13 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

 

 

Looking at the long term history, it's easy enough to see when life on the planet started to thrive (CO2 fell dramatically as it was captured by the new plants). If we want to, we can do that, but I'd much rather have 1000-1200ppm in the air just to be sure we don't hit the 150ppm in the coming ice age and become extinct because all the plants died.

Actually we are in an Ice Age (The Quaternary), it's just that we are in an interglacial period (The Holocene) which happen a number of times during ice ages which themselves last 10s of millions of years. ACC may well offset the next glacial period, but there are no signs that was going to start next week! However the vast disruption likely to be caused by climate change in the next two hundred years or so is of more significance to us, given our human lifespans.

10 minutes ago, Nigel Garvie said:

 However the vast disruption likely to be caused by climate change in the next two hundred years or so is of more significance to us, given our human lifespans.

I like disruptions, they are good for business. So humans must move around, nothing new there. But yeah I get it somebody who's got a beach hut in Vanuatu might be a bit worried about sea levels. Otherwise, we'll adapt as usual.

1 hour ago, HLover said:

Thunberg stole my time and hope for the future.

I doubt your future is very long.

 

On the upside she may get the nobel simply for showing up trump as a goose.

2 hours ago, DrTuner said:

Better to go paperless. Thai offices could do their part here. However.. I'm not sure which uses more CO2, saplings or large, mature trees. You might want to cut the trees anyway and manufacture something that will not be burned. In Finland where forestry is a well developed industry, they have schedules for harvesting and replanting. Should be standard practice everywhere. Especially the replanting.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/04/planting-billions-trees-best-tackle-climate-crisis-scientists-canopy-emissions

 

This of course makes sense, it's simply beefing up one section of the carbon cycle that enables life on this planet. More CO2 would make the trees grow even faster, but you can only release more by burning fossils and there's the real problem: pollution. CO2 can be sucked back into plants through photosynthesis, which we humans need because it releases the O2 that we breathe. It's all a nice, clever cycle.

 

Looking at the long term history, it's easy enough to see when life on the planet started to thrive (CO2 fell dramatically as it was captured by the new plants). If we want to, we can do that, but I'd much rather have 1000-1200ppm in the air just to be sure we don't hit the 150ppm in the coming ice age and become extinct because all the plants died.

Most paper can and should be recycled. Energy savings and cuts down on waste. 

23 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Most paper can and should be recycled. Energy savings and cuts down on waste. 

Sure, but I'd rather use no paper at all. The Japanese toilets that have the bum gun and fanny drier are the best invention evah.

1 hour ago, DrTuner said:

Sure, but I'd rather use no paper at all. The Japanese toilets that have the bum gun and fanny drier are the best invention evah.

Nothing to do with my post. 

9 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Nothing to do with my post. 

You said paper, I said no paper. The common denominator is "paper".

6 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

You said paper, I said no paper. The common denominator is "paper".

No,

I said there are good reasons to recycle paper.

 

I didn't mention going paperless at all.

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

I doubt your future is very long.

 

On the upside she may get the nobel simply for showing up trump as a goose.

Super, your unoriginal political views disguised as a pun.

 

 

 Humans are to blame. Not for changing the climate, but for failing to accommodate for warming.

The climate record shows warming is to be expected, and also cooling is on the way. Of course we didn't know much about it when a lot of the infrastructure started. Anyhow, if the water does come up. Please move back.

24 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

No,

I said there are good reasons to recycle paper.

 

I didn't mention going paperless at all.

Well it's a good thing I mentioned it then, as it's a superior solution to paper usage.

9 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

Well it's a good thing I mentioned it then, as it's a superior solution to paper usage.

Which has nothing to do with the point i was making.

Wow Greta you have succeeded beyond my wildest expectations holey cow just look at all the responses you have gotten here on tv let alone the whole world everyone’s talking it’s a strong start I’m proud of you as your parents must be keep it up girl wow and only 15 years old!

18 minutes ago, Tug said:

Wow Greta you have succeeded beyond my wildest expectations holey cow just look at all the responses you have gotten here on tv let alone the whole world everyone’s talking it’s a strong start I’m proud of you as your parents must be keep it up girl wow and only 15 years old!

Thanks I haven't laughed this hard in weeks. Keep up the good work.

