Jump to content

Climate change seen as top threat, but U.S. power a growing worry - poll


webfact

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

And I know soooo many baby boomers who have sad and pathetic lives. They just want to hark back to an era that was never that great unless you were white and middle/upper class. The facts do not bear out your or their argument but you just want to moan, moan, moan about “we didn’t have to lock our doors, and back in my day things were sooo much better ‘cos everyone loved each other blah, blah, blah. Talk about rose tinted glasses. 

You seem to overlook ( ? intentionally ) that their lives WERE better. Just because it was <deleted> for some other ethnicities/ classes does not change that.

I could go on for hours how life was better then ( for me ), and why modern life sucks, but what would be the point?

BTW, life is still <deleted> for most people on the planet.

 

everyone loved each other

LOL. They didn't at all. Some people were really horrible and nasty, but that hasn't changed an iota. Some people are still horrible and nasty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 267
  • Created
  • Last Reply
8 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I cannot believe there are people who still peddle this crap. The Larsen Ice shelf and Greenland Ice Cap are melting at unprecedented rates. The flow of water from the Tibetan plateau glaciers will be halved by 2050, affecting millions who depend on major rivers like the Ganges and Mekong. We continue to pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as if the Second Law of Thermodynamics has been suspended.

Not that I expect you to understand this, as you are depriving a village somewhere.

Top Dead Senter? More like Lowest Common Denominator.

Every species that ever existed is exterminated if it can't adapt to environmental changes. What makes anyone think humanity is different?

If humans have overpopulated themselves to the point there isn't enough water, who is to blame, humans or nature? If we continue to pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as if the Second Law of Thermodynamics has been suspended who is to blame, humans or nature? 

If anyone in power actually cared, they'd be doing something realistic about it, but all they do is garbage like banning plastic bags in supermarkets, ignoring that almost every thing in the supermarket is wrapped in plastic.

I doubt if many understand this as they continue to reproduce at a rate that can only cause disaster, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Lacessit said:

These guys are talking about defects in modelling. They're right. However, the only part of my post which is a model is the Tibetan Plateau. The Larsen Ice Shelf and Greenland Ice Cap are facts happening NOW.

They ain't facts till they happen. The rate of melting or whatever may be increasing, but that doesn't mean they WILL collapse.

In the meantime, have you noticed governments doing anything to prepare for a possible sea level rise? Where I live they are doing ZERO, and still allowing houses to be built where they will be awash if it happens.

That leads to the question- do governments know that it's not going to happen, or are they just completely and utterly incompetent?

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, stevenl said:

Sometimes impopular measures are necessary for the general good. It is not all about approval ratings.

Doing unpopular stuff gets governments sacked at elections. Unless one is advocating world dictatorship nothing is going to change. At a wild guess, most politicians care more about getting re elected than they do about the "general good". Certainly, the government where I live doesn't do much for the "general good" of anyone other than rich people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Your opinion that nothing can be done about climate change is also in direct contradiction to the scientific consensus.

 

On a wide range of environment topics you consistently post arguments against tackling environmental damage; views on climate change that contradict the scientific consensus being an example.

 

So let me ask you:

 

Taking action to reduce pollution, protect the environment, protect wild life and wild life habitats.

 

These are the core of environmentalism.

 

What is your argument against taking these actions?

Obviously you know less about me than you think you do.

I have often advocated on TVF for "Taking action to reduce pollution, protect the environment, protect wild life and wild life habitats."

 

Your opinion that nothing can be done about climate change is also in direct contradiction to the scientific consensus.

Sooooo, why is nothing being done that would ACTUALLY mitigate climate change? Fossil fuelled cars are sold by the millions and governments everywhere are looking to INCREASE air travel. Unless they actually DO SOMETHING, it's all just waffle and hot air. I do not classify putting up more windmills as a realistic solution when the amount of electric powered objects is increasing at a rate that exceeds the ability of air or solar to power.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, stevenl said:

No, my statement turns out exactly as it should be and has been for a long time: the elected politicians do their job and ignore the approval ratings

and which politicians do you know that would ignore approval ratings? I know of none.

 

Even if one such were to emerge from the political swamp, they'd be gone at the next election, if the voters didn't like what they did.

Churchill saved the free world from Nazism and got booted as soon as peace arrived. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lacessit said:

The black/brown outs are caused by imperfect marketing of excess energy between the states. It's not a matter of insufficient generation.

Eventually, battery storage by individual households will push the power companies into hiking prices to consumers who can least afford it. Plus the fact we export gas that should be kept in Australia to meet our own demand. Meanwhile, idiots like Morrison wave a lump of coal around in Parliament.

Anything that produces heat (HVAC, kitchen oven, or freezer) will need a shit load of batteries to supply the loads that those appliances use.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and which politicians do you know that would ignore approval ratings? I know of none.

 

Even if one such were to emerge from the political swamp, they'd be gone at the next election, if the voters didn't like what they did.

Churchill saved the free world from Nazism and got booted as soon as peace arrived. 

Agree 100%. For politicians votes during elections are the only "approval ratings" that they care about. If they ignore negative approval ratings prior to the election, the number of votes they receive will likely not be enough to stay in office.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Agree 100%. For politicians votes during elections are the only "approval ratings" that they care about. If they ignore negative approval ratings prior to the election, the number of votes they receive will likely not be enough to stay in office.   

At the moment in the extreme, which is a very, very sad state of affairs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Seriously? They defeated Germany, but far from "clearing up", went on to cause world wide chaos and disaster. Their environmental record is appalling.

i was NOT referring to their environmental impact in any way, the war in Europe was the war with Russia the rest was a sideshow

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Every species that ever existed is exterminated if it can't adapt to environmental changes. What makes anyone think humanity is different?

If humans have overpopulated themselves to the point there isn't enough water, who is to blame, humans or nature? If we continue to pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as if the Second Law of Thermodynamics has been suspended who is to blame, humans or nature? 

If anyone in power actually cared, they'd be doing something realistic about it, but all they do is garbage like banning plastic bags in supermarkets, ignoring that almost every thing in the supermarket is wrapped in plastic.

I doubt if many understand this as they continue to reproduce at a rate that can only cause disaster, IMO.

I didnt reproduce.................some may say thats a good  thing🙄

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Lacessit said:

These guys are talking about defects in modelling. They're right. However, the only part of my post which is a model is the Tibetan Plateau. The Larsen Ice Shelf and Greenland Ice Cap are facts happening NOW.

Nobody is disputing your facts, only the conclusions to be drawn from them. Maybe you need to revisit the video.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...