New Hp Printer - Small Problem Since...
Technology0 min ago
Today Thousands Of School Children Across The World Go On A One Days Climate Change Strike.
229 Answers
https:/
They have had the whole of the summer holidays to protest, or is this just another exercise brought on by their left-wing teachers?
All seems reminiscent to the Nazi teachers in 1930's Germany.
They have had the whole of the summer holidays to protest, or is this just another exercise brought on by their left-wing teachers?
All seems reminiscent to the Nazi teachers in 1930's Germany.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
How is it an excellent question? It's based on a completely flawed premise.
The problem I have, and indeed anybody else sensible has, with the present period of Climate Change is that humans are almost certainly the ones responsible for it. If our activity had served to decrease average global temperatures it would be equally abhorrent, not because the world is perfect as it is but because it stands to reason that human interference that damages and changes the climate rapidly is, in the words of Sellers and Yeatman, a bad thing.
*That's* what we want to change. Not to keep the temperature as it is for its own sake, but to reduce the negative impact of human activity on the world around us.
The problem I have, and indeed anybody else sensible has, with the present period of Climate Change is that humans are almost certainly the ones responsible for it. If our activity had served to decrease average global temperatures it would be equally abhorrent, not because the world is perfect as it is but because it stands to reason that human interference that damages and changes the climate rapidly is, in the words of Sellers and Yeatman, a bad thing.
*That's* what we want to change. Not to keep the temperature as it is for its own sake, but to reduce the negative impact of human activity on the world around us.
As a follow-up to that, if it could be definitively shown that human activities had a negligible effect on the planet, be it on climate, or biodiversity, or anything else in the natural sphere, then it would stand to reason that there would be no reason to protest. But the exact opposite is the case. The most recent assessment that I'm aware of estimates a >90% probability that the present temperature changes are driven primarily by human activity, and that's almost certainly a conservative figure. Even if you cast that aside, it's also pretty clear that humans have been directly responsible for hundreds if not thousands of recent extinctions, have destroyed entire ecosystems, have severely reduced populations of many other creatures, and so on.
All of that fits into the broader complaint, that boils down to this: the way humans exploit and use the planet's resources is completely unsustainable and should be changed on those grounds alone.
All of that fits into the broader complaint, that boils down to this: the way humans exploit and use the planet's resources is completely unsustainable and should be changed on those grounds alone.
It depends a rather a lot on what you're reading jim, (links would be helpful) though I agree completely with your last paragraph.
These kids are largely reflecting of the hyperbolic coverage of climate change by Al Gore, Hollywood and even, latterly, David Attenborough (a good man who seems to have lost the plot in his dotage)– films where footage of fires, hurricanes and caving-in glaciers are stitched together to give the impression of impending doom. How many of these kids know that hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones are a natural part of the tropical climate & were going on many millennia before significant man-made carbon emissions & that the planet has always witnessed countless warm & cold periods? I wonder.
These kids are largely reflecting of the hyperbolic coverage of climate change by Al Gore, Hollywood and even, latterly, David Attenborough (a good man who seems to have lost the plot in his dotage)– films where footage of fires, hurricanes and caving-in glaciers are stitched together to give the impression of impending doom. How many of these kids know that hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones are a natural part of the tropical climate & were going on many millennia before significant man-made carbon emissions & that the planet has always witnessed countless warm & cold periods? I wonder.
As I explained though, Naomi, the question is not what the "reasonable temperature" is, but who is driving the change. If the temperature changes due to natural causes then there's naff all we can do about it. That is not the case. So, no, it's based as I say on a flawed premise: the concern is not about preserving the temperature, or at least shouldn't be, but about ensuring that if the temperature changes then that's because it was naturally inevitable.
It's not a question of avoiding a straight answer. The question is flawed. There's no point in directly answering a flawed question.
It's not a question of avoiding a straight answer. The question is flawed. There's no point in directly answering a flawed question.
As to Khandro's last post, it's a fair point. I remember when I was younger myself, I am fairly sure I had the impression that catastrophic sea level rise due to melting Antarctic Ice was expected by the end of this century. I've since understood that this is far from expected. The sea level will (it is expected) rise by about half a metre -- or, at any rate, not much more than a metre at most --but that's very far from the picture I think I had that it would be several metres, or even tens of metres, by then.
But this isn't really the point. Firstly, I don't think any reasonable scientific picture has argued that ever; secondly, the real crisis is that after a certain point the changes and responses are irreversible, even if it takes longer for them to be realised. So, for example, if global temperatures reached 2 degrees Celsius higher on average by 2100, then by about the year 3000 it's more or less certain that water expansion, ice melts, etc, would have seen sea levels rise by five metres, and then another five after that by 4000. Ten metres is still a lot, and even if you then have hundreds or thousands of years to cope with that effect, it's still the case that future generations shouldn't *have* to.
