General Climate change

bruce

Warriors 1st Grader
Contributor
Sep 1, 2015
19,493
Who knew that three hundred million year old forests would come back to kill us in the form of death by fossil fuels.
The Law of Conservation of Mass (Antoine Lavoisier) states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, just transformed.

Carbon is the key word and for millions of years it has been stored in plants or fossils.

Combust carbon with oxygen and you get carbon dioxide which floats as a gas into the atmosphere.

The only way to get it back down is through plants which absorb it during photosynthesis and release the oxygen back into the air.

Some might rubbish Maori science, but the early Maori used to say a prayer before they cut down a tree.

... but WTF did they know...eh?

Just saying like
 

rugged

1st Grade Fringe
May 1, 2012
2,138
They were not in the same religions so I could only guess the oil companies, being mainly Merkin, played the game of spreading disinformation amongst the most gullible people first e.g. fundamentalist Christians
Thats a hell of a leap to make based off meeting two people.

Any truth to the rumor Evans actually threw punches in response to chambers being a denier and sledging his climate change thesis?
 

bruce

Warriors 1st Grader
Contributor
Sep 1, 2015
19,493
Thats a hell of a leap to make based off meeting two people.
It wasn't based on 2 people, I was just giving an example....and it was decades ago when nobody even talked about it.

I think if you check the demographics of climate deniers most are right wing and many are god botherers. Note that not all right wingers bother god.

That is another thing about these corporates with dirty secrets, they are the only ones that know about it at first, so they get a head start at disinformation.

Years ago there was a weatherman on TV3, a Merkin dude, he was not outlandish at all but made a few comments about how the climate was changing...nothing political or extreme at all. He was told to shut up or else.

The top Kiwi government scientist who wrote an excellent book called Greenhouse NZ, I think about 1985, got the sack because of some minor breach of contract.

Some news organisation interviewed him over the phone and he answered a small question, honestly. He was well known and often interviewed but got picked up because he didn't seek permission from his boss...FFS.

Concern about the environment started way back in the 1960s but got mixed up with drug use and hippies so was easy to target.

BTW the Kiwi scientist was Dr. Jim Salinger. His book was right on the button. He gave about three scenarios from cautious to real bad. Guess which one is playing out now...36 years later?

Any train spotters out there?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Worried2Death

wizards rage

1st Grade Fringe
Apr 18, 2016
4,530
Tauranga
It wasn't based on 2 people, I was just giving an example....and it was decades ago when nobody even talked about it.

I think if you check the demographics of climate deniers most are right wing and many are god botherers. Note that not all right wingers bother god.

That is another thing about these corporates with dirty secrets, they are the only ones that know about it at first, so they get a head start at disinformation.

Years ago there was a weatherman on TV3, a Merkin dude, he was not outlandish at all but made a few comments about how the climate was changing...nothing political or extreme at all. He was told to shut up or else.

The top Kiwi government scientist who wrote an excellent book called Greenhouse NZ, I think about 1985, got the sack because of some minor breach of contract.

Some news organisation interviewed him over the phone and he answered a small question, honestly. He was well known and often interviewed but got picked up because he didn't seek permission from his boss...FFS.

Concern about the environment started way back in the 1960s but got mixed up with drug use and hippies so was easy to target.

BTW the Kiwi scientist was Dr. Jim Salinger. His book was right on the button. He gave about three scenarios from cautious to real bad. Guess which one is playing out now...36 years later?

Any train spotters out there?
In the 80’s it was concern about global cooling and an ice age coming - didn’t happen. By the 2000’s it was global warming and countries would be under water by now. Didn’t happen.

Now it’s climate change and hopefully more reasoned conversations with pollution, excessive plastic, overpopulation and sustainability all needing to be addressed.
 

rugged

1st Grade Fringe
May 1, 2012
2,138
think if you check the demographics of climate deniers most are right wing and many are god botherers. Note that not all right wingers bother god.
I suspect you are right with regards to the demographic who believe climate change is a hoax

The majority of the western world are practical deniers. They may articulate a belief in man made climate change but they still buy their imported food and nikes. Heck, here we are supporting the Warriors, surely we should all be repulsed by the carbon footprint of the NRL and the Warriors in particular.
 

Rick O'Shay

Warriors 1st Grader
May 1, 2013
4,710
New Plymouth
It wasn't based on 2 people, I was just giving an example....and it was decades ago when nobody even talked about it.

I think if you check the demographics of climate deniers most are right wing and many are god botherers. Note that not all right wingers bother god.

That is another thing about these corporates with dirty secrets, they are the only ones that know about it at first, so they get a head start at disinformation.

Years ago there was a weatherman on TV3, a Merkin dude, he was not outlandish at all but made a few comments about how the climate was changing...nothing political or extreme at all. He was told to shut up or else.

The top Kiwi government scientist who wrote an excellent book called Greenhouse NZ, I think about 1985, got the sack because of some minor breach of contract.

Some news organisation interviewed him over the phone and he answered a small question, honestly. He was well known and often interviewed but got picked up because he didn't seek permission from his boss...FFS.

Concern about the environment started way back in the 1960s but got mixed up with drug use and hippies so was easy to target.

