Greta Thunberg is Simpal Cindy?

[pequod]

Gary C said:

pequod said:

Would a pandemic infection solve world overpopulation? Nope, just make a dent. Remember the bubonic plague wiped out an estimated 200 million and that was when the global population was a fraction of today, but still didn't stop the explosion of human beings across the planet within a few centuries.

What numbers are sustainable, given we are already close to 8 billion, and all those developing nation states will be expecting the same comfortable lifestyle as the western world?

Which is why I suggested WWIII

Indeed you did, but without your full explanation how many millions need to die and which 'side' calls the shots, notwithstanding how you rebuild a sustainable global population, I assumed you were joking?

[Gary C]

pequod said:

, I assumed you were joking?

Of course I was

[Smiler.]

Nickgnome said:

jshell said:

Yeah, that'll work oop North, at night, in winter and without batteries...

It works in other far more Northern nations.

Perhaps you should look to the future and not the, not so good old days of coal fires and smog.

If we finally manage to prefabricate houses in factories we are in with a chance.

Three things that currently scupper that idea.

Cost/Profit

The UK Construction & Allied Industries

Consumer wants/choice


It is currently happening, but on a small & fragmented scale.

[pequod]

Gary C said:

pequod said:

, I assumed you were joking?

Of course I was

I'm sending Greta around to have word, as you clearly don't see this as a global emergency!!

Practice your angry face!!

[anonymous-user]

RIP David, an absolute legend, I think I'd prefer to listen to him than a sock puppet.

https://youtu.be/PpLixX1tb00

[Nickgnome]

Smiler. said:

Three things that currently scupper that idea.

Cost/Profit

The UK Construction & Allied Industries

Consumer wants/choice


It is currently happening, but on a small & fragmented scale.

Most consumers want a warm, dry and comfortable space which is low maintenance and inexpensive to heat and light.

Actually the cladding options of prefabricated properties can be much better than the traditional approach.

We do have a major problem with our builder developers and quality control. In any cases the properties built do not even reach the building control standards but as policing is so poor they get away with it. You need to be all over the trades like a rash if you want the job to be done properly. Sadly the skilled and dedicated trades with pride in what they do are few and far between now.

A factory built house should be less expensive if production numbers increase sufficiently.

[amgmcqueen]

amusingduck said:

Seventy said:

Will please some, but not others.
I feel Trump should have won this year - never understood the criticism he gets, he would be the most worthy winner EVER. Never mind I'm sure he can have a cover made up to hang in his office.

Absolute disgrace that the HK protesters didn't win IMO. The rest of the nominees are meh.

Completely agree....but they never stood a chance against the Soros sock puppet.

[dickymint]

dandarez said:

Derek Smith said:

garyhun said:

Nickgnome said:

There is a consensus.

Stating the above does not make it fact.

But it does negate the Scotty point. There is general consensus. Thee are those who disagree, and it being science, those who disagree are occasionally proven correct. Take sugar, or rather don't, as there is now consensus that it is harmful.

If you look into the background of those who disagree with the consensus, many are paid by concerns that are only concerned with their own concerns. The oft-viewed no-contest between Cox and the aussie senator who believes the world is a fortnight or so old, and that global temperatures are actually going down make me wish those who do disagree should go into battle with scientist on TV.

By saying 'it's not been proved' is not proof that it is wrong.

Like most on PH, I'm not qualified to make a decision of global warming. The evidence has been shown to me and the majority of scientists have convincing arguments.

I know that many scientific ideas have been shouted down in the past, but the anti-GB lot are voluble. Anyone can read, and see, their arguments, so they can't claim that. Anyone who can read, and see, will be able to see through the arguments of many of those who suggest GB isn't happening.

There is now consensus that sugar is harmful?
Really? That's some statement!
What, like alcohol?

In excess, perhaps, even yes.
Exactly like eating or drinking 'anything' in excess.
In moderation, no.

And not forgetting too, that there is sugar, and there is sugar.
For example, unrefined raw cane sugar is nothing like the same as refined (crap) sugar.
Nonetheless, I would still prefer that to 'artificial' sugar/sweeteners going inside my body.
Yet, there is no consensus that artificial sweeteners are harmful.
At this point in time!

For the past 30 odd years the 'consensus' was to give up butter and use axle grease instead

[dickymint]

Smiler. said:

Nickgnome said:

jshell said:

Yeah, that'll work oop North, at night, in winter and without batteries...

It works in other far more Northern nations.

Perhaps you should look to the future and not the, not so good old days of coal fires and smog.

If we finally manage to prefabricate houses in factories we are in with a chance.

Three things that currently scupper that idea.

Cost/Profit

The UK Construction & Allied Industries

Consumer wants/choice


It is currently happening, but on a small & fragmented scale.

