35d
@shavixmir saidBad thing. People are convinced a mere hypothesis is fact. There is absolutely no evidence man is the main cause of global warming. We just came out of the little ice age caused by the volcanic winter of 536.
The European Court for Human Rights is deciding on this issue today.
3 different cases are being decided on today. All three (from seperate groups) accuse governments of not doing enough to curb the effects of climate change and that this is endangering their human rights.
What the court decides is binding for countries in the EU. And, obviously, this could have an im ...[text shortened]... g on action vs human rights? And then I feel that it’s overstepping something.
What do you think?
Of course the climate is warming. Did you expect the little ice age to last forever? Stop blaming man for volcanoes!
35d
@fartacus saidAll of these climate alarmists are ignoring the fact insurance companies don’t charge extra for ocean front homes. That is because they don’t see sea levels rising fast enough to be a problem in an average lifetime.
I don't agree with the climate weirdos.
The planet has been changing its temperature since its beginning. Up and Down.
I just can't stand these virtue signaling clowns that are too scared to go after the worst polluters like China.
I can't use a plastic straw but a billionaire gets to use a private jet constantly.
🤡 🌎
Shav must be convinced home insurers are stupid or something. He doesn’t think they are worth listening to.
The whole AGW movement is based on a backwards cause and effect lie from Al Gore. The ice core samples proved CO2 lagged behind temperatures, not the other way around.
35d
@metal-brain saidYou’re back!
Bad thing. People are convinced a mere hypothesis is fact. There is absolutely no evidence man is the main cause of global warming. We just came out of the little ice age caused by the volcanic winter of 536.
Of course the climate is warming. Did you expect the little ice age to last forever? Stop blaming man for volcanoes!
In 1800 there was no industry, no cars and 1 billion people.
In 2024 there are 8 billions people, most countries have polluting industries and millions of cars.
In which concievable universe could this not have an effect on the environment?
Anyhoo… this thread is not about the science behind global warming. It’s about courts forcing politics.
33d
@shavixmir saidIn 1800 the earth was warming. The ice core samples prove it. This is all about the science and you know it. courts cannot ignore the science. What else can they possibly base a ruling on?
You’re back!
In 1800 there was no industry, no cars and 1 billion people.
In 2024 there are 8 billions people, most countries have polluting industries and millions of cars.
In which concievable universe could this not have an effect on the environment?
Anyhoo… this thread is not about the science behind global warming. It’s about courts forcing politics.
Thanks for making it clear you want the court to ignore the science. Is it the backwards cause and effect you want them to ignore?
33d
@fartacus saidThere was sea level rise. Their stupid mistake is ignoring the fact it has been rising since before the industrial revolution.
There is a picture of NYC and the same picture from 100 years ago. No sea level rise at all. I imagine it will or could happen but it takes many lifetimes for a drastic change
That is why Al Gore will never allow anyone to debate him. He would have to admit everything he lied about. His reverse cause and effect should make him a laughing stock. Instead the media helps him hide the lie.
This is all about using fear to get people to accept a tax on fossil fuels. They want your money
33d
@fartacus saidClimate change activist goes to see therapist.
I don't agree with the climate weirdos.
The planet has been changing its temperature since its beginning. Up and Down.
I just can't stand these virtue signaling clowns that are too scared to go after the worst polluters like China.
I can't use a plastic straw but a billionaire gets to use a private jet constantly.
🤡 🌎
Activist: I feel sad that the planet is dying 😩
Therapist: have you tried gluing yourself to the pavement?
33d
3 edits
@shavixmir saidThank goodness the UK is (more or less) out!
It might not matter to you, but treaties are binding and above national law. And the court’s rulings are binding to EU countries.
Although it’s hilarious to see the EU going after the Swiss who are not in the EU and who are just going to tell the EU to fuk off. So what is it virtue signalling by the EU? What a waste of public funds.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/why-switzerland-doesn-t-want-to-join-the-european-union/47391050
33d
Post script to the above…
It’s interesting to note that pre brexit the EU was constantly posturing that the UK had to be “in or out”, and here’s the Swiss who have over decades brilliantly positioned themselves as OUT of the EU but get lots of the benefits of being IN due to a raft of bi-lateral treaties.
Down with the EU
Political independence for all!
Power to the people 💪🏼💪🏼💪🏼
33d
@divegeester saidOh my God…
Thank goodness the UK is (more or less) out!
Although it’s hilarious to see the EU going after the Swiss who are not in the EU and who are just going to tell the EU to fuk off. So what is it virtue signalling by the EU? What a waste of public funds.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/why-switzerland-doesn-t-want-to-join-the-european-union/47391050
Don’t be moronic.
