Mid

Climate emergency declared by 11,000 scientists worldwide

Recommended Posts

11245468-3x2-700x467.jpg

 

Quote

 

The paper, published in the journal BioScience, declares the climate crisis "has arrived" and is "accelerating faster than most scientists expect".

"Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat," the paper said.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-06/climate-change-emergency-11000-scientists-sign-petition/11672776

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There must be what- a couple of million ‘scientists’ on earth? So this story should be ‘A tiny percentage of the worlds scientists listen to a manipulated teenager.’

 

Still got that bridge for sale if you are interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pity the thousands of scientist don't come up with a realistic path forward. If they are correct and it has arrived we should stop anymore research into weather, it is settled, and find a way to survive. No new technology will work as it will take years to make available on a large scale.

So we should just... what the fuck was that... I think the bloody sky just hit me on the head. Might go hide in that nice cave over there with the nice man. Then all will be fine. Hey, leave my bank account alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gissie said:

Pity the thousands of scientist don't come up with a realistic path forward. If they are correct and it has arrived we should stop anymore research into weather, it is settled, and find a way to survive. No new technology will work as it will take years to make available on a large scale.

So we should just... what the fuck was that... I think the bloody sky just hit me on the head. Might go hide in that nice cave over there with the nice man. Then all will be fine. Hey, leave my bank account alone.

Do you have any idea what climate scientists actually do? Doesn't appear so - I mean they study and report on climate. Solutions come from technology which is like another entirely different field of study, sort of like NZ is a different country from Australia.  Speaking of, LB has a bridge you can get to live under so nothing hits you in the head.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gissie said:

Pity the thousands of scientist don't come up with a realistic path forward. If they are correct and it has arrived we should stop anymore research into weather, it is settled, and find a way to survive. No new technology will work as it will take years to make available on a large scale.

 

th-2.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, d'ranger said:

Do you have any idea what climate scientists actually do? Doesn't appear so - I mean they study and report on climate. Solutions come from technology which is like another entirely different field of study, sort of like NZ is a different country from Australia.  Speaking of, LB has a bridge you can get to live under so nothing hits you in the head.

So why the fuck do we still need more than 11,000 of the fuckers. If they earn an average of 100k per year that is one big amount of money to deal with a problem that, in their own words, has already arrived. So fire all their asses and put the money into scientists that are looking for an answer.

But then again climate research has become a serious business. Just like in the old days you could never be fired for buying IBM, now you will never be underfunded if you claim you are doing climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

 

th-2.jpeg

So you agree that the settled science, climate change is here sounds much like a broken record. About time you opened your eyes. Welcome to those that can think for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gissie said:

So why the fuck do we still need more than 11,000 of the fuckers. If they earn an average of 100k per year that is one big amount of money to deal with a problem that, in their own words, has already arrived. So fire all their asses and put the money into scientists that are looking for an answer.

But then again climate research has become a serious business. Just like in the old days you could never be fired for buying IBM, now you will never be underfunded if you claim you are doing climate change.

Love your moving the goal posts routine, but since you don't understand what those scientists actually do I see no point in explaining why they are necessary. The big question is why do you keep posting on a topic you seem incapable of grasping even the most basic tenets? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

none so blind ...........................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree there's nothing much we can now do to mitigate the effects of our past folly.

But, we can start a world futures fund to prepare for the slow rolling catastrophe...plenty of time to build desal plants, sea walls, tidal barriers etc and make arrangements to permanently relocate a few billion  people over the next 50 20 years. 

Think of it like a superanuation fund, a small regular contribution now will grow into a fortune in 20 years..or so we're always told;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, d'ranger said:

Love your moving the goal posts routine, but since you don't understand what those scientists actually do I see no point in explaining why they are necessary. The big question is why do you keep posting on a topic you seem incapable of grasping even the most basic tenets? 

So you think we need these thousands of climate boys sucking away at the research teat confirming the settled theories rather than using most of that money to have thousands of scientists finding a suitable technology to fix the problem. No problem, we each have our own ideas on how to move forward. You feel more detail is good, I feel more solutions are good. It is a pity, in my opinion, that so many support your idea of crying out for an answer while directing the money elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer is to KILL all those goddam scientists.

That'll show them, fuckin' smarty pants

If we're all going to die, let them go first!

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

The answer is to KILL all those goddam scientists.

That'll show them, fuckin' smarty pants

If we're all going to die, let them go first!

- DSK

Bit extreme, I thought just fire most of them to free up the money. Still your idea is better, free up money and lower the population at the same time. Not as dumb as you seem Steam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gissie said:

So you think we need these thousands of climate boys sucking away at the research teat confirming the settled theories rather than using most of that money to have thousands of scientists engineers finding a suitable technology to fix the problem. No problem, we each have our own ideas on how to move forward. You feel more detail is good, I feel more solutions better tradeoffs [because solutions do not exist in this space] are good. It is a pity, in my opinion, that so many support your idea of crying out for an answer while directing the money elsewhere

FIFY, Gissie.  For everyone, actually.  Science is great, but it must be applied - and applied well - to be useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gissie said:
8 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

The answer is to KILL all those goddam scientists.

