Edukator

Greenpeace supports black lives matter

Greenpeace helps people in their fight against deadly chemical/nuclear hazards

Greenpeace successfully oposes drilling in the proximity of homes and schools

Greenpeace works to protect indiginous peoples

Grenpeace has been one of the main orgainisations rasising awareness on the our Climate in Crisis

Greenpeace promotes renewable energy

Greenpeace campaigns against bee-killing pesticides (bees are essential to many people’s lives)

Greenpeace fights against illegal deforestation

Greenpeace has succesfully campaigned against hydroflourocarbons

But don’t let facts get in the way, Stevextc.

Take out the political virtue signalling and what are you left with?
What has BLM or protecting indigenous populations got to do with an environmental organisation for example?

Greenpeace helps people in their fight against deadly chemical/nuclear hazards – nothing specific about humans here
Greenpeace successfully oposes drilling in the proximity of homes and schools – they oppose full stop.. they are just jumping on a political bandwagon

Grenpeace has been one of the main orgainisations rasising awareness on the our Climate in Crisis

Sure but they keep trying to tag stuff on…

Greenpeace promotes renewable energy

to the exclusion of nuclear

funkmasterp

I also answered your question. We shouldn’t just be concentrating on the human element. We should be looking to save as many species as possible as not doing so could lead to dire consequences.

How many tens of millions of human deaths are you willing to accept for his ideal?
Or do you not really believe the consequences of climate change to humans will result in at least tens of millions of deaths?

By tackling climate change we will achieve this. There is no Will to do so on a large scale though. I care but it is very clear that a lot don’t.

Except you just contradicted this above.
It’s pretty simple – tens of millions of humans are going to die as a result of climate change and that is close to the best case scenario. Only discovering some new as yet not considered carbon capture is going to prevent that.

If that doesn’t sound real then consider the Great Chinese Famine cost 15 to 55 million lives depending which source you take and the period you include. (1959 – 1961 or 1958 – 1962)

We should be looking to save as many species as possible as not doing so could lead to dire consequences.

Climate change is real and happening … we either address it as the most important existential threat or not.

There is no Will to do so on a large scale though. I care but it is very clear that a lot don’t.

and there never will be whilst it’s diluted and conflated

Molgrips

Do you realise that going on about lies all the time makes you sound paranoid and completely obscures any point you are trying to make? I have no idea what you are talking about, even though I am actually trying to understand.

Simple question – do you believe Boris Johnson lied about parties and breaking Covid? [edit – added one word] laws

funkmasterp

It’s not a one or the other choice.

Except for most people it is.

it is part and parcel of climate change.

No it isn’t… it may well be one of the consequences of climate change but it isn’t a cause.
When it is a consequence then mitigating the root cause (climate change from greenhouse gas) will partially restore it anyway

You still didn’t answer the question… and this is fundamental to getting honest support for climate change.
It also provides a measure how serious you think climate change is for humans.
The absolute best case scenario right now is probably tens of millions of human deaths… and that’s if we do EVERYTHING
As far as I’m concerned it’s a valid response to say “I don’t care, the more humans die the better” but equally you can’t expect 7+ billion people to agree. This is the stated reason Patrick Moor left Greenpeace because in his words they just don’t care about humans. I don’t agree with his stance on climate change is actually good etc. but I do agree that Greenpeace is demonstrating that it doesn’t care about human deaths or is just ignoring them.

The thing is though we aren’t going to do EVERYTHING … if you care how many people die then we need to do as much as we can and the things make the biggest difference. If you don’t care about human deaths just say so and be honest.

So do you think this is worse than climate change and how do you personally define worse?
Maybe you could explain how many human deaths from climate change are acceptable to save the vulture? (just to the nearest 100 million I’m not asking for an exact number)

Molgrips

Climate fear is big business? That sounds like a knee jerk reaction.

Of course, people are profiting from pretending to be green. But that does not mean climate change isn’t a real significant problem, does it? You’ve seen the movie Don’t Look Up, right? Hint: it’s not actually about meteors.

Once again you are mixing something most people don’t give a crap about with climate change.

Possibly, but a lot of anti-green comment is also driven by knee-jerk ‘it’s all bollocks’ type reactions

Erm that’s because it’s all bollox due to conflation like you you did above ^^^
The anti-green sentiment is driven by lies and conflation of something that people are genuinely worried about (climate change) and things they perhaps should in an ideal world care about but don’t give a crap.
Every lie just makes more people either switch off to both or do something they think helps climate change but doesn’t.

funkmasterp

We need to worry about other species though. We’re losing life at an alarming rate. Lots of these creatures are a part of much wider, delicate systems. We have a duty of care as the supposed intelligent species. Look what happened when vultures started dying off in India. Replaced by feral dogs that started attacking people. Nothing worse than a vacuum in nature.

