Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Van wink

Rain Forest

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I find it very difficult to watch to footage of the burning forest, makes me feel sick and hugely angry at the same time.

You can forget about the plus and minus arguments on Brexit for our future, in context it is of little importance for our future.

Edited by Van wink
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Bolsonaro is an arsewipe. Same breed as Trump, Boris and other similar populist tw@ts who have somehow conned their way to power. His responsibility for this should see him hung, drawn and quartered - no other country has quite the same level of global importance for climate change and this c*** just does not give a toss.

$16 million in aid has been offered by the G7 to support him in tackling the issue (which he caused in the first place) and his response was to cry about Macron calling him a liar (accurately) and refuse to accept the help unless Macron said sorry. The world's most important carbon sink is literally burning down in front of us, and this little cretin is more interested about petty point-scoring and posturing.

Genuinely hope he is deposed and quick - don't even care how, be it by election or be it by someone taking him out - he is the biggest threat to the future of the planet right now.

Edited by kick it off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/08/2019 at 20:19, kick it off said:

Bolsonaro is an arsewipe. Same breed as Trump, Boris and other similar populist tw@ts who have somehow conned their way to power. His responsibility for this should see him hung, drawn and quartered - no other country has quite the same level of global importance for climate change and this c*** just does not give a toss.

$16 million in aid has been offered by the G7 to support him in tackling the issue (which he caused in the first place) and his response was to cry about Macron calling him a liar (accurately) and refuse to accept the help unless Macron said sorry. The world's most important carbon sink is literally burning down in front of us, and this little cretin is more interested about petty point-scoring and posturing.

Genuinely hope he is deposed and quick - don't even care how, be it by election or be it by someone taking him out - he is the biggest threat to the future of the planet right now.

Well, KiO, as you know I'm a populist ** who hasn't conned my way to power and wouldn't want it, but being Rightwing does allow me to be suspicious, hence cautious on any given subject and manmade climate change is no exception.

When fellow populist **, James Delingpole, states that environmental scare stories are deliberately and cynically stoked by left-leaning eco-activist groups for the reasons quoted below, it's difficult not to believe he's on to something when he backs up his reasons for being dubious with well-researched evidence.

1. To generate public hysteria in order to precipitate expensive and unnecessary government action which no sober cost-benefit analysis could ever justify

2. To raise ‘awareness’ — and, by extension, money — for the green cause

3. To discredit conservatives, especially those who are properly sceptical of the green agenda, such as President Trump and his Brazilian counterpart Jair Bolsonaro

4. To reinforce in the popular imagination the notion that economic growth and expressions of national sovereignty — in this case, the interests of Brazilian farmers — are intrinsically bad for the environment

5. To promulgate the common received idea that the Amazon is the ‘lungs of the planet’ and therefore sacrosanct and inviolable in much the same manner as polar bears, glaciers, Pacific islands, the Great Barrier Reef, etc.

6. To lend false credibility to the global left’s claim that the planet is experiencing a #ClimateEmergency

7. To invoke the spectre of the Green New Deal and, by extension, to rain on the parade of Trump 2020

8. To exploit the mainstream media’s insatiable demand for environmental scare stories, especially in the August “silly season” when there’s a shortage of real news

 

Delingpole's research and the truth about the Amazon fires:

The fires are mainly on agricultural land – not virgin rain forest…

Turns out the Amazon Rain Forest fires aren’t exactly as advertised.

Read for yourself: fires are mainly in agricultural areas as farmers prepare their land for planting. The land was cleared in the past. https://t.co/j8MXX8XWIH pic.twitter.com/hxhuxDZbeP

— Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) August 24, 2019

 

amazing: an informative article and very informative map by NYT on Amazon fires. Map shows that fires in previously cleared land. Nothing new. Furore is yet another fraud by enviro activists. https://t.co/xlMXiMZ9BM pic.twitter.com/e6p8GHW3BU

— Stephen McIntyre (@ClimateAudit) August 24, 2019

 

There is nothing abnormal about this fire season

To everyone concerned about the future of the Amazon: sensationalizing the current fire season in the Amazon will not help keep it from burning.
Monthly Amazon fire count data from NASA in recent years: thick red line is 2019 thru present. https://t.co/86C0ZnhbGg pic.twitter.com/LFafdEJTiB

— Dr Dan Nepstad (@dnepstad1) August 23, 2019

 

So, it appears:

* Fire close to average from 2003-2018. (Period of MODIS operation.)
* Fire highest since 2012. Graphs and discussion in that article I linked leave out fires from 2003-2011.