That'll show them, fuckin' smarty pants

If we're all going to die, let them go first!

- DSK

Bit extreme, I thought just fire most of them to free up the money. Still your idea is better, free up money and lower the population at the same time. Not as dumb as you seem Steam.

I love this place.  Did I say that already?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bacq2bacq said:

I love this place.  Did I say that already?

I think the phrase you're groping for is: "Fuck I love this place!"

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bacq2bacq said:

FIFY, Gissie.  For everyone, actually.  Science is great, but it must be applied - and applied well - to be useful.

Sorry, agree it is more likely to be engineers, although it may need some science types to do completely new break through. Engineers tend to need the theoretical first then make it real world.

As for tradeoffs vs solutions, you are correct. However many of those screaming for something to be done are not interested in tradeoffs. We have the ability to already do a considerable amount if tradeoffs were acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^change_in_leaf_area (1).jpg

:lol:

 

greenest map of Oz I've ever seen 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mid said:
Quote

The paper, published in the journal BioScience, declares the climate crisis "has arrived" and is "accelerating faster than most scientists expect".

So if these 'Scientists' got the acceleration wrong, why should we believe anything else they claim? they are obviously not very good at science. I note that no where in the story does it tell what field of science they are in. My wife is a scientist. She has a Phd in nutrition and dietetics. She said no one asked her to sign it. But then again the ABC never let the facts get in the way of a good story opportunity to drive their socialist agenda. That's why they work at that sheltered workshop. They can't get a job with a real media outlet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, toecutter said:

 Economy: Convert the economy’s reliance on carbon fuels to address human dependence on the biosphere. Shift goals away from the growth of gross domestic product and the pursuit of affluence.

And there it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

And there it is.

Economy

Excessive extraction of materials and overexploitation of ecosystems, driven by economic growth, must be quickly curtailed to maintain long-term sustainability of the biosphere. We need a carbon-free economy that explicitly addresses human dependence on the biosphere and policies that guide economic decisions accordingly. Our goals need to shift from GDP growth and the pursuit of affluence toward sustaining ecosystems and improving human well-being by prioritizing basic needs and reducing inequality.

 

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806?searchresult=1

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mid said:

 

.....

https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-a-scientist/?doing_wp_cron=1572995236.2111949920654296875000

Looks like I am a scientists as well and I never knew it. I have been testing my hypothesis that leftists will believe anything if it supports their world view. I must say the research is going swimmingly.

Where do I sign?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mid said:

Economy

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah and reducing inequality.

 

And there it is again. Redistribute wealth. Throughout history there have been groups that feel they are owed something for nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Gissie said:

So you think we need these thousands of climate boys AND GIRLS sucking away at the research teat confirming the settled theories rather than using most of that money to have thousands of scientists finding a suitable technology to fix the problem. No problem, we each have our own ideas on how to move forward. You feel more detail is good, I feel more solutions are good. It is a pity, in my opinion, that so many support your idea of crying out for an answer while directing the money elsewhere.

FTFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

reducing inequality.

 

4 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Redistribute wealth

not really the same thing ................................

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry LB, any success to reduce reliance on fossil fuels etc and develop clean energy will pretty soon be taken from the nerds and dominated by the 1%

Think the IT revolution.. Same as it ever was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Image result for stupid climate change protesters

You started taking advice from a 16 year old maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In defense of my neighbors, the Trumptards, I present the polar vortex.    Once again, winter comes early to the eastern half of the US.   Summer wasn’t extreme.     Florida is hot, but most everything east of the Rockies is chilled.   Its easier for Europe and Asia to believe, since they live with the heat.   Alaska is sagging into the melted permafrost.   I’m not sure what excuse those down under can present for LB, except fetal hypoxia.    

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem here isn't "global warming" or "climate change" or whatever the current buzzword is.

The problem is that mankind's actions have changed the environment, and that change has been rapid... much more rapid than any other in history, much more rapid the all variety of species can adapt to. We're in the opening stages of a mass extinction event.

For those who are inclined to scoff at all those homo scientists, here's the word from Fox News

https://www.foxnews.com/science/mass-extinction-earth-2-billlion-years

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

FTFY

If you are going to be so pedantic about it, what about the dunb fucks who have no idea if they are a boy or girl. Or the ones that need to wake up each day before deciding.

You are just showing your white, old, female privilage by leaving them out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LB 15 said:

And there it is again. Redistribute wealth. Throughout history there have been groups that feel they are owed something for nothing. 

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

I'm going to start smoking again. Fuck the scientists!

Winner :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mid said:

^change_in_leaf_area (1).jpg

:lol:

 

greenest map of Oz I've ever seen 

A flat earth view of climate effects...... How... Refreshing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gissie said:

So you think we need these thousands of climate boys sucking away at the research teat confirming the settled theories rather than using most of that money to have thousands of scientists finding a suitable technology to fix the problem. No problem, we each have our own ideas on how to move forward. You feel more detail is good, I feel more solutions are good. It is a pity, in my opinion, that so many support your idea of crying out for an answer while directing the money elsewhere.

