Climate protesters block roads

[Baby Shark doo doo doo doo]

Dixy said:

What I do not understand is what they expect, saying they want the guberment to do something is pointless, sorting Brexit is easy compared to climate change.
They need to start by identifying the key causes that can be addressed and then suggest solutions.
All they are doing is giving the chancellor free reign to increase fuel duty.

Brexit = loss of money and decreased power for politicians and their wealthy chums
‘Climate Change’ = lots of money and increased control for politicians and their wealthy chums

You can see why the effort goes where it does

[TeamD]

Baby Shark doo doo doo doo said:

Dixy said:

What I do not understand is what they expect, saying they want the guberment to do something is pointless, sorting Brexit is easy compared to climate change.
They need to start by identifying the key causes that can be addressed and then suggest solutions.
All they are doing is giving the chancellor free reign to increase fuel duty.

Brexit = loss of money and decreased power for politicians and their wealthy chums
‘Climate Change’ = lots of money and increased control for politicians and their wealthy chums

You can see why the effort goes where it does

It's been said for many a year that the government would tax you for breathing if they could, this is their perfect excuse for doing so.

[anonymous-user]

It would be trivially easy to make radical changes. Just change the relevant taxes.

[irocfan]

Randy Winkman said:

You might not agree with what she is doing but isn't it that case that she does it better by actually being there on schedule so the "cost" is worthwhile?

Da, komrade, Pravda indeed. I look forward to seeing here and ET in the Zil-lanes in due course

[bad company]

Mort7 said:

The real problem is a generation that claims to be environmentally-driven, but which still jets off on holiday, can't operate without clutching a single-use coffee cup or water bottle, breeds out of control - even when they can't actually afford to do that, and have an overwhelming sense of self-entitlement.

Such as Dame whatsername who flew in from LA to lecture us on our carbon footprint.

[bitchstewie]

tangerine_sedge said:

I'm confused by this thread. Who am I supposed to hate? Is it the stupid youngsters, or the leaching oldsters? Climate campaigners or climate deniers?

I know that I'm supposed to hate someone (it's the PH way), but I'm getting mixed messages, can anyone help me?

Utterly bizarre isn't it.

Just hate everyone as some on here seem to.

Makes life simpler albeit I do sometimes wonder how people get through the day like that.

[anonymous-user]

Is it also hypocritical for someone to campaign for progressive changes to tax rates, if they don't actively pay arbitrary extra taxes to HMRC?

It's not really about individual action, but about campaigning for changes to the law.

It's not hypocrisy either to eat meat whilst also campaigning for better standards of animal rights for farming.

[markcoznottz]

Nickgnome said:

markcoznottz said:

Not that you will ever come into contact with said breeders at your yachting club. Or live or work in close proximity to them. I imagine in your white middle class liberal cliche anyone who refers to the underclass in less than favourable terms is labelled a daily mail little englander etc. I take it you thought of your kids and grandkids health when you purchased a tvr cebera 4.2 and a lotus exige, two extremely polluting engines. Do as I say ..

Another uniformed angry rant.

Exige had an Honda engine and only used on the track. Less than 1.5K per year. About 5k in total if I recall correctly.

We all live and learn so maybe that’s why I sold them.

Drive an hybrid now which would be electric if didn't need to tow.

How is your research going?

Ps it was a 4.5 cerbera. Worst car I ever bought.

Edited by Nickgnome on Monday 22 April 12:43

I'm sure you never used either vehicle that's why you purchased two vehicles developed solely to go fast whilst wasting fuel. You don't 'need' to tow a yacht, you choose to, as part of your middle class hobby. Towing uses a lot of extra fuel, do you think about your grandkids when you see the trailer in the rear view mirror? See where this is going? Appalling hypocrisy.

[Gandahar]

When people cannot even sort out short term human issues such as the bombings in Sri Lanka etc etc etc it is no wonder we cannot sort out climate change.

These protests are misguided and do not help, and I do believe climate change is a huge threat.

