Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Just Stop Oil protestors.....
Comments
-
Starting small?SELR_addicks said:
How about starting small such as refusing to give out licenses to oil and banning Diesel cars?clb74 said:
Anyway they can?SELR_addicks said:
Sounds like governments need to tackle the problem by reducing emissions per person in any way they can, don't you agree?blackpool72 said:
The world's population has increased decade on decade for the past 100 years.SELR_addicks said:
What debate would you like to have?blackpool72 said:
I'd like a sensible debate about how the world's population is continuing to increase year on year.SELR_addicks said:
Most of the world is non-white. Some weird comments on this thread.blackpool72 said:
This is quite simply the biggest threat to the planet.R0TW said:The guess is that there were 4 billion in 1974.
There are 8 billion now.
Is there a trend here?
Trouble is the countries that's population is increasing out of control are non white.
So any debate about doing something about it is shouted down as being racist.
What debate do you want to have, kill off the minorities?
I doubt that debate will be with you though.
You've just named a fact and left it at that.
It is continuing to increase despite some so called experts saying will soon decline.
Global warming is the biggest threat to civilisation and the longer the earth's population continues to increase the greater the demand on the earth's resources.
I have no idea how to tackle this problem but things will only get worse as the population increases.
If I were in charge I'd ration most things.
Every household would get a certain amount of water, gas electricity a day.
Food, petrol clothes would be also rationed.
I'm constantly being told we need to act fast and now.0 -
We know it to be both though. Is anyone denying its cyclical? I doubt it if you consider the history of the planet which didn't used to support life on earth a long time before we came along with our fossil fuel burning habit when the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was much higher than it is now. A Graphical History of Atmospheric CO2 Levels Over Time | Earth.Orgbexleyaddick said:
I disagree, climate change is undeniable, yes, but most of us are simply not qualified to say for sure that it is man made and not cyclical. I said that I did not completely agree with Mr. Catt because I personally am yet to be convinced about the actual cause, but he IS absolutely correct about renewables and the present infrastructure being insufficient as things stand.PaddyP17 said:
What are you on about? Man made climate change is about as deniable as gravity.bexleyaddick said:
As it also is when people with no qualifications saying man made climate change is undeniable.... why shouldn't I post articles that are relevant to the topic, are you suggesting that we should only post items that suit our own agenda?PaddyP17 said:On a wider note, sharing stuff like bexleyaddick has shared and saying "I'm not saying this but here's some balance" is so WILDLY dangerous and misinformative.
THIS IS NOT BALANCE.
This sort of "balance" is "ahh for balance, here's some sources saying the Moon landing was faked" and going straight into the flag fluttering nonsense.
I have zero tolerance for this and even if the poster is trying to qualify it by saying "oh but I don't necessarily agree" - THEN DON'T SHARE IT!
I'm sure we would all welcome renewables as our only source of power but it IS a fact that they currently cannot supply the level of energy needed to run our infrastructure and no level of investment can provide an iron clad guarantee that we will ever be able to harness enough from that source. And thats before we all have to convert to electric vehicles, so what will we do when all the oil and gas reserves have run out and we still don't have sufficient power from renewables?
And I called out your articles how I did because with a pretty quick check, you can see whether something is misinformative or not. I've taken the time to call out the GB News video and the Clintel "declaration" because they are so obviously at odds with the scientific consensus:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change
- https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774
- https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
- https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/
I haven't got an agenda beyond not wanting the planet to die. This is a universal agenda and this is why - in my opinion - we cannot, even for one second, tolerate views that run contrary to this.
---------------
As for what you say about renewables: yes!!! You're absolutely right! Bang on! We cannot provide all of it right now. But, like, we HAVE TO try. We absolutely have to. Otherwise we seal our fates.
As for those who are criticising my tone and rhetoric - shall I dig out that MLK quote again? "... [the person] who is more devoted to order than justice [...] who constantly says, 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods[.]"
And for the record I've never said we shouldn't try to find a way of securing sufficient energy from renewables, in an ideal world thats surely what we all wish for, but in my opinion we shouldn't shoot ourselves in the foot by discarding fossil fuels completely. I'm confident that in time the technology will exist to rely completely on renewables but that could be decades away, and we don't have decades worth of oil and gas reserves, in the meantime I'd suggest that we need to keep our reserves up to maintain the supply during the transition, however long it is, and as things progress we will hopefully need to rely on them less and less.
I'm not sure if it was you or someone else, but to compare me with a moon landing denier or flat earther is simply ridiculous.....
Obviously humans didn't cause that, and whatever the farting capacity of a dinosaur, they didn't either, global warming playing out over a vast time frame relative to the age of man.
I accept that we can't control the cyclical element, so what can we control, or influence at the very least?
