Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change
Comments
-
M.T. Cranium wrote: »Okay, I'll bite on this one.
...
But as to what "that might look like," I think the Bible already holds the answer, between them is a great gulf fixed etc. Just part of life that people go in different directions according to their conscience and intellect. As you can see with myself and Oneiric3 though, it is possible for educated and thoughtful people to hold rather different views of some things yet not let that become a big point of contention. This is rather what I was used to in my youth (once I shook off the hometown for a larger city and university etc) and whatever you might have heard about the "60s and early 70s" era, there was a different standard of mutual tolerance of viewpoints from left and right than there is nowadays and I rather miss that. There were a few scrappy ideologues around too, but you could have a long discussion with somebody of entirely incompatible views without it getting very personal or nasty back then. Of course, no social media, so you had to do it in person. Perhaps that's the reason for the difference.
Too much of the 'I'm a victim' tone tbh.
Calling people over on Netweather 'High Priests of Global Warming' is what you call mutual tolerance? OK, to be fair you say you could tone it down a bit - and with reference to your last few sentence I think we all could, and in public would...
I certainly don't see the UK as adopting a 'voluntary form of communism'. If that's your perspective it's one few will recognise.0 -
End of the world according to RTE news 100 seconds left...:rolleyes:
0 -
-
I live in a high density apartment development sharing with 2 other people and dont run a car, you're heating a 100 year old house in a rural area and driving around in a diesel car like I assume you've been doing all your life. A solar panel isnt going to put a dent in that, how can you possibly claim you're doing better than me, why did you even mention my name in the first place? What point are you trying to make?
Edit to conform to various warnings issued which I missed.
The house I own is 100 years old, which, afaik has had four different families in it, mine the latest. . Excellent useage and repurposing. Following the best advice offered by the GReens
We were all told to buy diesel as the best option. Can't afford an EV so I did what I was asked to do. As Eamon Ryan says when he's driving his 2.5ltr family wagon (I'm a sinner) so shoot me. I don't use biodiesel like he does because that kills bees.
Solar panels chip away at my carbon footprint. Cycling everywhere locally (you left that out) means I don't have to "drive around in a diesel car" very much. If I can manage the wind turbine, I'll have reduced my energy carbon footprint to almost nothing. I have a wood burning stove with a back boiler which heats the house. I grow a good deal of my own food and buy local. HAve you got a balcony? Maybe grow something on that. If not, big pots indoors work well for all sorts of veg.
The point I'm making is obvious.
From your response, there appears to be nothing I can do to make you happy except agree with you and this is perhaps the most revealing response of all in this thread.
Btw, they don't have very many "high density" apartment blocks where I live. Never get planning permission and they would look awful against an upland, rural background.
Back to lurking.0 -
Repeating everything you already said doesn't change the fact that someone who drives a diesel car everywhere (I don't believe for a second you do your "local" shopping on the bike or grow anything more than a tiny fraction of the food you consume) like they've probably done for decades and lives in one off housing in the middle of nowhere can come into a thread, randomly pick my name out and claim they're better than someone like me who has never run a car apart in their life apart from the few weeks it took to get a driving license, for what purpose I still don't have a clue, I certainly didn't make any claims like that, another one having imaginary arguments in their head.Edit to conform to various warnings issued which I missed.
The house I own is 100 years old, which, afaik has had four different families in it, mine the latest. . Excellent useage and repurposing. Following the best advice offered by the GReens
We were all told to buy diesel as the best option. Can't afford an EV so I did what I was asked to do. As Eamon Ryan says when he's driving his 2.5ltr family wagon (I'm a sinner) so shoot me. I don't use biodiesel like he does because that kills bees.
Solar panels chip away at my carbon footprint. Cycling everywhere locally (you left that out) means I don't have to "drive around in a diesel car" very much. If I can manage the wind turbine, I'll have reduced my energy carbon footprint to almost nothing. I have a wood burning stove with a back boiler which heats the house. I grow a good deal of my own food and buy local. HAve you got a balcony? Maybe grow something on that. If not, big pots indoors work well for all sorts of veg.
