Climate Emergency
Comments
-
Stig said:
It's usually a fair assumption that when someone repeatedly asks for information that they either can't find what you say you've sent or can't understand it. The best communicators work on the basis that in an adult world such problems are down to the sender and do their very best to set matters straight.Chippycafc said:It usually a fair assumption that when someone asks you a question, 4 times, after you've given the answer the first time, that they and their cohorts have a major issue understanding basics.
It's also a fair assumption that when someone asks you a question about resources when the topic in the box was about people, that they and their cohorts have a major issue understanding basics.
Especially after the second time of asking you tell them you are under no obligation to answer anything. Again not understanding of basics.
And when that happens it's best to assume all and move on.
The fuss and blister you've made suggests to me that you don't want to answer because you know that if you do your position won't stand up to scrutiny. It would have been far easier for you to answer Emmy nicely than to put up a fight about it. Come on, it's a forum, why are you frightened of responding nicely?
It's a fair assessment Stig for people to understand the basics that you are not going to repeat your answer when you've already done it to my satisfaction if you don't like the answer that's tough. Be an adult and move on. The question that was asked bore no relation to the original posters view. Why this individual was asking me I have no idea. Trouble making in my view.
I can stand any scrutiny, had it for years here and then they get abusive as you well know. As demonstrated by rocky rad. And who am i facing scrutiny from, people who Google and post A1 generated posts all day long, who for some bizarre reason think their climate experts, and are supposed to be working from home Mmmm.
I have no fuss and blister about anything. I have replied the same number of times as I have been asked, and now others are poking their nose in and making a big fuss about nothing.
So just for you I won't answer anymore questions on this particular issue.7 -
I'm just unsure as to why someone would so fiercely defend their obstinate determination not to share their views on a thread about climate change, while equally vehemently pretending they've already done so.11
-
Chipper, you are an absolute master of forum replies, I have over the years come to admire how, without being too wordy or really rude to people, you have an ability to insert a phrase that will be aimed loosely at an individual or a group or may not be aimed at all. Often a completely vague comment or sometimes not, gets inserted into your replies. Your replies often leave people hanging, wanting more from you but you leave it there and people hanging for you to elaborate, which you seldom do.Chippycafc said:Stig said:
It's usually a fair assumption that when someone repeatedly asks for information that they either can't find what you say you've sent or can't understand it. The best communicators work on the basis that in an adult world such problems are down to the sender and do their very best to set matters straight.Chippycafc said:It usually a fair assumption that when someone asks you a question, 4 times, after you've given the answer the first time, that they and their cohorts have a major issue understanding basics.
It's also a fair assumption that when someone asks you a question about resources when the topic in the box was about people, that they and their cohorts have a major issue understanding basics.
Especially after the second time of asking you tell them you are under no obligation to answer anything. Again not understanding of basics.
And when that happens it's best to assume all and move on.
The fuss and blister you've made suggests to me that you don't want to answer because you know that if you do your position won't stand up to scrutiny. It would have been far easier for you to answer Emmy nicely than to put up a fight about it. Come on, it's a forum, why are you frightened of responding nicely?
It's a fair assessment Stig for people to understand the basics that you are not going to repeat your answer when you've already done it to my satisfaction if you don't like the answer that's tough. Be an adult and move on. The question that was asked bore no relation to the original posters view. Why this individual was asking me I have no idea. Trouble making in my view.
I can stand any scrutiny, had it for years here and then they get abusive as you well know. As demonstrated by rocky rad. And who am i facing scrutiny from, people who Google and post A1 generated posts all day long, who for some bizarre reason think their climate experts, and are supposed to be working from home Mmmm.
I have no fuss and blister about anything. I have replied the same number of times as I have been asked, and now others are poking their nose in and making a big fuss about nothing.
So just for you I won't answer anymore questions on this particular issue.
Anyway a few pages back you wrote that your mother said people swear through ignorance, I don't necessarily agree with that, your mother was completely wrong, like you are on this thread about climate change I think the more likely....4 -
Nuanced debate is never going to happen on a message board and it seems to be dying out in society as a whole. Ignorance seems to be increasingly celebrated.
Nature will sort out climate change - how this manifests itself we'll see as time passes.2 -
As a foresight into the future we have woken up without any water.
Burst watermain on the main road (5 one on the same stretch of road in the 4.5 years that we haave lived here). Ageing infrasture from a development that was built 100 years ago all failing at once and no investment to modernise. The last 4 times we have been without water for more than 24 hours.
Its actually the most disruptive thing. I would 100% rather do a day without power than a day without water. Not even close.
Luckily given its happened enough times before we are relatively well prepared. Have a decent amount of water in the fridge anyway and have a few 2 litre bottles spare at all times so have enough to drink. Managed to fill a jug up from what was left in the pipes for hand washing and brushing teeth. Wife even managed to get a dribble out the shower to freshen up.