Presumably, there were big fires sometimes between 2003-2011.

— lucia liljegren (@lucialiljegren) August 24, 2019

 

Even NASA admits this…

good spotting https://t.co/xsugkBEIRz

— Stephen McIntyre (@ClimateAudit) August 24, 2019

 

Deforestation is getting better, not worse

Deforestation has decreased markedly compared to the 1990-2005.

Slash and burn land clearing is still an ongoing problem ~2,500 sq miles per year mainly for agriculture. pic.twitter.com/GFSvewBY0X

— Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) August 24, 2019

 

The Amazon rainforest does NOT produce 20 per cent of the world’s oxygen (h/t Dennis Ambler)

From a 2014 New York Times article by Nadine Unger, Assistant Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry at Yale:

Moreover, it is a myth that photosynthesis controls the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere.

Even if all photosynthesis on the planet were shut down, the atmosphere’s oxygen content would change by less than 1 percent.

The Amazon rain forest is often perceived as the lungs of the planet.

 

In fact, almost all the oxygen the Amazon produces during the day remains there and is reabsorbed by the forest at night.

In other words, the Amazon rain forest is a closed system that uses all its own oxygen and carbon dioxide.

It wasn’t always rainforest… (h/t Dennis Ambler)
 
From a 2008 article ‘Brazil: Ancient Amazon Actually Highly Urbanised’
 

Using satellite imagery, scientists have discovered the remains of once densely populated towns in west Brazil, an area that was thought to be virgin forest.

The report in Friday’s edition of the journal Science describes clusters of towns and smaller villages that were connected by complex road networks and were arranged around large central plazas. Researches also discovered signs of farming, wetland management and fish farms in the ancient settlements that are now almost completely covered by rainforest.

As Professor Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor BioGeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, wrote in 2003:

At the end of the last ice age – some 12,000 to 18,000 years ago – the tropics were covered by seasonal savannah grassland, cooler and much drier than now. There were no rain forests in the Malay Peninsula and much of Amazonia, and, despite the increasing human development of forest space, there are still more rain forests persisting than existed then.

Whatever the world’s greenies say, there is no adamantine rule that Brazil — or its neighbours — must stay rain forested in perpetuity.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James Delingpole has been proven to be a terrible source of information on this subject, by quoting him all your doing is signposting your foolishness.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Jools, I teach Geography, I understand the environmental issues to a high level, as I have studied them to a high level. Climate change is not made up, and it's not exaggerated. That's a view shared by every credible scientist in the world, and backed up by tonnes of research. The fires in the Amazon are a direct result of Bolsonaro's policies, and to suggest otherwise is utterly ignorant. Mouthpieces like Delingpole who understand absolutely FA about the issue don't interest me in the slightest, nor do the conspiracy theorists on twitter who feel this is all a leftist stage show designed to discredit the right. It's not.

Edited by kick it off
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31/08/2019 at 11:09, A Load of Squit said:

James Delingpole has been proven to be a terrible source of information on this subject, by quoting him all your doing is signposting your foolishness.

 

https://www.desmog.co.uk/search/google/james delingpole

 

It's depressing how so many of the same names pop up time and again when you delve a bit deeper into climate science. They are all linked to every other dodgy political ideas out there as well, from brexit, taxes, farming chemicals etc. It a massive shilling organisation all funded by a small handful of multi billionaires. (Apologies if I am getting to close to Len territory😀.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 31/08/2019 at 11:09, A Load of Squit said:

James Delingpole has been proven to be a terrible source of information on this subject, by quoting him all your doing is signposting your foolishness.

 

Really? Did you bother reading all the articles included in the original post that are not by Delingpole?

Anyway ---  Two points/facts concerning CO2:

1. The world’s atmosphere contains just 0.04% carbon dioxide. With a chemical breakdown as follows (By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.)

2. 97% of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere each year is produced by the planet, with humans producing the other 3%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Delingpole: Ship of Fools VI – Arctic ‘Global Warming’ Mission Scuppered By Mysterious Hard White Substance

 

Yet another greenie expedition to the Arctic to raise awareness of ‘global warming’ has been scuppered by unexpected large quantities of ice. This brings to a total of six the number of Ship of Fools expeditions where weather reality has made a mockery of climate theory.