The point I'm making is obvious.
From your response, there appears to be nothing I can do to make you happy except agree with you and this is perhaps the most revealing response of all in this thread.
Btw, they don't have very many "high density" apartment blocks where I live. Never get planning permission and they would look awful against an upland, rural background.
Back to lurking.0 -
Advertisement
-
Hooter23 wrote:End of the world according to RTE news 100 seconds left...
Yes, this is exactly the meaning of the doomsday clock, strangely enough, the end of the world looks exactly the same as it was!0 -
Id say even if they had that Doomsday clock hundreds of years ago it would still have been where it is now :rolleyes:0
-
-
What was the name of this “blacklisting agency” that your ex colleague worked for?M.T. Cranium wrote: »I don't really see any comparison between my position and that of the anti-vaxxers since I have actually taken up a position perhaps more extreme than the IPCC in saying that even if the political action they propose were to succeed, the outcome might still be problematic. I am not urging a lack of response. Perhaps some other kinds of skeptics could fairly be compared to anti-vaxxers, perhaps not, but I am not really trying to argue their different forms of skepticism.
Also, just repeating the opinion (and that's all it could possibly be) that I was not black-listed (here in my own country, not in some other country or recently) does not turn it into truth. You could post it every day or every hour but each time it amounts to an ill-informed opinion that I know is untrue. I was blacklisted in quite specific terms. A colleague who worked within the blacklisting agency reported to me that he heard a conversation in which it was specifically stated that I was blacklisted. The specific words were profanity-laced and involved an edict that I would never work in the field and that anyone interfering in that decision could expect the same outcome for themselves.
In any case, there is nothing to be gained from debating this. But one gets the sense that if a person could just blandly form an opinion about one thing without any evidence to rely upon, that might be a pattern in their thought processes.
If we were in court arguing this, I know that is exactly how legal counsel would proceed (because I have been there and had this point debated by lawyers with the judge looking on in disbelief since it is difficult for people who are raised up to high positions in a country with such a high opinion of itself to hear such unexpected reports about the reality behind the scenes within that same self-congratulatory society).
As to libertarian philosophy being selfish, there is a danger of that in a more extreme version than I hold, but when I say libertarian, I mean that more in the tradition of civil libertarian which is actually a leftist point of view also, and from my perspective, necessary as a balance against groupthink and dangerous conformity to unquestioned value systems. If we approach all questions as being both worthy of debate and capable of being debated, we remain healthy and free. I don't presume to know who will win any given open debate, but I know whenever powerful forces try to stifle debate, they are doing so to protect entrenched interests and not in the real interests of the society around them.
Regarding being a civil libertarian, I am a civil libertarian too.
I think individual rights for self expression and freedom of speech should be absolutely protected.
And when it comes to climate change mitigation, I think there should be more regulations but they should be primarily focused on changing the behavior of producers rather than targeting consumers. All of this waffle on thread about what car each person drives or how much vegetables each person grows is a waste of time if producers aren’t cutting out the CO2 emissions at their source0 -
Akrasia wrote:And when it comes to climate change mitigation, I think there should be more regulations but they should be primarily focused on changing the behavior of producers rather than targeting consumers. All of this waffle on thread about what car each person drives or how much vegetables each person grows is a waste of time if producers aren’t cutting out the CO2 emissions at their source
Libertarianism is completely unable to understand the complexities of our entire production systems, ultimately focusing on the individual as the prime, and in some cases, the only part of our environmental issues, it's why I believe approaches such as 'the polluter pays', is currently failing.0 -
Advertisement
-
George scare em all Lee is on RTÉ now talking about Climate Change, one of the first words he said was 'Catastrophe'0
-
George scare em all Lee is on RTÉ now talking about Climate Change, one of the first words he said was 'Catastrophe'
Talking about powerful storms when we had more severe one's in 1980s and 90s.