This afternoon I'll trapse down to the fountain by the station which usually still has water and top up all our drinking water bottles. Should at least be able to avoid having to pay hiked prices for water at the local shop - last time it £8 a bottle once the co-op sold out.1 -
Doesn’t your water supplier provide bottled water under these circumstances?cantersaddick said:As a foresight into the future we have woken up without any water.
Burst watermain on the main road (5 one on the same stretch of road in the 4.5 years that we haave lived here). Ageing infrasture from a development that was built 100 years ago all failing at once and no investment to modernise. The last 4 times we have been without water for more than 24 hours.
Its actually the most disruptive thing. I would 100% rather do a day without power than a day without water. Not even close.
Luckily given its happened enough times before we are relatively well prepared. Have a decent amount of water in the fridge anyway and have a few 2 litre bottles spare at all times so have enough to drink. Managed to fill a jug up from what was left in the pipes for hand washing and brushing teeth. Wife even managed to get a dribble out the shower to freshen up.
This afternoon I'll trapse down to the fountain by the station which usually still has water and top up all our drinking water bottles. Should at least be able to avoid having to pay hiked prices for water at the local shop - last time it £8 a bottle once the co-op sold out.2 -
Hahahahaha Its Thames water dont be silly!ShootersHillGuru said:
Doesn’t your water supplier provide bottled water under these circumstances?cantersaddick said:As a foresight into the future we have woken up without any water.
Burst watermain on the main road (5 one on the same stretch of road in the 4.5 years that we haave lived here). Ageing infrasture from a development that was built 100 years ago all failing at once and no investment to modernise. The last 4 times we have been without water for more than 24 hours.
Its actually the most disruptive thing. I would 100% rather do a day without power than a day without water. Not even close.
Luckily given its happened enough times before we are relatively well prepared. Have a decent amount of water in the fridge anyway and have a few 2 litre bottles spare at all times so have enough to drink. Managed to fill a jug up from what was left in the pipes for hand washing and brushing teeth. Wife even managed to get a dribble out the shower to freshen up.
This afternoon I'll trapse down to the fountain by the station which usually still has water and top up all our drinking water bottles. Should at least be able to avoid having to pay hiked prices for water at the local shop - last time it £8 a bottle once the co-op sold out.
They are legally supposed to but do not. They are also supposed to offer compensation £20-30 per day but dont do that either. Last time out of sheer frustration at their refusal my wife took it to the ombusdman. Unfortunately Thames water managed to wriggle out of it by claiming that pumping water from a tanker lorry into a leaky pipe and hoping some of it reaches the couple of thousand houses affected counts as "restoring the supply" therefore they cant be held responsible. Despite not a drop actually reaching us on any occasion. We took videos every hour of the taps being open but no water coming out but apparently that isnt proof we didnt have water.
I despise Thames water almost as much as the economic system that allowed them to exist.5 -
Thames Water are utterly f***ing useless. Rather than replace aging infrastructure they just try to fix leaks which invariably are followed by a fresh leak a short distance away.
Privatising water was a truly idiotic idea and yet we continue to live with this farce.5 -
Heat-related water shortages and train derailments both cast doubts on the genius of privatisations.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:Thames Water are utterly f***ing useless. Rather than replace aging infrastructure they just try to fix leaks which invariably are followed by a fresh leak a short distance away.
Privatising water was a truly idiotic idea and yet we continue to live with this farce.8 -
A couple of years ago we had a Yorkshire Water guy knock on the door and tell us that there would be an interruption in supply for a maximum of two hours and to fill a kettle etc. About an hour later he knocked again and said it’s going to be likely 3 - 4 hours. Two minutes later a lorry delivered ten bottles of water to every house in the road. The supply was out for less than the two hours first mentioned0
-
Sponsored links:
-
I don't like being called a bully and I try always to be polite and never to be aggressive to any other poster, so decided to look back through the exchanges and my attempts to get Chippy to answer my question. My conclusion is that he has never actually answered the question.
This is the post that started the exchanges, I won't use the OP's name as it's not relevant:
14/08/2026
I believe climate change is real but one of the main causes for me is an ever increasing world population.
I have posted this before and some on here try and say it's not a major factor. I disagree
1960. 3 billion
1970. 3 7 billion
1980. 4.45 billion
1990. 5.3 billion
2000. 6.1 billion
2010. 7.2 billion
2020. 8.3 billion.
The problem on here is if you have a different opinion as to the causes of climate change to some of you , you get heavy criticism.
A few days ago someone who posts regularly on here labeled people blaming a rise in the population as neo fascists.
Well i suppose I must be one then because I firmly believe the more the world's population increases the greater our need for ever more water, food, energy and everything else.This is the reply that @Chippycafc gave to the original poster:
Great post mate.
Its been the same for years mate as you know. Its now the same little troupe on a few threads. Some must have brains like medicine balls such is their great depth of so called knowledge (ie google).
Dare anyone see things in a different way particularly based on their own life experience out come the usual insults as demonstrated on this page alone.My first question:
As you agree with X's claim that climate change is real and that the big increase in population is to blame, What is it that you think humans are doing that causes climate change?
