It’s the Erling Haaland of weather records. https://news.sky.com/story/septembe...sts-blaming-more-than-climate-change-12976750 Meanwhile the Pyrenees will soon be glacier free. There were 100 at the turn of the Century, but only 17 now and those are melting fast. https://www.itv.com/news/2023-10-03/scientists-warn-spains-pyrenees-glaciers-will-vanish-in-years
The hottest year ever? Patently and demonstrably a lie. 1.4c warmer now than it was during what is almost universally referred to a mini ice age? Any serious message is lost amidst blatant and deliberate misuse of language and information, creating a non-sequitor detachment between subject and message. The overwhelming message from this article is that change happens, yet it is used to beat us about the head regarding things that may be having little to no effect on the situation. The clear and obvious response is that we need to take action to adapt, but universal leadership response is that we do things that will make no difference to the outcome, but will give the appearance of doing something virtuous. We are facing huge challenges from climate change, but instead of preparing for the inevitable, we are trying to stop the world from doing what, even this article admits to, it has always done. Instead of equipping ourselves with sustainable water sources and sun shades, we are still trying to fight against nature. Thunburg is a modern King Canute (that’s the former English King, please don’t try to ban me for poor spelling), but the misunderstood version, that believed he could command nature. She believes she can change it, unlike the real Canute, who was demonstrating the futility of believing you have power over it. Our efforts would be far better employed in adapting to the changes, than trying to stop them, using methods we know are likely to fail. The Pyrenees haven’t always been glacial, they haven’t always been habitable. They have, at times, been covered in massive glaciers that carved out their very form, and have been shaped by catastrophic earthquakes, before and since man even walked the planet. Exactly which moment in time do people think we should attempt to return them to? Or, perhaps, we should see what the world has in store for them, and adapt accordingly.
You really have not got the foggiest clue about science. First about virology and now climate science. I suppose you've studied all the data have you with your multiple supercomputers ? I bey you wouldn't know what to make of a sediment core if it jumped out and was in your face. People like you are extraordinarily dangerous. Making up lies, spouting pseudoscience while pretending what you are saying is the truth. Because you won't or dont understand the data but are content to peddle an agenda. For what it's worth if we follow your course of action the world is going to pay an enormous penalty in all sorts of areas. We won't be able to adapt. And how sad to single out Thunberg. While ignoring all the atmospheric physicists, species recorders, isotope data and their countless papers which show that anthropogenic climate change is not a myth. And learn some history. That story of **** is a fable assigned to him by later writers as an example of piety and a higher King than that on the throne. No contemporary accounts exist and the allusion is from Celtic mythology anyway.
Humans can adapt, but that adaptation will be dramatic, I'd expect. Part of that adaptation will be places like the UK accepting mass migration of people seeking to escape an unliveable climate in places like Africa and the Middle East. Funnily enough, though, that's completely at odds with the way some politicians are preparing for the challenge, so something's going to have to give. London may well be like Barcelona; and Barcelona will be like, what? I know it's a flippant comment but I look forward to people in the UK embracing the change that's coming and saying "Oh yeah, this is fine." When the food and water becomes more scarce – and therefore more expensive – I'm absolutely certain that the populations in the advanced economies will take it with the sort of stoicism that has seen those same people accept changing social attitudes in such an even-minded way! On a far more trivial level, it'll completely transform the world's sport too as wet bulb temperatures rise to such a degree that outdoor sports in extreme heat become unsafe. We're not all that far away from that now. Only another handful of years before we start to see major changes. (On a related note, there was a news item on the BBC this week about a new, much cheaper malaria vaccine. The end of the item made the point that it's going to be required in Europe, perhaps even as far north as the UK, as the malaria-carrying mosquitoes migrate north due to the changing climate.)
We won’t, in a linear fashion, just end up like Barcelona. We will be subject to extremes that it will cost billions to mitigate. Even if we do, the rest of the World will be in turmoil.
Sorry. Took me a while to reply. I was peeing myself with laughter and couldn't type anything legible. Smudge. I appreciate that you have faith in your beliefs, and defend your right to express them on equal terms to everyone else in this world. But are you really telling me that we would be better off doing a rain dance to stop our house burning down, than calling the fire brigade? Not sure I have seen anyone demonstrate a greater commitment to self abuse in order to disagree with Hooter. Even the most unhinged Greenies are reluctantly coming around to the fact that Climate Change is a predominantly natural phenomenon. But you know best.
This is completely incorrect, and totally misleading. You have no clue how quickly it has changed, or what the causes are. The dark ages, it is believed, came about because of volcanic activity that dramatically changed our climate. The eruption of Krakatau changed the climate for several years, happening over night and having affects that lasted a century. To reiterate. Nature can and has changed the climate literally over night, on uncountable occasions, in the right circumstances. Would the people on the islands around Krakatau have been better employed in cutting down their use of fossil fuels when the volcanoe started rumbling (try to appease the gods to improve their environment), or would they have been better off moving a little way up wind (taking practical steps to avoid a pending calamity)? Again, people have every right to express an opinion, but it is the duty of those who know better to point out when it is a scientifically incorrect opinion. Cuurent warming, compared to a catastrophic volcanic eruption, gives us time to adapt. JSO and their ilk are trying to force us to take action that may have no discernable affect on the climate, and are distracting from the practical mitigation that might actually achieve something.
So we should just stop oil, rather than do the mitigation? What are you getting at? Your starting point, surely, should be "are the things JSO etc. are calling for in, western countries, enough to positively affect climate change?" If you don't believe they are (certainly they will not achieve their stated goals if China and India do not pick up the pace), don't you think they are wasting time and resources, and would perhaps be better off talking about the mitigation, like desalinization and mass irrigation projects, as well as coastal defences that will also provide wave and tidal energy capture? Nah. Just stop oil. Even though we all know, by their own figures, that it will not work. Gives people something virtuous to get behind. Personally I prefer a slightly more practical approach than praing to the environment gods, and hoping they change the habit of a planet's life time.
Extinction Rebellion leader fought the law… and the law won: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67288289 Seems to think the rules don’t apply to her. Dripping with arrogance and evidently the jury didn’t like it either.
**** around and find out. And she has/will. But is that a thing, that you can’t use any defence you like if it’s wrong in law?
