Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)
Discussion
Gadgetmac said:
LongQ said:
Gadgetmac said:
Celebs, Royals and other World Leaders employ a lot of people. Staying at home isn't really an option or a sensible argument.
Well I'd never thought of you as an apologist for so called celebs and Royals let alone the 'World Leaders', many of whom have extremely questionable rights to being called 'Leaders'.How does the message go? .... "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others."
Take Trump meeting Kim in the demilitarized zone...an iconic moment that at the time diffused tensions...what was he supposed to do, take an easy jet flight to get there?
As for business men, celebs and world leaders not needing to fly to go to conferences, meetings and to see things first hand that's just laughable and at this point in time you're living in cloud cuckoo land of you think it's both not necessary and that video conferencing and the like is more secure.
I'd love it to be true (so thanks for advancing the argument against private planes) but sadly it isn't.
You think politicians travel to see things at first hand and actually do see what things are like wherever they go and then understand it and interpret what they see for the good of the people they represent?
Really?
They rarely understand (nor probably wish to understand) things around them at home. What benefits do their travels offer?/
But realistically they are not causing much of the death of the planet. The masses, having been allowed easy access to travel, are.
That's why there has to be a policy to curb the masses travelling for no purpose whilst the politicians forming the policy must be allowed to travel, complete with travelling media circus, to be seen to be observing "things" at first hand.
The key thing is greatly reduce the demand for warming causing actions and eliminating the need for infrastructure development., especially in the undeveloped world, would be a good start.
The rest of the benefits would follow.
Or so some think.
LongQ said:
You think politicians travel to see things at first hand and actually do see what things are like wherever they go and then understand it and interpret what they see for the good of the people they represent?
Really?
They rarely understand (nor probably wish to understand) things around them at home. What benefits do their travels offer?/
But realistically they are not causing much of the death of the planet. The masses, having been allowed easy access to travel, are.
That's why there has to be a policy to curb the masses travelling for no purpose whilst the politicians forming the policy must be allowed to travel, complete with travelling media circus, to be seen to be observing "things" at first hand.
The key thing is greatly reduce the demand for warming causing actions and eliminating the need for infrastructure development., especially in the undeveloped world, would be a good start.
The rest of the benefits would follow.
Or so some think.
The "Pop" comment was merely to represent the Media/Entertainment/Arts industry as a whole and wasn't meant to be taken literally.Really?
They rarely understand (nor probably wish to understand) things around them at home. What benefits do their travels offer?/
But realistically they are not causing much of the death of the planet. The masses, having been allowed easy access to travel, are.
That's why there has to be a policy to curb the masses travelling for no purpose whilst the politicians forming the policy must be allowed to travel, complete with travelling media circus, to be seen to be observing "things" at first hand.
The key thing is greatly reduce the demand for warming causing actions and eliminating the need for infrastructure development., especially in the undeveloped world, would be a good start.
The rest of the benefits would follow.
Or so some think.
As for the rest, well, it sounds like a clarion call for Extinction Rebellion.
Well done.
Gadgetmac said:
LongQ said:
You think politicians travel to see things at first hand and actually do see what things are like wherever they go and then understand it and interpret what they see for the good of the people they represent?
Really?
They rarely understand (nor probably wish to understand) things around them at home. What benefits do their travels offer?/
But realistically they are not causing much of the death of the planet. The masses, having been allowed easy access to travel, are.
That's why there has to be a policy to curb the masses travelling for no purpose whilst the politicians forming the policy must be allowed to travel, complete with travelling media circus, to be seen to be observing "things" at first hand.
The key thing is greatly reduce the demand for warming causing actions and eliminating the need for infrastructure development., especially in the undeveloped world, would be a good start.
The rest of the benefits would follow.
Or so some think.
The "Pop" comment was merely to represent the Media/Entertainment/Arts industry as a whole and wasn't meant to be taken literally.Really?
They rarely understand (nor probably wish to understand) things around them at home. What benefits do their travels offer?/
But realistically they are not causing much of the death of the planet. The masses, having been allowed easy access to travel, are.
That's why there has to be a policy to curb the masses travelling for no purpose whilst the politicians forming the policy must be allowed to travel, complete with travelling media circus, to be seen to be observing "things" at first hand.
The key thing is greatly reduce the demand for warming causing actions and eliminating the need for infrastructure development., especially in the undeveloped world, would be a good start.
The rest of the benefits would follow.
Or so some think.
As for the rest, well, it sounds like a clarion call for Extinction Rebellion.
Well done.
A fact which you won't like; if someone belives that a course of action is harmful, yet continue to follow it, while telling others that they may not do likewise, they are hypocrites of the first order. That includes you, the royals, the celebrities and everyone else not practising as they preach.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUgi0t2EpP8&fe...