This is Chippy's reply
Think its fairly obvious. The more people there are the more our natural resources are going to be consumed. The movement of those over populated areas and the fact that some nations dont understand birth control is further added to that. As we are havng to provide food, energy to our over populated planet then obviously areas have to made free to house wll thesepeole.
But what would help is those who want everyone else to do something and not them. As demonstrated on the previous pages...My reply:
I absolutely agree that more humans will use more of the earth's resources. The date in the year when humans use more resources than the earth can provide, gets earlier each year.
Your reply doesn't make it obvious as to how that changes the climate. Which of those resources that humans are using, causes the climate change that you agreed with X is real?Chippy said:
I agreed with the numbers. And I answered it. Thanks but I will choose what whom and when I respond. As others do.
There were several more exchanges in which I asked the question, which of those resources that humans are using, causes the climate change that you agreed with X is real? I have never received an answer.
Of course Chippy is free to choose whether to answer or not, but bearing in mind this is an important thread on the biggest threat we all face, an answer would be appreciated.
I can only surmise, that despite saying the original post was 'great' Chippy didn't really mean that. He may have agreed with the numbers, which he did confirm, but gave no other answer.
4 -
The privatisation of water has been a disaster and now extreme weather is showing up the deficiencies of the water companies even more.
They are unable to keep up to date with demand, but the hot dry weather itself is exacerbating the situation. As water is sucked out of the ground and is not being replenished, ground moves and puts pressure on pipes causing them to burst. That probably accounts for some of the numerous water leaks we are seeing, especially when those pipes are old and need replacing.4 -
I won't quote you post ME14addick as it's a long post.
But in fairness to chippy he did answer your question.
He said an increase in population means we need to use more of the earth's natural resources.
He never went into great detail, but he didn't need to.
More and more of the Rain forest for instance is being lost year on year to give farmers extra room to farm cattle.
More people means an ever increasing need for food, water, power ,housing, infrastructure and everything else.6 -
The problem is not that we overpopulate the planet, rather that we hang around too long.
What's my source..?
Joseph, my dentist.
" there's nothing wrong with your brushing. It's just that your gums have evolved to last about 40 years. You're 25 years overtime"
I'm working on it1 -
The fact that with an ever growing population, we use more resources isn't in doubt, that's obvious, but what is it that humans are doing that causes climate change? Perhaps I should have said 'which' of the resources that we are using is/are causing climate change.blackpool72 said:I won't quote you post ME14addick as it's a long post.
But in fairness to chippy he did answer your question.
He said an increase in population means we need to use more of the earth's natural resources.
He never went into great detail, but he didn't need to.
More and more of the Rain forest for instance is being lost year on year to give farmers extra room to farm cattle.
More people means an ever increasing need for food, water, power ,housing, infrastructure and everything else.0 -
Tbh I would give up, its quite clear chippy is just on a wind up and no evidence will convince him that thinking climate change is real makes you a soft lefty and he is a bit of hard man because he doesnt careME14addick said:I don't like being called a bully and I try always to be polite and never to be aggressive to any other poster, so decided to look back through the exchanges and my attempts to get Chippy to answer my question. My conclusion is that he has never actually answered the question.
This is the post that started the exchanges, I won't use the OP's name as it's not relevant:
14/08/2026
I believe climate change is real but one of the main causes for me is an ever increasing world population.
I have posted this before and some on here try and say it's not a major factor. I disagree
1960. 3 billion
1970. 3 7 billion
1980. 4.45 billion
1990. 5.3 billion
2000. 6.1 billion
2010. 7.2 billion
2020. 8.3 billion.
The problem on here is if you have a different opinion as to the causes of climate change to some of you , you get heavy criticism.
A few days ago someone who posts regularly on here labeled people blaming a rise in the population as neo fascists.
Well i suppose I must be one then because I firmly believe the more the world's population increases the greater our need for ever more water, food, energy and everything else.This is the reply that @Chippycafc gave to the original poster:
Great post mate.
Its been the same for years mate as you know. Its now the same little troupe on a few threads. Some must have brains like medicine balls such is their great depth of so called knowledge (ie google).
Dare anyone see things in a different way particularly based on their own life experience out come the usual insults as demonstrated on this page alone.My first question:
As you agree with X's claim that climate change is real and that the big increase in population is to blame, What is it that you think humans are doing that causes climate change?
This is Chippy's reply
Think its fairly obvious. The more people there are the more our natural resources are going to be consumed. The movement of those over populated areas and the fact that some nations dont understand birth control is further added to that. As we are havng to provide food, energy to our over populated planet then obviously areas have to made free to house wll thesepeole.
But what would help is those who want everyone else to do something and not them. As demonstrated on the previous pages...My reply:
I absolutely agree that more humans will use more of the earth's resources. The date in the year when humans use more resources than the earth can provide, gets earlier each year.