It would be better, in the short term, for them all to go over to Nigeria and protest about https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48008118 and the endemic corruption over there.

Same with Latin America. Rather than building a wall the USA needs to sort out the problems in LATAM with help from the rest of the first world. That would stop the need for a wall on the promised land.

Not enough farsightedness from protesters and politicians.

[Mort7]

Nickgnome said:

Calling people breeders is uninformed and unnecessary.

How, exactly is the term 'breeder' uninformed? People who have had children have bred - ergo they are breeders. And the more they breed the greater their number of offspring to have an impact on the environment, and the more future generations they will produce as a result.

As for 'unnecessary' - well, certain contributors to this thread seem to delight in calling anyone who doesn't agree with their point of view a 'gammon'. Ironically it's these people who seem to exhibit the most gammonny tendencies. I look forward to you pulling them up the next time the term is used.

[T-195]

Just don't have kids if you do want to help the environment. I'm child free and that won't be changing anytime soon. I'll be at the bottom of the Thames before I end up in any stty carehome.

[don'tbesilly]

Nickgnome said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

The issue is that the already colossal human population, which is growing at an unprecedented rate, is not just increasing its take up of the Earths resources, and from those increased take up of resources, increasing the emissions that come from humans, it is also destroying the habitats, and therefore the Earths other species in them.
The moment, any mention of controlling the rise of the human population is mentioned, we get the idiots who seem to unable to comprehend, that at the root cause of the issue they bleat about is us little old humans. They seem to think that somehow we can continue increasing our numbers ad infinitum, and that `this' somehow has no effect, but at the same time see no problems with splurging out kids, who will want keeping warm in winter, and keeping cool in summer, they will want clothes, and tv and Ipads, and entertainment, and foreign holidays, and being taken to and from school, they will want a home of their own, and crucially, in time children of their own, All of which of course, consume resources, and produces the inevitable emissions .
If a proponent of man made global warming takes up no resources, and produces no emissions, and has either had the snip, or limited themselves to a single child, Then they start to become believable, until they have done this, they are just misguided, and probably unable or more likely unwilling to face up to the fact that MMGW is in fact, directly attributable to `man'. the true hypocrite.

Euthanasia for all over 65 year olds.

How many months does that give you Nick?
I believe you've mentioned being 65 this year on this very forum.

[irocfan]

Mort7 said:

Nickgnome said:

Calling people breeders is uninformed and unnecessary.

How, exactly is the term 'breeder' uninformed? People who have had children have bred - ergo they are breeders. And the more they breed the greater their number of offspring to have an impact on the environment, and the more future generations they will produce as a result.

As for 'unnecessary' - well, certain contributors to this thread seem to delight in calling anyone who doesn't agree with their point of view a 'gammon'. Ironically it's these people who seem to exhibit the most gammonny tendencies. I look forward to you pulling them up the next time the term is used.

No no no - you have it all wrong certain Dicks will tell you that it's different because they're right and that makes it ok

[barryrs]

Nickgnome said:

Another uniformed angry rant.

Exige had an Honda engine and only used on the track. Less than 1.5K per year. About 5k in total if I recall correctly.

We all live and learn so maybe that’s why I sold them.

Drive an hybrid now which would be electric if didn't need to tow.

How is your research going?

Ps it was a 4.5 cerbera. Worst car I ever bought.

Edited by Nickgnome on Monday 22 April 12:43

I opted for this eco approach also Nick; a few years ago I was doing around 5/6000 miles a year so purchased a C6 V10 S6.

I have recently done my bit again by part exchanging my devil fuel E Class coupe that averaged 48mpg to a new C Class C300 coupe that averages 39mpg. Due to the difference in fuel pricing my environmental sacrifice is only costing me £5 a week more.

[Gandahar]

T-195 said:

Just don't have kids if you do want to help the environment. I'm child free and that won't be changing anytime soon. I'll be at the bottom of the Thames before I end up in any stty carehome.

