Courts rule

[eyeball]

This is why I say courts are often better than governments at making progress.

Senior Swiss women prevail in landmark climate case at Europe's human rights court

The European court's decision on the case, brought by more than 2,000 women, could have a ripple effect across Europe and beyond, setting a precedent for how some courts deal with the rising tide of climate litigation argued on the basis of human rights infringements.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/european-human-rights-court-climate-1.7167866

I get it that legislators are who make laws but sometimes they need a push to get on with their jobs. Yes, that push should come from voters but sometimes they need encouraging too.

 

[Yakuda]

On 4/10/2024 at 12:00 PM, eyeball said:

This is why I say courts are often better than governments at making progress.

Senior Swiss women prevail in landmark climate case at Europe's human rights court

The European court's decision on the case, brought by more than 2,000 women, could have a ripple effect across Europe and beyond, setting a precedent for how some courts deal with the rising tide of climate litigation argued on the basis of human rights infringements.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/european-human-rights-court-climate-1.7167866

I get it that legislators are who make laws but sometimes they need a push to get on with their jobs. Yes, that push should come from voters but sometimes they need encouraging too.

 

What utter buffoonery this is. 

[eyeball]

25 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

What utter buffoonery this is. 

What part, the Swiss ruling or that courts need to get things moving on occassion?

[Yakuda]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What part, the Swiss ruling or that courts need to get things moving on occassion?

Well it's both but specifically:

"The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on Tuesday in favour of a group of elderly Swiss women who had argued that their government's inadequate efforts to combat climate change put them at risk of dying during heat waves."

Besides the fact that far more deaths are caused by cold than heat if a heat wave kills you have far greater problems than a govt that didn't do enough to address climate change. It's nonsensical 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Yakuda said:

Besides the fact that far more deaths are caused by cold than heat if a heat wave kills you have far greater problems than a govt that didn't do enough to address climate change. It's nonsensical 

Deaths by hypothermia are often accidental and due to the victims misstep or miscalculation. When a senior or child wanders away from caregivers its sometimes accidental and sometimes it's preventable, as when kids are left unattended in a hot car. A case might be made for homeless people who succumb to cold where better provisions for shelters could have been made by public authorities.

Similarly, not doing enough to prevent or mitigate the adverse effects of climate change neglects a responsibility to address a preventable cause in the face of evidence predicting it.

[Yakuda]

14 hours ago, eyeball said:

Deaths by hypothermia are often accidental and due to the victims misstep or miscalculation. When a senior or child wanders away from caregivers its sometimes accidental and sometimes it's preventable, as when kids are left unattended in a hot car. A case might be made for homeless people who succumb to cold where better provisions for shelters could have been made by public authorities.

Similarly, not doing enough to prevent or mitigate the adverse effects of climate change neglects a responsibility to address a preventable cause in the face of evidence predicting it.

Cold is responsible for more deaths regardless of the cause. Period. 

How long will it take for any action initiated by any govt to "prevent and mitigate the effects of climate change"? How will it be determined that any action taken by the govt was not "enough"? How do we know that any action taken by then govt will actually achieve the goal of preventing and motivating the effects of climate change. This is pure bull s**t

 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Yakuda said:

This is pure bull s**t.

It is what it is and hopefully it gets spread far and wide.

[Yakuda]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It is what it is and hopefully it gets spread far and wide.

Your avoidance of the questions is noted. We have a world full of BS and you want more. I'll give you credit at least you dont deny its BS. 

Edited April 24 by Yakuda

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Yakuda said:

Cold is responsible for more deaths regardless of the cause. Period. 

1. How long will it take for any action initiated by any govt to "prevent and mitigate the effects of climate change"?

2. How will it be determined that any action taken by the govt was not "enough"?

3.How do we know that any action taken by then govt will actually achieve the goal of preventing and motivating the effects of climate change.

1. I don't know, but it sounds like it could be hundreds of years until we see results given how long CO2 persists in the atmosphere. Simply reducing emissions and not making things worse is the immediate goal.

2. Further investigation by experts.

3. By examining the government's claims it's making progress probably by showing emissions have in fact decreased. I doubt they'll be faulted for trying unless it's obviously a minimal token effort.

17 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Your avoidance of the questions is noted. We have a world full of BS and you want more. I'll give you credit at least you dont deny its BS. 

It seems pretty clear you'll maintain this is BS long past the cows coming home. That being the case you can probably expect a minimal effort on my part to try and convince you of anything. 

It is what it is.

[Yakuda]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

1. I don't know, but it sounds like it could be hundreds of years until we see results given how long CO2 persists in the atmosphere. Simply reducing emissions and not making things worse is the immediate goal.

2. Further investigation by experts.

3. By examining the government's claims it's making progress probably by showing emissions have in fact decreased. I doubt they'll be faulted for trying unless it's obviously a minimal token effort.