So do you think this is worse than climate change and how do you personally define worse?
Maybe you could explain how many human deaths from climate change are acceptable to save the vulture? (just to the nearest 100 million I’m not asking for an exact number)

Edukator

High grade waste is both highly radioactive and for a very long time.

Great so we can pile it up and deal with it once we have the climate emergency under control.

Houns

The planet is ****ed, the evidence is there. Stop being selfish and think about all life on Earth (not just human) that is being impacted by the climate disaster.

To answer the question in the picture “what if it’s all a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?”

Have you considered what if climate change isn’t a big hoax and we waste our time **** about worrying about hen harriers or squirrels.

Maybe the real question I should be asking is how do I make them want to be mountainbiking gods of their own accord

Totally different IMHO to the questions on “how far”.
Pre 5-6 their liver isn’t big enough to hold enough glycogen so they need to be fed and such… mine had zero interest to 5… 2nd or 3rd ride we did 10 miles nearly flat with the intention of him being picked up by his mother.. he rode back

By 7-8 he was doing XC races and quite happy to do a full day somewhere like Cymcarn and do both reds… or both sides of Afan in a day… then he got into DH and had bad experiences in XC (punished for missing an XC race because he had a DH race the same day)

From 9 on I’d take him on group rides and he’d not be the last going up by a large margin and first down

Greenpeace are no more than a fringe campaign group to blame them for climate change is laughable. Maybe you are joking but it’s hard to tell.

I’m not joking in the slightest … if you were to go to the high street / shopping centre aka Politics Joe interview and ask people opposed to nuclear where they got their perception from where do you think they are going to say?

Incidentally, where they say is probably not that true in that they may have been told by someone else “Greenpeace say”… but ultimately their perception is GreenPeace/Friends of the Earth etc.

In the same way successive governments don’t really care if they got the information directly or not.. they just care about the sentiment.

High-level radioactive waste is stored for 10 or 20 years in spent fuel pools, and then can be put in dry cask storage facilities.

In 1997, in the 20 countries which account for most of the world’s nuclear power generation, spent fuel storage capacity at the reactors was 148,000 tonnes, with 59% of this utilized. (60.68 tonnes)

Away-from-reactor storage capacity was 78,000 tonnes, with 44% utilized. (43,680 tonnes)

So just over 100,000 tonnes… or a little over 2 titanics….or less than half the Statfjord platform at 245,000 tonnes
This would fit comfortably in the bottom 1/3 of the Kola deep borehole (below 8000m) with 8000m of concrete and ballast on top

anagallis_arvensis

I thought these things were controlled by governments? How about you take the time foil hat off and open the other eye!!

democratic Governments do as the electorate agree to through either truth or deception, most of them taking as much advantage of making as much money for themselves as possible.

You could argue Thatcher closing down the mines was a positive move done for environmental reasons but I think its more commonly accepted she hated the miners and wanted rid and used the memories of the winter of discontent in that

In this case the alleged “environmental” organisations have provided the fear … done the governments lying for them and allowed the government and its friends to rake in the £ from oil and gas…

Edukator

Friends of the Earth accepted oil funding in 1969 at a time when many were still convinced planet earth was heading for the next ice age but nuclear war and nuclear accidents were of major concern to ecologists.

But it’s no longer 1969 and they continue with the same anti-nuclear rhetoric
There is a VERY BASIC question … do we do everything we can or just the stuff FOTH/Greenpeace say is acceptable?

Despite what you might think I’m not pro-nuclear or anti renewables … I’m pro doing EVERYTHING to mitigate climate change at this point not just what Greenpeace or FOTH approve of without taking options off the table.

anagallis_arvensis

I don’t know, did they? Unless they set fire to a load of coal oil or gas it doesn’t make it true.

of course it’s true they are one of the main organisations that have prevented adoption of nucelar and instead encouraged burning of coal, oil and gas

UK reopening deep coal mines and extnding coal powered generation, germany getting rid of nuclear and switching back to coal…
its all on them but they are too gutless to admit they are the cause and misguided pricks keep funding them

martymac

Didn’t greenpeace publicly say that they were directly responsible for a massive amount of CO2 pollution due to their anti nuclear stance ??

i’m sure I remember seeing a tv program which said exactly that.
and it was greenpeace that were saying it, not someone else claiming ‘greenpeace did this that or whatever’

I’ve not seen that TBH but I suspect it’s an ex-greenpeace person, as per the video crossfire posted earlier of the ex founder.

anagallis_arvensis

So that’s a no then eh? Makes you think doesn’t it!

Either way they are LIARS… either they have been lying about their stated aims to prevent nuclear energy or they are lying about the disinformation.

Which one do YOU believe..?

anagallis_arvensis

Without the environmental groups being rabidly anti-nuclear for the last 1/2 century we wouldn’t be using so much CO2 emitting power generation.