According to Maritime Bulletin:

Arctic tours ship MS MALMO with 16 passengers on board got stuck in ice on Sep 3 off Longyearbyen, Svalbard Archipelago, halfway between Norway and North Pole. The ship is on Arctic tour with Climate Change documentary film team, and tourists, concerned with Climate Change and melting Arctic ice. All 16 Climate Change warriors were evacuated by helicopter in challenging conditions, all are safe. 7 crew remains on board, waiting for Coast Guard ship assistance.

The reporter, Erofey Schkvarkin clearly has a sense of humour. He adds:

Something is very wrong with Arctic ice, instead of melting as ordered by UN/IPCC, it captured the ship with Climate Change Warriors.

It appears the mainstream media has failed to get the memo. Here is a tweet from Reuters which appeared after the ship got stuck in ice. (h/t Stewgreen)

The town of Longyearbyen, Norway, is the northernmost — and the fastest-warming — town in the world, where glaciers melt, coffins rise from permafrost and avalanches sweep away houses. More dispatches from a climate-change frontier: https://t.co/0WKOphZuzv 📷 @hannahmckay88 pic.twitter.com/DwXmTLw3SV

— Reuters Pictures (@reuterspictures) September 7, 2019

 

Here’s another hysterical story about Longyearbyen written by the Guardian earlier in the year – with a correction that puts the nonsense in context.

Longyearbyen 1908… No snow. pic.twitter.com/gjvMLm3iV2

— Patp (@patp1222) September 8, 2019

 

Here is the Ship of Fools list of shame

Ship of Fools 1 Australian climate researcher Chris Turkey and a crew of climate alarmists on a mission to demonstrate just how much Antarctic ice has been affected by global warming get stuck in unexpectedly thick ice and have to be rescued by helicopter.

Ship of Fools II Arctic expedition led by veteran explorer David Hempleman-Adams to raise awareness of “permanent irreversible change in the sea ice landscape of the Arctic” caused by global warming is ruined by unexpectedly large quantities of ice.

Ship of Fools III Global warming research study in Canada cancelled because of ice. “It became clear to me very quickly that these weren’t just heavy ice conditions, these were unprecedented ice conditions” claims the lead scientist, blaming it on “climate change fully in action” and calling it “a wake up call for all of us in this country.”

Ship of Fools IV Arctic Mission sailing expedition to North Pole to raise awareness of global warming has to turn back after yachts find their passage blocked by large quantities of unexpected frozen white substance.

Ship of Fools V Scientists, students, filmmakers from University of Rhode Island’s Inner Space Center on a mission to “document climate change effects” in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago have to be rescued after the ship is damaged after grounding on unexpected hard, bluey-white substance floating on the sea.

Do you think someone up there is trying to tell these people something? 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James Delingpole has been proven to be a terrible source of information on this subject, by quoting him all your doing is signposting your foolishness.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

James Delingpole has been proven to be a terrible source of information on this subject, by quoting him all your doing is signposting your foolishness.

 

Really? Did you bother reading all the articles included in my last post that are not by Delingpole?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🤔

August 30, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — The fires in the Amazonian rainforest in Brazil could not have been more superbly timed : they burned opportunely at the time of the G7 summit of developed nations in Biarritz, France, and its internationalist, anti-sovereign solutions. The media hype surrounding the scenes of desolation also comes less than two months before the Synod on Amazonia called for by Pope Francis. And we now know that in Rome in October, fascination with the indigenous way of life — tribalism, socialism, and “traditional” religious rites — will be expressed while calls will be made for its international protection.

Is this a textbook case of mind control?

Users of the media cannot have missed the eerie superlatives on news shows or on the Twitter and Instagram accounts of celebrities. Even (or should we say “especially”) French president Emmanuel Macron, a would-be Superman and defender of the planet, made a number of catastrophic predictions. The “lung of the world” is burning, he proclaimed, adding that the Amazonian rainforests account for “20 percent” of the Earth’s oxygen.

The future wrought by the Amazon fires is clear, if this rhetoric is to be believed: the Earth is being collectively suffocated, and the desolation of a field of ruins awaits us. The most anxious among humankind already feel as though they are running out of air.