The hurricanes point is also frustrating: there's no denying that hurricanes have been a near-constant feature of weather on this planet since time immemorial. But if the sea levels rise, if global temperatures rise, and so on, then that makes the conditions that create hurricanes, and particularly powerful ones, to be far more prevalent. It's still a matter of dispute whether we can expect *more* hurricanes in this scenario, but I believe it's well-established that such hurricanes as do happen would be that much more destructive.
But this isn't really the point. Firstly, I don't think any reasonable scientific picture has argued that ever; secondly, the real crisis is that after a certain point the changes and responses are irreversible, even if it takes longer for them to be realised. So, for example, if global temperatures reached 2 degrees Celsius higher on average by 2100, then by about the year 3000 it's more or less certain that water expansion, ice melts, etc, would have seen sea levels rise by five metres, and then another five after that by 4000. Ten metres is still a lot, and even if you then have hundreds or thousands of years to cope with that effect, it's still the case that future generations shouldn't *have* to.
The hurricanes point is also frustrating: there's no denying that hurricanes have been a near-constant feature of weather on this planet since time immemorial. But if the sea levels rise, if global temperatures rise, and so on, then that makes the conditions that create hurricanes, and particularly powerful ones, to be far more prevalent. It's still a matter of dispute whether we can expect *more* hurricanes in this scenario, but I believe it's well-established that such hurricanes as do happen would be that much more destructive.
Jim, the question is not flawed. Difficult perhaps, but not flawed.
// If the temperature changes due to natural causes there's naff all we can do about it. That is not the case. //
But much of it is the case. We know this because global warming was recorded prior the advent of major industry. Human beings weren’t causing that. If we are, indeed, exacerbating the problem now, then unless we are all willing to forego our modern lifestyles, there is, as you say, naff all we can do about it. Nature will do what it does, and neither you nor anyone else will stop it. To assume you can is simply nonsense. Nature is bigger than we are – alone or collectively.
// If the temperature changes due to natural causes there's naff all we can do about it. That is not the case. //
But much of it is the case. We know this because global warming was recorded prior the advent of major industry. Human beings weren’t causing that. If we are, indeed, exacerbating the problem now, then unless we are all willing to forego our modern lifestyles, there is, as you say, naff all we can do about it. Nature will do what it does, and neither you nor anyone else will stop it. To assume you can is simply nonsense. Nature is bigger than we are – alone or collectively.
Make the "data" fit the narrative exercise.
Environment Canada omitted a century’s worth of observed weather data in developing its computer models on the impacts of climate change.
The scrapping of all observed weather data from 1850 to 1949 was necessary, a spokesman for Environment Canada told Blacklock’s Reporter, after researchers concluded that historically, there weren’t enough weather stations to create a reliable data set for that 100-year period.
“The historical data is not observed historical data,” the spokesman said. “It is modelled historical data … 24 models from historical simulations spanning 1950 to 2005 were used.”
This excuse is unlikely to persuade sceptical observers of the Climate Industrial Complex, which has consistently sought to play down, conceal or even destroy temperature data which does not fit in with the alarmist global warming narrative.
As Blacklock’s Reporter notes, in many cases the temperatures in the early 20th century were higher than they are today. This doesn’t suit the narrative – consistently pushed by green activists like Canada’s notoriously partisan Environment Minister Catherine ‘Climate Barbie’ McKenna – that the planet is warming at a dangerous rate due man-made carbon emissions.
Or.
Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
Truth must be destroyed for lies to be workable.
Environment Canada omitted a century’s worth of observed weather data in developing its computer models on the impacts of climate change.
The scrapping of all observed weather data from 1850 to 1949 was necessary, a spokesman for Environment Canada told Blacklock’s Reporter, after researchers concluded that historically, there weren’t enough weather stations to create a reliable data set for that 100-year period.
“The historical data is not observed historical data,” the spokesman said. “It is modelled historical data … 24 models from historical simulations spanning 1950 to 2005 were used.”
This excuse is unlikely to persuade sceptical observers of the Climate Industrial Complex, which has consistently sought to play down, conceal or even destroy temperature data which does not fit in with the alarmist global warming narrative.
As Blacklock’s Reporter notes, in many cases the temperatures in the early 20th century were higher than they are today. This doesn’t suit the narrative – consistently pushed by green activists like Canada’s notoriously partisan Environment Minister Catherine ‘Climate Barbie’ McKenna – that the planet is warming at a dangerous rate due man-made carbon emissions.
