Climate Change thread

[hackey lad 3,965]

23 minutes ago, Mikes10 said:

Here is a guide to what you can do about climate change.

 

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20181102-what-can-i-do-about-climate-change

 

 

Poetry reading is not mentioned on that list

[Fudbeer 12]

1 hour ago, hackey lad said:

Emma Thompson flies 5,400 miles to take part in climate change protest

Although I agree with a lot of what they are saying there is so much hypocrisy involved it takes away from the message, she flew 5,400 miles and the next day they try and close an airport!

[hackey lad 3,965]

It does make you wonder . If it was someone that didn't agree with their cause , they would be calling them planet killers

[Yeah but 0]

 

[Baron99 793]

Some posters have mentioned earlier about an apparent lack of balance on the reporting the environmental issues with no counter arguments being heard?

 

Interesting today, watching the BBC`s News Watch programme & they had one of the BBC News' environmental reporter stating that as a young reporter, whenever he presented a piece his old BBC editors / bosses would demand that both protagonists, for & against, were given the opportunity for comment.  Apparently now that is not the case.  These days you only report on the story in front of you.  So unless there is some kind of counter demonstration debunking the global warming threat, the other side of the argument won't be heard. 

 

If this is the BBC's reporting policy these days, not only is it bad for current environmental issues but also for other major issues of the day.  Basically it amounts to those who shout loudest will be heard & sod the little voice. 

[Mr Bloke 1,445]

57 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

Some posters have mentioned earlier about an apparent lack of balance on the reporting the environmental issues with no counter arguments being heard?

 

Interesting today, watching the BBC`s News Watch programme & they had one of the BBC News' environmental reporter stating that as a young reporter, whenever he presented a piece his old BBC editors / bosses would demand that both protagonists, for & against, were given the opportunity for comment.  Apparently now that is not the case.  These days you only report on the story in front of you.  So unless there is some kind of counter demonstration debunking the global warming threat, the other side of the argument won't be heard. 

 

If this is the BBC's reporting policy these days, not only is it bad for current environmental issues but also for other major issues of the day.  Basically it amounts to those who shout loudest will be heard & sod the little voice. 

Hmmm...

... well you certainly don't have to look too far to see examples of that!

[Pettytom 1]

1 hour ago, Baron99 said:

Some posters have mentioned earlier about an apparent lack of balance on the reporting the environmental issues with no counter arguments being heard?

 

 

Are we to hear from creationists every time anyone discusses evolution? Or from flat earthers during coverage of the round the world yacht race?

 

Sometimes the evidence is so overwhelming that it becomes accepted fact and doesn’t need the counter argument putting continually .  Climate change is one of those things now. There is huge scientific consensus that it is happening, that it is serious and that it requires drastic global action.

 

If the nay sayers want to gather and present evidence, that’s fine. They’ve been trying to do so for years, but really there isn’t s single credible scientific body that thinks that climate change  is anything but a global crisis. 

 

There is no requirement for the BBC to give equal airtime to cranks with poorly evidenced claims. 

[WiseOwl182 10]

20 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

 

Sometimes the evidence is so overwhelming that it becomes accepted fact and doesn’t need the counter argument putting continually .  Climate change is one of those things now. 

 

No it isn't. Climate change existing is one thing, the degree to which anthropogenic climate change is affecting the overall climate by itself is another. As shown in the blog link posted by another user a few pages ago, it's far from being cut and dry, but the BBC is selective in how it presents the evidence so they can, effectively, brain wash the masses who cannot be bothered to think for themselves, and/or for those who only want to see the fashionable side of the argument to give themselves an identity.

[ads36 217]

That blog that's full of lies and cherry picking? That blog?

 

Right.

[WiseOwl182 10]

4 minutes ago, Halibut said:

Yes it is.

What is? Evidence of climate change, or evidence of the proportion of the climate change with anthropogenic origins?

Just now, ads36 said:

That blog that's full of lies and cherry picking? That blog?

 

Right.

The BBC is guilty of cherry picking, e.g. selective use of time periods on graphs to restrict the context.

[despritdan 241]

There are simple things which everybody could do which would make a lot of difference. I recently read a magazine article which said that human urine is one of the best plant nutrients, so I now have a 1 litre glass jar in the bathroom which I pee into instead of wasting gallons of water flushing away a few millilitres of waste every day. When it's full, I pour the contents into a watering can and fill it with water to water the plants. It not only cuts the amount of water I'm taking from the reservoirs but will also cut my water bills. If everybody in the country did this, it would save huge amounts of water and postpone the day when our reservoirs finally run dry.

[WiseOwl182 10]

2 minutes ago, despritdan said:

There are simple things which everybody could do which would make a lot of difference. I recently read a magazine article which said that human urine is one of the best plant nutrients, so I now have a 1 litre glass jar in the bathroom which I pee into instead of wasting gallons of water flushing away a few millilitres of waste every day. When it's full, I pour the contents into a watering can and fill it with water to water the plants. It not only cuts the amount of water I'm taking from the reservoirs but will also cut my water bills. If everybody in the country did this, it would save huge amounts of water and postpone the day when our reservoirs finally run dry.

I'm sorry but I'm not going to be urinating into containers and using it for plant watering any time soon. We're a civilised society. Where do you think water goes when flushed down the toilet anyway? It doesn't magically disappear.