Climate Change: Scientists Say "Last Chance"

Tell me about bears and forests. Is it true what they say?

If only the climate screamers were in touch with reality. They may have had more success if they'd remained rational and not hijacked scientific rigour or exaggerated to push an agenda. No matter the worth of their point, they've devalued it by acting like spoiled children, leading to folks who may have considered it just writing them off as the usual mob of crazies flinging their poo around.
We don't have any bears round here, the Bavarians shot the last one. As for forests, climate change, beetles and pollution are rapidly diminishing what's left.
 
Not just them either. When the water companies were privatised they laid off all the workers whos job it was to keep the gullys and small stream that fed resoviors clear as they were seen as an unnecessary expense.
Fast forwards a few years and there is a lack of water in the chain during hot summers and when it rained heavily the gullys/streams that used to take the water away were overgrown and flooding of the landscape occured.

This cost me two days loss of productivity in one of my warehouses, as the blockage of water burst open the drains and flooded the place.
 

Clunker

Old-Salt
Overcrowded/Over-populated its the cause of climate change and you reduce the effects by reducing population, so half the population you halve global emissions. Once you look past the Gas Boiler versus Heat Pump puppet show debate, you realize our governments are working flat out to try and reduce the birth rate through a myriad of clandestine policies and it wouldn't surprise me at all that someone did the math and worked out a person has xnum of children in africa, but living in europe they're have ynum of children, so open those borders.
As Xnum is considerably larger than Ynum how is that going to benefit,
apart from screwing Europe further ?
 
got this off Guido fawkes, cant speak to its truthfulness

The UN has been predicting planetary disaster for decades, usually scheduled to happen in about a decade’s time. In 1972 – half a century ago – Maurice Strong, the first UN Environment Programme director warned that the world “had just 10 years to avoid catastrophe”. In 1982 his successor, Mostafa Tolba, the then head of the UN Environment Programme told the world that it had just 18 years before “an environmental catastrophe as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust”. Yet 2000 came and went and we just partied like it was 1999…

In 1989 the official was warning that we have to fix climate change by 1999 or “climate change goes beyond human control”. By 1990 Tolba was warning the world must fix global warming before 1995, “otherwise, we’d lose the climate struggle”. Now 20 years past that date when it was going to be too late, we are still hearing the same claims again.

As sea levels would rise we were told that the Maldives islands would be under water over a decade ago, they’re actually building more luxury hotels. We were told the source of the great Ganges river in the Himalayas, the glaciers, would have melted long ago. The great Ganges river still flows and the glaciers are still there. The Australian Great Barrier reef would be dead, it is alive and thriving

My view..

Scientists tell us that climate change is 100% anthropological, caused by modern (ie. since the industrial revolution) humanities carbon emissions, on this 'fact', there is unity.

But no scientist can tell us what caused the warming that ended the last ice, no scientist can explain the cooling from the medieval warm period to the time of Dickens when the Thames would freeze in winter. When they can prove what caused those climate changes, I 'd be more inclined to listen to their current pronouncements.

Who said " tell a lie so many times, it becomes the truth".

Scientists are always looking to justify and/or increase their funding.
 
As Xnum is considerably larger than Ynum how is that going to benefit,
apart from screwing Europe further ?
You missed the point; which is the first world economy already has to some extent birth control by choice. The third world like having kids and so if you can't get them to stop in situ, why not simply move them to the first world where choice will by default reduce the number.
 

Ursus Major

Old-Salt
CND= Communism, Neutralism and Defeatism. In the 1980s the CND was highly likely to have been an espionage front used by the GRU (Soviet Military Intelligence) to gather information on the activities at the bases CND were camped out at. It is quite likely Soviet funding was used by the CND to this end.

I had a friend who worked as a contractor at US bases in the late 1980s, and he said a work colleague was denied the highest level of clearance, with no reason given, however he was a member of Greenpeace, which may well have accounted for this.
I used to wear this badge in the '80s
R.jpg
 
You missed the point; which is the first world economy already has to some extent birth control by choice. The third world like having kids and so if you can't get them to stop in situ, why not simply move them to the first world where choice will by default reduce the number.
Any evidence of those third worlders exercising that choice, once esconced in the first world, or do they keep on banging out kids to alter the demographic while idling on State handouts?
 

