From what I can tell, when people talk about 'climate' what they actually mean is 'a climate agreeable to humans'. Life carries on. It adapts. If the worst predictions came true for climate change, humans (and a lot of other mammals) might get wiped out, but life would carry on, the world would NOT be 'ruined'. Humans might, but not the world.
Also, if people REALLY were concerned about the environment, they be fighting tooth and nail to save the oceans. But they are not. Because they either don't understand how important the oceans are, or they are just not arsed. (Which do you think is most likely?! How would a government institute a taxation on ocean use??)
You are quite right, most pollution ultimately ends up in the oceans. Even a small change in climate would render uninhabitable/ unfarmable many areas of the world. Many people have tha falacious belief that we can carry on as we are.
Half wits like TurNiP believe the propagands put out by the oil and nuclear industry. This is the sort of crap they put out.
Weather is driven by air temperature DIFFERENCES. So a 2deg. change is huge. When you think a hurricance may be driven by an air temperature difference of 10deg.
Yes, it might explode and bits fly off in different directions.
If people talk/write c*ck, then can expect to have it treated so.
Well quite. If somehow I'm persuaded that "we" must do something, and then I consider altering my life-style, what do I find? That if I stop buying home-heating oil, or dizzle for the car, I can completely f*ck up my life-style and reduce CO2 by some 0.0000000001%, or other similarly insignificant figure. Where's my motivation, eh?
The OP claimed that Lukacs had no grasp of timescales. He did this by selectively quoting the first sentence of his article.
When in Lukacs' second sentence, it was clear that he did have a grasp of timescales.
So in this respect at least The OP lied. He misrepresented what Lukacs wrote.
As to the rest, whether Lukacs himself exaggerated the findings of the IPCC report of not, I'm not in any position to say, as I've not read it. Unlike you it would seem.
But then the OP didn't make this claim to start with, so that's not really relevant to the matter at hand, is it ?
Which is the willingness of people to lie, and excuse the lies of others, as you're attempting to do here, if the person they're lying about, happens to hold a diametrically opposite point of view to theirs.
I snip, the other material is still in the thread.
I quoted him. If the article isn't consistent throughout, why is that my fault? If I highlight it, I highlight it. He's the pone who wrote a load of bollocks.
My point is that the journalist has no real demonstrable talent in conveying a message rooted in scientific procedure and evidence. If he did, he wouldn't write an introductory paragraph which set him as a hollow word projector.
There is an episode of the Simpsons where the actor Rainier Wolfcastle is in a scene where toxic waste ends up washing over him. Concerned for his safety, he is given a pair of safety goggles which he assumes will protect him. As the waves of waste wash over him, he proclaims "My Eyes! The goggles do nothing!". A futile attempt at action in the face of overwhelming adversity.
It is that sort of based-in-ignorance earnestness which articles like the one above support. It may as well have said "Don't worry about anything but carbon" whilst the greater problem carries on.
The article is nothing more than filler - it serves NO useful purpose other than to fill column inches. It contains untruths. It is riddled with the mistakes that someone who doesn't fully understand the issue being reported makes when trying to report it.
Ask yourself: If you were to write an article about that subject, would YOU write what he did? I wouldn't.
I don't think the view is diametrically opposed. My point was that this journalist can't write effectively and sets up contradictions in the article which help NO ONE'S argument. All fence-sitting mouth and no action-taking trousers.
But thanks for assuming that you know what my views are without asking.
Are you claiming that the following, which was posted yesterday is the work of an impostor ?
I have no doubt that humans are causing damage to the environment. It isn't limited to "warming", or climate change. What humans do with pollution in general is far worse. And sadly, people who like to rant on about how bad 'nuclear waste' is miss the point that most nuclear waste ISN'T waste, and that the total amount of polluted land or waters from nuclear activity doesn't come close to the shere volume of other s**te pumped out by various human activities. The climate change stories are simply politically convenient to raise taxes. You may say I am lazily cynical, I don't care.
Climate change is a perfect bogeyman. It is essentially unseen, and works over long timescales which humans by and large have difficulty understanding.
If we don't give a shit about pollution (and lets face it, our demonstrable behaviour shows we don't), then why the f*ck would we care about a warming of 2 degrees celcius? Yeah, well, I personally find it difficult to be arsed in the slightest, and I actually understand some of the the issues! *some* being very important there, most people are almost perfectly disinterested and it's difficult to get them to even pay lip-service. So how do you do something about a possible danger to which essentially no one cares? Repetedly tell them it's a long term problem, and use financial carrot & stick games. But as we are finding out, these don't work either. We are a lazy species, and have become very used to comfortable warm homes, easy journeys in cars, availability of food which 150 years ago would be seen as fantasy, etc etc.
Now my point is that the writer for the guardian is either a clueless, or a disingenuous shit. If the subject is serious, you don't treat everyone like a child, especially when the paper is supposed to be read by "smart" people. No one listens to anything if they are being condescended to.
This is NOT helped by using that childish title of "renewable" energy. We are not children, and names like that are frankly misleading. Renewable has essentially become a sysnonym for environmentally freindly, when all the available evidence points to them being anything but.
So feel free to berate me, but please understand that I shall hold contempt for similar newspaper articles due to the complete uselessness, linguisticaly incorrect, blase approach to the subject, as well as entirely missing the point about pollution.
I'm tired, so appologies if this isn't the most coherent thing you've ever read.
You either can't follow a tread properly, or you are being disingenuous.
If you are not following the thread, then my previous statement about assuming you know my views are in relation to you stating my views are diametrically opposed to the journalists. You then quote my other post which shows I am not diametrically opposed.
If you are being disingenuous, then I have no desire for further interaction in this thread.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.