Can you prove that?

In what way … can I prove they were partially funded by the fossil fuel industry? Of course its a matter of record. (you can find this yourself very easily)
Have they campaigned against any and all nuclear? its a matter of record
Has their stated intent to be to prevent nuclear energy ?

Would the fossil fuel industry be paying them if it was ineffective? Hard to prove that, but they aren’t exactly known for their purely generous and selfless nature.

Are they continuing to do so today ? It’s on THEIR WEBSITE – along with disinformation.
Even faced with climate change they simply change their narrative…

anagallis_arvensis

Mind you blaming Greenpeace for climate change is a fairly awesome but of argumenitering

Without the environmental groups being rabidly anti-nuclear for the last 1/2 century we wouldn’t be using so much CO2 emitting power generation.

Even today….

Nuclear power is incredibly expensive, hazardous and slow to build. It is often referred to as ‘clean’ energy because it doesn’t produce carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases when electricity is generated but the reality is that it isn’t a plausible alternative to renewable energy sources.

Noone (barely) is suggesting it’s an alternative… ideally you need baseload and renewables

Building nuclear reactors is costly, running into billions of pounds. The UK’s new Hinkley Point C reactor could cost over £25 billion by the time it’s finished, leading it to be called “the most expensive object on Earth”. Such huge sums of money would be better invested in truly clean energy, such as wind power which produces energy more cheaply.

Noone (barely) is suggesting it’s an alternative… ideally you need baseload and renewables but they won’t accept anything nuclear.

Reactors are also complicated things to build. A new reactor in Finland was delivered 14 years behind schedule, thanks to problems with the reactor design. Hinkley C was supposed to be producing energy by 2017, but it now isn’t due until 2027. The nuclear industry’s track record suggests it will be delayed even further. Climate change is already happening and we simply can’t wait that long when wind and solar power are so much quicker to install.

More misleading… look at Japan and South Korea. Trying to use Hinkley C as an example when they were the ones campaigning against it being built and responsible for many of the delays is total hypocrisy.

Whilst I can sympathise with your situation do you really think the social media bod and finance bod are the same person?

It was the process that was broken… it’s not the person at the windows fault either but any well run company should be able to process a refund there and then. That leads onto we can’t refund until you can’t use the service the second day (why not just refund the first) and further to I paid for this over the t’interweb but they wouldn’t allow me to claim a refund other than by parking/paying to park/queuing and showing we had turned up even though they had closed.

I asked at the window if it was closed the next day if I had to waste time and money or I could just claim and I was told if I didn’t physically turn up I wouldn’t get a refund (hence we couldn’t do Glencoe again)

It feels like they are making it as difficult as possible hoping as many people as possible won’t claim a refund and pay for parking rather than just getting on with refunds.

.. and if they were really so backlogged it took 2 weeks and still no refund processed (not actually in my account just processed) I’d expect their social media bods are also mucking in… I suspect they were just seeing how many people didn’t persist.

But yes, wind is a massive show stopper up there, always best to look at the forecast.

Hence my advice to only book 1 day at once 1 day in advance.

molgrips

Not sure it’s as simple as you suggest.

Of course it isn’t simple but it hasn’t stopped greenpeace and fote continuing to spread lies and FUD

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?contextual=region&end=2020&locations=FR-JP-DE-SE-GB&start=2010&view=chart
Percentage nuclear is less important than base load if there are significant renewables so its not “simple” but removing the option altogether (as germany has done in law) and replacing it with coal can’t get much worse.

Compare Germany and Sweden… 7.3 and 3.2 metric tons per capita (or Ukraine though I’m not suggesting we copy soviet tech)
Sorry this is just to 2020 .. Japan has now reversed to new gen nuclear with a 3yr lead… Germany just reopened mines and coal powered generation.

legometeorology

But it’s pointless, as he isn’t arguing in good faith

When someone points him to scientific evidence, he says it’s all flawed because that’s it’s from the climate mafia, vested interests etc etc

When someone presents data to him directly, he pretends to be engaging in the science sceptically by picking holes in it. When it’s pointed out that he’s wrong, he reverts back to the conspiracy line

Look at the response to klunk on the last page

It also looks like he posted a big chunk of text from chatgpt — it reads nothing like any of his other posts

They are just being human… (whether it was chat GPT or not)
Noone is presenting primary data to him they are presenting interpretations… unless you happen to have access to scientific periodicals you don’t get data. [This is perhaps a seperate issue not specific to this but that’s the way it is and it doesn’t carry well into t’interweb and “information age”]

climate mafia, vested interests etc etc

Sure, but there is plenty of “evidence” of vested interests. Indeed for a non scientist there is far more publicly available evidence for “vested interests” than there is for the EFFECTS of climate change.
The thing is just because some people have vested interests doesn’t make it “fake”… but you can see why it might look that way?

