M43 F49
Climate change activist
October 11 2019
Comments
-
RHP User
5 years ago
But its not enough, I know. I dont eat meat, I buy my clothes from OP shops, I dont drive, I recycle, use cruelty and chemical free cosmetics.....but.....it must only make the tiniest dent in the big picture. I dont hate the activists, I just think that as long as the powers that be who act through greedy motives are in power, then there is a huge battle on hand
-
RHP User
5 years ago
The other thing I find interesting about discussing climate change, is that we always miss the biggest point....that we are our own worst enemy.. How many times have we ever been driving in our car and thought “if only my car could do xyz for me??” Then we mention that to our friends and those friends mention it elsewhere and before you know it, some cluey cunt has made a car to do exactly that.... But the catch is, that every bit of automation we seek as end users contribute to the demand placed upon the market....we can’t cry greed of government or big business when it’s our own greed that causes it.... And now we tell our politicians that we saw it coming and so should they from our iPhone, whilst sipping our soy chai latte as we drive our fossil fueled car to work instead of riding the bike because we chose to move to the capital city instead of somewhere outside metro to have our sustainable veggie garden.... If we really want to cast blame on someone, it’s ourselves... Mr Dragon
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Quoting 'celticblue' These are well organise left wing activists that are hell bent on destroying capitalism, The left hates Australia and it's success in the world for such a small country. There only goal is the total ruination of Australia.
-
nightingale8
5 years ago
I'm a proud leftie. Destroy! Death to capitalism! Anarchy! Oh and please put your rubbish in the appropriate bin. Maybe even send your superannuation and investments away from harmful industries (chances are you'll have tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars funding polluting unethical companies by the time you retire if not already). You want effective solutions? Try looking up project Drawdown. Thanks protesters for getting us talking. Keep on fun-fucking people. Its environmentally friendly, you know 😊
-
TheQuiet1
5 years ago
An ever increasing number of us are making more informed mindful consumer decisions.Personally i have a cup of instant from a hand washed cup and a 5 year old $100 phone.We are not to blame for planned obsolescence.That is a function of the profit driven model.
-
RHP User
5 years ago
I just love how people say you can’t argue with science...how many times has science got it wrong? How many times have facts and figures been manipulated to support a certain agenda? Seems to me you’d be a fool not to question things. If nobody questioned Alex Gore he’d still be making a fortune off of his lies. As for those who think people having certain beliefs and or affiliations is a turn off, no-one was asking if it turns you on or not but since you brought it up, I find such arrogance to be a huge turn off so I’m sure the feeling would be mutual from those you choose to judge 😉 Healthy debate produces results, or at the very least a bit more understanding, I don’t know why people would stray away from it or try to shut it down with such statements but hey, each to their own. Dragon and I have been know to passionately disagree about some things but damn, the sex is amazing! I’m so glad we didn’t shut each other out due to a difference of political opinion. Ms Phoenix.
-
RHP User
5 years ago
*Al Gore
-
mssingularity
5 years ago
Let's have a conversation about the uncertainty principle and Einstein's theory of gravity while we're at it. The truth is, none or us know how human beings are affecting the climate. Don't get all serious now people. Stick to sex and banter.
-
mssingularity
5 years ago
Oh I forgot. Global cooling was the big thing in the 70's. I'm just happy I can wear my ripped jeans again.
-
kisslids
5 years ago
Seriously Climate Change Activist spelt backwards is “Arsehole” Well if they can make things up, then so can I Have a great weekend all
-
FeistyFatty
5 years ago
Kisslids... 🤣🤣🤣👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Quoting 'mssingularity' Let's have a conversation about the uncertainty principle and Einstein's theory of gravity while we're at it. The truth is, none or us know how human beings are affecting the climate. Don't get all serious now people. Stick to sex and banter. Uncertainty principle; Going to the first date. Bareback. First bi experience. Gravity was Newton; The Earth sucks.
-
RHP User
5 years ago
If only the climate was the only problem. But then you get our water being sold off to foreign interests so our fellow countrymen who should be able to access that water suffer needlessly. Not to forget the fish etc who rely on those dried out water ways that are dying in huge numbers. Huge tracts of land in Australia are also sold to foreign interests that are then cleared against policy which kills off homes for our wildlife and removes the gift of oxygen producing trees which also protect the land. We all eat and drink plastic in everything we consume. There's a beach made up of plastic sand! No science needed there just some consciousness of our effect. We used our heater 4 times during the cold weather this year. We don't have an air conditioner. We use our composter and feed our worms to reduce our rubbish output. We don't water our roses because they are far hardier than people say. We don't use poisons for our weeds. We ride to the shops on bikes. We cook enough food that part of it can go towards the next meal which can save an hour of oven use at a time. I don't wear make up at all. Last week I visited a park by the river which had green and yellow bins but both bins were used indiscriminately which totally explained why China and other countries won't take our recycling any more. While apathy is the active attitude, or forceful persuasion the tool used to convince, and money rules... The world has no chance. That's my cynical opinion. No science, just awareness of the obvious. 🍑
-
RHP User
5 years ago
That would be human. 😂
-
nightingale8
5 years ago
If the world had no arseholes where would all the shit come out?
