For those in the U.K.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-climate-emergency-extinction-rebellion-mps-motion-labour-a8893906.html
The hysteria continues.
Or is what we see these days already written down decades ago by “The Club of Rome” (yet another group founded by David Rockefeller) in the document “The first global revolution”?
On page 75 it says:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
There are scanned copies of the document on the big network.
Michael_J wrote:
Remeber that Climate models are man made computer simulations and that these were not created for predicting the future.
Really? I thought that was exactly their purpose!
Peter wrote:
And here is a load of people taking Mr Humlum to bits…
It’s a kind of an occupation for many people. There even was a whole one hour TV doing nothing but “taking Humlum to bits” 
It’s amusing, but not very interesting and void of value. What is valuable is all the data he gathers from around the world. Anyone can look at the data and make their own opinion. Raw data, real data, no pickings to make a point, to make an illusion of “consensus”.
The thing is, you go anywhere outside of Western Europe/North America and you learn that no-one else cares or even understands the concept of “not damaging the environment”. AS someone else said – best way to not hurt the environment is to stop people having kids, and that is worldwide – anything else is pointless. But of course that isnt politically correct either…
Regards, SD..
Or we should leverage nuclear energy worldwide.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
BUT we also know the global climate has changed very substantially on numerous occasions WITHOUT knowing the cause.
Seductive argument, but very different to the current scenario. The climate is the past changed over millennia. This time it’s over 80 years.
skydriller wrote:
you go anywhere outside of Western Europe/North America and you learn that no-one else cares or even understands
Yes, education is vital, both here and elsewhere.
skydriller wrote:
anything else is pointless.
No, quite untrue. And it also smacks a lot of ‘I want to continue my damaging behaviour. Please can other people reduce the birthrate so that I may do so.’
For those who travel in Africa, Asia and Latin America there are many courageous environmentalists, both grass roots or organised. There have also been important steps to protect bio diversity by some enlightened countries, eg Costa Rica.
If rich countries reduced their consumption of palm oil, beef and hardwoods the world would be a better place. The carbon footprint of the average citizen in these areas is minuscule compared to the ‘west’.
Tristes Tropiques redux.
I agree with Fuji Abound’s post 15. You can do a lot ‘around the house’. Also provides a ROI and stimulates a useful side of our economy.
Planting trees may indeed not change the CO2 balance, but it does save us time and the rate of global warming is alarming.
Birth control is key too. And there is nothing politically incorrect in enabling (African, often very young) women to get an education and/or provide them with time to contribute to the economy rather than being bogged down by a load of kids (for which there are no opportunities). You may want to consider donating to: https://mariestopes.org/ or similar organizations.
DavidJ wrote:
Seductive argument, but very different to the current scenario. The climate is the past changed over millennia. This time it’s over 80 years.
DavidJ
That may not be so.
https://www.livescience.com/7981-big-freeze-earth-plunge-sudden-ice-age.html
How do solar water panels compare with solar panels? It is interesting the huge push towards solar panels to produce electricity and yet one of the largest uses of electricity in the domestic enviroment (or gas) is heating. There is surely a significant inefficiency in turning electricity in hot water. Also hot water is a convenient way of storing energy and more friendly than large battery banks.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
That may not be so.
I remember that coming out. Just like climate change scepticism they’ll always be some outlier reports.
The colossal weight of contrary evidence does not support their conclusions. Changes in global climate occurred over extremely long periods of time.
But on the bright side, we were due an ice age – at least until the industrial revolution got underway. And that definitely isn’t on the cards now,