Or.
Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
Truth must be destroyed for lies to be workable.
Pinched from FB, bit expresses my views
To all the school kids going on 'strike' for Climate Change:
You are the first generation who have required air-conditioning in every classroom.
You want TV in every room and your classes are all computerised.
You spend all day and night on electronic devices.
More than ever, you don't walk or ride bikes to school but arrive in caravans of private cars that choke local roads and worsen rush hour traffic.
You are the biggest consumers of manufactured goods ever and update perfectly good expensive luxury items to stay trendy,
Your entertainment comes from electric devices.
Furthermore, the people driving your protests are the same people who insist on artificially inflating the population growth through immigration, which increases the need for energy, manufacturing and transport.
The more people we have, the more forest and bushland we clear and more of the environment is destroyed.
How about this...
Tell your teachers to switch off the air-con.
Walk or ride to school. Switch off your devices and read a book.
Make a sandwich instead of buying manufactured fast food.
No, none of this will happen because you are selfish, badly educated, virtue signalling little 'princesses', inspired by the adults around you who crave a feeling of having a 'noble cause' while they indulge themselves in Western luxury and unprecedented quality of life.
Wake up, grow up and learn to research facts and think for yourself and not blindly accept the words and thoughts of others - I don't think you formulated this action plan all by your self - suspect you may have had some influence and 'guidance' from those you trust ....a word of warning, be cautious of the influence of the 'left' because there may be a time in the future that you will be the ones left out...
To all the school kids going on 'strike' for Climate Change:
You are the first generation who have required air-conditioning in every classroom.
You want TV in every room and your classes are all computerised.
You spend all day and night on electronic devices.
More than ever, you don't walk or ride bikes to school but arrive in caravans of private cars that choke local roads and worsen rush hour traffic.
You are the biggest consumers of manufactured goods ever and update perfectly good expensive luxury items to stay trendy,
Your entertainment comes from electric devices.
Furthermore, the people driving your protests are the same people who insist on artificially inflating the population growth through immigration, which increases the need for energy, manufacturing and transport.
The more people we have, the more forest and bushland we clear and more of the environment is destroyed.
How about this...
Tell your teachers to switch off the air-con.
Walk or ride to school. Switch off your devices and read a book.
Make a sandwich instead of buying manufactured fast food.
No, none of this will happen because you are selfish, badly educated, virtue signalling little 'princesses', inspired by the adults around you who crave a feeling of having a 'noble cause' while they indulge themselves in Western luxury and unprecedented quality of life.
Wake up, grow up and learn to research facts and think for yourself and not blindly accept the words and thoughts of others - I don't think you formulated this action plan all by your self - suspect you may have had some influence and 'guidance' from those you trust ....a word of warning, be cautious of the influence of the 'left' because there may be a time in the future that you will be the ones left out...
The problem with what you say Naomi is that it completely ignores the scientific consensus. As you must know, the present picture is that right now, and for the last century or so, the climate change that is ongoing is almost certainly driven by human activity. That is not undermined by previous climate change epochs. So, I'm sorry, but you are speaking as if the current evidence supports the exact opposite position from what is the case. Nor is there a need to insist that the only way humans can solve it is to return to a pre-industrial society. That isn't true either. We will need to remodel how we generate energy, but that's not the same thing at all.
I hope you can at least appreciate the reason I call the question flawed, even if you disagree: the point I am making is that there is no "ideal" temperature, but there clearly *is* an ideal situation, namely, one where human impact on climate is negligible at best. We are not in that position. Insisting that we are flies in the face of all the available evidence -- and, for that matter, common sense.
I hope you can at least appreciate the reason I call the question flawed, even if you disagree: the point I am making is that there is no "ideal" temperature, but there clearly *is* an ideal situation, namely, one where human impact on climate is negligible at best. We are not in that position. Insisting that we are flies in the face of all the available evidence -- and, for that matter, common sense.
Returning to the hurricanes, I would agree that it's premature to make any such conclusion about what's going on *now*. The last few years have, however, seen several record-breaking hurricanes. Scientists are naturally cautious people, so I think it's quite reasonable for the NOAA to hedge their bets.
How did the court case brought by Michael Mann against Dr Tim Ball go Jim? Have Mann's "records" been released yet?
Top of graph Mann's discredited model. Bottom of graph Tim Ball's based on facts.
https:/
Top of graph Mann's discredited model. Bottom of graph Tim Ball's based on facts.
https:/
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Technology4 mins ago
As If The Cowards Of Hamas Have Not...
News10 mins ago
Home & Garden13 mins ago
Sir Keir Starmer Under, Fresh...
News16 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.