OT Corrupt BBC at it again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[howdydoo]

Many predictions made in the 1970s did not happen, including the collapse of civilization, widespread mass starvation by the 1990s, the depletion of all major metal reserves by 2000, and the onset of a new ice age by the year 2000. These were often driven by fears of overpopulation, pollution, and resource depletion.
Environmental and resource predictions
A new ice age: Some scientists in the 1970s predicted a new ice age would begin by the year 2000, based on the global temperature drop observed between 1945 and 1968.
Metal depletion: A 1970s estimate by a National Academy of Sciences scientist suggested that humanity would run out of copper shortly after 2000, while lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.
Mass extinction of species: A prediction from the secretary of the Smithsonian Institute suggested that 75-80% of all animal species would be extinct within 25 years (by 1995).
Overpopulation and starvation
Worldwide starvation: Some experts predicted that widespread famine would begin in India by 1975 and spread to other parts of the world by 1990, with the entire world, except for Western Europe, North America, and Australia, in famine by 2000.
Mass death in the "Great Die-Off": Paul Ehrlich predicted that a "Great Die-Off" would cause the deaths of 4 billion people between 1980 and 1989.
Collapse of civilization
End of civilization: Some scientists predicted the end of civilization within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action was taken on environmental issues.

[ragingpup]

Many predictions made in the 1970s did not happen, including the collapse of civilization, widespread mass starvation by the 1990s, the depletion of all major metal reserves by 2000, and the onset of a new ice age by the year 2000. These were often driven by fears of overpopulation, pollution, and resource depletion.
Environmental and resource predictions
A new ice age: Some scientists in the 1970s predicted a new ice age would begin by the year 2000, based on the global temperature drop observed between 1945 and 1968.
Metal depletion: A 1970s estimate by a National Academy of Sciences scientist suggested that humanity would run out of copper shortly after 2000, while lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.
Mass extinction of species: A prediction from the secretary of the Smithsonian Institute suggested that 75-80% of all animal species would be extinct within 25 years (by 1995).
Overpopulation and starvation
Worldwide starvation: Some experts predicted that widespread famine would begin in India by 1975 and spread to other parts of the world by 1990, with the entire world, except for Western Europe, North America, and Australia, in famine by 2000.
Mass death in the "Great Die-Off": Paul Ehrlich predicted that a "Great Die-Off" would cause the deaths of 4 billion people between 1980 and 1989.
Collapse of civilization
End of civilization: Some scientists predicted the end of civilization within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action was taken on environmental issues.

Mostly true but none of these had any kind of consensus amongst environmental scientists. Even the predictions of an ice age were only shared by a small number of scientists.

And to put this into perspective, at the time of these predictions, the Earth had cooled just 0.1 - 0.2%, a tiny fraction. Even since then the global temp has risen by between 1.0 and 1.2%. It's a completely unprecidented speed of warming. Even the last major period of global temperature change, The Little Ice Age between 1400 and 1900 was approximately a 1.1% dip in global temp (in the Northern heasphere) but as happens with global cycles, it was slow, over 500 years to make this fall and rise again. Whereas we have driven the rise of 1.0% and 1.2% in the last 50 years alone.

And crucially, completely at odds with the single and minority quack claims that were published and that you are referring to, between 90 and 97% of publishing scientists agree that the data showing the rise is correct (how can they not, it's a measurement?!) and that it is a rapid change caused by human activity. Where there is disagreement is the future: a minority (probably not helpfully) say that there will b e major upheavals and devastation to human life within 50 years whereas I think most agree that it will cause a very steady and slowly rising negative impact on human life as we hit the 2% above pre industrial levels, mainly through moving populations as some places get too hot and coastal areas slowly are affected by rising sea levels. This will likely take around 200 - 300 years to get to this place but, and it's only my opiniion, if we do have the power to reduce carbon emissions (which in fairness is happening in many places and is a slowly increasing trend which is already showing signs of reducing carbon outputs) I think it important to do so, as there is so reason why a rise like this will naturally reverse. The nature of greenhouse effects is the opposite, it tends to get faster.

