Addressing Misinformation and Harmful Content Online

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by geoleo

Thats very close to my 5 3/4 inches for USA. Mike Rally may say its a lie.

Another lie... boy, they keep coming. Or are you unable to read? That could explain things. Since you can't even get my name right, I do have to wonder.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Westcliffe01

If people want to save the world, then curbing your offspring would seem to be a small sacrifice. Even 1 child vs 2 will make a huge difference. Who really thinks the entire problem is not simply that there are too many people on the planet ?

No one who studies the question thinks population is the only problem. It is a big part of it, but it's not the major one. The more significant contribution to many of our environmental problems (including rapid climate change) is the intensity of resource use in developed countries.

The real problem is that Canadians and Americans, and most other so-called "developed world" people, use massive (and disproportionate) amounts of planetary resources to sustain our lives. So if you want to do something real to address the problems, use a lot less; live smaller.

Population is definitely a huge problem, but it is one that is rapidly heading to a solution. The rate of population increase has been declining for decades. We will hit peak population somewhere between 2050 and 2100. After that, population will rapidly decline.

What shows no decline is the intensity of resource use for those of us in the developed world. THIS is the real driver of most global environmental problems. We need to, as the saying goes, reduce our environmental footprint, but to do so means using less, and that is something few want to consider (on all sides of the political spectrum).

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Another lie... boy, they keep coming. Or are you unable to read? That could explain things. Since you can't even get my name right, I do have to wonder.

You assert that Boatman and i are lying about sea rise in past 100 years but dont tell us your number and its source. Why is this ? Cat got your tongue? Next you will say "997 climate scientists ..............."

[boatman61]

Government and MSM misinformation at its best...


Andrew Marr just repeated one of the biggest lies of the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic. What’s worse, it’s one that could help the Tories put in place more austerity.

On your marks… get set… LIE!
Chancellor Rishi Sunak was on the Andrew Marr Show on Sunday 28 February. His slot was ahead of the budget on 3 March. But before Sunak even spoke, Marr was already spreading propaganda for him. Because in his intro, he said:

Now, my final guest is a man who’s borrowed almost £300bn: the chancellor of the exchequer Rishi Sunak.

And that’s it. That’s the lie right there. Because Marr claiming the Tories have “borrowed almost £300bn” is simply not true.



Murphy is so ‘irritated‘ by this lie that he did a video. In it, he says:

There is nothing owing to anyone. How do I know? Because the bills have been settled.

He then says that the Tories have already paid the £300bn off:

with money created by the Bank of England [BoE], which was used to buy government bonds, which bonds were issued by the Treasury simultaneously with their repurchase – in effect to fund the deficits that were required to ensure that government could continue to provide its services despite the collapse in tax revenues… How many bonds have been issued? Roughly £300bn… How many bonds have been repurchased by the Bank of England on behalf of the Treasury? Roughly £300bn… What is the consequence of that repurchase? That the Bank of England has injected roughly… £300bn worth of new money into the economy

£300bn: where’s it come from, and gone to?
So, where has this £300bn gone? Murphy says it’s gone:

either into savings, and savings have risen by roughly £300bn this year; in such things as stocks, shares, and other things, or in cash. Now, that is the end of it. There is no further bill to pay.




So Marr was either lying, or he doesn’t get basic economics. Let’s say it’s the latter. To be clear for Marr’s benefit: what Murphy is saying, simply put, is this. The Tories just got their mates at the BoE to print a load of money. End of.

But why would Marr, much of the corporate media, and the Tories keep lying about borrowing?


More cuts coming?
SNP MP Angus MacNeil took Marr’s lie to a possible conclusion.
His #AusterityCausingTV hashtag is apt. Because this £300bn lie could well pave the way for more cuts to public spending and/or tax rises. That is, the Tories could bring in more austerity.

And we’ve already seen a bit of it, because the Tories have made a real terms cut to some public sector workers’ pay. This, and any future cuts, are based on a lie that we owe someone £300bn. We don’t. So, for Marr to say otherwise, is him being complicit in this sham.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by geoleo

You assert that Boatman and i are lying about sea rise in past 100 years but dont tell us your number and its source. Why is this ? Cat got your tongue? Next you will say "997 climate scientists ..............."

Can you truly not read? Do I need to quote it again .

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

No one who studies the question thinks population is the only problem. It is a big part of it, but it's not the major one. The more significant contribution to many of our environmental problems (including rapid climate change) is the intensity of resource use in developed countries.

The real problem is that Canadians and Americans, and most other so-called "developed world" people, use massive (and disproportionate) amounts of planetary resources to sustain our lives. So if you want to do something real to address the problems, use a lot less; live smaller.

Population is definitely a huge problem, but it is one that is rapidly heading to a solution. The rate of population increase has been declining for decades. We will hit peak population somewhere between 2050 and 2100. After that, population will rapidly decline.

What shows no decline is the intensity of resource use for those of us in the developed world. THIS is the real driver of most global environmental problems. We need to, as the saying goes, reduce our environmental footprint, but to do so means using less, and that is something few want to consider (on all sides of the political spectrum).

China, India and Indonesia have most of the worlds population and are hell bent on using lots of coal burning electricity ,driving cars , having AC , and living easier . These are the nations who will get a pass from the Paris Clinate accords,in fact they will actually get $billions in cash from the developed countries.

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Can you truly not read? Do I need to quote it again .

YES Quote your 'sea rise number and source' again please. Do it right here.

[geoleo]

The USGoverment has a vast network of benchmarks set and maintained by the agency "United States Coast and Geodetic Survey Department" These are related to a base mark of height called "Mean Lower Low Sea Level" (MLLSL)which sets a base datum mark . Most tide reports are from a slightly different datum mark called "low sea level." These have been in use since around 1840. NOAA relies on this datum. PS these benchmarks also define when land is sinking -as it is in Miami Beach.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by geoleo

China, India and Indonesia have most of the worlds population and are hell bent on using lots of coal burning electricity ,driving cars , having AC , and living easier . These are the nations who will get a pass from the Paris Clinate accords,in fact they will actually get $billions in cash from the developed countries.

Yes, and they are rapidly heading to declining populations. China is racing to it, India is a behind, but on the same trend.

The point is, population growth is a problem with a solution within sight. The problem WE don't want to discuss is the one that WE drive. The typical North American uses magnitudes more of this planet's resources PER-CAPITA than typical Chinese or Indian. This is our problem, yet we won't even discuss it. Instead, we like to blame "them" for having too many babies.

Originally Posted by geoleo

YES Quote your 'sea rise number and source' again please. Do it right here.

Sigh . You stated:

For example /"Sea Level rise" to hear the leftist mantra we will be deluged in 12 years.

I called this a lie. There is no "leftist mantra" that says "we will be deluged in 12 years." I CLEARLY quoted what I was referring to, yet you seem unable to follow. I'm not sure how to make it more clear.

[GordMay]

• Even if the world follows a low greenhouse gas pathway, global sea level will likely rise at least 12 inches (0.3 meters) above 2000 levels by 2100.
• If we follow a pathway with high emissions, a worst-case scenario of as much as 8.2 feet (2.5 meters) above 2000 levels by 2100 cannot be ruled out.

“How long have sea levels been rising? How does recent sea level rise compare to that over the previous centuries?” ~ NASA
“... Over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with sea level response to that warming totaling about 160 to 210 mm (with about half of that amount occurring since 1993), or about 6 to 8 inches. And the current rate of sea level rise is unprecedented over the past several millennia.”
➥ https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/13/how...-the-previous/




From NASA ➥ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Yes, and they are rapidly heading to declining populations. China is racing to it, India is a behind, but on the same trend.

The point is, population growth is a problem with a solution within sight. The problem WE don't want to discuss is the one that WE drive. The typical North American uses magnitudes more of this planet's resources PER-CAPITA than typical Chinese or Indian. This is our problem, yet we won't even discuss it. Instead, we like to blame "them" for having too many babies.



Sigh . You stated:

I called this a lie. There is no "leftist mantra" that says "we will be deluged in 12 years." I CLEARLY quoted what I was referring to, yet you seem unable to follow. I'm not sure how to make it more clear.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHH!! So left has not been claiming seal level rise will ruin us in 12 years??? Guess you dont hear about AOC and her ilk John Kerry and their Green New Deal up there. I thought you were part of the leftist Climate Change Alarmists audience. Guess your not, glad to hear you have reformed.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by geoleo

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHH!! So left has not been claiming seal level rise will ruin us in 12 years??? Guess you dont hear about AOC and her ilk John Kerry and their Green New Deal up there. I thought you were part of the leftist Climate Change Alarmists audience. Guess your not, glad to hear you have reformed.

Glad you finally read my actual message.

I have no idea what your politicians are claiming. But just because one politician says something, does not make it a "leftist mantra". Since this thread is all about addressing misinformation, I called out your lie.

I listen to actual climate scientists when it comes to climate science questions. No credible climate scientists is claiming we will be "deluged" in 12 years. We will (and are) experiencing greater incidents of damage to property and life at our coastal regions as sea levels rise.

There are many confounding factors, including poor development planning, but sea level is rising, and will continue to do so. I see Gord has posted the data. Thanks .

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by GordMay

• Even if the world follows a low greenhouse gas pathway, global sea level will likely rise at least 12 inches (0.3 meters) above 2000 levels by 2100.
• If we follow a pathway with high emissions, a worst-case scenario of as much as 8.2 feet (2.5 meters) above 2000 levels by 2100 cannot be ruled out.

“How long have sea levels been rising? How does recent sea level rise compare to that over the previous centuries?” ~ NASA
“... Over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with sea level response to that warming totaling about 160 to 210 mm (with about half of that amount occurring since 1993), or about 6 to 8 inches. And the current rate of sea level rise is unprecedented over the past several millennia.”
➥ https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/13/how...-the-previous/




From NASA ➥ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

HMMMMMMM seems a little strange that in the super high carbon polluting years your graph shows hardly any sea level rise 1960--1980. Plus not mentioned the facts that sea levels have been rising since the last "Ice Age" . 18000 years ago. Why is that?

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Yes, and they are rapidly heading to declining populations. China is racing to it, India is a behind, but on the same trend.

The point is, population growth is a problem with a solution within sight. The problem WE don't want to discuss is the one that WE drive. The typical North American uses magnitudes more of this planet's resources PER-CAPITA than typical Chinese or Indian. This is our problem, yet we won't even discuss it. Instead, we like to blame "them" for having too many babies.



Sigh . You stated:

I called this a lie. There is no "leftist mantra" that says "we will be deluged in 12 years." I CLEARLY quoted what I was referring to, yet you seem unable to follow. I'm not sure how to make it more clear.

Guilty much? Your virtue signal-ing on here might make you fell better but world impact is doubtful. lol

[boatman61]

Well predictions of London flooding because of rising sea levels prompted them to start building the Thames Barrier back in 1974..
The Thames Barrier has been closed 186 times since it became operational in 1982 (correct as of October 2019). Of these closures, 99 were to protect against tidal flooding and 87 were to protect against combined tidal/fluvial flooding.