Has it ever occurred to you that it. might be a different set of boffins who study the problem compared to fixing the problem?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LB 15 said:

And there it is again. Redistribute wealth. Throughout history there have been groups that feel they are owed something for nothing. 

We have been on a multi-century campaign to redistribute wealth.  Successfully.  Upwardly.  

Usually the ones crying out for their “fair share” are called the aristocracy, capitalists or the .01%ers.

Lately, they’ve truly been getting theirs!  

You can stand by and cheer.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lark said:

In defense of my neighbors, the Trumptards, I present the polar vortex.    Once again, winter comes early to the eastern half of the US.   Summer wasn’t extreme.     Florida is hot, but most everything east of the Rockies is chilled.   Its easier for Europe and Asia to believe, since they live with the heat.   Alaska is sagging into the melted permafrost.   I’m not sure what excuse those down under can present for LB, except fetal hypoxia.    

Absolute zero evidence of climate change down here mate. No evidence of sea level rise, and the usual hot summers and pleasant winters. Bush fires, cyclones and droughts - just like we have been having since whitey came to this vast brown land. But then again we are the lucky country. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Usually the ones crying out for their “fair share” are called the aristocracy, capitalists or the .01%ers.

Image result for clown with ass

Fuck I love this place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LB 15 said:

Absolute zero evidence of climate change down here mate. No evidence of sea level rise, and the usual hot summers and pleasant winters. Bush fires, cyclones and droughts - just like we have been having since whitey came to this vast brown land. But then again we are the lucky country. 

You should get a job with your local emergency services.

They would appreciate your opinion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

Has it ever occurred to you that it. might be a different set of boffins who study the problem compared to fixing the problem?

Even I am not that dumb, but perhaps if you should have read my posts rather than seeing my name and assuming you knew what I was going to say. If you had maybe you wouldn't have made such a silly comment.

To try and make it simple. Eleven thousand, ie not all of them, are gathering vast amounts of cash each year. Assume they are averaging 100k each that is a rather large number. Plus all the vast amounts of equipment and lab time they use. All to get some more minutae on climate change. We know it is happening, according to these folk it is right here. Does it matter that much more if we know down to 3 decimal places rather than 2?

I just suggested we can them and use the money and resources to find solutions. Quite a simply idea that could lead to an actual answer. But climate change has become the unstoppable force. How could you dare remove money without you and your elk, supported by Queen gret, screaming the house down. Demanding an answer without realising how ridiculous you can sometimes be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gissie said:

Even I am not that dumb, but perhaps if you should have read my posts rather than seeing my name and assuming you knew what I was going to say. If you had maybe you wouldn't have made such a silly comment.

To try and make it simple. Eleven thousand, ie not all of them, are gathering vast amounts of cash each year. Assume they are averaging 100k each that is a rather large number. Plus all the vast amounts of equipment and lab time they use. All to get some more minutae on climate change. We know it is happening, according to these folk it is right here. Does it matter that much more if we know down to 3 decimal places rather than 2?

I just suggested we can them and use the money and resources to find solutions. Quite a simply idea that could lead to an actual answer. But climate change has become the unstoppable force. How could you dare remove money without you and your elk, supported by Queen gret, screaming the house down. Demanding an answer without realising how ridiculous you can sometimes be.

1774146285_carmenmiranda.thumb.jpg.9997e7c8f451a252eec558592ebb9557.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

1774146285_carmenmiranda.thumb.jpg.9997e7c8f451a252eec558592ebb9557.jpg

You look lovely Left. Not sure this is the correct thread to post it, but I support your bravery. I do hope the others here are also supportive.

Go girl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ease the sheet. said:

You should get a job with your local emergency services.

They would appreciate your opinion.

You think? A good friend has a place in the Queensland Alps. He is a member of the local volunteer firereys. He has been hard at it for the past two weeks on the fires around Boonah. He said that no matter how bad it is the old fellas always have the ‘this is nothing - you should of be here in 19.... 

Perhaps you can find one of those colourful little graphs to prove me wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LB 15 said:

Absolute zero evidence of climate change down here mate. No evidence of sea level rise, and the usual hot summers and pleasant winters. Bush fires, cyclones and droughts - just like we have been having since whitey came to this vast brown land. But then again we are the lucky country. 

True that.

 

 

 

 

 

I think you might have meant "since written records".

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LB 15 said:

You think? A good friend has a place in the Queensland Alps. He is a member of the local volunteer firereys. He has been hard at it for the past two weeks on the fires around Boonah. He said that no matter how bad it is the old fellas always have the ‘this is nothing - you should of be here in 19.... 

Perhaps you can find one of those colourful little graphs to prove me wrong. 

The old days, before we needed 737's to drop thousands of tonnes of water .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone else find it odd that LB & some other Oz trolls only show up in PA in the climate change threads, is the idea of burn a little less fossil fuel that threatening?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

and make arrangements to permanently relocate a few billion  people over the next 50 20 years. 