[howdydoo]

All you do is rabbit. I see there's been no agreement on fossil fuel at Cop 30 today.

All you do is scream 'I want evidence' and keep quoting Reuters and Co?

All your sources are owned by billionaires. Look at media as the modern bible and step back.

Some people have gone too far and see everything as a conspiracy theory.

There's no doubt climate change is going on but you and all the science doesn't know what the planet will look like in decades time.

Artificial intelligence and technology is advancing at rapid pace.

Your friends China are at the forefront. They are producing sources of green energy at a rate far in advance of everyone else. All on the back of a massive focus on fossil fuel production.

Do you care at what cost? It's reported Uyghur Muslims are being exploited into forced labour to make solar panels. Do human rights only apply to every Tom, Dick and Harry who enter the UK these days?

It appears Ed Miliband and our wonderful government thinks so.

Do we know what we are going to do with old EV batteries and wind turbines when they're spent? I've heard the odd rumour the manufacture and disposal of these green energy sources are not as green as our 'sincere' politicians might want us to believe.

There's enough hardware on the planet that can wipe the earth out in a jiffy. Stop worrying about what might happen in 100 years time. Live for now and look after your own.

Stop being a puppet.

[avondalemiller]

All you do is rabbit. I see there's been no agreement on fossil fuel at Cop 30 today.

All you do is scream 'I want evidence' and keep quoting Reuters and Co?

All your sources are owned by billionaires. Look at media as the modern bible and step back.

Some people have gone too far and see everything as a conspiracy theory.

There's no doubt climate change is going on but you and all the science doesn't know what the planet will look like in decades time.

Artificial intelligence and technology is advancing at rapid pace.

Your friends China are at the forefront. They are producing sources of green energy at a rate far in advance of everyone else. All on the back of a massive focus on fossil fuel production.

Do you care at what cost? It's reported Uyghur Muslims are being exploited into forced labour to make solar panels. Do human rights only apply to every Tom, Dick and Harry who enter the UK these days?

It appears Ed Miliband and our wonderful government thinks so.

Do we know what we are going to do with old EV batteries and wind turbines when they're spent? I've heard the odd rumour the manufacture and disposal of these green energy sources are not as green as our 'sincere' politicians might want us to believe.

There's enough hardware on the planet that can wipe the earth out in a jiffy. Stop worrying about what might happen in 100 years time. Live for now and look after your own.

Stop being a puppet.

Howdy, stop it, he'll be up all night surfing the internet for some evidence to prove you wrong..................utm.

[ragingpup]

Howdy, stop it, he'll be up all night surfing the internet for some evidence to prove you wrong..................utm.

In fairness to me on this avon, it is a subject that I've been reading around for 20 years now, from a range of perspectives. The only time I need to surf for info is to get data that I can't remember and avoid going thrugh my bookshelves, and also to find easier to read (than my books) articles that express the argument in a consise way to share as a link.

[ragingpup]

All you do is rabbit. I see there's been no agreement on fossil fuel at Cop 30 today.

All you do is scream 'I want evidence' and keep quoting Reuters and Co?

All your sources are owned by billionaires. Look at media as the modern bible and step back.

Some people have gone too far and see everything as a conspiracy theory.

There's no doubt climate change is going on but you and all the science doesn't know what the planet will look like in decades time.

Artificial intelligence and technology is advancing at rapid pace.

Your friends China are at the forefront. They are producing sources of green energy at a rate far in advance of everyone else. All on the back of a massive focus on fossil fuel production.

Do you care at what cost? It's reported Uyghur Muslims are being exploited into forced labour to make solar panels. Do human rights only apply to every Tom, Dick and Harry who enter the UK these days?

It appears Ed Miliband and our wonderful government thinks so.

Do we know what we are going to do with old EV batteries and wind turbines when they're spent? I've heard the odd rumour the manufacture and disposal of these green energy sources are not as green as our 'sincere' politicians might want us to believe.

There's enough hardware on the planet that can wipe the earth out in a jiffy. Stop worrying about what might happen in 100 years time. Live for now and look after your own.