Failed economist, failed politician..and who told him he was a meteorologist/climate expert.0 -
Call the polar bears... we are back in business.
0 -
When I said "blacklisting agency" I meant the agency that did the blacklisting, not some stand-alone enterprise that goes around blacklisting people like a reverse employment agency.
Anyway, it's all 35-40 years in the past now, obviously I am talking about the Canadian met service. There's probably nobody there now with any memory of it or references within their resource base, because much that was done around 1980 was done on paper or over the telephone, or in person in the workplace.
The more or less exact quote was "there's no way that person of illegitimate birth and offspring of a female dog will work here, if he does, it will be over our dead bodies," and when that's a three-person conversation including the two people most likely to hire on a climatologist talking to my one friend in the building, well Sparky, you do the math since you're evidently quite an intellectual prodigy of some kind.
Next you'll be claiming that AS made up the gulag.
This is my last interaction with the p.c. thought police who took it upon themselves to come in and mind us. I will gladly communicate further with anyone else who actually wants to chat human to human. But at my age, I don't need the aggravation of trying to deal with matters of conscience with those who are incapable of forming one. Strange that this pattern has repeated at both ends of my adult life. But perhaps not strange?
Oh, and as for "libertarian group think" give your head a shake, the whole point of the libertarian movement is that each person holds whatever views they wish and afford the same privilege to others. You obviously haven't been anywhere near a conservative discussion forum if you think everyone on the right holds one set of views. It is constant bickering of a thousand different perspectives, and a deep distrust of any kind of consensus, almost laughably so in some cases. This is why we are so easy to marginalize and push around, I would say, no ability to hold to one "line" when it counts. And it has ever been thus, the idea that Hitler was a man of the political right is a bit of a stretch, and right-wing dictatorships such as there have been usually amount to one-off cults of personality that disappear when the strongman dies or is deposed.0 -
Repeating everything you already said doesn't change the fact that someone who drives a diesel car everywhere (I don't believe for a second you do your "local" shopping on the bike or grow anything more than a tiny fraction of the food you consume) like they've probably done for decades and lives in one off housing in the middle of nowhere can come into a thread, randomly pick my name out and claim they're better than someone like me who has never run a car apart in their life apart from the few weeks it took to get a driving license, for what purpose I still don't have a clue, I certainly didn't make any claims like that, another one having imaginary arguments in their head.[/
I wanted to establish your bone fides in the area of practising what you preach since you are by far the most forthright in this debate - some might even say most aggressive. Posidonia and Akrasia answered quite calmly with only the odd barb which I took in the spirt of good humour.
"Drives a diesel car everywhere" What? What made you assume that? Only for long trips.
"Like you've probably done for decades" I started driving when I was 46 when I moved from Dublin to where I am now. 14 years to be precise. Didn't drive until then. At all. LIke never. Lived and worked in central Dublin. Cycled pretty much everywhere. Why is that so hard to believe? Many people do it. To be honest, it had nothing to do with Co2. Practicality. Why would you not believe me? That's bizarre, to be honest.
"I don't believe for a second you do your "local" shopping on the bike or grow anything more than a tiny fraction of the food you consume."
More disbelief.
Whether you believe me or not is not my concern. I grow almost all my own veg, usually have a weak spot around now which I have to fill by buying in. I have two small polys.
"who has never run a car apart in their life apart from the few weeks it took to get a driving license"
Hmm, so you do drive.
The rest is pretty angry stuff so I won't deal with it.
I edited the last post because I assumed mods wanted debate back on course and to remove some of the heat. I regret that now. It had some growling in it and even a minor insult.
Won't be replying again.0 -
Geez that Claire Byrne live was some awful guff.
No surprise that the only party that is saying no further increases in carbon taxes is riding atop the opinion polls.
