Jump to content

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


webfact

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

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.

Thanks for confirming my point.

We all know your generation is just stuck in the past with a universal idea that 'modern life sucks'. It actually doesn't but it does mean you just have to get out of your rut and at least try and find the joy. There's plenty there if you take a moment to look.

In the meantime, try and stop dragging everyone else down with you. We know you're unhappy and angry; but there's only really one person to blame for that now isn't there?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 267
  • Created
  • Last Reply
10 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Windmills kill large numbers of birds, or so I've been informed, and I have no reason to doubt that they do. They are also visually unpleasant and many don't like them where they live ( but they still want electricity ).

Solar has been around for decades. If it was so great it'd be more common than it is. I'd like to see governments mandate solar on every new roof, but seems there are reasons not to.

The two real alternatives are wave and nuclear. Wave power seems to be a non starter and nuclear is unpopular for many reasons, some of which are irrational. France has been using nuclear for decades, quite safely.

However, the biggest user of fossil fuels is transportation, and till an alternative can work as efficiently as a fossil fuelled vehicle without costing any more it's not going to happen.

Hydrogen. That's the future fuel of transportation. Split water with solar electricity, then combine with nitrogen to form ammonia. Transport liquid ammonia to anywhere in the world, then reconstitute as hydrogen using membrane technology. It's already been demonstrated by CSIRO on a pilot scale, and the Chinese are salivating.

Nuclear power can be made intrinsically safe using thorium -based reactors. However, it seems there is too much capital tied up in current reactors for that to happen yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take hope in the collective mindset of the oririentals. Individualism had had its day. Now we're facing problems that cannot be solved individuslly. Still, I do my best - I live by this rule, if everyone did as I do would the world be a better place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, nausea said:

I take hope in the collective mindset of the oririentals. Individualism had had its day.

That's exactly the collectivist philosophy that drove the Soviet Union, Pol Pot's Cambodia and Maoist China. 

 

Kulaks vs peasants, new people versus base people, proletarian versus bourgeoisie.

 

Quote

... if everyone did as I do would the world be a better place.

Well, not if you're one of the hundreds of millions of corpses piled up as a result of the philosophy you espouse.

 

The only alternative to individualism is group identity politics, and the 20th century has demonstrated, beyond any doubt, that that is the fastest and surest road to hell on earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are sometimes both positives and negatives on both sides of a situation involving differences of opinion.

 

One can argue endlessly about the significance of the role of CO2 emissions in the current warming. The often quoted 97% consensus among scientists working in the various disciplines related to climate, that CO2 is the main driver of the current global warming which will eventually be very bad for us, is a political ploy which is necessary in order to motivate investment in alternative sources of energy.

 

Imagine what would happen if the media were to give more air to intelligent discussions highlighting the uncertainty surrounding the causes of changes in climate, because of the chaotic and very complex nature of weather and climate, the influence and interaction of so many different factors, and the long time scales involved before a continuous, global, trend can be identified.

 

Political action would be impossible in a democracy with such uncertainty, so let's assume that at least some progress towards more efficient renewables will continue, and let's consider the positives and negatives.

 

As the poor, undeveloped part of world, continues to develop economically, as China and India have been doing, there would come a time, eventually, when fossil fuel reserves would dwindle and become much more expensive as extraction costs rise. This could cause a truly catastrophic, world-wide economic collapse if the world became too reliant upon fossil fuels.

 

Creating a viable and reliable alternative to fossil fuels is actually very sensible, and even though I'm very skeptical about the claimed dangers of current CO2 emissions, I'm all in favour of developing alternative and additional sources of energy because I understand that reliable supplies of energy are a fundamental requirement for all economic development. The more energy, the better, and the cheaper the energy, the better, provided it is at least reasonably clean and doesn't cause excessive environmental damage and pollution.

 

The environmental pollution caused by coal-fired power plants can be very harmful to human health when old-fashioned and cheap power plants are used without adequate emission controls, as has happened in China and India in the interests of economic development.

