By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
According to geologists who study deep history, the only thing that will remain of our current civilisation in a billion years time is a one millimetre-thick layer of plastic
"Rochdale boys, we are here..." on 07:26 - Oct 10 by rochdaleriddler
Or maybe it’s that some people care about the environment, care about their fellow human beings, detest racists, etc . Nothing ever changes without protest, we don’t have enough of it.
The only thing we no longer have enough of is free speech!
YOU do not have the right to give someone else permission to tell me what I can and can't do.
0
"Rochdale boys, we are here..." on 11:28 - Oct 10 with 1606 views
I wasn't going to bother commenting on this thread (as a trained scientist) as it's been done before and entrenched views are rarely changed so I usually don't take the cheese or try to oppose the ostriches (if I can mix my metaphors). The really scary thing is if we approach trigger events which are irreversible and things then snowball. It's like when people get in their car, put their seat belt on and think they are invulnerable. Time is the only way to tell, but why gamble with the future?
What we as a race are doing to our planet is criminal - not just climate but wildlife habitats, waste, conspicuous consumption whilst illegal actions to make money to feed families is happening down the road. Greater personal responsibility is coming, but too little and way too late. Single use plastics don't cause problems in oceans, the tossers (literally) who dispose of them irresponsibly do. Selfishness + a live for the day attitude paint a bleak picture for the future.
Jesus Christ this is a depressing paragraph, a real-life example of how a large proportion of society are no longer interested in facts, and will simply believe what makes them feel comfortable/ exonerate them of responsibility.
1 - Man-made climate change is absolutely real. You don’t have to be a climatologist to know this, you just have to listen to the overwhelming majority of expert opinion. Similarly if a series of doctors told you you had a disease, would you believe them? or because you didn’t like their diagnosis would you consult with a witch-doctor?
2- Nobody has “rolled out” Greta Thunberg as a spokesman. As a schoolgirl she started a global movement - a fairly impressive feat. The fact that middle-aged men want to comment on her social skills is absolutely laughable, she’s already achieved more in her life than most people ever will.
3 - ’They’ have “rolled out” a ”gang of scientists”, but some people, like yourself seems to have had enough of the experts. I’m not sure if you follow the news much (I.e not your Facebook feed, or crack-pot YouTube channels) but gangs of scientists have been releasing research papers on this for about 30 years.
[Post edited 10 Oct 2019 7:52]
Note the correlation between supporters of Trump, Brexit, and deniers of climate change?
A good take on this that I read argues that these issues all speak to the divide between liberal, facts-based, outward-looking individuals and conservative feelings-based inwards looking individuals.
e.g.
Climate change - Outward: "The scientific consensus is really worrying as it looks like we're on a really damaging path" Inward: "Scientists/news are always going on about the end of the world, nothing's ever happened to me. Could do with a bit of warming here right now!"
Brexit - Outward: "If we have No-Deal, it's probably going to be massively damaging to parts of the economy and harm the UK's long-term prospects" Inward: " My job's gonna be ok / I have a fat guaranteed pension, and the news is always full of lies anyway"
Why this is happening?
- demographic shift due to ageing population - rise in dissatisfaction of the way and speed society is changing (anti-neo liberalism) - rise in nationalism as memories of the devastation of WWII fades - Poorer scientific literacy and increasing distrust of experts.
And what I personally think are the most salient reasons... - Easier to live in self-reinforcing (social) media bubble bereft of scrutiny - Tools for societal manipulation getting cheaper, better understood and can be deployed from anywhere. - Disneyfication of politics - the lower common denominator story is easily understood and travels well. Think unsubstantiated clickbait and sensationalist headlines.
7
"Rochdale boys, we are here..." on 11:52 - Oct 10 with 1571 views
"Rochdale boys, we are here..." on 11:28 - Oct 10 by rochdaleriddler
?
I take it political correctness is something you consider of enormous value. The ability of hyper sensitive types to have events, meetings, speeches etc.. stopped due to pressures put on owners of venues.
That's not to say I agree with the content of some of them but I'll defend the right to say whatever they want so long as it isn't hateful or leads to violence.
YOU do not have the right to give someone else permission to tell me what I can and can't do.
0
"Rochdale boys, we are here..." on 11:53 - Oct 10 with 1570 views
"Rochdale boys, we are here..." on 11:52 - Oct 10 by DorsetDale
I take it political correctness is something you consider of enormous value. The ability of hyper sensitive types to have events, meetings, speeches etc.. stopped due to pressures put on owners of venues.