One message is clear - the working class and the squeezed middle will not bankroll the "green journey".
Thought yer man the independent was very clued in and calling the reality of it all.
Not by a long stretch am I a SF voter (I'm a floating voter) but they look like the ones with the closest thing to being reasonable.
and I'm wincing saying that.0 -
Since the topic came up I thought it would be a good idea to explain some of the context of the blacklisting that occurred between 1978 and 1982.
A good deal of context is already posted in another thread that I recently placed on the forum about weather forecasting "back in the day" when I was actually working in this field for a living.
The facts of the matter include the following:
-- My university experience was that of a graduating climatologist as defined in the academic realities of 1971. I have no idea what sort of program a climate scientist of the modern generation undergoes. My qualifications are essentially the same as any other climatologist of my age group, minus whatever in-house training might have been added on after 1982, and plus whatever unique insights I may have gained from my own research activities.
-- I was employed as a "met tech" at private companies and in both cases was allowed to participate in the forecasting programs they ran, on merit as determined by the employers. I never claimed to be a meteorologist. My academic background was only marginally different from that of a graduating meteorologist and I would argue that what I missed was trivial in terms of being able to perform the job requirements (making accurate forecasts).
-- I started some independent research into climate and weather dynamics around 1980 as a result of contacts made in those workplaces. I gained a reputation in Canada as an accurate long-range forecaster. Media outlets tested my forecasts against those made available by the government agency and the Farmers' Almanac. The media outlets in both cases judged my forecasts to be more accurate, as well as accurate vs random for the other two. This set off a chain of events where the government agency felt slighted and took it upon themselves to make my life difficult.
-- A rumour was started by a rival within Environment Canada that I was mentally ill. The context of this was that a third party, a private citizen living in a different location not very far away from my 1980 place of residence, was supplying weekly outlooks to his local daily newspaper. He stopped doing this and it was reported that he had suffered a nervous breakdown (not mental illness). The false report circulated was that I had been making these forecasts under an assumed name (his name) and that I was crazy. None of these assertions were true. I had never even heard of this person until asked by friends about the rumours which had surfaced in a newpaper article about the subject in general. When I asked for clarifications and an assurance these practices would stop, there was an evasive answer given and no action taken.
-- A meeting was arranged to discuss my forecasting advances (in 1982) and several people attended. I had the feeling during the meeting that half the people present were in on some prior agreement ("let's use this to get the guy") and the other half were not. Some of those people gave me some favourable feedback in a chat after the meeting. A few weeks later, I was informed of the "over our dead bodies" conversation by my friend within the agency (not a very senior person and not present at the previous meeting). Shortly after that, inevitably, I was informed by letter that the government was not interested in further contact.
-- It may be worth noting that the people taking a more positive approach at the meeting had no further career advancements and within five years had each transferred out of the weather bureau into some other employment.
-- It was mentioned by me earlier that my friend moved to Australia and there committed suicide around 1988. I have no idea whether the issue of my research and apparent blacklisting played any role in this and I am not claiming that it did, but surely it could not have been a helpful thing.
-- Contacts were made with my local MP (member of parliament) in the city where I lived by 1988 (not where I lived during the above). This gentleman was a member of the government caucus during one of the few brief interruptions of Liberal Party rule in Canada. The Liberal Party is closely aligned with the public service (union) and public sector workers. The Conservative Party was their main opponent then as it still is today. They had been elected in 1984 and were re-elected in 1988. The MP (Bill Domm) made numerous inquiries on my behalf, running into what he reported back to us as "a stone wall of obfuscation" and then unfortunately passed away just before the next election.
