Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Climate Change - IPCC Report
Comments
-
It seems perfectly reasonable that when someone arrives at a position in an argument that isn't supported by evidence or logic, people get bored with their interjections. It does seem a little odd though, that someone who waded into a discussion with the words "vacuous scandinavian reptile Grotty Beefburg" would suddenly come over all sensitive when another person questioned their streaming habits. I'm glad that you are very much for the whole population, where possible, doing all the common sense things as we move forward. Recycling, using cars less, considering our neighbour, clean oceans, reversing deforestation. What I am NOT glad of is branding the best scientific consensus we have as a "new religion". I think the phrase "Guilting the human race" speaks volumes; it tells of someone who isn't ready to face facts, and their lies the problem. It never ceases to amaze me how people who are so sceptical of genuine science remain so open to myths and pseudoscience and so happy to unquestioningly take the side of those whose mantra has no factual base. All the worst aspects of socially deviant cults resurfacing in anti-environmentalism. Our only salvation (not in some mystical religious sense, but in the real world meaning of being saved) lies in looking after the one planet that we have.ValleyOfTears said:
It seems a little bit odd that when someone arrives at a position in an argument that isn't held by the the majority (who often count among their number "people who don't care either way on any issue") that we have to try and put them down. I don't recall ever watching a YT video on climate change or indeed on denying climate change. As written earlier , I am very much for the whole population, where possible, doing all the common sense things as we move forward. Recycling, using cars less, considering our neighbour, clean oceans, reversing deforestation. What I am NOT for is the new religion of Environmentalism. Guilting the human race. Legalistic types policing others in their "poor attempts at keeping up with the strong who are green and therefore "good people". All the worst aspects of organised religion resurfacing in Environmentalism. At least the original version promised Salvation. This new religion offers nothing.Cloudworm said:
Someone’s been watching YouTube videoooos!ValleyOfTears said:
You are absolutely right Leuth. Blaming us for climate change is not right. And we discover one eruption of Krakatoa emits more harm to the atmosphere than a billion long haul flights anyway. But we can't blame molten lava for our global unhappiness, or gain superiority over volcanic debris so we dump it on the bloke on the street.. Wasn't it ever this?Leuth said:Blaming 'us' for this isn't right either. The blame lies at the top. The elites. The barons. Those who ordain the logging, the drilling, the burning.
Let us recycle our crap. Be concerned about ruining air quality by lazily driving everywhere in town unnecessarily.
But policing eachother and guilting the poor bloke on the street because of deforestation of the Amazon basin or the depletion of coral and bowing to the God of Gaia really has to stop. We've all had enough..If you really need the hit of blaming someone ...start with Krakatoa.
That's all!
That's all!
11 -
Weegie Addick said:The best way to change for the better is to consume less of everything and live simpler lives. However, no-one makes money out of that and no-one in power benefits.
The idea that electric cars are the future is ludicrous when their batteries have a lifespan of c 10 years and are made with ‘rare earth minerals’. Now why doesn’t that phrase alone cause alarm bells to ring?
"The best way to change for the better is to consume less of everything and live simpler lives."
Less really can be more, in dovetailing with nature.
Beautiful words @Weegie Addick but a paradigm shift is needed collectively and individually and Homo sapiens would need to evolve and lose their feral beast DNA which has been the prominent feature since early mankind were hunter gatherers and speech was by grunts and body language.
0 -
"Grunts and body Language"
As observed at the old and new Den when I was studying Anthropology and primatology.0 -
https://youtu.be/QnrtRaM28cY
How Veganism Could Help Save The Planet. Here’s Why.
I have been reluctant to bring this subject up on here because I know that the terms ‘vegan’ and ‘veganism’ automatically make some people recoil and dismiss but I feel it’s important to put this out there because it’s an undeniable fact that animal agriculture is damaging to the planet and is not sustainable in it’s current form going forward. Some of you, I know, won’t bother to watch this (it’s under ten minutes long) but for those of you that do, please watch with an open mind. You still might reject what’s in it immediately and that’s your prerogative but at least the information will be out there. Our eating habits can’t continue to be the elephant in the room.3 -
I do think the future will have to be meat substitutes, but as you say big habit changes are required and McDonald's would go out of business.
