Jump to content

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


webfact

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

"Denier" is a silly slur for several reasons.

 

First, it is a meaningless term, which nobody has defined, and nobody wants to.

 

Second, it has deliberate unpleasant connotations to denial of the Holocaust.

 

Third, that kind of dismissive tribalism is of no value to solving the problems of global warming.

 

So yes, I would say that people who throw the term around are part of the problem.

Second, it has deliberate unpleasant connotations to denial of the Holocaust.”

 

I’d offer you the help you need but as an engineer I’m not qualified to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 267
  • Created
  • Last Reply
6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Second, it has deliberate unpleasant connotations to denial of the Holocaust.”

 

I’d offer you the help you need but as an engineer I’m not qualified to do so.

"Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers." - Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe (2007) 

 

"It reminds me in some ways of the debate taking place in this country and around the world in the late 1930s - there were people - who said 'don't worry! Hitler's not real! It'll disappear!" - Bernie Sanders,  (2010) 

 

"We have Holocaust deniers; we have climate change deniers. And to be honest, I don’t think there’s a great deal of difference."- Bill McGuire, University College London (2006) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

"Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers." - Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe (2007) 

 

"It reminds me in some ways of the debate taking place in this country and around the world in the late 1930s - there were people - who said 'don't worry! Hitler's not real! It'll disappear!" - Bernie Sanders,  (2010) 

 

"We have Holocaust deniers; we have climate change deniers. And to be honest, I don’t think there’s a great deal of difference."- Bill McGuire, University College London (2006) 

You are apparently attracted to hyperbole and seemingly regard it as reasonable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The deniers of climate change are cut from the same cloth as Holocaust deniers. They’ve never been to the death camps, Auschwitz and Birkenau, so what they haven’t seen does not exist." - Charles Larson, American University (2013) 

 

"...the others working to derail this critical piece of legislation will be seen as the Adolph Hitlers of our day, contributing to a holocaust vastly eclipsing the horrors of World War II." - Chad Kister, Environmental Activist (2008) 

 

"Climate deniers are less immoral than Holocaust deniers, although they are undoubtedly more dangerous." - Clive Hamilton, Charles Sturt University (2009) 

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

If you look into how the 97% of scientists agree that manmade CO2 is the cause of global warming you will find out that it is complete and utter crap. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#190854033f9f

About the author: Alex Epstein is founder of the Center for Industrial Progress and author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.

 

So clearly, he has an agenda.  For everyone in the fossil fuel industry/camp, they're about making money.  But for many who just blindly follow Trump....not sure what you're getting out of it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The deniers of climate change are cut from the same cloth as Holocaust deniers. They’ve never been to the death camps, Auschwitz and Birkenau, so what they haven’t seen does not exist."

 

If the icecaps are melting then it stands to reason sea levels will rise. I live on an island and have done so all my life yet have seen no evidence of this happening.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, yogi100 said:

"The deniers of climate change are cut from the same cloth as Holocaust deniers. They’ve never been to the death camps, Auschwitz and Birkenau, so what they haven’t seen does not exist."

 

If the icecaps are melting then it stands to reason sea levels will rise. I live on an island and have done so all my life yet have seen no evidence of this happening.

Since we know you live in the UK your false equivalency doesn't work.

If however you lived on the Solomon Island, The Maldives, Micronesia, Fiji, Tuvalu, The Seychelles, Kiribati, The Cook Islands, French Polynesia or The Marshall Islands who are experiencing the results of rising sea levels and are expected to be under water in the next 20-30 years, then we might listen to you more. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, yogi100 said:

"The deniers of climate change are cut from the same cloth as Holocaust deniers. They’ve never been to the death camps, Auschwitz and Birkenau, so what they haven’t seen does not exist."

 

If the icecaps are melting then it stands to reason sea levels will rise. I live on an island and have done so all my life yet have seen no evidence of this happening.

Also the Uk is NOT immune to rising sea levels as aptly demonstarted in the following articles:

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/uk-wetlands-sea-levels-rise-climate-change-salt-marshes-thames-solent-a8443811.html

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/london-sea-level-rise-sink-global-warming-climate-change-houston-bangkok-a8569276.html

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1072476/sea-levels-england-new-york-antarctica-ice-global-warming-climate-change

 

https://www.itv.com/news/2018-11-26/rising-sea-levels-and-higher-temperatures-threaten-uk-experts-warn/

 

And if you thinkthose are too left wing liberal for you, even that bastion of right wing thought The Daily Mail is warning against it https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6318373/Rising-sea-levels-submerge-1-5million-homes-Britains-coast-2080-experts-warn.html

 

Facts Yogi100. Facts

 

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

Since we know you live in the UK your false equivalency doesn't work.

If however you lived on the Solomon Island, The Maldives, Micronesia, Fiji, Tuvalu, The Seychelles, Kiribati, The Cook Islands, French Polynesia or The Marshall Islands who are experiencing the results of rising sea levels and are expected to be under water in the next 20-30 years, then we might listen to you more. 

I live near the River Thames which is a tidal waterway and if the sea level has risen there are no signs of it in the Thames nor its estuary. I've also spent years sailing on the outer reaches of the Thames.

 

I've also spent holidays and have often visited the seaside towns on the South coast of Britain since the 1950s. There are no signs of rising sea levels there either.  

 

Salt marshes are areas of low lying land that are susceptible to flooding during very high tides that often accompany stormy weather. But that's always been the case, it's not because of steadily rising sea levels. Coastal erosion is also caused by rain and windy weather during storms.

 

Rye in Sussex used to be one of the Cinque Ports it's now 2 miles from the sea. This has occurred naturally and is not connected with any man made coastal defences.