-- Try not to laugh when you read this, the next election in that riding returned as the MP a climatologist working at the local university, on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada. Obviously at that point I was "fooked" in any attempt to get justice and was running out of patience with Canada and Canadians anyway. I decided that rather than butting my head into a brick wall for another ten or twenty years, I would just build a different kind of life, in part because I had the revelation personally that I was wasting my time trying to square this circle since obviously I would never fit into the culture of the official weather establishment. In the years between 1982 and 1993, the AGW concern had risen to high levels of prominence. My earlier research had nothing to do with that and people at the time had no great interest in the topic, that all began I would say with the strong El Nino warming of 1982-83 that blew away temperature records in Dec 1982.
-- Even despite all these negatives, one group of government assessors believed that my research was worthwhile and granted me a one-time research tax credit which partially repaid my lost income and opportunities that occurred as a result of the (below board) blacklisting.
-- I have had no contacts with Environment Canada since 1993. At that time, I made one last attempt to restore some justice to the situation and arranged a meeting. This was just before Christmas of 1993. I had to drive 200 kms to attend this meeting. Nobody from the government agency showed up in the meeting room. I was later told by recorded phone message that the people who were to attend the meeting "had forgotten" -- it was clear I was to draw the conclusion that I was a non-person who had no rights and no future in the official version of Canada (this was shortly after the Liberal government was returned to power in October 1993).
-- In an unrelated matter where I came into a large and complex court action between internet bloggers and public service workers and union officials, it was evident from court testimony that a litigant was relying on a file made available to him through the public service union. This file contained defamatory material which included the earlier-mentioned false allegations of mental illness. I felt like I was in court in Moscow rather than Ottawa (the differences are actually much smaller than one might wish). There were a number of legal actions in the period from 2010 to 2014 which cost me a lot of money to attend. Although we won some parts of these trials, the judges refused to allow us to collect expenses, unlike the judgements given in the failed portions of these proceedings. The net result for myself and a number of others was the need to do substantial fundraising, refinancing or declarations of bankruptcy. This was essentially a wider replay of my blacklisting, a number of bloggers trying to reach the truth of matters going on behind closed doors where Canadian public servants were acting in some illegal or high-handed fashion against isolated individuals without any recourse to the usual safeguards of media scrutiny (none exists in our rather pathetic closed society) or legal protection (laws were passed to enable this predatory behaviour).
That's the context. It would be better to try to fight this in Canada with Canadians perhaps, and I continue to do that where possible. However, the frustration is that most people here are very "p.c." (greatest nation on earth complex, sound familiar?) and don't want to hear even a whisper of criticism of their beloved government and civil service. I've known that all along and sought to emigrate but there, if you don't qualify economically, the only recourse would be to seek political asylum. I have an aversion to doing that since I feel that as a person who chose citizenship here, I should have the same rights as native-born and preferred immigrants (those who vote Liberal). This seems to be an opinion restricted mainly to myself and a few family members. Indeed, I've had the rather upsetting experience of finding that the we-hate-Roger-Smith virus has infected people even within close range of family and former friendship circles.
Hence the Irish safety valve. I think that might make a few things a bit more clear. Do you think I am rather optimistic to expect justice by 2700 AD? What that really means, I suppose, is that I expect the second coming by 2700 AD because I can't now imagine any other prospect of obtaining justice. And at this point, what would justice look like? I could go into some hospice or old folks' home and shake my cane at some other geriatric(s) and say "see, I was right."
I don't need that. And I don't need some 20-something or 30-something jackass trying to leftsplain my life to me. Thanks for trying. Nobody succeeded yet and you won't either.0 -
M.T. Cranium wrote:-- A rumour was started by a rival within Environment Canada that I was mentally ill. The context of this was that a third party, a private citizen living in a different location not very far away from my 1980 place of residence, was supplying weekly outlooks to his local daily newspaper. He stopped doing this and it was reported that he had suffered a nervous breakdown (not mental illness). The false report circulated was that I had been making these forecasts under an assumed name (his name) and that I was crazy. None of these assertions were true. I had never even heard of this person until asked by friends about the rumours which had surfaced in a newpaper article about the subject in general. When I asked for clarifications and an assurance these practices would stop, there was an evasive answer given and no action taken.