I posted two proven science based statements yesterday which I welcome you to challenge, appreciating that you have been prepared to put your head above the parapet where other climate change sceptics may have been too shy to contribute to debating its causes (the fire) rather than the protesters (the fire alarm): Here they are again:-
1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the concentration of it in the atmosphere contributes towards global warming;
2) The action of humans burning fossil fuels emits CO2 into the atmosphere.
Without evidence to disprove either, because the vast majority of people do trust the science on this at least, the conclusion can only be that humans do have the power to mitigate the harmful effects of global warning whilst humanity endures, which I doubt will be for much longer in the grand scheme of time.
1 -
Re: overpopulation
It's how we live, not how many people there are.
9 -
Suffragettes, Civil Rights and Slavery were issues that changed through politicians changing the law. There was logic in protesting for action against people with the power to effect the changes to laws which maintained discrimination.
Stopping licensing of new oil, gas and coal projects without a viable energy alternative in place is not going to happen and protesting for action that is not within the gift of anyone is futile.China is making changes, including the flooding of towns and villages for hydro electric power because it can. If JSO is advocating political change that allows us to follow China’s lead in the form of a dictatorship it should say so. Otherwise JSO is just pissing into the wind, giving a focus for virtue signalers and satisfaction for those knowing they are “doing something” - however pointless.
I support their sentiment to increase awareness of the need for climate change as much as I support the sentiment to solve poverty. Both have the same underlying cause - over population of the planet. When a protest group comes up with an humane solution for over population for politicians to take on board, it might justify its existence.
A more honest approach is needed that emphasizes individual responsibility to change consumption habits rather than the idea that politicians are the core problem and hold all the answers.9 -
Yeah, but, well, like, you know, whateverDippenhall said:Suffragettes, Civil Rights and Slavery were issues that changed through politicians changing the law. There was logic in protesting for action against people with the power to effect the changes to laws which maintained discrimination.
Stopping licensing of new oil, gas and coal projects without a viable energy alternative in place is not going to happen and protesting for action that is not within the gift of anyone is futile.China is making changes, including the flooding of towns and villages for hydro electric power because it can. If JSO is advocating political change that allows us to follow China’s lead in the form of a dictatorship it should say so. Otherwise JSO is just pissing into the wind, giving a focus for virtue signalers and satisfaction for those knowing they are “doing something” - however pointless.
I support their sentiment to increase awareness of the need for climate change as much as I support the sentiment to solve poverty. Both have the same underlying cause - over population of the planet. When a protest group comes up with an humane solution for over population for politicians to take on board, it might justify its existence.
A more honest approach is needed that emphasizes individual responsibility to change consumption habits rather than the idea that politicians are the core problem and hold all the answers.
Nazi
1 -
This is problematic for me. I believe we are on the brink of a global catastrophe but don't really do anything about it, apart from put the rubbish in the right bins. These people believe in it too but act on that belief. I don't think what they do makes a lot of differece, which may be why I don't do anything, but even when I was delayed for hours on the M25 visiting my son in Bournemouth, I found it hard to criticise them. Actually I did a first taking my dog for a short walk on the M25!0
-
This is part of my issue with those that shout the loudest. I can guarantee they have been on many more flights than I have in the past 10 years, recycle less, use their cars more and generally have a far higher carbon footprint than me.MuttleyCAFC said:This is problematic for me. I believe we are on the brink of a global catastrophe but don't really do anything about it, apart from put the rubbish in the right bins. These people believe in it too but act on that belief. I don't think what they do makes a lot of difference, which may be why I don't do anything, but even when I was delayed for hours on the M25 visiting my son in Bournemouth, I found it hard to criticise them. Actually I did a first taking my dog for a short walk on the M25!
I still disagree with their antics/tactics yet will be labelled as being right wing press influenced for disagreeing, even though I've done more to cut my carbon footprint than they have.
Hands up if you're passionate about changing things but have been on an aircraft at least once every year for the past decade?14 -
Please see above infographic re: overpopulationDippenhall said:Suffragettes, Civil Rights and Slavery were issues that changed through politicians changing the law. There was logic in protesting for action against people with the power to effect the changes to laws which maintained discrimination.
Stopping licensing of new oil, gas and coal projects without a viable energy alternative in place is not going to happen and protesting for action that is not within the gift of anyone is futile.China is making changes, including the flooding of towns and villages for hydro electric power because it can. If JSO is advocating political change that allows us to follow China’s lead in the form of a dictatorship it should say so. Otherwise JSO is just pissing into the wind, giving a focus for virtue signalers and satisfaction for those knowing they are “doing something” - however pointless.
I support their sentiment to increase awareness of the need for climate change as much as I support the sentiment to solve poverty. Both have the same underlying cause - over population of the planet. When a protest group comes up with an humane solution for over population for politicians to take on board, it might justify its existence.