The great culprit is to our right: Jair Bolsonaro, the new Brazilian president whom the international community does not hesitate to blame for a situation with supposedly global consequences. He — a right-wing, Christian leader — is the bad guy: has he not relaxed environmental rules and promoted the deforestation that is burning the primordial forest for the benefit of big business? Has he not encouraged unscrupulous farmers to destroy the precious tropical fauna and vegetation in order to plant palm trees and soybeans for exportation, as Brazil slowly transforms into one of the top global agricultural producers?

Clearly, we have here a dialectical exploitation of the facts: a whole new version of the class struggle, where big owners eager for profit attack the oppressed — the oppressed of the day being precisely the Amazonian forest, now promoted to the rank of the Earth’s nurturing mother.

It is referred to as “our home” in order to better involve each and everyone. By this manipulation, the aim is to “extinguish” those who are contemptuously referred to as the right-wing populists: Bolsonaro, already named, but also the climate skeptic Donald Trump and a few others.

The ideological fire hose is over-selective. One can only wonder why there is not a great movement to denounce the political leaders of sub-Saharan Africa, where seasonal fires are causing as much, if not more, damage right now than in Brazil. As RTBF.be, the Belgian institutional radio and television station, recently remarked, Angola, Zambia, Tanzania, and the Congo are heavily affected, and even the local African press does not report it. “Quite simply because it is a common, regular phenomenon,” even if it is always “worrying,” commented RTBF, explaining that it is the phenomenon of slash-and-burn farming, practiced by local farmers who fertilize their soils by voluntarily burning cut wood, that accounts for many fires in sub-Saharan Africa.

According to the same article, dated 24 August, the European Space Agency (ESA) “estimates that sub-Saharan Africa accounts for about 70 percent of the world's burnt area, according to global satellite databases[.]”

And who is even thinking of blaming Vladimir Putin, who received a cordial welcome from Emmanuel Macron before and through the G7 meeting, when the Siberian tundra was also hit by great fires at the beginning of August?

A look a little farther west from Brazil, toward Bolivia — which includes a large part of the Amazonian forest — is enough to better understand how the disinformation mechanism works. The volume of fires there is significantly higher than last year, and 800,000 hectares of the Chiquitano "Model Forest" went up in smoke between August 18 and 23. But the international media do not blame President Evo Morales. This indigenous, socialist, and environmentalist left-wing president is a good man. Whatever he does.

Yet it was Evo Morales who encouraged local farmers, often indigenous people from his electoral constituency, to burn wood in the rainforest to make charcoal for resale or to conserve arable land. He also refused international assistance to fight the forest fires. The situation was generally much more serious than in neighboring Brazil, it seems. But no threats regarding trade relations with Bolivia were made, even as the French president was invoking the fires in Brazil to put a stop to Mercosur negotiations.

Where was the bashing of Evo Morales by international political media? Or calls to stop all international aid (an idea of U.S. Democratic senator Brian Schatz for Brazil) until a policy change would take place?

No: “Populists” (or those dubbed as such by the media) and sovereignists are the true target. Interestingly, the subject of global forest fires is making headlines this year even though it should in fact, all things being equal, come to the forefront of the media scene every year.

We are told that this year’s fires are exceptional. Not so much: Macron’s apocalyptic tweets included a photo that dates back nearly twenty years, signed Loren McIntyre — who died in 2003. Other clichés “shared” by celebrities come from Peru, where the fire front is currently calm. Madonna, according to Agence France-Presse, has published an image of a forest on fire dating back to...1989.

The same AFP debunked several other photos that were shared thousands of times to call attention to the Amazon fires: other times, other catastrophes, other places were being used to feed the big scare.

The truth is that fires are partly a natural phenomenon — in the dry season, they are lit by electrical storms — partly deliberate, in order to recover land for planting or fertilizing; and partly criminal.

The media were not quick to report, for example, that the fire episode in the Amazon was about average compared with the last twenty years. There were peaks in the states of Amazonas and Rondônia but rather low activity in Mato Grosso and Pará.

These are data published by NASA, based on satellite images that everyone can consult online.

Nor is it reported that deforestation remains at a low average level, compared to data from 1990 to 2008, and that it tends to decline as per capita incomes increase — a phenomenon that has been widely observed in Brazil since 2004.

Nor will the mainstream media talk about the ambiguity of the words “Amazon fires.” The Amazon rainforest is shared by nine countries. Surely, Brazil accounts for the larger part — 60.8 percent — but many of the present fires were burning in French Guiana, in Bolivia, and elsewhere. So why would Bolsonaro be the only culprit?