 

Don't take anything too seriously that you read in the Daily Mail. It's notorious for its sensationalist journalism. In this instance it's merely quoting a report.

 

If it told you that Britain could sink under the weight of immigrants the UK has accepted in recent decades would you take that seriously as well.

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

Since we know you live in the UK your false equivalency doesn't work.

If however you lived on the Solomon Island, The Maldives, Micronesia, Fiji, Tuvalu, The Seychelles, Kiribati, The Cook Islands, French Polynesia or The Marshall Islands who are experiencing the results of rising sea levels and are expected to be under water in the next 20-30 years, then we might listen to you more. 

The pacific is atop a mass of geological fault lines that cause earthquakes and instances of both land subsidence and heave. Islands in the Pacific have appeared as well as disappeared in our lifetimes and are expected to continue to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

The pacific is atop a mass of geological fault lines that cause earthquakes and instances of both land subsidence and heave. Islands in the Pacific have appeared as well as disappeared in our lifetimes and are expected to continue to do so.

Yes, true.

 

But what is happening right now is that those islands are at the same height, but the sea water has risen.

Is that really so difficult to comprehend?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yogi100 said:

I live near the River Thames which is a tidal waterway and if the sea level has risen there are no signs of it in the Thames nor its estuary. I've also spent years sailing on the outer reaches of the Thames.

 

I've also spent holidays and have often visited the seaside towns on the South coast of Britain since the 1950s. There are no signs of rising sea levels there either.  

 

Salt marshes are areas of low lying land that are susceptible to flooding during very high tides that often accompany stormy weather. But that's always been the case, it's not because of steadily rising sea levels. Coastal erosion is also caused by rain and windy weather during storms.

 

Rye in Sussex used to be one of the Cinque Ports it's now 2 miles from the sea. This has occurred naturally and is not connected with any man made coastal defences.

 

Don't take anything too seriously that you read in the Daily Mail. It's notorious for its sensationalist journalism. In this instance it's merely quoting a report.

 

If it told you that Britain could sink under the weight of immigrants the UK has accepted in recent decades would you take that seriously as well.

You're 'I can't see it with my own two eyes, therefore it can't be happening' argument is exactly the same argument flat earthers use to dispute the world being round. 
All the articles I quoted (which you obviously haven't bothered to read) say this is happening in very small increments in what appear to be ever decreasing periods of time (0.5 cm per year for example), but what appear to be small increments will turn out to be VERY significant in 30, 40, 50 years time. You'll be long gone by then and therefore probably don't care but for those of us that care about our children and our grandchildren, we put some stock in it.  

And as much as your pearls of wisdom enlighten us on a daily basis, I think I'm going to give this one to the contributors in the articles namely, Professor Ian Shennan from the Geography department at Durham University, Eric Rignot, chair of Earth System Science at the University of California and Professor Jim Hall, head of the UK's Committee on Climate Change. 

I'm guessing they might know a few more things about this than you popping your head out the window and declaring 'looks fine to me!'

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

The pacific is atop a mass of geological fault lines that cause earthquakes and instances of both land subsidence and heave. Islands in the Pacific have appeared as well as disappeared in our lifetimes and are expected to continue to do so.

What nonsense. None of the islands I have mentioned are subsiding. They are all remaining at the same height. The water around them however is rising, hence why they are unlikely to be around much longer. 

The reason why these Pacific islands are quoted extensively is they are seeing the effects of sea level rises sooner than most because they are low lying islands. However this does not negate the fact that so many other places will eventually see the same problems when the levels rise to effect them. From Florida to South Africa, from the East Coast of America to Australia, from the Mediterranean to Alaska and even Bangkok, EVERYWHERE is predicting a host of problems from rising sea levels. It may not happen for decades but it will happen if the ice sheets and glaciers continue to melt and the oceans keep warming at their current pace.

It's not rocket science, but it is environmental science which I'm going to hazard a guess that you are not qualified in.

 

 

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

You're 'I can't see it with my own two eyes, therefore it can't be happening' argument is exactly the same argument flat earthers use to dispute the world being round. 
All the articles I quoted (which you obviously haven't bothered to read) say this is happening in very small increments in what appear to be ever decreasing periods of time (0.5 cm per year for example), but what appear to be small increments will turn out to be VERY significant in 30, 40, 50 years time. You'll be long gone by then and therefore probably don't care but for those of us that care about our children and our grandchildren, we put some stock in it.  

And as much as your pearls of wisdom enlighten us on a daily basis, I think I'm going to give this one to the contributors in the articles namely, Professor Ian Shennan from the Geography department at Durham University, Eric Rignot, chair of Earth System Science at the University of California and Professor Jim Hall, head of the UK's Committee on Climate Change. 

I'm guessing they might know a few more things about this than you popping your head out the window and declaring 'looks fine to me!'

"You'll be long gone by then and therefore probably don't care."

There's no need to be rude. Let's keep it civilised shall we.

 

I prefer to base things upon what I can see for myself and draw my own conclusions rather than what some professor is paid to tell me.

 

You have your view and I have mine. Try addressing people as you would face to face rather than being insulting from behind the screen of a computer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

"You'll be long gone by then and therefore probably don't care."

There's no need to be rude. Let's keep it civilised shall we.

 

I prefer to base things upon what I can see for myself and draw my own conclusions rather than what some professor is paid to tell me.

 

You have your view and I have mine. Try addressing people as you would face to face rather than being insulting from behind the screen of a computer.

"You have your view and I have mine. "

Problem is your views are incorrect. We're not talking opinions but facts here.

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...