UN latest climate outlook
Posted 16 March 2015 - 05:44 PM
Posted 16 March 2015 - 05:46 PM
Posted 16 March 2015 - 05:47 PM
. . . group that believes god made the world perfectly for man and so we are incapable of interfering with it, therefore man made climate change isn't real.
Like a two year old blames his invisible friend for something that he did.
"I didn't do it. I can't. God must have done it".
When religion is used to absolve personal responsibility it merely denotes moronic intelligence.
Posted 16 March 2015 - 05:56 PM
A quick skim of the website and BP's show they rabbit stuff 1st said on Sceptical science. If you put the Kochs (spelling??) on one side of the CC debate see-saw you'd balance it by putting Sceptical science on the other. Both are a little out there and have been proven to be so.
In the cave tonite it will be Monteith's Summer Ale while I finish my motor mounts and ponder what galley design No 5 will be. The light at the end of the tunnel grows brighter.
Sorry I don't know Skeptical Science. I just watched J Balogs doco, mainly his photographic evidence, and drew my conclusions from that. Individuals or groups with (possible) hidden agendas don't interest me. What stays with me months after watching the doco is the facts, no emotional blah blah, no pseudo science, just photographic evidence.
Galley design No 5??
Posted 17 March 2015 - 07:33 AM
Not too sure what being religious has to do with much. I do know just because your religious it doesn't mean you'll lean one way or another. In that list of funders I posted one mob is seriously religious with the family having a inter generational run of Priests, some of which were politicians at the same time and there's a suggestion they were all a little kinky and corrupt.
That list of funders are a lot of the money behind the mob who helped fund Megs movie.
What 'facts' did you see in the movie Meg? You saw a changing climate. It has been doing that for billions of years so not a surprise. You may have seen photos of chimneys, you didn't see a photographic record of why it's changing, you saw the result not the reason.
And people who use terms like this may as well say 'I have bugger all so I'll play the man not the ball'.
It's like the dick heads who call people 'climate deniers' as if to suggest anyone who doesn't agree with why the climate is changing is denying the climate can even change or in this case it suggests to me that if you don't agree with one specific scientific thing then your saying all science is wrong.
I had a quick skim of Heartland funders to see if the Koch Bros chucked them coin to trash the pro CC team. It appears BP's belief they did is only a myth, they did chuck the 25K many years ago but it wasn't CC related. Besides that I didn't look any deeper. I only posted those letters as they were interesting and showed how sections of the US Government are getting rather intense in their desire to shut down any debate on the subject, which raises the question of Why?. The fact the letters went to and from Heartland was pure coincidence.
Yes Meg, serious kitchen issues aboard. Make one, decide I don't like it, pull it out, start again. But I have finally sorted the cooker and bench top so that maybe it when she goes splash. Something to sit the beer and currys on, something to brew the coffee on. What else do ya need?
Posted 17 March 2015 - 09:32 AM
KM - the evidence I saw was photographic evidence of glacial melting over a few (I don't remember how many - 2, 3 or more?) years. And melting FAST. Yes, the result, not the cause.
My argument is: whether the cause is a natural phenomenon or not, if there is any way we may be having an impact, should we not reduce that impact as much as possible?
The truth is, most of us really do not understand the full complexity of the global ocean currents, global weather systems, how the material world seems solid to us, or even how our bodies and brains really work. Yes, we have a good idea, there are theories and hypotheses, but even those who we think of as the 'knowledgeable ones" will tell you that the more they know, the more they realise that they don't know.
To me, the argument regarding what is causing the glacial melt is immaterial. Just as is placing blame on any one community for the plastic in the Atlantic. We ALL need to be aware of the impact our actions have on our planet. It is not a replaceable resource, we can make it uninhabitable for ourselves and many other species. We cannot just dial up another Earth because we blew it on this one.
Seeing as we consider ourselves the sentient beings in our universe, should we not take the responsibility inherent with that, and husband our planet rather than raping and pillaging?
And no, being religious has nothing to do with it, but if someone uses their religion to say that nothing they do impacts the environment because god made it perfect and humans are incapable of environmental impact, they have entered that into the debate. Another smoke screen.
If a person believes that god made this planet for us to have dominion over, then surely a part of the responsibility of that dominion is to take care of it?
Too much smoke and mirrors, not enough responsibility. Homo sapiens has lost it's relationship with the planet that nourishes it. Maybe it is time we woke up, stopped arguing over who is at fault, and listened, before it is too late. We are in this boat together, as a species, and as a global community of bio-organisms.
I know you are playing devils advocate here KM - you are one of the ones who have attempted to reduce your environmental footprint.
And, unless you like cold curry, you might want something on that bench to heat it .
