Extinction Rebellion

[Southbanken]

You have the blame the sensationaling and hysterical media for the part they have played in all of this.

If you genuinely believed that the world was coming to and end in a few years, of course you'd behave like these wankers.

That the media have been relentlessly brainwashing people about this humungously overblown horseshit, is simply unforgivable.

Humans are not going extinct this century or the next or the one after that, and CERTAINLY not as a result of the planet being a bit warmer. It is an utterly ridiculous idea. Cretins like Corbyn using words like "climate crisis" in order to buy votes off these gullible saps, also must take some responsibility.

This whole climate change debacle will be looked back upon in decades to come as the most ridiculous, futile waste of time, energy and resources the world has ever known. That so many are fooled by it, is a disgrace.

The planet may continue to warm for a century or so, and then temperatures will stabilize as the unimaginably vast natural CO2 sinks take up the extra CO2. Just as they always have for the past billion years. The earth is an inherently stable system or else life would not be here anymore.

Unfortunately, you are, to put it simply, wrong.

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.

Global climate change has already had observable effects on the environment. Glaciers have shrunk, ice on rivers and lakes is breaking up earlier, plant and animal ranges have shifted and trees are flowering sooner.

Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occurring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves.

These are facts. This is not up for debate. The only thing up for debate is the impacts that this will have. GIven that we are already seeing many of these, it won't be long before these unfortunately also become "facts".

Sea level rises: Global sea level has risen by about 8 inches since reliable record keeping began in 1880. It is projected to rise another 1 to 4 feet by 2100.

Hurricanes increase in strength and frequency: The intensity, frequency and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s.

More Droughts and Heatwaves: By the end of this century, what have been once-in-20-year extreme heat days (one-day events) are projected to occur every two or three years over most of the nation.

All of the above will lead to mass displacement of people and a much more challenging food production system globally.

None of these are my thoughts, these are the thoughts of NASA. You choose, with your presumably strong scientific background, to take a position that "don't worry boys, the earth will sort itself out innit, we don't need to change nuffin, carry on". We have sparred politically, and i disagree with you on much, and that is fine. But please don't buy the lies from climate change deniers, i think you are better than that.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Unfortunately, you are, to put it simply, wrong.

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.

Global climate change has already had observable effects on the environment. Glaciers have shrunk, ice on rivers and lakes is breaking up earlier, plant and animal ranges have shifted and trees are flowering sooner.

Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occurring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves.

These are facts. This is not up for debate. The only thing up for debate is the impacts that this will have. GIven that we are already seeing many of these, it won't be long before these unfortunately also become "facts".

Sea level rises: Global sea level has risen by about 8 inches since reliable record keeping began in 1880. It is projected to rise another 1 to 4 feet by 2100.

Hurricanes increase in strength and frequency: The intensity, frequency and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s.

More Droughts and Heatwaves: By the end of this century, what have been once-in-20-year extreme heat days (one-day events) are projected to occur every two or three years over most of the nation.

All of the above will lead to mass displacement of people and a much more challenging food production system globally.

None of these are my thoughts, these are the thoughts of NASA. You choose, with your presumably strong scientific background, to take a position that "don't worry boys, the earth will sort itself out innit, we don't need to change nuffin, carry on". We have sparred politically, and i disagree with you on much, and that is fine. But please don't buy the lies from climate change deniers, i think you are better than that.

No, I am not "wrong", as your suggested statement of fact. I have a different opinion to others, others who may also be wrong. What I am certain of however, is that the whole subject is sensationalised for other than scientific reasons: for political gain, for generating clicks, getting funding, fear of ostracisation, whatever.

I am not contesting that the planet is warming. So it is hardly surprising that glaciers are melting. Well no shit Sherlock. But the sea level rises over the next 80 years are incredibly hard to predict, and even the IPCC's 2019 *worst case* models suggest that if we fail to further constrain CO2 output, then sea levels may only rise by 61cm, which is not going to produce anything like the mass migrations you suggest.

And who knows what technology we may develop of the next half a century to bring the CO2 levels down. There is enormous research going on into "climate repair" - for example using the oceans and their simply enormous CO2 absorption potential.

Yet only on the news 10 minutes ago, I heard the presenter talk about "the climate crisis". Not "the possible climate crisis" or "the alleged climate crisis" or even "the climate issue". No, it's a crisis, no ifs buts or maybes. Another bit of subliminal brainwashing the point that the man in the street - i.e. you - totally believes it, hook line and sinker and overreacts accordingly.

You talk about Nasa predictions? You do know Nasa has been accused of adjusting the raw data to fit their models when the models were found to not match the data? Like the IPCC and their surpressed emails. And the BBC who as a policy decision do not allow any climate skeptical comments to be broadcast. It's more like a police state than objective journalism.

None of the models predict us being extinct in a few decades, or even ever. And yet we have people camped out on Oxford Street with "the end of the world is nigh" banners. It's absolutely shameful how irresponsible people have drummed a public which knows no better into a frenzy like this.

 

[Southbanken]

No, you are wrong. Your opinion, given that it is factually incorrect, is irrelevant. Science is not about opinions, it is about facts. When 97% of scientists agree on something, and have a variety of peer reviewed papers and empirical evidence we can accept it as fact and we can rightfully ignore those who have a different "opinion". As an example, there are a large proportion of creationist Christians who believe that the earth is only 6,000 - 10,000 years old, including some "scientists". However, the overwhelming body of scientific evidence and scientific consensus points to it being circa 4.6 billion years old. Therefore we disregard the opinion of the small minority. See how it works. The BBC and other news outlets don't use phrases like "the possible climate crisis" or "the alleged climate crisis" or even "the climate issue" because it would be the same as them saying something akin to the "alleged evolution of man" or the "possible earth being round" or even the "flat earth issue".

"NASA has been accused of adjusting the raw data" What you mean is that Scientists at NASA—as well as other groups—constantly work to ensure that the data being used to estimate global average temperatures are as accurate as possible. As time goes on, updates can lead to small changes to estimates for previous years. These changes, however, are much too small to cause the warming trend that is clear in all available datasets. The most significant adjustments to data relate to changing ship-based instruments and methods used to measure sea surface temperatures around the time of World War II. As the use of thermometers in buckets of water hauled up on deck was replaced by thermometers in ship engine water intake pipes, the measured temperatures changed slightly, necessitating a correction to ensure an “apples-to-apples” comparison. Climate change deniers, like the major oil companies and their political lickspittles jump on this to discredit the evidence behind climate change. Datasets operated by NOAA in the US, the UK Met Office, and others match and support NASA’s results. Scientific consensus.

You do not contest global warming, or that glaciers are melting. Fine. You contest that a 61cm rise will not produce mass migration. The IPCC report that you mention, which was put together by more than 100 scientists from over 80 countries, examines the state of climate change science on the oceans. You reference sea levels rising by only 61cm as the worst case. Actually the worst case in the IPCC report is 61cm - 100cm. The rise could be “substantially higher” upto 2m if Antarctic ice disappears faster. So your worst case is actually, the best of the worst case scenarios.

In terms of its impact, there are estimated to be 680 million people living in low lying coastal areas. This is expected to rise to 1 billion by 2050. So, whilst the mass migrations "won't be on the scale i suggest", it's alright because it will only affect up to 680 million people. Currently there are 65 million refugees globally, climate change has the potential to increase that ten fold and more. The western world is already up in arms about refugees "coming over here" how do you think they will react with ten times the number of people.

In addition to this we have:

Mass extinction of species. Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we're now losing species at up to 1,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day.

Plastic pollution. It is estimated that 1.1 to 8.8 million metric tons (MT) of plastic waste enters the ocean from coastal communities each year.

Deforestation. The Earth loses 18.7 million acres of forests per year, which is equal to 27 football fields every minute.

Be in no doubt, we are in the middle of an environmental crisis, you can choose to ignore it but you are in the same boat as flat earthers and creationsists. This isn't about creating new taxes, and making people poorer, it is really not. This is about recognising that we are using up the resources on this earth too quickly than they can be replenished and we need to change our lifestyles.

 

[waspish]

Go and find out how they got that figure of 97% scientists on climate change. Also find out where the we have 12 years to save the planet came from.

 

[Southbanken]

Go and find out how they got that figure of 97% scientists on climate change. Also find out where the we have 12 years to save the planet came from.

The various sources for 97%.

J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.


I have not claimed anything about 12 years to save the planet so i don't know where that came from or where to back it up from.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Be in no doubt, we are in the middle of an environmental crisis, you can choose to ignore it but you are in the same boat as flat earthers and creationsists. This isn't about creating new taxes, and making people poorer, it is really not. This is about recognising that we are using up the resources on this earth too quickly than they can be replenished and we need to change our lifestyles.

You are free to claim data as being fact. You are not free to claim models as being factual evidence incapable of error. That is wrong and you are wrong to try to claim it. (I'll put to one side the fiddling with raw data to try to make it fit flawed models.)

So no, I am not wrong. and No, IMO we are most definitely not in the middle of environmental crisis.

I am not arguing with data, I am challenging some of the extrapolations of that data. Extapolations of data - models - are NOT facts. They are open to interpretation and susceptible to error, especially in a subject as complex as this and projecting over such long time horizons.

So please stop your preaching, you have your OPINIONS and that is all. Yes your OPINIONS are shared by many, but not by everyone and not by me. Even if it is only 3% of scientists disagree with you that is still 100's or even 1,000's of scientists who disagree with you.

That does not mean the 97% are definitely correct. They may be, they may not. Everyone thought Copernicus was a lunatic when he suggested planets go around the sun and not the earth. He was in a minority of ONE but he was proven correct.