0 -
BigRedEvil said:I do think the future will have to be meat substitutes, but as you say big habit changes are required and McDonald's would go out of business.
McDonald’s could always adapt to a plant based business as could any other meat based fast food outlet. The standard of meat replacement products has improved immeasurably over the last few years and will no doubt continue to do so.1 -
The standard seems to have improved greatly in the last few years, but I think to become the norm rather than the exception meat free products need to become less expensive than meat based ones. I don't know how much these companies are spending on r&d, but as a consumer I always feel I am being penalised for choosing vegetarian options.AddickUpNorth said:BigRedEvil said:I do think the future will have to be meat substitutes, but as you say big habit changes are required and McDonald's would go out of business.
McDonald’s could always adapt to a plant based business as could any other meat based fast food outlet. The standard of meat replacement products has improved immeasurably over the last few years and will no doubt continue to do so.1 -
Stig said:
The standard seems to have improved greatly in the last few years, but I think to become the norm rather than the exception meat free products need to become less expensive than meat based ones. I don't know how much these companies are spending on r&d, but as a consumer I always feel I am being penalised for choosing vegetarian options.AddickUpNorth said:BigRedEvil said:I do think the future will have to be meat substitutes, but as you say big habit changes are required and McDonald's would go out of business.
McDonald’s could always adapt to a plant based business as could any other meat based fast food outlet. The standard of meat replacement products has improved immeasurably over the last few years and will no doubt continue to do so.
Absolutely valid point Stig and it is annoying that cost is a factor in putting people off trying meat replacement products. Hopefully though once the products are more established costs will come down and be more accessible to consumers. Also it has to be pointed out that some of the vegan staples like beans, legumes, potatoes and pasta are relatively cheap. Personally I eat considerably more chickpeas and pasta than I do meat replacement items which are in many instances highly processed.1 -
Too many vested interests in all global industries to change quickly enough to make a difference. Some countries whole economies rely on the Beef and lamb they sell. Countries like Argentina, Brazil, and New Zealand can’t just stop producing livestock. Their economies will collapse. The USA farm gazillions of herds for slaughter. It’s going to take decades to make any difference even if there is a will to do so. You can add to that the petro-chemical giants who won’t allow their income streams to be restricted until they can diversify which will take years and years. I don’t see any hope for stalling climate change let alone reversing it.0
-
Profits before the planet. I fear you could be right Shooters.1
- Sponsored links:
-
Yup. People recycling and driving electric cars is all for shit if they still eat meat.AddickUpNorth said:https://youtu.be/QnrtRaM28cY
How Veganism Could Help Save The Planet. Here’s Why.
I have been reluctant to bring this subject up on here because I know that the terms ‘vegan’ and ‘veganism’ automatically make some people recoil and dismiss but I feel it’s important to put this out there because it’s an undeniable fact that animal agriculture is damaging to the planet and is not sustainable in it’s current form going forward. Some of you, I know, won’t bother to watch this (it’s under ten minutes long) but for those of you that do, please watch with an open mind. You still might reject what’s in it immediately and that’s your prerogative but at least the information will be out there. Our eating habits can’t continue to be the elephant in the room.1 -
There are others on our planet like dolphins but I wasn't referring to them.ShootersHillGuru said:
What other species are you talking about that has rational thought ?jimmymelrose said:
Yes, well actually it would be for the planet.Leuth said:
So the tens of millions of people dying will be a good thing. GotchaWhen people start dying in their tens of millions then the elites responsible for all this will probably lift a finger. Obviously by then it'll be far too late
This may have sneaked to the top three of the "@Leuth being over dramatic" posts. How about over population being one of the main causes of climate change?
We as as a species are the parasites.
If another species thought like us they would be culling us in our millions.
