|
|
Post by Chewbacca the Wookie on Nov 9, 2022 13:49:33 GMT
I guess it depends on what’s classed as “civil”? Civil means relating to ordinary citizens and their concerns, as distinct from military or ecclesiastical matters. I guess it depends on the context because I’d imagine a lot of their behaviour impacts on the day to day life of “ordinary citizens”. From what I’ve seen the majority of protestors come across as being upper class and not the type that struggle to make a living. |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Nov 9, 2022 15:23:04 GMT
I think they're going too far because of ambulance issues etc. But do you think that those who're acting to make global warming worse and therefore kill more people in wildfires, floods etc are like terrorists? Why or why not? Do you have indisputable evidence that the British people are directly responsible for deaths from floods, wildfires etc around the world? No. So how exactly are ordinary folk going about their lives responsible for "terrorism"? Its a ridiculous suggestion. I could just call you a terrorist by that theory. I'm sure if we looked hard enough at your life, what you buy, where you buy it etc, you will be part of a cycle where ethics can be called into question. Just look at where the parts of your phone come from. Does that make you a "terrorist"? The indoctrination around the green agenda is truly harrowing. I seem to recall you fell hard for the Covid lockdown catastrophe that is now crippling a global economy and you're falling for it again with the green stuff. Ii raise this because there is undoubtedly a correlation (you only need to see it on here) between lockdown fanatics who have now been proven to be on the wrong side of history, responsible for what is likely to be one of the worst global recessions on record along with one of the largest transfers of wealth. They bought into the scare mongering, apocalypse porn put out there by the BBC, Sky News is etc and it's happening all over again with the green scam. The science behind climate change is massively disputed amongst scientists in much the same way covid was. In exactly the same way, those scientists who question the green agenda are shut down and censored. To the point that offcom are now telling certain radio stations and TV channels that they aren't allowed a debate on the subject! - As James Whale on TalkTV pointed out yesterday. These protestors are (quite literally) a bunch of deranged, disturbed anoraks who are often from wealthy, privileged backgrounds, living off mum and dad's money, many of whom have never worked a day in their life before. "Louise" from yesterday's comical meltdown video was a fine example of that. Apparently she even drives a petrol car herself, bought by her parents - You can't make it up. And you as an educated, fully grown man are buying into what people like her are telling you? Come on mrstudent, get a grip. You're better than that.😉 P.s we accept your apology for getting it wrong about lockdowns, don't make the same mistake again 😊 I don't think the protestors all believe that British individuals take direct blame, but that the country not acting strongly enough is causing deaths. The one I spoke to phrased it like that anyway, but that's only one lad. It sounds like you place a lot more moral weight on certain types of death than others. Maybe when you can see the direct proof of a single cause and a specific victim? I respect that but how do you feel about cases where e.g. coal pollution is or was killing loads of people? Do you see protestors against coal pollution in the same way as these oil ones? I'm trying to give a fair hearing to both sides and think that the protestors are going about it wrong. I can also see that they're doing it to save lives and overall they're trying to be on the good side here. Unlike with COVID I actually know about climate science! A lot of the public have definitely been misled. The idea that there's serious doubt about humans causing global warming has been put there by a well-funded propaganda campaign amplifying a tiny minority whose arguments fail when they have to put up the data and science, so they run to the media where they can sneak misleading things out without any rigorous scientific filter. |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Aug 4, 2023 9:31:13 GMT
Climate change apocalypse porn continues with our daily climate change alarmist BBC headline. "Dire implications for the planets health". www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66387537The techniques used by the mainstream media on this subject are almost identical to their approach to covid. Easy for privileged climate change enthusiasts and lockdown fanatics to demand costly intervention when you can afford to do so. Ordinary Brits fighting back against the green agenda will be a huge subject in the build up to the next general election as the Uxbridge bi-election illustrates. This absurd assault on democracy by this creepy new type of "Liberal" probably gives Sunak a tiny glimmer of hope and increases his chances of an election win from "non existent" to "highly unlikely". |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2023 10:03:36 GMT
Do you have indisputable evidence that the British people are directly responsible for deaths from floods, wildfires etc around the world? No. So how exactly are ordinary folk going about their lives responsible for "terrorism"? Its a ridiculous suggestion. I could just call you a terrorist by that theory. I'm sure if we looked hard enough at your life, what you buy, where you buy it etc, you will be part of a cycle where ethics can be called into question. Just look at where the parts of your phone come from. Does that make you a "terrorist"? The indoctrination around the green agenda is truly harrowing. I seem to recall you fell hard for the Covid lockdown catastrophe that is now crippling a global economy and you're falling for it again with the green stuff. Ii raise this because there is undoubtedly a correlation (you only need to see it on here) between lockdown fanatics who have now been proven to be on the wrong side of history, responsible for what is likely to be one of the worst global recessions on record along with one of the largest transfers of wealth. They bought into the scare mongering, apocalypse porn put out there by the BBC, Sky News is etc and it's happening all over again with the green scam. The science behind climate change is massively disputed amongst scientists in much the same way covid was. In exactly the same way, those scientists who question the green agenda are shut down and censored. To the point that offcom are now telling certain radio stations and TV channels that they aren't allowed a debate on the subject! - As James Whale on TalkTV pointed out yesterday. These protestors are (quite literally) a bunch of deranged, disturbed anoraks who are often from wealthy, privileged backgrounds, living off mum and dad's money, many of whom have never worked a day in their life before. "Louise" from yesterday's comical meltdown video was a fine example of that. Apparently she even drives a petrol car herself, bought by her parents - You can't make it up. And you as an educated, fully grown man are buying into what people like her are telling you? Come on mrstudent, get a grip. You're better than that.😉 P.s we accept your apology for getting it wrong about lockdowns, don't make the same mistake again 😊 I don't think the protestors all believe that British individuals take direct blame, but that the country not acting strongly enough is causing deaths. The one I spoke to phrased it like that anyway, but that's only one lad. It sounds like you place a lot more moral weight on certain types of death than others. Maybe when you can see the direct proof of a single cause and a specific victim? I respect that but how do you feel about cases where e.g. coal pollution is or was killing loads of people? Do you see protestors against coal pollution in the same way as these oil ones? I'm trying to give a fair hearing to both sides and think that the protestors are going about it wrong. I can also see that they're doing it to save lives and overall they're trying to be on the good side here. Unlike with COVID I actually know about climate science! A lot of the public have definitely been misled. The idea that there's serious doubt about humans causing global warming has been put there by a well-funded propaganda campaign amplifying a tiny minority whose arguments fail when they have to put up the data and science, so they run to the media where they can sneak misleading things out without any rigorous scientific filter. Part of the issue is that for half a century now there have been dire predictions of future events that haven’t occurred. I’m sure vast swathes of the UK should’ve been submerged by now. I even remember some afternoon kid’s series from when I was about 10; set in a dystopian near future (the date of which I’m sure has already passed) where the UK is basically waterworld. I can remember being disturbed by it…so quite frankly I look at Greta and empathise in a way, because I think she’s a disturbed, vulnerable kid who’s been scared shitless by an extreme vision of the future. Child abuse. I’m not using this to rebut climate change consensus btw; merely pointing out that you have to be sympathetic towards people who have grown weary and suspicious of the boy who cried wolf. And I have no doubt there there are nefarious intentions driving the narrative on both side. I suspect the truth is that the effects of climate change are gradual and subtle. We can certainly say that’s true compared to the many predictions of cataclysm that never came to pass. And that, if solutions need to be found, then the harsh reality is that they must be technological as opposed to the solutions being proposed. Because we’re simply not in a position, moral or otherwise, to expect emerging industrial economies to limit their growth potentials. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2023 10:23:06 GMT
I don't think the protestors all believe that British individuals take direct blame, but that the country not acting strongly enough is causing deaths. The one I spoke to phrased it like that anyway, but that's only one lad. It sounds like you place a lot more moral weight on certain types of death than others. Maybe when you can see the direct proof of a single cause and a specific victim? I respect that but how do you feel about cases where e.g. coal pollution is or was killing loads of people? Do you see protestors against coal pollution in the same way as these oil ones? I'm trying to give a fair hearing to both sides and think that the protestors are going about it wrong. I can also see that they're doing it to save lives and overall they're trying to be on the good side here. Unlike with COVID I actually know about climate science! A lot of the public have definitely been misled. The idea that there's serious doubt about humans causing global warming has been put there by a well-funded propaganda campaign amplifying a tiny minority whose arguments fail when they have to put up the data and science, so they run to the media where they can sneak misleading things out without any rigorous scientific filter. Part of the issue is that for half a century now there have been dire predictions of future events that haven’t occurred. I’m sure vast swathes of the UK should’ve been submerged by now. I even remember some afternoon kid’s series from when I was about 10; set in a dystopian near future (the date of which I’m sure has already passed) where the UK is basically waterworld. I can remember being disturbed by it…so quite frankly I look at Greta and empathise in a way, because I think she’s a disturbed, vulnerable kid who’s been scared shitless by an extreme vision of the future. Child abuse. I’m not using this to rebut climate change consensus btw; merely pointing out that you have to be sympathetic towards people who have grown weary and suspicious of the boy who cried wolf. And I have no doubt there there are nefarious intentions driving the narrative on both side. I suspect the truth is that the effects of climate change are gradual and subtle. We can certainly say that’s true compared to the many predictions of cataclysm that never came to pass. And that, if solutions need to be found, then the harsh reality is that they must be technological as opposed to the solutions being proposed. Because we’re simply not in a position, moral or otherwise, to expect emerging industrial economies to limit their growth potentials. Can’t talk to you about some of the media spins on climate in the 70s etc as I wasn’t there. Having had papers make the press previously, I do know that the media don’t have the same responsibility as scientists to balance reasoned debate around a topic. A one-off line in a paper about potential consequences can become their entire selling point. That said, here’s an article about a systematic review that indicates that 10 out 17 climate predictions from the 1970s were accurate: climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/ |
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Aug 4, 2023 12:05:11 GMT
I don't think the protestors all believe that British individuals take direct blame, but that the country not acting strongly enough is causing deaths. The one I spoke to phrased it like that anyway, but that's only one lad. It sounds like you place a lot more moral weight on certain types of death than others. Maybe when you can see the direct proof of a single cause and a specific victim? I respect that but how do you feel about cases where e.g. coal pollution is or was killing loads of people? Do you see protestors against coal pollution in the same way as these oil ones? I'm trying to give a fair hearing to both sides and think that the protestors are going about it wrong. I can also see that they're doing it to save lives and overall they're trying to be on the good side here. Unlike with COVID I actually know about climate science! A lot of the public have definitely been misled. The idea that there's serious doubt about humans causing global warming has been put there by a well-funded propaganda campaign amplifying a tiny minority whose arguments fail when they have to put up the data and science, so they run to the media where they can sneak misleading things out without any rigorous scientific filter. Part of the issue is that for half a century now there have been dire predictions of future events that haven’t occurred. I’m sure vast swathes of the UK should’ve been submerged by now. I even remember some afternoon kid’s series from when I was about 10; set in a dystopian near future (the date of which I’m sure has already passed) where the UK is basically waterworld. I can remember being disturbed by it…so quite frankly I look at Greta and empathise in a way, because I think she’s a disturbed, vulnerable kid who’s been scared shitless by an extreme vision of the future. Child abuse. I’m not using this to rebut climate change consensus btw; merely pointing out that you have to be sympathetic towards people who have grown weary and suspicious of the boy who cried wolf. And I have no doubt there there are nefarious intentions driving the narrative on both side. I suspect the truth is that the effects of climate change are gradual and subtle. We can certainly say that’s true compared to the many predictions of cataclysm that never came to pass. And that, if solutions need to be found, then the harsh reality is that they must be technological as opposed to the solutions being proposed. Because we’re simply not in a position, moral or otherwise, to expect emerging industrial economies to limit their growth potentials. I remember being shit scared of the hole in the ozone layer and being vaporized if I walked under it in the sun. Genuinely I've no issue with climate change actually happening as it's done it throughout the history of the planet. How much we're affecting it remains up for discussion and personally believe we are to some extent. Whenever hear that the science is settled on this though I immediately become cynical as surely science is never settled - if we believe it is settled then we're moving towards a faith based system and if we're down that route I'll plump for Christianity as that at least makes a vague promise around heaven rather than increasingly wild projections of Bowser's Castle type oblivion (thought about the other major religion but in the afterlife would prefer my women filthy rather than inexperienced tbh). I also think it's totally laughable to be honest we think we have the ability to save the planet when we can barely look after ourselves - when the planet decides to fuck us off, and it may well have done already, no amout of windmills, ESG clever accounting and battery cars are going to save us. I find it weird too that the fossil fuel industry is the bogey man and prospective savior at the same time. Scottish Gas are offering me a heat pump for £500 and the tax payer (IE me) will fund the rest of the £10k. There's c.1m homes in Scotland at least currently listed at C and below who would fall into this scheme I reckon (the bandings are being made tougher so more become 'eligible' apparently) whereby revenue would be £10 billion - extend it to rest of UK and that's over £100billion going to an oil and gas company as the good guys. We're led to believe they're the baddies in the fossil fuel industry but simultaneously should believe everything is entirely above board with this racket? I'm in a 'C' from memory and with it being a new build the house is very cozy, boiler maintained annually, without need of heating on for an hour here and there Dec-Feb unless its literally freezing and the water is on for 2 hours a day tops. I can't see why I need to change and I can't see how older houses would work as their insulation has been absolutely shit (my folks was built in the 80s and even after their walls being retro-filled is still like a barn). Now there will inevitably be folk calling me a selfish bastard and we all need to do our bit but my utilities bills/tax has already helped apparently fund Scotland to produce over 100% of it's entire electricity consumption from renewables. That we sell off some of that presumably to England isn't my fucking fault meaning that we still use non-renewables on a decreasing trajectory although how a million heat pumps affect that I've no idea. In addition even if Scotland hits it's net Zero target, which in invariably won't, this is the impact:  Scotland's like King Canute stopping the tide whilst China, India, US et al are over the horizon pumping a massive fuck off wave machine. |