Off-topic post reported and removed.  

 

If anything she should be awarded an Oscar for the best supporting actress!  Nobel Peace Prize - no way!

 

I think the Peace prize would be fitting. That would prove that this is all just agenda driven nonsense. Which is what the award is for these days.

They should rename it to the globalist puppet prize.

9 hours ago, chokrai said:

Thanks I haven't laughed this hard in weeks. Keep up the good work.

You are a sad sad dude give the kid credit she has certainly got people talking on a very important subject go Greta go!

Actually, this might be a bit out of scope, but it IS interesting considering the claims regarding scientific consensus around AGW (there is no such thing). "There is no climate emergency". That 500 prominent scientists contact UN to tell them that the global warming hysteria is nothing but a hoax, certainly isn't something you'll hear about in the MSM.

https://clintel.nl/prominent-scientists-warn-un-secretary-general-guterres/

6 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Actually, this might be a bit out of scope, but it IS interesting considering the claims regarding scientific consensus around AGW (there is no such thing). "There is no climate emergency". That 500 prominent scientists contact UN to tell them that the global warming hysteria is nothing but a hoax, certainly isn't something you'll hear about in the MSM.

https://clintel.nl/prominent-scientists-warn-un-secretary-general-guterres/

Not only is there no emergency, climate wise we are still heading in the right direction. It's a shame that people are capitalizing on fear to advance their own agendas. CO2 is not an issue, lets start working on actual pollution.

3 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Actually, this might be a bit out of scope, but it IS interesting considering the claims regarding scientific consensus around AGW (there is no such thing). "There is no climate emergency". That 500 prominent scientists contact UN to tell them that the global warming hysteria is nothing but a hoax, certainly isn't something you'll hear about in the MSM.

https://clintel.nl/prominent-scientists-warn-un-secretary-general-guterres/

Few days ago, in my home country too, a group of 200 prominent scientists have made a strong statement against the global warming hysteria.

Today on the news, there is some speculation about the "anti-hysteria scientists" being paid by the oil multi-nationals, so the debate seems pretty much open.

On 10/7/2019 at 2:01 AM, Tug said:

You are a sad sad dude give the kid credit she has certainly got people talking on a very important subject go Greta go!

Swedish teen ‘gave me confidence’, says Lilly, 12, who paddles Bangkok canals picking up rubbish, and convinced a supermarket to stop giving out plastic bags

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Few days ago, in my home country too, a group of 200 prominent scientists have made a strong statement against the global warming hysteria.

Today on the news, there is some speculation about the "anti-hysteria scientists" being paid by the oil multi-nationals, so the debate seems pretty much open.

There are speculations in the news? I think the alarmists have accused scientists for exactly that for more than 30 years. So far I have never seen ONE ounce of proof. But feel free to change my mind by providing some.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Forethat said:

There are speculations in the news?

Perhaps i didn't express myself clearly..

what i mean to say, is that there are speculations on the media, about the scientists of both sides of the debate, being paid to promote their agenda.

... it doesn't surprise me at all tbh.

On 9/27/2019 at 5:50 AM, bristolboy said:

In other words, it doesn't support your contention that "multiple PhDs and Professors from MIT are voicing an opinion in direct contradiction to the climate change hysteria."

 

Yes it does. Professor Carl Wunsch is another MIT Professor who has a completely different view. To make it short, his view is that the high levels of CO2 are caused by an increase in temperature. Not the other way around.

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

Perhaps i didn't express myself clearly..

what i mean to say, is that there are speculations on the media, about the scientists of both sides of the debate, being paid to promote their agenda.

... it doesn't surprise me at all tbh.

Of course. That's just politics.

Go Greta go!

2 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Of course. That's just politics.

Yep, and while we argue about man-made global warming against natural global warming, nothing is done about pollution, which is the real enemy imho.

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Yep, and while we argue about man-made global warming against natural global warming, nothing is done about pollution, which is the real enemy imho.

Plenty of things are being done about pollution.

10 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Yes it does. Professor Carl Wunsch is another MIT Professor who has a completely different view. To make it short, his view is that the high levels of CO2 are caused by an increase in temperature. Not the other way around.

Here is a detailed response by Carl Wunsch to the channel 4 programme that misrepresented his views on climate change. 
 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/