If another intelligent life-form came to our planet to give us advice then I think that they might kindly suggest lowering the population as an answer. Who knows, they might even politely advise us that diseases like Covid19 that only kill a relatively low percentage of people are there for this reason and that again we are ignorantly fighting against nature.
If however they were like us and intent on colonising with no consideration given to the current inhabitants, then one thing they would decide would be to get rid of a lot of us (if they see some usage for us) or all of us (if they see no usage).
You may deduce from my post that I have a very low opinion of humanity. The greatest shame I have in life is to be a member of our species. We are destroying the planet for all the other species not just for ourselves. If capable of critical thought they would be telling us to get lost.1 -
I quite enjoy telling people I don't bother recycling (I do) to see their reactions. Then politely asking them if they eat meat, dairy and fish.1
-
There’s a vegan activist called Humane Hancock who has a YouTube channel and he went to one of the large Extinction Rebellion protests and the excuses and mental gymnastics from some he interviewed about veganism and why they weren’t was hilarious. To me, you can’t claim to be a hardcore environmentalist and not live plant based.2
-
Green MPs that eat meat...AddickUpNorth said:There’s a vegan activist called Humane Hancock who has a YouTube channel and he went to one of the large Extinction Rebellion protests and the excuses and mental gymnastics from some he interviewed about veganism and why they weren’t was hilarious. To me, you can’t claim to be a hardcore environmentalist and not live plant based.2 -
Not sure where to start really. Dolphins are lovely creatures but don’t bring them into the rational thought aspect of this. There is only one species capable and that is humans. We don’t really need advice from aliens. We already know the answers and solutions it’s just that our history as a species is at the same time driving us forward and ironically holding us back. Holding us back in making the decisions that will save the planet. It’s in our DNA to strive for betterment in everything we do. In the blink of an eye mankind has come from caves to talk of colonising Mars. With our success in all fields of human endeavour it has allowed the species to thrive. Climate change has been a slap in the face. We haven’t yet woken up to it and I doubt our civilisation will do in time. As for allowing viruses and diseases to naturally select those who live on. What nonsense. We can beat climate change, it’s just that we don’t want to do it until it’s too late.jimmymelrose said:
There are others on our planet like dolphins but I wasn't referring to them.ShootersHillGuru said:
What other species are you talking about that has rational thought ?jimmymelrose said:
Yes, well actually it would be for the planet.Leuth said:
So the tens of millions of people dying will be a good thing. GotchaWhen people start dying in their tens of millions then the elites responsible for all this will probably lift a finger. Obviously by then it'll be far too late
This may have sneaked to the top three of the "@Leuth being over dramatic" posts. How about over population being one of the main causes of climate change?
We as as a species are the parasites.
If another species thought like us they would be culling us in our millions.
If another intelligent life-form came to our planet to give us advice then I think that they might kindly suggest lowering the population as an answer. Who knows, they might even politely advise us that diseases like Covid19 that only kill a relatively low percentage of people are there for this reason and that again we are ignorantly fighting against nature.
If however they were like us and intent on colonising with no consideration given to the current inhabitants, then one thing they would decide would be to get rid of a lot of us (if they see some usage for us) or all of us (if they see no usage).
You may deduce from my post that I have a very low opinion of humanity. The greatest shame I have in life is to be a member of our species. We are destroying the planet for all the other species not just for ourselves. If capable of critical thought they would be telling us to get lost.0 -
Unfortunately a bit of recycling and using cars less won’t make much difference. And the worst aspects of organised religion has been mass torture, persecutions, executions, burnings at the stake, cats and dogs living together etc etc, so to compare that with environmentalists making people feel guilty is a bit far fetched? And you could say they offer salvation, only in this world, not the next.1
-
Fair point about some grisly aspects of organised religion in the past and present. There are of course many examples of the great things and great people but alas, they rarely get a mention of course.JamesSeed said:Unfortunately a bit of recycling and using cars less won’t make much difference. And the worst aspects of organised religion has been mass torture, persecutions, executions, burnings at the stake, cats and dogs living together etc etc, so to compare that with environmentalists making people feel guilty is a bit far fetched? And you could say they offer salvation, only in this world, not the next.