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Aug 4, 2023 12:49:34 GMT
Part of the issue is that for half a century now there have been dire predictions of future events that haven’t occurred. I’m sure vast swathes of the UK should’ve been submerged by now. I even remember some afternoon kid’s series from when I was about 10; set in a dystopian near future (the date of which I’m sure has already passed) where the UK is basically waterworld. I can remember being disturbed by it…so quite frankly I look at Greta and empathise in a way, because I think she’s a disturbed, vulnerable kid who’s been scared shitless by an extreme vision of the future. Child abuse. I’m not using this to rebut climate change consensus btw; merely pointing out that you have to be sympathetic towards people who have grown weary and suspicious of the boy who cried wolf. And I have no doubt there there are nefarious intentions driving the narrative on both side. I suspect the truth is that the effects of climate change are gradual and subtle. We can certainly say that’s true compared to the many predictions of cataclysm that never came to pass. And that, if solutions need to be found, then the harsh reality is that they must be technological as opposed to the solutions being proposed. Because we’re simply not in a position, moral or otherwise, to expect emerging industrial economies to limit their growth potentials. I remember being shit scared of the hole in the ozone layer and being vaporized if I walked under it in the sun. Genuinely I've no issue with climate change actually happening as it's done it throughout the history of the planet. How much we're affecting it remains up for discussion and personally believe we are to some extent. Whenever hear that the science is settled on this though I immediately become cynical as surely science is never settled - if we believe it is settled then we're moving towards a faith based system and if we're down that route I'll plump for Christianity as that at least makes a vague promise around heaven rather than increasingly wild projections of Bowser's Castle type oblivion (thought about the other major religion but in the afterlife would prefer my women filthy rather than inexperienced tbh). I also think it's totally laughable to be honest we think we have the ability to save the planet when we can barely look after ourselves - when the planet decides to fuck us off, and it may well have done already, no amout of windmills, ESG clever accounting and battery cars are going to save us. I find it weird too that the fossil fuel industry is the bogey man and prospective savior at the same time. Scottish Gas are offering me a heat pump for £500 and the tax payer (IE me) will fund the rest of the £10k. There's c.1m homes in Scotland at least currently listed at C and below who would fall into this scheme I reckon (the bandings are being made tougher so more become 'eligible' apparently) whereby revenue would be £10 billion - extend it to rest of UK and that's over £100billion going to an oil and gas company as the good guys. We're led to believe they're the baddies in the fossil fuel industry but simultaneously should believe everything is entirely above board with this racket? I'm in a 'C' from memory and with it being a new build the house is very cozy, boiler maintained annually, without need of heating on for an hour here and there Dec-Feb unless its literally freezing and the water is on for 2 hours a day tops. I can't see why I need to change and I can't see how older houses would work as their insulation has been absolutely shit (my folks was built in the 80s and even after their walls being retro-filled is still like a barn). Now there will inevitably be folk calling me a selfish bastard and we all need to do our bit but my utilities bills/tax has already helped apparently fund Scotland to produce over 100% of it's entire electricity consumption from renewables. That we sell off some of that presumably to England isn't my fucking fault meaning that we still use non-renewables on a decreasing trajectory although how a million heat pumps affect that I've no idea. In addition even if Scotland hits it's net Zero target, which in invariably won't, this is the impact: View AttachmentScotland's like King Canute stopping the tide whilst China, India, US et al are over the horizon pumping a massive fuck off wave machine. The science isn't settled, let's get that one dealt with to start. Scientific knowledge continually evolves. Sometimes someone comes along and suggests that something is wrong, proposes an alternative, the alternative gets tested by many others and, if those tests confirm the new alternative to be accurate, then that is the one that the scientific consensus accepts from that time forward. That's how science works! I'm aware that Starkiller et al will come along to say that all those scientists supporting the scientific consensus are just toeing the line to fund their own careers and mortgages. If you genuinely believe that there is very little anyone is ever going to say that will convince you otherwise, so little point in trying. It's bollocks, but highly attractive as a standpoint if you need to argue against the consensus. Right now, the scientific consensus accepts that climate change is real, happening and that mankind is driving it forward through industrial emissions in a way that could spell ecological disaster and civilisation collapse for mankind. (As an aside, the planet will be fine. So all those people who go on about destroying the planet, saving the planet etc are not helping - it's mankind we should be worrying about). I get that it's annoying for people to feel that they are being forced into altering their lifestyles while other countries are supposedly doing nothing. However, it's about doing the right thing here, and in Europe and other places, which will put pressure on China, the US and India to amend their ways. China is already way ahead of other countries in switching to renewables and will no doubt phase out polluting energy generation in due course. And, in reality, what's the alternative? Do nothing, while the world heats up and causes numerous associated and extremely dangerous ecological and political problems? Maybe so. Personally, I think we're already fucked. We've got about 30 years of burning fossil fuels baked into climate change to come so if things look a little alarming now, they're only going to get worse. In which case, you may as well enjoy it and hope you're not around when it all comes crashing down! It would be a fitting epitaph for mankind to go down in a burning blaze of glory - sunk by its own simultaneous intelligence and stupidity! |
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Aug 4, 2023 13:02:52 GMT