Your reply doesn't make it obvious as to how that changes the climate. Which of those resources that humans are using, causes the climate change that you agreed with X is real?Chippy said:
I agreed with the numbers. And I answered it. Thanks but I will choose what whom and when I respond. As others do.
There were several more exchanges in which I asked the question, which of those resources that humans are using, causes the climate change that you agreed with X is real? I have never received an answer.
Of course Chippy is free to choose whether to answer or not, but bearing in mind this is an important thread on the biggest threat we all face, an answer would be appreciated.
I can only surmise, that despite saying the original post was 'great' Chippy didn't really mean that. He may have agreed with the numbers, which he did confirm, but gave no other answer.
6 -
Nah see thats dissapointing, I expected better. Try again make it a bit more biting.TD_Addick said:
What are you even talking about “cosplay behind a keyboard” “fold faster than an ironing board” like a failed rapper/Scientist who has lost his mind.Radostanradical said:
So we’ve got Mr. “Hardman” over here puffing his chest out with “Whose we and when were you put in charge”. Mate, you sound like a drunk uncle at Christmas who just discovered the caps lock key. “Whose we”? That’s the big power move? Grammar just tapped out and left the building.Chippycafc said:ME14addick said:
We still don't know what it is you think that humans do, that causes climate change. It's quite a simple question.Chippycafc said:
If your that concerned about the environment you could have walked or got an eco bus from where you live. But you didnt as its all fake.cantersaddick said:In case ol' Chipolata is wondering I have taken the train to the valley today as I always do, even though it would have been much quicker and cheaper to drive.
We know that you believe that the increase in the population is the cause, because you agreed with another poster on that, so you must have a reason for believing . We would really like to know.
Whose we and when were you put in charge a very arrogant stance if I must say so. I have answered you 4 times now.
Wonder how many of you tree huggers bothered turning up at the valley yesterday. Clearly some didn't bother to keep their carbon foot print down.
Dont worry we will keep the club going for you.
Then you try to flex with “I have answered you 4 times now.” Congrats, you can count to four. I am actually suprised by that revelation. You’re acting like you’ve been interrogated by the FBI when in reality you’re just recycling the same weak lines in a forum thread.
And oh boy, here comes the killer insult: “tree huggers.” Wow. Cutting edge stuff. Did you dig that out of a 1993 talk radio rant? You’re trying to sound like some rugged outlaw, but let’s be real, if you had to say this face‑to‑face, you’d be sweating through your shirt and praying nobody calls your bluff. Online you’re a lion, in person you’d fold faster than an ironing board.
Finally, the cherry on top: “Don’t worry we will keep the club going for you.” Translation: “Please notice me, I’m desperate to feel important.” You’re not the savior of the valley, mate, you’re just another guy cosplaying behind a keyboard.
Call me a lefty or something pal. Just put a bit more into it.2 -
It's that I don't like being called a bully for politely asking a question.Radostanradical said:
Tbh I would give up, its quite clear chippy is just on a wind up and no evidence will convince him that thinking climate change is real makes you a soft lefty and he is a bit of hard man because he doesnt careME14addick said:I don't like being called a bully and I try always to be polite and never to be aggressive to any other poster, so decided to look back through the exchanges and my attempts to get Chippy to answer my question. My conclusion is that he has never actually answered the question.
This is the post that started the exchanges, I won't use the OP's name as it's not relevant:
14/08/2026
I believe climate change is real but one of the main causes for me is an ever increasing world population.
I have posted this before and some on here try and say it's not a major factor. I disagree
1960. 3 billion
1970. 3 7 billion
1980. 4.45 billion
1990. 5.3 billion
2000. 6.1 billion
2010. 7.2 billion
2020. 8.3 billion.
The problem on here is if you have a different opinion as to the causes of climate change to some of you , you get heavy criticism.
A few days ago someone who posts regularly on here labeled people blaming a rise in the population as neo fascists.
Well i suppose I must be one then because I firmly believe the more the world's population increases the greater our need for ever more water, food, energy and everything else.This is the reply that @Chippycafc gave to the original poster:
Great post mate.
Its been the same for years mate as you know. Its now the same little troupe on a few threads. Some must have brains like medicine balls such is their great depth of so called knowledge (ie google).
Dare anyone see things in a different way particularly based on their own life experience out come the usual insults as demonstrated on this page alone.My first question:
As you agree with X's claim that climate change is real and that the big increase in population is to blame, What is it that you think humans are doing that causes climate change?
This is Chippy's reply
Think its fairly obvious. The more people there are the more our natural resources are going to be consumed. The movement of those over populated areas and the fact that some nations dont understand birth control is further added to that. As we are havng to provide food, energy to our over populated planet then obviously areas have to made free to house wll thesepeole.
But what would help is those who want everyone else to do something and not them. As demonstrated on the previous pages...My reply:
I absolutely agree that more humans will use more of the earth's resources. The date in the year when humans use more resources than the earth can provide, gets earlier each year.
