OT: curious paragraph in the Guardian

[newshound]

I thought this was worth watching

The presenter is getting on a bit, and quite dithery at times, but he makes some good points imho

[newshound]

Correct, but that does not alter the fact that the Vikings had successful colonies there during the medieval warm period, which died out at the start of the little ice age.

[Brian-Gaff]

I see, but with agreement we all justsomehow manage to keep things together and live happily ever afterwards? That is assumiing we do not blow ourselves up, encounter a giant meteorite or have a nuclear winter event cause then the Yellowstone volcano rips the guts out t of the usa then. Living on spaceship earth is a pricarious business and always has been. Brian

[Bill Wright]

Cheerful bastard.

Bill

[Albert Zweistein]

Yes they did establish some settlements around the coast during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly but that is not a valid basis for calling the country Green as over 80% of it's area has been covered by a 2km thick ice sheet since the year dot, figuratively speaking. There are a couple of theories explaining the green moniker neither of which involve the country actually being green. Note that Medieval Climatic Anomaly was local not global and can't really be used in climate debate either way.

[The Natural Philosopher]

No, it wasn't just local.

Its been confirmed as far away as the Pacific.

And it is only called an anomaly by people who desperately want it to be an anomaly.

Real scientists call it the mediaeval warm period. (MWP)

[Albert Zweistein]

Do they? Of course you know better than these Harvard researchers. Impact of the Medieval Climate Anomaly

[The Natural Philosopher]

Pardion me for asking, but how and why have you turned up on Uk.D-i-y, preaching a strong on message sermon on climate change, *just as te Paris con-ference gets under way*.

I have never heard of you before it happened.

Are you being funded to troll news groups and put the 'correct' on message version of climate change, out there?

[Albert Zweistein]

Ok I'll pardion (sic) you, which part of "either way" didn't you understand?

[Tim Streater]

And there are no anomalies in climate anyway. There is this one and there is that one.

[Mark Carver]

Brian's fundamentally correct. If human development had been some sort of grand experiment, it would have been deemed to be an unmitigated failure long ago.

We've managed to totally bugger our environment, and (unlike every other species) we kill and maim each other gratuitously.

Taking a broad dispassionate view, the best thing that can happen is a bloody great asteroid hits the planet and gives it massive reboot, but if it doesn't I suspect we'll all be gone anyway in less than 200 years.

Merry Christmas.

[Tim Streater]

Any species of which there are too many will do that to their environment, and lets not have any twaddle about how fluffy all other species are to each other compared to humans.

Plenty of any species take slaves, for example.

[Bill Wright]

What about mankind's astonishing achievements in science, technology, and medicine? The average standard of living throughout the world has never been so high.

I know there are many bad things in the world, but on the whole I think humanity does remarkably well. Even in the Third World conditions are slowly improving.

I have faith in humanity.

Well, when I look out of the window I see blue sky. The air is cleaner than it has been since the 1750s thanks to clean air Acts. The Antarctic ice is growing. The planet is greening over with many desert areas now able to support plant life, thanks to increased atmospheric CO2.

Only a few people do that. They are aberrant. Don't judge a whole species on just a few individuals. Positive action is to educate people so that they do not follow the aberrant few.

Well let's hope it happens after dinner but before the washing up.

I don't think humanity will die out, unless there is a cataclysm. We are too clever.

Bill

[Mark Carver]

Perhaps too clever though ? I've heard it suggested that man-made features (Great Wall of China, New York, the M1 etc) viewed from space by another life form, might be interpreted as some sort of viral growth on the planet.

Don't get me wrong, I love flying around the world, using my smartphone, feeling the central heating work, having drinks in the local boozer etc etc. However, in total, is all of that beneficial for the planet ? Does mother nature attempt to wipe us all out every 100 years or so with a pandemic as part of a balancing scheme ?

I'm talking totally philosophically here, trying to view the human race completely dispassionately. (Difficult when you're one of them !)

[Syd Rumpo]

I read somewhere that global warming is the earth having a fever in an attempt to kill off an infection.

Cheers

[dennis]

A lot of other species kill to achieve a better position just like people do. Some individuals kill for no good reason just like people too.

We have yet to bugger our environment to any significant degree as far as we are concerned. We have buggered it for several other species but is that a failure or evolution?

[Tim Streater]

This is a meaningless question.

[Fido]

After you trimmed it, but that's the kind of thing silly little tossers like you do.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I read the above, and my jaw dropped open!

What on earth does 'beneficial for the planet' mean?

What OUGHT a planet to be like, other than what it is?

The whole implication that there is some external value judgement that can be applied to a planet is pure religious flummery.

[The Natural Philosopher]

No, it is meaningless unless you have some Godlike judgement to tell you what a planet OUGHT to be like.

I don't. I can't say whether a plant without people would be 'better' than one with.