debate Environmental Thread does anyone care that Amazon Rain Forest is burning down to the ground

[oldtimer]

This is a total catastrophe and failure for the World and humanity at large. There are some things that surpass national boundaries and borders like Human Rights and certain Environmental issues that affect the whole Globe which surely should be of concern to all of us. Whether it’s the Oceans and Rivers that have been polluted or whether it’s our air and soil that have been poisoned, it all has something to do with human activity like the Global Warming and the Melting of the Ice Caps and Glaciers which is going to put many coastal Cities and Communities under water soon. IMO

Everyone’s opinions are welcomed, but keep your comments constructive, professional, and on topic. Personal attacks and belittling of others are not tolerated.

 

[GILSAN]

Boy it looks horrible in those pictures, why do you want to send Greta over there, she won't be able to breathe.

These conditions can have very bad effects on children which might last a lifetime. The United Nations should do something to help those people who are more vulnerable to smog such as young children and the elderly.

IMO

Greta has learnt to Talk the Talk... now she has to Walk the Walk, where it's most needed. I'm sure they'll offer her a mask!

Talk The Talk, Walk The Walk

 

[oldtimer]

Greta has learnt to Talk the Talk... now she has to Walk the Walk, where it's most needed. I'm sure they'll offer her a mask!

Talk The Talk, Walk The Walk

I believe it takes a special kind of mask to filter the smog and harmful gases, perhaps the UN can provide that to those who are the most vulnerable.

I am afraid there might come a day that we all have to wear a mask when we want to go outside.

Another option is to make several huge (the size of a skyscraper) air purification machines around each City. Although the best solution is for everyone to cut down on the smog.

IMO

 

[Blitzpotz]

Did not post a while in this thread being unsure about its true direction.

Here is another opinion, a fresh PR against fake news in the climate debate. LINK

TEXT:

Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) gGmbH
Polarization of society, the rise of populist parties, dissemination of false information ("fake news"); in fear of such consequences, governments often shy away from ambitious climate policy. The mitigation of global warming thus becomes a question of political culture and communication. A study carried out by the Berlin climate research institute MCC (Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change) sheds light on the concrete steps that must be taken to make democratic discourse more efficient and robust. The study was recently published in the renowned journal Moral Philosophy and Politics.

"With targeted reforms, it is quite possible to make people discard their rigid opinions and become less entrenched in the climate debate," says Dominic Lenzi, researcher in the MCC working group Scientific Assessments, Ethics and Public Policy and author of the study. "We deal with innovative formats of exchange of opinions, competition in the media landscape, strategic communication of climate protection measures, financial incentives for citizens and new accents in the education sector."

Unlike standard political discourses, the concept of “deliberation” empowers citizens to form beliefs through an exchange of arguments, based on mutual respect. Deliberative formats such as mini-publics can consider climate change, and propose ambitious climate policies. A frontrunner is Ireland, where a citizens' assembly was set up in 2016 for a period of one and a half years. It consisted of randomly selected ordinary citizens, although it was exactly representative of the general population in terms of age, gender, income and regional origin, and provided some surprising political breakthroughs with ideas that were later adopted by the regular parliament. The British government has also now commissioned deliberation platforms across the country to consider the response to climate change. The MCC researcher advocates that "such formats can significantly reduce polarization in a society".

However, the study concludes that in addition to this, to make rapid progress in climate protection, “nudging” is needed. This means reforms that make information on global warming more accessible, or reward changes in individual behavior. "The state can overdo it and treat its citizens like small children, but there are also forms that are compatible with a culture of deliberative debate," says Lenzi. "The media is a powerful vehicle for climate change nudges. Penalties for the deliberate distribution of fake news are conceivable, as are additional funds for critical reporting in public broadcasting.”

Lenzi thinks it is important that experts with different values have their say on both sides of the debate; “but we should be wary of the presentation of a false balance of opinion, e.g. presenting climate change sceptics as scientific experts.” Sanctions relating to climate-damaging behavior would be an option, especially when misinformation about climate change has been deliberately produced. “And finally, the education system should strengthen the understanding of scientific knowledge processes."

 

[JB Lions]

One of the bigger groups pushing out false information is PragerU - https://www.youtube.com/user/PragerUniversity/search?query=climate

Understand they're funded by fossil fuel companies. Remember when tobacco companies paid off scientists to say smoking isn't harmful.

From Weather.com

A Course in Climate Misinformation
Prager University is not a university. And the facts it preaches aren’t necessarily facts. It is named after someone named Prager, though.
https://features.weather.com/course-climate-misinformation/

 

[GILSAN]

Did not post a while in this thread being unsure about its true direction.

Here is another opinion, a fresh PR against fake news in the climate debate. LINK

TEXT:

Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) gGmbH
Polarization of society, the rise of populist parties, dissemination of false information ("fake news"); in fear of such consequences, governments often shy away from ambitious climate policy. The mitigation of global warming thus becomes a question of political culture and communication. A study carried out by the Berlin climate research institute MCC (Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change) sheds light on the concrete steps that must be taken to make democratic discourse more efficient and robust. The study was recently published in the renowned journal Moral Philosophy and Politics.

"With targeted reforms, it is quite possible to make people discard their rigid opinions and become less entrenched in the climate debate," says Dominic Lenzi, researcher in the MCC working group Scientific Assessments, Ethics and Public Policy and author of the study. "We deal with innovative formats of exchange of opinions, competition in the media landscape, strategic communication of climate protection measures, financial incentives for citizens and new accents in the education sector."

Unlike standard political discourses, the concept of “deliberation” empowers citizens to form beliefs through an exchange of arguments, based on mutual respect. Deliberative formats such as mini-publics can consider climate change, and propose ambitious climate policies. A frontrunner is Ireland, where a citizens' assembly was set up in 2016 for a period of one and a half years. It consisted of randomly selected ordinary citizens, although it was exactly representative of the general population in terms of age, gender, income and regional origin, and provided some surprising political breakthroughs with ideas that were later adopted by the regular parliament. The British government has also now commissioned deliberation platforms across the country to consider the response to climate change. The MCC researcher advocates that "such formats can significantly reduce polarization in a society".

However, the study concludes that in addition to this, to make rapid progress in climate protection, “nudging” is needed. This means reforms that make information on global warming more accessible, or reward changes in individual behavior. "The state can overdo it and treat its citizens like small children, but there are also forms that are compatible with a culture of deliberative debate," says Lenzi. "The media is a powerful vehicle for climate change nudges. Penalties for the deliberate distribution of fake news are conceivable, as are additional funds for critical reporting in public broadcasting.”

Lenzi thinks it is important that experts with different values have their say on both sides of the debate; “but we should be wary of the presentation of a false balance of opinion, e.g. presenting climate change sceptics as scientific experts.” Sanctions relating to climate-damaging behavior would be an option, especially when misinformation about climate change has been deliberately produced. “And finally, the education system should strengthen the understanding of scientific knowledge processes."

And who decides what is Fake News?

 

[J Sokol]

Sydney, Australia is facing a disastrous threat from the nearby bush fires:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/10/australia/bushfires-australia-intl-hnk/index.html

Here's my favorite quote from the article:

' "If anyone tells you, 'This is part of a normal cycle' or 'We've had fires like this before', smile politely and walk away, because they don't know what they're talking about," Mullins wrote in a piece for The Sydney Morning Herald Monday.'

Thoughts are with all our Australian friends and members.

 

[oldtimer]

Sydney, Australia is facing a disastrous threat from the nearby bush fires:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/10/australia/bushfires-australia-intl-hnk/index.html

Here's my favorite quote from the article:

' "If anyone tells you, 'This is part of a normal cycle' or 'We've had fires like this before', smile politely and walk away, because they don't know what they're talking about," Mullins wrote in a piece for The Sydney Morning Herald Monday.'

Thoughts are with all our Australian friends and members.

Our thoughts need to be turned into actions if we really want to help Humanity and our Home Planet.

I can see a future (hopefully soon) that thousands of AI controlled Robots will be helping to put fires out from the land and air and perhaps will even be taking some measures to prevent them from happening in the first place. I can also see a future in which the same Robots will be used by the Elites to hunt people down in order to eradicate those that they find to be undesirable. Whether AI is going to end up to be a force for good to help us or whether it’s going to be used to enslave or kill us is being determined right at this moment in the history of the World.

IMO

 

[J Sokol]

That would be an interesting application of AI. I was a forest fire fighter years ago in Oregon and it's really hard, dangerous work. How nice (and probably way more efficient) it would be to use robots instead.

And you're right, @oldtimer, AI certainly has the potential to be used for malevolent purposes. I don't think it will ever be an either/or proposition -- it will be a struggle between constructive and destructive forces -- as it always has been.