Your reply doesn't make it obvious as to how that changes the climate. Which of those resources that humans are using, causes the climate change that you agreed with X is real?Chippy said:
I agreed with the numbers. And I answered it. Thanks but I will choose what whom and when I respond. As others do.
There were several more exchanges in which I asked the question, which of those resources that humans are using, causes the climate change that you agreed with X is real? I have never received an answer.
Of course Chippy is free to choose whether to answer or not, but bearing in mind this is an important thread on the biggest threat we all face, an answer would be appreciated.
I can only surmise, that despite saying the original post was 'great' Chippy didn't really mean that. He may have agreed with the numbers, which he did confirm, but gave no other answer.
My conclusion is that Chippy doesn't believe that climate change is due to the actions of humans or he wouldn't have had such difficulty in answering.4 -
I take my shower outside now - keeps me and the garden spruced up.
3 -
There is no single clinical diagnosis called "know-it-all," but psychology uses several concepts to describe this behavior. The Dunning-Kruger effect explains why low-skilled people feel overly confident, while traits like intellectual arrogance, dogmatism, or an illusion of information adequacy describe the urge to correct others.Radostanradical said:
Nah see thats dissapointing, I expected better. Try again make it a bit more biting.TD_Addick said:
What are you even talking about “cosplay behind a keyboard” “fold faster than an ironing board” like a failed rapper/Scientist who has lost his mind.Radostanradical said:
So we’ve got Mr. “Hardman” over here puffing his chest out with “Whose we and when were you put in charge”. Mate, you sound like a drunk uncle at Christmas who just discovered the caps lock key. “Whose we”? That’s the big power move? Grammar just tapped out and left the building.Chippycafc said:ME14addick said:
We still don't know what it is you think that humans do, that causes climate change. It's quite a simple question.Chippycafc said:
If your that concerned about the environment you could have walked or got an eco bus from where you live. But you didnt as its all fake.cantersaddick said:In case ol' Chipolata is wondering I have taken the train to the valley today as I always do, even though it would have been much quicker and cheaper to drive.
We know that you believe that the increase in the population is the cause, because you agreed with another poster on that, so you must have a reason for believing . We would really like to know.
Whose we and when were you put in charge a very arrogant stance if I must say so. I have answered you 4 times now.
Wonder how many of you tree huggers bothered turning up at the valley yesterday. Clearly some didn't bother to keep their carbon foot print down.
Dont worry we will keep the club going for you.
Then you try to flex with “I have answered you 4 times now.” Congrats, you can count to four. I am actually suprised by that revelation. You’re acting like you’ve been interrogated by the FBI when in reality you’re just recycling the same weak lines in a forum thread.
And oh boy, here comes the killer insult: “tree huggers.” Wow. Cutting edge stuff. Did you dig that out of a 1993 talk radio rant? You’re trying to sound like some rugged outlaw, but let’s be real, if you had to say this face‑to‑face, you’d be sweating through your shirt and praying nobody calls your bluff. Online you’re a lion, in person you’d fold faster than an ironing board.
Finally, the cherry on top: “Don’t worry we will keep the club going for you.” Translation: “Please notice me, I’m desperate to feel important.” You’re not the savior of the valley, mate, you’re just another guy cosplaying behind a keyboard.
Call me a lefty or something pal. Just put a bit more into it.
0 -
Sponsored links:
-
I seeRadostanradical said:
Nah see thats dissapointing, I expected better. Try again make it a bit more biting.TD_Addick said:
What are you even talking about “cosplay behind a keyboard” “fold faster than an ironing board” like a failed rapper/Scientist who has lost his mind.Radostanradical said:
So we’ve got Mr. “Hardman” over here puffing his chest out with “Whose we and when were you put in charge”. Mate, you sound like a drunk uncle at Christmas who just discovered the caps lock key. “Whose we”? That’s the big power move? Grammar just tapped out and left the building.Chippycafc said:ME14addick said:
We still don't know what it is you think that humans do, that causes climate change. It's quite a simple question.Chippycafc said:
If your that concerned about the environment you could have walked or got an eco bus from where you live. But you didnt as its all fake.cantersaddick said:In case ol' Chipolata is wondering I have taken the train to the valley today as I always do, even though it would have been much quicker and cheaper to drive.
We know that you believe that the increase in the population is the cause, because you agreed with another poster on that, so you must have a reason for believing . We would really like to know.
Whose we and when were you put in charge a very arrogant stance if I must say so. I have answered you 4 times now.
Wonder how many of you tree huggers bothered turning up at the valley yesterday. Clearly some didn't bother to keep their carbon foot print down.
Dont worry we will keep the club going for you.
Then you try to flex with “I have answered you 4 times now.” Congrats, you can count to four. I am actually suprised by that revelation. You’re acting like you’ve been interrogated by the FBI when in reality you’re just recycling the same weak lines in a forum thread.
And oh boy, here comes the killer insult: “tree huggers.” Wow. Cutting edge stuff. Did you dig that out of a 1993 talk radio rant? You’re trying to sound like some rugged outlaw, but let’s be real, if you had to say this face‑to‑face, you’d be sweating through your shirt and praying nobody calls your bluff. Online you’re a lion, in person you’d fold faster than an ironing board.