That's not to say I agree with the content of some of them but I'll defend the right to say whatever they want so long as it isn't hateful or leads to violence.
What cancelled events are you referring to?
0
"Rochdale boys, we are here..." on 12:28 - Oct 10 with 1538 views
Note the correlation between supporters of Trump, Brexit, and deniers of climate change?
A good take on this that I read argues that these issues all speak to the divide between liberal, facts-based, outward-looking individuals and conservative feelings-based inwards looking individuals.
e.g.
Climate change - Outward: "The scientific consensus is really worrying as it looks like we're on a really damaging path" Inward: "Scientists/news are always going on about the end of the world, nothing's ever happened to me. Could do with a bit of warming here right now!"
Brexit - Outward: "If we have No-Deal, it's probably going to be massively damaging to parts of the economy and harm the UK's long-term prospects" Inward: " My job's gonna be ok / I have a fat guaranteed pension, and the news is always full of lies anyway"
Why this is happening?
- demographic shift due to ageing population - rise in dissatisfaction of the way and speed society is changing (anti-neo liberalism) - rise in nationalism as memories of the devastation of WWII fades - Poorer scientific literacy and increasing distrust of experts.
And what I personally think are the most salient reasons... - Easier to live in self-reinforcing (social) media bubble bereft of scrutiny - Tools for societal manipulation getting cheaper, better understood and can be deployed from anywhere. - Disneyfication of politics - the lower common denominator story is easily understood and travels well. Think unsubstantiated clickbait and sensationalist headlines.
The most heinous example of what you describe is the commonly-held fallacy that there's an equivalence between the strands of thought you've described, itself a product of the ease of media access
Nothing like grouping independently-minded individuals together and making them out to be a cabal, as a way of insulating one's own particular way of assessing the evidence. And that's without reference to any particular point, but i will add to one of them
Whilst the evidence for human-induced climate change mounts up (and all science is just a 'best description of things on current evidence') the earth's ecosystems are of such complexity that definitive outcomes are a fools game. Our current civilisation has been enabled due to global warming since the last ice age, the latest of many. Increasing efforts to engineer systems to remove carbon from the atmosphere are the most sensible way forward, alongside sensible measures to gradually reduce the burning of fossil fuels but in a way that allows managed raising of economic prosperity across all societies - one of the safest ways to engender peace and security. The Extinction Rebellion demands are futile, and probably self-defeating. Not doing anything isn't an option, but there are plenty of other options apart from destabilising economies and societies which would lead only to conflict and ironically, extinction
"Rochdale boys, we are here..." on 11:52 - Oct 10 by DorsetDale
I take it political correctness is something you consider of enormous value. The ability of hyper sensitive types to have events, meetings, speeches etc.. stopped due to pressures put on owners of venues.
That's not to say I agree with the content of some of them but I'll defend the right to say whatever they want so long as it isn't hateful or leads to violence.
I was merely wondering why you thought free speech was in short supply, of course if you mean hate, racist and misogynistic speech, you are right it’s not heard in polite company, ah bet you wish it was the 1950’s all over again
The most heinous example of what you describe is the commonly-held fallacy that there's an equivalence between the strands of thought you've described, itself a product of the ease of media access
Nothing like grouping independently-minded individuals together and making them out to be a cabal, as a way of insulating one's own particular way of assessing the evidence. And that's without reference to any particular point, but i will add to one of them
Whilst the evidence for human-induced climate change mounts up (and all science is just a 'best description of things on current evidence') the earth's ecosystems are of such complexity that definitive outcomes are a fools game. Our current civilisation has been enabled due to global warming since the last ice age, the latest of many. Increasing efforts to engineer systems to remove carbon from the atmosphere are the most sensible way forward, alongside sensible measures to gradually reduce the burning of fossil fuels but in a way that allows managed raising of economic prosperity across all societies - one of the safest ways to engender peace and security. The Extinction Rebellion demands are futile, and probably self-defeating. Not doing anything isn't an option, but there are plenty of other options apart from destabilising economies and societies which would lead only to conflict and ironically, extinction
[Post edited 10 Oct 2019 12:49]
Good to see Trump and Erdogan stabilising Syria as we speak
Good to see Trump and Erdogan stabilising Syria as we speak
Yep, it's idiocy of the highest level, but i assume it's not meant as a reply to the points raised in my post, which if anything is intended to decouple the trite linking of people with specific points of view
I know of other "back room of a pub" type meetings but don't have links.