The Law of Moses was impossible to keep ~ in its entirety. It was a useful measure of how far we fall short. The Law of Environmentalism is pretty much the same (for the poor). And as "good" people (affluent) fork out endlessly for the latest photovoltaic rooftop, electric car, wind turbine, and switch to tofu salads and beefless roast beef ~ because they can... others "bad" people (the poor), can't. They "fall short"
And the environmental goalposts are constantly being moved. As new green markets emerge and there is a killing to be made they sell their products in step with the mainstream media who write headlines such as:
"Impending catastrophe". "Terrible loss of innocent life" "facing global disaster".
And on it goes. People buy all the things. And new products and new sensational headlines.
It IS a religion and possibly the most ridiculous one. You don't tithe in this one. Or turn up for an hour on Sunday with this one..No! With this one you are expected to THINK green, Talk green, BUY green, LIVE green, WORSHIP green 24/7, 365. To the exclusion of anything else. Especially organised religion..
And unlike organised religion the creed is constantly changing.
And then one dies. And they can spend eternity ...in hell. Not a particularly good return for all the time and money invested in this religion I would say.0 -
SHG: I'm inclined to agree with much of your very well written point. But the "messing around with packaging and turning of the hall light won't cut it anymore" point is really the issue here. It begs the question "Well what WILL cut it in the new Environmentalism?". Reduce the global population to 500m (as per the Georgia guides tones?) Ban oil, meat, fishing, aviation, cars etc?ShootersHillGuru said:
Thats all very well but I don’t think you are taking seriously the very real crisis point we are reaching. Messing around with food packaging and switching off the hall light isn’t going to cut it any more. You mention a religion of environmentalism but in loose terms that is exactly what is going to be needed by every human on the planet if our civilisation as we know it is to survive. We all need to buy into a fanaticism of cutting emissions on a evangelical scale. Unless we do there will without any question be millions of lives lost. The problem for most of us is that saving the planet and green initiatives are becoming a business opportunity. That’s fine but unless everybody can afford to buy into the future the outcomes will be achieved too slowly.ValleyOfTears said:
It seems a little bit odd that when someone arrives at a position in an argument that isn't held by the the majority (who often count among their number "people who don't care either way on any issue") that we have to try and put them down. I don't recall ever watching a YT video on climate change or indeed on denying climate change. As written earlier , I am very much for the whole population, where possible, doing all the common sense things as we move forward. Recycling, using cars less, considering our neighbour, clean oceans, reversing deforestation. What I am NOT for is the new religion of Environmentalism. Guilting the human race. Legalistic types policing others in their "poor attempts at keeping up with the strong who are green and therefore "good people". All the worst aspects of organised religion resurfacing in Environmentalism. At least the original version promised Salvation. This new religion offers nothing.Cloudworm said:
Someone’s been watching YouTube videoooos!ValleyOfTears said:
You are absolutely right Leuth. Blaming us for climate change is not right. And we discover one eruption of Krakatoa emits more harm to the atmosphere than a billion long haul flights anyway. But we can't blame molten lava for our global unhappiness, or gain superiority over volcanic debris so we dump it on the bloke on the street.. Wasn't it ever this?Leuth said:Blaming 'us' for this isn't right either. The blame lies at the top. The elites. The barons. Those who ordain the logging, the drilling, the burning.
Let us recycle our crap. Be concerned about ruining air quality by lazily driving everywhere in town unnecessarily.
But policing eachother and guilting the poor bloke on the street because of deforestation of the Amazon basin or the depletion of coral and bowing to the God of Gaia really has to stop. We've all had enough..If you really need the hit of blaming someone ...start with Krakatoa.
That's all!
And then?
I suspect nothing. Like many hot button topics in this age, built into all of them is this clever "impossible to ever resolve" aspect.
And this is why one should get off this doomed train now before it becomes something very nasty. And I suspect something that will have very little to do with the care for Creation.
