...These climate protesters in London!!! ?? Whilst I am not a climate change denier, I question the ability of human kind to reverse the current trend. Whilst we certainly have an impact on climate, too many people (including scientists) seem to work on the basis that there is a 'status quo' and that we are disrupting it. The arrogance of scientists (and the rest of us for that matter) that we can somehow tame and control nature through technology etc is breathtaking. Cyclical changes have occurred throughout the millennia and continue to occur. For example, In Medieval times vineyards flourished in the North of England whilst in Victorian times the Thames used to freeze over. Even further back there were rain forests where temperate forests now exist. My main question is what actual plan these protesters have. Staged protests are one thing but unless ALL the continents of the world come on board, unilateral action by one state changes nothing. Moreover IMHO we should be planning to mitigate for rather than try to reverse the ireversible. Anyone got any practical ideas?
Climate change can be argued I expect although the rise of asthma and other lung diseases can’t be denied . The killing of wildlife by destroying their habitat and the destruction of rainforests and replacing them with safari parks and palm trees is a concern . The world can’t sustain the human races current growth and lifestyle .
I am not for one minute, disputing that we causing immense damage to our planet but dispute that we are talking global extinction. If we do nothing vast areas will become barren and the population in those places will perishunless we plan for it. Simply trying to stop, let alone reverse it , with to many vested political, commercial and financial interests wont happen. The general upward trend over millenia is clear. The impact of the Industrial revolution, coal fires (I remember the London Smogs) started it The rapid acceleration has more to do with the exponential increase in population and industrialisation taking place within previous agriculturale based societies e.g. China, India etc. An example of nature correcting (albeit an over simplification) When 911 occurred, all aircraft (a form of transport that experts blame as one of the main causes of global warming) were grounded over the US. The lack of vapour trails actually increased the surface temperature of the land in the short space of a few days. This reversed once the aircraft took to the skies. Now if icecaps melt and release more water into the system, sea levels rise, temperatures rise resulting in more water vapour and clouds a similar thing occurs except on a much larger scale. A negative is that water vapour is a contaminant that destroys ozone. The weather patterns though are the biggest worry IMO more than a general overall increase in world average temnperature. Habitable parts of the planet become uninhabitable but the reverse is that other parts previously uninhabitable become temperate. If, for example the Atlantic conveyer stalls due to too much fresh water then much of northern Europe would enter a new ice age. Weather patterns sea currents wind patterns change. Depressing though it is, the cynic in me thinks, Ultimately nature will take its revenge by a massive population decrease either through man's proclivity towards self destruction in the form of a war OR some viral epidemic outbreak that kills half the population. Come to think of it, a major step would be to limit the population growth through control but how that could be achieved without breaching human rights I have no idea.
Well, there's a lot of aircraft in the sky for sure...……….. but there's a lot of sky? !!! I'd like to ponder that further but there's the 2.00 at Yarmouth to consider!
So, to paraphrase you: "Socialism won't work, capitalism is the only option." To also paraphrase you: "What's the point of even trying to do anything about potentially the worst catastrophe which humanity has ever faced? The vested political, commercial and financial interests which capitalism requires and protects won't let it happen." The mental gymnastic are incredible! Somewhat unsurprisingly I agree with your point about the vested interests. But I believe that as a species we have the intellectual capacity, the imagination and the means to go completely renewable within maybe thirty years, and also focus on reducing harmful waste to almost nothing. We've created this mess through industrialisation (nobody's fault, really) and a refusal to face the truth sooner (everybody's, to a greater or lesser extent) - we can't completely reverse it, but we have the potential capability to limit the damage, and a moral responsibility to do so to the greatest extent possible. Moaning about how difficult it is and wondering out loud about "population control" helps nobody. Regarding the protests, I've always been sceptical of the amount of change that they can effect. But I suspect that in the long run the only way to deal with climate change will be a kind of equivalent to a worldwide war economy, or Manhattan Project. Every resource that we have will, at some stage, need to be directed towards efforts to reduce mankind's impact on the environment, just as it would if there were an invasion of murderous aliens. I think that will need a totally new generation of politicians. While that might be too late, perhaps within ten or so years we can elect people who can start this, and they'll need to begin quickly. Getting people talking about it, and hopefully convincing at least the younger generation to realise the true magnitude of the issue, is probably the best that can be done at the moment.
There is a suggestion that painting roofs white would increase the albedo and reflect more of the suns heat back into space. However, some of that will be trapped by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It should reduce the "city island" effect where the temperature of a city is higher than the surrounding area.
The planet will recover. And nature will go on to more extraordinary stuff. That's evolution. Earth can no longer sustain humanity, which will spiral into inevitable apocalypse. And personally, I don't think that's such a bad thing.. As long as the Reds get back in the Prem, first... Honestly. There's more ignorance and arrogance here than the whole Marras forum.. We were a crap idea. Get over yersens..
What we need is a good crucifixion. We'll feel better then. How about Russell Brand? He looks like Jesus and supports a crap southern team.
Suggest you research a bit before you make statements like that... Just for starters.. https://globalnews.ca/news/2934513/...ge-for-an-unlikely-climate-change-experiment/
Never said anything of the sort. How you managed to extrapolate Capitalism vs Socialism argument and stating I con sidfer the former the only option from my OP and follow up post I have no idea. In any case it isn't relevant to what I am saying. We are so reliant on technology and the power required to make, use and maintain that technology that whatever economic / political/ social system we adopt that consumption will be the same. Over population is the biggest factor in all this. Basically unless the entire planet goes back to an agricultural and less technology driven society we are screwed. Since it wont happen... we ARE screwed.
Firstly - without reading any further - that article describes 'jet contrails' which is the description used by batshit conspiracy theorists. The vapour trails from planes are caused by the airflow over the wing - there's no such thing as a contrail. Further you can't measure 'climate' over a weekend - that's 'weather'. I wouldn't be surprised to find the next article to be about the earth being flat or the Queen being a Jewish lizard.
The human race has been evolving at a rapid rate and has affected our planet, some would say beyond repair. However the drive to travel and live todays lifestyle won't change and stop. We therefore have to rely on the development and innovation to slow up and reduce negative effects. Electric vehicles, renewable energy sources, smart grids and industrial technology, are examples. We flew a plane around the world purely on solar energy a couple of years ago. The technology is developing but depends on how well countries invest in it and embrace it.
Batshit conspiracy theorists use the term chemtrails. They don't exist. Jet contrails we see all the time. It's water that freezes at the low temperatures at high altitudes, and is formed from both vortices at the wing tips of aircraft and the impurities from the jet engines which give the water molecules something to cling to. Contrails do have an influence on local weather. They prevent the sun's rays from reaching the earth so lower maximum temperatures but add to the greenhouse effect so raise minimum temperatures. Pretty much exactly the same as all cloud formations which is essentially exactly what they are. The days after 9/11 gave scientists an almost unprecedented window of research on this phenomenon. It was interesting study but you'll not find a scientist worth the name that will draw any conclusions from the findings. What Tekkytyke wrote is utter nonsense, but I don't necessarily blame him, rather those with influence who draw conclusions and give opinion on research data that displays nothing of the sort. Science is amazing. The analysis of it a complete abomination.
From my favourite film. Similar 'scientific evidence' Ishmael: [On smoking] You really should try to quit, Mr. Munson. They say it's bad for your heart, your lungs. It quickens the aging process. Roy: Is that right? Who's done more research on the subject than the good people at the American Tobacco Industry? They say it's harmless. Why would they lie? If you're dead, you can't smoke.