A more honest approach is needed that emphasizes individual responsibility to change consumption habits rather than the idea that politicians are the core problem and hold all the answers.
Public pressure for legislative changes is needed to counterbalance the pressure of wealthy vested interests to maintain the status quo.1 -
People's consumptions will rise as their GDP per capita increases. Therefore it is absolutely inevitable that this will become more and more of an issue as countries develop.
Anyone that says overpopulation is not part of the issue clearly don't understand that climate change is a big deal and are a right winger.
This is a global problem, and requires individual, local, regional, national and international solutions.1 -
During the three day weeks of the Heath government of the early seventies the Evening Standard would publish postcodes and a timetable of ‘blackouts’ (it was during the daytime as well) lasting three hours at a time.
We went without electrical power and somehow managed.
It was a huge exercise in reducing consumption.
For the most part we got through it using transistor wireless radios, candles, naps and no doubt increased rates of romantic connections.
If it was during daylight we went for walks or whatever, or all go round to watch the television at a friends in a different postcode.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
So are you saying that politicians effected law changes to make discrimination unlawful, but can't legislate to stop future fossil fuel exploitation because it would create an energy supply deficit? If so, there are a set of politicians, led by Sir Kier Starmer, who will be elected into office on the back of a pledge to do precisely that. They must think it's within their gift and that somehow we'll manage with the current level of reserves until recyclables/nuclear are on stream.Dippenhall said:Suffragettes, Civil Rights and Slavery were issues that changed through politicians changing the law. There was logic in protesting for action against people with the power to effect the changes to laws which maintained discrimination.
Stopping licensing of new oil, gas and coal projects without a viable energy alternative in place is not going to happen and protesting for action that is not within the gift of anyone is futile.China is making changes, including the flooding of towns and villages for hydro electric power because it can. If JSO is advocating political change that allows us to follow China’s lead in the form of a dictatorship it should say so. Otherwise JSO is just pissing into the wind, giving a focus for virtue signalers and satisfaction for those knowing they are “doing something” - however pointless.
I support their sentiment to increase awareness of the need for climate change as much as I support the sentiment to solve poverty. Both have the same underlying cause - over population of the planet. When a protest group comes up with an humane solution for over population for politicians to take on board, it might justify its existence.
A more honest approach is needed that emphasizes individual responsibility to change consumption habits rather than the idea that politicians are the core problem and hold all the answers.
I agree with all you say about consumption patterns being the driver of man made climate change. However, governments can and do enforce restrictions on what we consume and can dictate how we behave Just try buying a new petrol car here in 10 years time for example.
0 -
Great, because new governments (blue / red / the one in the middle) all have good track records of sticking to their pledges and manifestosswordfish said:
So are you saying that politicians effected law changes to make discrimination unlawful, but can't legislate to stop future fossil fuel exploitation because it would create an energy supply deficit? If so, there are a set of politicians, led by Sir Kier Starmer, who will be elected into office on the back of a pledge to do precisely that. They must think it's within their gift and that somehow we'll manage with the current level of reserves until recyclables/nuclear are on stream.Dippenhall said:Suffragettes, Civil Rights and Slavery were issues that changed through politicians changing the law. There was logic in protesting for action against people with the power to effect the changes to laws which maintained discrimination.
Stopping licensing of new oil, gas and coal projects without a viable energy alternative in place is not going to happen and protesting for action that is not within the gift of anyone is futile.China is making changes, including the flooding of towns and villages for hydro electric power because it can. If JSO is advocating political change that allows us to follow China’s lead in the form of a dictatorship it should say so. Otherwise JSO is just pissing into the wind, giving a focus for virtue signalers and satisfaction for those knowing they are “doing something” - however pointless.
I support their sentiment to increase awareness of the need for climate change as much as I support the sentiment to solve poverty. Both have the same underlying cause - over population of the planet. When a protest group comes up with an humane solution for over population for politicians to take on board, it might justify its existence.
A more honest approach is needed that emphasizes individual responsibility to change consumption habits rather than the idea that politicians are the core problem and hold all the answers.
I agree with all you say about consumption patterns being the driver of man made climate change. However, governments can and do enforce restrictions on what we consume and can dictate how we behave Just try buying a new petrol car here in 10 years time for example.1 -
In which case if they renege on it, this thread will be very active with comments about the antics of JSO protesters! I'd love to hear how they intend to do it though given that 'blue' say it's not doable.Gribbo said:
Great, because new governments (blue / red / the one in the middle) all have good track records of sticking to their pledges and manifestosswordfish said:
So are you saying that politicians effected law changes to make discrimination unlawful, but can't legislate to stop future fossil fuel exploitation because it would create an energy supply deficit? If so, there are a set of politicians, led by Sir Kier Starmer, who will be elected into office on the back of a pledge to do precisely that. They must think it's within their gift and that somehow we'll manage with the current level of reserves until recyclables/nuclear are on stream.Dippenhall said:Suffragettes, Civil Rights and Slavery were issues that changed through politicians changing the law. There was logic in protesting for action against people with the power to effect the changes to laws which maintained discrimination.