Posted 17 March 2015 - 09:38 AM
I went to Google, it was pretty overwhelming.
I heard a story that some Chinese interest was buying land in Iceland for a deep water port to handle the increase in traffic expected through the NW passage.?????
Do you have the hyperlink to that story. USA ,CANADA, RUSSIA, want the ice to melt. They planted their sovereign flags on the ocean / sea bed floors with nuclear submarines years ago as their claim to ownership when the expert predicted the ice melt. Canada had approx. 18 months to prove their continental shelve extended to the area under the then frozen ice for them to claim ownership. That time is or has arrived. Have not seen any reports whether they succeeded. I couldn't understand USA and Russia imposing a time frame. Canada I suppose if they have proved their continental shelve does extend to the disputed unclaimed area will appeal, if they missed the time frame imposed. What's time got to do with it. It's whether you have the man power and Tech.
© 2013 2014 2015
ADVANCING MULTIHULL SAILOR ORGANIZER NAVIGATOR.
OCEAN COMBINED CRUISER / RACER ADVANCING MEMBER.
Posted 17 March 2015 - 09:58 AM
Does it matter if it is only due to natural causes, or if it really is human impact? If we can reduce our impact, then should we not find a way?
What is the worst thing that would happen if they were wrong, and we put systems in place to lesson human impact on the environment?
What is the worst thing that could happen if we are a major contributor to the problem and we don't?
Why, after so many years of debate (I don't know how long this debate has been boiling, but it seems like around 2 decades), are we still arguing about cause?
Put that enormous human energy and ingenuity into preventative and supportive measures rather than destructive arguments.
Ego has no place when an entire planetary ecosystem is at stake
Or do we just wait for the Vogans (or some other intergalactic species that may or may not exist) to vaporise us all.
The only way to bring about change as numerous scientific experts have stated is to vote for environmental orientated believers Finance ministers, as they have stated it is not their job to tell the politicians what to do.
The people have the power at the ballot box but the finance ministers are spending the financial resources to buy votes. Just look at the north Auckland BY election. Suddenly a first class air travel trip to Northland and hey presto they are promised new bridges and roads. Auckland want a new harbour bridge and for the ports on Auckland not to extend further across Auckland harbour water masses ? protest and use the political opinion polls to bring about change. Other wise this thread will still be the same as megwyn and Pumbaa have just illustrated
© 2013 2014 2015
ADVANCING MULTIHULL SAILOR ORGANIZER NAVIGATOR.
OCEAN COMBINED CRUISER / RACER ADVANCING MEMBER.
Posted 17 March 2015 - 11:53 AM
With regard for religious scientists and religion based groups, for me at least it does make a difference. If a person is religiously aligned there are several aspects that concern me. They will put their belief ahead of other issues. They already believe in things that are blatantly untrue, talking snakes, parting the seas and coming back from the dead etc etc. So they already have a wealth of experience of belief over logic. If they attend religious ceremonies out of tradition only or out of social propriety then they will support any old thing just because it's the done thing apart from it being deeply hypocritical. These positions are in opposition to the scientific process and that is the issue we are dealing with here. The right wing of US politics is rife with religious dogma and that is an important issue.
Posted 17 March 2015 - 04:01 PM
Too true and very good points there P. As we saw with the very Pro mob that funded Megs movie, extreme religious inhabit both sides of the debate. So not to sure what that does or doesn't tell us.
Yes Meg there is a good dollop of Devils Advocate happening, along with a few intentionally inflammatory things that should stir a few into going to have a look for themselves. There's also a few feeler post just to see what others think and how they got there and from what, a bit like the one asking BP for some evidence. Apart from he often asks others yet rarely provides any himself I wanted to know if his Koch/Heartland comment was from research of facts or headlines, it turned out to be only the headlines. So there are many reasons behind my posts.
The big niggle I have is that if you look with no pre-decided mind set you'll find there is enough evidence out there to suggest the science is far from settled. Add that to the coin involved and that's the rub, as they say.
If we believe the Pro side that means billion of dollars will be transferred around the place. Later this year the Govts and NGOs will be in Paris and will vote on a 100 billion dollar transfer of wealth from the 'developed nations' to the undeveloped under the guise of CC mitigation. Basically that means you and I will be forced into giving our money to China, India and countries like that to stop them emitting stuff. But we all know they will stop when they decide they want to and the money that makes it through all the hands, traps and syphon off points will make little difference.
Who is going to pay that 100 billion dollars? And that's only the IPCC meeting coin, not all the other billions involved in all of this.
Is the science really that settled we can afford to take money from the already poor to give to big multi-nationals, corrupt foreign Govts, the numerous agents with hands out, commissions being paid to some poor people like Al Gore and all the other scams that come with things like this?
I really don't think it is.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users