Finally, the cherry on top: “Don’t worry we will keep the club going for you.” Translation: “Please notice me, I’m desperate to feel important.” You’re not the savior of the valley, mate, you’re just another guy cosplaying behind a keyboard.
Call me a lefty or something pal. Just put a bit more into it.
1 -
ME14addick said:
It's that I don't like being called a bully for politely asking a question.Radostanradical said:
Tbh I would give up, its quite clear chippy is just on a wind up and no evidence will convince him that thinking climate change is real makes you a soft lefty and he is a bit of hard man because he doesnt careME14addick said:I don't like being called a bully and I try always to be polite and never to be aggressive to any other poster, so decided to look back through the exchanges and my attempts to get Chippy to answer my question. My conclusion is that he has never actually answered the question.
This is the post that started the exchanges, I won't use the OP's name as it's not relevant:
14/08/2026
I believe climate change is real but one of the main causes for me is an ever increasing world population.
I have posted this before and some on here try and say it's not a major factor. I disagree
1960. 3 billion
1970. 3 7 billion
1980. 4.45 billion
1990. 5.3 billion
2000. 6.1 billion
2010. 7.2 billion
2020. 8.3 billion.
The problem on here is if you have a different opinion as to the causes of climate change to some of you , you get heavy criticism.
A few days ago someone who posts regularly on here labeled people blaming a rise in the population as neo fascists.
Well i suppose I must be one then because I firmly believe the more the world's population increases the greater our need for ever more water, food, energy and everything else.This is the reply that @Chippycafc gave to the original poster:
Great post mate.
Its been the same for years mate as you know. Its now the same little troupe on a few threads. Some must have brains like medicine balls such is their great depth of so called knowledge (ie google).
Dare anyone see things in a different way particularly based on their own life experience out come the usual insults as demonstrated on this page alone.My first question:
As you agree with X's claim that climate change is real and that the big increase in population is to blame, What is it that you think humans are doing that causes climate change?
This is Chippy's reply
Think its fairly obvious. The more people there are the more our natural resources are going to be consumed. The movement of those over populated areas and the fact that some nations dont understand birth control is further added to that. As we are havng to provide food, energy to our over populated planet then obviously areas have to made free to house wll thesepeole.
But what would help is those who want everyone else to do something and not them. As demonstrated on the previous pages...My reply:
I absolutely agree that more humans will use more of the earth's resources. The date in the year when humans use more resources than the earth can provide, gets earlier each year.
Your reply doesn't make it obvious as to how that changes the climate. Which of those resources that humans are using, causes the climate change that you agreed with X is real?Chippy said:
I agreed with the numbers. And I answered it. Thanks but I will choose what whom and when I respond. As others do.
There were several more exchanges in which I asked the question, which of those resources that humans are using, causes the climate change that you agreed with X is real? I have never received an answer.
Of course Chippy is free to choose whether to answer or not, but bearing in mind this is an important thread on the biggest threat we all face, an answer would be appreciated.
I can only surmise, that despite saying the original post was 'great' Chippy didn't really mean that. He may have agreed with the numbers, which he did confirm, but gave no other answer.
My conclusion is that Chippy doesn't believe that climate change is due to the actions of humans or he wouldn't have had such difficulty in answering.Let it go.Edit: This is not a chastisement, just friendly advice - it is just not worth it.3 -
I’m in there somewhereusetobunkin said:
There is no single clinical diagnosis called "know-it-all," but psychology uses several concepts to describe this behavior. The Dunning-Kruger effect explains why low-skilled people feel overly confident, while traits like intellectual arrogance, dogmatism, or an illusion of information adequacy describe the urge to correct others.Radostanradical said:
Nah see thats dissapointing, I expected better. Try again make it a bit more biting.TD_Addick said:
What are you even talking about “cosplay behind a keyboard” “fold faster than an ironing board” like a failed rapper/Scientist who has lost his mind.Radostanradical said:
So we’ve got Mr. “Hardman” over here puffing his chest out with “Whose we and when were you put in charge”. Mate, you sound like a drunk uncle at Christmas who just discovered the caps lock key. “Whose we”? That’s the big power move? Grammar just tapped out and left the building.Chippycafc said:ME14addick said:
We still don't know what it is you think that humans do, that causes climate change. It's quite a simple question.Chippycafc said:
If your that concerned about the environment you could have walked or got an eco bus from where you live. But you didnt as its all fake.cantersaddick said:In case ol' Chipolata is wondering I have taken the train to the valley today as I always do, even though it would have been much quicker and cheaper to drive.
We know that you believe that the increase in the population is the cause, because you agreed with another poster on that, so you must have a reason for believing . We would really like to know.
Whose we and when were you put in charge a very arrogant stance if I must say so. I have answered you 4 times now.