It seems pretty clear you'll maintain this is BS long past the cows coming home. That being the case you can probably expect a minimal effort on my part to try and convince you of anything. 

It is what it is.

You know what's funny? I've seen atheists mercilessly ridiculing Christians for their failed predictions of the end of the world but ridicule the failed predictions of climate change nuts and suddenly you're "anti science". One of my favorite ones 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-national-park-2020-trnd/index.html

I'm sure you'll tell me how your failed predictions are better than anyone else's. LOL 

[eyeball]

5 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

I'm sure you'll tell me how your failed predictions are better than anyone else's.

Sure, when they're based on science they're subject to peer review and correction.

Are your beliefs subject to something similar?

[Yakuda]

14 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Sure, when they're based on science they're subject to peer review and correction.

Are your beliefs subject to something similar?

I notice you didn't even bother to address the failed climate change prediction. There are some things you can always rely on.

Are yours? Talking to some climate change people is like talking to a religious zealot. 

“It is really case closed. There is nobody of significance in the scientific community who doubts human-caused climate change,” said the lead author, Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at Cornell University.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans

Edited April 24 by Yakuda

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

I notice you didn't even bother to address the failed climate change prediction.

It isn't obvious the prediction was reviewed and updated?

4 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Are yours?

Of course my beliefs are subject to review. As I've said repeatedly around here, if you have a better more convincing theory present it to experts who are in a better position to understand it and likely better than you at explaining it to lay people like myself.

You don't seem to have beliefs, they seem to have you. That's an important distinction.

[Yakuda]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It isn't obvious the prediction was reviewed and updated?

Of course my beliefs are subject to review. As I've said repeatedly around here, if you have a better more convincing theory present it to experts who are in a better position to understand it and likely better than you at explaining it to lay people like myself.

You don't seem to have beliefs, they seem to have you. That's an important distinction.

Sure it's possible but the old prediction wasn't replaced by a "reviewed and updated" prediction. Now the issue "is really case closed" or it's not. The problem is the entire climate change is based on models and predictions and people will win cases based non guesses and predictions. Climate change nuts are religious zealots. 

[eyeball]

10 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Climate change nuts are religious zealots. 

They be nuts due to religion but not CO2 or science.

[Yakuda]

14 minutes ago, eyeball said:

They be nuts due to religion but not CO2 or science.

No talking to some climate change nuts is not different than taking to radical islamists who blow a gasket if you mock whats his name. The same is true when you mock predictions such as the glacier national park thing. As pointed out, "...it's really case closed" and no one who is significant thinks otherwise. 

Edited April 24 by Yakuda

[eyeball]

4 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

As pointed out, "...it's really case closed" and no one who is significant thinks otherwise. 

Your own source said only 99.9%.

It's still wide open to review but it'll have to be convincing if you expect to have an impact.

Good luck.

 

[Yakuda]

23 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Your own source said only 99.9%.

It's still wide open to review but it'll have to be convincing if you expect to have an impact.

Good luck.

 

It also says, it's really a closed case and no one significant disagrees which translates into, if you question it you're not significant in the scientific community. You can twist it any way you like the message is clear, this is how it is and any dissenters will not be taken seriously. Yeah you guys sound like you're wide open to questioning. After reading that I dare say you would welcome opposing points of view. I can't imagine any message more welcoming than, "It is really case closed. There is nobody of significance in the scientific community who doubts human-caused climate change,”.  It's "wide open" LMBO 

 

Edited April 24 by Yakuda

[eyeball]

10 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

I can't imagine any message more welcoming than, "It is really case closed.

Think of it as a challenge. It's your cherry, all you need to do is pick it.

[Yakuda]

37 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Think of it as a challenge. It's your cherry, all you need to do is pick it.

 Religion does make you blind ^^^^^^^

[eyeball]

16 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

 Religion does make you blind ^^^^^^^

Especially if you masturbate...sounds like you burn in Hell too.

[Yakuda]

Just now, eyeball said:

Especially if you masturbate...sounds like you burn in Hell too.

And so it's confirmed. The science inquisition

[eyeball]

12 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

And so it's confirmed. The science inquisition

Is it safe to say you're still pissed off at Galileo?

Edited April 24 by eyeball

[Yakuda]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'd it safe to say you're still pissed off at Galileo?

I could care less about him but it's clear the science zealots these days really hate being challenged. It's really a closed case. Dealing with climate change nuts I can only imagine what Galileo went through 

Edited April 24 by Yakuda

[eyeball]

7 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Dealing with climate change nuts I can only imagine what Galileo went through 

Try dealing with them using the same methods Galileo used. It took over 400 years but they worked out for him in the end. Have a little faith.