BTW the Kiwi scientist was Dr. Jim Salinger. His book was right on the button. He gave about three scenarios from cautious to real bad. Guess which one is playing out now...36 years later?

Any train spotters out there?
Didn't he write Catcher in The Rye? ;)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Worried2Death

Rick O'Shay

Warriors 1st Grader
May 1, 2013
4,710
New Plymouth
Bottom line is we've fucked this planet one way or another. Sort of like waiting for Delta to arrive and hoping it takes that unvaxxed bastard next door first.

Fortunately mother nature has a way of cleaning up messes and unfortunately it will be at the expense of mankind.

Just like Immigration in good old NZ, expect a reset soon.
 

Worried2Death

1st Grade Fringe
Mar 6, 2016
3,335
Bottom line is we've fucked this planet one way or another. Sort of like waiting for Delta to arrive and hoping it takes that unvaxxed bastard next door first.

Fortunately mother nature has a way of cleaning up messes and unfortunately it will be at the expense of mankind.

Just like Immigration in good old NZ, expect a reset soon.
You mean the WEF great reset? Expect that soon too.
 

Hardyman's Yugo

1st Grade Fringe
Jun 2, 2017
3,400
Lancashire, England
Doesn’t air travel account for at least 5% of carbon emissions and the fact it’s released higher up in the atmosphere the effect is aggravated? I read somewhere that a London to San Francisco flight produces more carbon than the average family car does in a year. A big problem I’d suggest is business people travelling around the world pressing the flesh when they could be equally as effective meeting clients over video conferencing technology. I thought the latter would take off after 9/11 tbh but it didn’t. Once COVID is no longer a thing, top business execs will be back in the club class cabin flying everywhere, buying expensive shite wrapped in acres of non recycle able plastic when they walk through duty free.

No doubt then asking their employees to come up with carbon reduction strategies.

You can tell I have some personal experience of this type of gonk.

Rant over.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: bruce and Sup42

matiunz

All Out!
Contributor
Jul 15, 2013
8,460
Sydney
Years ago there was a weatherman on TV3, a Merkin dude, he was not outlandish at all but made a few comments about how the climate was changing...nothing political or extreme at all. He was told to shut up or else.
Augie Auer? He did just kind of fall off the radar
 

bruce

Warriors 1st Grader
Contributor
Sep 1, 2015
19,493
Augie Auer? He did just kind of fall off the radar
That was him. I have to APOLOGISE ladies and jellybeans :eek: ...he got fired for arguing against man made global warming...what a jerk!!! I never watched TV3 anyway.
 

Rick O'Shay

Warriors 1st Grader
May 1, 2013
4,710
New Plymouth
That was him. I have to APOLOGISE ladies and jellybeans :eek: ...he got fired for arguing against man made global warming...what a jerk!!! I never watched TV3 anyway.
Augie said.

"Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm. …If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 °C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 °C, all the time. The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent. It would be like trying to increase the temperature of bath tub full of water using one drop from an eye dropper"
 
  • Like
Reactions: bruce

bruce

Warriors 1st Grader
Contributor
Sep 1, 2015
19,493
Augie said.

"Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm. …If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 °C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 °C, all the time. The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent. It would be like trying to increase the temperature of bath tub full of water using one drop from an eye dropper"
Straight out of the corporate bullshit hand book.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rick O'Shay

bruce

Warriors 1st Grader
Contributor
Sep 1, 2015
19,493
Augie said.

"Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm. …If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 °C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 °C, all the time. The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent. It would be like trying to increase the temperature of bath tub full of water using one drop from an eye dropper"
Just to do a fact check on his opinion.

One of the real issues with carbon dioxide is the effect on the acidity of the oceans, which without any doubt are becoming more acidic.

That acidity will affect the ability of plants (2/3 of which are in the oceans) to convert carbon dioxide to oxygen. When we run out of oxygen we die...apparently. :eek:

Note that Augie didn't mention that, and the rest is just waffle e.g. it is a basic physical equation that so much carbon in the atmosphere is going to have a massive effect eventually.
 

wizards rage

1st Grade Fringe
Apr 18, 2016
4,530
Tauranga
It's the nature of civilizations to overextend and collapse. Cities strip the countryside of resources and they must venture further and further to use more and more land to support their growing population. Technology such as irrigation and fertilizers simply buy more time as we overpopulate and wreck our environment.

Small scale extreme versions: Nauru and Easter Island

The problem to me has always been excessive and unsustainable population growth. But huge populations leads to global power. While us small countries may be able to eventually operate sustainably, it is the third world countries that are the future problem. Their argument of course is that the rich countries got rich by exploiting the environment and now want to pull up the ladder. Being sustainable is at the expense of raising the citizens standard of living…

We may do our part but the tough challenge is to sort it out globally.
 

bruce

Warriors 1st Grader
Contributor
Sep 1, 2015
19,493
It's the nature of civilizations to overextend and collapse.
It is basic ecology...bacteria in the petri dish like we learned in science at school.

1629083714613.png
 

Last Game

27 Aug

16 - 28
5.6 Total Avg Rating
0.0 Your Avg Rating

Highest Rated Player

Lowest Rated Player

Compiled from 5 ratings