Extinction Rebellion

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I assume you hope to live beyond 2050? Hell, I might even make that myself (though I don't rate my chances). Those who are kids today could well live beyond 2100. 

That makes it a bit risky to accept that we can carry on increasing carbon levels for another 30 years and no-one living will die, doesn't it? No point setting unrealistic targets, but not good for us to be under-ambitious either.

 

As Captain points out, the increased number of extreme weather events have already claimed lives. Then there could be - and already are - all sorts of indirect impacts from rising sea levels, saltwater infiltration, desertification & loss of farmland, breakdown of ecosystems affecting health/disease, water temperatures impacting fish stocks etc. As I understand it, a lot of that stuff will happen even if we get carbon neutral quickly, but why accept it being exacerbated for 30 more years? Not to mention the risk of exceeding tipping points, beyond which the upward momentum can no longer be halted at levels compatible with the survival of humanity....

 

I appreciate that it's a complicated business - and one that I'm not well-informed about. All sorts of factors can affect migration, health, food/water stocks, likelihood of war etc. Likewise, other remedies can be applied to some of those problems (e.g. development, GM foods, forestation, flood defences). But remedies cost resources - and there's already the prospect of all these problems getting worse over coming decades, without us adding to the problem unnecessarily by allowing our govts to be too passive. Just think of the tensions already caused by migration, alone (various causes, I know) - and imagine the sort of instability that could be caused if the flows get much larger and are combined with resource issues, more frequent natural disasters etc.

 

Sorry if this comes across as lecturing or sanctimonious (I'm in no position to lecture as I don't do any more than you & am under-informed). It just amazes me that so many intelligent, sentient people can seem so blase about the risks to themselves, the children of family & friends and, yes, plenty of people alive now & in future. Imagine us being the generations who allowed human civilisation to come to an end and shrugged our shoulders about it?

I sincerely hope it doesn't happen, but if it does, I hope that those are left afterwards do remember who was responsible and why. And not forgive nor forget.

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

I assume you hope to live beyond 2050? Hell, I might even make that myself (though I don't rate my chances). Those who are kids today could well live beyond 2100. 

That makes it a bit risky to accept that we can carry on increasing carbon levels for another 30 years and no-one living will die, doesn't it? No point setting unrealistic targets, but not good for us to be under-ambitious either.

 

As Captain points out, the increased number of extreme weather events have already claimed lives. Then there could be - and already are - all sorts of indirect impacts from rising sea levels, saltwater infiltration, desertification & loss of farmland, breakdown of ecosystems affecting health/disease, water temperatures impacting fish stocks etc. As I understand it, a lot of that stuff will happen even if we get carbon neutral quickly, but why accept it being exacerbated for 30 more years? Not to mention the risk of exceeding tipping points, beyond which the upward momentum can no longer be halted at levels compatible with the survival of humanity....

 

I appreciate that it's a complicated business - and one that I'm not well-informed about. All sorts of factors can affect migration, health, food/water stocks, likelihood of war etc. Likewise, other remedies can be applied to some of those problems (e.g. development, GM foods, forestation, flood defences). But remedies cost resources - and there's already the prospect of all these problems getting worse over coming decades, without us adding to the problem unnecessarily by allowing our govts to be too passive. Just think of the tensions already caused by migration, alone (various causes, I know) - and imagine the sort of instability that could be caused if the flows get much larger and are combined with resource issues, more frequent natural disasters etc.

 

Sorry if this comes across as lecturing or sanctimonious (I'm in no position to lecture as I don't do any more than you & am under-informed). It just amazes me that so many intelligent, sentient people can seem so blase about the risks to themselves, the children of family & friends and, yes, plenty of people alive now & in future. Imagine us being the generations who allowed human civilisation to come to an end and shrugged our shoulders about it?

Don't understand where you have got it from that I said we could increase carbon levels until 2050? I haven't. I've said that's the target we have to be carbon neutral and that's a good thing - we need to start reducing with immediate effect.