The European court of human rights is not the EU, dumb arse. It’s the international court of the council of Europe.
And the UK is a member state. And so are the Swiss.
Seriously. Sometimes…
33d
@shavixmir saidYou’re the one who on the previous page said “the Court’s rulings are binding to EU countries”
Oh my God…
Don’t be moronic.
The European court of human rights is not the EU, dumb arse. It’s the international court of the council of Europe.
And the UK is a member state. And so are the Swiss.
Seriously. Sometimes…
The UK is not in the EU old boy, and thank fuk we aren’t!
32d
@metal-brain saidOh you want the climate lecture. Ok.
In 1800 the earth was warming. The ice core samples prove it. This is all about the science and you know it. courts cannot ignore the science. What else can they possibly base a ruling on?
Thanks for making it clear you want the court to ignore the science. Is it the backwards cause and effect you want them to ignore?
#1: CO2 Does Not Drive All Climate Change
Warm and cold periods on Earth have alternated every 100k years for the last ~800k years at least.
This happens due to the Milankovitch cycle - earth's angle to the sun in a complex procession. Ice cores show that CO2 and temperature move together, but at most, CO2 may have acted as a feedback amplifier. CO2 did not CAUSE any of these swings - changes in earth's albedo did that.
The data show shorter 'heating up' periods alternating with gradual cooling. These are long, slow swings - but the effects are big. 11 to 12 C changes result in massive ice sheets covering the Northern hemisphere.
#2 It Should Be Colder Right Now
Focus on the last 20k years. We have been in a warming trend. Wooly mammoths and rhinos have gone extinct and the vast ice sheets have melted, leaving our present polar caps.
The current cycle peaked about 10k years ago. We *should* already have been getting cooler since then. But between 5-10k years ago, the 'normal' cooling paused. The Milankovitch cycle comes from earth's rotation - nothing can stop it, and physics calculates it exactly. So what accounts for this discrepancy?
(NB. The blip around 14k years was the 'Younger Dryas' possibly caused by interruption of the North Atlantic "conveyor" due to the breakup of freshwater Lake Agassiz.)
#3 CO2 Has Been Rising Unusually for 6k Years
We can plot the Expected (based on previous glacial periods) CO2 vs Actual CO2 levels. Starting 6k years ago, a discrepancy appears.
A little later, a discrepancy also appears with Expected vs Actual Methane levels.
#4 Temperatures Are Not Falling As Milankovtich Would Expect
Theoretically, we 'should' be in a mild glacial period right now. It should be getting colder and ice sheets should be increasing. Instead, they are melting.
Why?
Current best explanation: humans. Deforestation and farming got going ~9k years ago. Our population began to expand. Did we (without meaning to) prevent the latest glaciation?
#5 We Are WAY Past Stopping An Ice Age
Stopping an ice age so New York would not disappear under a mile high sheet of ice is NOT why humans started farming. And we aren't just farmers any more. There are a LOT more of us now. Our CO2 emissions are staggering.
If CO2 'feedback amplification' from deforestation and human activity is theoretically so powerful it could stop glaciation, then what will the next 100 years do, with our CO2 going off the charts?
#6 Will I Be Submerged? There Is An App For That
From the Last Glacial Maximum (21k years ago) until now, temperatures have increased 9.5 C and sea levels rose 120m.
If it was getting colder, ice packs would be increasing and sea levels would be going down.
If instead the rest of the ice caps melt, sea levels would rise by another 70m.
Look up your elevation (iPhone: Compass App). If the ice caps melt and your elevation reads 230 ft or less, the property where you are will one day be submerged.
#7 IS THIS THE ONLY EXPLANATION?
Are humans the only explanation? Did we really do this? Human agriculture started ~7-9k years ago. 6k years ago, there were only 5-10 million humans on the planet. Did a handful of humans really start all these changes?
Or is it possible that this is the last gasp of a Milankovitch effect that somehow 'ran long' and will inevitably reverse and start to cool - as it has before? Is our high CO2 acting as an "amplifier" but irrelevant as a cause? Or, has the extra CO2 from our now VERY large population re-set the thermostat?
There is variability in the temperature data, but if it is the later (most likely), then we need to do something because all major coastal cities in the world are below 70m elevation.
32d
@divegeester saidYes. It is binding for EU countries.
You’re the one who on the previous page said “the Court’s rulings are binding to EU countries”
The UK is not in the EU old boy, and thank fuk we aren’t!
Also for other countries. Like the UK.
32d
@shavixmir saidSo I’m not quite the “moron” then as I was going on what you posted.
Yes. It is binding for EU countries.
Also for other countries. Like the UK.
Anyway; the UK won’t take any notice or action and won’t have to.