 

[oldtimer]

AI certainly has the potential to be used for malevolent purposes. I don't think it will ever be an either/or proposition -- it will be a struggle between constructive and destructive forces -- as it always has been.

You might be right considering how things have been so far, but I personally believe that we now have arrived at a major crossroads in the History of the World which the fate of Mankind is going to be determined once and for all.

IMO

 

[JB Lions]

I'd like to welcome @dna to the room. Doesn't believe in climate change, believes in a guy (Kary Mullis) that was drunk when he was notified of his award, known for his use of LSD and hallucinogens, believes in astrology etc.

"In his 1998 humorous autobiography, Mullis expressed disagreement with the scientific evidence supporting climate change and ozone depletion, the evidence that HIV causes AIDS, and asserted his belief in astrology"

and this winner:

"Mullis claimed he had had an encounter with an extraterrestrial being, in which he denied the involvement of LSD. More specifically — he reported having close contact with a glowing green raccoon at his cabin in the woods of northern California around midnight one night in 1985."

https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Kary_Mullis.htm
https://skepticalscience.com/Kary_Mullis_arg.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis
https://www.latimes.com/obituaries/story/2019-08-13/kary-mullis-dna-nobel-prize

Obviously Ted Koppel is not a scientist. He is a highly respected anchorman for the news
Your sources included no scientists and really said nothing to "debunk" Kari Mullis.
In fact, scientists who once championed the ozone hole danger now say that the ozone
hole is not threat. But, they are saying this years after we have wasted billions of dollars
to remove harmless CFC.

Ozone is created when oxygen molecules in the stratosphere absorb energy from the
sun's ultraviolet rays. In other words, it takes sunshine to create ozone.
Antarctica gets no sunshine for 6 months a year and very little sunshine for
the other 6 months. And even during the summer, the sun never rises very much
above the horizon. So no sunlight is going through the stratosphere directly above
Antarctica—ever. It is this lack of sunshine that creates the ozone hole.
This is why the ozone hole never spreads beyond Antarctica.
CFCs have nothin to do with it.

Some in the media is saying that the CFC ban repaired the ozone hole problem and
that is the reason that the ozone hole is no longer a threat. But this is such an obvious lie.
The ozone hole is still floating above Antarctica, as it has been for millions of years.
And climate scientists are mostly silent on this now, obviously wanting this
issue to go silently away. But Kari Mullis called out this fraud many years ago.
And he also said this:

"Politicians don't know anything about scientific things.
They just want to look like they do.
Somebody has to advise them.
Who are those advisors?
It's an important question because those people—who are
always having to come up with eminent disasters
that can be prevented by governmental projects—are
manipulating you.
They are parasites with degrees..."

"Beyond the lack of scientific evidence,
it makes no sense anyhow that we could destroy ozone
in the upper atmosphere. If a hole in the ozone layer
appeared somehow, here's what would happen: The UV rays
from the sun would come through the hole and strike
the Earth's atmosphere, where they would be absorbed
by the miles-thick layer of oxygen surrounding the Earth.
Then it would make more ozone. When the UV rays from
the sun combine with oxygen, they form ozone."
The ozone thus formed absorbs UV light, which continues
to come from the sun, and prevents it from penetrating any
farther into the oxygen below that has not been converted
to ozone. That is why we have oxygen to breathe down here
and ozone in the upper atmosphere. If all the nations
of the world agreed to spend all of their money to
eliminate the ozone layer—they couldn't do it.
It can't go away unless all the
oxygen in the atmosphere were to go away, and then,
guess what—we couldn't breathe, untill the green plants
made some more.
The ozone in the upper atmosphere regulates itself.
If you measure a drop in some variable like ozone,
it doesn't mean it is going to be gone.
Put a stick on the beach marking the edge of the last wave
while the tide is coming in, then come back in an hour
with another stick. You'll notice that the tide has come in
ten feet in an hour, but if you predict that in a year
the tide would have come in 87,000 feet, you'd be dead wrong."

 

[oldtimer]

Interesting and comprehensive article, must login to read, (Free to Register)

The 2019 report of The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)32596-6/fulltext#back-bib1

 

[GILSAN]

Dramatic picture of the Harrington, Australia bush fires. There are currently 100,000 homes at risk!!

Every year it's the same story in Australia and California... two of the most technologically advanced parts of the world.

