If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
So you were around then, were you? In PRE-history? Of course it has been hotter than this before - such as the birth of planet. And the planet was a lot different then with far more volcano activity etc.
I reirterate - there is no period in history where the temperature of the earth has risen so quickly and in such a short time (apart from natural disiaters like comets hitting the earth or abundant volcano activity etc). If it is not humans causing the increase in temperature, please enlighten me?
And wipe your arse while you're at ...
were thermometers in existance 200 years ago? 500? 5000?
edit: oh har har
As I said, extractions from the ice at the Poles give scientists a good window on the weather during the last 650 000 years ...
Edit : Har har
This is aptly highlighted by the fact that everyone looking at this right now is WASTING ELECTRICITY PISSING AROUND ON THE INTERNET.
If you are interested in 'saving the planet' the TURN YOUR PC OFF NOW AND NEVER TURN IT ON AGAIN.
But no-one will........
We have to hope that technological advances will be made to curb the negative effects else if the predictions are correct then the future generations are going to have a hard time of it.......
It's more to do with you turning off the unneeded light on the landing while you dont require it as you piss around on the Internet. You can still live AND be energy concious!
The point is that switching out the landing light whilst certainly being helpful and all, will make next to no difference to saving the cutesy wutsey polar bears. The change in lifestyles needed to prevent global warming from causing the predicted havoc is simply too large for all but the most dedicated to even contemplate doing.......
Well, lets stop giving money to the starving Africans then too. They'll only want more next year. There is nothing we can do about it. The sun comes out, dries up their land - simple. It's the way it is.
It's a shame that those that ARE dedicated will have to share the same rewards as the apathetic.
Are you trying to claim that you are dedicated, well you aren't because you are pissing around on the site right now.......
Also the starving African analogy is a very bad one. Emergency aid to Africa would have directly beneficial consequences of the kind not seen by action to tackel global warming. Which is one of the reasons why we won't change our lifestyles sufficiently....
Well, now you are being just plain silly. I would have expected more of you. Noone is saying that you have no right to entertainment or to live a life. Noone is suggesting slipping back into the stone age. But as I said, turning off that unnecessary light, for instance, goes that little bit towards helping reduce CO2 emissions. And if you told your friend and they told their friend etc that prudent care of electricity usage is helpful to decreasing CO2 emissions, all the better. It may be fanciful of me to presume that many places or people in this world can follow such a lead, but does it mean we stop trying? And what harm is it doing? Certainly far less harm that assuming the worst without at least giving it a try. The human race has thrived on challenges and this is what make us who we are today. We can beat this challenge too if we wake people up to it. Loads of US cities are signing up to the Kyoto agreement against the wishes of Bush - and the more they do so, the more chance there is that we can finally get the biggest polluter on board and that, in itself, would reduce emissions considerably.
My analogy is completely correct. Just because you can see the 'benefit' of your aid going to Africa doesn't mean that the charity operations won't be sending out begging letters out next year as the annual famine kicks in. That's my point of my analogy. We can't make the famine in Africa stop so why not just let nature take its course with those millions of people - we can't make other people change their production of CO2 emissions so why do anything ourselves?
Analogy aside, you are saying that we won't change our lifestyles because we don't see the direct beneficial consequences that feeding the starving in Africa gives us. Er duh? The consequences of global warming is happening right now. No snow in Austria and Switzerland at this time of the year, warmest year in the UK on record, Hurricane Katrina earlier on in the year etc There is every evidence of what the consequences are - just look around you. Surely you can tell the difference between winter when you were a child and now?
Anyhow, we will obviously agree to disagree.
You never know, Teagan might go with ecotricity.
Renewable electricity sources are available, but in the meantime you can do things to help save energy. It's not about becoming a ludite.
I really don't see your arguement here. We have put all these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which is contrbuting to climate change because of certain properties of the gases... So what you're saying is that if we stop burning fossil fuels there's no proof there'll ever be an change? Therefor we should keep on living our non-sustainable lifestyles?
If you think scientific thinking on a particular issue is invalid because it is a minority opinion your position is very flawed. Countless major scientific breakthroughs have came through a minority (or even lone voice) questioning orthodoxies.
Yes, I am.
I just don't see using aeroplanes as a 'wrong choice' that will have any tangible effect.
Where did I say 'minority opinion' was invalid? Where? Where? Where? Where? Where? Where? Where? Where? Where? Where? Where? For fucks sake, WHERE??????? The point that is blatantly obvious to all those apart from them that will not see, is that until the minority opinion proves otherwise, for the sake of the planet one should err on the side of caution and the majority opinion. If this is indeed a 'natural' warming cycle, our CO2 emissions are just exacerbating the issue. If we take action now in light of majority opinion, we certainly are not going to harm the planet until the minority opinion proves otherwise ...
But obviously not enough to want to even consider affecting your present standard of living. After all, it's unlikely you will ever meet your great grandchildren. Who cares about then, huh? What if the 'minority opinion' you espouse is incorrect?
Remember Concorde apparently destroyed the ozone? Flight obviously can have some effect on the environment. But as other people pointed out in this topic, long haul fights are unavoidable. Fine. Keep them. But do we need to fly between Manchester and London? Personally, I don't think so. Obviously, some internal hops between UK cities may be unavoidable but in general, it's not quicker. Hanging around in airports before and afterwards gives a traveller no real time saving. But you are also missing an obvious point, so it seems. Reduced number of air flights is only one in a number of steps that we can take to reduce CO2 emissions. On their own, you are correct - reducing CO2 emission from aircraft would have little effect.
however i do worry that all the scenes where Al Gore wasn't in the lecture theatre he was either in an airport on a plane, being driven in a car or on his obviously apple laptop! :chin:
didnt like those bits!
It's no wonder most people on here think you're a twat.
Yeah, I was astonished they made that level of a mistake - the bit where he was 'I've given the slideshow hundreds of times' - whilst looking out of a jet? All I could think was - I hope you took a train at least once...
I guess that's a good point BUT for one man to travel all those hundreds of thousands of miles (and being in person would have been a big attraction) and educate/awaken people to the potential dangers is acceptable. Now, if he happened to drive a Hummer or similar when he lived his normal life, I would be worried then.
poor production really, if they wanted to show that you can reduce carbon but live a normal life then do a scene on solar panels or something
also i was bit bumused about his sisters death, upsetting etc but relevence? also that bit about how his farm has changed because of climate changed but didnt actually show us!
parts it felt like gore's biopic with bits about climate change thrown in! the more i think about it the more the film
BUT it did raise many really good points
Which I gotta do actually.
Well the claim that Concorde is responsible for destroying the ozone is pretty funny...
Who? Tbh this is an outlet I use to talk politics, outside this little forum I'm pretty apathetic to the '4x4s are evil' crowd.
Ok - that did look ambiguous. I did not mean to imply that Concorde was solely responsible for damage to the ozone.
Have a look at the usual response to you and your postings ...
Riight.
If other people treat one member badly - then they are a problem and an unpleasantness - not some kind of defence for you to treat someone badly.
You might also want to bear in mind that someone disagreeing with you doesn't make them a twat - but thinking someone shouldn't be allowed to express a different view to you, pretty much does make you sound like a twat.
Well, he is maddening. He puts words into my mouth which I never said ... that isn't debate.