Greta Thunberg named 2019 Time Person of the Year

The evidence is there and it is conclusive. We just choose to look the other way because we don't want to change our way of life.

There's no evidence that man-made CO2 emissions are harming the planet, we simply hear it a thousand times in the media everyday. There's no evidence either that we can influence climate change at all even by reverting to pre-historic living standards. That's also just the sort of thing we hear in the media. It may be the case or not but there is no hard evidence behind any of those positions and every time someone poses them as fact we know they cannot be trusted. They're all lefties too, which is already a warning.

We should be using our influence over countries like Saudi Arabia, China and India.

Nuts, what bluddy influence?

We also need to look at the meat industry which we heavily contribute to. It's one of the main contributors to climate change.

That is the stuff blaring out of the BBC and the Guardian but if you think about it... that's just nonsense. There are far too many and more influential drivers behind climate change than McDonald's.

Reply 121

DSilva

12

Original post by deathbyfm

The evidence that climate change is real is conclusive, not that it is alarming. Forest fires in Australia do not prove the need for urgent or imminent action, since the consensus among scientists is that climate change is real but does not pose an immediate and imminent danger in the way Greta Thunberg proposes it does. It poses a danger but some time down the line, which is why we should take action now but not to the extent that Greta Thunberg suggests.

I think this is a bit of a silly argument. Whatever Thunberg has said, it is clear there are very serious and real consequences of climate change happening right now.

Currently in Australia, as we speak, every state is experiencing a heatwave and huge areas of land are burning. 30,000 people have been evacuated already and people have died. That's very real and is happening now. How can you genuinely say when we are experiencing the consequences now that we don't need urgent action to stop it? Imagine it was your home or area on fire.

It may be that things are not as imminent as some suggest, but even so there are very serious consequences of climate change happening now that do require urgent action. Or are you really saying that the events in Australia and rising sea levels are not urgent?

It's a bit like a doctor saying 'well you may not die imminently if you don't stop smoking but you will experience severe health issues if you don't' and you going 'ah there's no point stopping smoking now then'.

The fact of the matter is that we ARE doing something with a general shift to renewables, but other countries such as Saudi Arabia are not, which is the problem. Yes, we could do more but that would not be the most suitable option given that the return on investing in climate change at this time is, according to the UN, only the 25th highest. We should instead be focusing on poverty and inequality, while continuing the shift to renewables and nuclear that we have been doing. How does Greta Thunberg raging at world leaders help in this regard?

You've not explained why we can't focus on poverty and inequality as well as climate change. The two are not mutually exclusive. Indeed some of the poorest areas of the world are most at risk to the effects of climate change.

The meat industry is not a problem - only 3% of emissions in the USA are from agriculture, while globally 64% are from fossil fuels. It's clear what we should be dealing with here

Animal agriculture amounts to 18% of global emissions. Deforestation amounts to 13%. Both are heavily linked to the meat industry. Yes it's not as big a factor as fossil fuels, but it is a massive issue that we should be doing much more on.

Reply 122

DSilva

12

Original post by z-hog

There's no evidence that man-made CO2 emissions are harming the planet, we simply hear it a thousand times in the media everyday. There's no evidence either that we can influence climate change at all even by reverting to pre-historic living standards. That's also just the sort of thing we hear in the media. It may be the case or not but there is no hard evidence behind any of those positions and every time someone poses them as fact we know they cannot be trusted. They're all lefties too, which is already a warning.

Nuts, what bluddy influence?

That is the stuff blaring out of the BBC and the Guardian but if you think about it... that's just nonsense. There are far too many and more influential drivers behind climate change than McDonald's.

The evidence is there and overwhelming. 97% of scientists agree.

But I'm guessing you Zhog, an unqualified, non scientist, middle aged guy who's done no research in climate change and has no expertise in it whatsoever, knows best. It's rather telling that you see not destroying the planet we live on as a 'lefty' position.

Lets be honest here. You think climate change is a hoax because it suits your political agenda to do so. No amount of scientific evidence can convince you otherwise because you don't base your opinions on fact and evidence.

Again mate, have a day off.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 123

z-hog

13

Original post by DSilva

The evidence is there and overwhelming. 97% of scientists agree.

Agree with what:

a) that the planet is warming?

b) that man-made emissions are making all the difference and that we can take effective action to reverse the trend?