 

I've said nothing of the sort that we should be increasing our levels at all, let alone for another 31 years!

 

1 hour ago, Captain... said:

Exactly and we are seeing more extreme weather in recent years as a result of climate change ergo people are dying because of climate change. The French put the number of deaths in France due to the extreme heat wave this summer at nearly 1500. Now I know the counter argument is they were mainly elderly, some would have died anyway in a normal summer, they're French who really cares. The fact remains we are seeing increases in extreme weather which results in loss of life.

It was obviously terrible - but it was nowhere near the level of the heatwave in 2003 when about ten times that amount died.

 

The World is going to get hotter whatever we do so we need to cope with it better, we shouldn't have people dying because the temperature hits levels that are high only by European standards.

[Alf Bentley]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

Don't understand where you have got it from that I said we could increase carbon levels until 2050? I haven't. I've said that's the target we have to be carbon neutral and that's a good thing - we need to start reducing with immediate effect.

 

I've said nothing of the sort that we should be increasing our levels at all, let alone for another 31 years!

 

 

To clarify: I meant that, until we achieve carbon neutrality, we will be increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere and thereby increasing our problems - until 2050, you suggest.

 

I was not suggesting that you were advocating an increase in the level of our carbon emissions.

[Manwell Pablo]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I assume you hope to live beyond 2050? Hell, I might even make that myself (though I don't rate my chances). Those who are kids today could well live beyond 2100. 

That makes it a bit risky to accept that we can carry on increasing carbon levels for another 30 years and no-one living will die, doesn't it? No point setting unrealistic targets, but not good for us to be under-ambitious either.

 

As Captain points out, the increased number of extreme weather events have already claimed lives. Then there could be - and already are - all sorts of indirect impacts from rising sea levels, saltwater infiltration, desertification & loss of farmland, breakdown of ecosystems affecting health/disease, water temperatures impacting fish stocks etc. As I understand it, a lot of that stuff will happen even if we get carbon neutral quickly, but why accept it being exacerbated for 30 more years? Not to mention the risk of exceeding tipping points, beyond which the upward momentum can no longer be halted at levels compatible with the survival of humanity....

 

I appreciate that it's a complicated business - and one that I'm not well-informed about. All sorts of factors can affect migration, health, food/water stocks, likelihood of war etc. Likewise, other remedies can be applied to some of those problems (e.g. development, GM foods, forestation, flood defences). But remedies cost resources - and there's already the prospect of all these problems getting worse over coming decades, without us adding to the problem unnecessarily by allowing our govts to be too passive. Just think of the tensions already caused by migration, alone (various causes, I know) - and imagine the sort of instability that could be caused if the flows get much larger and are combined with resource issues, more frequent natural disasters etc.

 

Sorry if this comes across as lecturing or sanctimonious (I'm in no position to lecture as I don't do any more than you & am under-informed). It just amazes me that so many intelligent, sentient people can seem so blase about the risks to themselves, the children of family & friends and, yes, plenty of people alive now & in future. Imagine us being the generations who allowed human civilization to come to an end and shrugged our shoulders about it?

 

Well, if you are so blaze in our actions towards the subject Alf perhaps it shouldn't amaze you, to me it seems being amazed by something you are contributing it's a bit like saying I'm killing the planet but by golly, we should at least be angry about it. Utterly pointless. I'm pretty apathetic on the subject but I do far more than most to lower my carbon footprint more so than most people who like a good rant about the affect of climate change. What's more important

 

Change needs to come from top and these protests aren't going to influence that, most of what the left has tried to ram down the throat of the population has just resulted in them doing the opposite not just here but in a lot of Western countries, purely because of the irritating whiny and condescending  holier that thou way they go about everything. 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

Well, if you are so blaze in our actions towards the subject Alf perhaps it shouldn't amaze you, to me it seems being amazed by something you are contributing it's a bit like saying I'm killing the planet but by golly, we should at least be angry about it. Utterly pointless. I'm pretty apathetic on the subject but I do far more than most to lower my carbon footprint more so than most people who like a good rant about the affect of climate change. What's more important

 

Change needs to come from top and these protests aren't going to influence that, most of what the left has tried to ram down the throat of the population has just resulted in them doing the opposite not just here but in a lot of Western countries, purely because of the irritating whiny and condescending  holier that thou way they go about everything. 