Sorry but that is not true, you are living in a deluded world if you think you are more environmentally sound than me and my mum. My mum was brought up in the war years and I was brought up in the 80's walking back from the supermarket after her with her and her tartan shopping trolley.

That trolley was full of meals that would last a week and it was in mainly in cardboard. In those days you could buy cracked eggs and chicken with only 1 leg so as not go to waste. No doubt walking meant we exahaled a bit more CO2.....

I bet you produce 10x as much environmental waste as me as my mum did, even though you are single.I'm also guessing you would not want to go back to the 80's and walk back two miles home from the supermarket to eat a one legged chicken that lasted 3 days?

Such is 2019 with people saying they environmentally friendly. Nobody is nowadays apart from off-gridders.

[markcoznottz]

Gandahar said:

T-195 said:

Just don't have kids if you do want to help the environment. I'm child free and that won't be changing anytime soon. I'll be at the bottom of the Thames before I end up in any stty carehome.

Sorry but that is not true, you are living in a deluded world if you think you are more environmentally sound than me and my mum. My mum was brought up in the war years and I was brought up in the 80's walking back from the supermarket after her with her and her tartan shopping trolley.

That trolley was full of meals that would last a week and it was in mainly in cardboard. In those days you could buy cracked eggs and chicken with only 1 leg so as not go to waste. No doubt walking meant we exahaled a bit more CO2.....

I bet you produce 10x as much environmental waste as me as my mum did, even though you are single.I'm also guessing you would not want to go back to the 80's and walk back two miles home from the supermarket to eat a one legged chicken that lasted 3 days?

Such is 2019 with people saying they environmentally friendly. Nobody is nowadays apart from off-gridders.

Kids = more fuel more shopping more heating bla bla, so it does make a difference. I notice Gail Bradbrook is a mother of two, obviously not concerned about her own family's footprint.

[colonel c]

3.1416 said:

RobDickinson said:

The earths rotation has slowed because of the moon. Wind is created by the sun heating the planet.

Technically, it's the tides generated by the moon which slow the earth's rotation.

https://bowie.gsfc.nasa.gov/ggfc/tides/intro.html

Carry on.

With the moon moving further and further away from us, the earth will soon be spinning out of control. Something must be done before it's too late.

[TeamD]

colonel c said:

3.1416 said:

RobDickinson said:

The earths rotation has slowed because of the moon. Wind is created by the sun heating the planet.

Technically, it's the tides generated by the moon which slow the earth's rotation.

https://bowie.gsfc.nasa.gov/ggfc/tides/intro.html

Carry on.

With the moon moving further and further away from us, the earth will soon be spinning out of control. Something must be done before it's too late.

I was under the impression that the moon moving away slows the rotation of earth?

[colonel c]

TeamD said:

colonel c said:

3.1416 said:

RobDickinson said:

The earths rotation has slowed because of the moon. Wind is created by the sun heating the planet.

Technically, it's the tides generated by the moon which slow the earth's rotation.

https://bowie.gsfc.nasa.gov/ggfc/tides/intro.html

Carry on.

With the moon moving further and further away from us, the earth will soon be spinning out of control. Something must be done before it's too late.

I was under the impression that the moon moving away slows the rotation of earth?

Oh NO! That means we will grind to a halt. The earth will have a permanent dark side.

[TeamD]

colonel c said:

TeamD said:

colonel c said:

3.1416 said:

RobDickinson said:

The earths rotation has slowed because of the moon. Wind is created by the sun heating the planet.

Technically, it's the tides generated by the moon which slow the earth's rotation.

https://bowie.gsfc.nasa.gov/ggfc/tides/intro.html

Carry on.

With the moon moving further and further away from us, the earth will soon be spinning out of control. Something must be done before it's too late.

I was under the impression that the moon moving away slows the rotation of earth?

Oh NO! That means we will grind to a halt. The earth will have a permanent dark side.

It is thought that there is a point of equilibrium but that will be a long time in the future. That said, where can I join up to the group that wants the "gubermint" to stop the sun becoming a red gaint? 🙂