On 14 Feb 2019 at 12:58pm Buzzard wrote:
It's not the kids who are taking a day off school for a Climate Strike who need education - it's the adults in power, who are failing to take the robust and immediate actions needed to avert climate disaster and secure humanity's future. Discuss.
Check it out here »
On 14 Feb 2019 at 3:07pm Local wrote:
Good on them, there has been too much arsing around pandering to big business and international capitalism. It kind of horrifies me that climate change was mentioned in manifestos in the 90s.. and then we sat on our hands
On 15 Feb 2019 at 8:32am janet street preacher wrote:
It’s seems the lack of the bedrock of our ecosystem, the insects, will kill us off long before climate change.
On 15 Feb 2019 at 11:25am Buzzard wrote:
It's all interlinked. Climate change is the most high profile of a wide ranging ecological & environmental disaster caused by human activity. The drop in insect numbers is possibly partly linked to climate change and will in turn have all sorts of unforeseen effects.
On 15 Feb 2019 at 5:02pm Sussex Jim wrote:
Children are minors, and should be under parental control. The 1944 Education Act decreed that the state would provide education for all children; and that parents were obliged to send their children to school. In order to receive a basic level of education. Like the NHS and the benefit system, we should appreciate what the state has provided- free for all families.
Schools have every right to fine parents £60 for non-attendance without an unavoidable cause. If their offspring wish to carry out this banner waving stunt, why not do it on places like Cliffe bridge on a Saturday morning? It would have far more effect.
On 15 Feb 2019 at 9:41pm Tom Pain wrote:
A bit of education doesn't go amiss, I remember being told about ice ages. Scotland is still slowly rising after the incredible weight of ice melted at the end of the last glaciation and southern England is sinking like the other end of a seesaw. Isn't it amazing. Ice ages have been followed by warmer periods in endless succession for millions of years. It's getting warmer now and the frozen wilderness that was Sussex is now comfortably habitable. There's a lot of people who like playing God but I don't think even they can stop the planet's immutable cycles. They can of course scare children and credulous adults into supporting carbon taxes, austerity (not for the 1%) and any number of scams to impoverish us and erode our rights. Big business and international capital are right on board ,with the Rockefeller Trust bankrolling environmental organisations. I suppose insecticides haven't got anything to do with wiping out insects, no put it down to global warming everyone will believe you.
On 16 Feb 2019 at 7:50am Green Sleeves wrote:
Climate change denial definitely warrants further education.
On 16 Feb 2019 at 7:11pm Buzzard wrote:
Tom Paine is right that insecticides are likely to be the main cause of insect decline. Habitat destruction is also important, but climate is already changing and is likely to be a factor - possibly also in the appearance of new insects that we might prefer not see here, like disease carrying mosquitoes. His attitude to climate is a bit like someone whose just been told by the Army bomb disposal squad that the field they want to walk across is an uncleared minefield, but takes his kids to play there anyway because he's not one of those credulous people who gets scared by so-called experts.
On 17 Feb 2019 at 9:00pm Tom Pain wrote:
Who's denying climate change? Did I not say-- it's getting warmer now and the frozen wilderness etc? Was there an ice age? Perhaps it's a conspiracy theory I imagined being told at school, maybe you learned something different. What happens after an ice age,does it get colder? I missed out " man made" in global warming but I can't believe you haven't the nous to understand what I'm saying given what preceded it. Here it is again - it's part of a natural cycle, cold makes for glaciation warm melts it and according to science,it's been happening for millions of years.
On 18 Feb 2019 at 8:31am Green Sleeves wrote:
@Tom Pain, you know exactly what is meant and implied by climate change denial and your attempt to try and justify your anti-science position is not uncommon amongst climate change hoaxers. The human race has profoundly impacted climate, this is a matter of scientific fact and consensus as humans significantly raise carbon dioxide levels.
I can sort of understand those with a desire for power and influence by taking a perverse position of denying man made climate change, or perhaps heavily linked to the fossil fuel industry as a cynical and greedy motive....but just can't see why any average person would go along with it. Are you an expert in this field or are you the type who's had "just about enough of so-called experts"?
On 18 Feb 2019 at 9:40pm Tom Pain wrote:
I liked the reference to climate change hoaxers! Were you referring to oil baron Al Gore? Now seriously, I've always had an ecological awareness. I rarely buy new things, drive as little as possible,use as little water as I can and keep as much out of the consumer culture as I can. Virtue Signaller supreme eh! I would definitely have been one of the extinction rebellion kids. Making a virtue out of bunking off school would have been right up my street. Now,as I approach my seventh decade (oh the gravitas), I can see through that plausible little hypocrite. When I finally got to the bottom of the money swindle I could clearly see why I had been suspicious about many other things. The system doesn't work because it's not supposed to. I realized that I would never have heard of environmentalism if Britain had not previously been scheduled for deindustrialization. The elite are very intelligent and always smooth the way for their projects, they are multigenerational and plan for centuries ahead; they have dynasties after all. If you were to investigate the great empire builder Cecil Rhodes you would find that he left his colossal fortune to a Trust dedicated to regaining the American colonies and extending the British empire to encompass the entire world. His successors morphed into the Royal Institute for International Affairs who's members created the United Nations,the World Bank and wrote the constitution for the EU. It's all verifiable and not hidden if you have the will to seek it out. H.G.Wells wrote about it in the Open Conspiracy and the New World Order two short books he published. Climate catastrophe was invented by the Club of Rome a UN think tank. The rest will be history if you bury your head in the sand.
On 19 Feb 2019 at 8:47am bored2 wrote:
Insecticides aside, I'll bite. It's GCSE science mostly behind climate change so try to keep up TP.
You take a sealed tes tube full of air and another full of air with a higher concentration of CO2 and subject them to the same heat source. Turn the heat source off, come back a little later and you will find the tube with higher CO2 is warmer. It retains heat better than pure air, it is an insulator. Guessing you know about insulation and how that works.
So we have wrapped the earth in a nice warm jacket. Link shows how we have pushed CO2 levels far beyond the natural cycles you brought up. This increased average temperature was called global warming until morons decided that if temperature doesn't increase uniformly across the world (i.e. we still get weather) then global warming is a hoax.
Frustrating as that was it pushed our scientists to do more and clarify what is happening because of the average temperature rise. Their conclusions we see in real life. This extra energy stored in our climate as increased levels of evaporated water leads to stronger weather events so more common serious weather events.
Also, higher temperatures melt ice and increase sea levels etc
Check it out here »
On 19 Feb 2019 at 10:45pm Tom Pain wrote:
Thanks for the science lesson,it seems very convincing although I don't understand why co2 levels are higher in winter in the northern hemisphere when they are lower in periods of glaciation historically. I was so bad at the sciences at school that I had to take general science at o level and just scraped through that. Linear thinking's not my bag, man! Basically you could convince me of anything scientific even if it was untrue. My field is the human side of things, living not abstract. I'm more interested in the motives behind facts than the facts themselves because there are always facts that contradict other facts and there are a lot of liars around who will manipulate them for a fat salary in klimate-biz. I'll get back to you about the statistics but how do you explain the green in Greenland?