 

However, modern coal-fired power plants, known as HELE (high energy low emissions) are much cleaner than the old technology and emit insignificant amounts of the real pollutants, such as Sulphur Dioxide, Heavy Metals, and Particulate Carbon. However, they still emit significant amounts of CO2, although in reduced quantities for the same amount of energy, because they burn the coal more efficiently.

 

Without the CO2 scare, coal would continue to be popular and all the old coal-fired power plants would gradually be replaced with modern Ultra-Supercritical power plants providing cheap and reliable energy with much lower emissions of the real pollutants that are a health concern. 

 

However, by promoting the false concept that CO2 is a pollutant, countries such as Australia are not replacing the old, inefficient power plants with the new technology, and electricity prices continue to rise, with frequent power outages when consumption is high due to heat waves, when everyone turns on their air-conditioning.

 

Nevertheless, if (or when) there is a major breakthrough in the development of battery storage, resulting in cheap, reliable and durable batteries that don't require that limited resource of Lithium (which also can cause environmental damage in its mining), the reliance upon fossil fuels as a back-up, when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow, might not be necessary.

 

In 10, 20 or 30 years time, when it might become obvious we are heading into another Little Ice Age, and the media and politicians start admitting that the climate change alarmists got it wrong and that CO2 levels are not the driving force behind climate change, we can then start using fossil fuels again, together with our advanced solar power and battery storage, to produce massive amounts of cheap energy so that we can build the dams, long water pipes, desalination plants, and sturdy homes and infrastructure to protect ourselves from the extreme weather events which we then understand are not caused by increased CO2 levels.

 

Unfortunately, in the meantime, there will continue to be disasters from extreme weather events, and loss of life, because we aren't spending nearly enough money (energy) to address the problem, and instead are kidding ourselves that reducing CO2 emissions will fix the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the people that posted about the seriousness of Global Climate Change were serious about what they believe the effects will be why not advocate war with China and India to meaningfully reduce CO2 going into the atmosphere? The various climate accords are feel good, do nothing pieces of paper that would likely not even measurably change the trajectory of the earths temperature. So get serious about this problem or be quiet and adapt to the changing climate like all successful species have done throughout history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

There are sometimes both positives and negatives on both sides of a situation involving differences of opinion.

 

One can argue endlessly about the significance of the role of CO2 emissions in the current warming. The often quoted 97% consensus among scientists working in the various disciplines related to climate, that CO2 is the main driver of the current global warming which will eventually be very bad for us, is a political ploy which is necessary in order to motivate investment in alternative sources of energy.

 

Imagine what would happen if the media were to give more air to intelligent discussions highlighting the uncertainty surrounding the causes of changes in climate, because of the chaotic and very complex nature of weather and climate, the influence and interaction of so many different factors, and the long time scales involved before a continuous, global, trend can be identified.

 

Political action would be impossible in a democracy with such uncertainty, so let's assume that at least some progress towards more efficient renewables will continue, and let's consider the positives and negatives.

 

As the poor, undeveloped part of world, continues to develop economically, as China and India have been doing, there would come a time, eventually, when fossil fuel reserves would dwindle and become much more expensive as extraction costs rise. This could cause a truly catastrophic, world-wide economic collapse if the world became too reliant upon fossil fuels.

 

Creating a viable and reliable alternative to fossil fuels is actually very sensible, and even though I'm very skeptical about the claimed dangers of current CO2 emissions, I'm all in favour of developing alternative and additional sources of energy because I understand that reliable supplies of energy are a fundamental requirement for all economic development. The more energy, the better, and the cheaper the energy, the better, provided it is at least reasonably clean and doesn't cause excessive environmental damage and pollution.

 

The environmental pollution caused by coal-fired power plants can be very harmful to human health when old-fashioned and cheap power plants are used without adequate emission controls, as has happened in China and India in the interests of economic development.