You see, I can get this argument about people being affronted about being told what to do in a condescending fashion (and right, it is condescending at times, I'll freely admit that) and so the argument really does need to be framed better...but on the other hand, is "fvck you I won't do what you tell me because of tone" really a good argument for inadvertently allowing the possible future collapse of civilisation to happen - as farfetched as that might seem right now?

[oxford blue]

Population is another factor towards global warming. Expected to increase by 50% over next 80 years (predominantly due to some African nations and Pakistan predominantly). The individual 'carbon footprint' may be lower, but will nevertheless have a large impact as living standards and urbanisation increase)

[Alf Bentley]

10 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

Well, if you are so blaze in our actions towards the subject Alf perhaps it shouldn't amaze you, to me it seems being amazed by something you are contributing it's a bit like saying I'm killing the planet but by golly, we should at least be angry about it. Utterly pointless. I'm pretty apathetic on the subject but I do far more than most to lower my carbon footprint more so than most people who like a good rant about the affect of climate change. What's more important

 

Change needs to come from top and these protests aren't going to influence that, most of what the left has tried to ram down the throat of the population has just resulted in them doing the opposite not just here but in a lot of Western countries, purely because of the irritating whiny and condescending  holier that thou way they go about everything. 

 

I probably deserve criticism for not making the effort to be better informed about the issue or for not getting involved in campaigns. But if I did start campaigning, you'd probably lambast me as a leftie "ramming it down the throat of the population" in an "irritating, whiny and condescending, holier-than-thou way". 

 

At it happens, though, like Matt (and like you, apparently), I'd be pretty low down the league table of people "killing the planet". I've never driven, have taken about 3 flights in 20 years, walk a lot, recycle, don't use much heating and rarely eat red meat. That's mainly coincidental, rather than righteous behaviour on my part (I don't have a lot of money, prefer ferries/trains, am warm-blooded & find that red meat makes me sluggish now I'm older) and I'm certainly not perfect.

 

I agree that change needs to come from the top - governments, international bodies, businesses etc. Maybe that generates a sense of powerlessness among individuals that partly explains my inaction - along with the fact that I dropped all study of science at age 14, so understanding such stuff doesn't come naturally to me.

 

But, aside from voting and consumer choices, how are we supposed to influence those at the top? In a previous discussion, I've already agreed with Strokes that disruptive protests like the current one will quickly alienate more than they influence but that high-profile symbolic or humorous protests can make the same point with a better reaction - along with lobbying, awareness-raising etc. I'd add that I find some protesters, including some of those at the ER protest, cringeworthy, but that doesn't mean all protest is bad or all ER protesters. Do you agree or do you think we should just trust in those at the top?

 

You talk about me being "angry" about what's happening. I'm more saddened and concerned than angry. Ironically, you come across to me as a very angry man - angry against ER protesters specifically, lefties in general - and against me, I presume, since you made your angry post in response to mine? I was aware of the risk that I would come across as lecturing and sanctimonious, hence the last paragraph that you highlighted, but wanted to make what I felt was a worthwhile point. 

 

Like the irritating, whiny lefties you describe, people with right-wing views can unnecessarily alienate a lot of people, too, depending on how they express themselves. Fortunately, there are several very good, fair and tolerant right-wing posters on here, and I enjoy debating issue with them even if we often disagree.

[Captain...]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Don't understand where you have got it from that I said we could increase carbon levels until 2050? I haven't. I've said that's the target we have to be carbon neutral and that's a good thing - we need to start reducing with immediate effect.

 

I've said nothing of the sort that we should be increasing our levels at all, let alone for another 31 years!

 

It was obviously terrible - but it was nowhere near the level of the heatwave in 2003 when about ten times that amount died.

 

The World is going to get hotter whatever we do so we need to cope with it better, we shouldn't have people dying because the temperature hits levels that are high only by European standards.

The 2003 heat wave that was attributed by some to global warming? 

 

The fact fewer people died in a hotter heat wave is testament to nothing other than France learned from its past and was better prepared for extreme heat this time. The point still stands that climate change is killing people.

Edited 9 October 2019 by Captain...

[MC Prussian]

3 hours ago, Captain... said:

Exactly and we are seeing more extreme weather in recent years as a result of climate change ergo people are dying because of climate change. The French put the number of deaths in France due to the extreme heat wave this summer at nearly 1500. Now I know the counter argument is they were mainly elderly, some would have died anyway in a normal summer, they're French who really cares. The fact remains we are seeing increases in extreme weather which results in loss of life.

Choosing and picking.

Half of these 1'500 deaths were elderly above 75 years of age.

https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/meteo/les-canicules-de-l-ete-2019-ont-fait-1500-morts-en-france-soit-10-fois-moins-qu-en-2003_2096563.html

In 2003, sixteen years prior, France saw around 15'000 deaths in between August 4th and 18th. In total, there were 19'500 deaths that summer.

How does that fit your argument?

 

France for example has seen a variety of heatwaves since the 40ies, with 2003 being the most extreme one so far:

http://www.meteo-centre.fr/blog/les-episodes-de-canicule-historiques-en-france/

So, nothing that uncommon for France when you look back about 75 years.

[Parafox]

On 07/10/2019 at 21:59, Izzy said:

One of the directors of private limited company Compassionate Revolution, which has organised and partly financed XR, is Wiltshire mother Gail Bradbrook, 47. The 'neo-pagan' said on a recent podcast that she decided to become an activist as a direct result of taking huge doses of two powerful psychedelic drugs. Ms Bradbrook, who has two sons aged ten and 13, flew to Costa Rica a few years ago to take a dose of ibogaine, a hallucinogenic shrub growing in West Africa.  The mother, who has a PhD in molecular biophysics, also tried ayahuasca, a highly toxic, mind-bending potion made by Amazon jungle shamans. She said the drugs 'rewired' her brain and gave her 'the codes of social change'. Afterwards, she ended her marriage and began her activism in XR. 

 

Isn't that Serena Williams?

[MC Prussian]

11 minutes ago, Captain... said:

The 2003 heat wave that was attributed by some to global warming? 

 

The fact fewer people died in a hotter heat wave is testament to nothing other than France learned from its past and was better prepared for extreme heat this time. The point still stands that climate change is killing people.

Yeah, it has always done in one way or another, since the dawn of time.

But that's no argument. Climate change happens, and people die from it. We can't stop or reverse climate change, that's against nature. That'd be ludicrous.

But we can adapt and obviate.

 

The 2003 heatwave was an exceptional occurrence, the hottest summer since 1540. France was hit the hardest due to a number of factors: They had no plan/no clue how to deal with such an emergency, air conditioning was a rarity, you had social isolation of the elderly, it was the holidays and less doctors available, then there's the issue with the 35-hour working week:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave

 

[MC Prussian]

39 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I probably deserve criticism for not making the effort to be better informed about the issue or for not getting involved in campaigns. But if I did start campaigning, you'd probably lambast me as a leftie "ramming it down the throat of the population" in an "irritating, whiny and condescending, holier-than-thou way". 

 

At it happens, though, like Matt (and like you, apparently), I'd be pretty low down the league table of people "killing the planet". I've never driven, have taken about 3 flights in 20 years, walk a lot, recycle, don't use much heating and rarely eat red meat. That's mainly coincidental, rather than righteous behaviour on my part (I don't have a lot of money, prefer ferries/trains, am warm-blooded & find that red meat makes me sluggish now I'm older) and I'm certainly not perfect.

 

I agree that change needs to come from the top - governments, international bodies, businesses etc. Maybe that generates a sense of powerlessness among individuals that partly explains my inaction - along with the fact that I dropped all study of science at age 14, so understanding such stuff doesn't come naturally to me.

 

But, aside from voting and consumer choices, how are we supposed to influence those at the top? In a previous discussion, I've already agreed with Strokes that disruptive protests like the current one will quickly alienate more than they influence but that high-profile symbolic or humorous protests can make the same point with a better reaction - along with lobbying, awareness-raising etc. I'd add that I find some protesters, including some of those at the ER protest, cringeworthy, but that doesn't mean all protest is bad or all ER protesters. Do you agree or do you think we should just trust in those at the top?

 

You talk about me being "angry" about what's happening. I'm more saddened and concerned than angry. Ironically, you come across to me as a very angry man - angry against ER protesters specifically, lefties in general - and against me, I presume, since you made your angry post in response to mine? I was aware of the risk that I would come across as lecturing and sanctimonious, hence the last paragraph that you highlighted, but wanted to make what I felt was a worthwhile point. 

 

Like the irritating, whiny lefties you describe, people with right-wing views can unnecessarily alienate a lot of people, too, depending on how they express themselves. Fortunately, there are several very good, fair and tolerant right-wing posters on here, and I enjoy debating issue with them even if we often disagree.

Vote for the right people.

Support or join consumer initiatives.

Start your own aid program, so you know where your money is going.

Vote with your wallet.

 

To name a few.

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

You see, I can get this argument about people being affronted about being told what to do in a condescending fashion (and right, it is condescending at times, I'll freely admit that) and so the argument really does need to be framed better...but on the other hand, is "fvck you I won't do what you tell me because of tone" really a good argument for inadvertently allowing the possible future collapse of civilisation to happen - as farfetched as that might seem right now?

We're talking style over substance here - and the argument is that substance isn't all that often on the agenda of said initiatives or movements.

When you try to convince with buzzwords, doomsday scenarios and emotions alone, too many people just switch off.

 

It doesn't help that many of these agents have little to no knowledge of the matter. Why believe a former waitress or a 16-year old autistic girl?

 

Facts, not feelings. Science before politics and activism. That's what matters.

Edited 9 October 2019 by MC Prussian

[Captain...]

36 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Choosing and picking.

Half of these 1'500 deaths were elderly above 75 years of age.

https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/meteo/les-canicules-de-l-ete-2019-ont-fait-1500-morts-en-france-soit-10-fois-moins-qu-en-2003_2096563.html

In 2003, sixteen years prior, France saw around 15'000 deaths in between August 4th and 18th. In total, there were 19'500 deaths that summer.

How does that fit your argument?

 

France for example has seen a variety of heatwaves since the 40ies, with 2003 being the most extreme one so far:

http://www.meteo-centre.fr/blog/les-episodes-de-canicule-historiques-en-france/

So, nothing that uncommon for France when you look back about 75 years.

 

 

28 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Yeah, it has always done in one way or another, since the dawn of time.

But that's no argument. Climate change happens, and people die from it. We can't stop or reverse climate change, that's against nature. That'd be ludicrous.

But we can adapt and obviate.

 

The 2003 heatwave was an exceptional occurrence, the hottest summer since 1540. France was hit the hardest due to a number of factors: They had no plan/no clue how to deal with such an emergency, air conditioning was a rarity, you had social isolation of the elderly, it was the holidays and less doctors available, then there's the issue with the 35-hour working week:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave

 

This is what I don't understand you seem to be trying to argue with me but you are agreeing with me. Matt said that climate change isn't killing people I'm saying it is, and saying it killed more in 2003 just backs up my point. You have both agreed that man made climate change is a thing and both agreed that extreme weather kills people.

 

I agree that we need to react to climate change, but I don't think kitting out all of Western Europe with air conditioning is the answer.

[Manwell Pablo]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

You see, I can get this argument about people being affronted about being told what to do in a condescending fashion (and right, it is condescending at times, I'll freely admit that) and so the argument really does need to be framed better...but on the other hand, is "fvck you I won't do what you tell me because of tone" really a good argument for inadvertently allowing the possible future collapse of civilisation to happen - as farfetched as that might seem right now?

 

No of course not but it’s the natural reaction isn’t it and you won’t change that.

 

It it is frustrating, if some arguments were put across in a better fashion rather than the unappealing, we are angry we are right and you will listen way they are we would probably not have quite so many people swinging the other way to try and counter balance it.

[MC Prussian]

16 minutes ago, Captain... said:

This is what I don't understand you seem to be trying to argue with me but you are agreeing with me. Matt said that climate change isn't killing people I'm saying it is, and saying it killed more in 2003 just backs up my point. You have both agreed that man made climate change is a thing and both agreed that extreme weather kills people.

 

I agree that we need to react to climate change, but I don't think kitting out all of Western Europe with air conditioning is the answer.

Where we agree is that Climate Change exists. It's only natural.

Where we agree is that people die. Every single year. It's only natural.

Whether these people die because of Climate Change or not is the debate here - and how much can be attributed to man-made influence and how much of it is down to natural occurrences (the planet itself with its natural cycles, the sun).

The heatwaves we've seen in the past are a bit erratic, don't you think? I mean, mankind has seen consecutive hot summers before, and we've survived:

There hasn't been a single period in Earth's history of global warming without a global cooling, so that's something we'll have to expect also. How will we react then and how imminent is it?

 

What we can do is invest in research and better, more energy-efficient technology and see global warming as a chance (global greening), as plants thrive on CO2. I have my doubts about renewable energy sources, as they aren't efficient enough to cover the global energy needs at present. We have to adapt and we will adapt.

[MC Prussian]

Back to Extinction Rebellion:

Can't give an answer to straight questions, only focuses on buzzwords and doomsday scenarios, appeals to emotions instead of intellect. This is what we're dealing with here.

Fail.

[UniFox21]

Sad thing is, those in power twist the rebellion to suit their needs. It changes from climate protesters to something about smelly people invading London 

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, Captain... said:

This is what I don't understand you seem to be trying to argue with me but you are agreeing with me. Matt said that climate change isn't killing people I'm saying it is, and saying it killed more in 2003 just backs up my point. You have both agreed that man made climate change is a thing and both agreed that extreme weather kills people.

 

I agree that we need to react to climate change, but I don't think kitting out all of Western Europe with air conditioning is the answer.

According to the Andrew Neil show tonight 100 years ago 500,000 a year died from weather related disasters, it's now 20,000 a year - a reduction of 95%.

 

Stop scaring people, especially children.

[Captain...]

2 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Where we agree is that Climate Change exists. It's only natural.

Where we agree is that people die. Every single year. It's only natural.

Whether these people die because of Climate Change or not is the debate here - and how much can be attributed to man-made influence and how much of it is down to natural occurrences (the planet itself with its natural cycles, the sun).

The heatwaves we've seen in the past are a bit erratic, don't you think? I mean, mankind has seen consecutive hot summers before, and we've survived:

There hasn't been a single period in Earth's history of global warming without a global cooling, so that's something we'll have to expect also. How will we react then and how imminent is it?

 

What we can do is invest in research and better, more energy-efficient technology and see global warming as a chance (global greening), as plants thrive on CO2. I have my doubts about renewable energy sources, as they aren't efficient enough to cover the global energy needs at present. We have to adapt and we will adapt.

So you are a climate change denier, someone who denies that climate change is man made or at least influenced by man. 

 

Yes climate change occurs naturally, but that doesn't mean we can't influence it, accelerate it, exacerbate it and also delay it and possibly prevent it. 

 

If this is completely 100% natural and there is nothing we can do about it, we should still be looking to reduce air pollution, contamination of seas and rivers and creating a better world to live in.

[Captain...]

19 minutes ago, MattP said:

According to the Andrew Neil show tonight 100 years ago 500,000 a year died from weather related disasters, it's now 20,000 a year - a reduction of 95%.

 

Stop scaring people, especially children.

100 years ago it was a very different time and we are better able to predict extreme weather and prepare for it. We have made huge technological advances and learned a lot, yet modern developed countries with all the technology and knowledge available still can't protect their citizens from extreme weather.

 

But you are an intelligent person and you know that again for some reason you just want to argue.

[MC Prussian]

19 minutes ago, Captain... said:

So you are a climate change denier, someone who denies that climate change is man made or at least influenced by man. 

 

Yes climate change occurs naturally, but that doesn't mean we can't influence it, accelerate it, exacerbate it and also delay it and possibly prevent it. 

 

If this is completely 100% natural and there is nothing we can do about it, we should still be looking to reduce air pollution, contamination of seas and rivers and creating a better world to live in.

Erm. No.

 

I think your misconception here is based on a different understanding of what "climate change" means. There's this fundamental tendency to change the meaning of words for some strange reason. Or you didn't really get what I was saying and have been saying for a while now.

 

Denouncing the hysteria surrounding climate change activism or not blindly believing a one-sided argumentation does not make one a climate change denier.

Rather, it's called skepticism.

The basis of science.

I've said it before and I'll gladly saying it again. Climate changes. With or without us. Anyone denying that is out of his or her mind.

 

Sure, I'm all in for a reduction in air pollution, cleansing of the seas, promoting technology and advances in general. That doesn't mean one cannot simultaneously question the doomsday scenarios we're fed on a daily basis and the questionable methods used to promote climate change agendas - after all, we're talking prediction and computer models here. No one can foresee what the climate will look like in another ten, hundred or thousand years.

 

I'm interested, how should we go on about "preventing climate change" exactly? Because I do hope I've understood you correctly here.

[Guest MattP]

Here's the full interview, Brillo on form with facts and the ER representative having no solutions and only emotion.

 

 

[Carl the Llama]

4 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Vote for the right people.

Support or join consumer initiatives.

Start your own aid program, so you know where your money is going.

Vote with your wallet.

 

To name a few.

Remind me how the protest against the 'liberal elite' by voting for the 'right' guys is going?

[MC Prussian]

35 minutes ago, Captain... said:

100 years ago it was a very different time and we are better able to predict extreme weather and prepare for it. We have made huge technological advances and learned a lot, yet modern developed countries with all the technology and knowledge available still can't protect their citizens from extreme weather.

 

But you are an intelligent person and you know that again for some reason you just want to argue.

Yes, we have made progress in predicting weather, warning of it and withstanding it. But... if we're talking numbers, then consider this:

Population has increased from slightly below 2 billion people a hundred years ago to close to 8 billion people today.

In comparison, 500'000 out of 2 billion (2'000'000'000; 0,025%) is even more impressive when put against 20'000 out of 8 billion (8'000'000'000; 0,00625%).

That puts everything into perspective.

 

This may sound fatalistic or harsh, but you cannot and will never be able to protect all people from dying from extreme weather. There will always be the unfortunate ones.

 

But we do recover and prosper regardless - Bangladesh, for instance, was hit by the devastating Bhola cyclone in 1970. It killed 500'000+ people. Bangladesh's population growth from 1970 to 1971 was +1.37 million (65.05 to 66.42 million) people.

Edited 9 October 2019 by MC Prussian