Prince Charles gives the world 18 months to save humanity from climate change

a reply to: anonentity

You seem to be confusing weather with climate.

Global warming does not mean no place will ever be cold, but it does mean climates will change. In this case, rapidly.

Are we not observing belief and opinion, masquerading as 'scientific fact' ?

Are we still, in a standstill ?
2013: IPCC HEAD PACHAURI ACKNOWLEDGES GLOBAL WARMING STANDSTILL

Are we too trusting of the capabilities of computers to model dynamic reality ?
Sc ience Alert: Computers Are Making Huge Mistakes Because They Can't Understand Chaos, Scientists Warn

How good are the CC/GW/AGW models they used for their dire predictions ?


Dr. Patrick Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, provides insight into the debate over climate change and the political games played to create policy:



Have you not heard of the 'muzzling' of government scientists ?

CBC: It's official — the Harper government muzzled scientists. Some say it's still happening

CBC: More than half of federal government scientists still feel muzzled, poll finds

Smithsonian: Canadian Scientists Explain Exactly How Their Government Silenced Science

OMG! The Great Barrier Reef is dying ! Everybody panic, and take-out your check-books !
(Except that it's actually thriving):



The history and science that was forgotten by that 97% consensus.



(Don't 'know' these things. They are merely opinion/belief/temporary ideas/observations/thoughts/concepts).

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Kinda makes you wonder what these powerful elites will do in the next 18 months when humanity isn't scared into following their lead?

Has the line in the sand been drawn?.

Will the elite start taking more drastic steps to get there way?

To be clear my pondering has really nothing to do with the validity of anthro climate change; the elite could be pushing for a worthy cause.

The question still remains how far are they willing to push.

Well, I for one think the lights will go out on the internet at some stage because there's too much truth on it and its hurting some people

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Kinda makes you wonder what these powerful elites will do in the next 18 months when humanity isn't scared into following their lead?

Has the line in the sand been drawn?.

Will the elite start taking more drastic steps to get there way?

To be clear my pondering has really nothing to do with the validity of anthro climate change; the elite could be pushing for a worthy cause.

The question still remains how far are they willing to push.

Well, I for one think the lights will go out on the internet at some stage because there's too much truth on it and its hurting some people. they will most likely say it was a huge solar flare or something.

NEVER listen to people that push this LIE.

You seem to be confusing weather with climate.

The only difference between the two is a thing called the day of the week.

Take the 5 day forecast= CLimate.

Take the day of the week= Weather

Expand that to 5 billion years . That Human civilization. The holy church of climatologies data doesn't even cover 30 seconds of it of that entire TIME.

I'm still waiting for a reference to where and when did prince Charles say that "we have 18 months left on this Earth".

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Phage

In a couple of weeks when the worst blizzard in recorded history hits, I will remember this discourse.

A local event is not representative of the weather in the whole planet.

While the worst blizzard in recorded history may hit one small percentage of the Earth's area, the majority may be facing temperatures above normal for that season.

One of the first things I read about global warming (back in the late 1980s, before it became a political issue) was that it does not mean that the temperatures will always be higher everywhere, the most noticeable difference would be more extreme weather events, with longer draughts, shorter but stronger rainy periods, colder winters and warmer summers.

a reply to: ArMaP

Its in the title of that link to the daily mail newspaper, I shouldn't have to prove it when it's in plain black print!

originally posted by: CrazeeWorld777
a reply to: ArMaP

Its in the title of that link to the daily mail newspaper, I shouldn't have to prove it when it's in plain black print!

No, the title says:

Prince Charles gives the world 18 months to save humanity from climate change and keep global warming to 'survivable' levels

, it doesn't say:

Prince Charles is the latest one to dodge questions on Prince Andrew and would rather tell us that we have 18 months left on this Earth due to climate change!

, like you said.

Also, the title was written by the people from Daily Mail, it's not a quote from prince Charles. When they talk about what he said they say:

Prince Charles warns that the next 18 months are critical for humanity to survive
He says meetings between world leaders could decide future of world species

He never said (unless you can provide a source) that "we only have 18 months left on this Earth".

a reply to: ArMaP

Why are you getting Pedantic about it? Whichever way you look at it, it doesn't matter because to me
'we have 18 months to save humanity'
and 'we have 19 months left on this Earth'

mean the same thing.

originally posted by: CrazeeWorld777
a reply to: ArMaP

Why are you getting Pedantic about it? Whichever way you look at it, it doesn't matter because to me
'we have 18 months to save humanity'
and 'we have 19 months left on this Earth'

mean the same thing.

It doesn't mean the same thing. The quote you used on your opening post is clear.

Prince Charles has warned that the next 18 months are critical for humanity to survive the impact of climate change.

The prince said the future of our species – as well as the world’s wildlife – could be decided in a series of crucial United Nations meetings between world leaders.

They will culminate in a climate change conference expected to be held in London next year.

(I only added the bold)

You can see that he was talking about the meetings that were going to happen in the next 18 months (at the time, 4 months have already gone by) and the decisions made on those meetings that could decide the future of our species.

He never said that those 18 months were what we had left on Earth, he said those 18 months were critical because of the decisions that could be made. He never made a prediction for how long we have on Earth.

At least that's how I understand it. And although I am Portuguese and learned English by myself I don't think my interpretation of what he said is wrong, but I accept it could be.



Edited to add that I see it as the same as someone saying to you: "you have to make a decision in the next 24 hours about this new job, if you accept our conditions or not, and that may critical to your future".
It's not the same as saying that you only have 24 hours to live.

Yes the elite should lecture us on doing without to save the world a little more... that sure comes across well.

I wonder how he will personally benifit from the legislation he's clearly pushing for. What's sad is the folks who swallow this tripe.

a reply to: CrazeeWorld777

a reply to: neo96

Take the 5 day forecast= CLimate.

Incorrect.
www.merriam-webster.com...

a reply to: Phage

Nope.

CLimate is long term RIGHT ?

Which makes the last century hell even 50,000 years just the GD weather.

5 GD billion years.

a reply to: DBCowboy

A perfect example of what I was talking about.

You can't get people to give up their rights and freedoms unless you can scare them.

So, you scare them.

"Raise taxes or your children will die!"

"Give up rights and freedoms, think of the children!"

It's not about climate at all.

It's about an accumulation of power and authority.

What message could be more honest?

How can you not see that this is exactly what people are talking about?. It's a global crisis affecting billions of people now, in the near future - and for the foreseeable future. Even our own military is studying this and making plans

If you really were a scientist you wouldn't be making this argument. You would be pleading with people to see what they see

Instead - while Rome burns you've chosen to fiddle yourself

It's about the most egocentric, self indulgent argument you could make. Self congratulatory and authoritarian: There's no problem until I say there's a problem. Until then - just chill

Sorry Cowboy - your argument isn't honest. It's predictably reactionary

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

And your reply is purely emotional and lacking of any rational, reasoned thought.

You're still validating my premise.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
The truth is these crusty old bloodlines think they have the right to treat us as serfs. Like fleas that are an irritating parasite on their Earth.

As I said before, I don't care about this particular prince or any other, I was talking about the truth of what was said or not.

I can see why you might relate to them through your posting.

Really? Could you explain how did you came to that conclusion?

Because your posts always come across as soulless.

You post like a robot. It's like a convo with Commander Data.

a reply to: ArMaP

 I am Portuguese

My apologies.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Validating YOUR premise?


You began with emotion. You should read your own hysterical post

No safe spaces provided for climate change deniers Cowboy. You don't like the message?

OK - you obviously have to deal with this in your own way. You decide when this isn't too scary for you to think about and let us know

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

And you continue to use fear and intimidation to push for a more authoritarian form of government.