Also, the “legal” region of Amazonas in Brazil is much larger than the Amazonian rainforest. Many of the fires are actually burning in agricultural regions or the dry “cerrado” regions, which have nothing to do with the tropical biosphere, observed Xico Graziano, a Brazilian agricultural engineer, in a recent article. They are regions where agriculture is naturally present. Of the rainforest properly speaking, he wrote, it is estimated that about 95 percent is untouched by deforestation.

This does not mean that there has been no criminal arson in Brazil, but the instigators of these fires risk heavy sanctions, and they are not all “evil capitalists.” While illegal deforestation due to large industrialists does occur, local landowners who benefited from agrarian reform, private owners, and indigenous tribes also account for legal or illegal tree-felling. Less than 12 percent of deforestation touches protected areas, Graziano also remarked.

This is the more remarkable since Brazilian preservation laws are among the most severe on the planet: according to the regions where they own their land, owners are not allowed to exploit anywhere between 20 and even 80 percent of their property. This “legal reserve” of 80 percent is precisely in Amazônia, remarks Denis Lerrer Rosenfield, showing that this restriction on personal property rights would be unheard of anywhere else on Earth.

As for the myth of the “20 percent” of oxygen produced by the Amazonian forest, it exploded in mid-air. The oceans are the largest absorbers of CO2 and produce the most oxygen and as such could claim to be the “lungs of the planet.” Young, growing forests are also excellent producers — unlike the ancient Amazon jungle, which by definition is not maintenanced as are, for instance, European forests and woods. Deforestation produces carbon dioxide, but so does decomposing matter, such as old and dying trees, at the same time as photosynthesis releases oxygen, so even there, the balance can be negative.

It was the Huffington Post that published an interview with a French academic specialized in all things Amazonian, Alain Pave. To say that the Amazonian rainforest produces “20 percent” of the Earth’s oxygen is “very, very optimistic,” he told the media. It would account “at the most” for a few percent, but even that is difficult to assert, given the many variables we ignore.

“Despite a major effort over a long period of time, data for the Amazon are still fragmentary and imprecise. The forest is not just a collection of trees, it is an ecosystem with other plants, animals, micro-organisms, irrigated by a hydrological system, with multiple interactions. Beware of simplistic messages and detailed descriptions that are more poetic than scientific,” he said.

But anything is good enough to maintain the great climate scare.

Colonel Gregory Allione, president of the National Federation of Firefighters in France, went on record on France Info radio, saying: “We have not seen this in the entire history of human beings on this planet.” He demanded “coordination, anticipation and a global approach on the part of all countries” to react to the situation in Brazil.  Is this all a necessary step to bring Brazilian sovereign territory under international, even U.N., control?

Emmanuel Macron used the same logic when he stated that we must “find a form of good governance.” “We need to involve NGOs, indigenous peoples much more than we do. And the process of industrialized deforestation must be stopped,” he added on the Élysée site.

This “involvement of indigenous peoples” is all the rage. It’s what a large part of the upcoming Amazon Synod is all about. It seems the Catholic Church is not alone in its strange endeavors; the internationalist community is on the same line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only scientific data stretching back hundreds of thousands of years were as compelling as a sloganistic, nonsensical propaganda poster paid for by one of the energy profiteers hey? Then we may be able to convince the terminally dim like Jools that it's real. Don't let facts get in the way of bright coloursand bizarrely violent slogans though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, kick it off said:

If only scientific data stretching back hundreds of thousands of years were as compelling as a sloganistic, nonsensical propaganda poster paid for by one of the energy profiteers hey? Then we may be able to convince the terminally dim like Jools that it's real. Don't let facts get in the way of bright coloursand bizarrely violent slogans though.

Good afternoon, KiO

What happened to the Pacific atolls that were meant to have disappeared 10 years ago?

First the claims of an ice age in the Seventies then the ozone in the Eighties, then global warming in the nineties, then climate change in the oo's and now a climate emergency...

And activists want us to return to the stone age, but of course they want to keep all the environment damaging mod cons in the process.

For my whole 59 years on the planet, one fanatic after another has been telling us the world will end soon if we don't accept more control by the State.

The sky has yet to fall. Climate change is real. The extent that is manmade is a fraud.

Edited by Jools

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Jools said:

And activists want us to return to the stone age, but of course they want to keep all the environment damaging mod cons in the process.