I’d encourage you to read some of the criticisms and predictions for post normal science… because crosshairs response is entirely expected and predicted.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ffo2.158#:~:text=Lack%20of%20clarity%20on%20the,easily%20categorized%20in%20the%20framework.

Essentially from my POV post normal science isn’t science, its about policy. The issue is the way it is presented as “following the science” (to coin a term) and how that undermines the general public’s faith/belief in science.

It doesn’t help that there are all sorts of interests conflating climate change (something with an overwhelming scientific consensus) with special interests be that anti-hunting or anti-nuclear etc.

Look at the response to klunk on the last page

That doesn’t answer the question though…
Firstly someone (can’t be bothered to go back and look because it doesn’t change anything) said we had already hit 1.5C above – secondly the graph doesn’t say what +1.5 is relative to and thirdly it’s not actual data or referenced to the data.

So crosshair now has two people telling him
a) we already hit 1.5C above pre-industrial
b) we didn’t

Being human and not a scientist they are going to take the one fits what they believe.

Again I’d refer to the video of Hossenfelder in a role of “science communicator” (not as a theoretical physicist) with a real climate scientist.

Whilst you’re in the area I’d recommend riding the red at glencoe.

you can get a discounted lift ticket for the afternoon

Total hoot and the black is brutal… whilst we warmed up on the red we watched lots of people trying to push down.
Whatever you do don’t stop or slow down on the black… it’s a nightmare to get up to speed again before the next brutal rock drop

Don’t book more than a day in advance for more than one day..
Did that last year and they closed the gondola… but I had to queue and pay for parking to be told they wouldn’t refund me as it was 2 days and the second day might be open but I had to come back the next day, pay for parking and queue again… thus preventing us getting a full day at Glencoe both days

We ended up pedalling up and doing the DH track once… bit of a crap birthday present for my 12yr old :(

They didn’t refund to my card either just noted I’d “attended” (e.g paid for parking and queued up) so I could claim a refund and 2 weeks later they hadn’t refunded.

I ended up having to resort to the legal process and Sheriff, they claimed they were too busy to refund but they had plenty of time for social media posts.

legometeorology

crosshair doesn’t understand physics well enough to know that if you leave a freezer door open the air will reach room temperature before the ice melts

crosshair isn’t abnormal in not understanding physics… quite the opposite.
According to the IOP “There were 3,675 graduates from undergraduate physics courses in UK universities in the 2015–16 academic year” (I realise that’s nearly a decade ago)

According to HESA for the same academic year there were 2,317,880 students in HE or another way to look at it is 3,675 per year of 66.06 million people. Whichever way you look at that its a very very small fraction of people.

You could expand.. say people who build models using FEM, FDM and FVM but that’s still a vanishingly small number of people. Just choosing that as one example as the ability to solve Navier Stokes PDE is somewhat dependent on that and something you should be included on.

People really need to stop arguing with him

Erm… people need to start actually READING what he writes and answer the actual questions he asks (if they can without repeating lies) or repeating things outside off THEIR area of expertise.

Take this example … https://youtu.be/-fkCo_trbT8
Despite having a doctorate in theoretical physics Hossenfelder doesn’t pretend to understand climate modelling, she asks an actual expert.

Been done before and nothing happens…

https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/year-on-devastating-fire-destroyed-18238673

Our ex-head of council and ex-council CEO bought a local listed working pub through one of their companies.
They closed the pub and 8 months later It mysteriously burned down then they put in a planning application from another company owned by them.

Everyone knows it was arson, everyone knows they did it – noone was investigated

Cougar

Yeah. This is something I don’t get. I’ve seen tales online, “my cat went missing, I found it, then my actual cat came home and now I have two identical cats.”

I have three. I can tell them apart by their voice; by feel; by their footsteps; by who’s just had a poo; by which one’s just landed on the bed at 2am.

Yep, agree… the point I was making though to explain through your experience is cats piggyback on our inbuilt parent responses.
In the way you are “tuned” to your cats I found the same with kids… before I had one any kid screaming/crying was annoying/grating… but you tune into their noises so that I found other kids screaming/crying becomes less annoying/grating just as you hearing someone else’s cat asking for food or something becomes less annoying/grating.

Molgrips

There’s a big difference between an echo chamber and and scientific consensus. You need some.pretry big evidence and deep knowledge to overturn the weight of evidence for one of the most well studied topics currently.

I think Crosshair summed that up .. there is a difference between scientific consensus and political bollox by people who either don’t believe or maybe do believe but don’t care what happens to humans.

There is also a lot of perhaps well meaning non scientific consensus by people who don’t know any better..
Just the last example …

Woke up 7 years ago today to a frost covered car. It had been minus 3C overnight.
Today it’s 23C outside.

Tell me that’s not global warming!!

