Jane Fonda, Joaquin Phoenix join climate protesters outside U.S. Congress

[Skallywag]

"A person has already been born who will die because of catastrophic failure of the planet."

Protesting now against climate change is akin to "shutting the barn door after the horse got out"

Enjoy your time on this earth people...  Peace

"

[Skallywag]

The planet isn't going anywhere - we are.  

 

 

[Chazar]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Bye? Are you taking a trip?

As  long as hes  not  flying driving etc  he'll  be just fine

[Jingthing]

29 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

Fonda and Phoenix ? Just the thought of it makes me feel ill. Pass the vomit bucket..

Yeah they trigger a lot of people but that's irrelevant to the actual issues they're talking about. You get that, right?

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, mokwit said:

I would have thought it should be abundantly clear that I was actually making the point that things are not 100% clear in the face of your suggestions that the science behind theories of HIV, smoking and climate change is 100%. There is no point in continuing with you, you have the inability to have a rational argument.

I don't think your POV is rational. We do have overwhelming scientific consensus that the global climate crisis is real. You cling to outliers. Why? So you won't need to care and if it finally becomes clear in your lifetime that you were wrong, you can just say oops I'm sorry? The rational thing is to support actions that either reverse this situation (if possible which as I've said I'm not sure that it is by now) or adapt to the impacts we are ALREADY seeing in abundance. But not for you to face this. Your call. Happy you won't be replying further. 

[mokwit]

8 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I don't think your POV is rational. We do have overwhelming scientific consensus that the global climate crisis is real. You cling to outliers. Why? So you won't need to care and if it finally becomes clear in your lifetime that you were wrong, you can just say oops I'm sorry? The rational thing is to support actions that either reverse this situation (if possible which as I've said I'm not sure that it is by now) or adapt to the impacts we are ALREADY seeing in abundance. But not for you to face this. Your call. Happy you won't be replying further. 

Thought I'd make an exception. I am accepting that there seem to be material changes to the climate, but I don't accept there is an overwhelming consensus that it is caused by humans. When I was growing up the overwhelming scientific consensus was that we were headed for another ICE AGE - the science was settled. I cited the much quoted 97% of climate scientists agree as being a false consensus and I made the point that in my experience science things are never as certain as laymen think. As for what we do I said maybe the thing to do is 'act as if' but as someone pointed out the reality of that is massive change.

 

As for MY POV not being rational.....................

 

I estimate you as being in your 50's or above which means you have been through a number of cycles of impending disaster, ice ages, ozone layers - there is always something. Can you not draw conclusions from this?

Edited January 12, 2020 by mokwit

[Chazar]

22 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

or adapt

or  die, those  who adapt  keep on thriving...........adapt to a warmer  world,, but dont  hold  your breath as next the ice age WILL be back at some  point, then what? start  pumping out C02.

Meanwhile all those   islands I was promised to disappear Maldives, Tuvalu etc ....havent,  in fact a Nature report says they are increasing in size.

[mokwit]

6 minutes ago, Chazar said:

next the ice age WILL be back at some  point, then what? start  pumping out C02.

It seems we managed to avert the one they said was coming in the '70's/'80's. There was overwhelming scientific consensus - the science was settled. Obviously we pumped out enough C02 to avert it, but must have overshot the mark and caused warming.

Edited January 12, 2020 by mokwit

[Krataiboy]

16 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Good!

I hope such activism spreads like bush fires in Oz.

Activism my foot. This is showboating and virtue signalling by over-privileged celebs with carbon footprints almost as big as their monstrously-inflated egos.

 

They should lead by example, give up their lavish energy-gobbl;ing lifestyles and adopt the feudal, low-carbon existence they are so eager to inflict on the rest of us.

 

Don't hold your breath.

 

 

[Jingthing]

9 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Activism my foot. This is showboating and virtue signalling by over-privileged celebs with carbon footprints almost as big as their monstrously-inflated egos.

 

They should lead by example, give up their lavish energy-gobbl;ing lifestyles and adopt the feudal, low-carbon existence they are so eager to inflict on the rest of us.

 

Don't hold your breath.

 

 

Again with the reactionary ad hominem attacks. So predictable. So I suppose because the message comes from people you don't like and consider hypocritical it follows that the issues they raise have no merit. 

 

Very logical! 

[Krataiboy]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Again with the reactionary ad hominem attacks. So predictable. So I suppose because the message comes from people you don't like and consider hypocritical it follows that the issues they raise have no merit. 

 

Very logical! 

"Do as I say, not as I do" has never been a convincing way to win anyone over, even to the worthiest of causes, let alone one as debatable as climate change (aka debunked global warming).

 

Unlike you, I am unconvinced by the "science" used  to justify the alarmist stance - or by the notion of "saving the planet" for future generations by denying millions of existing third world inhabitants the cheap energy they need to escape lives of grinding poverty and premature death.

 

Do unto others. . . 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 12, 2020 by Krataiboy

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

"Do as I say, not as I do" has never been a convincing way to win anyone over, even to the worthiest of causes, let alone one as debatable as climate change (aka debunked global warming).

 

Unlike you, I am unconvinced by the "science" used  to justify the alarmist stance - or by the notion of "saving the planet" for future generations by denying millions of existing third world inhabitants the cheap energy they need to escape lives of grinding poverty and premature death.

I

Do unto others. . . 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not buying that as an excuse but if that works for you. 

[Krataiboy]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I'm not buying that as an excuse but if that works for you. 

Reality always works for me. You and your alarmist pals should try it.

[Jingthing]

47 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Reality always works for me. You and your alarmist pals should try it.

Yeah. Right. 

[pikao]

First of all I am NOT a scientist and I do NOT have an opinion on the subject itself (climate change). I just don't know

When this became popular I wanted to know more about the 97.1 % consensus amongst scientists. So I, naively, started a Google search: "how many climate scientists are there worldwide" or "number of climate s....." etc.

First page always shows: 97.1 % consensus, climate change etc. and the Wiki list gives you names of climate scientists over the centuries. Not my question. Anyway, I went a little deeper and came, of course, across the cook et al study and the categories it's based on. If you want to know what it says exactly, look it up yourself. I make it a bit shorter

Categories:

1. Humanity is responsible (more than 50% human influence)

2. Humanity is responsible (without quantification)

3. Implies humans as a cause (without stating it)

4. No position/Uncertain (studies only on climate itself)

5. Implies humans have a minimal impact (proposing)

6. Explicit rejection (without quantification)

7. Explicit rejection (humans are less than 50% responsible)

 

In the end the study was based on 11944 scientific articles. The percentages, numbers and grafics vary somewhat from platform to platform, but they have one thing in common. Cat.4. More about that later

From one website: Numbers of articles that stated

Cat.1     64 = 0.54%

Cat.2     922 = 7,72%

Cat.3     2910 = 24.36%

Cat.4     7970 = 66.73%

Cat.5     54 = 0.45%

Cat.6     15 = 0.13%

Cat.7      9 = 0.08%

 

2 and 3 are overlapping with 5 and 6 and should have been taken out of consideration as they do not say much.

What was taken out is Cat.4 as it tells nothing about human influence. Like an election, non voters are not counted.

Now we have 3896 articles out of 3974 that refer to Cat.1-3 and 78 to Cat.5-7. As said before the numbers vary in studies but here you got the  95+ % (could be 97.1 as aggreed on).

I still do not have an opinon about the matter. I think we should do everything possible to save our planet. Best for us

I do certainly not believe in statistics of any kind....... apart from TAT of course

 

 

[allenberg]

14 hours ago, Sticky Wicket said:

3 billion people live on less than $2.50 per day. Do you think they give a fig about the climate?! They are just trying to survive 

The earth is about 5 billion years old, it will be here a long time after humans have become extinct

The conceited self righteous attitude of these bourgeoisie lefties makes me sick, talking about saving the planet, it doesn't need saving!

 

+1

[allenberg]

12 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Pretty much but Jane Fonda is very triggering for certain people. 

Yes, Jane the Darling of the Viet Cong is still a definite trigger for some of us, but not in a good way.

Edited January 12, 2020 by allenberg

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, allenberg said:

Yes, Jane the Darling of the Viet Cong is still a definite trigger for some of us, but not in a good way.

Move on. 

[JHolmesJr]

Just now, Jingthing said:

Move on. 

is what the cops shoulda told her and wakeen.

[Krataiboy]

59 minutes ago, allenberg said:

+1

The credibility gap between some of the climate change "science" and the reality of what history shows us actually happened has to be seen to be believed.

 

 

[sevenhills]

16 hours ago, Sticky Wicket said:

3 billion people live on less than $2.50 per day. Do you think they give a fig about the climate?! They are just trying to survive 

The earth is about 5 billion years old, it will be here a long time after humans have become extinct

The conceited self righteous attitude of these bourgeoisie lefties makes me sick, talking about saving the planet, it doesn't need saving!

 

It needs saving from the lunitic leftie greenies. and don't get me started on Greta Thunberg.

 

 

[mokwit]

6 hours ago, sevenhills said:

It needs saving from the lunitic leftie greenies. and don't get me started on Greta Thunberg.

 

 

 

[thasoss]

these people are more dangerous than the climate that is changing."meat and dairy industry is the 3rd largest cause,"but we've had both industries for hundreds of years.

[tifino]

Don't Panic! Jane...

 

  Global Warming Climate Alarmists are on the job!