This just shows your lack of understanding of the whole topic. Nobody is talking about going back to the stone age. Some adaptation of our diets is necessary but progressive tech will take care of the rest. Renewable energy, carbon sinks and carbon filters. It's not rocket science. No idea why you lot are so obsessed with using outdated tech like petrol, coal etc. If anyone is trying to go backwards in time (ironic coming from a Brexwit who seems to think we could and should replicate the empire of old anyway), it's you lot who are so desperate to use technology that we've had for 100+ years, instead of progressive technology that is sustainable.... Even if you ignore the entire climate change argument/debate.... what exactly are you going to do when the FINITE supplies of oil and coal run out?

People who deal in facts and reality are advocating advancing our technology base to deal with a problem. You don't believe this problem exists and therefore don't want to see any form of progress. It's a bit of an odd thing to get so worked up about if you believe there isn't a problem. Not sure why you feel the need to aggressively argue about there not being a problem when your tech is finite, therefore even if climate change is a hoax (which it clearly isn't) then clearly there will be a problem in the next few decades anyway when it starts to run out, prices spike and suddenly you can't afford petrol etc anymore.

Edited by kick it off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, kick it off said:

This just shows your lack of understanding of the whole topic. Nobody is talking about going back to the stone age. Some adaptation of our diets is necessary but progressive tech will take care of the rest. Renewable energy, carbon sinks and carbon filters. It's not rocket science. No idea why you lot are so obsessed with using outdated tech like petrol, coal etc. If anyone is trying to go backwards in time (ironic coming from a Brexwit who seems to think we could and should replicate the empire of old anyway), it's you lot who are so desperate to use technology that we've had for 100+ years, instead of progressive technology that is sustainable.... Even if you ignore the entire climate change argument/debate.... what exactly are you going to do when the FINITE supplies of oil and coal run out?

People who deal in facts and reality are advocating advancing our technology base to deal with a problem. You don't believe this problem exists and therefore don't want to see any form of progress. It's a bit of an odd thing to get so worked up about if you believe there isn't a problem. Not sure why you feel the need to aggressively argue about there not being a problem when your tech is finite, therefore even if climate change is a hoax (which it clearly isn't) then clearly there will be a problem in the next few decades anyway when it starts to run out, prices spike and suddenly you can't afford petrol etc anymore.

I'm not denying climate change, KiO, I'm denying how much is manmade and as a realist, I'm preferring scientists looked for practical solutions --- You're on board with the Alarmists and you continue to do nothing to offer remotely practical solutions to the challenges posed by a changing climate.

Your way is proving to be ineffective and it's way too expensive --- Green Taxes to subsidise expensive, unreliable renewables, lining the pockets of already rich people is not the way.

Human ingenuity and faster economic development will see us through, KiO – After all, according to Alarmists, half of Holland would already be underwater right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

😀👇

 

 

Last night, Andrew Neil took Extinction Rebellion spokesman Zion Lights  to task over her organisation’s alarmist claims and anti-scientific arguments. Lights was taken to task over the Extinction Rebellion claim that “billions of people will die over the next few decades”, eventually admitting that what they were saying did not fall within the scientific mainstream and disclosing that “unfortunately alarmist language works.”

Extraordinarily for people who use soundbites like “listen to the scientists”, Lights ended up arguing against the scientific mainstream IPCC report, attacking it as presenting “very conservative numbers… using pre-industrial levels of data.” That’s undermining 6,000 scientific references, 91 authors, representing a global consensus with review editors from 40 countries. Lights ended up sounding like the people she purports to argue against, cherry-picking one or two eccentric researchers, against the vast scientific consensus…

Extinction Rebellion continually says “listen to the experts” but their demand of net zero emissions by 2025 directly contradicts the 2050 target that the experts are recommending.

When Neil posed the reality that in order to achieve Extinction Rebellion’s six-year target, all flying would have to come to an end; all cars would have to be confiscated; meat would have to be rationed by the state; and all gas boilers and cookers would have to be removed from every home; Lights did not deny it, merely responding with the platitudinous comparison “we put a man on the moon.” The entire excruciating interview is worth watching in full.