I am convinced that the fullness of time will show Gretianity to be a false religion, so I will continue to drive my V8, fly to beautiful places such as Iceland (last week), Budapest (next month), Canada (next year), use gas central heating, etc, until technology advances to the point when non renewable energy is no longer the best solution to maintain civilisation, secure in the knowledge that we can do no harm to the planet since it is far more powerful and capable than we are.
What a load of old tosh.
So everyone who believes in global warming should be walking everywhere? Don't forget manufacturing of bikes adds to global warming so we'd all be hypocrites if we did anything other than walk right?
Or should I continue to use bikes/cars etc whilst the manufacturing of them is forced to look for more environmentally friendly ways of production?
Your arguments are absurd.
So everyone who believes in global warming should be walking everywhere? Don't forget manufacturing of bikes adds to global warming so we'd all be hypocrites if we did anything other than walk right?
Or should I continue to use bikes/cars etc whilst the manufacturing of them is forced to look for more environmentally friendly ways of production?
Your arguments are absurd.
Etypephil said:
I am convinced that the fullness of time will show Gretianity to be a false religion, so I will continue to drive my V8, fly to beautiful places such as Iceland (last week), Budapest (next month), Canada (next year), use gas central heating, etc, until technology advances to the point when non renewable energy is no longer the best solution to maintain civilisation, secure in the knowledge that we can do no harm to the planet since it is far more powerful and capable than we are.
Good reply.I think that is pretty much also my mind set on the matter.
I think the majority of people are bored sick of the climate activists claiming doom and gloom for political score points, and also those that probably are gullible such that they have scared themselves by how much they soak in the advocates opinions and the extremes of the media claiming climate change at every weather event.
I am convinced like you that the alarmist hysteria on the subject is just that - it is hysterics focussing only on the extreme improbabilities of an un-model-able chaotic system by which natural cycles are very much the driver of change, and whereby the human influence is so small that it borderlines on irrelevance.
I notice the politics is changing the narrative in recent years to distance themselves away from an out of control run away climate warmth (well apart from some democrats in the USA) - as this is not what observations are showing - instead the narrative is now moving towards "pollution" and other environment matters.
To me this is actually ok and I'm glad to see the shift. Pollution is obviously a problem and we all wish to live in a clean healthy environment. BUT the basics of climate change politics in that CO2 is the monster gas that we should be taxed up on is just wrong.
The politicians should now be reversing the taxes, moving back to reliable sources of energy to support ever growing populations, and there should be a clear announcement that the recent decades of climate politics has been leading down the wrong path.
But as always with politics, it seems the science behind the issues can often be misused for points scoring against oppositions and for gathering votes at election time.
Even pollution death numbers are political, the bandwagon has already started on that one. With politics deciding on what level of pollution (and type) is to set the attribution on the death of any person. For example, with claims that an outside pollutant causes the death of person A,B or C, ignoring the fact that indoor pollution levels are many times higher and are ignored.
So I fear even when the hysterics about CO2 is put to bed there will always be the green political angle that no matter how well we balance living against a harm/benefit to the environment, it will never be enough because there are election votes to be gathered.
LongQ said:
Gadgetmac said:
As for your point about banks well I have a meeting with our bankers this morning who are driving down to the south coast from just outside Birmingham 
Video conferencing wasn't even suggested.
Good for you. You must be a decent source of income for them. Video conferencing wasn't even suggested.
Gadgetmac said:
LongQ said:
Gadgetmac said:
As for your point about banks well I have a meeting with our bankers this morning who are driving down to the south coast from just outside Birmingham
Video conferencing wasn't even suggested.
Good for you. You must be a decent source of income for them. Video conferencing wasn't even suggested.
Green Party reveals it's manifesto - Clicky...
Paid for mostly by borrowing (which is perhaps a master-stroke considering that we don't have a future according to the likes of St Greta...)
Some eye-watering numbers
Seems they haven't learned much from last time...
Paid for mostly by borrowing (which is perhaps a master-stroke considering that we don't have a future according to the likes of St Greta...)
Some eye-watering numbers
Seems they haven't learned much from last time...
ZeroGroundZero said:
Etypephil said:
I am convinced that the fullness of time will show Gretianity to be a false religion, so I will continue to drive my V8, fly to beautiful places such as Iceland (last week), Budapest (next month), Canada (next year), use gas central heating, etc, until technology advances to the point when non renewable energy is no longer the best solution to maintain civilisation, secure in the knowledge that we can do no harm to the planet since it is far more powerful and capable than we are.
Good reply.I think that is pretty much also my mind set on the matter.
I think the majority of people are bored sick of the climate activists claiming doom and gloom for political score points, and also those that probably are gullible such that they have scared themselves by how much they soak in the advocates opinions and the extremes of the media claiming climate change at every weather event.
I am convinced like you that the alarmist hysteria on the subject is just that - it is hysterics focussing only on the extreme improbabilities of an un-model-able chaotic system by which natural cycles are very much the driver of change, and whereby the human influence is so small that it borderlines on irrelevance.