Ta.
If there's threats of or actual violence that's obviously wrong. Disagree with them all you want but UKIP is a legitimate and legal political party so should be allowed to canvas support.
That said ,if a public debate /speech/rally is held whoever is conducting it should expect disagreement or heckling to take place.
The cynic in me does often wonder if articles about protests and meets being cancelled due to safety fears from the "other team" are engineered or exaggerated for political gain... but in this age of enlightenment that wouldn't happen would it?
The most heinous example of what you describe is the commonly-held fallacy that there's an equivalence between the strands of thought you've described, itself a product of the ease of media access
Nothing like grouping independently-minded individuals together and making them out to be a cabal, as a way of insulating one's own particular way of assessing the evidence. And that's without reference to any particular point, but i will add to one of them
Whilst the evidence for human-induced climate change mounts up (and all science is just a 'best description of things on current evidence') the earth's ecosystems are of such complexity that definitive outcomes are a fools game. Our current civilisation has been enabled due to global warming since the last ice age, the latest of many. Increasing efforts to engineer systems to remove carbon from the atmosphere are the most sensible way forward, alongside sensible measures to gradually reduce the burning of fossil fuels but in a way that allows managed raising of economic prosperity across all societies - one of the safest ways to engender peace and security. The Extinction Rebellion demands are futile, and probably self-defeating. Not doing anything isn't an option, but there are plenty of other options apart from destabilising economies and societies which would lead only to conflict and ironically, extinction
[Post edited 10 Oct 2019 12:49]
Why would we want to "engineer systems to remove carbon"?
YOU do not have the right to give someone else permission to tell me what I can and can't do.
Yep, it's idiocy of the highest level, but i assume it's not meant as a reply to the points raised in my post, which if anything is intended to decouple the trite linking of people with specific points of view
It was a tongue in cheek reply to your assertion that climate protestors could destabilise economies etc
The most heinous example of what you describe is the commonly-held fallacy that there's an equivalence between the strands of thought you've described, itself a product of the ease of media access
Nothing like grouping independently-minded individuals together and making them out to be a cabal, as a way of insulating one's own particular way of assessing the evidence. And that's without reference to any particular point, but i will add to one of them
Whilst the evidence for human-induced climate change mounts up (and all science is just a 'best description of things on current evidence') the earth's ecosystems are of such complexity that definitive outcomes are a fools game. Our current civilisation has been enabled due to global warming since the last ice age, the latest of many. Increasing efforts to engineer systems to remove carbon from the atmosphere are the most sensible way forward, alongside sensible measures to gradually reduce the burning of fossil fuels but in a way that allows managed raising of economic prosperity across all societies - one of the safest ways to engender peace and security. The Extinction Rebellion demands are futile, and probably self-defeating. Not doing anything isn't an option, but there are plenty of other options apart from destabilising economies and societies which would lead only to conflict and ironically, extinction
[Post edited 10 Oct 2019 12:49]
You keep on referring to yourself as ‘independently minded’. This infers that people who disagree with you are not. What are you independent from? The information from which you formed your opinion?
"Rochdale boys, we are here..." on 12:47 - Oct 10 by rochdaleriddler
I was merely wondering why you thought free speech was in short supply, of course if you mean hate, racist and misogynistic speech, you are right it’s not heard in polite company, ah bet you wish it was the 1950’s all over again
I was thinking more in terms of the subject of this thread. When was the last time you saw any kind of factual debate in the mainstream, especially bbc? The last person to argue against global warming (now called climate change because there's been no warming for 20 years!) was David Bellamy - remember him? At the time he was the go to scientist on the bbc and cherished by many. His voice was quashed instead of debated and he left these shores for Australia.
YOU do not have the right to give someone else permission to tell me what I can and can't do.
You keep on referring to yourself as ‘independently minded’. This infers that people who disagree with you are not. What are you independent from? The information from which you formed your opinion?
I'm not just referring to myself, but to anyone who is able to review sufficient evidence and/or opinions to make a considered judgement on individual matters of interest. It might even include yourself
I wouldn't dream of bunching together people with specific views though, and calling them "thick as fook"
As I just posted in my response to RR, there's been no warming since 1998. Even the IPCC recognise that.
The facts are the greater concentration of CO2 the better it is for life - animals and plants - to thrive.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, hence my use of "thought to be" i.e. the current consensus, based on the scientific method which enables further research to disprove or progress the debate
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.