 

However, modern coal-fired power plants, known as HELE (high energy low emissions) are much cleaner than the old technology and emit insignificant amounts of the real pollutants, such as Sulphur Dioxide, Heavy Metals, and Particulate Carbon. However, they still emit significant amounts of CO2, although in reduced quantities for the same amount of energy, because they burn the coal more efficiently.

 

Without the CO2 scare, coal would continue to be popular and all the old coal-fired power plants would gradually be replaced with modern Ultra-Supercritical power plants providing cheap and reliable energy with much lower emissions of the real pollutants that are a health concern. 

 

However, by promoting the false concept that CO2 is a pollutant, countries such as Australia are not replacing the old, inefficient power plants with the new technology, and electricity prices continue to rise, with frequent power outages when consumption is high due to heat waves, when everyone turns on their air-conditioning.

 

Nevertheless, if (or when) there is a major breakthrough in the development of battery storage, resulting in cheap, reliable and durable batteries that don't require that limited resource of Lithium (which also can cause environmental damage in its mining), the reliance upon fossil fuels as a back-up, when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow, might not be necessary.

 

In 10, 20 or 30 years time, when it might become obvious we are heading into another Little Ice Age, and the media and politicians start admitting that the climate change alarmists got it wrong and that CO2 levels are not the driving force behind climate change, we can then start using fossil fuels again, together with our advanced solar power and battery storage, to produce massive amounts of cheap energy so that we can build the dams, long water pipes, desalination plants, and sturdy homes and infrastructure to protect ourselves from the extreme weather events which we then understand are not caused by increased CO2 levels.

 

Unfortunately, in the meantime, there will continue to be disasters from extreme weather events, and loss of life, because we aren't spending nearly enough money (energy) to address the problem, and instead are kidding ourselves that reducing CO2 emissions will fix the problem.

"One can argue endlessly about the significance of the role of CO2 emissions in the current warming. "

No, reasonable thinking people can not, only manmade global warming deniers want to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

"One can argue endlessly about the significance of the role of CO2 emissions in the current warming. "

No, reasonable thinking people can not, only manmade global warming deniers want to.

That demonstrates precisely why you are part of the problem, not the solution.

 

Reasonable people understand that CO2 can and most likely does play a role in warming the atmosphere.

 

The significance of that role in warming, including the uncertainty in the computer models, whether the CO2/temperature relation is linear or logarithmic, the relative strength of natural climate phenomena, are all matters that should be thoroughly aired by "reasonable people."

 

But you'd rather just throw around silly slurs like "deniers".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

There are sometimes both positives and negatives on both sides of a situation involving differences of opinion.

 

One can argue endlessly about the significance of the role of CO2 emissions in the current warming. The often quoted 97% consensus among scientists working in the various disciplines related to climate, that CO2 is the main driver of the current global warming which will eventually be very bad for us, is a political ploy which is necessary in order to motivate investment in alternative sources of energy.

 

Imagine what would happen if the media were to give more air to intelligent discussions highlighting the uncertainty surrounding the causes of changes in climate, because of the chaotic and very complex nature of weather and climate, the influence and interaction of so many different factors, and the long time scales involved before a continuous, global, trend can be identified.

 

Political action would be impossible in a democracy with such uncertainty, so let's assume that at least some progress towards more efficient renewables will continue, and let's consider the positives and negatives.

 

As the poor, undeveloped part of world, continues to develop economically, as China and India have been doing, there would come a time, eventually, when fossil fuel reserves would dwindle and become much more expensive as extraction costs rise. This could cause a truly catastrophic, world-wide economic collapse if the world became too reliant upon fossil fuels.

 

Creating a viable and reliable alternative to fossil fuels is actually very sensible, and even though I'm very skeptical about the claimed dangers of current CO2 emissions, I'm all in favour of developing alternative and additional sources of energy because I understand that reliable supplies of energy are a fundamental requirement for all economic development. The more energy, the better, and the cheaper the energy, the better, provided it is at least reasonably clean and doesn't cause excessive environmental damage and pollution.

 

The environmental pollution caused by coal-fired power plants can be very harmful to human health when old-fashioned and cheap power plants are used without adequate emission controls, as has happened in China and India in the interests of economic development.