Wonder how many of you tree huggers bothered turning up at the valley yesterday. Clearly some didn't bother to keep their carbon foot print down.
Dont worry we will keep the club going for you.
Then you try to flex with “I have answered you 4 times now.” Congrats, you can count to four. I am actually suprised by that revelation. You’re acting like you’ve been interrogated by the FBI when in reality you’re just recycling the same weak lines in a forum thread.
And oh boy, here comes the killer insult: “tree huggers.” Wow. Cutting edge stuff. Did you dig that out of a 1993 talk radio rant? You’re trying to sound like some rugged outlaw, but let’s be real, if you had to say this face‑to‑face, you’d be sweating through your shirt and praying nobody calls your bluff. Online you’re a lion, in person you’d fold faster than an ironing board.
Finally, the cherry on top: “Don’t worry we will keep the club going for you.” Translation: “Please notice me, I’m desperate to feel important.” You’re not the savior of the valley, mate, you’re just another guy cosplaying behind a keyboard.
Call me a lefty or something pal. Just put a bit more into it.2 -
Advice taken!bobmunro said:ME14addick said:
It's that I don't like being called a bully for politely asking a question.Radostanradical said:
Tbh I would give up, its quite clear chippy is just on a wind up and no evidence will convince him that thinking climate change is real makes you a soft lefty and he is a bit of hard man because he doesnt careME14addick said:I don't like being called a bully and I try always to be polite and never to be aggressive to any other poster, so decided to look back through the exchanges and my attempts to get Chippy to answer my question. My conclusion is that he has never actually answered the question.
This is the post that started the exchanges, I won't use the OP's name as it's not relevant:
14/08/2026
I believe climate change is real but one of the main causes for me is an ever increasing world population.
I have posted this before and some on here try and say it's not a major factor. I disagree
1960. 3 billion
1970. 3 7 billion
1980. 4.45 billion
1990. 5.3 billion
2000. 6.1 billion
2010. 7.2 billion
2020. 8.3 billion.
The problem on here is if you have a different opinion as to the causes of climate change to some of you , you get heavy criticism.
A few days ago someone who posts regularly on here labeled people blaming a rise in the population as neo fascists.
Well i suppose I must be one then because I firmly believe the more the world's population increases the greater our need for ever more water, food, energy and everything else.This is the reply that @Chippycafc gave to the original poster:
Great post mate.
Its been the same for years mate as you know. Its now the same little troupe on a few threads. Some must have brains like medicine balls such is their great depth of so called knowledge (ie google).
Dare anyone see things in a different way particularly based on their own life experience out come the usual insults as demonstrated on this page alone.My first question:
As you agree with X's claim that climate change is real and that the big increase in population is to blame, What is it that you think humans are doing that causes climate change?
This is Chippy's reply
Think its fairly obvious. The more people there are the more our natural resources are going to be consumed. The movement of those over populated areas and the fact that some nations dont understand birth control is further added to that. As we are havng to provide food, energy to our over populated planet then obviously areas have to made free to house wll thesepeole.
But what would help is those who want everyone else to do something and not them. As demonstrated on the previous pages...My reply:
I absolutely agree that more humans will use more of the earth's resources. The date in the year when humans use more resources than the earth can provide, gets earlier each year.
Your reply doesn't make it obvious as to how that changes the climate. Which of those resources that humans are using, causes the climate change that you agreed with X is real?Chippy said:
I agreed with the numbers. And I answered it. Thanks but I will choose what whom and when I respond. As others do.
There were several more exchanges in which I asked the question, which of those resources that humans are using, causes the climate change that you agreed with X is real? I have never received an answer.
Of course Chippy is free to choose whether to answer or not, but bearing in mind this is an important thread on the biggest threat we all face, an answer would be appreciated.
I can only surmise, that despite saying the original post was 'great' Chippy didn't really mean that. He may have agreed with the numbers, which he did confirm, but gave no other answer.
My conclusion is that Chippy doesn't believe that climate change is due to the actions of humans or he wouldn't have had such difficulty in answering.Let it go.Edit: This is not a chastisement, just friendly advice - it is just not worth it.2 -
Hallelujah3
-
Almost all of them.ME14addick said:
The fact that with an ever growing population, we use more resources isn't in doubt, that's obvious, but what is it that humans are doing that causes climate change? Perhaps I should have said 'which' of the resources that we are using is/are causing climate change.blackpool72 said:I won't quote you post ME14addick as it's a long post.
But in fairness to chippy he did answer your question.
He said an increase in population means we need to use more of the earth's natural resources.
He never went into great detail, but he didn't need to.
More and more of the Rain forest for instance is being lost year on year to give farmers extra room to farm cattle.
More people means an ever increasing need for food, water, power ,housing, infrastructure and everything else.0 -
The main cause of climate change is greenhouse gases, anything else is minimal. Greenhouse gases emitted by burning of fossil fuels being the main driver.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Almost all of them.ME14addick said:
The fact that with an ever growing population, we use more resources isn't in doubt, that's obvious, but what is it that humans are doing that causes climate change? Perhaps I should have said 'which' of the resources that we are using is/are causing climate change.blackpool72 said:I won't quote you post ME14addick as it's a long post.