Extinction Rebellion have escaped proper scrutiny for months, despite receiving blanket news coverage. Other broadcasters and journalists should watch this interview and take note…

Was it as a result of Neil’s interview that Corbyn deleted his tweet calling for a net zero target of just 2030? He replaced it with a tweet committing to everything the previous one did, save for that extreme 2030 pledge…

Edited by Jools

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that Jools has just switched from spewing massive mounts of pro-Brexit nonsense to anti-climate change nonsense. Are you paid to do this, or do you just get your kicks from being an anti-social idiot? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31/08/2019 at 19:14, kick it off said:

Jools, I teach Geography, I understand the environmental issues to a high level, as I have studied them to a high level. Climate change is not made up, and it's not exaggerated. That's a view shared by every credible scientist in the world, and backed up by tonnes of research. The fires in the Amazon are a direct result of Bolsonaro's policies, and to suggest otherwise is utterly ignorant. Mouthpieces like Delingpole who understand absolutely FA about the issue don't interest me in the slightest, nor do the conspiracy theorists on twitter who feel this is all a leftist stage show designed to discredit the right. It's not.

You are a failing supply teacher in an inner city sink school who knows Jacksh it about science subjects and who knows nothing except the brainwashed teachings of your leftie, climate deranged university staff. 

500 scientists recently wrote to the UN stating that man-made climate change had not been proven

Edited by Rock The Boat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2019 at 21:29, Surfer said:

I see that Jools has just switched from spewing massive mounts of pro-Brexit nonsense to anti-climate change nonsense. Are you paid to do this, or do you just get your kicks from being an anti-social idiot? 

 

Just because somebody disagrees with your nonsense doesn't make them anti-social. You sound hurt that someone has a different opinion to you. A normal characteristic in left-wingers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2019 at 11:07, Jools said:

😀👇

 

 

Last night, Andrew Neil took Extinction Rebellion spokesman Zion Lights  to task over her organisation’s alarmist claims and anti-scientific arguments. Lights was taken to task over the Extinction Rebellion claim that “billions of people will die over the next few decades”, eventually admitting that what they were saying did not fall within the scientific mainstream and disclosing that “unfortunately alarmist language works.”

Extraordinarily for people who use soundbites like “listen to the scientists”, Lights ended up arguing against the scientific mainstream IPCC report, attacking it as presenting “very conservative numbers… using pre-industrial levels of data.” That’s undermining 6,000 scientific references, 91 authors, representing a global consensus with review editors from 40 countries. Lights ended up sounding like the people she purports to argue against, cherry-picking one or two eccentric researchers, against the vast scientific consensus…

Extinction Rebellion continually says “listen to the experts” but their demand of net zero emissions by 2025 directly contradicts the 2050 target that the experts are recommending.

When Neil posed the reality that in order to achieve Extinction Rebellion’s six-year target, all flying would have to come to an end; all cars would have to be confiscated; meat would have to be rationed by the state; and all gas boilers and cookers would have to be removed from every home; Lights did not deny it, merely responding with the platitudinous comparison “we put a man on the moon.” The entire excruciating interview is worth watching in full.

Extinction Rebellion have escaped proper scrutiny for months, despite receiving blanket news coverage. Other broadcasters and journalists should watch this interview and take note…

Was it as a result of Neil’s interview that Corbyn deleted his tweet calling for a net zero target of just 2030? He replaced it with a tweet committing to everything the previous one did, save for that extreme 2030 pledge…

I watched this interview. Zion Lights is an uninformed fool and a stooge for the Globalists who will make billions of dollars out of climategate. 

She probably has a TV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

You are a failing supply teacher in an inner city sink school who knows Jacksh it about science subjects and who knows nothing except the brainwashed teachings of your leftie, climate deranged university staff. 

500 scientists recently wrote to the UN stating that man-made climate change had not been proven

I clicked to see what diatribe you'd posted, only to find that more than 6 months after I blocked you, you're still aiming posts at me. It's cute, but more than a little desperate. As for your bizarre attention seeking post, I'll do no more than correct your ridiculous assertions.

Full time, permanent contract - School has been Outstanding on last two Ofsted visits (including one in the last few years, where 80% of previously outstanding schools were downgraded - mine wasn't). Comprehensive school, not even near a city, let alone one big enough to have an inner city..... Fully mixed catchment in socio-economic terms. Significantly above national average on all measures for progress and attainment, and my subject outperformed national average by 20%. Oh and we have a positive progress score for students who receive the Pupil Premium funding (ie the most deprived) who buck national trends by performing on par with non PP kids.

Good try though. I won't bother clicking your posts again so don't bother replying.

Edited by kick it off
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×