 

However, modern coal-fired power plants, known as HELE (high energy low emissions) are much cleaner than the old technology and emit insignificant amounts of the real pollutants, such as Sulphur Dioxide, Heavy Metals, and Particulate Carbon. However, they still emit significant amounts of CO2, although in reduced quantities for the same amount of energy, because they burn the coal more efficiently.

 

Without the CO2 scare, coal would continue to be popular and all the old coal-fired power plants would gradually be replaced with modern Ultra-Supercritical power plants providing cheap and reliable energy with much lower emissions of the real pollutants that are a health concern. 

 

However, by promoting the false concept that CO2 is a pollutant, countries such as Australia are not replacing the old, inefficient power plants with the new technology, and electricity prices continue to rise, with frequent power outages when consumption is high due to heat waves, when everyone turns on their air-conditioning.

 

Nevertheless, if (or when) there is a major breakthrough in the development of battery storage, resulting in cheap, reliable and durable batteries that don't require that limited resource of Lithium (which also can cause environmental damage in its mining), the reliance upon fossil fuels as a back-up, when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow, might not be necessary.

 

In 10, 20 or 30 years time, when it might become obvious we are heading into another Little Ice Age, and the media and politicians start admitting that the climate change alarmists got it wrong and that CO2 levels are not the driving force behind climate change, we can then start using fossil fuels again, together with our advanced solar power and battery storage, to produce massive amounts of cheap energy so that we can build the dams, long water pipes, desalination plants, and sturdy homes and infrastructure to protect ourselves from the extreme weather events which we then understand are not caused by increased CO2 levels.

 

Unfortunately, in the meantime, there will continue to be disasters from extreme weather events, and loss of life, because we aren't spending nearly enough money (energy) to address the problem, and instead are kidding ourselves that reducing CO2 emissions will fix the problem.

Where to start?!

 

Yes “One can argue endlessly about the significance of the role of CO2 emissions in the current warming.”

 

But please do at least have the scientific evidence to back up your arguments.

 

So you would have us believe the 90% consensus amongst scientists is ‘a political ploy’. Perhaps you should examine the 3%.

 

‘Ultra-supercritical’ relates to the steam cycle, not the chemistry of combustion.

 

Man made CO2 is a pollutant.

 

Please provide the evidence for your prediction of another mini

iceage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

That demonstrates precisely why you are part of the problem, not the solution.

 

Reasonable people understand that CO2 can and most likely does play a role in warming the atmosphere.

 

The significance of that role in warming, including the uncertainty in the computer models, whether the CO2/temperature relation is linear or logarithmic, the relative strength of natural climate phenomena, are all matters that should be thoroughly aired by "reasonable people."

 

But you'd rather just throw around silly slurs like "deniers".

The people supporting fixing the problem are accused of being part of the problem by a guy who denies the problem exists.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The people supporting fixing the problem are accused of being part of the problem by a guy who denies the problem exists.

 

 

You appear to be talking to someone whose views bears no resemblance to mine whatever.

 

The best science and economics say that extreme global warming could indeed be a problem in future, and so that's the position I stand behind.

 

What I don't believe is:

 

a) The problem is anything like as severe or urgent as the hysterical media tries to make out

b ) Trying to shut down debate using words like "deniers" is of any use whatever in solving the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

That demonstrates precisely why you are part of the problem, not the solution.

 

Reasonable people understand that CO2 can and most likely does play a role in warming the atmosphere.

 

The significance of that role in warming, including the uncertainty in the computer models, whether the CO2/temperature relation is linear or logarithmic, the relative strength of natural climate phenomena, are all matters that should be thoroughly aired by "reasonable people."

 

But you'd rather just throw around silly slurs like "deniers".

So 'denier' is a silly slur and 'you are part of the problem' is totally acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So 'denier' is a silly slur and 'you are part of the problem' is totally acceptable.

"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 comment
Share on other sites

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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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...