• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You lot are under performing, beaten by a teenager.

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Emissions, etc. are all a consequence of the following:



    Hint - stop breeding, especially in Asia!!!
    The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by woohoo View Post
      I do wonder if the makers of the Blue Planet have had more impact on our attitudes that Greta.
      Possibly. But it’s not an “either or” situation, and not a competition.

      Unless you were rooting for Blue Planet to be the Person of the Year.

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by JohntheBike View Post
        the only question I can ask you is do you believe that she has not received any coaching on giving public speeches?



        and what influence might that be? She is naive in the extreme. Nothing gets done in this World unless someone makes a buck out of it.

        Given that some of the richest organisations, e.g. Shell/BP etc are directly involved in activities which are counter to the global warming philosophy, then clearly the global warming brigade have an uphill task.

        Government legislation is only paying lip service to the issue. If governments were truly influenced, then we should be hearing about returning to dispensing all liquids in glass bottles and not plastic one. But there's the rub, plastic is a product of the petro chemical industry, so fat chance that this will happen.

        The only question I ask, is by how much is human activity accelerating global warming? Scientists are advising that we are still emerging from the last ice age, and these periods can take millions of years. In the early 1960's scientists were warning of another mini ice age and global cooling. I do wish they'd make up their minds.

        We are told that there is oil in Antarctica, which would mean that it must have been tropical at one time, millions of years before humans existed. Also, I read that at one point, the Earth was almost completely covered in ice, due to an axis shift. I guess we humans would have no remedy for such circumstances again.

        A sobering fact. When the red lady of Paviland was alive the sea shore was some way South West of Ireland. This was 40000 years ago when there was no CO2 being generated by humans other than by breathing. I still maintain that the focus is wrong. I believe we are more likely to see issues as a result of human effluent polluting the oceans, than we are from accelerated global warming. But perhaps there isn't as much money available for proponents of that theory.
        What do you base your hypothesis on - your professional expertise, scientific evidence or a combination of the two?

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by meridian View Post
          Possibly. But it’s not an “either or” situation, and not a competition.

          Unless you were rooting for Blue Planet to be the Person of the Year.
          Perhaps the makers of the Blue Planet or even the man that does the voice over

          No more unlikely than the 2006 winners.

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by JohntheBike View Post

            and what influence might that be? She is naive in the extreme. Nothing gets done in this World unless someone makes a buck out of it.

            Given that some of the richest organisations, e.g. Shell/BP etc are directly involved in activities which are counter to the global warming philosophy, then clearly the global warming brigade have an uphill task.

            Government legislation is only paying lip service to the issue. If governments were truly influenced, then we should be hearing about returning to dispensing all liquids in glass bottles and not plastic one. But there's the rub, plastic is a product of the petro chemical industry, so fat chance that this will happen.

            The only question I ask, is by how much is human activity accelerating global warming? Scientists are advising that we are still emerging from the last ice age, and these periods can take millions of years. In the early 1960's scientists were warning of another mini ice age and global cooling. I do wish they'd make up their minds.

            We are told that there is oil in Antarctica, which would mean that it must have been tropical at one time, millions of years before humans existed. Also, I read that at one point, the Earth was almost completely covered in ice, due to an axis shift. I guess we humans would have no remedy for such circumstances again.

            A sobering fact. When the red lady of Paviland was alive the sea shore was some way South West of Ireland. This was 40000 years ago when there was no CO2 being generated by humans other than by breathing. I still maintain that the focus is wrong. I believe we are more likely to see issues as a result of human effluent polluting the oceans, than we are from accelerated global warming. But perhaps there isn't as much money available for proponents of that theory.
            Considering that origin of the arguement was that Greta is spouting green propaganda , your answer here is a quick rundown of the climate change apologist's greatest hits

            --we'd have to fight the moneyed interests and that won't happen, so why bother?
            --there was an ice age once so the planet can't be warming
            --some scientist at one time warned of an ice age, therefore all scientists are always wrong now
            --Ireland used to be under water so it makes no difference if other places are under water in the future
            --some junk science about human effluent
            --vague arguments that money is driving all of this with no evidence

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by meridian View Post
              Do you have any cite for your “facts”?

              For example, has global hunger never been lower? WHO doesn’t appear to agree with your opinion:

              Global hunger continues to rise, new UN report says
              You're correct. From 10.7% (2016) to 11.1%. Compared with 14.8% in 2000.

              Hunger and Undernourishment - Our World in Data
              There's been a slight increase since 2016 - due to increases in sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa and the Middle East. But that may well be due to war and political instability. Not climate change.

              However... the population in 2000 was 1.5 billion less than now. In 2000, 5.23 billion were not hungry, 900 million were. In 2017 6.85 billion were not hungry, and 850 million were. That's a drop in 50 million in the number of hungry people over 17 years. OK, 100 years ago, far fewer were hungry in absolute terms!

              850 million is still an appalling number of course. But it shows that looking at percentages and absolute numbers doesn't tell the whole story. The point is the idea that the world governments are not doing something (perhaps only slightly) effective against global hunger, or that it is to do with climate change is false. Greta was wrong. Fact.
              Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
                You're correct. From 10.7% (2016) to 11.1%. Compared with 14.8% in 2000.

                Hunger and Undernourishment - Our World in Data
                There's been a slight increase since 2016 - due to increases in sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa and the Middle East. But that may well be due to war and political instability. Not climate change.

                However... the population in 2000 was 1.5 billion less than now. In 2000, 5.23 billion were not hungry, 900 million were. In 2017 6.85 billion were not hungry, and 850 million were. That's a drop in 50 million in the number of hungry people over 17 years. OK, 100 years ago, far fewer were hungry in absolute terms!

                850 million is still an appalling number of course. But it shows that looking at percentages and absolute numbers doesn't tell the whole story. The point is the idea that the world governments are not doing something (perhaps only slightly) effective against global hunger, or that it is to do with climate change is false. Greta was wrong. Fact.
                What exactly did Greta say that is proven wrong by your numbers? Is it this quote from an earlier post of yours?

                “You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words…People are suffering. People are dying.”

                Your numbers do not show that no one is suffering or dying because of climate change. Your numbers seem unrelated.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
                  What do you base your hypothesis on - your professional expertise, scientific evidence or a combination of the two?
                  What do you base your hypothesis on
                  the university of life and observing human behaviour for over 60 years, and my own personal experiences of course.

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by hairymouse View Post
                    “You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words…People are suffering. People are dying.”
                    Yep, welcome to the real world.

                    Unfortunately that young lady has missed out on having a proper childhood.
                    Old Greg - In search of acceptance since Mar 2007. Hoping each leap will be his last.

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by hairymouse View Post
                      Considering that origin of the arguement was that Greta is spouting green propaganda , your answer here is a quick rundown of the climate change apologist's greatest hits

                      --we'd have to fight the moneyed interests and that won't happen, so why bother?
                      --there was an ice age once so the planet can't be warming
                      --some scientist at one time warned of an ice age, therefore all scientists are always wrong now
                      --Ireland used to be under water so it makes no difference if other places are under water in the future
                      --some junk science about human effluent
                      --vague arguments that money is driving all of this with no evidence
                      we'd have to fight the moneyed interests and that won't happen, so why bother?
                      I didn't say that. What I'm saying is that until the moneyed interests are overcome, which is not going to be easy, there will be no real progress in the fight against excess global warming.

                      there was an ice age once so the planet can't be warming
                      I didn't say that either. There have been several ice ages, some more severe than the last. But there is always a period after ice ages where the climate warms.

                      some scientist at one time warned of an ice age, therefore all scientists are always wrong now
                      all I'm saying is that in my lifetime, which is infinitesimal in the existence of the World, scientific opinion has changed to be completely opposite to previously. So who are we to believe? If you take the arguments over the NHS as an example, who are we to believe there? I personally have never suffered any of the issues that we see claimed are prevalent and have always had the very best of treatment.

                      Ireland used to be under water so it makes no difference if other places are under water in the future
                      If you read what I said again, I didn't say Ireland was under water. However, what I was pointing out was the difference that approximately 39800 years of global warming during the existence of homo sapiens has done to sea levels. That period has seen an infinitely greater rise in sea levels despite no industrial activity by mankind.

                      some junk science about human effluent
                      It isn't junk science. It's fact, with exponentially rising populations, some scientists are already warning that oxygen levels in the sea are reducing. Common sense should also tell you that increased human effluent in the oceans is bound to have some polluting effect. You are no doubt aware that human effluent isn't generally used for fertiliser. And yes, I know there are experiments being carried out on that issue.

                      vague arguments that money is driving all of this with no evidence
                      Well, clearly you don't know how society works and have never seen any evidence of this as I have. Note that I have contacts in secret societies who occasionally reveal some of their lesser known activities.


                      So, in summary what I'm saying is that in my opinion, there are far greater risks to human civilisation, which is what global warming is, rather than to the planet, which would in practical terms be much easier to manage, but are not. I believe the reason for this is that there are too many vested interests that would be disadvantaged if those issues were addressed rather than the debate which is going on now about carbon emissions. The example of plastic use in today's society, such as for drinks and domestic piping, is one area which could easily be addressed.
                      Last edited by JohntheBike; 12 December 2019, 16:20.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X