Climate change anyone?

[Haironyourchest]

11 hours ago, the village idiot said:

Yup, the problem is their very high number of capitas.

 

We are long past the point where people can choose to act independently. We need to be forced.

Look what happened to Macron when he tried to raise the diesel tax to subsidise electric cars. I've just chosen to act independently by going outside to gratuitously burn a gallon of petrol in an old barrel in your honour.

[Macpherson]

Regardless of whatever side of this argument any individual takes there's one uncomfortable fact that's just never mentioned bearing in mind that no-one denies that the planet goes through cycles of heat and cold.

 

We know that the ice will melt to some degree at some point...therefore the fuse to the end of most life on this planet has been set and the blue touch paper lit.

 

There are currently 450 ish nuclear power stations globally, most at sea level....The sea level rise models being banded about at the moment will see most of them submerged...plutonium has a half life of 241000 years !

 

Not to mention Fukushima.... { as our media isn't } .... It may already be an unfolding global extinction level event .... and yet  probably not as important as the brexit pish.

 

Just my take on it

[Haironyourchest]

1 hour ago, Macpherson said:

Regardless of whatever side of this argument any individual takes there's one uncomfortable fact that's just never mentioned bearing in mind that no-one denies that the planet goes through cycles of heat and cold.

 

We know that the ice will melt to some degree at some point...therefore the fuse to the end of most life on this planet has been set and the blue touch paper lit.

 

There are currently 450 ish nuclear power stations globally, most at sea level....The sea level rise models being banded about at the moment will see most of them submerged...plutonium has a half life of 241000 years !

 

Not to mention Fukushima.... { as our media isn't } .... It may already be an unfolding global extinction level event .... and yet  probably not as important as the brexit pish.

 

Just my take on it

Ok, let's say the ice caps melt and sea levels rise. Is it going to happen overnight? Don't you think they will move the plutonium to higher ground? Fukushima was a freak accident. The radioactive isotopes from Fukushima are also different than the ones from Chernobyl, and not as bad. Pripyat, and even the Chernobyl plant, is actually teeming with healthy wildlife now. The elephants foot, the most toxic object on earth, has actually lost about half of its lethality since the event. It takes five minutes to kill you instead of 30 seconds...nature is pretty resistant to ionising radiation, it's humans that are particularly sensitive to it. And also, the normal state of the planet earth is to have zero ice at the poles, it has been this way for most of planetary history, we are technically still in an ice age at the moment.

Edited March 9, 2019 by Haironyourchest

[Macpherson]

13 minutes ago, Haironyourchest said:

And also, the normal state of the planet earth is to have zero ice at the poles, it has been this way for most of planetary history,

Hi, so like me, you also believe that the tide is out at the moment.

 

I'm not up to speed enough on the subject of radiation to be able to discuss the properties of one form from the other but the ongoing under reporting of the Japanese disaster which some say is already thousands of time worse than Chernobyl is possibly a crime in itself.

 

I can't see that it will ever be possible to move the radioactive material at all.... many of these elements never before existed so what effect will their lack of containment will have on nature ?.. who can say.  cheers   

[Haironyourchest]

4 hours ago, Macpherson said:

Hi, so like me, you also believe that the tide is out at the moment.

 

I'm not up to speed enough on the subject of radiation to be able to discuss the properties of one form from the other but the ongoing under reporting of the Japanese disaster which some say is already thousands of time worse than Chernobyl is possibly a crime in itself.

 

I can't see that it will ever be possible to move the radioactive material at all.... many of these elements never before existed so what effect will their lack of containment will have on nature ?.. who can say.  cheers   

They move it all the time, spent fuel rods to secure waste facilities inside mountains in desert areas. Obviously moving active rods would be a problem, but they don't need to - just use up the current fuel (weeks, months?) don't add any more, then decommission the reactors. This assuming sea levels don't suddenly swamp the power stations overnight. There is no problem here. A quick Google search will tell you everything you need to know about radiation and nuclear power stations. The reason Fukushima is "underreported", as you say, is simply that it's old news, there is nothing to report. It's still leaking, still not fixed, and maybe never will be. But it's so diluted it's actually not doing much harm, if any. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sciencefocus.com/science/head-to-head-fukushima-vs-chernobyl/amp/

[tree-fancier123]

my local council have a plan for 10,000 new homes over the next 15 years - I wrote to them asking if they had seen Constable's painting The Haywain. What we are doing to the environment now is just covering it with a concrete cancer.