My family has been doing this for over 50 years!!............

https://www.stately-albion.co.uk/home

[Killboy]

Lemming Train said:

She's starting to lose interest now as her attention seeking doomsday whining is increasingly being ignored - and rightly so. I'm calling it right now : she'll be toast by the end of next year and you'll hardly see or hear her name mentioned.

Well this is awkward.

[Langweilig]

Greta is an untidy little stop-out. If I kept the inside of my car like this, I'd die of shame.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8SyoRwV_To

I love one of the comments, "All those beans? Excessive flatulence must be a real problem for her. Especially since the methane in farts is a greenhouse gas".

[mygoldfishbowl]

dickymint said:

Smiler. said:

Nickgnome said:

jshell said:

Yeah, that'll work oop North, at night, in winter and without batteries...

It works in other far more Northern nations.

Perhaps you should look to the future and not the, not so good old days of coal fires and smog.

If we finally manage to prefabricate houses in factories we are in with a chance.

Three things that currently scupper that idea.

Cost/Profit

The UK Construction & Allied Industries

Consumer wants/choice


It is currently happening, but on a small & fragmented scale.

My family has been doing this for over 50 years!!............

https://www.stately-albion.co.uk/home

Doing what, living on a traveller's site?

[Dont like rolls]

mygoldfishbowl said:

Doing what, living on a traveller's site?

Just supplying them maybe....give him a break its Christmas !

The NAMES !

[andy_s]

[Ayahuasca]

Does anyone still buy Time magazine?

[richie99]

pequod said:

Gary C said:

pequod said:

Would a pandemic infection solve world overpopulation? Nope, just make a dent. Remember the bubonic plague wiped out an estimated 200 million and that was when the global population was a fraction of today, but still didn't stop the explosion of human beings across the planet within a few centuries.

What numbers are sustainable, given we are already close to 8 billion, and all those developing nation states will be expecting the same comfortable lifestyle as the western world?

Which is why I suggested WWIII

Indeed you did, but without your full explanation how many millions need to die and which 'side' calls the shots, notwithstanding how you rebuild a sustainable global population, I assumed you were joking?

I have not seen the climate activists producing any recommendations but we could probably make some estimates.

Given the focus of Extinction Rebellion is to return us to a pre-industrial society, the UK supported about 6 million people in this era, or about 10% of the current number. Let's assume that we are twice as clever as them and can support a population of twice the size. So we have to lose 80% of the population.

The timescale is a bit hazier because they just want us to be carbon neutral from 2025 so presumably we might have a bit longer than 5 years to get rid of 50 million of our fellow citizens, but we have to get a move on.

So order of magnitude, just the UK needs to get rid of multiple 10s of millions of people. Same probably true of the rest of the developed world.

[TEKNOPUG]

richie99 said:

I have not seen the climate activists producing any recommendations but we could probably make some estimates.

Given the focus of Extinction Rebellion is to return us to a pre-industrial society, the UK supported about 6 million people in this era, or about 10% of the current number. Let's assume that we are twice as clever as them and can support a population of twice the size. So we have to lose 80% of the population.

The timescale is a bit hazier because they just want us to be carbon neutral from 2025 so presumably we might have a bit longer than 5 years to get rid of 50 million of our fellow citizens, but we have to get a move on.

So order of magnitude, just the UK needs to get rid of multiple 10s of millions of people. Same probably true of the rest of the developed world.

I'd suggest that if the UK was carbon neutral by 2025, it would be inevitable that 10s of millions of people would disappear in short order.....

[pequod]

TEKNOPUG said:

richie99 said:

I have not seen the climate activists producing any recommendations but we could probably make some estimates.

Given the focus of Extinction Rebellion is to return us to a pre-industrial society, the UK supported about 6 million people in this era, or about 10% of the current number. Let's assume that we are twice as clever as them and can support a population of twice the size. So we have to lose 80% of the population.

The timescale is a bit hazier because they just want us to be carbon neutral from 2025 so presumably we might have a bit longer than 5 years to get rid of 50 million of our fellow citizens, but we have to get a move on.

So order of magnitude, just the UK needs to get rid of multiple 10s of millions of people. Same probably true of the rest of the developed world.

I'd suggest that if the UK was carbon neutral by 2025, it would be inevitable that 10s of millions of people would disappear in short order.....

Indeed, and if we end up with a marxist govt tomorrow, the exodus may begin next year. That will pass the problem onto the under populated countries such as Aus/NZ/Canada who can easily loose a few million in their wilderness, in short order!

[Vipers]

Ayahuasca said:

Does anyone still buy Time magazine?

Never have.

[Pesty]

Langweilig said:

Greta is an untidy little stop-out. If I kept the inside of my car like this, I'd die of shame.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8SyoRwV_To

I love one of the comments, "All those beans? Excessive flatulence must be a real problem for her. Especially since the methane in farts is a greenhouse gas".

Imagine my shock

Edited by Pesty on Thursday 12th December 20:26