-
SpicyKale
5 years ago
Eleven pages in and there's only really been a couple of people throwing mud, totally stunned! If the development of new technologies that combat climate change, wether real or perceived help drive and kickstart our stalling economy why not? If we've misjudged all of this the worst thing that happens is we get cleaner air to breathe and leave the planet in a slightly better place for our kids. New technologies are driving China's economy now anyway, might as well jump on board and not get left behind! Yes, I know we're selling them a shit load of coal, but their economy is changing too. Where are most of the worlds ev cars built? Big hint, it's not the USA or Australia....
-
SpicyKale
5 years ago
Let me add to that... we've got this far in our history by either digging shit up and selling it, or growing it and selling it. There's so much more money to be made in a developed economy by processing the things we sell further and we just don't do much of it. Even countries like Norway that sell a crap load of oil have a sovereign wealth fund, what do we have to show for everything we've dug up? Don't even get me started on a company like James Hardy, dig stuff up, kill people with it, then offshore to the Netherlands to avoid any sense of social responsibility 🙄
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Quiet 1... Possibly ... but I think it should be remembered that every advancement in technology etc there’s an associated cost... I just don’t think we can have our cake and eat it too. So while we enjoy our advancements, and I’m not one to say we need to go backwards there but while we enjoy those advancements we are indeed still polluting as that’s the cost of production...I really don’t believe we will achieve our current luxuries on a zero pollution production.... And in my view the reality is while we still pollute in any scale, we will continue to head toward a climatic shift.... Mr dragon
-
TheQuiet1
5 years ago
I don,t think we can achieve that yet either, but we could do a hell of a lot better. I had a washing machine last year and the water pump failed 9 days before the 3 year warranty ran out. They no longer make that model or parts for it so they had to replace the whole unit. That's ridiculously wasteful and inefficient.9 more days and i would have had to bear that cost, something i couldn't really afford to do at the time. They could build me a washing machine that did a perfectly good job with replaceable parts that would last me a lifetime and i as a consumer would buy it.But they are intentionally building things to fail so we have to buy another one. We are smarter than this. We need to change the drivers from maximum profit to maximum efficiency and sustainability.We need mechanisms to govern profit and growth to sustainable levels.But the people who benefit from maximum profit at any cost have to much political influence.I don't have millions of dollars to spend on a national tv ad campaign to express my point of view like the mining companies do.It's not a level playing field. We know how to do things better than we currently are. We need policy that makes that happen.
-
RHP User
5 years ago
I have had enough of the activists activities, especially when you see them popping into Maccas for their feed making a mockery of all they're protesting against. 🍑
-
EarthQueen
5 years ago
It’s just you Wake up and smell the coffee
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Thequiet1... Yeah I can’t argue with that at all...I remember working on our family car with my dad like honing the brake slave cylinders etc...putting rebuild kits in the lawn mower...etc. We can do better I agree.....bring back serviceable items that the end user can replace basic stuff on...that would save replacing the washing machine, etc for a simple changeover component like a cloth bearing or a simple plug in controller .... Mr Dragon
-
RHP User
5 years ago
As long as we have apathy, denial and personal egos around the main issue causing our environmental problems, Human Overpopulation - nothing will get resolved. We are actually past the point of doing anything to reverse the damage now. There's nothing more absurd than watching Breastfeeding Sit-in Mamas grinning smugly and superiorly at Extinction Protests, it's hilarious.
-
RHP User
5 years ago
You're so funny. Here I am just agreed how annoying activist activities have been and there you are offering coffee because you reckon the the OP is on their own with that. 😂 🍑
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Just the very notion that human beings can solve an issue as huge as the environmental decline we have added too is almost laughable. Most of the population cant even be civil to eachother, and we have the conciousness of that reality, yet we are led to believe in some Utopian dream we'll all agree for the greater good of the planet...I'm sorry. I'm not a pessamist I'm a realist.
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Ordinary people go to Maccas, so what.Whats this thing about being a saint before your entitled to speak. Do you graduate in economics before you criticise a governments budget ?We hire them to do a job because we are not experts and don't have our hands on the levers, they have a right to speak.Do we think the Hong Kong protestors are doing the right thing ? Or should they quietly submit to the Communist boot ?
-
RHP User
5 years ago
I got me a jar of them in the fridge. Peachy, as per the intent of my previous post on another page, glass is great for reusing and works with our world rather than against it
-
joinus4sexytime
5 years ago
The problem is until the big polluters like China India and others, countries like Australia could cut our polluting to zero and it still wont help the world. Sad but true
-
0z_boy
5 years ago
Evolution is inevitable, the sin of greed is destruction unfortunately. Fuck those greedy monkeys! 🙉🙈🙊
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Yes its real.. Less Golden Showers is a real issue!!
-
0z_boy
5 years ago
🐒
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Quoting '0z_boy'Dont worry folks we are just evolving naturally :D Evolution is inevitable, the sin of greed is destruction unfortunately. Fuck those greedy monkeys! 🙉🙈🙊 I'll largely give you that... there must be some who resist the drive though because for sure we'd be completely f'ed by now otherwise. Because it is not money that is the root of all evil (as it is often quoted) but the love of it. Peachy
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Quoting '0z_boy'Dont worry folks we are just evolving naturally :D Evolution is inevitable, the sin of greed is destruction unfortunately. Fuck those greedy monkeys! 🙉🙈🙊 I'll largely give you that... there must be some who resist the drive though because for sure we'd be completely f'ed by now otherwise. Because it is not money that is the root of all evil (as it is often quoted) but the love of it. Peachy
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Sorry for the double post!
-
JohnAnn2227
5 years ago
Check this video on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JJ3yeiNjf4 It is Dr Willie Soon looking at data that is being thrown around. Puts a different perspective n the argument.
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Wikipedia says he Received an undeclared 1.2 million from fossil fuel industry, maybe it’s bullshit maybe it’s not, but that was my first dig, what more can I find. That’s what pisses me off about this whole fiasco, the truth is harder and harder to find, because both sides are slinging so much shit no one knows what the fuck to think so it just comes down to believe what suits you and google for evidence.
-
RHP User
5 years ago
They're watermelons. Red on the inside. It's all about making everyone as poor as each other except for a "chosen" few.
-
TheQuiet1
5 years ago
I'm not a data annalist, but selective data choices can give you any result you want. So i can not make a reasonable determination on this.So i look at who posted the video and i see a clear political bias.Tying whether or not we accept climate science to our political preferences is not a good idea.And i recall the words of our German engineer friend life_is_fun on page nine and separate the emotion from fact.A good scientist does not need to mock.His mockery betrays him.
-
sweetpussy4u
5 years ago
Totally amazed how far this post has gone. And equally amazed that it hasn’t broken down to pety name calling and shit slinging or a pissing contest. As stated numerous times Australia could produce 0 emissions and the results would be the same though probably worse because lesser quality materials would be used thus creating more pollution from the major polluters as materials would need to be refined more etc. just because I don’t 100% agree with some of the science that is put forward for climate change dosent make me a climate change denialist. Nor does it make my a pro fossil fuel. As somebody once said statistics can be made up to suite your own agenda and 98%of people know that.
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Quoting 'goodbar' They're watermelons. Red on the inside. It's all about making everyone as poor as each other except for a "chosen" few. check under your bed, there's probably a few hiding under there!
-
Single_Guy4U
5 years ago
Watched a programme on a National Geographic TV channel a few years ago, it was about how the finger lakes in America were created. They had all sorts of scientists & Geologists looking into it. turned out they were made by 3x separate Glaziers scouring out the ground creating the lakes, the last being around 10,000 years ago. Appears there has been warming & cooling for yonks, and the last Glazier in the Finger Lakes has been melting for the last 10,000 years ??? Obviously caused by them cave fellas cooking their meat on open fires, and probably farting too much :-)
-
Salubrious1
5 years ago
Something that comes up in these you tube videos for climate deniers is that in science you have a theory then prove it with experiments , if the experiments don't prove the theory then you revisit the theory . There is enough smoke from doctored temperature recordings to have to start anyone thinking that something is not right . Maybe things that have no way of being "doctored " to suit any agenda . The North West Passage for one . it should be open to shipping as a viable route from the Pacific to the Atlantic according to the alarmists forecasts . It's not . How do you explain Greenland Glaciers disappearing but getting thicker . (Google 2018 P38 recovery) That is not from any climate denier or believer . It's just fact the Glacier where aircraft crashed landed in 1940's is still getting thicker . go figure ? I also hate it that finding un biased facts is almost impossible .
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Quoting 'usebi' That’s what pisses me off about this whole fiasco, the truth is harder and harder to find, because both sides are slinging so much shit no one knows what the fuck to think so it just comes down to believe what suits you and google for evidence. This is why I just read without commenting so far.One thing is for sure, if there really is a problem it's caused by human activity.
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Statistically speaking, if there are two cakes on the table and I eat both of them the average consumption is one each.
-
Mischeviouslad
5 years ago
Anyone has an opportunity (not a right) to protest.... and protest about anything they take issue with....knock yourselves out. Just don't impose that protest and inconvenience upon the majority (and it will always be a majority) who don't wish to protest alongside you and take the holier than though attitude doing it, and we will all get all long just fine
-
RHP User
5 years ago
The like is for the last sentence Mojo, Peachy
-
RHP User
5 years ago
It's very lucky that a lot of you don't live in Hong Kong. Perhaps think about the privilege that allows you to be so annoyed about so little.
-
NudesRus
5 years ago
I didn’t realize Australia has turned communist. I think you might find that everyone DOES have a right to protest. Even idiots that glue themselves to the road.
-
TheQuiet1
5 years ago
If the majority of people take the word of politicians and a tiny minority of scientists over the the vast majority of scientists and their huge body of evidence I'm not going to get along with them anyway.Pissing them off may even be amusing.
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Quoting 'Azdaja' It's very lucky that a lot of you don't live in Hong Kong. Perhaps think about the privilege that allows you to be so annoyed about so little. Lucky, yes and no. Fortune and choice both having their place. I am privileged to be able to freely express an opinion in a privileged country where that is fast becoming a big, fat no PARTIALLY thanks to extremists who disturb the little man with their protests without adding to the big picture. I've seen shoots of the protests in Hong Kong and have some understanding of the back story which is based on a far more immediate situation that has nothing to do with the climate but the political climate.
-
MariePI
5 years ago
Paper is a recycleabe material.... if you're arguing their exact methods to dispute their argument you're already a step behind. I don't agree with extreme views or methods to get any point across but the actual science doesn't lie, only the people who manipulate data. Yes, there's a difference. The extreme activists suck, like they do with any cause. But really, the climate is rapidly changing due to human activity. There's 2 sides - be the change or stop the change. Sitting on the fence is stopping the change. Even if the majority of scientists are wrong, the worst that will happen is we have a healthier planet to live on. If they're right? We're screwed if we keep believing the scaremongering multinational conglomerates with everything to lose.
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Climate change is political. There is a lot of common ground between the Hong Kong protests and the climate protests. The protesters are also fighting against a massively corrupt global system - a system which is purposely designed to make a very few very wealthy, and to keep down the rest of the 'little men' as you describe them. One of the biggest successes of that system is the way it manipulates and convinces so many to continue voting and working against their own interests. The complaining about the climate protests and the small inconvenience it caused to a small number of people being just one example. Do you think the multinational petrochemical companies or the governments that support them actually give a shit about the little man? No, they do not. You are simply the labour and means for them to become powerful and wealthy, and they will do whatever they can to continue the status quo. Also, if you are really concerned about your freedoms to express your opinion (which are not being curtailed in any significant way at the moment), then you should be very concerned about the government actions being taken against the protesters. There are many examples in history of the snowball effect that occurs once governments get a foothold in preventing citizens' rights to speak out and protest publicly. It is naive or ignorant (or both) to think that those actions would never be applied against you or all of the other 'little men' once you want to speak up.
-
RHP User
5 years ago
the arguments that keep being trotted out that climate protesters aren't legitimate because they drive cars / eat fast food / take planes / use paper / etc. are just a logical fallacy used as a derailing and delegitimising tactic. For one, most of the protesters would be taking personal actions to reduce their carbon footprint. For another, using the dominant means and methods of a society does not preclude people from actively working for changes and improvements to those means and methods. If it did then societies would be completely static - there would be no developments in technology, medicine, food production etc. That is a major point of the protests - to spur action to work towards more sustainable ways of living.
-
RHP User
5 years ago
I don't think belittling other people's opinions gives any more credence to yours. I'm satisfied to agree to disagree without putting down what you have to say. 🍑
-
RHP User
5 years ago
I was still pondering this thread and felt like I had to say that I have tried to post here from my own point of view rather than questioning others till I came to your post considering it's questioning of our right to our opinions. I know there are serious problems in our country, overseas and with the planet in particular. I do my bit to the best of my ability and definitely respond best to persuasion rather than force. I don't agree with the approach taken by vigilantes, I am put off by their approach which is still a very different thing compared to what the Hong Kong citizens are fighting for in my opinion. 🍑
-
RHP User
5 years ago
I couldnt agree with azdaja more. People standing up for what they believe in is admirable. Its hard to be informed about this debate, theres so much propaganda and misinformation, but the science truly is decided. The powers that be need to act on the science, we need to tell them, thats what makes a society progress. Theres too much apathy these days. Or not wanting to take responsibility... either way inaction is leading to real consequences now and its only going to get worse. People need to take things less personally. People criticizing others actions , then being offended when others criticize their methods... Toughen the fuck up and respect others opinions
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Belittling? I assume you're referring to my mild joke in response to a hyperbolic comment about communists. Are you going to make any comment about the guy who called climate protesters arseholes a couple of pages back? Or any of the other quite extreme and derogatory comments that have been made about the climate protesters and the people who support them? Or are there different rules for the people whose opinions align with yours? Nowhere did I question people's right to their opinions. However, I strongly believe that people's opinions should be informed by evidence and facts, and opinions can be challenged. Unfortunately these days people seem to believe that saying 'that's my opinion' means nobody can question them, disagree with them, or point out flaws in their arguments. Nope, doesn't work that way, and people disagreeing with you is not censorship or some sinister plot to silence you. Finally, having been down this road with you before and knowing where it usually ends up I'm going to respectfully bow out of this particular exchange now.
-
SSExplorer
5 years ago
Azdaja can you please stop throwing your intellect around, it’s making me rather horny! 😂😘
-
RHP User
5 years ago
I have no idea of what joke you mean. Your post about privilege (which was similar to Usebi's post at me) and follow your follow up posts referred to much of what I've posted, whether you'd read it or not, and that simply is what invited my desire to respond. The fact is, I have a right to an opinion about how I feel without any need to base it on facts because that's what an opinion is. I don't see how glueing themselves to roads and disrupting a whole pile of lives achieves anything when it drives people away from the cause. And then heading to Maccas for lunch when there are personal efforts that could be made if they are going to be serious about the environment like making your own food instead of visiting one of the big companies who contribute to the problem. That comes across as hypocracy to me. Attention is needed, I don't agree this is the right way. I have endeavoured to express my opinion as I said before, not judge anyone else's until your 'privilege' post came up. If anyone cares to read my first post to the thread, which is when I joined in, a cpl of pages back, you'll see I take personal responsibility seriously. Man in the mirror stuff. Cheers, 🍑
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Yep, Climb it change.
-
TheQuiet1
5 years ago
We have as much right to challenge your opinion as you have to express it.Your inability to back it up with rational discourse does not make you a victim.All the points you made were addressed with coherent arguments. Please don't sabotage this thread throwing around accusations.
-
RHP User
5 years ago
I get to have my opinion and object to specious judgements about said opinion by superior folk. You can by all means challenge facts, but an opinion is not something you can force, like it or not. I don't need permission of aforesaid superior people to state my opinion despite the rules they're trying that I should know this or that to have my say. "a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. "that, in my opinion, is right"" So, you'll be right, but thanks for throwing around your opinion. 🍑
-
EarthQueen
5 years ago
Peachy Why are you so threatened by certain women’s intelligent posts? Nothing said by Azdaja in her initial posts specifically targeted you? Then you turn it around and make out you are a victim when you are the instigator. It’s kind of old, annoying and also very self absorbed to think that posters always have you in mind when they are answering the OP. Maybe examine that internally a bit. It seriously seems like an issue. I’ve always respected your presence here but please give it a rest. It’s reads like constant petty shit stirring.
-
RHP User
5 years ago
What's Uluru got to do with Climate Activists? 😂 The best way to keep this topic on topic would be if we focused on the topic whether we agree with each other or not. I don't live in Hong Kong and while I have freedom of thought and expression that isn't hurting anyone else, I am going to celebrate it to my heart's content. 😍 I've tried to give my position and I do get the seriousness of where you're coming from But I disagree with the approach taken and refuse to either extreme. 😊
-
RHP User
5 years ago
I am not the topic. I did not see the first post I responded as how you described it as ismy right when we're recognising our rights to be different. I have only just arrived on the thread, and responded the second time Hong Kong was brought up because I view it as one of the extremes as opposed to apathy. I 100 percent agreed with a fact Azdaja corrected me about the other day. I think it would help the topic if we got back on the topic. All I want is to maintain my opinion and how I feel about the topic as presented. 🍑
-
EarthQueen
5 years ago
Peachy Yes we well and truly get it. You want to maintain your opinion . Just like the climate activists . Namaste.
-
TheQuiet1
5 years ago
Who are you calling superior could you clarify please.
-
RHP User
5 years ago
I picked up a load of glass that will be used as a sand substitute.... When did ballpoint pens, used shotgun shells complete with metal cap and used detonator, legos, toothbrushes, wine bottle tops, ever become available as recycling ??? Personally looking at that effort alone I really don’t think people give a shit personally.... Mr Dragon
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Climb it, climb it, climb it, climb it, climb it, climb it, climb it, climb it, climb it.It was an attempt at humour to lighten the threadjacking...Climb it, climb it, climb it, climb it, climb it, climb it, climb it, climb it, climb it, climb it, climb it, climb it, climb it, climb it, climb it, climb it, climb it, climb it, climb it, climb it, climb it, climb it. I have my opinion on climate change, and I'm keeping an open mind about it but based on a long career working on the land I think I know which way I'm leaning.Climate change or not it's painfully obvious to me that there are too many mouths and anuses on the planet. Or is that anii?
-
sweetco
5 years ago
It goes down the hill on the Earth. Just have fun, enjoy life and fuck. p.s. i am wondering how cool it is to have sex on the Mars. The gravity there is lower and no climate problems at all, so longer sex and no climate issues.
-
RHP User
5 years ago
I’d say farting in the spaceship could be a climate no no ! Back on topic, these protests at the mining conference are a bit of an own goal, I mean I know mining includes coal and uranium, but it also includes all the minerals for solar panels and electric cars, and I’d be willing to bet that climate/environment/social responsibilities might have been a topic. Mojo, climb it was funny as !
-
RHP User
5 years ago
The OP (sweetpussy4u) has raised two questions that deserve proper answers, (1) Why do the Extinction Rebellion protesters seem to be deliberately "pissing everyone off"? (2) Why aren't they offering up solutions? This Q&A is an attempt to explain what is going on and to answer the above two questions. ------ Q. Why is it so difficult to find quality information? A. Because big-oil has financed climate denial. This brochure explains how they did that, https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/America_Misled.pdf Exxon (and other big-oil) are now in legal trouble for doing that. This video is the opening address for an enquiry that started a week ago... https://youtu.be/Ja2t1Uiwp3w The source of the above video is, https://oversight.house.gov/legislation/hearings/examining-the-oil-industry-s-efforts-to-suppress-the-truth-about-climate-change Q. What are the scientific responses to what the deniers are saying? A. Here is a list of 197 myths that have been popularised by climate science deniers. For each of these, you can read about what the science actually says (this link has already been provided by a previous poster here), https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php Q. Is climate change really an existential threat? A. According to this recent paper published in the (reputable) journal Science, the answer is yes, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw6974 Summary of the above paper: The world's governments currently have us on track for 3 to 4 degrees warming. The more recent science suggests that 2 degrees would be catastrophic for very many ecosystems (99% of the reef dead) and also for many millions of people. In other words, 3 or 4 degrees is unimaginably bad. The good news is that, theoretically, 1.5 degrees is still possible. It would still be bad, but an awful lot better than 2 degrees. We are at 1 degree now.The bad news is that big-oil have successfully delayed action for 40 years and there is no reason to suppose they will change. In fact, Exxon have proudly announced that by 2024 they plan to double their rate of oil production compared with that of 2018, https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/06/06/exxonmobil-is-planning-to-double-the-size-of-this.aspx Unfortunately, the 1.5 degree scenario requires a very rapid transition to net zero CO2 emissions (and also for other green house gasses). The timescale for this transition is something like 5 to 10 years (depending on how you define it), but regardless, it is too short for the world's current social systems to be able to accommodate. Q. So what can we do? A. A lot of Social Science research has been done in recent years to understand how to engineer rapid changes in social systems. For example, how best to plan a revolution to replace a dictatorship. Or how to force your local council into providing a better garbage collection service. Roger Hallam is one of the founders of Extinction Rebellion (XR). He is an expert in this particular field of Social Science. He talks about it in this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZKrVFFjkBs You can also find two academic lectures of his on YouTube (those lectures go for about 2 hours each). Q. Does XR want to overthrow the Australian government? A. No. It is sufficient to fix our current democratic system so that big-oil and coal do not have the influence they currently have, and so that sensible ideas can be rapidly implemented by our elected government. To this end, XR has 3 simple demands, 1. Government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change. 2. Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by 2025. 3. Government must create, and be led by the decisions of a Citizens' Assembly on climate and ecological justice. Big-oil and coal would loose their control if XR's 3rd demand were met. For more about Citizens' Assemblies, https://theconversation.com/citizens-assemblies-how-to-bring-the-wisdom-of-the-public-to-bear-on-the-climate-emergency-119117 Q. Is XR reputable? A. Yes. Many scientists are pinning their hopes on XR. The following declaration has accumulated over 1000 signatures in just a few weeks, Scientists' Declaration of Support for Non-Violent Direct Action Against Government Inaction Over the Climate and Ecological Emergency https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FuZYG-gT5EPTLDyvgNnlYIS5dAy43TM1MnvOls48qIc/edit On 24 Oct 2019, the Editor of the Lancet (the most prestigious medical journal) released a video calling for all doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals to support XR, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEVGNeneYug Q. How likely is it that XR will eventually have its demands met by government? A. Somewhere between unknown and zero. But those in XR feel that it's worth trying, and many are prepared to get arrested for non-violent direct actions.
-
SSExplorer
5 years ago
“I have a right to an opinion about how I feel without any need to base it on facts because that's what an opinion is.” Oh FFS THIS is what’s wrong with the world! Everyone thinks they have the right to dribble factless crap...why? Freedom of expression? To spread ones delusions onto others? Yes we are all capable of saying whatever comes into our heads no matter how tactless/wrong/misleading or stupid and by enacting this right we thereby give permission for anyone to enact their right to call bullshit! I do try and play nice but this kind of reasoning just shits me so much!
-
kisslids
5 years ago
A discussion was had I met up with a climate change activist yesterday and had a discussion. I couldn’t get a word in, but when I did I was wrong in her mind. Criticism came forth from her and not one positive solution to her plight. I had this discussion to maybe educate myself a little more. My opinion was not changed, yes she is still an “asshole”
-
RHP User
5 years ago
It’s called religion.
-
RHP User
5 years ago
SSE... Lol because opinions don’t really need to be studied for else they’d be a qualification... Example....I enjoy the taste of coconut rice from my local Thai restaurant...I say it’s the best coconut rice in the country.... You may dislike coconut, and without tasting it say you hate it.... Are your taste buds wrong or mine?? Same thing with opinions from my perspective....I’m sure many would disagree with my views on this topic, and I don’t research every topic like the csiro just so that I can make my feelings be known about it either... No one here preaches they possess the solution, and discussions wouldn’t be an exploration of viewpoints if there weren’t differences of opinion on all levels.... Mr Dragon
-
kisslids
5 years ago
Dragon I think that last paragraph is so on point that I want to steal it and put it on my office door.
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money. - Cree Indian Proverb
-
Mischeviouslad
5 years ago
More trigger on this thread than the Lone Ranger sat on 😂
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Kisslids... Feel free ... you don’t need my blessing lol
-
RHP User
5 years ago
"Men get wisdom when they have exhausted all the alternatives" #men as in humanity
-
DonnaBrett
5 years ago
All media should just ignore them, don't report about anything they do. No TV air time, no newspaper stories. They thrive on that attention
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Sure, but it’s got to 15 pages without imploding, so that’s a win for everyone.
-
TheQuiet1
5 years ago
I can't stand coconut.But i don't expect that to apply to you or anybody else and i think you and i could discus that respectfully even though we disagree.The problem for me arises when some people construe a difference or questioning of opinion as a personal attack.it then becomes a mechanism to impose their opinion unchallenged.A tactic which in my opinion is akin to bullying.When it comes to science however opinions are irrelevant. If the description of nature that has been tested against reality says the rock is going to fall on your foot.Then the rock is going to fall on your foot.No opinion however strongly felt will change the actuality of the falling rock.
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Quiet1.... Can’t argue with any of that at all.....though if I may draw a bit of a long bow regarding science vs opinion, and I say this as respectfully as I can...but science tells us there are 2 genders....yet gender has morphed into a very subjective subscription..... Mr Dragon...
-
Salubrious1
5 years ago
having looked at a lot of youtube clips giving both sides of the argument , which science do you believe ? One side points to sun activity which peaked and has now dropped off which will cause a global cooling or the CO2 side that believe in warming . Maybe if someone bumps this thread in 10 years time we will have a clearer picture on which side is closer t the truth . I did have to laugh at a FB post that advertised a brand new resort in the Maldives as a great place for the IPCC to have a conference considering they predicted ten years ago that the Maldives would be under water by now . In a lot of cases in arguments neither side listens to what the other side is trying to say and only thinks about what their next reply will be to win the contest . The truth comes second to winning the debate , it's human nature.
-
RHP User
5 years ago
There is XX and XY what are the others ?
-
nightingale8
5 years ago
Mr Dragon, science doesn't tell us there are two genders. Those are assumptions made by researchers when putting together demographic questionnaires in order to research other questions, such as "Are there gender differences in how males and females process scientific research?" Naturally those assumptions would shift to accomodate what is a socially constructed concept. More broadly.... This whole debate is predicated on a general misunderstanding of the the scientific process and philosophy that underpins it (positivism for the most part. The philosophy concept that is, not your opinion). We're all wrong. Good scientists will admit this and account for statistical error and consider assumptions made. But that doesn't mean that those that disagree with the weight of the scientific evidence are equally right (ahem, climate deniers). They are just more wrong because wrong is relative. In more concrete terms, 1+1 = 3 is wrong. But it's sure as hell more right than 1+1 = your mother in law. Of course, that depends on the assumptions you make.
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Usebi...take a glance at non-binary mate :)
-
RHP User
5 years ago
I think we are talking cross purposes, science identifies the two sexes, gender is cultural. Personally I don’t care what anyone identifies as that’s their business.
-
kisslids
5 years ago
Dragon How can anyone like coconut! The crying and screaming of the coconut as it’s life is ended when it thumps to the solid earth below. Oh sorry the noise was coming from the bloke asleep under the tree.
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Quoting 'Salubrious1' having looked at a lot of youtube clips giving both sides of the argument , which science do you believe ? That you are even asking this question, shows how successful big-oil has been with their denial campaign. Their aim has been to delay climate change mitigation so as to continue business-as-usual (and they have been doing this for 40 years).The denial campaign that big-oil financed does things exactly like this! That is, promoting the idea that there is more than one scientific theory to explain climate change. There is not. There is also no debate between scientists (at least, not in the sense that you are suggesting). Moreover, the scientists have listened very carefully to the denial propaganda, and they have made serious attempts to explain to the public what has been going on. If you would like to know more about big-oil's denial campaign, please check out the links that we gave in the first two answers of our post "A Climate Change Q&A", on page 14 of this forum.
-
Salubrious1
5 years ago
Quoting 'XRswingers' Quoting 'Salubrious1' having looked at a lot of youtube clips giving both sides of the argument , which science do you believe ? That you are even asking this question, shows how successful big-oil has been with their denial campaign. Their aim has been to delay climate change mitigation so as to continue business-as-usual (and they have been doing this for 40 years).The denial campaign that big-oil financed does things exactly like this! That is, promoting the idea that there is more than one scientific theory to explain climate change. There is not. There is also no debate between scientists (at least, not in the sense that you are suggesting). Moreover, the scientists have listened very carefully to the denial propaganda, and they have made serious attempts to explain to the public what has been going on. If you would like to know more about big-oil's denial campaign, please check out the links that we gave in the first two answers of our post "A Climate Change Q&A", on page 14 of this forDo you not think that corporations and governments who have heavily invested in renewable energy would not have a the same reason to manipulate the facts to their favour , as the hydrocarbon industry does. As I've asked before , how many of the IPCC predictions from 15 years ago have been accurate ? the Alarmists that are protesting are saying the world will end in 10 years ? Do you believe this .
-
RHP User
5 years ago
I suspect that we can agree that the forum editing software sucks :)For anyone trying to follow this, the last two paragraphs in the last post by Salubrious1 were written by Salubrious1 (which is not obvious from the formatting of that post). You seem to be saying three things (?): (1) On hearing two conflicting statements A and B, how do you tell which (if either) is Science (ie. which of A or B agrees with the consensus held by at least 97% of all climate scientists) ? (2) Maybe a significant proportion of all climate scientists are being supported by the renewable energy sector and are therefore coming to biased conclusions ? (3) The scientists have got it wrong before, so why should we listen now ? Response to 1 Suppose statement A is by a scientist, and B is from either a politician, the PR section of a company, or is something a talk-back radio host has said. Then it's sort of obvious which of A or B is the science. The problem is when the media have gone out of their way to set up a "debate" between a real scientist and a so-called "scientist" (either a crack-pot, lime-light seeker, or someone being financed as a denier). But even then, it's still petty easy to figure out who is who. Promoting the "need" for such debates is a big-oil tactic. Such debates leave the public with the false impression that half the scientists are on one side and half are on the other side. But that is not true. Response to 2 Let us suppose that this were the case, i.e. that the scientific consensus was biased. Then it follows that 97% of all climate scientists must fall into one or both of the following two groups: Group 1: Those who have unwittingly become susceptible to some sort group-think effect and are not able to see that they are coming to incorrect/biased conclusions; Group 2: Those who are blatantly lying via deliberately falsifying and/or misinterpreting data. I hope we can both agree that Group 2 is going to be insignificantly small. So that leaves the possibility that 97% of all climate scientist are in Group 1. That is, they are all self-deluded. Is this possible? It has sometimes been argued that theoretical physicists who promote String Theory as a physical theory, or those who promote a strictly Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, have fallen into a group-think effect. But the physics involved in Climate Science is not like Theoretical Physics. It is well known and completely trivial in comparison. Making climate change predictions is difficult only because the world is big and complicated, not because the physical laws are not well understood. Response to 3 Yes, some of the predictions have not turned out right. Most importantly, the ice sheets are melting much faster than was expected. And in the last 4 years it has also become apparent that 2 degrees warming, which at one time was thought to be not too terrible, could trigger tipping points, not only for the climate system, but also for many ecological systems (e.g. rainforests, coral reefs, mangroves, ...). It is now known that 2 degrees warming would be very, very, much worse than 1.5 degrees warming. The "Alarmists" are the climate scientists, ecologists, biologists, ... We are just trying to get their alarm heard.
-
TheQuiet1
5 years ago
I endured the psychological trauma of the rhetoric and propaganda and watched the PMs entire speech in Brisbane yesterday.It seems he wants to "outlaw" companies being able to choose who they do business with based on their environmental impact.Effectively removing our freedom to choose which companies we support or not.Limiting considerably our ability for "individual action". This cuts both ways if your a climate change denier you can support the companies you choose.And the weight of public opinion should tell the tale.How can this removal of freedom of choice be ok with anyone on any side of the fence.
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Nightingale... There was some big words in there lol but I assume you mean science is only really proven upon retrospect when an outcome is achieved??? Mr dragon
-
Salubrious1
5 years ago
XR Swingers yes the editing sucks . Nearly all of your case revolves around the " 97% of Scientist rule ". Have you listened to any of Dr Tim Bell's speeches ? from what I can research he doesn't seem a crack pot(but then how do you tell) or has any monetary ties to fossil fuel . He breaks down how the 97% claim was reached . Population encroachment on wildlife and flora is a human made impact on the evironment and localised climate . look at Australia and more so Africa . I think 100% not 97% of scientists would agree with that . Don't get me wrong , I personally don't believe you can keep pumping shit into the atmosphere with no consequence , look at the respiratory health issues in high pollution countries ,plus I also respect that people can debate their ideas without it becoming a personalised attack . Respect is key. My argument is more based on who's telling the truth . I volunteered for years for a multination conservation society , in that time I saw first hand the manipulation of the facts to meet an agenda to help fund raising . also the infiltration of extremists who want shut down any sort of debate into any ideas or beliefs other than their own . Veganism for an example.I value integrity . The argument of what's to lose for a clean world , right now if the coal and gas and meat industry was to close tomorrow , as what a lot of the more naive protesters are calling for , what would become of regional Australia and where would the money come from to run the country ,let alone the electricity . I would love to see a clean renewable total energy source that isn't nuclear but for Australia is doesn't exist unless the hot rock projects are given more funding , but that also has fracking , so what do you do ? As I said it will be interesting to bump this thread in ten years to see where the climate is heading . On a lighter, tongue firmly in cheek . The person behind Skeptical Science is an evangelical Christian , so I'm guessing he also believes 2 Echidna's walked to the Middle East to get on a boat . He's not alone . millions and millions also believe this, as is their prerogative . I have numerous Christian friends and respect their beliefs even if I don't believe them myself .
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Science loves to be proven wrong. That's the point of science. The current held theory (on any topic) is universally accepted until more evidence comes along to debunk it and so it goes. Saccharin, for example, was widely accepted as being carcinogenic back in the day. Nowadays science is exploring its link to type two diabetes. People on the other hand... enjoying being proven wrong? The scientific community seem mostly unanimous that humans are the cause of the global warming. Mother Earth is more powerful than we can fathom and so she will outlast us all. Perhaps we just don't want to accept our part in her continuing and unabating negligence and abuse?
-
nightingale8
5 years ago
Mr Dragon I'll admit my train of thought doesn't always translate well. It's a bloody curse. And probably explains why I'm the only one who finds my jokes funny. Short answer to your question: no. Being wrong is relative. You can be a little bit wrong or you can be really really wrong. Just because both theories have some degree of wrong doesn't mean that both are equally right. Science will always have some degree of wrong because it's a process and not a collection of facts. Climate change deniers exploit this and point to the little bit of wrong and say "aha! See you said something that was wrong and therefore what I say must be equally right". Spot the pattern and be entertained.
-
nightingale8
5 years ago
To clarify, I'm lumping climate change denialists in the same category as climate change inactivists. They have the same effect. Bite me.
Boards
-
Hot Topics
Topics: 14361 Comments: 120840
-
Girls Ask
Topics: 1355 Comments: 14709
-
Guys Ask
Topics: 2425 Comments: 17234
-
Couples' Corner
Topics: 2405 Comments: 12737
-
Swingers Lifestyle
Topics: 794 Comments: 5154
-
Fetish & Fantasy
Topics: 1148 Comments: 6957
-
Hot Travel
Topics: 622 Comments: 2145
-
LGBT
Topics: 156 Comments: 1150
Forum help
-
Something related with that
-
Going somewhere & want to hook up?
-
Hasn't that topic been posted before?
RHP's popular dating tool
-
Where the heck did that topic go?
Discover what RHP is doing offline
-
RHP member's RL secrets
reply
like
Share