Stopping licensing of new oil, gas and coal projects without a viable energy alternative in place is not going to happen and protesting for action that is not within the gift of anyone is futile.China is making changes, including the flooding of towns and villages for hydro electric power because it can. If JSO is advocating political change that allows us to follow China’s lead in the form of a dictatorship it should say so. Otherwise JSO is just pissing into the wind, giving a focus for virtue signalers and satisfaction for those knowing they are “doing something” - however pointless.
I support their sentiment to increase awareness of the need for climate change as much as I support the sentiment to solve poverty. Both have the same underlying cause - over population of the planet. When a protest group comes up with an humane solution for over population for politicians to take on board, it might justify its existence.
A more honest approach is needed that emphasizes individual responsibility to change consumption habits rather than the idea that politicians are the core problem and hold all the answers.
I agree with all you say about consumption patterns being the driver of man made climate change. However, governments can and do enforce restrictions on what we consume and can dictate how we behave Just try buying a new petrol car here in 10 years time for example.
0 -
Please stop comparing JSO to the suffragettes. At best it’s really lazy. At worst it’s downright disrespectful to those brave women who suffered and even gave their live(s) for the cause.3
-
The strawman of the climate protester who hypocritically consumes vast amounts is a compelling one. Doesn't really matter if it really exists to any great extent, does it? It makes for a good narrative. No point protesting anything is there, you'd just be a hypocrite.Big_Bad_World said:
This is part of my issue with those that shout the loudest. I can guarantee they have been on many more flights than I have in the past 10 years, recycle less, use their cars more and generally have a far higher carbon footprint than me.MuttleyCAFC said:This is problematic for me. I believe we are on the brink of a global catastrophe but don't really do anything about it, apart from put the rubbish in the right bins. These people believe in it too but act on that belief. I don't think what they do makes a lot of difference, which may be why I don't do anything, but even when I was delayed for hours on the M25 visiting my son in Bournemouth, I found it hard to criticise them. Actually I did a first taking my dog for a short walk on the M25!
I still disagree with their antics/tactics yet will be labelled as being right wing press influenced for disagreeing, even though I've done more to cut my carbon footprint than they have.
Hands up if you're passionate about changing things but have been on an aircraft at least once every year for the past decade?
A couple of short-to-medium-range flights every year or two absolutely disqualify me from having any sort of opinion, that's for sure. Exactly the same as those who take multiple long-range flights a year, or own Humvees and drag their huge-in-every-sense family about in them everywhere.
Have you even met eco-warrior types? I have. Not only do they recycle everything, they compost their food waste, avoid plastics, make their own toothpaste etc. These people not only exist but they walk the walk2 -
All of Suffragettes, Civil Rights and Slavery (with slavery a bit) didn’t mean a radical change in how the world was run and financed. All that was required was political will and changes in attitude. The changes required with climate require an upheaval of how we humans live on the planet that’s never been seen before. Yes it starts with political will, which already isn’t enough and is falling behind the required curve and doesn’t end with continued injustice but actual catastrophe. Eventually I believe, like with most other problems, science will provide a solution but in this case I expect it to be way too late. Inability for some to understand the problem, vested interests and lack of a cohesive strategy will do for us.A question : Dies anyone on this thread think that we’re not heading for millions of deaths ?0
-
I was once told that one jumbo jet flying to America uses the same amount of fuel as in the whole of the fuel used in formula one racing.
Not including the costs of those teams flying around the world obvs.0 -
OK I'm convinced, I for one would vote to ban F1. Keep the TT of course though.seth plum said:I was once told that one jumbo jet flying to America uses the same amount of fuel as in the whole of the fuel used in formula one racing.
Not including the costs of those teams flying around the world obvs.0 -
- Why is there not logic in protesting for action when governments literally DO have the power to effect changes to laws? Whether the law is rooted in discrimination or not, the mechanism for amending/repealing/introducing new laws remains the same, regardless of whether it is a law that "maintains discrimination", or any other law.Dippenhall said:Suffragettes, Civil Rights and Slavery were issues that changed through politicians changing the law. There was logic in protesting for action against people with the power to effect the changes to laws which maintained discrimination.
Stopping licensing of new oil, gas and coal projects without a viable energy alternative in place is not going to happen and protesting for action that is not within the gift of anyone is futile.China is making changes, including the flooding of towns and villages for hydro electric power because it can. If JSO is advocating political change that allows us to follow China’s lead in the form of a dictatorship it should say so. Otherwise JSO is just pissing into the wind, giving a focus for virtue signalers and satisfaction for those knowing they are “doing something” - however pointless.
