Emma Thompson on Global Warming

[medusala]

How is it such people get any air time. A completely idiotic statement, yet the BBC gives her oxygen.

Even worse is the Guardian's effort in bold, lol at 4c warming by then. Does anyone actually believe any of this any more? Where is Bit Pattern?

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...hompson-got-right-and-wrong-on-climate-change

Actress and Greenpeace activist Emma Thompson was interviewed on BBC Newsnight about Shell’s drilling in the Arctic and associated climate change threats. In the interview, Thompson made some inaccurate statements about the timescales associated with those climate threats. However, her concerns are generally justified.

"if they take out of the earth all the oil they want to take out, you look at the science – our temperature will rise 4 degrees Celsius by 2030, and that’s not sustainable."

So, Thompson was off by three to four decades. However, because of the lag between the time when we emit greenhouse gases and when their full warming influence in realized, the highest emissions scenario considered in the latest IPCC report suggests we would commit ourselves to 4°C warming by 2050

 

[Malifice]

Oh. 'Only' 4 more degrees celsius in 35 years?

What are we worried about then. I'm sure the tennis players of the next generation are looking forward to a 50 degree Aussie open, and our pacific Island neighbors prefer to swim.

 

[wmvaux]

Emma Thompson is obviously ignorant, got no understanding of what's happening in the real world or what could happen. The fact is if Global Warming was a real problem in the future, yes some places wouldn't be suitable to live and some places will be that aren't now. It's not like everything is doom and gloom, we are very adaptable and some places will actually be better to live than they are now. The more CO2, the better the plant growth will be. CO2 is not pollution, without it we are dead.

I think a more real problem is dealing with ISIS and how to stop them from taking over the world. They sure as hell wont be doing anything positive for the environment.

 

[medusala]

Oh. 'Only' 4 more degrees celsius in 35 years?

What are we worried about then.

Mal, do you actually think this is possible?

Last of the kool aid drinkers

Maltown, Guyana.

 

[Malifice]

Mal, do you actually think this is possible?

Last of the kool aid drinkers

Maltown, Guyana.

Yeah. I do think it's possible. Probable - that's a different story.

I thought you'd given up on global warming denial?

 

[Long Live HFC]

the highest emissions scenario considered in the latest IPCC report suggests we would commit ourselves to 4°C warming by 2050

did you bold this for a reason?

 

[little graham]

This is petty and pathetic.

 

[little graham]

Oh. 'Only' 4 more degrees celsius in 35 years?

What are we worried about then. I'm sure the tennis players of the next generation are looking forward to a 50 degree Aussie open, and our pacific Island neighbors prefer to swim.

One group of holiday shacks near me have been written off as result of rising sea levels. Council hasn't got the millions needed to build a levy. The seaside town I spent my whole teenage years in is having to find the millions for the same thing.

Having grown up around environmentally aware people, we have noticed the changes since we first heard of global warming in the 80's.

Summers are actually hotter now, than what was predicted. Forty five is normal stinker now, back then council and schools would knockoff at half past 2 if was over thirty six.

Pretty pathetic ignorant op. He should get out and talk to people outside of crack bars, global warming is real. I noticed he doesn't start threads attacking the liars claiming we're entering an ice age.

 

[medusala]

Pretty pathetic ignorant op. He should get out and talk to people outside of crack bars, global warming is real.

Wow, you calling someone ignorant!

Its absurd to think there will be 4c warming by 2030. Its absolute crap, yet certain sections of the media are happy to peddle this nonsense.

did you bold this for a reason?

Yes, to show what a joke the IPCC models are.

There has been bugger all warming since '98 and suddenly we are going to get 4c warmer in the next 15-35 years?

Yep sure. Amazingly some actually STILL believe this.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Yes, to show what a joke the IPCC models are.

haha. you quoted a maximum range from 1 scenario and ignored all the surrounding context from the article you posted. to what effect? make yourself look dishonest and/or a moron while also complaining about the opinion of some actress? keep tackling the big issues

 

[Malifice]

There has been bugger all warming since '98 and suddenly we are going to get 4c warmer in the next 15-35 years?

Come on Meds. You dont think it's a steady linear increase do you? No-one else on either side of the debate thinks this. Shit - all the graphs indicate that it occasionally drops for a decade or two, then increases, then drops then increases, then stabilizes, then increases again. The overall pattern is an upward one though, and it sure as hell is not a constant steady increase.

Check it out. In the 15 years from 1960 to 1975 temperatures dropped. Same from 1880 to 1910 etc. What's the overall pattern though?

I know you think it's happening, but you're ideologically bound to say it's not (or otherwise downplay it).

Doesn't that.. worry you?

 

[medusala]

Come on Meds. You dont think it's a steady linear increase do you?

Noone claims that.

Doesn't that.. worry you?

No, why would it? Temps increased after a little ice age. So what?

I know you think it's happening, but you're ideologically bound to say it's not (or otherwise downplay it).?

That's crap Mal. I would (again) run you through the statistical arguments but its pointless. You won't understand. So what if there is a small upward trend? Big deal. A 1c increase over 100 years is nothing to be worried about (in fact positives will outweigh negatives)

We can all post graphs with time horizons to suit us.

haha. you quoted a maximum range from 1 scenario and ignored all the surrounding context from the article you posted. to what effect?

Below is your context. Wow, some A grade misology on this thread. Remove foot from your mouth.

"If we continue on the fossil fuel intensive pathway that Emma Thompson was talking about, we would commit the planet to 2°C warming by 2020–2030, and 3°C by 2030–2040. Hence while her numbers were wrong, the case she was making for the urgency of action is generally both correct and important."

 

[Malifice]

A 1c increase over 100 years is nothing to be worried about (in fact positives will outweigh negatives)

Ok, so you've moved on to the 'it's happening, but it's good for us' camp.

Noted.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Below is your context. Wow, some A grade misology on this thread. Remove foot from your mouth.

"If we continue on the fossil fuel intensive pathway that Emma Thompson was talking about, we would commit the planet to 2°C warming by 2020–2030, and 3°C by 2030–2040. Hence while her numbers were wrong, the case she was making for the urgency of action is generally both correct and important."

you're still misquoting or maybe you simply don't understand? that's not a 2 degree warming from today you cretin.

This is incorrect. According to the latest IPCC report, by 2030, global surface temperatures probably won’t be more than 2°C hotter than pre-industrial levels

so which is it- obtuse or just dense? nobody reading that article could come away from it thinking like you do unless they're one of the two.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Ok, so you've moved on to the 'it's happening, but it's good for us' camp.

Noted.

but before too long he'll morph back into the 'it's not happening' or 'it's not us' etc. they're fairly predictable.

 

[alchemy333]

Yeah all this non existent global warming is killing us. But hey, at least the models keep going up, that's a win right..? Lol.

 

[alchemy333]

And yes Emma Thompson is woefully uninformed, she's basically reading off a Greenpeace flyer and expecting that everything is factually correct.

 

[romeohwho]

Yep-but I am like so what? She is entitled to her opinion and she seems to be no less accurate than many others, say, Tony Abbott for example.
I read her comments out of interest, as I like her acting, but I don't take them as fact because she doesn't work in scientific research.
So I go to the experts for my real info-scientists-and the info there is quite compelling.
If you are going to get uppity about people undeservedly getting media coverage, then you will be very busy indeed.

 

[benchwarmer5]

How is it such people get any air time. A completely idiotic statement, yet the BBC gives her oxygen.

Even worse is the Guardian's effort in bold, lol at 4c warming by then. Does anyone actually believe any of this any more? Where is Bit Pattern?

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...hompson-got-right-and-wrong-on-climate-change

Actress and Greenpeace activist Emma Thompson was interviewed on BBC Newsnight about Shell’s drilling in the Arctic and associated climate change threats. In the interview, Thompson made some inaccurate statements about the timescales associated with those climate threats. However, her concerns are generally justified.

"if they take out of the earth all the oil they want to take out, you look at the science – our temperature will rise 4 degrees Celsius by 2030, and that’s not sustainable."

So, Thompson was off by three to four decades. However, because of the lag between the time when we emit greenhouse gases and when their full warming influence in realized, the highest emissions scenario considered in the latest IPCC report suggests we would commit ourselves to 4°C warming by 2050

Yehh dummy... I also think we should discredit all the science because of this nobody actor...!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3675568/

 

[Lebbo73]

 

[Pie eyed]

How is it such people get any air time. A completely idiotic statement, yet the BBC gives her oxygen.

Even worse is the Guardian's effort in bold, lol at 4c warming by then. Does anyone actually believe any of this any more? Where is Bit Pattern?

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...hompson-got-right-and-wrong-on-climate-change

Actress and Greenpeace activist Emma Thompson was interviewed on BBC Newsnight about Shell’s drilling in the Arctic and associated climate change threats. In the interview, Thompson made some inaccurate statements about the timescales associated with those climate threats. However, her concerns are generally justified.

"if they take out of the earth all the oil they want to take out, you look at the science – our temperature will rise 4 degrees Celsius by 2030, and that’s not sustainable."

So, Thompson was off by three to four decades. However, because of the lag between the time when we emit greenhouse gases and when their full warming influence in realized, the highest emissions scenario considered in the latest IPCC report suggests we would commit ourselves to 4°C warming by 2050

All of which is way more than Tony Abbott would know about the issue, which is the truly disturbing thing

 

[medusala]

you're still misquoting or maybe you simply don't understand? that's not a 2 degree warming from today you cretin.

Calm down petal. Pre industrial to now, the rise in temps is what? Argument still holds.

There is no misquoting, this is what she said. Direct your tantrum at her

"if they take out of the earth all the oil they want to take out, you look at the science – our temperature will rise 4 degrees Celsius by 2030, and that’s not sustainable."

 

[Long Live HFC]

Calm down petal. Pre industrial to now, the rise in temps is what? Argument still holds.

(your argument is stupid.) you're crying about a media release of a dumbed-down report from published research- which has said that it is unlikely for temperatures to increase more than 1.2 degrees by 2030 than they are now.

do you think it likely that temps will increase by more than this?

There is no misquoting, this is what she said.

nothing you have inferred from the article or implied here on BF is a reasonable, fair or accurate depiction of that article or the scientific position/modelling that underpins it. hence my question whether you set out to deliberately misconstrue things or are just a bit soft in the head?

 

[medusala]

nothing you have inferred from the article or implied here on BF is a reasonable, fair or accurate depiction of that article or the scientific position/modelling that underpins it.

Bullshit. 4c by 2050 is crap. Everyone on nodding terms with reality knows that. You can start at Kyoto date or preindustrial and its still absolute crap

Which bit of that cant you understand? Are you really that gullible?

 

[Long Live HFC]

so it's probably both then