ACAB

LE
Sometime ago the stuff dredged up when clearing waterways was classified as requiring a licence for disposal, so firstly no more sticking it on the banks as you went, secondly the licence required paying for and thirdly you now had to transport it away. All extra costs for what was previously a simple task. So most dredging and clearance was stopped.

I'm tempted to blame an EU directive but I'm not sure so won't.
You can. We singed up to The European Convention on Waterways (or whatever its title is) in 2012.
 
You missed the point; which is the first world economy already has to some extent birth control by choice. The third world like having kids and so if you can't get them to stop in situ, why not simply move them to the first world where choice will by default reduce the number.

Or the first world slowly becomes the third world as well, ending up with far more kids than we would have done otherwise
 

Clunker

Old-Salt
You missed the point; which is the first world economy already has to some extent birth control by choice. The third world like having kids and so if you can't get them to stop in situ, why not simply move them to the first world where choice will by default reduce the number.
You missed the point: The people from the third world are coming for financial benefit. They have no/little interest in the culture they are coming to. They are encouraged in this with "Diversity/Multiculturalism." The old world huge family does not stop when they come and the free state money is a motivator. Inviting these people is an act of national self harm.
 

" Scientists Say "Last Chance" "

Scientists say whatever the hell the person funding them wants them to say.

 
Any evidence of those third worlders exercising that choice, once esconced in the first world, or do they keep on banging out kids to alter the demographic while idling on State handouts?

The latter. At the encouragement of the 5th column in Europe.
 
You missed the point: The people from the third world are coming for financial benefit. They have no/little interest in the culture they are coming to. They are encouraged in this with "Diversity/Multiculturalism." The old world huge family does not stop when they come and the free state money is a motivator. Inviting these people is an act of national self harm.
Individual Man has always being at odds with its ruling class. Most people preferred smaller communities, some land, a piece of property and freedom from overbearing state control. The ruling class has always wanted big government, dependency, progress and the necessary imperial organization to make everything function.

We've done empires and are now at a point where the ruling class would rather like a one-world government to fix all those new challenges, that have being identified like climate change OR turning the third world into a sustainable model. The problem as ever is the individual refusal to do as they're are told and so the self harm could be explained as a way of diluting the collective to the extent its incapable of co-operating with each other enough to resist government.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Individual Man has always being at odds with its ruling class. Most people preferred smaller communities, some land, a piece of property and freedom from overbearing state control. The ruling class has always wanted big government, dependency, progress and the necessary imperial organization to make everything function.

We've done empires and are now at a point where the ruling class would rather like a one-world government to fix all those new challenges, that have being identified like climate change OR turning the third world into a sustainable model. The problem as ever is the individual refusal to do as they're are told and so the self harm could be explained as a way of diluting the collective to the extent its incapable of co-operating with each other enough to resist government.
Your second paragraph is utter nonsense.
 
There is no save the planet campaign...there is however a save the Human Race campaign, we are on a down slope as a species and I would say another 1-2 thousand years will see the large part of the Human race disappear, in 3-4 thousand years we will have all but gone and in 10k we will be nothing but another evolutionary failure gone the way of the dinosaurs.

The Earth however will continue to spin until it is swallowed by an expanding Sun and dies in the throws of the Sun exploding
 

Clunker

Old-Salt
Individual Man has always being at odds with its ruling class. Most people preferred smaller communities, some land, a piece of property and freedom from overbearing state control. The ruling class has always wanted big government, dependency, progress and the necessary imperial organization to make everything function.

We've done empires and are now at a point where the ruling class would rather like a one-world government to fix all those new challenges, that have being identified like climate change OR turning the third world into a sustainable model. The problem as ever is the individual refusal to do as they're are told and so the self harm could be explained as a way of diluting the collective to the extent its incapable of co-operating with each other enough to resist government.
Most people preferred smaller communities, some land, a piece of property and freedom from overbearing state control.
1 Yet millions herd themselves into tiny houses in cities and suffer the feral results of crowding: gangs/crime/pollution.
2. Yet millions vote for socialist/communist governments and the promise of something for free.

Your claims do not bear the exposure of reality.
 

Latest Threads

Top