I support their sentiment to increase awareness of the need for climate change as much as I support the sentiment to solve poverty. Both have the same underlying cause - over population of the planet. When a protest group comes up with an humane solution for over population for politicians to take on board, it might justify its existence.
A more honest approach is needed that emphasizes individual responsibility to change consumption habits rather than the idea that politicians are the core problem and hold all the answers.
- We have reserves of fossil fuels, this is the thing. They're limited (a few decades or so) but extant. Now is absolutely the time to try and make renewables - and in my opinion, nuclear - as viable as is possible. And that is why people are protesting or otherwise making their views known.
- Why are you contending that JSO is just "pissing into the wind"? This is opinion dressed up as fact. And why have you brought China's form of government into it? And how is wanting to arrest the effects of man-made climate change "virtue signalling"? People are risking arrest and imprisonment, how is that anything other than direct action at their own risk?! They're putting their money where their mouth and morals are.
- I would fundamentally disagree with the notion that it's mainly about overpopulation: look at @Siv_in_Norfolk and his chart a few posts back. The poorest 50% contribute only 10% of total lifestyle consumption emissions. This said, overpopulation over the last, what, 100 years, 200 years might be a factor - but how can we just slash in half the world's population? We can't. Just as you feel protesting is pointless, so would trying to find a way to reduce the planet's population.
- There already is a lot of literature around changing individual consumption habits, but so much pollution comes from corporations that both need to be emphasised. Though, I don't disagree with your general point about individual responsibility. I just think that politicians have way more power to help engender change, so should be pressured accordingly.3 -
@golfaddick - I blame you. You've created a monster. Started a fight and then merged into the crowd. What do you think of it so far?0
-
Sponsored links:
-
Said nobody.Leuth said:
The strawman of the climate protester who hypocritically consumes vast amounts is a compelling one. Doesn't really matter if it really exists to any great extent, does it? It makes for a good narrative. No point protesting anything is there, you'd just be a hypocrite.Big_Bad_World said:
This is part of my issue with those that shout the loudest. I can guarantee they have been on many more flights than I have in the past 10 years, recycle less, use their cars more and generally have a far higher carbon footprint than me.MuttleyCAFC said:This is problematic for me. I believe we are on the brink of a global catastrophe but don't really do anything about it, apart from put the rubbish in the right bins. These people believe in it too but act on that belief. I don't think what they do makes a lot of difference, which may be why I don't do anything, but even when I was delayed for hours on the M25 visiting my son in Bournemouth, I found it hard to criticise them. Actually I did a first taking my dog for a short walk on the M25!
I still disagree with their antics/tactics yet will be labelled as being right wing press influenced for disagreeing, even though I've done more to cut my carbon footprint than they have.
Hands up if you're passionate about changing things but have been on an aircraft at least once every year for the past decade?
A couple of short-to-medium-range flights every year or two absolutely disqualify me from having any sort of opinion, that's for sure. Exactly the same as those who take multiple long-range flights a year, or own Humvees and drag their huge-in-every-sense family about in them everywhere.
Have you even met eco-warrior types? I have. Not only do they recycle everything, they compost their food waste, avoid plastics, make their own toothpaste etc. These people not only exist but they walk the walk
Typical triggered, petulant, answer from someone that probably takes said flights but doesn't like being called out on it by a more eco-aware dAiLy MaIl rEaDeR.
I appreciate that it's an awkward square to circle for many and that posting a dismissive counter argument is easier than self reflection.
Right on!!8 -
Unless the government can find a new magic money tree to replace the oil and petrol tax revenues in the next 10 years then I suspect restrictions on buying a new petrol car won’t be as stringent as people think.swordfish said:
So are you saying that politicians effected law changes to make discrimination unlawful, but can't legislate to stop future fossil fuel exploitation because it would create an energy supply deficit? If so, there are a set of politicians, led by Sir Kier Starmer, who will be elected into office on the back of a pledge to do precisely that. They must think it's within their gift and that somehow we'll manage with the current level of reserves until recyclables/nuclear are on stream.Dippenhall said:Suffragettes, Civil Rights and Slavery were issues that changed through politicians changing the law. There was logic in protesting for action against people with the power to effect the changes to laws which maintained discrimination.
Stopping licensing of new oil, gas and coal projects without a viable energy alternative in place is not going to happen and protesting for action that is not within the gift of anyone is futile.China is making changes, including the flooding of towns and villages for hydro electric power because it can. If JSO is advocating political change that allows us to follow China’s lead in the form of a dictatorship it should say so. Otherwise JSO is just pissing into the wind, giving a focus for virtue signalers and satisfaction for those knowing they are “doing something” - however pointless.
