Jump to content

Humans Causing Climate Emergency


shull

Recommended Posts


24 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

I know you put that up because you think we should be laughing at folk like him but he actually got his point across quite well by sticking to his message. Whether you agree with him or not, whether or not you think he is being alarmist, that's a different matter.

He is right, AFAIK, that all the science (or at least the stuff not funded by those with a vested interest in making money from the status quo) points to catastrophic change. As I've said before, the planet will survive but the human race may not.

If we don't survive, the planet will recover quite quickly (as we aren't here to f**k it up) then, after a few hundred thousand years, another "intelligent" animal may arise and they will probably f**k it up as well. Maybe it's just the way of things.

God will help. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

I know you put that up because you think we should be laughing at folk like him but he actually got his point across quite well by sticking to his message. Whether you agree with him or not, whether or not you think he is being alarmist, that's a different matter.

He is right, AFAIK, that all the science (or at least the stuff not funded by those with a vested interest in making money from the status quo) points to catastrophic change. As I've said before, the planet will survive but the human race may not.

If we don't survive, the planet will recover quite quickly (as we aren't here to f**k it up) then, after a few hundred thousand years, another "intelligent" animal may arise and they will probably f**k it up as well. Maybe it's just the way of things.

That was a brilliant interview.

Roger kept his focus really well, used good analogies and was crystal clear throughout.

The interviewer didn't land a glove on him.

Whether you agree with his views or not, that was a compelling watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

That was a brilliant interview.

Roger kept his focus really well, used good analogies and was crystal clear throughout.

The interviewer didn't land a glove on him.

Whether you agree with his views or not, that was a compelling watch.

Part of the problem with public perception is guys like you mention are not seen as credible.

While there are very real, as much as Shull tries to demean them, and obvious signs we need to make some changes there are some people who are seen as extremists and that in itself diminishes the dangers and debate.

More people that the general public can relate to, the recent speeches by Attenborough for example, would help get the public more on board.

This weeks hullabaloo about members of the royal family using aeroplanes, is, IMO, more about selling newspapers than having any real relevance.

Anyway, I'm driving to work today as the cost and time using public transport makes it unreasonable.

I'll fly abroad for a holiday as walking/swimming to Tenerife isn't really feasible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Slartibartfast said:

Get that in the right thread. :)

Although, you do have a point. Most of the "climate deniers" in the US are right wing evangelical christians who are determined to bring about Armageddon (yes, I know it's actually the place it is supposed to take place and not the name of the event itself). Bringing the world closer to disaster, at least from a human perspective, is what they want, they want war and destruction to fulfill their book's prophecy - and if they can make a few bucks doing so, they will.

God can be in every thread, pray for forgiveness, ya twat. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Part of the problem with public perception is guys like you mention are not seen as credible.

While there are very real, as much as Shull tries to demean them, and obvious signs we need to make some changes there are some people who are seen as extremists and that in itself diminishes the dangers and debate.

More people that the general public can relate to, the recent speeches by Attenborough for example, would help get the public more on board.

This weeks hullabaloo about members of the royal family using aeroplanes, is, IMO, more about selling newspapers than having any real relevance.

Anyway, I'm driving to work today as the cost and time using public transport makes it unreasonable.

I'll fly abroad for a holiday as walking/swimming to Tenerife isn't really feasible. 

People in general are not very good at seeing through the way people look, dress and present themselves. They make decisions about the guys credibility based on his demeanor, his clothes, the state of his hair, whether he is good in front of a camera or not, charisma etc. It's very frustrating to watch this and see a perfectly good message go to waste.

What people really should be asking is whether this guy is right or not about us having 6 years to save ourselves from mass starvation. He is either correct or he is wrong. If he's wrong maybe he can be dismissed. If he is right and there is hard science backing him up then we have a problem if we ignore him. The interviewer got caught up in trying to present him as a weirdo and missed the very obvious and important key point. He should have asked for evidence of that specific claim.

Personally, I prefer to ignore everything but the vocal arguments on both sides but I am in a small minority of humans who actively do that.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, oaksoft said:

People in general are not very good at seeing through the way people look, dress and present themselves. They make decisions about the guys credibility based on his demeanor, his clothes, the state of his hair, whether he is good in front of a camera or not, charisma etc. It's very frustrating to watch this and see a perfectly good message go to waste.

What people really should be asking is whether this guy is right or not about us having 6 years to save us from mass starvation. He is either correct or he is wrong. If he's wrong maybe he can be dismissed. If he is right and there is hard science backing him up then we have a problem if we ignore him.

Personally, I prefer to ignore everything but the vocal arguments on both sides but I am in a small minority of humans who actively do that.

Then again, you look like a twat, come across as a twat and ARE a twat. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Get that in the right thread. :)

Although, you do have a point. Most of the "climate deniers" in the US are right wing evangelical christians who are determined to bring about Armageddon (yes, I know it's actually the place it is supposed to take place and not the name of the event itself). Bringing the world closer to disaster, at least from a human perspective, is what they want, they want war and destruction to fulfill their book's prophecy - and if they can make a few bucks doing so, they will.

I actually didn't know that bit in bold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...