27. Sir David Attenborough

[The Old Crem 3,706]

Just now, En Passant said:

What data are you basing that on? Because unless you can produce some it's just your opinion. 

 

tldr: rubbish.

The Polling for climate shows climate change scepticism is more common among older people.

[En Passant 3,772]

2 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

The Polling for climate shows climate change scepticism is more common among older people.

What poll? link?

And where's the one says old folk like Attenborough less than young ones? Evidence or it's just opinion.

You are of course, as anyone, entitled to express an opinion, but if you can't back your assertion up with evidence, then of itself it's fake news.....

[The Old Crem 3,706]

1 minute ago, En Passant said:

What poll? link?

And where's the one says old folk like Attenborough less than young ones? Evidence or it's just opinion.

You are of course, as anyone, entitled to express an opinion, but if you can't back your assertion up with evidence, then of itself it's fake news.....

https://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39251/bsa35_climate_change.pdf

[En Passant 3,772]

good grief....

 

18-34 94%

35-64 93%

65+    90%

 

probably 10% of the 65+ answered, "whats for tea?"

And Attenborough isn't mentioned anywhere in it.

[roaming_comrade 472]

2 hours ago, En Passant said:

good grief....

 

18-34 94%

35-64 93%

65+    90%

 

probably 10% of the 65+ answered, "whats for tea?"

And Attenborough isn't mentioned anywhere in it.

Yeah that means that people above 65 are almost double as likely to be climate change deniers.

If you wanna play the ultra rationalist here you should at least be able to interpret a statistic correctly.

[En Passant 3,772]

If by 'almost double' you mean 10% as opposed to 6%.....then it appears I can interpret it thanks. It's just another way of expressing it that looks like a lot more on the face of it.

You could also say that 1 in 10 is likely to be a denier past 65 and that over 1 in 20 between the ages of 18-64 is. Which looks a whole lot closer.

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

 

The original point was that crem had made an assertion of fact, there wasn't anything to back it up. If he had that poll at the time he should have linked it in the first place or said "it's my belief that..."

 

And there's still no evidence about the assertion that "Attenborough is more liked by younger people than older people". Which of course may also be true, but there's nothing showing that it is. 

Plenty of time to go googling for something to back that up too.

[roaming_comrade 472]

You are aware that when someone makes an assertion like that it may be based on one's personal impression?

Damn, I mean I'm autistic too, but how fuckin autistic does one have to be to throw a temper tantrum over this random bullshit?

[En Passant 3,772]

17 minutes ago, roaming_comrade said:

You are aware that when someone makes an assertion like that it may be based on one's personal impression?

 

Aware? Yes. Happens all the time, in fact the current US president has made a lifetimes habit of it.

Does that make it ok to post opinion as fact? No.

 

 

17 minutes ago, roaming_comrade said:

temper tantrum

 

Hardly.

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,241]

Are we all looking at the same Poll?

By a vast majority, across all age groups, there is a broad agreement that climate change is real.

Where there are differences it is in whether the human race is mostly responsible for that change or not.

There are also differences in attitude to how worried people are about it.

Nothing unusual then.

[paddyfool 379]

Essentially, not enough people are worried enough to do anything, so we're all a bit boned. Or at least, those of us still alive in 2050 will all be a bit boned, and those of us still alive in 2100 will be a lot boned.

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,241]

42 minutes ago, paddyfool said:

Essentially, not enough people are worried enough to do anything, so we're all a bit boned. Or at least, those of us still alive in 2050 will all be a bit boned, and those of us still alive in 2100 will be a lot boned.

We will adapt. That is why we are still here.

[RoverAndOut 4,771]

2 hours ago, Lord Fellatio Nelson said:

We will adapt. That is why we are still here.

 

We've been here for a ludicrously short amount of time in the history of the world. Humans have never faced or survived a mass extinction event (if, indeed, that is what is ongoing, as many scientists suggest - these things don't happen overnight but over ) - the last such extinction wiped out the dinosaurs. An ice age, probably, an extinction, possibly not. Anyway, nothing to affect you in your lifetime, eh?

[paddyfool 379]

11 hours ago, Lord Fellatio Nelson said:

We will adapt. That is why we are still here.

 

I never said it would cause human extinction. But a key part of adaptation is to stop making it worse, and the widespread denial of our actions having consequences is likely to stop meaningful changes from happening. At least until those consequences get pretty catastrophic in the here and now. 

 

Maybe when annual sea level rise is more like 20mm than 2mm we might start seeing meaningful change, but by that point a lot of the trouble is locked in. 

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,241]

9 hours ago, RoverAndOut said:

 

We've been here for a ludicrously short amount of time in the history of the world. Humans have never faced or survived a mass extinction event (if, indeed, that is what is ongoing, as many scientists suggest - these things don't happen overnight but over ) - the last such extinction wiped out the dinosaurs. An ice age, probably, an extinction, possibly not. Anyway, nothing to affect you in your lifetime, eh?

You think so?

Maybe you have forgotten that I live in a county that has been affected by climate change more than most others in the country.

We are losing shit tons of coastline up here, peoples homes are falling into the sea at an alarming rate and my town has flood barriers and warning systems because we happen to be situated in an area of the country where we can and do get flooded.

I am very aware of what is going on.

I also have grandchildren, it is their lifetime that concerns me more than my own.

Don't give me the old 'well you may not care but...' bullshit.  Slowing, let alone stopping, climate change is going to be like trying to stop a supertanker, running at full speed, on a sixpence.

While we all run  around like headless chickens, wringing our hands, demanding we all go carbon neutral immediately and ride bikes everywhere, we are not doing very much to negate the change that is taking place and will continue to take place as time marches on.

We have to start actually doing things that will reduce the impact and help us all adapt to the changes that are taking place, changes that we are unlikely to stop no matter what.

What money has been actually spent to prevent towns around the UK being flooded, as they have been over the last ten years?

Not enough is probably the answer.

We can protect our communities from flooding, we can build dams, canal systems, bigger and better sea defences, christ, the Dutch had the technology to reclaim, land from the sea hundreds of years ago, it isn't like we don't know what to do, is it!

It will always boil down to how much we are prepared to spend and how much we are prepared to let go.

My point about adapting is the key point because we are going to have to adapt to what is happening, we will adapt to what is happening.

That, in itself, does not mean that we disregard our role in causing climate change to be moving along at the pace it already is, we need to do more but we also need to take a far more pragmatic approach and start doing things that will protect us all from the things that we will not be able to completely stop in the next 50 to 100 years or more.

That is not me saying I don't give a shit, is it!

I also used to live on Canvey Island, a shit hole below sea level

Go figure.

[RoverAndOut 4,771]

1 hour ago, Lord Fellatio Nelson said:

You think so?

Maybe you have forgotten that I live in a county that has been affected by climate change more than most others in the country.

We are losing shit tons of coastline up here, peoples homes are falling into the sea at an alarming rate and my town has flood barriers and warning systems because we happen to be situated in an area of the country where we can and do get flooded.

I am very aware of what is going on.

 

Glad we agree then. Much more does need to be done, in the grand scheme of things individuals going carbon neutral, etc. isn't going to make the slightest difference, it needs a complete change in thinking about how we power the world and how we live. Funding is key, but governments are more focused on short-term measures than the bigger picture. Even the near-annual floods that affect your part of the country aren't enough to make them think 'maybe we should be taking this more seriously and doing whatever we can to reduce this risk'. They put some wellies on, apologise to you and say it will be better next time, then 3 years later it happens again. There's a difference between stopping climate change entirely (which is a natural phenomenon affected by lots of things) and reducing it's acceleration by altering our way of doing things to be cleaner and more ecologically friendly. Governments are starting to wake up but they're not acting fast enough.

 

Anyway, I apologise for my comment, it was glib.

[Youth in Asia 1,094]

Why would David Attenborough be on the list, he is probably the most healthy and active 94 year old around.

[j0neseur0 118]

5 hours ago, Youth in Asia said:

Why would David Attenborough be on the list, he is probably the most healthy and active 94 year old around.

 

Agree I think some names are there purely to avoid the sheer amount of noise there'd be if somebody as famous as Attenborough ended up on the list of the missed. 

[roaming_comrade 472]

10 hours ago, Youth in Asia said:

Why would David Attenborough be on the list, he is probably the most healthy and active 94 year old around.

The queen wants to know your location

[mollyafox 461]

Has already left Instagram. 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/25/world/david-attenborough-leaves-instagram-scli-intl-gbr/index.html

[The Old Crem 3,706]

Vaccinated.

[Octopus of Odstock 2,241]

Looks rough but it might just be lighting and a need of a haircut

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-56175714

[Redrumours 866]

32 minutes ago, Octopus of Odstock said:

Looks rough but it might just be lighting and a need of a haircut

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-56175714

Summat wrong about his left eye maybe?

[TheKeysOfMarinus 396]

5 hours ago, Redrumours said:

Summat wrong about his left eye maybe?

Definitely seems to be.
Bless him, I think he looks a little rough there too but he still sounds great. 

[Redrumours 866]

14 minutes ago, TheKeysOfMarinus said:

Definitely seems to be.
Bless him, I think he looks a little rough there too but he still sounds great. 

Probably just a stye.

[Grim Up North 3,776]

He’s had the eye thing for a while.

 

Unilateral ptosis is very common in the old.