0 -
Stig :Stig said:
It seems perfectly reasonable that when someone arrives at a position in an argument that isn't supported by evidence or logic, people get bored with their interjections. It does seem a little odd though, that someone who waded into a discussion with the words "vacuous scandinavian reptile Grotty Beefburg" would suddenly come over all sensitive when another person questioned their streaming habits. I'm glad that you are very much for the whole population, where possible, doing all the common sense things as we move forward. Recycling, using cars less, considering our neighbour, clean oceans, reversing deforestation. What I am NOT glad of is branding the best scientific consensus we have as a "new religion". I think the phrase "Guilting the human race" speaks volumes; it tells of someone who isn't ready to face facts, and their lies the problem. It never ceases to amaze me how people who are so sceptical of genuine science remain so open to myths and pseudoscience and so happy to unquestioningly take the side of those whose mantra has no factual base. All the worst aspects of socially deviant cults resurfacing in anti-environmentalism. Our only salvation (not in some mystical religious sense, but in the real world meaning of being saved) lies in looking after the one planet that we have.ValleyOfTears said:
It seems a little bit odd that when someone arrives at a position in an argument that isn't held by the the majority (who often count among their number "people who don't care either way on any issue") that we have to try and put them down. I don't recall ever watching a YT video on climate change or indeed on denying climate change. As written earlier , I am very much for the whole population, where possible, doing all the common sense things as we move forward. Recycling, using cars less, considering our neighbour, clean oceans, reversing deforestation. What I am NOT for is the new religion of Environmentalism. Guilting the human race. Legalistic types policing others in their "poor attempts at keeping up with the strong who are green and therefore "good people". All the worst aspects of organised religion resurfacing in Environmentalism. At least the original version promised Salvation. This new religion offers nothing.Cloudworm said:
Someone’s been watching YouTube videoooos!ValleyOfTears said:
You are absolutely right Leuth. Blaming us for climate change is not right. And we discover one eruption of Krakatoa emits more harm to the atmosphere than a billion long haul flights anyway. But we can't blame molten lava for our global unhappiness, or gain superiority over volcanic debris so we dump it on the bloke on the street.. Wasn't it ever this?Leuth said:Blaming 'us' for this isn't right either. The blame lies at the top. The elites. The barons. Those who ordain the logging, the drilling, the burning.
Let us recycle our crap. Be concerned about ruining air quality by lazily driving everywhere in town unnecessarily.
But policing eachother and guilting the poor bloke on the street because of deforestation of the Amazon basin or the depletion of coral and bowing to the God of Gaia really has to stop. We've all had enough..If you really need the hit of blaming someone ...start with Krakatoa.
That's all!
That's all!
I agree ~ many people who are sceptical of science often remain open to the most questionable of doctrines. I see that, yes.
I wouldn't consider I count myself among their number however. I am all for the scientific method, rational thinking and logic. And I am also aware that science doesnt hold all the answers. To the BIG questions of life.
The issue here is whether one believes the "science" behind the Environmentalist cult or not.
We find that over 30,000 scientists have rejected Kyoto and state "there is no convincing evidence that humans cause global warming". And then we read that 97% of those paid handsomely by the Climate industry are saying the total opposite. I suspect THEIR "science" is the "best scientific consensus" to which you refer?