But in fairness to chippy he did answer your question.
He said an increase in population means we need to use more of the earth's natural resources.
He never went into great detail, but he didn't need to.
More and more of the Rain forest for instance is being lost year on year to give farmers extra room to farm cattle.
More people means an ever increasing need for food, water, power ,housing, infrastructure and everything else.1 -
ME14addick said:
The main cause of climate change is greenhouse gases, anything else is minimal. Greenhouse gases emitted by burning of fossil fuels being the main driver.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Almost all of them.ME14addick said:
The fact that with an ever growing population, we use more resources isn't in doubt, that's obvious, but what is it that humans are doing that causes climate change? Perhaps I should have said 'which' of the resources that we are using is/are causing climate change.blackpool72 said:I won't quote you post ME14addick as it's a long post.
But in fairness to chippy he did answer your question.
He said an increase in population means we need to use more of the earth's natural resources.
He never went into great detail, but he didn't need to.
More and more of the Rain forest for instance is being lost year on year to give farmers extra room to farm cattle.
More people means an ever increasing need for food, water, power ,housing, infrastructure and everything else.You state it as fact - there are very few absolute truths. It is true that 97% of published climate scientists conclude that global warming to the extent we are seeing is man made - with 70% being due to fossil fuels emissions and 30% non-fossil fuel emissions (agriculture, rain forest/vegetation decline). The 3% dissenters claim cyclical climate changes are the primary cause and that the earth is not as sensitive to increasing CO2 levels than most believe. I'm with the 97%!As blackpool stated, the global population growth from 1 billion in 1800 to 8 billion now (and expected to rise to 10 bill before leveling off/small decline) is the main driver in the extraction and burning of fossil fuels and agriculture growth. Who knows, if the world's population had maybe just doubled from 1800 instead of eight-fold the amount of fossil fuels needed would be significantly less and perhaps wouldn't have lead to CO2 being out of kilter.However, even the 3% dissenters agree that the earth is warming at unprecedented levels i.e. none (apart from maybe the odd nut job) is a global warming denier.2 -
Last para ✅ but I'd love to know how many think the solutions proposed and already implemented will bring it under our control now.bobmunro said:ME14addick said:
The main cause of climate change is greenhouse gases, anything else is minimal. Greenhouse gases emitted by burning of fossil fuels being the main driver.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Almost all of them.ME14addick said:
The fact that with an ever growing population, we use more resources isn't in doubt, that's obvious, but what is it that humans are doing that causes climate change? Perhaps I should have said 'which' of the resources that we are using is/are causing climate change.blackpool72 said:I won't quote you post ME14addick as it's a long post.
But in fairness to chippy he did answer your question.
He said an increase in population means we need to use more of the earth's natural resources.
He never went into great detail, but he didn't need to.
More and more of the Rain forest for instance is being lost year on year to give farmers extra room to farm cattle.
More people means an ever increasing need for food, water, power ,housing, infrastructure and everything else.You state it as fact - there are very few absolute truths. It is true that 97% of published climate scientists conclude that global warming to the extent we are seeing is man made - with 70% being due to fossil fuels emissions and 30% non-fossil fuel emissions (agriculture, rain forest/vegetation decline). The 3% dissenters claim cyclical climate changes are the primary cause and that the earth is not as sensitive to increasing CO2 levels than most believe. I'm with the 97%!As blackpool stated, the global population growth from 1 billion in 1800 to 8 billion now (and expected to rise to 10 bill before leveling off/small decline) is the main driver in the extraction and burning of fossil fuels and agriculture growth. Who knows, if the world's population had maybe just doubled from 1800 instead of eight-fold the amount of fossil fuels needed would be significantly less and perhaps wouldn't have lead to CO2 being out of kilter.However, even the 3% dissenters agree that the earth is warming at unprecedented levels i.e. none (apart from maybe the odd nut job) is a global warming denier.0 -
Sadly there are many other contributing factors too, we do far more damage to our planet than just burning fossil fuels and we don’t seem too interested in stopping either.ME14addick said:
The main cause of climate change is greenhouse gases, anything else is minimal. Greenhouse gases emitted by burning of fossil fuels being the main driver.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Almost all of them.ME14addick said:
The fact that with an ever growing population, we use more resources isn't in doubt, that's obvious, but what is it that humans are doing that causes climate change? Perhaps I should have said 'which' of the resources that we are using is/are causing climate change.blackpool72 said:I won't quote you post ME14addick as it's a long post.
But in fairness to chippy he did answer your question.
He said an increase in population means we need to use more of the earth's natural resources.
He never went into great detail, but he didn't need to.
More and more of the Rain forest for instance is being lost year on year to give farmers extra room to farm cattle.
More people means an ever increasing need for food, water, power ,housing, infrastructure and everything else.3