I remember being shit scared of the hole in the ozone layer and being vaporized if I walked under it in the sun. Genuinely I've no issue with climate change actually happening as it's done it throughout the history of the planet. How much we're affecting it remains up for discussion and personally believe we are to some extent. Whenever hear that the science is settled on this though I immediately become cynical as surely science is never settled - if we believe it is settled then we're moving towards a faith based system and if we're down that route I'll plump for Christianity as that at least makes a vague promise around heaven rather than increasingly wild projections of Bowser's Castle type oblivion (thought about the other major religion but in the afterlife would prefer my women filthy rather than inexperienced tbh). I also think it's totally laughable to be honest we think we have the ability to save the planet when we can barely look after ourselves - when the planet decides to fuck us off, and it may well have done already, no amout of windmills, ESG clever accounting and battery cars are going to save us. I find it weird too that the fossil fuel industry is the bogey man and prospective savior at the same time. Scottish Gas are offering me a heat pump for £500 and the tax payer (IE me) will fund the rest of the £10k. There's c.1m homes in Scotland at least currently listed at C and below who would fall into this scheme I reckon (the bandings are being made tougher so more become 'eligible' apparently) whereby revenue would be £10 billion - extend it to rest of UK and that's over £100billion going to an oil and gas company as the good guys. We're led to believe they're the baddies in the fossil fuel industry but simultaneously should believe everything is entirely above board with this racket? I'm in a 'C' from memory and with it being a new build the house is very cozy, boiler maintained annually, without need of heating on for an hour here and there Dec-Feb unless its literally freezing and the water is on for 2 hours a day tops. I can't see why I need to change and I can't see how older houses would work as their insulation has been absolutely shit (my folks was built in the 80s and even after their walls being retro-filled is still like a barn). Now there will inevitably be folk calling me a selfish bastard and we all need to do our bit but my utilities bills/tax has already helped apparently fund Scotland to produce over 100% of it's entire electricity consumption from renewables. That we sell off some of that presumably to England isn't my fucking fault meaning that we still use non-renewables on a decreasing trajectory although how a million heat pumps affect that I've no idea. In addition even if Scotland hits it's net Zero target, which in invariably won't, this is the impact: View AttachmentScotland's like King Canute stopping the tide whilst China, India, US et al are over the horizon pumping a massive fuck off wave machine. The science isn't settled, let's get that one dealt with to start. Scientific knowledge continually evolves. Sometimes someone comes along and suggests that something is wrong, proposes an alternative, the alternative gets tested by many others and, if those tests confirm the new alternative to be accurate, then that is the one that the scientific consensus accepts from that time forward. That's how science works! I'm aware that Starkiller et al will come along to say that all those scientists supporting the scientific consensus are just toeing the line to fund their own careers and mortgages. If you genuinely believe that there is very little anyone is ever going to say that will convince you otherwise, so little point in trying. It's bollocks, but highly attractive as a standpoint if you need to argue against the consensus. Right now, the scientific consensus accepts that climate change is real, happening and that mankind is driving it forward through industrial emissions in a way that could spell ecological disaster and civilisation collapse for mankind. (As an aside, the planet will be fine. So all those people who go on about destroying the planet, saving the planet etc are not helping - it's mankind we should be worrying about). I get that it's annoying for people to feel that they are being forced into altering their lifestyles while other countries are supposedly doing nothing. However, it's about doing the right thing here, and in Europe and other places, which will put pressure on China, the US and India to amend their ways. China is already way ahead of other countries in switching to renewables and will no doubt phase out polluting energy generation in due course. And, in reality, what's the alternative? Do nothing, while the world heats up and causes numerous associated and extremely dangerous ecological and political problems? Maybe so. Personally, I think we're already fucked. We've got about 30 years of burning fossil fuels baked into climate change to come so if things look a little alarming now, they're only going to get worse. In which case, you may as well enjoy it and hope you're not around when it all comes crashing down! It would be a fitting epitaph for mankind to go down in a burning blaze of glory - sunk by its own simultaneous intelligence and stupidity! Very well put..... I would add just 3 more words to the very end of your last sentence......."ignorance and greed" |
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Aug 4, 2023 16:20:32 GMT
I remember being shit scared of the hole in the ozone layer and being vaporized if I walked under it in the sun. Genuinely I've no issue with climate change actually happening as it's done it throughout the history of the planet. How much we're affecting it remains up for discussion and personally believe we are to some extent. Whenever hear that the science is settled on this though I immediately become cynical as surely science is never settled - if we believe it is settled then we're moving towards a faith based system and if we're down that route I'll plump for Christianity as that at least makes a vague promise around heaven rather than increasingly wild projections of Bowser's Castle type oblivion (thought about the other major religion but in the afterlife would prefer my women filthy rather than inexperienced tbh). I also think it's totally laughable to be honest we think we have the ability to save the planet when we can barely look after ourselves - when the planet decides to fuck us off, and it may well have done already, no amout of windmills, ESG clever accounting and battery cars are going to save us. I find it weird too that the fossil fuel industry is the bogey man and prospective savior at the same time. Scottish Gas are offering me a heat pump for £500 and the tax payer (IE me) will fund the rest of the £10k. There's c.1m homes in Scotland at least currently listed at C and below who would fall into this scheme I reckon (the bandings are being made tougher so more become 'eligible' apparently) whereby revenue would be £10 billion - extend it to rest of UK and that's over £100billion going to an oil and gas company as the good guys. We're led to believe they're the baddies in the fossil fuel industry but simultaneously should believe everything is entirely above board with this racket? I'm in a 'C' from memory and with it being a new build the house is very cozy, boiler maintained annually, without need of heating on for an hour here and there Dec-Feb unless its literally freezing and the water is on for 2 hours a day tops. I can't see why I need to change and I can't see how older houses would work as their insulation has been absolutely shit (my folks was built in the 80s and even after their walls being retro-filled is still like a barn). Now there will inevitably be folk calling me a selfish bastard and we all need to do our bit but my utilities bills/tax has already helped apparently fund Scotland to produce over 100% of it's entire electricity consumption from renewables. That we sell off some of that presumably to England isn't my fucking fault meaning that we still use non-renewables on a decreasing trajectory although how a million heat pumps affect that I've no idea. In addition even if Scotland hits it's net Zero target, which in invariably won't, this is the impact: View AttachmentScotland's like King Canute stopping the tide whilst China, India, US et al are over the horizon pumping a massive fuck off wave machine. The science isn't settled, let's get that one dealt with to start. Scientific knowledge continually evolves. Sometimes someone comes along and suggests that something is wrong, proposes an alternative, the alternative gets tested by many others and, if those tests confirm the new alternative to be accurate, then that is the one that the scientific consensus accepts from that time forward. That's how science works! I'm aware that Starkiller et al will come along to say that all those scientists supporting the scientific consensus are just toeing the line to fund their own careers and mortgages. If you genuinely believe that there is very little anyone is ever going to say that will convince you otherwise, so little point in trying. It's bollocks, but highly attractive as a standpoint if you need to argue against the consensus. Right now, the scientific consensus accepts that climate change is real, happening and that mankind is driving it forward through industrial emissions in a way that could spell ecological disaster and civilisation collapse for mankind. (As an aside, the planet will be fine. So all those people who go on about destroying the planet, saving the planet etc are not helping - it's mankind we should be worrying about). I get that it's annoying for people to feel that they are being forced into altering their lifestyles while other countries are supposedly doing nothing. However, it's about doing the right thing here, and in Europe and other places, which will put pressure on China, the US and India to amend their ways. China is already way ahead of other countries in switching to renewables and will no doubt phase out polluting energy generation in due course. And, in reality, what's the alternative? Do nothing, while the world heats up and causes numerous associated and extremely dangerous ecological and political problems? Maybe so. Personally, I think we're already fucked. We've got about 30 years of burning fossil fuels baked into climate change to come so if things look a little alarming now, they're only going to get worse. In which case, you may as well enjoy it and hope you're not around when it all comes crashing down! It would be a fitting epitaph for mankind to go down in a burning blaze of glory - sunk by its own simultaneous intelligence and stupidity! I’ve never said the science is settled in fairness, am well aware of how science is supposed to work, the rather obvious conflicts of interest it’s susceptible to around funding but yet it keeps getting trotted out regardless – it would be bloody stupid to think it was settled too when we were going into a deep freeze in 70s, Ozone layer was fucked in the 80’s, icecaps were going to have melted a decade ago etc. It’s like the boy who cried wolf and the fear projections are increasing to get people to listen but that doesn’t mean it’s not happening just that folk obviously switch off. The only path to progress too is questioning the science and that includes everything not just the cherry picked bits to make a case yay or nay or again it just becomes akin to religion. How do you possibly know doing nothing isn’t better at the moment from our perspective rather than doing something ill thought out purely for good intention? Specifically around this heat pump initiatives: What’s the cost to the environment of producing raw materials of c.20m heat-pumps; manufacturing c.20m heat pumps; transporting c.20m heat pumps; disposing of c.20m boilers/pipework; renovating homes to accommodate the new infrastructure and; potentially needing to upgrade various aspects of the electricity grid nationwide to meet the capacity moving forward? There’s £100billion in this easy for O&G conglomerates to get their teeth into purely selling and fitting the pumps before even factoring in upgrading the grid or supply chain so I can fully appreciate their angle but for all that what are we actually achieving? Given the graph before it’s a drop in the ocean of greenhouse gas emission for us to achieve neutrality yet how much greenhouse gas is expended to achieve just fitting heat pumps! No issue with you wanting to do something but so long as that doesn’t have me legally obliged to get a heat pump for no discernible reason crack on. Even the Mayan’s had a go at doing something to protect their environment whereby they’d slaughter animals and humans to ensure crops succeeded even up to just 400 year ago. It sounds ridiculous looking back but at least they had the self-awareness and gumption in fairness of their own limitations to seek assistance from an omnipotent being whereas ourselves are putting our faith in the same political, capitalist system and fossil fuel conglomerates to extract us from a situation they’re entirely complicit in putting us into in the first place. At least if I slit the throat of a goat I might have something yummy for tea - llama curry's meant to be lovely but I'll give that a go if the goat doesn't work. |
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Aug 4, 2023 16:39:54 GMT
The science isn't settled, let's get that one dealt with to start. Scientific knowledge continually evolves. Sometimes someone comes along and suggests that something is wrong, proposes an alternative, the alternative gets tested by many others and, if those tests confirm the new alternative to be accurate, then that is the one that the scientific consensus accepts from that time forward. That's how science works! I'm aware that Starkiller et al will come along to say that all those scientists supporting the scientific consensus are just toeing the line to fund their own careers and mortgages. If you genuinely believe that there is very little anyone is ever going to say that will convince you otherwise, so little point in trying. It's bollocks, but highly attractive as a standpoint if you need to argue against the consensus. Right now, the scientific consensus accepts that climate change is real, happening and that mankind is driving it forward through industrial emissions in a way that could spell ecological disaster and civilisation collapse for mankind. (As an aside, the planet will be fine. So all those people who go on about destroying the planet, saving the planet etc are not helping - it's mankind we should be worrying about). I get that it's annoying for people to feel that they are being forced into altering their lifestyles while other countries are supposedly doing nothing. However, it's about doing the right thing here, and in Europe and other places, which will put pressure on China, the US and India to amend their ways. China is already way ahead of other countries in switching to renewables and will no doubt phase out polluting energy generation in due course. And, in reality, what's the alternative? Do nothing, while the world heats up and causes numerous associated and extremely dangerous ecological and political problems? Maybe so. Personally, I think we're already fucked. We've got about 30 years of burning fossil fuels baked into climate change to come so if things look a little alarming now, they're only going to get worse. In which case, you may as well enjoy it and hope you're not around when it all comes crashing down! It would be a fitting epitaph for mankind to go down in a burning blaze of glory - sunk by its own simultaneous intelligence and stupidity! Very well put..... I would add just 3 more words to the very end of your last sentence......."ignorance and greed" I really wish to believe mate but I can’t – if it was the ignorance and greed of politicians, capitalism and the fossil fuel industry that got us into it I can’t see how we can lay our faith in them to get us out of it. Thought this was interesting from the CIO of Blackrock on ESG: www.ft.com/content/ec02fd5d-e8bd-45bd-b015-a5799ae820cf“In my role at BlackRock, I was helping to popularise an idea that the answer to a sustainable future runs through ESG and sustainability and green products, or in other words, that the answer to the market’s failure to serve the long-term public interest is, of course, more market. A bit like the NRA’s traditional answer to mass shootings and related concerns around public safety — the answer is more guns”. He says, furthermore, that the senior executives he used to work with are way too smart to believe their own claims about ESG: “They must know that they’re exaggerating the degree of overlap between purpose and profit . . . These leaders must know that there is no way the set of ideas they’ve proposed are even close to being up to the challenge of solving the runaway long-term problems . . . And right now all of the other stuff they’re saying — the marketing gobbledegook — is actively misleading people”.All of the arguments are really interesting particularly given his background and perspective but this is the crux of it: Argument 5 “…Unfortunately, protecting an investment portfolio from the disastrous effects of climate change is not the same thing as preventing those disastrous effects from occurring in the first place”Private Equity money is getting pumped into renewables not because of some a want to save the planet but because it’ll provide a profitable portfolio as the whole endeavor is to turn a profit rather than turn a corner environmentally. I don’t believe humanity has the capacity to achieve our environmental aims because one of two overarching things would need to occur: 1) The population of the world shares resource equally – never going fucking happen 2) The ‘haves’ maintain the current hierarchy by stopping the ‘have nots’ from developing beyond their reliance on fossil fuel in order to become a developed country. I can well see this being the strategy and we’ll end up blowing ourselves to smithereens before we actually do any significant damage to the planet itself going down that road. Anything else we’re simply tarting around the edges merely finding new ways for the rich to get richer whilst hoping doing something is better than nothing – fancy a llama Jalfrezi and a beer before we go extinct? 😉 . |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Aug 5, 2023 17:50:57 GMT
Part of the issue is that for half a century now there have been dire predictions of future events that haven’t occurred. I’m sure vast swathes of the UK should’ve been submerged by now. I even remember some afternoon kid’s series from when I was about 10; set in a dystopian near future (the date of which I’m sure has already passed) where the UK is basically waterworld. I can remember being disturbed by it…so quite frankly I look at Greta and empathise in a way, because I think she’s a disturbed, vulnerable kid who’s been scared shitless by an extreme vision of the future. Child abuse. I’m not using this to rebut climate change consensus btw; merely pointing out that you have to be sympathetic towards people who have grown weary and suspicious of the boy who cried wolf. And I have no doubt there there are nefarious intentions driving the narrative on both side. I suspect the truth is that the effects of climate change are gradual and subtle. We can certainly say that’s true compared to the many predictions of cataclysm that never came to pass. And that, if solutions need to be found, then the harsh reality is that they must be technological as opposed to the solutions being proposed. Because we’re simply not in a position, moral or otherwise, to expect emerging industrial economies to limit their growth potentials. I understand people turning off etc, the media wants attention so always makes huge headlines and it's hard to work out reality when everything is a huge headline. E.g. most 1970s research expected global warming but they were working out CO2 heating vs cooling from air pollution. One study worked out that if air pollution levels increased by 300% then Earth would cool a lot, and that made big headlines. But we didn't increase air pollution levels by 300% and I don't think that was even realistic, so the headlines didn't properly inform people. I'm focussed a lot more on the science rather than the media, and on the science side it's a really clear story. We're causing Earth's entire climate to warm about 40 times faster than the past "rapid" warmings that ended what we call the ice ages. We're seeing and gonna see unprecedented climate events happening faster and faster inside a human lifetime and some people might call that "gradual" or "subtle" but others might not! |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Aug 5, 2023 18:03:00 GMT
I’ve never said the science is settled in fairness, am well aware of how science is supposed to work, the rather obvious conflicts of interest it’s susceptible to around funding but yet it keeps getting trotted out regardless – it would be bloody stupid to think it was settled too when we were going into a deep freeze in 70s, Ozone layer was fucked in the 80’s, icecaps were going to have melted a decade ago etc. It’s like the boy who cried wolf and the fear projections are increasing to get people to listen but that doesn’t mean it’s not happening just that folk obviously switch off. The only path to progress too is questioning the science and that includes everything not just the cherry picked bits to make a case yay or nay or again it just becomes akin to religion. There are loads of interesting questions in climate science, but I don't think it's worth spending loads of effort debating the same question decades after you've resolved it. Unless, of course, there's some new evidence. "Humans caused basically all the global warming since the 1800s" is never going to be settled, but it's probably something like 99.X% sure now. We've seen 1.2 C global warming, and the human effect is like between 1-1.4 C (with nature being +/-0.2 C) Fossil fuel industry propaganda wants to make it seem like there's any kind of serious dispute about that question when there isn't. There are lots of unknowns though, like whether the Greenland ice sheet is already doomed to collapse, and if it goes down will it go quickly or take hundreds or thousands of years? How do you possibly know doing nothing isn’t better at the moment from our perspective rather than doing something ill thought out purely for good intention? Specifically around this heat pump initiatives: What’s the cost to the environment of producing raw materials of c.20m heat-pumps; manufacturing c.20m heat pumps; transporting c.20m heat pumps; disposing of c.20m boilers/pipework; renovating homes to accommodate the new infrastructure and; potentially needing to upgrade various aspects of the electricity grid nationwide to meet the capacity moving forward? There’s £100billion in this easy for O&G conglomerates to get their teeth into purely selling and fitting the pumps before even factoring in upgrading the grid or supply chain so I can fully appreciate their angle but for all that what are we actually achieving? Given the graph before it’s a drop in the ocean of greenhouse gas emission for us to achieve neutrality yet how much greenhouse gas is expended to achieve just fitting heat pumps! Usually they work out the total pollution from each different choice, e.g. what's the total pollution from carrying on like normal including replacing 20 million boilers when they croak etc, versus what's the total pollution from installing and using heat pumps? Haven't looked into the heat pump details myself, but there have been the same things said about wind turbines and electric cars. For EVs the media often talks a lot about the 0.4 tonnes of battery that'll get recycled but they don't talk about the 12 tonnes of oil that a petrol car would use instead. |
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Aug 5, 2023 18:31:36 GMT
I’ve never said the science is settled in fairness, am well aware of how science is supposed to work, the rather obvious conflicts of interest it’s susceptible to around funding but yet it keeps getting trotted out regardless – it would be bloody stupid to think it was settled too when we were going into a deep freeze in 70s, Ozone layer was fucked in the 80’s, icecaps were going to have melted a decade ago etc. It’s like the boy who cried wolf and the fear projections are increasing to get people to listen but that doesn’t mean it’s not happening just that folk obviously switch off. The only path to progress too is questioning the science and that includes everything not just the cherry picked bits to make a case yay or nay or again it just becomes akin to religion. There are loads of interesting questions in climate science, but I don't think it's worth spending loads of effort debating the same question decades after you've resolved it. Unless, of course, there's some new evidence. "Humans caused basically all the global warming since the 1800s" is never going to be settled, but it's probably something like 99.X% sure now. We've seen 1.2 C global warming, and the human effect is like between 1-1.4 C (with nature being +/-0.2 C) Fossil fuel industry propaganda wants to make it seem like there's any kind of serious dispute about that question when there isn't. There are lots of unknowns though, like whether the Greenland ice sheet is already doomed to collapse, and if it goes down will it go quickly or take hundreds or thousands of years? How do you possibly know doing nothing isn’t better at the moment from our perspective rather than doing something ill thought out purely for good intention? Specifically around this heat pump initiatives: What’s the cost to the environment of producing raw materials of c.20m heat-pumps; manufacturing c.20m heat pumps; transporting c.20m heat pumps; disposing of c.20m boilers/pipework; renovating homes to accommodate the new infrastructure and; potentially needing to upgrade various aspects of the electricity grid nationwide to meet the capacity moving forward? There’s £100billion in this easy for O&G conglomerates to get their teeth into purely selling and fitting the pumps before even factoring in upgrading the grid or supply chain so I can fully appreciate their angle but for all that what are we actually achieving? Given the graph before it’s a drop in the ocean of greenhouse gas emission for us to achieve neutrality yet how much greenhouse gas is expended to achieve just fitting heat pumps! Usually they work out the total pollution from each different choice, e.g. what's the total pollution from carrying on like normal including replacing 20 million boilers when they croak etc, versus what's the total pollution from installing and using heat pumps? Haven't looked into the heat pump details myself, but there have been the same things said about wind turbines and electric cars. For EVs the media often talks a lot about the 0.4 tonnes of battery that'll get recycled but they don't talk about the 12 tonnes of oil that a petrol car would use instead. Have you looked into the US military's CO2 emissions or China and India's commitment to coal? |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Aug 5, 2023 18:37:34 GMT
Have you looked into the US military's CO2 emissions or China and India's commitment to coal? I'm most confident in the science of what's going on, that's where I spend my time. I've looked at some policy things and it seems like we can save loads of lives and make things better. But it'll be really hard if people are making decisions based on fake info about reality that's been pushed by industry propaganda. I think the first step is to make it clear whether everyone accepts that we're causing global warming and what the costs are likely to be. |
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Aug 5, 2023 18:47:25 GMT
Have you looked into the US military's CO2 emissions or China and India's commitment to coal? I'm most confident in the science of what's going on, that's where I spend my time. I've looked at some policy things and it seems like we can save loads of lives and make things better. But it'll be really hard if people are making decisions based on fake info about reality that's been pushed by industry propaganda. I think the first step is to make it clear whether everyone accepts that we're causing global warming and what the costs are likely to be. I'll take that as "no" then. |
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Aug 5, 2023 22:06:10 GMT
Have you looked into the US military's CO2 emissions or China and India's commitment to coal? I'm most confident in the science of what's going on, that's where I spend my time. I've looked at some policy things and it seems like we can save loads of lives and make things better. But it'll be really hard if people are making decisions based on fake info about reality that's been pushed by industry propaganda. I think the first step is to make it clear whether everyone accepts that we're causing global warming and what the costs are likely to be. The term 'global warming' is one of the problems. A more appropriate one is climate change. |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Aug 5, 2023 23:35:31 GMT
I'm most confident in the science of what's going on, that's where I spend my time. I've looked at some policy things and it seems like we can save loads of lives and make things better. But it'll be really hard if people are making decisions based on fake info about reality that's been pushed by industry propaganda. I think the first step is to make it clear whether everyone accepts that we're causing global warming and what the costs are likely to be. I'll take that as "no" then. Yes I have. But it's hard to have a meaningful talk about topics like that when a lot of people have fallen for the industry propaganda and think humans aren't the main cause of global warming, or what the risks we're looking at are. |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Aug 5, 2023 23:38:18 GMT
I'm most confident in the science of what's going on, that's where I spend my time. I've looked at some policy things and it seems like we can save loads of lives and make things better. But it'll be really hard if people are making decisions based on fake info about reality that's been pushed by industry propaganda. I think the first step is to make it clear whether everyone accepts that we're causing global warming and what the costs are likely to be. The term 'global warming' is one of the problems. A more appropriate one is climate change. I've seen a lot of chat about "global heating" vs "global warming" vs "climate change" and I can see how "global warming" gets confusing when there's a cold day or week, but do you think it's a major problem? I don't think it is. We're causing global warming at a rate that's really scaring a lot of climate scientists, obviously if it's warming then it's climate change too. When scientists say "climate change" (we use both) then people pop up saying "they had to rebrand it away from global warming because it's not warming" etc. The issue IMO is bad-faith propaganda that's attacking the science. |
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Aug 6, 2023 0:23:27 GMT
The term 'global warming' is one of the problems. A more appropriate one is climate change. I've seen a lot of chat about "global heating" vs "global warming" vs "climate change" and I can see how "global warming" gets confusing when there's a cold day or week, but do you think it's a major problem? I don't think it is. We're causing global warming at a rate that's really scaring a lot of climate scientists, obviously if it's warming then it's climate change too. When scientists say "climate change" (we use both) then people pop up saying "they had to rebrand it away from global warming because it's not warming" etc. The issue IMO is bad-faith propaganda that's attacking the science. I do think it's a major problem. One being, it gives licence to the people who think it's a myth when there's a chilly day.... and confuse the weather with the climate. Also, too low temperatures can be as dangerous as over hot ones. |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Aug 6, 2023 0:28:23 GMT
I've seen a lot of chat about "global heating" vs "global warming" vs "climate change" and I can see how "global warming" gets confusing when there's a cold day or week, but do you think it's a major problem? I don't think it is. We're causing global warming at a rate that's really scaring a lot of climate scientists, obviously if it's warming then it's climate change too. When scientists say "climate change" (we use both) then people pop up saying "they had to rebrand it away from global warming because it's not warming" etc. The issue IMO is bad-faith propaganda that's attacking the science. I do think it's a major problem. One being, it gives licence to the people who think it's a myth when there's a chilly day.... and confuse the weather with the climate. Also, too low temperatures can be as dangerous as over hot ones. I get your first point, "global warming" can be confusing to people when there's a cold day but I think scientists are kinda screwed here. Refusing to say "global warming" probably wouldn't be any better? You'd then hear -"they changed it to climate change because it's not warming!" -"climate has always changed so this is natural" etc and then someone would probably argue that only using "climate change" is one of the major reasons people don't get it. If you were a scientist who wanted to let people know that we've confirmed that basically all the global-average temperature rise since the 1800s is likely human, but other climate changes could still be mostly natural, what words do you use for that?  |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Nov 12, 2024 22:03:51 GMT
So it really is Flop29 this week in Baku.
You just can't make it up. Starmer (supported on video by Ed Miliband) cutting a lone figure on a stage preaching to uninterested bureaucrats about how the UK should fulfill the extortionate net zero scam.
Meanwhile China, India, Trump and Trudeau (presumably because he knows one of the reasons he's losing next year's election is because of his green dystopian vision that makes Canada poorer) are nowhere to be seen.
The Green agenda is crashing down around the dwindling community of woke, corrupt, delusional politicians quicker than they can pollute the planet with their thousands of private jets to Azerbaijan.
This dire event summed up perfectly by the host nation's President slamming Western nations for their impractical obsession with Green ideologies as he quite rightly hailed fossil fuels as "a gift from God".
One day the UK's political elite will hopefully revert back to focusing on tangible green policies that most Brits can get behind... Ie protecting wildlife, forests, green belts etc.
Did Starmer really think anyone in the audience at Flop29 would listen to him and Miliband droning on about green bollocks?
Trump's victory and Poilievre's pending victory in Canada should be the final nail in the coffin to this absurd, idealistic net zero nightmare.
May the war on woke continue.🔥
|
|
|
|
Post by musik on Nov 12, 2024 22:29:10 GMT
I don't think there is an agenda at all, as if there was some sort of mysterious plan behind it all. It only sounds like a conspiracy theory to me under the lack of religion, since that's why they exist.
The only plan there is, is to save the planet, which becomes harder for each day passing. 2024 has been the warmest year on Earth. Ever.
But I'm very hopeful. All it takes is to stop the population growth, because it doesn't matter if we only change our way of living if the population increases. At some point we will even be asked to only breath every other minute.
|
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Nov 12, 2024 23:36:17 GMT
So it really is Flop29 this week in Baku. You just can't make it up. Starmer (supported on video by Ed Miliband) cutting a lone figure on a stage preaching to uninterested bureaucrats about how the UK should fulfill the extortionate net zero scam. Meanwhile China, India, Trump and Trudeau (presumably because he knows one of the reasons he's losing next year's election is because of his green dystopian vision that makes Canada poorer) are nowhere to be seen. The Green agenda is crashing down around the dwindling community of woke, corrupt, delusional politicians quicker than they can pollute the planet with their thousands of private jets to Azerbaijan. This dire event summed up perfectly by the host nation's President slamming Western nations for their impractical obsession with Green ideologies as he quite rightly hailed fossil fuels as "a gift from God". One day the UK's political elite will hopefully revert back to focusing on tangible green policies that most Brits can get behind... Ie protecting wildlife, forests, green belts etc. Did Starmer really think anyone in the audience at Flop29 would listen to him and Miliband droning on about green bollocks? Trump's victory and Poilievre's pending victory in Canada should be the final nail in the coffin to this absurd, idealistic net zero nightmare. May the war on woke continue.🔥 Even the Taliban have gone woke🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Nov 12, 2024 23:54:05 GMT
So it really is Flop29 this week in Baku. You just can't make it up. Starmer (supported on video by Ed Miliband) cutting a lone figure on a stage preaching to uninterested bureaucrats about how the UK should fulfill the extortionate net zero scam. Meanwhile China, India, Trump and Trudeau (presumably because he knows one of the reasons he's losing next year's election is because of his green dystopian vision that makes Canada poorer) are nowhere to be seen. The Green agenda is crashing down around the dwindling community of woke, corrupt, delusional politicians quicker than they can pollute the planet with their thousands of private jets to Azerbaijan. This dire event summed up perfectly by the host nation's President slamming Western nations for their impractical obsession with Green ideologies as he quite rightly hailed fossil fuels as "a gift from God". One day the UK's political elite will hopefully revert back to focusing on tangible green policies that most Brits can get behind... Ie protecting wildlife, forests, green belts etc. Did Starmer really think anyone in the audience at Flop29 would listen to him and Miliband droning on about green bollocks? Trump's victory and Poilievre's pending victory in Canada should be the final nail in the coffin to this absurd, idealistic net zero nightmare. May the war on woke continue.🔥 Even the Taliban have gone woke🤣 Great move from them. Committing to green bollocks is a fantastic opportunity for the Taliban to make some easy cash out of dumb Western leaders who I've no doubt will be delighted to support the Taliban in their quest for floating windmills 💵💵💵 |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Nov 13, 2024 7:09:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 13, 2024 7:58:01 GMT
Part of Milliband's £11bn will go that way so they can spunk it on more nuclear weapons instead of looking after their own people. Believe me, watching what they're spouting now about reducing emissions, if you want to make a quick buck then leap on the retrofit gravy train. The training and bureaucracy around it is an industry in itself, nevermind the actual materials and physical installation of the stuff. Look at the controversy around the likes of Kingspan and their cladding covering retrofitted insulation, nevermind new build. In the rush to meet their unrealistic targets we'll blight thousands of homes. It's already happened, with no recourse, all to allow the energy companies to avoid fines imposed as part of their net zero targets. A decent investigative journalist would have a field day questioning things around Stoke, nevermind nationally. |
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Nov 13, 2024 8:34:12 GMT
I don't understand why people want cleaner air, we have survived on dirty air for years. It might reduce a few illnesses and diseases and destroy a few more eco systems but fuck that oil and gas are a gift from god and they smell nice too. Fuck the planet, let it burn
|
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 13, 2024 8:49:04 GMT
It is strange that many of the people that moan about immigration are also against overseas aid and trying to do anything about climate change. It is like they have no ability to think things through. Bangladesh becomes uninhabitable. What happens to those 175million people? They go elsewhere. Rinse and repeat for all places at risk.
Also, it doesn’t take a genius to work out that the reason energy bills are so high and will continue rising is because fossil fuels used to create energy are owned by fewer and fewer nations/companies.
We don’t own many or have access to that much. So it makes economic sense to wean ourselves off it. Who did best out of the spike in energy costs? The French. Why? They are not reliant on overseas fossil fuels.
We need to harness our natural advantages: wind and tides. It creates jobs and reduces energy costs for consumers. Plus it is good for the planet. Also nuclear investment is needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Nov 13, 2024 9:28:57 GMT
It is strange that many of the people that moan about immigration are also against overseas aid and trying to do anything about climate change. It is like they have no ability to think things through. Bangladesh becomes uninhabitable. What happens to those 175million people? They go elsewhere. Rinse and repeat for all places at risk. Also, it doesn’t take a genius to work out that the reason energy bills are so high and will continue rising is because fossil fuels used to create energy are owned by fewer and fewer nations/companies. We don’t own many or have access to that much. So it makes economic sense to wean ourselves off it. Who did best out of the spike in energy costs? The French. Why? They are not reliant on overseas fossil fuels. We need to harness our natural advantages: wind and tides. It creates jobs and reduces energy costs for consumers. Plus it is good for the planet. Also nuclear investment is needed. I don't think you've got much of a problem convincing most people to do it. Its just the fanatical speed with which they seem to be wanting to do it. Amd people are concerned that in the shorter term its going to leave us even more exposed. And this current govt seem to be insisting the UK are going to be canaries in the mine for it all to show the world or the WEF or whatever other BS quango that we are the good boys. The world ain't ending in the next 5 or 10 or 20 years nor are we going to pass a point of no return in 2 years or 10 years. The scare tactics have not served these people well and their failed predictions prove it. More sensible conversations should have taken place and more sustainable solutions put in place that everyone can afford and live with. In my opinion oggy.... |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Nov 13, 2024 9:34:11 GMT
It is strange that many of the people that moan about immigration are also against overseas aid and trying to do anything about climate change. It is like they have no ability to think things through. Bangladesh becomes uninhabitable. What happens to those 175million people? They go elsewhere. Rinse and repeat for all places at risk. Also, it doesn’t take a genius to work out that the reason energy bills are so high and will continue rising is because fossil fuels used to create energy are owned by fewer and fewer nations/companies. We don’t own many or have access to that much. So it makes economic sense to wean ourselves off it. Who did best out of the spike in energy costs? The French. Why? They are not reliant on overseas fossil fuels. We need to harness our natural advantages: wind and tides. It creates jobs and reduces energy costs for consumers. Plus it is good for the planet. Also nuclear investment is needed. I don't think you've got much of a problem convincing most people to do it. Its just the fanatical speed with which they seem to be wanting to do it. Amd people are concerned that in the shorter term its going to leave us even more exposed. And this current govt seem to be insisting the UK are going to be canaries in the mine for it all to show the world or the WEF or whatever other BS quango that we are the good boys. The world ain't ending in the next 5 or 10 or 20 years nor are we going to pass a point of no return in 2 years or 10 years. The scare tactics have not served these people well and their failed predictions prove it. More sensible conversations should have taken place and more sustainable solutions put in place that everyone can afford and live with. In my opinion oggy.... We give shit hole countries billions of pounds to sort themselves out so they don’t come to the U.K. Sounds sensible🙄 |
|