As for being a "socially deviant cult" (!) Or "Anti environmentalist" ? I think you just have to consider that others are more convinced of science too. Just not the science you (or Al Gore) selects and calls fact.0 - Sponsored links:
-
This NASA site on climate change is extremely comprehensive and compelling. It demonstrates the work and scientific conclusions of some of the best and brightest brains in the world today. If one has to choose between Trump and his like or these people I know what camp I'd be in.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
4 -
Seas and CO2 next...?ValleyOfTears said:
Stig :Stig said:
It seems perfectly reasonable that when someone arrives at a position in an argument that isn't supported by evidence or logic, people get bored with their interjections. It does seem a little odd though, that someone who waded into a discussion with the words "vacuous scandinavian reptile Grotty Beefburg" would suddenly come over all sensitive when another person questioned their streaming habits. I'm glad that you are very much for the whole population, where possible, doing all the common sense things as we move forward. Recycling, using cars less, considering our neighbour, clean oceans, reversing deforestation. What I am NOT glad of is branding the best scientific consensus we have as a "new religion". I think the phrase "Guilting the human race" speaks volumes; it tells of someone who isn't ready to face facts, and their lies the problem. It never ceases to amaze me how people who are so sceptical of genuine science remain so open to myths and pseudoscience and so happy to unquestioningly take the side of those whose mantra has no factual base. All the worst aspects of socially deviant cults resurfacing in anti-environmentalism. Our only salvation (not in some mystical religious sense, but in the real world meaning of being saved) lies in looking after the one planet that we have.ValleyOfTears said:
It seems a little bit odd that when someone arrives at a position in an argument that isn't held by the the majority (who often count among their number "people who don't care either way on any issue") that we have to try and put them down. I don't recall ever watching a YT video on climate change or indeed on denying climate change. As written earlier , I am very much for the whole population, where possible, doing all the common sense things as we move forward. Recycling, using cars less, considering our neighbour, clean oceans, reversing deforestation. What I am NOT for is the new religion of Environmentalism. Guilting the human race. Legalistic types policing others in their "poor attempts at keeping up with the strong who are green and therefore "good people". All the worst aspects of organised religion resurfacing in Environmentalism. At least the original version promised Salvation. This new religion offers nothing.Cloudworm said:
Someone’s been watching YouTube videoooos!ValleyOfTears said:
You are absolutely right Leuth. Blaming us for climate change is not right. And we discover one eruption of Krakatoa emits more harm to the atmosphere than a billion long haul flights anyway. But we can't blame molten lava for our global unhappiness, or gain superiority over volcanic debris so we dump it on the bloke on the street.. Wasn't it ever this?Leuth said:Blaming 'us' for this isn't right either. The blame lies at the top. The elites. The barons. Those who ordain the logging, the drilling, the burning.
Let us recycle our crap. Be concerned about ruining air quality by lazily driving everywhere in town unnecessarily.
But policing eachother and guilting the poor bloke on the street because of deforestation of the Amazon basin or the depletion of coral and bowing to the God of Gaia really has to stop. We've all had enough..If you really need the hit of blaming someone ...start with Krakatoa.
That's all!
That's all!
I agree ~ many people who are sceptical of science often remain open to the most questionable of doctrines. I see that, yes.
I wouldn't consider I count myself among their number however. I am all for the scientific method, rational thinking and logic. And I am also aware that science doesnt hold all the answers. To the BIG questions of life.
The issue here is whether one believes the "science" behind the Environmentalist cult or not.
We find that over 30,000 scientists have rejected Kyoto and state "there is no convincing evidence that humans cause global warming". And then we read that 97% of those paid handsomely by the Climate industry are saying the total opposite. I suspect THEIR "science" is the "best scientific consensus" to which you refer?