I support their sentiment to increase awareness of the need for climate change as much as I support the sentiment to solve poverty. Both have the same underlying cause - over population of the planet. When a protest group comes up with an humane solution for over population for politicians to take on board, it might justify its existence.
A more honest approach is needed that emphasizes individual responsibility to change consumption habits rather than the idea that politicians are the core problem and hold all the answers.
I agree with all you say about consumption patterns being the driver of man made climate change. However, governments can and do enforce restrictions on what we consume and can dictate how we behave Just try buying a new petrol car here in 10 years time for example.0 -
The highest out of the top 4 is 68th on this list.Todds_right_hook said:
google countries with the highest growing populations and post what the top four countries! Does that make google racist? Jashea summed it up perfectly but you still want to make it all about race and that's out of orderSELR_addicks said:
I agree, America with their banning of abortion would be one of those countries. So I think the race comment was needless when you're making a global comment about birth rates and barriers to birth control.JaShea99 said:
Surely you know what he means? What is this new trend of playing dumb when you don’t agree with someone and making them spell out something you know very well instead of engaging in debate? We all know what the barriers to birth control are in certain countries - religion, education, poverty, just to name a few.SELR_addicks said:
Because the original comment was 'Trouble is the countries that's population is increasing out of control are non white.'.Todds_right_hook said:
Oh please ffs!!!! Why are you making non racist comments all about race!SELR_addicks said:
Why do you assume that non-whites don't understand what birth control is? I'm definitely aware of who the weird ones are.Todds_right_hook said:
I think @blackpool72 point has just been proven!!SELR_addicks said:
Most of the world is non-white. Some weird comments on this thread.blackpool72 said:
This is quite simply the biggest threat to the planet.R0TW said:The guess is that there were 4 billion in 1974.
There are 8 billion now.
Is there a trend here?
Trouble is the countries that's population is increasing out of control are non white.
So any debate about doing something about it is shouted down as being racist.
What debate do you want to have, kill off the minorities?You've even highlighted his text but not once does he say he wants to debate killing off the minorities. In fact, he doesn't mention killing!!!!
I took the comment as educating on birth control, you took it as ethnic cleansing. I wonder who the weird one is
What else is that supposed to mean?
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/0 -
Sadly, according to my friend who has worked on several climate change documentaries, quite a lot of the climate change scientists say privately that it's already too late. But we do need to try.swordfish said:
We know it to be both though. Is anyone denying its cyclical? I doubt it if you consider the history of the planet which didn't used to support life on earth a long time before we came along with our fossil fuel burning habit when the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was much higher than it is now. A Graphical History of Atmospheric CO2 Levels Over Time | Earth.Orgbexleyaddick said:
I disagree, climate change is undeniable, yes, but most of us are simply not qualified to say for sure that it is man made and not cyclical. I said that I did not completely agree with Mr. Catt because I personally am yet to be convinced about the actual cause, but he IS absolutely correct about renewables and the present infrastructure being insufficient as things stand.PaddyP17 said:
What are you on about? Man made climate change is about as deniable as gravity.bexleyaddick said:
As it also is when people with no qualifications saying man made climate change is undeniable.... why shouldn't I post articles that are relevant to the topic, are you suggesting that we should only post items that suit our own agenda?PaddyP17 said:On a wider note, sharing stuff like bexleyaddick has shared and saying "I'm not saying this but here's some balance" is so WILDLY dangerous and misinformative.
THIS IS NOT BALANCE.
This sort of "balance" is "ahh for balance, here's some sources saying the Moon landing was faked" and going straight into the flag fluttering nonsense.
I have zero tolerance for this and even if the poster is trying to qualify it by saying "oh but I don't necessarily agree" - THEN DON'T SHARE IT!
I'm sure we would all welcome renewables as our only source of power but it IS a fact that they currently cannot supply the level of energy needed to run our infrastructure and no level of investment can provide an iron clad guarantee that we will ever be able to harness enough from that source. And thats before we all have to convert to electric vehicles, so what will we do when all the oil and gas reserves have run out and we still don't have sufficient power from renewables?
And I called out your articles how I did because with a pretty quick check, you can see whether something is misinformative or not. I've taken the time to call out the GB News video and the Clintel "declaration" because they are so obviously at odds with the scientific consensus:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change
- https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774
- https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
- https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/
I haven't got an agenda beyond not wanting the planet to die. This is a universal agenda and this is why - in my opinion - we cannot, even for one second, tolerate views that run contrary to this.
---------------
As for what you say about renewables: yes!!! You're absolutely right! Bang on! We cannot provide all of it right now. But, like, we HAVE TO try. We absolutely have to. Otherwise we seal our fates.
As for those who are criticising my tone and rhetoric - shall I dig out that MLK quote again? "... [the person] who is more devoted to order than justice [...] who constantly says, 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods[.]"
