extinction have naturally become deeply worried for the future. Surveys suggest at least 60 per cent of young people suffer from forms of eco-anxiety.
Campaigners might say this is the only sane reaction to the planet’s perilous plight. But it is also the natural consequence of impressionable young minds only ever being fed the worst possible news. It’s very easy for Extinction Rebellion to convince 10-year-olds that the world is on fire if they are never told that Nasa data shows the amount of land burned by wildfires worldwide dropped by a quarter between 2003 and 2019. Efforts at critical thinking are pushed out: a task in Scottish schools to get children to think of positives of climate change was removed after complaints from green campaigners. There's nothing wrong with politicians and campaigners trying to engage the young in issues that affect them. But the way to do that isn’t to be complicit in growing hysteria, and then deploy worried children and teenagers to justify unpopular policies. Intellectual and moral authority shouldn’t be derived from anxious adolescents, but from data, decent arguments, and a clear communication of costs and benefits.
Daily Telegraph.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Oct 27, 2021 20:11:10 GMT 1
The switch from talking about "global warning" to a "climate crisis" reflects that the changes to the climate are running ahead of the models.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Oct 29, 2021 13:02:27 GMT 1
What is the government’s principal objective for COP26: to persuade other governments to commit to reaching NetZero by 2050, or to show off Britain to the world as a place to do business, build the Prime Minister’s personal brand and pull one over on Nicola Sturgeon by presiding over an international event in her own backyard?
If the former, it never did make much sense for the government to reject advice to hold it as a virtual event. Surely, when you are preaching about slashing carbon emissions it would set a better example not to have 30,000 delegates fly in from all over the world. When the world has been forced to do business that way for many months anyway, and the technology for remote meetings has been proven, it is deeply perverse not to employ it for this conference of all conferences. Moreover, had the government held the event online it could have argued that Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin were attending it rather than allowing them to take great delight by snubbing the occasion.
But if the Prime Minister is really more interested in the second set of objectives, holding the event live in Glasgow looks like an even worse decision. Even if the train drivers really have called off their threatened strike, the world will still arrive in Glasgow to find some streets piled with rubbish and a desperate shortage of accommodation. What an image it will send if representatives of indigenous peoples from the Amazon and elsewhere - who say they still don’t have anywhere to stay - end up sleeping rough on Sauchiehall Street while the leaders of the rich world are ensconced in five star hotels.
But then that is the climate change elite all over – determined to enjoy a privileged lifestyle which it wants to deny to the rest of us. For months, ordinary travellers to Britain have been made to take expensive tests, isolate for 10 days, shut themselves away in quarantine at a cost of nearly £2000 a time. Then, with COP26 coming up, the red list was dramatically shrunk, even without any obvious drop in global infection rates. And now, the red list will miraculously be abolished altogether. Suddenly it is fine for tens of thousands of people to descend on a city without observing self-isolation. We can’t carry on as we have been doing, ministers are apt to tell us regarding climate change. Except that at Glasgow they will be doing just that: feasting while they plot to curtail the lifestyles of the rest of us. I fear that the world is not going to be entirely impressed by the show.
Ross Clark - Daily Telegraph.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Oct 29, 2021 13:14:17 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Oct 29, 2021 14:13:17 GMT 1
And there we have it - ignoring climate change is the new Brexit. The same dynamic to be played out. Are the English foolish enough to go long with? Of course we are. It's like delaying going to the doctors when you're passing blood.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Oct 29, 2021 18:17:36 GMT 1
Signed! Climate protesters like Greta are having the opposite effect to what they want. We are not going to be able to manage without fossil fuels for years, Boris needs to look before he leaps - I'm all for gradual evolution.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Oct 29, 2021 22:19:51 GMT 1
If only climate protesters would go away we'd be able to completely ignore the situation and that's almost as good as it not existing.
The opportunity for gradual "evolution" (that word again) has been passed up for decades. It's now gone.
|
|
|
Post by armchairfan on Oct 30, 2021 9:20:50 GMT 1
If only climate protesters would go away we'd be able to completely ignore the situation and that's almost as good as it not existing. The opportunity for gradual "evolution" (that word again) has been passed up for decades. It's now gone. I think that you are guilty of, at the very least, oversimplification: the "problem" is far more complex than you or I can imagine - if that were not the case, we would have been well on our way to coming up with a resolution. You yourself have posted earlier on here that "carbon dioxide is a long-lasting gas", but without defining your parameters, and, as someone else said in response a comment about the volumes of various gases in the atmosphere, context is important. As I understand it, carbon dioxide emissions have been falling for some decades (I may be wrong), but this then leads us back to the assertion about its undefined "long life"; if Greta Thunberg is to be taken seriously in her criticism of the UK for bringing about the Industrial Revolution, thereby instigating carbon dioxide emissions, then she must, within the terms of her own argument, be seeking to uninvent that period of our history - in the absence of time-travel, this is obviously impossible. My point is that, even if we accept without question that man-made climate change is real, the damage was done 200 years ago, and is irreversible: any attempt to return to that pre-industrial age, or to initiate measures which would have the same effect, are therefore scientifically, socially and politically totally impossible, and a misuse of our collective brainpower - the best we can do is mitigate the effects of climate change at the margins, not in some grandiose unachievable "plan"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2021 9:53:31 GMT 1
If only climate protesters would go away we'd be able to completely ignore the situation and that's almost as good as it not existing. The opportunity for gradual "evolution" (that word again) has been passed up for decades. It's now gone. I think that you are guilty of, at the very least, oversimplification: the "problem" is far more complex than you or I can imagine - if that were not the case, we would have been well on our way to coming up with a resolution. You yourself have posted earlier on here that "carbon dioxide is a long-lasting gas", but without defining your parameters, and, as someone else said in response a comment about the volumes of various gases in the atmosphere, context is important. As I understand it, carbon dioxide emissions have been falling for some decades (I may be wrong), but this then leads us back to the assertion about its undefined "long life"; if Greta Thunberg is to be taken seriously in her criticism of the UK for bringing about the Industrial Revolution, thereby instigating carbon dioxide emissions, then she must, within the terms of her own argument, be seeking to uninvent that period of our history - in the absence of time-travel, this is obviously impossible. My point is that, even if we accept without question that man-made climate change is real, the damage was done 200 years ago, and is irreversible: any attempt to return to that pre-industrial age, or to initiate measures which would have the same effect, are therefore scientifically, socially and politically totally impossible, and a misuse of our collective brainpower - the best we can do is mitigate the effects of climate change at the margins, not in some grandiose unachievable "plan" Emissions may have fallen slightly (I don’t know) but the planets ability to heal itself is being hampered by such things as the mass deforestation of huge areas, hence last years atmospheric CO2 levels were the highest ever recorded. If we stop destroying forests and reduce emissions the planet can reverse this. I’m not a “so called expert” though.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Oct 30, 2021 10:03:36 GMT 1
Armchair asking me to do all of the science for him and yet he has an internet connection. Ha Ha.
Whilst it's clear that any expert who he doesn't want to agree with he will call a "so-called expert".
Bad faith, much?
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Oct 30, 2021 10:11:58 GMT 1
-The leader of the world's most populous country, President Xi Jinping of China, is not expected to be there in person. He has not left China since the COVID-19 pandemic began. He is likely to make an appearance by video. China is likely to be represented by vice-environment minister Zhao Yingmin and climate envoy Xie Zhenhua, who has confirmed he will attend. -The Kremlin has said Russian President Vladimir Putin will not travel to Glasgow. -Britain's Queen Elizabeth has pulled out of the summit after being advised by doctors to rest. She will deliver an address to the assembled delegates via a recorded message, Buckingham Palace said. -Pope Francis is not expected to attend. A Vatican source said there was a possibility that the pope would address the conference by video or that Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Parolin would read a message on his behalf. -Iranian President Ebraham Raisi will not attend COP26 after reports in the British media that local politicians were calling for a criminal investigation if he set foot in Scotland. -Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro and Vice President Hamilton Mourao, sometimes the point man for environment, are not going. -Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador is not going. Mexico may not send anyone because of pandemic restrictions and costs. -South African President Cyril Ramaphosa is not going because of local elections on Nov. 1. -New Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has said he is considering how he will participate, possibly taking part online. The daily Yomiuri reported that Kishida was making arrangements to try to attend in person. Should have been on-line anyway. Now all we need to do is ensure that fool Boris doesn't just jump on a bandwagon and put Great Britain at a disadvantage for generations - he has a history of doing so. Let's dust down the Corbyn manifesto, take some of the things from it, and see if we can become a world leader in green techmology, rather than just a backwater held to ransom over our continuing oil and gas requirements in the future.
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Oct 30, 2021 10:14:41 GMT 1
The shift from talking about “global warming” to a “climate crisis” in my lifetime reflects how the rhetoric of campaigners has become increasingly panicked. Teenagers and children growing up in, ahem, a climate shaped by constant predications of apocalyptic weather and polar bear extinction have naturally become deeply worried for the future. Surveys suggest at least 60 per cent of young people suffer from forms of eco-anxiety. Campaigners might say this is the only sane reaction to the planet’s perilous plight. But it is also the natural consequence of impressionable young minds only ever being fed the worst possible news. It’s very easy for Extinction Rebellion to convince 10-year-olds that the world is on fire if they are never told that Nasa data shows the amount of land burned by wildfires worldwide dropped by a quarter between 2003 and 2019. Efforts at critical thinking are pushed out: a task in Scottish schools to get children to think of positives of climate change was removed after complaints from green campaigners. There's nothing wrong with politicians and campaigners trying to engage the young in issues that affect them. But the way to do that isn’t to be complicit in growing hysteria, and then deploy worried children and teenagers to justify unpopular policies. Intellectual and moral authority shouldn’t be derived from anxious adolescents, but from data, decent arguments, and a clear communication of costs and benefits. Daily Telegraph. God the Telegraph print some rubbish
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Oct 30, 2021 10:35:36 GMT 1
The shift from talking about “global warming” to a “climate crisis” in my lifetime reflects how the rhetoric of campaigners has become increasingly panicked. Teenagers and children growing up in, ahem, a climate shaped by constant predications of apocalyptic weather and polar bear extinction have naturally become deeply worried for the future. Surveys suggest at least 60 per cent of young people suffer from forms of eco-anxiety. Campaigners might say this is the only sane reaction to the planet’s perilous plight. But it is also the natural consequence of impressionable young minds only ever being fed the worst possible news. It’s very easy for Extinction Rebellion to convince 10-year-olds that the world is on fire if they are never told that Nasa data shows the amount of land burned by wildfires worldwide dropped by a quarter between 2003 and 2019. Efforts at critical thinking are pushed out: a task in Scottish schools to get children to think of positives of climate change was removed after complaints from green campaigners. There's nothing wrong with politicians and campaigners trying to engage the young in issues that affect them. But the way to do that isn’t to be complicit in growing hysteria, and then deploy worried children and teenagers to justify unpopular policies. Intellectual and moral authority shouldn’t be derived from anxious adolescents, but from data, decent arguments, and a clear communication of costs and benefits. Daily Telegraph. That's spot on that. And is exactly what Andrew Neil them to task on in that interview with Zion Lights... 👍
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2021 11:34:06 GMT 1
The Telegraph article is far from spot-on. It cherry-picks one piece of data about wildfires, divorced from any context and analysis, and concludes that climate change is actually a form of adolescent neurosis engendered by eco-extremists. If people actually want 'data and decent arguments', then there are couple of good articles here. www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-climate-change-is-affecting-wildfires-around-the-worldenvironment-review.yale.edu/amounts-burned-areas-have-declined-globally-it-good-thingKey take away from the first article: "Climate change is affecting wildfires in two main ways. The first is an increase in the risk or the likelihood of wildfire. The second is longer fire seasons – and this is mostly coming from warming temperatures.”and from the second: These results stand in contradiction to some state-of-the art prediction models that forecast an increase in global burned areas as global temperatures rise. The paper concludes that these prediction tools don’t consider the huge impact of growing human pressure and land use change in grasslands regions. The results of this study prove that human activity is the most important driver of wildfire frequency and intensity and this offsets the warming and drying effects of climate change.
The climate denial crap is to be filed along with nonsense from flat-earthers and tobacco lobby groups.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Oct 30, 2021 11:48:03 GMT 1
Unless a meteorite hits it, the worlds safe. It's the humans that need to watch out. The planet has gone through far more than what we are doing to it. But those changes did result in, for example, dinosaur extinction, it could be our turn. However, the history of the planet is a very long slow timeline, we, a small pimple on the world, will always have time to change and evolve, although that might mean some places become uninhabitable. The polutants from fossil fuels are just the release of locked up polutants - we haven't made more of them, it's just the rate of release of those polutants we have to check - that doesn't mean we have to end fossil fuel use.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Oct 30, 2021 11:59:34 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Oct 30, 2021 12:11:49 GMT 1
Ably assisted by the BBC. It will all be over by Christmas, log fires, mass consumption, huge piles of dumped plastic wrappimgs.
There's a lot to consider changing before we get to giving up fossil fuels and sitting in the cold like a climate protester.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2021 12:11:55 GMT 1
Forgive me, but it does sicken me a little that the rather older amongst us who have relatively few years left on the planet seem to not give a thought or a s**t about the ones who will be left facing the s**t show they’re denying or mocking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2021 12:24:39 GMT 1
Forgive me, but it does sicken me a little that the rather older amongst us who have relatively few years left on the planet seem to not give a thought or a s**t about the ones who will be left facing the s**t show they’re denying or mocking. Quite. Selfishness dressed up as 'scepticism'.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Oct 30, 2021 12:39:57 GMT 1
Forgive me, but it does sicken me a little that the rather older amongst us who have relatively few years left on the planet seem to not give a thought or a s**t about the ones who will be left facing the s**t show they’re denying or mocking. The problem for me is it appears that Greta skipped school and started mouthing off about things after just one science lesson. The impetuousness of youth versus the slow evolution of the world.
Then, along comes Boris, always keen to jump on a bandwagon, the BBC and media, always keen to jump on a bandwagon, etc.
Result: Anyone who thinks otherwise is a "climate denier" Perhaps the older people just have a more slow and steady approach, bearing in mind that stuff like steile medical supplies, for example, does unfortunately result in a lot of plastic use and waste.
Perhaps you should also check out the pictures of climate protesters - many of them look like they are old enough to be retired, maybe even to know better.
|
|
|
Post by Northwest Shrew on Oct 30, 2021 13:01:52 GMT 1
The bbc and other media outlets who are supposed to offer balanced reporting, have only rammed global warming down our throats, nothing on the news from the thousands of scientists who have proof that global warming is not happening/harming the planet. The media/influencers/do gooders hammering people for using plastics “don’t use a plastic bag, use a paper one”. - no!! Use a plastic one - no trees chopped down, no deforestation, yes if you use a plastic one and throw it in the sea, it won’t degrade and will kill some fish… but how about this for a crazy idea… don’t throw it on the floor! Keep it, and use it forever Electric cars will be far more damaging to the environment that the new synthetic fuels for combustion engines that are currently being developed by Porsche.
|
|
|
Post by armchairfan on Oct 30, 2021 13:08:49 GMT 1
Armchair asking me to do all of the science for him and yet he has an internet connection. Ha Ha. Whilst it's clear that any expert who he doesn't want to agree with he will call a "so-called expert". Bad faith, much? Oh please, Sean - I think that accusation is a bit rich, coming as it does from one who is so proficient at quoting the "settled science" as religious gospel; as I am sure you know, there are quite literally countless examples of "settled science" having been manifestly erroneous, ranging from our planet being the centre of the universe, to the scientific "proof" that heavier-than-air flight for man would be impossible; such are just two examples of the danger of following the settled science. Your adherence to these beliefs of yours is, I suggest, not so much science-based, as founded upon faith in a religious zealots.....this does not sit well with your other beliefs, and surprises me.
|
|
|
Post by armchairfan on Oct 30, 2021 13:14:40 GMT 1
The bbc and other media outlets who are supposed to offer balanced reporting, have only rammed global warming down our throats, nothing on the news from the thousands of scientists who have proof that global warming is not happening/harming the planet. The media/influencers/do gooders hammering people for using plastics “don’t use a plastic bag, use a paper one”. - no!! Use a plastic one - no trees chopped down, no deforestation, yes if you use a plastic one and throw it in the sea, it won’t degrade and will kill some fish… but how about this for a crazy idea… don’t throw it on the floor! Keep it, and use it forever Electric cars will be far more damaging to the environment that the new synthetic fuels for combustion engines that are currently being developed by Porsche. Very true! I am also waiting to learn more about the disposal of the millions of car batteries once they have reached the end of their lives.
|
|
|
Post by armchairfan on Oct 30, 2021 13:29:40 GMT 1
Forgive me, but it does sicken me a little that the rather older amongst us who have relatively few years left on the planet seem to not give a thought or a s**t about the ones who will be left facing the s**t show they’re denying or mocking. Quite. Selfishness dressed up as 'scepticism'. Scepticism dressed up as....wait for it....SCEPTICISM! Scepticism is good for the evolution of science.
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Oct 30, 2021 13:34:50 GMT 1
Unless a meteorite hits it, the worlds safe. It's the humans that need to watch out. The planet has gone through far more than what we are doing to it. But those changes did result in, for example, dinosaur extinction, it could be our turn. However, the history of the planet is a very long slow timeline, we, a small pimple on the world, will always have time to change and evolve, although that might mean some places become uninhabitable. The polutants from fossil fuels are just the release of locked up polutants - we haven't made more of them, it's just the rate of release of those polutants we have to check - that doesn't mean we have to end fossil fuel use. You should give a talk at Cop you sound like an expert, or just your opinion?
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Oct 30, 2021 13:37:15 GMT 1
Forgive me, but it does sicken me a little that the rather older amongst us who have relatively few years left on the planet seem to not give a thought or a s**t about the ones who will be left facing the s**t show they’re denying or mocking. The problem for me is it appears that Greta skipped school and started mouthing off about things after just one science lesson. The impetuousness of youth versus the slow evolution of the world.
Then, along comes Boris, always keen to jump on a bandwagon, the BBC and media, always keen to jump on a bandwagon, etc.
Result: Anyone who thinks otherwise is a "climate denier" Perhaps the older people just have a more slow and steady approach, bearing in mind that stuff like steile medical supplies, for example, does unfortunately result in a lot of plastic use and waste.
Perhaps you should also check out the pictures of climate protesters - many of them look like they are old enough to be retired, maybe even to know better.
They probably know better than some deniers..
|
|
|
Post by armchairfan on Oct 30, 2021 13:40:28 GMT 1
The problem for me is it appears that Greta skipped school and started mouthing off about things after just one science lesson. The impetuousness of youth versus the slow evolution of the world.
Then, along comes Boris, always keen to jump on a bandwagon, the BBC and media, always keen to jump on a bandwagon, etc.
Result: Anyone who thinks otherwise is a "climate denier" Perhaps the older people just have a more slow and steady approach, bearing in mind that stuff like steile medical supplies, for example, does unfortunately result in a lot of plastic use and waste.
Perhaps you should also check out the pictures of climate protesters - many of them look like they are old enough to be retired, maybe even to know better.
They probably know better than some deniers.. So, now Boris "knows better"...I never thought I'd see the day when you would have admitted to such a possibility...lol
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Oct 30, 2021 13:43:20 GMT 1
They probably know better than some deniers.. So, now Boris "knows better"...I never thought I'd see the day when you would have admitted to such a possibility...lol If you read my reply it was referring to climate protestors 👍 Boris knows very little
|
|