As for being a "socially deviant cult" (!) Or "Anti environmentalist" ? I think you just have to consider that others are more convinced of science too. Just not the science you (or Al Gore) selects and calls fact.0 -
Am I correct in my assessment that your view is that you believe that the climate is changing but you don’t believe that those changes are being driven as a direct consequence of human behaviour ? It’s a view but as you obviously recognise it’s one that is minute in the big scheme of climate science and science in general. From your posts it’s obvious you are an intelligent man so I would be grateful if you could explain why you fall into line with a tiny minority of science. That’s of course if my assessment is correct.ValleyOfTears said:
Stig :Stig said:
It seems perfectly reasonable that when someone arrives at a position in an argument that isn't supported by evidence or logic, people get bored with their interjections. It does seem a little odd though, that someone who waded into a discussion with the words "vacuous scandinavian reptile Grotty Beefburg" would suddenly come over all sensitive when another person questioned their streaming habits. I'm glad that you are very much for the whole population, where possible, doing all the common sense things as we move forward. Recycling, using cars less, considering our neighbour, clean oceans, reversing deforestation. What I am NOT glad of is branding the best scientific consensus we have as a "new religion". I think the phrase "Guilting the human race" speaks volumes; it tells of someone who isn't ready to face facts, and their lies the problem. It never ceases to amaze me how people who are so sceptical of genuine science remain so open to myths and pseudoscience and so happy to unquestioningly take the side of those whose mantra has no factual base. All the worst aspects of socially deviant cults resurfacing in anti-environmentalism. Our only salvation (not in some mystical religious sense, but in the real world meaning of being saved) lies in looking after the one planet that we have.ValleyOfTears said:
It seems a little bit odd that when someone arrives at a position in an argument that isn't held by the the majority (who often count among their number "people who don't care either way on any issue") that we have to try and put them down. I don't recall ever watching a YT video on climate change or indeed on denying climate change. As written earlier , I am very much for the whole population, where possible, doing all the common sense things as we move forward. Recycling, using cars less, considering our neighbour, clean oceans, reversing deforestation. What I am NOT for is the new religion of Environmentalism. Guilting the human race. Legalistic types policing others in their "poor attempts at keeping up with the strong who are green and therefore "good people". All the worst aspects of organised religion resurfacing in Environmentalism. At least the original version promised Salvation. This new religion offers nothing.Cloudworm said:
Someone’s been watching YouTube videoooos!ValleyOfTears said:
You are absolutely right Leuth. Blaming us for climate change is not right. And we discover one eruption of Krakatoa emits more harm to the atmosphere than a billion long haul flights anyway. But we can't blame molten lava for our global unhappiness, or gain superiority over volcanic debris so we dump it on the bloke on the street.. Wasn't it ever this?Leuth said:Blaming 'us' for this isn't right either. The blame lies at the top. The elites. The barons. Those who ordain the logging, the drilling, the burning.
Let us recycle our crap. Be concerned about ruining air quality by lazily driving everywhere in town unnecessarily.
But policing eachother and guilting the poor bloke on the street because of deforestation of the Amazon basin or the depletion of coral and bowing to the God of Gaia really has to stop. We've all had enough..If you really need the hit of blaming someone ...start with Krakatoa.
That's all!
That's all!
I agree ~ many people who are sceptical of science often remain open to the most questionable of doctrines. I see that, yes.
I wouldn't consider I count myself among their number however. I am all for the scientific method, rational thinking and logic. And I am also aware that science doesnt hold all the answers. To the BIG questions of life.
The issue here is whether one believes the "science" behind the Environmentalist cult or not.
We find that over 30,000 scientists have rejected Kyoto and state "there is no convincing evidence that humans cause global warming". And then we read that 97% of those paid handsomely by the Climate industry are saying the total opposite. I suspect THEIR "science" is the "best scientific consensus" to which you refer?
As for being a "socially deviant cult" (!) Or "Anti environmentalist" ? I think you just have to consider that others are more convinced of science too. Just not the science you (or Al Gore) selects and calls fact.0 -
Big week in London this week...0
-
On course for 2.7C rise!
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/17/world-on-catastrophic-path-to-2-7c-warming-un-chief
0 -
Can't see King Charles being very happy on November 7th as he sets out the programme of legislation that the Government intends to pursue in the forthcoming parliamentary session. He may very well choke on his words.
(From the Guardian)Rishi Sunak’s government will use next week’s king’s speech to advance expansion of North Sea oil and gas exploration, as well as pro-car policies, in the hope of opening up a clear divide over the green agenda with Labour, the Observer understands.
Energy industry sources and senior figures in Whitehall say they expect ministers to announce legislation to usher in a new annual system for awarding oil and gas licences, despite the UK’s commitments to move away from fossil fuels and reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
The king’s speech, the final legislative programme before the next general election, is also expected to include measures that will explicitly favour motorists, including making it more difficult for local authorities to introduce 20mph speed limits or supposedly unpopular schemes such as the ultra-low emission zone (Ulez), recently expanded in London.
0 -
It makes a mockery of his new slogan 'Long term decisions for a brighter future', should be 'Short term decisions to gather a few more votes'.1