It would be easier if you just killed a few billion off.  I'm not advocating that we do it, but honestly that really is likely the only solution that's going to have any real effect on the climate.  

Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, toecutter said:

COALITION OF SCIENTISTS’ “SIX CLEAR MEASURES” TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE

 Energy: Implement massive conservation practices; replace fossil fuels with clean renewables; leave remaining stocks of fossil fuels in the ground; eliminate subsidies to fossil fuel companies; and impose carbon fees that are high enough to restrain the use of fossil fuels.

 Short-lived pollutants: Swiftly cut emissions of methane, hydrofluorocarbons, soot and other short-lived climate pollutants. This has the potential to reduce the short-term warming trend by more than 50 per cent over the next few decades.

 Nature : Restrain massive land clearing. Restore and protect ecosystems such as forests, grasslands and mangroves, which would greatly contribute to the sequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a key greenhouse gas.

 Food: Eat mostly plants and consume fewer animal products. This dietary shift would significantly reduce emissions of methane and other greenhouse gases and free up agricultural lands for growing human food rather than livestock feed. Reducing food waste is also critical – the scientists say at least one-third of all food produced ends up as garbage.

 Economy: Convert the economy’s reliance on carbon fuels to address human dependence on the biosphere. Shift goals away from the growth of gross domestic product and the pursuit of affluence. Curtail the extraction of materials and exploitation of ecosystems to maintain long-term biosphere sustainability.

 Population: Stabilise global population, which is increasing by more than 200,000 people a day, using approaches that ensure social and economic justice.

Oregon-based non-profit The Worthy Garden club, a collective of business owners, entrepreneurs, energy specialists, agriculturists, scientists, and astronomers, provided partial support for the research.

I think those are all laudable goals - and if implemented immediately and universally across the globe - they would likely achieve the desired results.  So they've essentially answered the "what", but they are (we all are) still light years still from the "how".  The chances of all or even most of the nations across the globe implementing any of these much less ALL of these is exactly the Square root of 0 divided by 0 and then multiplied by 0.0000000.  

I said this previously in my Amazon forest fire thread that the only we are going to get from today to these climate goals in 20-30 years is through conflict.  As much as I hates to say it, but some societies are going to have to coerce with violence other societies to fall in line.  Or wipe them out if they don't.  And the longer we wait for everyone to voluntarily get on board the happy train and sing kumbaya together, the more pressing the emergency will become and the more likely violence and conflict will happen.  

I personally think it's not only inevitable but increasingly necessary as we've run out of options and time. 

Again, I am absolutely NOT advocating that we genocide a few billion people off the face of the planet in order to deal with this climate emergency.  But WHAT IF that was the only option left?  What if there was conclusive, ironclad and indisputable proof that the entire species faced an extinction event horizon in say 50 years if the population was not reduced by half or even a third and there were absolutely zero other options.   What would you do?  What should we do?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

It would be easier if you just killed a few billion off.  I'm not advocating that we do it, but honestly that really is likely the only solution that's going to have any real effect on the climate.  

Just saying.

Nuke Venice and Amsterdam perhaps? or the Mississippi delta? Or were you just thinking of low lying places where mostly brown people live?

The masses of people forced out of low lying places is fortunately not confined to the third world.

A global future fund is for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Bill Gibson was way ahead of you in that scenario, in his last novel he lays out all of the current problems facing us (microbes & ineffective anti-biotics, climate change) leading to what the survivors call "the Jackpot" which leads to rule by those who weathered the storm the best, in other words "Kleptocracy"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to start stockpiling cans of beans and sausage, lots of ammo, dig a well, breed a pack of killer dogs, research where to buy landmines. 

"The End is nigh"...……...again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Happy said:

Time to start stockpiling cans of beans and sausage, lots of ammo, dig a well, breed a pack of killer dogs, research where to buy landmines. 

"The End is nigh"...……...again.

Jeffy's dream :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I think those are all laudable goals - and if implemented immediately and universally across the globe - they would likely achieve the desired results.  So they've essentially answered the "what", but they are (we all are) still light years still from the "how".  The chances of all or even most of the nations across the globe implementing any of these much less ALL of these is exactly the Square root of 0 divided by 0 and then multiplied by 0.0000000.  

I said this previously in my Amazon forest fire thread that the only we are going to get from today to these climate goals in 20-30 years is through conflict.  As much as I hates to say it, but some societies are going to have to coerce with violence other societies to fall in line.  Or wipe them out if they don't.  And the longer we wait for everyone to voluntarily get on board the happy train and sing kumbaya together, the more pressing the emergency will become and the more likely violence and conflict will happen.  

I personally think it's not only inevitable but increasingly necessary as we've run out of options and time. 

Again, I am absolutely NOT advocating that we genocide a few billion people off the face of the planet in order to deal with this climate emergency.  But WHAT IF that was the only option left?  What if there was conclusive, ironclad and indisputable proof that the entire species faced an extinction event horizon in say 50 years if the population was not reduced by half or even a third and there were absolutely zero other options.   What would you do?  What should we do?  