Mostly they are just repeating the lies of the environmental groups who I struggle to see accept anthropomorphic climate change as real or the effects to be as devastating for humanity as real scientists predict or just don’t care.

or by people who do know better deliberately spreading mis information…. e.g.

I guess those massive forest fires in Canada didn’t happen in your world, nor the cancellation of the Scout Jamboree in South Korea, or parts of China having more than a year’s average rainfall in a single day just recently.

Just to mention a few things off the top of my head that happened recently.

There is NO SCIENTIFIC consensus that these specific recent items are a direct result and solely due to anthropomorphic climate change … there is a scientific consensus that this is the sort of thing we expect to happen but not THESE SPECIFIC events.

I don’t know about the canadian foresty specifically but I do know our local green party were saying the same about a fire on the heath.. and of course heath fires have been going on since heaths were artificially created so everyone remembers them so almost everyone KNOWS they are LIARS (including those who still vote for them they just like to pretend and lie to themselves) … just as the archaeological and geological record has boreal/tiaga forests burning down before and after man.

Serotinous cone species and some species of eucalyptus REQUIRE forest fires to reproduce, they have evolved specifically because fires in the Tiaga and Australian temperate forests are part and parcel of the forest.
THIS IS SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

seem to be drawing the conclusion that implementing huge societal change in the form of authoritarianism is far more urgent than taking the ‘easy’ wins of Nuclear power, managing their natural resources PROPERLY to minimise natural disasters

We are in this mess BECAUSE of the lying organisations like Greenpeace and FOTE. They are STILL prioritising their anti-nuclear stance over millions to tens of millions dying.

This leaves 3 main non exclusive options ??
1) They don’t believe in anthropomorphic climate change or how serious this is to mankind?
2) They don’t care about humans
3) They don’t want to take responsibility for the lies and mis-information they have been spreading that got us into this mess. FFS the German Green Party is now reopening coal mines and coal fired power generation

Cougar

We have a… 16-month old in the house, my partner’s grandson.

How do you cope with the noise? It is so loud and it is absolutely relentless, it’s like being carpet-bombed.

Again, the infant wasn’t really what I was talking about. But I’m the same, there is a certain pitch or register which just goes through me like an ice pick. It’s not nails-down-a-blackboard or squeaky polystyrene cringe, it actually really hurts.

We are programmed to both find it so annoying we have to do something but also bond with our own…
You have a cat right? They exploit this… but have you noticed how you recognise YOUR cat’s voice over another.

My cat used to be an expert at annoying… shaving in the morning I had to feed him first as he instinctively knew how painful flicking my achilles was and the exact force needed to cause pain without real damage. Cat’s are just jumping in on our human programming.

Crosshair

I’m poking fun at the ridiculous propaganda- not arguing whether humans are altering the climate.

I realise that but you are to an extent following the Patrick Moore line.
If you accept the climate change is happening (from real climate scientists) you need to listen to those with scientific evidence for how that will affect us as a global human population. (not climate scientists.. that’s not their job, they just predict/model the climate not its effects on us)

The point is just because other people have other agendas doesn’t make the science behind it wrong.

Crosshair

Back on topic, it’s like 10 degrees outside here today. I guess team Armageddon are going to have to go for “GULF STREAM IS COLLAPSING!” this week as ‘The World is BOILING’ doesn’t seem too credible.

Again you need to separate the science and quasi-science no what is outside your window on any given day.
Climate change isn’t local… it’s a fully global phenomena.

Just because fanatics make incredible claims doesn’t mean the underlying science is bad, just being misused.
To quote Sagan “incredible claims require incredible evidence” but making wild claims just distracts many from the actual evidence.

As I mentioned earlier the mesosphere is cooling … not only does this show it’s not solar radiation but it’s exactly what climate models predict for warming in the lower atmosphere and seas.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2021/nasa-satellites-see-upper-atmosphere-cooling-contracting-climate-change

Crosspost as if you prove the point…

I find it hard to respect people who hunt animals for sport.

crosshair

I think I’ve explained why I’m still posting- I’m sick of the disingenuous doublespeak where the threat of climate change is explained using examples of unrelated issues. I’m sick of propaganda. People telling me things I can see with my own eyes aren’t true.
Why? Why is everyone so desperate to live this regressive, damaging lie? 🤷🏻‍♂️

I’m sure I already answered this… but the reasons are different for different stakeholders.

e.g.

Yes you have – you simply parrot the shooters nonsense over raptor persecution. Its still a thing. Its routine on every grouse moor pretty much.