Stop being a puppet.

Sadly for you and others, I'm likely to continue rabbiting whilstever people initiate political posts on football message boards and spout info that is, to be kind, not been well thought through. Usually because they are reading them from sources that are simply telling them what they want to believe. I don't give a **** whether anything I'm reading is from a millionairre media mogul or an end of the world schreecher in the street: as long as the viewpoint is well thought through and considers a range of scientific evidence, then it will likely be something I can't challenge and am happy to amend my own views, as I often do. But I'm afraid that people sharing links from a shouty man with a big graph completely misrepresenting what the graph is all about deliberately to mislead his audience, I'm always likely to point it out and rabbit out why.

If you don't like the rabbiting, one possibility would be to not post views that are flimsy (at best) on a football message board?

[howdydoo]

Sadly for you and others, I'm likely to continue rabbiting whilstever people initiate political posts on football message boards and spout info that is, to be kind, not been well thought through. Usually because they are reading them from sources that are simply telling them what they want to believe. I don't give a **** whether anything I'm reading is from a millionairre media mogul or an end of the world schreecher in the street: as long as the viewpoint is well thought through and considers a range of scientific evidence, then it will likely be something I can't challenge and am happy to amend my own views, as I often do. But I'm afraid that people sharing links from a shouty man with a big graph completely misrepresenting what the graph is all about deliberately to mislead his audience, I'm always likely to point it out and rabbit out why.

If you don't like the rabbiting, one possibility would be to not post views that are flimsy (at best) on a football message board?

Nothing at all flimsy about what I've posted. The climate is going to affect parts of the planet and it's going to pose dangers to mankind.

Technological advances will nullify or solve many of those dangers.

Major powers will continue to pollute if polluting = short term prosperity.

You have no idea what big world events such as natural disasters, pandemic's, conflicts, financial events will occur in the next 50 years.

If you were 10 per cent as smart as you think you are, I'm sure you'd be a scientist.

😂😂😂

[ragingpup]

Nothing at all flimsy about what I've posted. The climate is going to affect parts of the planet and it's going to pose dangers to mankind.

Technological advances will nullify or solve many of those dangers.

Major powers will continue to pollute if polluting = short term prosperity.

You have no idea what big world events such as natural disasters, pandemic's, conflicts, financial events will occur in the next 50 years.

If you were 10 per cent as smart as you think you are, I'm sure you'd be a scientist.

😂😂😂

As said before, I wouldn't argue with any of those statements and you weren't the poor sod who shared the X video of the shouty man lying to everyone, plus various other demonstrable inaccuracies. I'm not smart, I just read stuff before before I spout. Anyone can do it if they can be arsed.

I'm surprised that you are confident that technical advances will nullify or solve these problems. Your tone generally has been one of fatalism, that what's the point in investing in green infrastructure ourselves when the big superpowers are continuing with big fossil fuel mining? To now say that you're confident that we will solve the issues through green technology seems to be different. I certainly hope you're right but I can't see where this will happen if we don't continue our investments and hope that the big guns move in that direction eventually. As you say cop30 was quite depressing but it keeps the conversations going.

[howdydoo]

Timed out and lost some of my post when I posted:

History tells you that technology moves on at breakneck speed. Cleaner fuels and cleaner technology are around the corner. What you don't do is abandon every principle and method of growth and make yourself bankrupt before the technology comes on line. China may have reduced emissions slightly but be assured they're building whatever dirty fossil facilities are needed to get there. The good old UK just wave the white flag.

Why am I being different? I posted the above nearly 2 weeks ago, on this very thread.

[ragingpup]

Why am I being different? I posted the above nearly 2 weeks ago, on this very thread.

I don't recall you saying that investment in green infrastructure was going to solve the issues and I'm not sure how you square that circle when you have spent the last couple of weeks saying we shouldn't bother cos the other superpowers aren't? Who exactly is going to save the day with carbon reducing inventions and investments if we should stop and others (superpowers) aren't (in your opinion) even trying?