Moreover, a sea level rise of 61cm by 2100 - assuming no future interventions to prevent it - can in no way be classified as a "crisis". It is a problem, yes. A manageable problem over an 80 year timeframe. Have shave, take your dungarees off and enough of the melodrama.

 

[waspish]

I believe in the cycle of the earth but It has been speeded up by humans over the last 100 years! Also believe the earth will set it Self right has it has done through its 4.5 billion years.

Read this and the 97% reported is made up just so its harder to refute.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhener...97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/

 

[inbetween]

No, you are wrong. Your opinion, given that it is factually incorrect, is irrelevant. Science is not about opinions, it is about facts. When 97% of scientists agree on something, and have a variety of peer reviewed papers and empirical evidence we can accept it as fact and we can rightfully ignore those who have a different "opinion". As an example, there are a large proportion of creationist Christians who believe that the earth is only 6,000 - 10,000 years old, including some "scientists". However, the overwhelming body of scientific evidence and scientific consensus points to it being circa 4.6 billion years old. Therefore we disregard the opinion of the small minority. See how it works. The BBC and other news outlets don't use phrases like "the possible climate crisis" or "the alleged climate crisis" or even "the climate issue" because it would be the same as them saying something akin to the "alleged evolution of man" or the "possible earth being round" or even the "flat earth issue".

"NASA has been accused of adjusting the raw data" What you mean is that Scientists at NASA—as well as other groups—constantly work to ensure that the data being used to estimate global average temperatures are as accurate as possible. As time goes on, updates can lead to small changes to estimates for previous years. These changes, however, are much too small to cause the warming trend that is clear in all available datasets. The most significant adjustments to data relate to changing ship-based instruments and methods used to measure sea surface temperatures around the time of World War II. As the use of thermometers in buckets of water hauled up on deck was replaced by thermometers in ship engine water intake pipes, the measured temperatures changed slightly, necessitating a correction to ensure an “apples-to-apples” comparison. Climate change deniers, like the major oil companies and their political lickspittles jump on this to discredit the evidence behind climate change. Datasets operated by NOAA in the US, the UK Met Office, and others match and support NASA’s results. Scientific consensus.

You do not contest global warming, or that glaciers are melting. Fine. You contest that a 61cm rise will not produce mass migration. The IPCC report that you mention, which was put together by more than 100 scientists from over 80 countries, examines the state of climate change science on the oceans. You reference sea levels rising by only 61cm as the worst case. Actually the worst case in the IPCC report is 61cm - 100cm. The rise could be “substantially higher” upto 2m if Antarctic ice disappears faster. So your worst case is actually, the best of the worst case scenarios.

In terms of its impact, there are estimated to be 680 million people living in low lying coastal areas. This is expected to rise to 1 billion by 2050. So, whilst the mass migrations "won't be on the scale i suggest", it's alright because it will only affect up to 680 million people. Currently there are 65 million refugees globally, climate change has the potential to increase that ten fold and more. The western world is already up in arms about refugees "coming over here" how do you think they will react with ten times the number of people.

In addition to this we have:

Mass extinction of species. Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we're now losing species at up to 1,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day.

Plastic pollution. It is estimated that 1.1 to 8.8 million metric tons (MT) of plastic waste enters the ocean from coastal communities each year.

Deforestation. The Earth loses 18.7 million acres of forests per year, which is equal to 27 football fields every minute.

Be in no doubt, we are in the middle of an environmental crisis, you can choose to ignore it but you are in the same boat as flat earthers and creationsists. This isn't about creating new taxes, and making people poorer, it is really not. This is about recognising that we are using up the resources on this earth too quickly than they can be replenished and we need to change our lifestyles.

Your last point in changing our lifestyles is perhaps the most critical and also the most challenging.

We are all human and that is the problem. Humans have not worked together as a collective at any point in history and nor has any other species.

Will climate change convince people who are very comfortable to make themselves far less comfortable for the benefit of others... I don't think so.

I think people would rather burn the coalfires one last time than suffer for a better world after they are dead.

 

[Southbanken]

I believe in the cycle of the earth but It has been speeded up by humans over the last 100 years! Also believe the earth will set it Self right has it has done through its 4.5 billion years.

Read this and the 97% reported is made up just so its harder to refute.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhener...97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/

Do you think that the earth will replace the 1000s of lost species, remove metric tonnes of plastic that doesn't biodegrade and replant the thousands upon thousands of acres of trees that we have removed too?

 

[Southbanken]

Your last point in changing our lifestyles is perhaps the most critical and also the most challenging.

We are all human and that is the problem. Humans have not worked together as a collective at any point in history and nor has any other species.

Will climate change convince people who are very comfortable to make themselves far less comfortable for the benefit of others... I don't think so.

I think people would rather burn the coalfires one last time than suffer for a better world after they are dead.

Sadly i think you are right, see Chippy and Waspish as examples. People don't want to have any interest in considering the impact we are having on our planet as they don't want to change their lifestyles.