Progress is easier than you think.

 

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-06/australia-could-fall-apart-climate-change-theres-a-way-to-avoid/11673836

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I think those are all laudable goals - and if implemented immediately and universally across the globe - they would likely achieve the desired results.  So they've essentially answered the "what", but they are (we all are) still light years still from the "how".  The chances of all or even most of the nations across the globe implementing any of these much less ALL of these is exactly the Square root of 0 divided by 0 and then multiplied by 0.0000000.  

I said this previously in my Amazon forest fire thread that the only we are going to get from today to these climate goals in 20-30 years is through conflict.  As much as I hates to say it, but some societies are going to have to coerce with violence other societies to fall in line.  Or wipe them out if they don't.  And the longer we wait for everyone to voluntarily get on board the happy train and sing kumbaya together, the more pressing the emergency will become and the more likely violence and conflict will happen.  

I personally think it's not only inevitable but increasingly necessary as we've run out of options and time. 

Again, I am absolutely NOT advocating that we genocide a few billion people off the face of the planet in order to deal with this climate emergency.  But WHAT IF that was the only option left?  What if there was conclusive, ironclad and indisputable proof that the entire species faced an extinction event horizon in say 50 years if the population was not reduced by half or even a third and there were absolutely zero other options.   What would you do?  What should we do?  

Just like there was definitely weapons of mass destruction ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, animeproblem said:

Does anyone else find it odd that LB & some other Oz trolls only show up in PA in the climate change threads, is the idea of burn a little less fossil fuel that threatening?

You could not be more wrong - I also often drop by the dog balls threads to hang some shit on the gun nuts and drop the odd hitler video to piss off the trump yards.. Sadly cup cake you can’t pigeon hole me. I don’t play for either team.

I  am a centrist! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

The old days, before we needed 737's to drop thousands of tonnes of water .....

Yes I can’t for the life of me work out why they didn’t use them back in the 1800’s. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

and drop the odd hitler video to piss off the trump yards..

I think we need a hitler video on the Ukraine call and the impeachment proceedings.  Get to work!!  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shootist Jeff said:

I think we need a hitler video on the Ukraine call and the impeachment proceedings.  Get to work!!  :lol:

At once Mr President. Come to think of it we should hold the AGM of the PA Rifle association. I might bump the thread, er, open the club house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

COALITION OF SCIENTISTS’ “SIX CLEAR MEASURES” TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE

Energy: Implement massive conservation practices; replace fossil fuels with clean renewables; leave remaining stocks of fossil fuels in the ground; eliminate subsidies to fossil fuel companies; and impose carbon fees that are high enough to restrain the use of fossil fuels.

Conservation = good.  What does 'restrain' mean?  The idea of replacing all energy demand with solar/wind byproducts (if that's what they mean by renewable) is physically impossible using any technology available today or likely available within the next 50 years. Where possible, Oil/Nat gas should be used as building blocks, not fuel.  Engineered building materials = good.

Short-lived pollutants: Swiftly cut emissions of methane, hydrofluorocarbons, soot and other short-lived climate pollutants. This has the potential to reduce the short-term warming trend by more than 50 per cent over the next few decades.

HFCs should be minimized.  The potential AC explosion in Asia is actually environmentally scary.  I'm not sure which emissions of methane they want to cut but I'm assuming this is a backdoor way of saying banning fracking?

Nature : Restrain massive land clearing. Restore and protect ecosystems such as forests, grasslands and mangroves, which would greatly contribute to the sequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a key greenhouse gas.

Agreed.  We should restrain land clearing and focus on better redistribution of commodity goods.

Food: Eat mostly plants and consume fewer animal products. This dietary shift would significantly reduce emissions of methane and other greenhouse gases and free up agricultural lands for growing human food rather than livestock feed. Reducing food waste is also critical – the scientists say at least one-third of all food produced ends up as garbage.

Yes, we should reduce meat consumption and focus on better distribution of food stocks.  The problem is even more tragic than suggested.. 1/3rd of all food IN ITS FINISHED STATE gets thrown out - that means all the value add up to that point also gets thrown away.

Economy: Convert the economy’s reliance on carbon fuels to address human dependence on the biosphere. Shift goals away from the growth of gross domestic product and the pursuit of affluence. Curtail the extraction of materials and exploitation of ecosystems to maintain long-term biosphere sustainability.

I don't know what the first line actually means but it suggests replacing automation with human labor - which is probably a good thing in principle but hard in practice.  Reduce focus on consumption is fine but I'm not sure what you replace it WITH and to pretend humans won't chase consumption in some form is silly. I'd like to see what other options they're actually suggesting.

Population: Stabilize global population, which is increasing by more than 200,000 people a day, using approaches that ensure social and economic justice.

"Stabilize global population using approaches that ensure social and economic justice." <---   I have no idea what that means.  Rich societies are already mostly at negative population growth .  To reduce population growth in poor countries, we should be paying poor countries not to have kids?  In principle, I'm not actually opposed but I'm not sure what they really want to see implemented.