We know how it works, you guys just repeat these thing over and over again to the point of exhaustion and shout at everyone out of sync but that didn't make Goebbels right on anything. A or B?

Reply 124

DSilva

12

Original post by z-hog

Agree with what:

a) that the planet is warming?

b) that man-made emissions are making all the difference and that we can take effective action to reverse the trend?

We know how it works, you guys just repeat these thing over and over again to the point of exhaustion and shout at everyone out of sync but that didn't make Goebbels right on anything. A or B?

Ah well done, you've mentioned the Nazis.Godwin's law really is alive and kicking.

97% of scientists agree that man made climate change is a real phenomenon. But I guess you Zhog, know better? I mean you're a qualified scientist who's carried out huge amounts of research and examined the data yourself right?

Again though, debating you is pointless. It doesn't matter what the evidence or facts say, you take no notice. You do the same in every thread. You don't base your opinions on logic, reason and fact. You just repeat the same rant. And then for some bizarre reason you turn the debate onto Nazis...

I debate a lot of people on here. Plenty of whom I disagree with yet we manage to have civil debates. Yet that does not seem possible with you.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 125

Notnek

OP

21

Original post by z-hog

There's no evidence that man-made CO2 emissions are harming the planet

Where do you get your information from? What had led you to this conclusion?

Reply 126

DSilva

12

Original post by Sir Cumference

Where do you get your information from? What had led you to this conclusion?

Alex Jones, I'm guessing.

Reply 127

z-hog

13

Original post by Sir Cumference

Where do you get your information from? What had led you to this conclusion?

Mainly the Internet, I'm afraid. Honest, the more I look into it and the more evident it becomes that nobody can exactly tell how much of an influence we can have over global warming. It's important to notice that I don't mean man-made CO2 is or isn't decisively affecting global climate, just that it's impossible to tell if it is or by how much. No problem with the theory, for as long as it remains as such instead of religious dogma.

What has led me to keep an open mind about it was actually learning some about what drives climate change other than CO2 in the atmosphere, we talk about it as if nothing else mattered. Our emissions have to be put into that context, which is not to say they have no impact at all somewhere.

Reply 128

deathbySTEP

14

Original post by DSilva

I think this is a bit of a silly argument. Whatever Thunberg has said, it is clear there are very serious and real consequences of climate change happening right now.

Currently in Australia, as we speak, every state is experiencing a heatwave and huge areas of land are burning. 30,000 people have been evacuated already and people have died. That's very real and is happening now. How can you genuinely say when we are experiencing the consequences now that we don't need urgent action to stop it? Imagine it was your home or area on fire.

It may be that things are not as imminent as some suggest, but even so there are very serious consequences of climate change happening now that do require urgent action. Or are you really saying that the events in Australia and rising sea levels are not urgent?

It's a bit like a doctor saying 'well you may not die imminently if you don't stop smoking but you will experience severe health issues if you don't' and you going 'ah there's no point stopping smoking now then'.

You've not explained why we can't focus on poverty and inequality as well as climate change. The two are not mutually exclusive. Indeed some of the poorest areas of the world are most at risk to the effects of climate change.

Animal agriculture amounts to 18% of global emissions. Deforestation amounts to 13%. Both are heavily linked to the meat industry. Yes it's not as big a factor as fossil fuels, but it is a massive issue that we should be doing much more on.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-50341210

Here you go. Climate change cannot directly be attributed to the situation in Australia, although it has made it worse. Bushfires aren't uncommon by a long stretch in Australia, and although they have gotten worse it is clearly not an indicator of an imminent mass extinction. Given that the situation cannot be directly attributed to climate change, and as I have poitned out, us taking action is negated by other countries. Do you agree that the talk of an extinction of civilisation by Greta is incorrect? And would you also agree that Greta should target countries like China and Saudi Arabia rather than the West?

You can't focus on both poverty and inequality because of simple economics - you don't have unlimited funds, and therefore you should fund your top priorities. If climate change is number 25, then it makes no sense to divert large funds towards it in the way Greta suggests. We can fund climate change, but should be funding poverty and inequality to a greater extent

Animal agriculture is 18%, yes, but fossil fuels are 64%. Deforestation will not go down just because the meat industry no longer exists, because of activities like logging and normal agriculture. It seems to me that we should be concentrating on reducing fossil fuels. And what exactly do you want to do to the meat industry? Surely not ban it.