Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
We’Re All Doomed!
72 Answers
https:/
Joking aside, will anyone on here give serious consideration to lifestyle choices/changes?
At the risk of sounding ‘holier than thou’ I couldn’t really do any more than I do(from someone who gets spoken to for throwing his banana skins/apple cores out of the window into an enclosed area) but am intrigued as to how many will give serious consideration.
Anyone?
Joking aside, will anyone on here give serious consideration to lifestyle choices/changes?
At the risk of sounding ‘holier than thou’ I couldn’t really do any more than I do(from someone who gets spoken to for throwing his banana skins/apple cores out of the window into an enclosed area) but am intrigued as to how many will give serious consideration.
Anyone?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ChillDoubt. 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.
Poor Jim doesn't get it either. Then again he won't remember the time when a scientist was considered politically neutral in the main, and his/her opinions considered worthy of consideration and attention. Those days passed. We now have a generation of educated(supposedly) young men and women who aspire to be the setters of world policy rather than the men and women who became so because they deserved and earned that right. More worryingly they have, particularly, in the "civilised west" been processed through a determined left wing education system and programmed to adhere to the global pc agenda. They are at least aware enough to know that if they want to "advance" their careers and take the considerably more than 30 pieces of silver on offer, that they need to toe the line, and adhere to the "ministry" theme. None ever break ranks until they are independently wealthy...….none.
The observation about Chinas' power stations was very relevant. However, I don't believe all the gubbins about Global Warming/Climate Change.
What naturally occurring event accounts for over 90% of carbon emissions on this planet? Volcanoes! How do you stop a volcano? The Earth has gone through lots and lots of climate change in it's 4bn year history. We are still emerging from the last ice age, so the planet is warming up naturally, as demonstrated by Prof Aubrey Manning in Earth Story. The fact that Romney Marsh is sinking 1 inch each year is due to the natural warming cycle as the Earth still emerges from the last ice age.
Climate Change/Global Warming is an attempt by powerful people to manipulate the finances of the world.
What naturally occurring event accounts for over 90% of carbon emissions on this planet? Volcanoes! How do you stop a volcano? The Earth has gone through lots and lots of climate change in it's 4bn year history. We are still emerging from the last ice age, so the planet is warming up naturally, as demonstrated by Prof Aubrey Manning in Earth Story. The fact that Romney Marsh is sinking 1 inch each year is due to the natural warming cycle as the Earth still emerges from the last ice age.
Climate Change/Global Warming is an attempt by powerful people to manipulate the finances of the world.
The geological term for what's happening to Romney marsh is called "bounce-back". During the last ice age, the glaciers covering Britain were over 2 miles thick. All that weight pushed the mountains down in Scotland and Northern England. As the ice melted and retreated, the mountains "bounce back" and as they do so (still are), they drag the outermost areas downwards. Mountains up, coastal areas down. That's why Romney Marsh is gradually disappearing. It's a natural thing. Not even anything to do with carbon emissions.
all this talk about "saving the planet". the planet doesn't need saving, it can look after itself. when we're gone, it'll busy itself setting everything right, new life will emerge to fill the niches left by any mass extinctions we might cause, as has happened many times previously; that it may take hundreds of thousands of years is neither here nor there, it's a blink of an eye in the great scheme of things.
no, what needs saving is our lifestyle. the current one is unsustainable and if we don't make changes it will - if not now because of climate change, then later due to overpopulation or exhaustion of resources - result in our own demise.
no, what needs saving is our lifestyle. the current one is unsustainable and if we don't make changes it will - if not now because of climate change, then later due to overpopulation or exhaustion of resources - result in our own demise.
Even with new Chinese coal stations etc, the richest 10% of the world's population (which includes us if I'm not mistaken) contribute vastly more to excess carbon emissions than do the rest of the world:
https:/
//all this talk about "saving the planet". the planet doesn't need saving, it can look after itself.//
The point is to try and keep it in a habitable condition for human life. Obviously the planet will not self-destruct if humans cannot live on it any longer - but it would be nice to avoid that outcome if at all possible.
https:/
//all this talk about "saving the planet". the planet doesn't need saving, it can look after itself.//
The point is to try and keep it in a habitable condition for human life. Obviously the planet will not self-destruct if humans cannot live on it any longer - but it would be nice to avoid that outcome if at all possible.
“The point is to try and keep it in a habitable condition for human life.”
Even if we could it wouldn’t matter. Climate change is only one of many changes in habitat that mankind will face and eventually – almost certainly through over-population – our demise will come. No major species lasts forever and homo sapiens is no different. The only difference is that we (and I use “we” for convenience because it doesn't include me) believe we can control everything, and we can’t.
As for “last chances”, I’m all last-chanced out:
In 2005 the WWF warned that all Arctic ice would melt within five years. As far as I know, there’s still a lot of it about. In the same year the UN’s Environmental programme forecast that within five years (a dodgy five years was 2005-10) 50 million “Climate Change Refugees” would be displaced from large areas of the globe which would be rendered uninhabitable by climate change. Whilst there are lots of “refugees” roaming about, I don’t think too many are fleeing the effects of climate change. Undeterred by these false claims, in 2011 the International Energy Agency said we had (another) five years to start slashing emissions. They were not cut and now another mob – the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (probably the same people) says we have another 12 years. In 2009 Prince Charles said that we had only 100 months to act before the damage became irreversible. Those months have gone but nobody seems to be suggesting we’re beyond the point of no return. In the same year Gordon Brown (who obviously hadn’t spoken to Prince Charles) jumped in with his assessment that we had just 50 days to save the world. Now we get another IPCC bod saying we must eat less meat, not drive unless necessary and not travel by plane (shortly before boarding a flight – along with hundreds of others – to a conference in South Korea).
So per..lease, by all means tell China (producer of 25% of the world’s carbon emissions) to stop opening two coal-fired power stations a week. But don’t tell me cutting out the fillet steak which I enjoy once in a while will make a blind bit of difference.
Even if we could it wouldn’t matter. Climate change is only one of many changes in habitat that mankind will face and eventually – almost certainly through over-population – our demise will come. No major species lasts forever and homo sapiens is no different. The only difference is that we (and I use “we” for convenience because it doesn't include me) believe we can control everything, and we can’t.
As for “last chances”, I’m all last-chanced out:
In 2005 the WWF warned that all Arctic ice would melt within five years. As far as I know, there’s still a lot of it about. In the same year the UN’s Environmental programme forecast that within five years (a dodgy five years was 2005-10) 50 million “Climate Change Refugees” would be displaced from large areas of the globe which would be rendered uninhabitable by climate change. Whilst there are lots of “refugees” roaming about, I don’t think too many are fleeing the effects of climate change. Undeterred by these false claims, in 2011 the International Energy Agency said we had (another) five years to start slashing emissions. They were not cut and now another mob – the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (probably the same people) says we have another 12 years. In 2009 Prince Charles said that we had only 100 months to act before the damage became irreversible. Those months have gone but nobody seems to be suggesting we’re beyond the point of no return. In the same year Gordon Brown (who obviously hadn’t spoken to Prince Charles) jumped in with his assessment that we had just 50 days to save the world. Now we get another IPCC bod saying we must eat less meat, not drive unless necessary and not travel by plane (shortly before boarding a flight – along with hundreds of others – to a conference in South Korea).
So per..lease, by all means tell China (producer of 25% of the world’s carbon emissions) to stop opening two coal-fired power stations a week. But don’t tell me cutting out the fillet steak which I enjoy once in a while will make a blind bit of difference.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Food & Drink13 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles41 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles123 mins ago