--------

Some decent goals but half of it is silly and there's too much word salad.  I know these manifestos are in vogue but I'd prefer Jimmy Carter's approach - Pick something you can fix and fix it.  Repeat until you run out of problems.  More people following Carter's example is my personal goal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

COALITION OF SCIENTISTS’ “SIX CLEAR MEASURES” TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE

Energy: Implement massive conservation practices; replace fossil fuels with clean renewables; leave remaining stocks of fossil fuels in the ground; eliminate subsidies to fossil fuel companies; and impose carbon fees that are high enough to restrain the use of fossil fuels.

Conservation = good.  What does 'restrain' mean?  The idea of replacing all energy demand with solar/wind byproducts (if that's what they mean by renewable) is physically impossible using any technology available today or likely available within the next 50 years. Where possible, Oil/Nat gas should be used as building blocks, not fuel.

Restrain? the meaning is fairly obvious. make the use of fossil fuels expensive to encourage use of alternatives.

Short-lived pollutants: Swiftly cut emissions of methane, hydrofluorocarbons, soot and other short-lived climate pollutants. This has the potential to reduce the short-term warming trend by more than 50 per cent over the next few decades.

HFCs should be minimized.  The potential AC explosion in Asia is actually environmentally scary.  I'm not sure which emissions of methane they want to cut but I'm assuming this is a backdoor way of saying banning fracking?

Eat less meat and ban fracking.

Nature : Restrain massive land clearing. Restore and protect ecosystems such as forests, grasslands and mangroves, which would greatly contribute to the sequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a key greenhouse gas.

Agreed.  We should restrain land clearing and focus on better redistribution of commodity goods.

Food: Eat mostly plants and consume fewer animal products. This dietary shift would significantly reduce emissions of methane and other greenhouse gases and free up agricultural lands for growing human food rather than livestock feed. Reducing food waste is also critical – the scientists say at least one-third of all food produced ends up as garbage.

Yes, we should reduce meat consumption and focus on better distribution of food stocks.  The problem is even more tragic than suggested.. 1/3rd of all food IN ITS FINISHED STATE gets thrown out - that means all the value add up to that point also gets thrown away.

Economy: Convert the economy’s reliance on carbon fuels to address human dependence on the biosphere. Shift goals away from the growth of gross domestic product and the pursuit of affluence. Curtail the extraction of materials and exploitation of ecosystems to maintain long-term biosphere sustainability.

I don't know what the first line actually means but it suggests replacing automation with human labor - which is probably a good thing in principle but hard in practice.  Reduce focus on consumption is fine but I'm not sure what you replace it WITH and to pretend humans won't chase consumption in some form is silly

Humans like to consume, doesn't mean they cant consume in other ways. Why do they like to chase consumption? answering that is the key. They can be led to consume renewables..buy flowers :D We've been trained to consume products, we can be trained to consume renewables its only marketing.

Population: Stabilize global population, which is increasing by more than 200,000 people a day, using approaches that ensure social and economic justice.

"Stabilize global population using approaches that ensure social and economic justice." <---   I have no idea what that means.  I think it means not sterilizing people and not taking their means of old age support away to work in low pay low skill jobs in cities Rich societies are already mostly at negative population growth .  So that means you have to reduce population growth in poor countries by.. paying poor countries not to have kids?

Immigration education and family planning. us boomers are going to have to find someone to wipe our bums, our kids wont. and you can pay poor people not to have kids OR you can expand family planning

--------

Some decent goals but half of it is silly and there's too much word salad.  I know these manifestos are in vogue but I'd prefer Jimmy Carter's approach - Pick something you can fix and fix it.  Repeat until you run out of problems.  More people following Carter's example is my personal goal.

They really only proposing what millions of people are voluntarily doing anyway. Yes the language is annoying.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cmilliken said:

...    ...

Some decent goals but half of it is silly and there's too much word salad.  I know these manifestos are in vogue but I'd prefer Jimmy Carter's approach - Pick something you can fix and fix it.  Repeat until you run out of problems.  More people following Carter's example is my personal goal.

Hear hear!! Well said, sir!

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Gissie said:

Even I am not that dumb, but perhaps if you should have read my posts rather than seeing my name and assuming you knew what I was going to say. If you had maybe you wouldn't have made such a silly comment.

To try and make it simple. Eleven thousand, ie not all of them, are gathering vast amounts of cash each year. Assume they are averaging 100k each that is a rather large number. Plus all the vast amounts of equipment and lab time they use. All to get some more minutae on climate change. We know it is happening, according to these folk it is right here. Does it matter that much more if we know down to 3 decimal places rather than 2?

I just suggested we can them and use the money and resources to find solutions. Quite a simply idea that could lead to an actual answer. But climate change has become the unstoppable force. How could you dare remove money without you and your elk, supported by Queen gret, screaming the house down. Demanding an answer without realising how ridiculous you can sometimes be.

Read a lot of the BS on this site, a lot of people here do not know it is happening, the denial is still strong. 

Lets assume you are a scientist who is doing research that is somewhat connected to climate change - say on coral bleaching or the impact that CC will have on beer production and prices (a paper that got a lot of attention last year. Are you suggesting that these scientists stop doing research, in a publish or perish academic world? If they are not looking at beer they will still be studying something - related to CC or to something else within their area of specialty. Most CC science is not about going to another decimal point in some area where the science is strong, it is looking at other phenomena. At worst these guys and gals are establishing baselines so we know how we are doing over the years to come.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LB 15 said:

You think? A good friend has a place in the Queensland Alps. He is a member of the local volunteer firereys. He has been hard at it for the past two weeks on the fires around Boonah. He said that no matter how bad it is the old fellas always have the ‘this is nothing - you should of be here in 19.... 

Perhaps you can find one of those colourful little graphs to prove me wrong. 

Well, it's an interesting question. Some people just hate egghead scientist bullshit, others have an overwhelming emotional response that the Titanic isn't really sinking, no way, it can't possibly be!! But the issue of man's influence on the climate is not "belief" it's easily observable fact.

How much fossil fuel does man (and women, let's spread the blame) burn, globally, every day?

Answer that question first, a very simple and straightforward fact, then tell me what you think it means.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cmilliken said:

Some decent goals but half of it is silly and there's too much word salad.  I know these manifestos are in vogue but I'd prefer Jimmy Carter's approach - Pick something you can fix and fix it.  Repeat until you run out of problems.  More people following Carter's example is my personal goal.

+1

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LB 15 said:

Yes I can’t for the life of me work out why they didn’t use them back in the 1800’s. 

 

You have volunteers fire fighters from the 1800's?

And they tell stories of how bad the fires were back then compared to now?

Does the firefighter in the link below have a relevant story about the old days too?

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-06/former-fire-chief-worried-about-firefighting-resources/11677760

 

 

 

Next you will be telling me about your experiences with wire sheets and ior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

+1

:lol:  leading by example you two are.

It's so tediously fucking predictable what the "right" and "center right" and fauxbertarians here will post about given issues. First it's not a problem, then it's shoot the messenger, followed by apathy. Unfortunately that's because you are just vomitting up word salad from your thought leaders and the anglophone right wing can't fucking grasp climate change. So you don't. It'd be really nice if you were ever half as serious or as smart as you guys pretended to be. And the first step would be realizing the decades of denial have put you behind.

ramble on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Gissie said:

Pity the thousands of scientist don't come up with a realistic path forward. If they are correct and it has arrived we should stop anymore research into weather, it is settled, and find a way to survive. No new technology will work as it will take years to make available on a large scale.

So we should just... what the fuck was that... I think the bloody sky just hit me on the head. Might go hide in that nice cave over there with the nice man. Then all will be fine. Hey, leave my bank account alone.

There was a realistic path forward forty years ago.

But it ain't sexy and it doesn't spur a political shitshow, so it's mostly only hardcore scientists who back it. But, part of the reason we aren't in this deeper than we are, is because that realistic path was started forty years ago.

Still everyone is going to keep arguing about politics, so the bread and the circuses will continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cmilliken said:

Population: Stabilize global population, which is increasing by more than 200,000 people a day, using approaches that ensure social and economic justice.

"Stabilize global population using approaches that ensure social and economic justice." <---   I have no idea what that means.  Rich societies are already mostly at negative population growth .  To reduce population growth in poor countries, we should be paying poor countries not to have kids?  In principle, I'm not actually opposed but I'm not sure what they really want to see implemented.

This was my "WTF?" as a well.  

I don't see it ever happening, because to do so would be to admit that Rich countries want Poor countries to stop reproducing so damn much.  It will then be painted as racism and the discussion will end there.  There is ZERO appetite out there to do the things that would be required.  Hell, we still give the chinese shit over their one child policy and that was likely the best decision they ever made.  It required some brutally difficult decisions to be made, but likely staved off mass starvation and potentially a huge internal civil war that most likely would have spread regionally and globally.  But I digress.......

The fact of the matter is that (IMO) the ONLY way out of this dilemma is to not only stabilize pop growth but to actually reduce it.  I'm not suggesting neutron bomb nuking the Indian Subcontinent and Africa, but we need to get to negative population growth at some point and all see and accept that as a good thing.  The problem is the global economy is built on a growth model, not a sustainable model.  So that would have to practically change overnight as well.  Good luck with that.  As in it ain't going to happen.

I think truly our only real hope out of this is for an antibiotic resistant superbug pandemic to occur and wipe out about 3-5 billion of the folks on this blue planet. At that point, Mother Nature would catch her breath and start healing.  But I don't think there's much our tech or human ingenuity is going to be able to do to solve it in the absence of relieving the population stress on the planet.  

Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those who contaminate the air and the water won the war the day they moved the conversation from an economic one to a political one.

As long as politics are attached to this discussion, they will mostly continue to contaminate the air, the water and our lungs with impunity.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Those who contaminate the air and the water won the war the day they moved the conversation from an economic one to a political one.

As long as politics are attached to this discussion, they will mostly continue to contaminate the air, the water and our lungs with impunity.

I'm sorry Mike, but when has it ever NOT been political?  

I'm guessing that day was around...... let me think...... um, never.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

This was my "WTF?" as a well.  

I don't see it ever happening, because to do so would be to admit that Rich countries want Poor countries to stop reproducing so damn much.  It will then be painted as racism and the discussion will end there.  There is ZERO appetite out there to do the things that would be required.  Hell, we still give the chinese shit over their one child policy and that was likely the best decision they ever made.  It required some brutally difficult decisions to be made, but likely staved off mass starvation and potentially a huge internal civil war that most likely would have spread regionally and globally.  But I digress.......

The fact of the matter is that (IMO) the ONLY way out of this dilemma is to not only stabilize pop growth but to actually reduce it.  I'm not suggesting neutron bomb nuking the Indian Subcontinent and Africa, but we need to get to negative population growth at some point and all see and accept that as a good thing.  The problem is the global economy is built on a growth model, not a sustainable model.  So that would have to practically change overnight as well.  Good luck with that.  As in it ain't going to happen.

I think truly our only real hope out of this is for an antibiotic resistant superbug pandemic to occur and wipe out about 3-5 billion of the folks on this blue planet. At that point, Mother Nature would catch her breath and start healing.  But I don't think there's much our tech or human ingenuity is going to be able to do to solve it in the absence of relieving the population stress on the planet.  

Just saying.

Cripes JBSF, did you drive to work in Trans Am, while wearing parachute pants and listening to Rick Astley?

The Earth is not overpopulated, and your ideas of "negative growth" would be a disaster.

The current global population growth rate is just about to dip below 1%, and countries all over the world who see negative growth rates are fighting the effects of population inversion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shootist Jeff said:

I'm sorry Mike, but when has it ever NOT been political?  

I'm guessing that day was around...... let me think...... um, never.

Actually, it still isn't political with a lot of people who actually do the work. 

You want to know when it wasn't political? Read a history book and start with "D" for "Donora."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

This was my "WTF?" as a well.  

I don't see it ever happening, because to do so would be to admit that Rich countries want Poor countries to stop reproducing so damn much.  It will then be painted as racism and the discussion will end there.  There is ZERO appetite out there to do the things that would be required.  Hell, we still give the chinese shit over their one child policy and that was likely the best decision they ever made.  It required some brutally difficult decisions to be made, but likely staved off mass starvation and potentially a huge internal civil war that most likely would have spread regionally and globally.  But I digress.......

The fact of the matter is that (IMO) the ONLY way out of this dilemma is to not only stabilize pop growth but to actually reduce it.  I'm not suggesting neutron bomb nuking the Indian Subcontinent and Africa, but we need to get to negative population growth at some point and all see and accept that as a good thing.  The problem is the global economy is built on a growth model, not a sustainable model.  So that would have to practically change overnight as well.  Good luck with that.  As in it ain't going to happen.

I think truly our only real hope out of this is for an antibiotic resistant superbug pandemic to occur and wipe out about 3-5 billion of the folks on this blue planet. At that point, Mother Nature would catch her breath and start healing.  But I don't think there's much our tech or human ingenuity is going to be able to do to solve it in the absence of relieving the population stress on the planet.  

Just saying.

Im actually thinking we are being far to narcissistic about disease.  Im actually thinking that the super bugs are going to wipe out one of our foods.  Like the pig problem in Asia today.  Or some nasty that wipes out corn production. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Let it be known it's the rightwinger advocating culling humanity in this thread.

Imagine I ever said I was "advocating" it.  IMAGINE!  I'm just saying that's likely the only true way out of this emergency. 

And right on cue, you prove my point that options to either stabilize or reduce the global population will never be entertained much less discussed because you and your elk will cast it as Racism and "culling humanity" as if I ever said that we should spin up the concentration camps again.  

That brings up a really good point though...... and I alluded to it earlier.  WHAT IF the indisputable scientific consensus is that we are facing an human extinction event in the next say 50 years if we don't reduce the global population by 20% and then hold at those levels for the indefinite future.  What then?  Do we allow the entire species to go extinct because we can't bring ourselves to make the hard choices and use the "cull" word?  Although, I suppose if we did nothing as the extinction horizon approached, it would happen anyway as the globe exploded into conflict.  It would just be a lot messier.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Imagine I ever said I was "advocating" it.  IMAGINE!  I'm just saying that's likely the only true way out of this emergency. 

so you are just stating your ignorant and incorrect belief as a truth, not advocating it? 

the concentration camps are spun up again in the world and noone really gives a fuck because they don't want to feel any pain censuring China. which is no different than every other issue today - a bunch of moralizing lazy fat fuckwhits who don't want to feel any pain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
4 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Imagine I ever said I was "advocating" it.  IMAGINE!  I'm just saying that's likely the only true way out of this emergency. 

so you are just stating your ignorant and incorrect belief as a truth, not advocating it? 

No sir.  I was absolutely careful to use the phrase "in my opinion".  You do see the difference there, don't you, fucklet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites