The Forum > Article Comments > Greta Thunberg and Andrew Bolt: two sides of the same coin > Comments
Greta Thunberg and Andrew Bolt: two sides of the same coin : Comments
By Eric Claus, published 25/10/2019The first technique is the complete rejection of the idea that their opponents might have anything meaningful to say.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Page 8
-
- All
Posted by Aidan, Sunday, 27 October 2019 12:04:28 PM
| |
Dear Alan,
Thanks for your kind words. I've written in the past that few people would deny that the planet has a finite amount of resources or that it can tolerate only a limited amount of pollution. If world population continues to grow rapidly, if industrialisation continues to spread around the world, and if pollution and resource depletion continues at an increasing rate - and if all these things are happening - where is human society headed? The most optimistic answer to these questions would be that, one way or another, sweeping social changes await us. Or in simple terms - take a nice new house with a great garden with two people living in it. Now imagine in your head this nice image. Take the same house and move on e hundred people into it. How long will it take before the whole property will get trashed? So too with our planet - if we don't look after it. Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 27 October 2019 1:18:50 PM
| |
cont'd ...
Dear Alan, Over the past quarter century, pollution of the environment has begun to threaten the ecological balance of the planet and the health of its species, including ourselves. The pollution problem is an exceedingly difficult one to solve, for several reasons. First, some people and governments see pollution as a regretable but inevitable by-product of desired economic development - " where there's smoke, there's jobs." Secondly, control of pollution sometimes requires international co-ordination, for one country's emissions or pesticides can end up in other countries'air or food. Thirdly, the effects of pollution may not show up for many years, so severe environmental damage can occur with little public awareness that it is taking place. Fourthly, preventing or correcting pollution can be costly, technically complex, and some times when the damage is irreversible - impossible. In general, the most industrialised nations are now actively trying to limit the effects of pollution, but the populous less developed societies are more concerned with economic growth, and tend to see pollution as part of the price they have to pay for it. Further control of pollution is politically difficult, however, for the economic interests behind "smokestack" industries are a powerful political lobby that is reluctant to commit the necessary resources to the task. Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 27 October 2019 1:35:54 PM
| |
I have been reading the reference you gave me. The tenor of it all
seems to be rather negative as to the effect of clouds. There is a lot of dense discussion on the matter and also cosmic rays and it does not seem to dismiss the idea, just that it is not consequential. Anyway I am no expert so why don't you take it up with Kauppinen & Malmi ? When dealing with children always be careful, especially one with those sort of problems that you do not lead them away from their comfort zone. It is a recovery path you need. Posted by Bazz, Sunday, 27 October 2019 1:42:53 PM
| |
Aiden additionally, I think the IPCC may be working on too short a time scale.
Posted by Bazz, Sunday, 27 October 2019 2:02:30 PM
| |
Off Topic
Heil Generalissomo Trump for personally pulling the trigger, thereby smoking ISIS Leader ABBA Dabba al-Big Daddy! http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-28/al-baghdadi-death-trump-victory-analysis/11644620 But...not for long. "ISIS quickly replaces dead leader with former Saddam loyalist, say sources" http://intelnews.org/2019/10/28/01-2656/ Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 28 October 2019 6:00:56 PM
|
>The IPCC models do not take account in their models of the effect of clouds.
WRONG!
See http://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter07_FINAL-1.pdf
> handicapped children should always be shielded from dissension
> like global warming. The way she has been exposed is very likely to
> make a long term influence on her behaviour.
What patronising crap! Children deserve to know the truth, whether or not they're handicapped (and FWIW, Greta isn't).
>The Svenmark theory now seems to have explained the cycles that the
> earth has experienced for the last 3000 years. There was a warm period
> in the -1000BC century from what I read recently. So that makes five
> warm periods of which we are aware including the current one.
But the current one is much warmer than it can explain. There is no longer any reasonable doubt that CO2 is responsible.