Don't these people, or should I say, the people that govern, learn anything from the previous years fires? Or is the general population being held back by laws that don't permit the clearing up of trees close to homes or unable to clear the underbrush?

Seems like nowadays the easiest excuse for politicians or others in power is to blame climate change for their incompetence.

Venice, Italy, was once again inundated by flood waters yesterday. The local government immediately blamed climate change. No mention of the fact that about 20 years ago, they started, but never completed the building of enormous flood gates that would prevent this, mostly due to corruption and delays.

 

[oldtimer]

Dramatic picture of the Harrington, Australia bush fires. There are currently 100,000 homes at risk!!

Every year it's the same story in Australia and California... two of the most technologically advanced parts of the world.

Don't these people, or should I say, the people that govern, learn anything from the previous years fires? Or is the general population being held back by laws that don't permit the clearing up of trees close to homes or unable to clear the underbrush?

Seems like nowadays the easiest excuse for politicians or others in power is to blame climate change for their incompetence.

Venice, Italy, was once again inundated by flood waters yesterday. The local government immediately blamed climate change. No mention of the fact that about 20 years ago, they started, but never completed the building of enormous flood gates that would prevent this, mostly due to corruption and delays.

Looks like those in charge in the World have been asleep at the wheel for the past 20 years and now the Global Warming effects are gradually catching up with everyone.

IMO

 

[J Sokol]

Afroz Shah was named Champion of the Earth in 2016. Another tireless defender of the earth, he has spent the last 209 weekends picking up trash (mostly plastic) from the beaches of Mumbai.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/17/world/cnnheroes-afroz-shah-afroz-shah-foundation/index.html

Here's a startling statistic from the article:

"It's predicted that by 2050, there will be more plastic in the ocean than fish."

 

[dna]

I have lost interest with arguing with nitwits so I will just post a couple of Kari Mullis
videos.

 

[oldtimer]

I have lost interest with arguing with nitwits so I will just post a couple of Kari Mullis
videos.

So you got tired of arguing in the Political thread, well welcome to the Environmental thread where all the smart people are.

 

[JB Lions]

I have lost interest with arguing with nitwits so I will just post a couple of Kari Mullis
videos.

Speaking of nitwits, nice videos but what do they have to do with climate change? Do you not get there are different branches of science? Or that he is speaking outside of his field?

It's pushing 2020, the climate denying stuff is ridiculous. The anti-climate change scientists usually fall into 2 categories. Either paid off by fossil fuel companies or lost their damn mind in the later years of their lives. LSD trips and seeing glowing, green raccoons might fit.

 

[oldtimer]

Something I said earlier in this thread:

Even if we gave those scientists the benefit of the doubt and assumed that there was a 20% chance that Global Warming was a hoax, that would still leave an 80% chance that Global Warming is real.

Now the question is should people bet their life and the life of every living thing on this Planet on the 20% chance that Global Warming is a hoax or the 80% chance that the Global Warming is real.

 

[dna]

You obviously didn't watch the entire second video.
And chemistry is his field. Maybe if climate scientists had learned some chemistry
they wouldn't have convinced politicians to spend billions of dollars to eliminate
harmless CFCs. The fact that climate scientists are now saying that the CFC
ban stopped the ozone hole threat rather than admit that there was never
any threat from the ozone hole just shows how dishonest they are.
And the ozone hole is still floating above Antarctica, as it has been for
millions of years.

 

[JB Lions]

So you got tired of arguing in the Political thread, well welcome to the Environmental thread where all the smart people are.

You obviously didn't watch the entire second video.
And chemistry is his field. Maybe if climate scientists had learned some chemistry
they wouldn't have convinced politicians to spend billions of dollars to eliminate
harmless CFCs. The fact that climate scientists are now saying that the CFC
ban stopped the ozone hole threat rather than admit that there was never
any threat from the ozone hole just shows how dishonest they are.
And the ozone hole is still floating above Antarctica, as it has been for
millions of years.

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources."

Read up, try more legit sources:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

But the dude tripping on LSD seeing green, glowing raccoons, in another branch of science, he's the one we need to believe

----------
Just keeping this one as proof of what a denier looks like.

Obama forced NASA to hire these doomsday cult scientists to give them credibility.
And they are taught a lie from their first day of doomsday science school.
What are they going to do if they figure out the truth.
Make tacos at Taco Bell?