(I’ll put more context into this later and it’s not aimed at any specific individual including the one I quoted it from***) Obviously some people care more about birds (rats, amphibians, etc.) than people .. and don’t believe or don’t care about climate change, it’s just something to conflate with their agenda or they know more about birds (in this example) and nothing about the science behind climate change so they are doing what you are doing and looking with your own eyes.

crosshair

The only way to match consumption with sustainable emissions is nuclear.
Human progress has been built on energy. Once it was man power with armies and slaves. Then horse power and then fossil fuels. Whatever comes next needs to be better.
‘Renewables’ aren’t better. Not when the Chinese are being applauded for backing them up with two new coal power stations a week and global oil consumption is smashing new heights.
Until we stop getting scammed down a dead end- nothing will improve.

Many people that call themselves environmentalists have spent decades campaigning and spreading lies and misinformation about nuclear.
They would rather see global warming to catastrophic levels than admit they were liars or taken in and believed the lies.
Ultimately they are the ones responsible for climate change but they aren’t going to admit that so they double down.

“Sustainable” and “renewable” are marketing buzzwords… that can be exploited in a “green economy” along with “eco” and a whole raft of other words. Every time you see these words you can be pretty sure someone is trying to sell you some product and trying to link it to climate change.

Not when the Chinese are being applauded for backing them up with two new coal power stations a week

That might not be so unexpected from the Chinese Communist Party …

I think it’s more relevant that the German GREEN party is reopening mines and coal powered stations because they closed and refuse to consider nuclear.

I can see why you see that as “the effects of climate change can’t be real” or how can the German Green Party just refuse to use nuclear… but the sad reality is whether they believe or not in climate change and whether they believe or not in the devastating effects is less important to them than not using nuclear.

As Edukator say’s the evidence in the fossil record (and I’m including detailed isotopic analysis and geologically recent “not fossils” (i.e. non mineralised) on the effects of climate change are absolute “fact” (so well correlated and modelled as to be beyond discussion). The same way the link between CO2 and mean global temperature is proven beyond a doubt.

You’ve obviously been listening to Patrick Moore a co-founder of Greenpeace saying things like (Wikipedia) “In 2005, Moore criticized what he said were scare tactics and disinformation employed by some within the environmental movement, saying that the environmental movement “abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism”

Indeed however as I posted earlier people like Funtowicz and Ravetz started off the whole “post-normal age science” because they found the rigid fact based scientific method and doctrine didn’t support environmental sciences (Note climate science is NOT environmental science) You can do your own google on either the authors or “post normal science”

and here is why you are so confused….because quasi-sciences (post normal) are claiming to be science AND people/organisations are getting paid or donations to support other people making money out of “the green movement”.

*** So the context… or at least part of it.
So climate change is real and the complex effects well known in the bigger picture. This bigger picture though is often deliberately thrown out…
So if we take the RSPB and really very few people really care about raptors… they can see that by linking to climate change they get more support. If we take some “eco” or “green” or “planet friendly” product the same thing…

Ironically I just came down the back lane and had to stop for a wet sparrowhawk and her kill to move out of the road and thought of you

About a month ago I had to stop for a fledgling Peregrine… what must have been one of their first kills that was too big for them to fly with. (Mistle Thrush)…

anyway back on Moore
(wikipedia)

Moore contends that “most of the really serious [environmental] problems have been dealt with”, and that the environmental movement seeks to “invent doom and gloom scenarios”. He suggests they romanticize peasant life as part of an anti-industrial campaign to prevent development in less-developed countries, which he describes as “anti-human”.

I’m not disagreeing here….

wikipedia

In 2006, he disagreed with the scientific consensus on climate change in a letter to the Royal Society, arguing there was “no scientific proof” that mankind was causing global climate change and believes that it “has a much better correlation with changes in solar activity than CO2 levels”. He has falsely claimed that there is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to climate change.

So the “falsely” here is correct… it was at the time but it’s even more proven now.
One very simple proof of it not being solar activity is the cooling of part of the upper atmosphere that is both predicted by climate models and even if it wasn’t would increase not decrease as a result of increased solar radiation.

For what it’s worth I think he’s railing against the “anti-human” side more than the science and a increasing realist over idealist.

This is where I think you are being misled…
There is a venn diagram between “people who care for the environment” and people opposed to “humans being humans”.
This overlap has shifted considerably due to people against eating meat, shooting birds or animals etc. has hijacked “climate change”. It’s an extension of the “anti-human” philosophy… it doesn’t matter to some what diversity of raptors are on the managed shooting because it’s the shooting and eating of birds they object to.

Moore has stated that global climate change and the melting of glaciers is not necessarily a negative event because it creates more arable land and the use of forest products drives up demand for wood and spurs the planting of more trees.[63] Rather than climate change mitigation, Moore advocates adaptation to global warming.[64] This, too, is contrary to the general scientific consensus, which expects climate change to lead to some irreversible impacts.[12]

Edukator

So who are you and who pays you, crosshair?

Crosshair, you clearly understand the science because you are cherry picking and selectively quoting your own links when you find that they don’t fit your agenda.