And for the record I've never said we shouldn't try to find a way of securing sufficient energy from renewables, in an ideal world thats surely what we all wish for, but in my opinion we shouldn't shoot ourselves in the foot by discarding fossil fuels completely. I'm confident that in time the technology will exist to rely completely on renewables but that could be decades away, and we don't have decades worth of oil and gas reserves, in the meantime I'd suggest that we need to keep our reserves up to maintain the supply during the transition, however long it is, and as things progress we will hopefully need to rely on them less and less.
I'm not sure if it was you or someone else, but to compare me with a moon landing denier or flat earther is simply ridiculous.....
Obviously humans didn't cause that, and whatever the farting capacity of a dinosaur, they didn't either, global warming playing out over a vast time frame relative to the age of man.
I accept that we can't control the cyclical element, so what can we control, or influence at the very least?
I posted two proven science based statements yesterday which I welcome you to challenge, appreciating that you have been prepared to put your head above the parapet where other climate change sceptics may have been too shy to contribute to debating its causes (the fire) rather than the protesters (the fire alarm): Here they are again:-
1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the concentration of it in the atmosphere contributes towards global warming;
2) The action of humans burning fossil fuels emits CO2 into the atmosphere.
Without evidence to disprove either, because the vast majority of people do trust the science on this at least, the conclusion can only be that humans do have the power to mitigate the harmful effects of global warning whilst humanity endures, which I doubt will be for much longer in the grand scheme of time.
Unfortunately it would be expensive and disruptive, and all governing politicians care about is getting re-elected.3 -
And equally tax burden will shift to EVs in some formletthegoodtimesroll said:
Unless the government can find a new magic money tree to replace the oil and petrol tax revenues in the next 10 years then I suspect restrictions on buying a new petrol car won’t be as stringent as people think.swordfish said:
So are you saying that politicians effected law changes to make discrimination unlawful, but can't legislate to stop future fossil fuel exploitation because it would create an energy supply deficit? If so, there are a set of politicians, led by Sir Kier Starmer, who will be elected into office on the back of a pledge to do precisely that. They must think it's within their gift and that somehow we'll manage with the current level of reserves until recyclables/nuclear are on stream.Dippenhall said:Suffragettes, Civil Rights and Slavery were issues that changed through politicians changing the law. There was logic in protesting for action against people with the power to effect the changes to laws which maintained discrimination.
Stopping licensing of new oil, gas and coal projects without a viable energy alternative in place is not going to happen and protesting for action that is not within the gift of anyone is futile.China is making changes, including the flooding of towns and villages for hydro electric power because it can. If JSO is advocating political change that allows us to follow China’s lead in the form of a dictatorship it should say so. Otherwise JSO is just pissing into the wind, giving a focus for virtue signalers and satisfaction for those knowing they are “doing something” - however pointless.
I support their sentiment to increase awareness of the need for climate change as much as I support the sentiment to solve poverty. Both have the same underlying cause - over population of the planet. When a protest group comes up with an humane solution for over population for politicians to take on board, it might justify its existence.
A more honest approach is needed that emphasizes individual responsibility to change consumption habits rather than the idea that politicians are the core problem and hold all the answers.
I agree with all you say about consumption patterns being the driver of man made climate change. However, governments can and do enforce restrictions on what we consume and can dictate how we behave Just try buying a new petrol car here in 10 years time for example.0 -
Keep f1 but make the drivers run around the track similar to will Ferrell and Ali gTellyTubby said:
OK I'm convinced, I for one would vote to ban F1. Keep the TT of course though.seth plum said:I was once told that one jumbo jet flying to America uses the same amount of fuel as in the whole of the fuel used in formula one racing.
Not including the costs of those teams flying around the world obvs.0 -
Yea. As per the famous people thread. Drove Emma Thompson through central London to her home in hampstead. Would have preferred taking her to the one in Scotland or the States but I'm sure she is much happier flying back and forward to those.Leuth said:
The strawman of the climate protester who hypocritically consumes vast amounts is a compelling one. Doesn't really matter if it really exists to any great extent, does it? It makes for a good narrative. No point protesting anything is there, you'd just be a hypocrite.Big_Bad_World said:
This is part of my issue with those that shout the loudest. I can guarantee they have been on many more flights than I have in the past 10 years, recycle less, use their cars more and generally have a far higher carbon footprint than me.MuttleyCAFC said:This is problematic for me. I believe we are on the brink of a global catastrophe but don't really do anything about it, apart from put the rubbish in the right bins. These people believe in it too but act on that belief. I don't think what they do makes a lot of difference, which may be why I don't do anything, but even when I was delayed for hours on the M25 visiting my son in Bournemouth, I found it hard to criticise them. Actually I did a first taking my dog for a short walk on the M25!
I still disagree with their antics/tactics yet will be labelled as being right wing press influenced for disagreeing, even though I've done more to cut my carbon footprint than they have.
Hands up if you're passionate about changing things but have been on an aircraft at least once every year for the past decade?
A couple of short-to-medium-range flights every year or two absolutely disqualify me from having any sort of opinion, that's for sure. Exactly the same as those who take multiple long-range flights a year, or own Humvees and drag their huge-in-every-sense family about in them everywhere.
Have you even met eco-warrior types? I have. Not only do they recycle everything, they compost their food waste, avoid plastics, make their own toothpaste etc. These people not only exist but they walk the walk
Anyway, just had another famous person in so need to update that thread.1 -
I look forward to seeing Emma Thompson invade the pitch with a bag full of orange powder0
-
This sounds awfully like moralistic thundering. You okay?Big_Bad_World said:
Said nobody.Leuth said:
The strawman of the climate protester who hypocritically consumes vast amounts is a compelling one. Doesn't really matter if it really exists to any great extent, does it? It makes for a good narrative. No point protesting anything is there, you'd just be a hypocrite.Big_Bad_World said:
This is part of my issue with those that shout the loudest. I can guarantee they have been on many more flights than I have in the past 10 years, recycle less, use their cars more and generally have a far higher carbon footprint than me.MuttleyCAFC said:This is problematic for me. I believe we are on the brink of a global catastrophe but don't really do anything about it, apart from put the rubbish in the right bins. These people believe in it too but act on that belief. I don't think what they do makes a lot of difference, which may be why I don't do anything, but even when I was delayed for hours on the M25 visiting my son in Bournemouth, I found it hard to criticise them. Actually I did a first taking my dog for a short walk on the M25!
I still disagree with their antics/tactics yet will be labelled as being right wing press influenced for disagreeing, even though I've done more to cut my carbon footprint than they have.
Hands up if you're passionate about changing things but have been on an aircraft at least once every year for the past decade?
A couple of short-to-medium-range flights every year or two absolutely disqualify me from having any sort of opinion, that's for sure. Exactly the same as those who take multiple long-range flights a year, or own Humvees and drag their huge-in-every-sense family about in them everywhere.
Have you even met eco-warrior types? I have. Not only do they recycle everything, they compost their food waste, avoid plastics, make their own toothpaste etc. These people not only exist but they walk the walk
Typical triggered, petulant, answer from someone that probably takes said flights but doesn't like being called out on it by a more eco-aware dAiLy MaIl rEaDeR.
I appreciate that it's an awkward square to circle for many and that posting a dismissive counter argument is easier than self reflection.
Right on!!1 -
I'm somewhat relieved that you've calmed down a little bit from your outburst earlier and that will lead to you not repeating claims that people haven't made.Leuth said:
This sounds awfully like moralistic thundering. You okay?Big_Bad_World said:
Said nobody.Leuth said:
The strawman of the climate protester who hypocritically consumes vast amounts is a compelling one. Doesn't really matter if it really exists to any great extent, does it? It makes for a good narrative. No point protesting anything is there, you'd just be a hypocrite.Big_Bad_World said:
This is part of my issue with those that shout the loudest. I can guarantee they have been on many more flights than I have in the past 10 years, recycle less, use their cars more and generally have a far higher carbon footprint than me.MuttleyCAFC said:This is problematic for me. I believe we are on the brink of a global catastrophe but don't really do anything about it, apart from put the rubbish in the right bins. These people believe in it too but act on that belief. I don't think what they do makes a lot of difference, which may be why I don't do anything, but even when I was delayed for hours on the M25 visiting my son in Bournemouth, I found it hard to criticise them. Actually I did a first taking my dog for a short walk on the M25!
I still disagree with their antics/tactics yet will be labelled as being right wing press influenced for disagreeing, even though I've done more to cut my carbon footprint than they have.
Hands up if you're passionate about changing things but have been on an aircraft at least once every year for the past decade?
A couple of short-to-medium-range flights every year or two absolutely disqualify me from having any sort of opinion, that's for sure. Exactly the same as those who take multiple long-range flights a year, or own Humvees and drag their huge-in-every-sense family about in them everywhere.
Have you even met eco-warrior types? I have. Not only do they recycle everything, they compost their food waste, avoid plastics, make their own toothpaste etc. These people not only exist but they walk the walk
Typical triggered, petulant, answer from someone that probably takes said flights but doesn't like being called out on it by a more eco-aware dAiLy MaIl rEaDeR.
I appreciate that it's an awkward square to circle for many and that posting a dismissive counter argument is easier than self reflection.
Right on!!
It's a start. A modicum or pride should be bestowed upon oneself in instances like this.
EDIT: How rude of me. I'm very good, thank you. Cutting my carbon emissions where I can and not getting angry with someone if they point out that I'm, personally, not doing enough.1
This discussion has been closed.