Apologies for picking up on something non related, but what the hell is a not mental illness breakdown?0 -
-
No, I don't drive, because I've never owned a car. I don't see why you're having such difficulty with that, you and a couple of others just seem to enjoy making up these strawman arguments for whatever reason, maybe because deep down you feel bad about driving a big diesel engine all over the country judging by your post history or heating a 100 year old house in the middle of nowhere? I honestly don't know, I've always said individual action was pissing in the wind so I don't know what you get out of making these smug non-arguments.Repeating everything you already said doesn't change the fact that someone who drives a diesel car everywhere (I don't believe for a second you do your "local" shopping on the bike or grow anything more than a tiny fraction of the food you consume) like they've probably done for decades and lives in one off housing in the middle of nowhere can come into a thread, randomly pick my name out and claim they're better than someone like me who has never run a car apart in their life apart from the few weeks it took to get a driving license, for what purpose I still don't have a clue, I certainly didn't make any claims like that, another one having imaginary arguments in their head.[/
I wanted to establish your bone fides in the area of practising what you preach since you are by far the most forthright in this debate - some might even say most aggressive. Posidonia and Akrasia answered quite calmly with only the odd barb which I took in the spirt of good humour.
"Drives a diesel car everywhere" What? What made you assume that? Only for long trips.
"Like you've probably done for decades" I started driving when I was 46 when I moved from Dublin to where I am now. 14 years to be precise. Didn't drive until then. At all. LIke never. Lived and worked in central Dublin. Cycled pretty much everywhere. Why is that so hard to believe? Many people do it. To be honest, it had nothing to do with Co2. Practicality. Why would you not believe me? That's bizarre, to be honest.
"I don't believe for a second you do your "local" shopping on the bike or grow anything more than a tiny fraction of the food you consume."
More disbelief.
Whether you believe me or not is not my concern. I grow almost all my own veg, usually have a weak spot around now which I have to fill by buying in. I have two small polys.
"who has never run a car apart in their life apart from the few weeks it took to get a driving license"
Hmm, so you do drive.
The rest is pretty angry stuff so I won't deal with it.
I edited the last post because I assumed mods wanted debate back on course and to remove some of the heat. I regret that now. It had some growling in it and even a minor insult.
Won't be replying again.0 -
Advertisement
-
maybe because deep down you feel bad about driving a big diesel engine all over the country judging by your post history or heating a 100 year old house in the middle of nowhere? I honestly don't know, I've always said individual action was pissing in the wind so I don't know what you get out of making these smug non-arguments.
I'm genuinely baffled that you would attack me for doing what the entire cimate change movement wants me to do.
Where do you discern the notion (from my posting history) that "i'm driving all over the country". You made that up and have now repeated it several times. That doesn't make it true. Bit of a theme here.
"100 year old house in the middle of nowhere"
More repeated make belief. For the last time, I repurposed an old cottage which has had 3 other families living in it since it was built. It's not in the middle of nowhere. I heat it with locally sourced ash. Cheap and renewable. How does that go against the best environmental advice on housing in rural areas?
I'm beginning to think you don't know much about the practicalities of reducing carbon footprint which would be beyond ironic if true. Perhaps the following explains it......
"I've always said individual action was pissing in the wind so I don't know what you get out of making these smug non-arguments."
This is the very reason I called you out on your personal practices.
I don't agree with you that individual action is pointless. Greta Thunberg has proved that whether you agree with her or not. I think it's a deeply flawed and defeatist attitude I note Akrasia's thumbs up. Astonishing.
