We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
03 Apr 19
21:51
Joined:
Date Joined:
27 May 11
thought this post on a youtube video was worth reposting, video btw was on Doggerland...
I'm giving this video a thumbs down for how misleading it is. BBC is deliberately leading people to think Oh! That Climate Change stuff is really scary! Here's evidence that it drowned an area the size of England. I better do as the environmentalists say.
They're deliberately not pointing out that compared to past climate changes, the current predictions are so puny it's completely laughable. Even under the very worst case scenarios published by the IPCC, the ocean might rise by nearly a meter (98 cm) by 2100. That's a far cry from the hundreds of meters that the oceans rose due to the completely natural wild climate fluctuations associated with the end of the last ice age and the Younger Dryas. To complain about an additional meter per century now makes us look like sniveling little babies incapable of wiping our own noses. We should instead be thankful for having had a recent history of 10,000 years of relatively stable climate in which to grow a technologically advanced civilization. If we can't adapt to 1 meter per century rise after all our ancestors have been through our civilization deserves to die.
98 cm is a ridiculously inaccurate prediction, by the way. Best estimate is that they are off by an order of magnitude and actual measured rise by 2100 is likely to be more like 9.8 cm. That's less than 4 inches. Even the Maldives will survive a rise of 4 inches!
The BBC is pulling a verbal sleight of hand trick by calling the past events Climate Change, like the IPCC-predicted CAGW event that in actuality is nothing at all similar. First of all, there's no allegation being made that past events were caused by ancient man running around burning fossil fuels in overly large 9 passenger SUVs for the transport of a man, his wife, their statistical .54th of a child, and possibly a miniature poodle or Yorkie or two. In fact, the BBC is conspicuously incurious about what natural forces or events may have led to the end the last ice age, or indeed any of the often extremely abrupt natural climate changing events of the past. It's all deliberately lumped in and confused with the IPCC predictions of an imminent Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming so that they can use past events to scare you about CAGW. Secondly, the scale of the events is so vastly different between the two types of events that CAGW, even in the worst case scenario, is nothing like the enormous naturally-caused events. It pales to insignificance in comparison, yet BBC is remiss in noticing this, leaving the thought deliberately planted in the viewers mind that all of England could be awash in seawater in the very near future when this is decidedly not the case at all.
BBC ought to be ashamed of themselves for this propaganda piece.
I'm giving this video a thumbs down for how misleading it is. BBC is deliberately leading people to think Oh! That Climate Change stuff is really scary! Here's evidence that it drowned an area the size of England. I better do as the environmentalists say.
They're deliberately not pointing out that compared to past climate changes, the current predictions are so puny it's completely laughable. Even under the very worst case scenarios published by the IPCC, the ocean might rise by nearly a meter (98 cm) by 2100. That's a far cry from the hundreds of meters that the oceans rose due to the completely natural wild climate fluctuations associated with the end of the last ice age and the Younger Dryas. To complain about an additional meter per century now makes us look like sniveling little babies incapable of wiping our own noses. We should instead be thankful for having had a recent history of 10,000 years of relatively stable climate in which to grow a technologically advanced civilization. If we can't adapt to 1 meter per century rise after all our ancestors have been through our civilization deserves to die.
98 cm is a ridiculously inaccurate prediction, by the way. Best estimate is that they are off by an order of magnitude and actual measured rise by 2100 is likely to be more like 9.8 cm. That's less than 4 inches. Even the Maldives will survive a rise of 4 inches!
The BBC is pulling a verbal sleight of hand trick by calling the past events Climate Change, like the IPCC-predicted CAGW event that in actuality is nothing at all similar. First of all, there's no allegation being made that past events were caused by ancient man running around burning fossil fuels in overly large 9 passenger SUVs for the transport of a man, his wife, their statistical .54th of a child, and possibly a miniature poodle or Yorkie or two. In fact, the BBC is conspicuously incurious about what natural forces or events may have led to the end the last ice age, or indeed any of the often extremely abrupt natural climate changing events of the past. It's all deliberately lumped in and confused with the IPCC predictions of an imminent Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming so that they can use past events to scare you about CAGW. Secondly, the scale of the events is so vastly different between the two types of events that CAGW, even in the worst case scenario, is nothing like the enormous naturally-caused events. It pales to insignificance in comparison, yet BBC is remiss in noticing this, leaving the thought deliberately planted in the viewers mind that all of England could be awash in seawater in the very near future when this is decidedly not the case at all.
BBC ought to be ashamed of themselves for this propaganda piece.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 10
|
By:
Good post.
|
|
By:
I think that post misses a couple of rather vital elements when comparing previous climate change events.
Obviously rate of warming is one but also the coast lines of the continents were not heavily populated as they are now so they are assessing impact on the planet as it is now. By all means pick and choose your pseudo science if it helps you get a good nights sleep tho. |
|
By:
psuedo science is exactly what climate changers trade on.
|
|
By:
so around 98% of Climatologists are using pseudo science while a plucky handful funded by the fossil
fuel lobby and other interest groups battle to get the real science out? Seems unlikely. |
|
By:
Lots of people wouldn't have a job to go to if they said anything but.
|
|
By:
You think Climatologists would be out of a job? I suspect they would still be researching the climate,
it is kinda what they do regardless. Or do you mean the "green energy" groups? There is some truth that some of them have cashed in but there is no comparison to the influence of the fossil fuel industry. Obviously you choose to believe them as they have such a wonderful record of ethical behaviour?  ? |
|
By:
I'm very open minded, though Al Gore made a great career out of it didn't he, whilst jetting around in planes signing books, attending conferences being paid for speeches etc. Though a climatologist he is not, but one of the biggest peddlers of climate change he is.
|
|
By:
Massive industry and a proper gravy train, all paid for by various green taxes from the consumer.
|
|
By:
Why am I not at all surprised at the BBC promoting cancerous wind farms?
|
|
By:
even if you choose to dismiss man influenced climate change investing in renewable energy sources still makes sense.
|