You don’t need to understand “the science” because all this is easy copy/paste scripts.

Do a private browser session and don’t log in and just watch some Flat Earth videos’…rebuttals and rebuttals of rebuttals.

Most will use the lies we get told at school… and use this as proof in a non sequiter as “so everything you got told about science is a lie”.
In this case we have 2 sides lying AND they are relatively easy to debunk. The video I watched 5mins of spends the first 5 minutes establishing “you are being lied to” and I can only assume (I accidentally closed the tab when writing the post) the rest just goes on to build on “you are being lied to”.

The real question is why. It’s a bit like Jambalaya and Ernie on the Brexit threads, the first living between London and Paris without a French passport and the second living in the UK on a French passport; the people most threatened by Brexit arguing in favour.

In the words of Michael Gove, the country is sick of experts (or whatever his exact words were)

The same thing happened with Covid… The Government lying repeatedly and either ignoring the science or telling the scientists what questions they could answer and what questions they weren’t asked so an answer isn’t required so STFU.

It doesn’t provide any proof Covid wasn’t and isn’t real… it just proves (and this can hardly be a surprise) our politicians lie to us as a matter of course (OK Boris was even exceptional in that)… BUT it’s very easy for anti-vax types to hijack the “they are lying to you” and extrapolate that “therefore Covid isn’t real”.

Obviously when friends and loved ones died of Covid it’s less convincing but for a whole load of people it’s easy to see that as proof.

If team Armageddon can’t explain why the climate change mafia are happily still buying houses and building properties at sea level then I don’t need to know anything more scientific. It’s failed a basic logic test.

I’m sure the “mafia” isn’t quite so organised as you think. The actual SCIENTISTS aren’t buying beach property if only because they don’t get paid to buy that strip in Florida. Of course the superrich (including those making money out of greenwashing) are super rich and can buy the property anyway… if and when it goes tits up they won’t be there.

I don’t know if you count Elon Musk as being part of them… I mean he’s raking it in through Tesla…?
It doesn’t matter really… he can buy a £100M beachhouse in Florida Keys and use it once. If its under water before the second time he’s not losing sleep over the investment.

Let’s face he he paid $44 billion for Twitter…

It’s an incoherent mess.

Sure .. nothing in the first 2m20s of that video you posted I disagree with but its just opinion not the actual science.

2min 20s to 3m17 sec … basically a load of fluff… “some scientists said some stuff but it turns out they are the wrong ones” I mean they may or may not have been but that’s just “I’ll interpret this for you”

3min17-3min43s .. false premise that one side or the other must be totally wrong.
3min 43 to 4min47 … more fluff

I’m nearly 5 mins in and no actual science yet.
What there is plenty of is trying to conflate some “mafia” or “liberal elite” however you want to put it with science and what there isn’t as he wouldn’t understand it is the actual science.

Edukator

You obviously aren’t reading my links but I’m reading yours, crosshair. Again you cut off the quote when it gets interesting

The problem here is you are arguing over secondary information sources in an area crosshair isn’t specifically educated for that at either side are demonstrably lying and deliberately misleading AND neither side between “the authorities” OR “the Greens” seem particularly bothered about climate change or more specifically so bothered about it that it is the main and overwhelming priority. Both are at best giving “spin” on science… Richie is selling “sustainable jet fuel” (that magically will power jets without burning) the green organisations are selling their own ideals and conflating them with climate change…

So then you have a subject on which someone is well educated and knowledgeable (in this case UK agriculture) AND has their own experience on top.

Then you get someone on YT who say’s “this is what I can see with my own eyes and they are lying, what can you see”

This works for Flat Earth, Covid deniers and Michael Gove… and more relevant to this thread climate change.

bunnyhop

Every insect, bird, mammal, fish and amphibian has its place on this planet and is needed in its true environment (not invasive species).

No wonder people turn to Neal Oliver… if you define an environment as/around a specific species then you can claim its “needed” simply by definition but that doesn’t mean its presence or absence has any other consequence.

We are back to Red Squirrels as an example… so by verbal wordplay “Red squirrels are absolutely needed in the Red Squirrel Environment” but if they all get a squirrel pox virus and die they will just be replaced by grey squirrels and life will go on. Even the virus will continue in a species that have evolved to be mostly unaffected.

The replacement of red with grey will have no measurable affect on the existential threat of climate change.

Every child born in the western world needs, nappies that take decades to decompose, plastic tat from China,various pieces of equipment, food, clean water and fresh air, clothes, all of these things are going to be harder to get hold of.

How does a child NEED nappies that take decades to decompose or plastic tat from China?
You seem to have a very casual use of the word NEED…

Greentricky

ecological collapse is probably the bigger existential threat than climate over the long term

Over the long term (millions of years) the two are linked.
Over the short term climate change is going to kill millions to tens of millions to hundreds of millions.. depending how quickly and how thoroughly we act.
There isn’t an option anymore for only a few hundred or a few thousand dying, barely an option for millions…

kerley

Lots of animal and plant species die out every year (~600 in 2022) and nobody seems to care and the world moves on. I suppose when there are almost none left people may start to actually notice…

Lots of people do care but MOST people don’t care if a specific species dies out compared to tens or hundreds of millions of human deaths.

However the other point is there is no point even trying to preserve species (if you think it’s worthwhile) unless they have an ecosystem to live in and climate change is a major factor in that.

Bruce

If birds die out

Birds are not going to die out… they survived the K-T extinction… what will die out are specific species of birds and many of those will be due to us but many are just following evolution.

and that will be follow by lack of polination of crops

Neither of these is good but you have to decide between climate change in the next year or so … or longer term environmental damage that will need to be cleaned up.

Climate change is about what we can do right now and the next 5-10 years or we are screwed either way.

Sunack’s latest back tracking shows the mainstream political parties are more interested in getting elected and filling their mates’ pockets than the long term implications of the change in the climate.

I don’t think anyone is surprised by that… or needed him to fly to Scotland to prove it but it does demonstrate to his backers and the markets.

In the same way Greenpeace are still trying to excuse not using nuclear clearly demonstrating they don’t give a toss about climate change either.

We need to take radical action to change our economies and lifestyles so we can live sustainably

What we need to do is mitigate climate change ASAP … it doesn’t matter if it’s sustainable or not.

DOn’t know what other countries commitment are but the UK is 2050 isn’t it. That is 27 years time, do you really think that will stay at 2050 after another 7 or 8 governments have had a go at it.

It’s the equivalent of being stuck on a submarine with 100 hours of air but refusing to use it “because it’s not sustainable” whilst some fanatic promises to invent some new tech that will not only save everyone but be better at some point in the future.

TJagain

so will all the other steps folk are suggesting. My point is simple. We need to be doing everything not just picking the low hanging fruit. All possible steps taken now might just stave off the collapse. Just doing the easy stuff / tinkering around the edges / pretending we can continue with out current lifestyles mean the collapse is inevitable.

We need to be doing stuff that makes a difference…we need to kick off the nuclear reactors TOMORROW we need to make greenwashing illegal .. we need to make using terms like “sustainable” or “eco” in the same sentence as climate change carry custodial sentences with no internet access. We don’t have time to do all the nice stuff and it’s pointless in any case if climate change continues because there won’t be anywhere for “the Kingfishers” (or whatever)

We aren’t doing “the easy stuff” what we are doing is either what someone can make money from or some “wouldn’t it be nice if we had the luxury of time and doing this the environmentally friendly way”. Then the “wouldn’t it be nice” crowd are trying to sabotage the realistic things we could do.

An example all rolled up is Richie flying by a private jet to go grant new exploration licenses and then saying “it’s fine we are working on a sustainable jet fuel” … but instead the green lobby are concerned about granting licenses to produce oil and gas as cleanly as possible… and we wouldn’t even be in this position if we had kept up with fission technology.

Also someone mentioned birds above have wings and can fly to other places, true, however those other places may not hold the correct habitat or provide the type of food that particular species require, eg a kingfisher is more or less stuck with clean rivers, streams or at a stretch canal waterways.

If they die out .. so what in the vaste scheme of things?
Are Kingfishers more important than stopping or mitigating climate change and tens or hundreds of millions of humans dying?

I am constantly staggered by the price of these things, considering how many you see about. There’s a dealer near my parents which has an ocean of them, average price probably £80 – £90k. Or you can buy a 10 year old one for £40k.

I don’t know who’s buying them all, but they’re certainly wealthy enough that they won’t be worried about an extra 20p on a litre of fuel!

and when they get lumped in with campervans for people who can’t afford anything they have validated that someone with a 15yr old Berlingo can afford any cost

cookeaa

I think the operative word here is ‘Group’ I’m as frustrated by other people not valuing my time when they waste it by being late/disorganised, but then that goes with the territory on a group ride (even more so with MTBers IME).
It’s seldom intentional, ultimately you need to adjust expectations when riding with a bunch Vs riding solo, there will be Faff.

Plus of course Karma is a bitch, and one day you might be running just a few minutes late, I bet you’d appreciate people waiting a little longer for you to get your shit in a sock then…

What do you mean by intentional?
Not leaving on time knowing full well is still intentional. Having a puncture isn’t…

We have a separate “Ride Planning Thread” the idea being you can quickly tell who’s going and should the unintended happen you can post to that thread and let people know…

The ones who are habitually late refuse to either use the planning thread at all or spam it to mess it up for everyone else so we don’t even know if they bothered to leave or not let alone if they are going to be late.
We used to wait 1/2 hour before giving up then next ride they would just say “oh I changed my mind”