We have to wean ourselves off fossil fuels because they are eventually going to run out. Surely this is a good thing that I'm doing whether I agree that climate change is man made or not, but for you it's a strawman and by your response, to be treated with contempt.0 -
Oh look you're back again after your 4th goodbye. I'll try explain it to you again but its getting a bit tedious reading your Oriel essays now. Again I have no idea why you suddenly started crowing about being better than me or using my name at all, you seem to have this fantasy in your head about me calling for individuals to give up their luxuries or some strawman crap but it never happened, all I've done in this thread is complain about people using YouTube videos to rebut peer reviewed studies and other nonsense. Tackling climate change by asking the public to take individual action is pointless, the supply chains and production systems need to be decarbonised. This will require government to force industry to do it through carrot and stick methods.
I'm genuinely baffled that you would attack me for doing what the entire cimate change movement wants me to do.
Where do you discern the notion (from my posting history) that "i'm driving all over the country". You made that up and have now repeated it several times. That doesn't make it true. Bit of a theme here.
"100 year old house in the middle of nowhere"
More repeated make belief. For the last time, I repurposed an old cottage which has had 3 other families living in it since it was built. It's not in the middle of nowhere. I heat it with locally sourced ash. Cheap and renewable. How does that go against the best environmental advice on housing in rural areas?
I'm beginning to think you don't know much about the practicalities of reducing carbon footprint which would be beyond ironic if true. Perhaps the following explains it......
"I've always said individual action was pissing in the wind so I don't know what you get out of making these smug non-arguments."
This is the very reason I called you out on your personal practices.
I don't agree with you that individual action is pointless. Greta Thunberg has proved that whether you agree with her or not. I think it's a deeply flawed and defeatist attitude I note Akrasia's thumbs up. Astonishing.
We have to wean ourselves off fossil fuels because they are eventually going to run out. Surely this is a good thing that I'm doing whether I agree that climate change is man made or not, but for you it's a strawman and by your response, to be treated with contempt.
Again though it is strange to see a driver of a large diesel engine in one off rural housing boasting about how much better he is than someone who's never owned a car and lives in high density A rated housing, the planet can sustain my lifestyle, it can't sustain yours.0 -
Oh look you're back again after your 4th goodbye. I'll try explain it to you again but its getting a bit tedious reading your Oriel essays now. Again I have no idea why you suddenly started crowing about being better than me or using my name at all, you seem to have this fantasy in your head about me calling for individuals to give up their luxuries or some strawman crap but it never happened, all I've done in this thread is complain about people using YouTube videos to rebut peer reviewed studies and other nonsense. Tackling climate change by asking the public to take individual action is pointless, the supply chains and production systems need to be decarbonised. This will require government to force industry to do it through carrot and stick methods.
Again though it is strange to see a driver of a large diesel engine in one off rural housing boasting about how much better he is than someone who's never owned a car and lives in high density A rated housing, the planet can sustain my lifestyle, it can't sustain yours.
My lifestyle is heading towards carbon neutral. Extraordinary response
Please explain "one off" and how this describes a house built 100 years ago.
Please explain "large diesel engine" 1.6ltr
Other than sharing a flat and a driving test which you don;t know why you took, you have not described your lifestyle.0 -
Carbon neutral lol! Happy motoring you time waster.0
-
MT, you have decades of long range forecasting using your methods that you feel have been unfairly maligned. That’s plenty of data for you to make direct comparisons between what you predicted and what weather actually transpired. Have you ever done such an analysis on your own predictions?0
-
-
This will require government to force industry to do it through carrot and stick methods.
Nuclear power is the way forward.
In comparison to renewables, it's more reliable, it's cheaper, less fatalities, less intrusive, and friendlier to the environment.0 -
You'll get no argument from me there, Fukishima could not have come at a worse time. Hopefully thorium or one of the fusion projects works out very soon.Nuclear power is the way forward.
In comparison to renewables, it's more reliable, it's cheaper, less fatalities, less intrusive, and friendlier to the environment.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
A new study shows that CFCs are likely to be responsible for at least 0.8 °C of Arctic warming and half the Arctic ice loss in the period 1955-2005.
http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/polvani+etal-NATURECC-2020.pdf0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement