The Next General Election.

[Rewulf]

4 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

If they actually understood their 'carbon signature' it would be alarmingly high.  But being wealthy, value has little meaning for them

Being 'green' is a state of mind, not a way of life, like the examples above, they believe themselves to be doing good, but are not. 

Like a man who preaches the goodness of his faith, yet holds bigoted, hateful views, he is, and they are, hypocrites of the worst type. 

Edited November 6, 2019 by Rewulf

[Rewulf]

[oowee]

Green is the only way forward. We have to account for our actions at some point, for me the question is how far bad do things have to get before we take action? 

 

[Rewulf]

10 minutes ago, oowee said:

Green is the only way forward. We have to account for our actions at some point, for me the question is how far bad do things have to get before we take action? 

 

When you give up your 4x4 and heat your house with your own poop. 

That's when I'll go green and account for my own actions. 

Lead the way Grant😂

[243deer]

The only way forward is to reduce human population, all other actions, including brexit or no brexit,  will become irrelevant if we keep adding another billion every few years.

 

[discobob]

6 minutes ago, 243deer said:

The only way forward is to reduce human population, all other actions, including brexit or no brexit,  will become irrelevant if we keep adding another billion every few years.

 

This - I nominate my Mother-in-law to be first!!😂 A joke but your point is right!!

No Child Benefit, free education for first child etc. etc. - that will excite some people  

[panoma1]

To nullify extinction rebellion and reduce the world population, global warming, pollution, meat consumption, travel etc, the world powers will probably provoke world war three.....just like Cameron predicted...........if we voted for Brexit! 😜

[JohnfromUK]

12 minutes ago, 243deer said:

The only way forward is to reduce human population, all other actions, including brexit or no brexit,  will become irrelevant if we keep adding another billion every few years.

 

You are 100% right - this is the only real solution.  The planet can sustain only so much.

[Rewulf]

6 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

You are 100% right - this is the only real solution.  The planet can sustain only so much.

The 'planet' can sustain twice as many humans than it does now, quite comfortably. 

It's what level of comfort WE want that is the issue. 

Waste and consumerism are the real enemies, the planet will endure, we may not. 

[Raja Clavata]

2 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

I perhaps didn't put it well; The type people I am thinking of don't really understand the 'value' - they may have lots of money - or little money, but they don't really look at how it is managed/spent.

It is the same on other things - I know people who claim to be 'green' and do 'green' things like have expensive electric cars, have installed (very) expensive heat pump heating systems, use smart bags rather than plastic, take cups to Starbucks to re-use etc.  They also have several foreign holidays a year - all flown - a Range Rover for the longer journeys, and things like a patio heater, heated pool and multiple log burners in the house buying 'kiln dried' logs!

If they actually understood their 'carbon signature' it would be alarmingly high.  But being wealthy, value has little meaning for them.

Thanks for clarifying. Don't get me started on patio heaters 🙂 

I agree about the hypocritical nature to an extent but surely doing something is better than doing nothing. The issue for me is when these people start trying to take a superior position based on the small things they do rather than assess the full picture. 

5 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

The 'planet' can sustain twice as many humans than it does now, quite comfortably. 

It's what level of comfort WE want that is the issue. 

Waste and consumerism are the real enemies, the planet will endure, we may not. 

Spot on I think.

[243deer]

1 minute ago, Rewulf said:

The 'planet' can sustain twice as many humans than it does now, quite comfortably. 

That does not quite fit with all the sea level and climate change predictions - it would seem that scientists may be at logger heads - anyway I am sure as long as they keep getting their grants they will continue to produce their 'peer reviewed' papers that are so oft quoted

Doubling the population to 14 billion is around 100 years from now at current rates - that means your great grand kids will probably be alive - a sobering thought 

The human race will not be able to get to this figure and suddenly stop breeding which is why the change needs to start happening now. Economically it needs to be a slow reduction in increase and then a slow reduction in overall population.

Anyway it does not matter a jot what I say as I have heard this spouting of the world being able to support all these people a lot  from the younger generations and it is they who will make the future not me.

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, Raja Clavata said:

but surely doing something is better than doing nothing.

If you happen to be one of the people who fly around the world in private jets to attend extinction rebellion protests - it would be MUCH better to do nothing.

Either;

• We work towards gradually reducing population to a level sustainable with a living standard that people can accept.
• along with a mover to things like greener energy,
• less travel, better insulation,
• less wastage

Or;

• We allow the population to continue to expand
• Energy consumption to dramatically fall NOW
• Food sources to change NOW
• Travel to almost cease NOW
• Flying to almost cease NOW
• Ridiculous energy wastes like mining Bitcoins (look up how much energy that uses - it is incredible and achieves NOTHING - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-48853230)

Or; as America is doing - ignore it and hope for the best.

13 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

The 'planet' can sustain twice as many humans than it does now, quite comfortably. 

It's what level of comfort WE want that is the issue. 

But the vast majority of humans (i.e. mainly highly populous third world countries) aspire to a greatly higher level of energy and other 'consumption'.  I reckon the UK with a lifestyle as I have now (i.e. live comfortably, travel very little) can sustain a population roughly half what it currently is.

[oowee]

11 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

 I reckon the UK with a lifestyle as I have now (i.e. live comfortably, travel very little) can sustain a population roughly half what it currently is.

A quarter of what it currently is. 

[JohnfromUK]

27 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Don't get me started on patio heaters

Round here (I live in a fairly 'well to do' area), I had a quite large quantity of wood - mostly horse chestnut, felled and cut into large blocks with good easy road access with for example an state car) in dry weather.  I don't burn wood myself, so have offered it (free of charge) to various neighbours who burn wood.  Only two took it up and did take some which they have stacked to dry and use in another year or two time.  All the others thanked me - but preferred to buy the local 'kiln dried' wood from the many local vendors.  I had a quick look at the economics.

Roughly - it is £150 ish per cubic metre bag (about 200 Kg), so about £750 a ton.  A ton has about 4000 KWh, so cost is about 17 or 18p per KWh.  This is rather more than electricity - and over 4 times as much as gas.

So - to be green and burn wood - which they claim is sustainable - it costs about 4 times that of burning gas.  They all tell me their wood burners are marvellous - so cheap to run!  Incidentally - said family have 3 woodburners - they cost £9000 to install (and do all the chimney work).

4 minutes ago, oowee said:

A quarter of what it currently is. 

OK - mine was a very 'back of envelope' calculation.  I won't argue.

Edited November 6, 2019 by JohnfromUK

[Retsdon]

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806

Over 11,000 scientists sign an open letter warning of the impending climactic emergency. Does anyone listen?  Nope.

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, Retsdon said:

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806

Over 11,000 scientists sign an open letter warning of the impending climactic emergency. Does anyone listen?  Nope.

I do listen.  I don't fly, and have over 50 acres 'fixing' my (small) carbon signature!  I reckon I am more than carbon negative.

[Demonic69]

7 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806

Over 11,000 scientists sign an open letter warning of the impending climactic emergency. Does anyone listen?  Nope.

When they're currently 0 for what.. 6 climate emergencies over the last few decades, how are they supposed to be trusted? Especially as there are now thousands more "Climate Scientists" every year ( a title that only requires a 3 year uni degree, that teaches a climate change agenda from day 1) milking the hysteria. Which model are they basing their findings on this week? As that's all they have, models that have failed over and over, just change a variable to meet your next deadline.

Admittedly, by the time there is an actual emergency it'll already be too late. But they're wrong every few years, about even the small stuff (ice levels, polar bear numbers, mean temps, acid rain etc.) If they were good at their jobs, we'd be dead already.

There are also those who refute that there is an emergency (a fair amount according to some, but they're scared to publicly denounce the narrative and have their livelihood destroyed as the left like to do), that CO2 is great for plants so the almost-superbloom we're experiencing is actually good, that Co2 have been MUCH higher, yet still conducive to life on this planet.

 

Things need to be addressed undoubtedly - pollution, depletion of natural resources, sustainability, extinction of animal species etc - , but they need logic, not hysteria-induced carbon taxes. As a species we solve every issue facing us with innovation, that's what we need again. Putting money and resources into finding the way forward, the scientifically conclusive solution, not the general consensus agreed upon by those relying on that consensus for their pay-cheque

[Mice!]

Surprising what pops up on Facebook adds, I hope the Tories are doing similar?

Edited November 6, 2019 by Mice!

[Retsdon]

19 minutes ago, Demonic69 said:

But they're wrong every few years, about even the small stuff (ice levels, polar bear numbers, mean temps, acid rain etc.) If they were good at their jobs, we'd be dead already.

https://www.climaterealityproject.org/sites/climaterealityproject.org/files/the12questionseveryclimateactivisthears_theclimaterealityproject.pdf

[Demonic69]

4 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

https://www.climaterealityproject.org/sites/climaterealityproject.org/files/the12questionseveryclimateactivisthears_theclimaterealityproject.pdf

That's  pretty interesting read, cheers! Already lost me after 2 lines when they started with "Deniers" instead of sceptics, but I stuck with it.

I'd love to see it peer-reviewed by a "Sceptic" climatologist to see how their facts stand up, but I'll take it on-board for when I'm next reading up on it. They also neglected to mention the mini ice-age and other indicators that temps are just rebounding, as normal, but I get they can't cover everything

I took from it this: There's a lot of **** spread about climate change scientists, he's our refute. We know it's not an actual science, more of an educated guess. All the last ones were wrong but we're right this time... honest

[Yellow Bear]

4 minutes ago, Demonic69 said:

That's  pretty interesting read, cheers! Already lost me after 2 lines when they started with "Deniers" instead of sceptics, but I stuck with it.

I'd love to see it peer-reviewed by a "Sceptic" climatologist to see how their facts stand up, but I'll take it on-board for when I'm next reading up on it. They also neglected to mention the mini ice-age and other indicators that temps are just rebounding, as normal, but I get they can't cover everything

I took from it this: There's a lot of **** spread about climate change scientists, he's our refute. We know it's not an actual science, more of an educated guess. All the last ones were wrong but we're right this time... honest

👍

[oowee]

On 05/11/2019 at 16:33, oowee said:

Alun Cairns next? 

Bingo 

[ditchman]

1 hour ago, Retsdon said:

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806

Over 11,000 scientists sign an open letter warning of the impending climactic emergency. Does anyone listen?  Nope.

what about the sceintists that dont get govt' grants...............

[henry d]

8 minutes ago, ditchman said:

what about the sceintists that dont get govt' grants...............

Have a look at the bottom of the page, it says who provided partial funding...

[oowee]

Brexit Party are apparently targeting adds at 45 year old males on fb. There is no evidence that those voting Brexit are in the older age group so I can't understand why that is. 

Edited November 6, 2019 by oowee