Politicians always put economic growth before environmental sustainability.

It wouldn't matter if the government made it compulsory for every 17 year old to drive a government issued supercharged V8 if there were half the number of people.

It's only going to get worse. We are so lucky to be alive now, another 300 years time the countryside will be photos in some history book.

So now China is scrapping its family planning laws so enough new worker units are produced to pay income tax for the current billion odd to live off when they retire..

There are no answers that don't involve castration and walking to the supermarket

scum is too nice a word for the politicians that think the answer is more houses, not less people

Edited March 9, 2019 by tree-fancier123

[Yorkshire Brummie]

my local council have a plan for 10,000 new homes over the next 15 years - I wrote to them asking if they had seen Constable's painting The Haywain. What we are doing to the environment now is just covering it with a concrete cancer.
Politicians always put economic growth before environmental sustainability.
It wouldn't matter if the government made it compulsory for every 17 year old to drive a government issued supercharged V8 if there were half the number of people.
It's only going to get worse. We are so lucky to be alive now, another 300 years time the countryside will be photos in some history book.
So now China is scrapping its family planning laws so enough new worker units are produced to pay income tax for the current billion odd to live off when they retire..
There are no answers that don't involve castration and walking to the supermarket


scum is too nice a word for the politicians that think the answer is more houses, not less people

I am no Swampy,
But those pictures sum up your point very well. A worrying proportion of society seem completely oblivious/unconcerned to the lack of trees and/or abundance of concrete festooning the country’s landscape
Cheers
I

[Khriss]

On 08/03/2019 at 20:31, the village idiot said:

Yes, China and India are by far the biggest problem at present.

 

Do we have the right to stop them, arguably no. Do we need to stop them, yes.

 

I heard someone comment that the fact that China is effectively a dictatorship could be beneficial. If the Chinese leader's ego could be prodded into seeing himself as the key player in saving the planet, he has the power to very quickly change the course of his nation. This would make a huge difference.

 

There is some hope. If we can hold the temperature rise to 2 degrees the results will only be catastrophic.

..... An where do all the solar panels come from? Yup China.. So it's a doable turn around if people bother but absolutely agree we are being sold a crock by media. K

[the village idiot]

9 minutes ago, Khriss said:

but absolutely agree we are being sold a crock by media

This is why good science is so important.

 

It is the only tool we have to tell us objectively what is occurring in the World, without personal bias.

 

The utterly overwhelming scientific consensus, from people who actually know what they are talking about, is that we are in very deep doo doo.

 

The circulating idea that all climate scientists are collaborating in some sort of mass conspiracy is just crazy talk.

 

We would be tragically foolish to reject the findings from the people using the best methods we have to find things out.

 

Is the scientific consensus ever wrong? Yes, but extremely rarely, and even less so as time goes on.

 

The stakes are way way way too high to not back the favourite on this one. It would be akin to betting your descendents lives on the 'other horse' in a one horse race.

[Ratman]

This is why good science is so important.
 
It is the only tool we have to tell us objectively what is occurring in the World, without personal bias.
 
The utterly overwhelming scientific consensus, from people who actually know what they are talking about, is that we are in very deep doo doo.
 
The circulating idea that all climate scientists are collaborating in some sort of mass conspiracy is just crazy talk.
 
We would be tragically foolish to reject the findings from the people using the best methods we have to find things out.
 
Is the scientific consensus ever wrong? Yes, but extremely rarely, and even less so as time goes on.
 
The stakes are way way way too high to not back the favourite on this one. It would be akin to betting your descendents lives on the 'other horse' in a one horse race.

By having kids you know you could create brain bustling scientologists to evade all the bad happenings in this world! It’s true you know.... I’ve been forcefully told so [emoji6][emoji39]