On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 9:48:44 PM UTC+1, Keith Harris wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 21:38:42 UTC+1, Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 17:32:29 UTC+1, Keith Harris wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 16:00:56 UTC+1, Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 14:37:56 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
On 03/08/2019 11:49, Graham P Davis wrote:
On 03/08/2019 11:03, Spike wrote:
This is the full version, HTH:

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

Ah, a media story. My personal experience with these is that they often
bear little relationship to what the interviewee actually said. Fifty
years ago I was incensed on seeing an article in the Daily Fail about an
impending "Little Ice Age" which was a load of ******** from beginning
to end. I'd worked with the interviewees and could not believe what
they'd said. When I got to work I was going to ring them but,
considering they were a few grades above me, I delayed a bit. However,
one rang me first to apologise about the article, saying it was
nonsense, and that none of the quotes attributed to them were what
they'd said.

A few years ago, I was speaking to someone who'd also fallen foul of
such misreporting and so, on his next interview, asked the interviewers
whether they minded whether he recorded it. They agreed. Of course, when
the story appeared, he'd been totally misquoted. He got another meeting
with them and went over the recording.They found all the words on the
recording that had appeared in the quotes but none of the phrases or
sentences. They had resorted, in effect, to the Eric Morecambe defence
where they'd used the right words but not necessarily in the right order!


I don't doubt that there is some selective quotation here, but I am
pretty confident that the basic theme of the UN prediction was that
there would be problems if something wasn't done. People being human,
they might well have sexed it up a bit, and of course journalists write
it up for the most dramatic spin, that is what journalists do.

Like Graham, I have had the unsettling experience of seeing highly
selective quotation from nuclear power professionals turned into a
series of dire warnings.

Skipping back to when I was passionate and impressionable, I worried
about the now-classic Paul Ehrlich quote from 1968:

"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of
millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs
embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial
increase in the world death rate". Which of course didn't happen.

I also believed the 1960's prediction that oil was going to run out in
the 1890's.

Well, oil may not have run out in the 1890's or even the 1980's but the day when it does run out is getting ever closer.

The same applies to countries being wiped off the face of the planet by rising sea levels. It has not happened yet but it is now inevitable. We are not able now to stop Greenland continuing to melt, and it will add 7m to sea level. Bye bye Bangladesh, Holland and Florida. Your UN spokes man did not say that the flooding would occur in 2000, only that if nothing was done then it would be impossible to stop it. That is what is happening now.. See:

New Study Finds Sea Level Rise Accelerating

Global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades, rather than increasing steadily, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data.

@ https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...e-accelerating

Alistair I find myself banging my head against a brick wall with some of these denial'ers. Problem is most of them a running the World, so there's little hope for the human race.

Keith (Southend)

Keith,

You may find this podcast of interest: https://www.theguardian.com/science/...weekly-podcast

But I have found that it is pointless arguing with anyone, not just about climate change or Brexit. Even if you win the argument, your opponent will not be convinced, believing that there is some information he is missing that would prove you wrong :-(

Thanks for the link.

Your right, I can never ever remember it being so divided before in my life, what's gone wrong?

Keith (Southend)

It is very sad, but the trading of insults (not you Keith!) on both sides, refusing to except that any evidence on your side could be iffy, is the worst thing today.

It should be obvious from my previous posts which side of both arguments I fall, but I do tire of the statements around every extreme event being down to climate change. After all, gale frequencies on the Atlantic seaboard have been at very low so far this century, but every time there is a bad gale . . It's just not that simple.

As I've said before, it's not understanding the full implications of what we are doing to the planet is the most scary bit, and why we should try to minimise our impact. People who know just what will happen lack understanding.

Plastic pollution is more obvious, therefore the argument is rather less divided, though banning plastic straws doesn't scratch the surface.

Graham
Penzance