I notice the politics is changing the narrative in recent years to distance themselves away from an out of control run away climate warmth (well apart from some democrats in the USA) - as this is not what observations are showing - instead the narrative is now moving towards "pollution" and other environment matters.
To me this is actually ok and I'm glad to see the shift. Pollution is obviously a problem and we all wish to live in a clean healthy environment. BUT the basics of climate change politics in that CO2 is the monster gas that we should be taxed up on is just wrong.
The politicians should now be reversing the taxes, moving back to reliable sources of energy to support ever growing populations, and there should be a clear announcement that the recent decades of climate politics has been leading down the wrong path.
But as always with politics, it seems the science behind the issues can often be misused for points scoring against oppositions and for gathering votes at election time.
Even pollution death numbers are political, the bandwagon has already started on that one. With politics deciding on what level of pollution (and type) is to set the attribution on the death of any person. For example, with claims that an outside pollutant causes the death of person A,B or C, ignoring the fact that indoor pollution levels are many times higher and are ignored.
So I fear even when the hysterics about CO2 is put to bed there will always be the green political angle that no matter how well we balance living against a harm/benefit to the environment, it will never be enough because there are election votes to be gathered.
Without wishing to create a mutual appreciation society, likewise yours; pollution and consumption are real issues, but they must be dealt with properly and honestly, not used as excuses to advance a particular political or business agenda.
nelly1 said:
Green Party reveals it's manifesto - Clicky...
Paid for mostly by borrowing (which is perhaps a master-stroke considering that we don't have a future according to the likes of St Greta...)
Some eye-watering numbers
Seems they haven't learned much from last time...
How they can say these things with a straight face is amazing Paid for mostly by borrowing (which is perhaps a master-stroke considering that we don't have a future according to the likes of St Greta...)
Some eye-watering numbers
Seems they haven't learned much from last time...
Etypephil said:
On the other hand, perhaps LongQ was extracting the urine.
A fact which you won't like; if someone belives that a course of action is harmful, yet continue to follow it, while telling others that they may not do likewise, they are hypocrites of the first order. That includes you, the royals, the celebrities and everyone else not practising as they preach.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUgi0t2EpP8&fe...
I am convinced that the fullness of time will show Gretianity to be a false religion, so I will continue to drive my V8, fly to beautiful places such as Iceland (last week), Budapest (next month), Canada (next year), use gas central heating, etc, until technology advances to the point when non renewable energy is no longer the best solution to maintain civilisation, secure in the knowledge that we can do no harm to the planet since it is far more powerful and capable than we are.
This is another good one.A fact which you won't like; if someone belives that a course of action is harmful, yet continue to follow it, while telling others that they may not do likewise, they are hypocrites of the first order. That includes you, the royals, the celebrities and everyone else not practising as they preach.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUgi0t2EpP8&fe...
I am convinced that the fullness of time will show Gretianity to be a false religion, so I will continue to drive my V8, fly to beautiful places such as Iceland (last week), Budapest (next month), Canada (next year), use gas central heating, etc, until technology advances to the point when non renewable energy is no longer the best solution to maintain civilisation, secure in the knowledge that we can do no harm to the planet since it is far more powerful and capable than we are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMfYjKauHbs
Etypephil said:
Gadgetmac said:
LongQ said:
Gadgetmac said:
As for your point about banks well I have a meeting with our bankers this morning who are driving down to the south coast from just outside Birmingham
Video conferencing wasn't even suggested.
Good for you. You must be a decent source of income for them. Video conferencing wasn't even suggested.
This is their call not mine and they obviously have their reasons for wanting to come.
It's not a difficult concept to get your head around, they want first hand experience of the company.
FaceTime won't cut it. There are a million other such scenarios playing out every day and everywhere. If I were in Scotland they'd be flying up.
paulw123 said:
nelly1 said:
Green Party reveals it's manifesto - Clicky...
Paid for mostly by borrowing (which is perhaps a master-stroke considering that we don't have a future according to the likes of St Greta...)
Some eye-watering numbers
Seems they haven't learned much from last time...
How they can say these things with a straight face is amazing Paid for mostly by borrowing (which is perhaps a master-stroke considering that we don't have a future according to the likes of St Greta...)
Some eye-watering numbers
Seems they haven't learned much from last time...
Talking of jobs...let them eat carbon.
Climate voodoo is doing a good job in 2019, taking away jobs.
Bloomberg FT et al said:
-Tata Steel plans to cut around 3,000 jobs across its European operations
-Compounding the sector’s difficulties is a surge in the price of carbon that steel companies in Europe must pay to offset emissions
-The price of carbon has increased by around 230% since the start of 2018, ArcelorMittal said
Tata employees thy sins are offset, go on thy way to the ranks of the unemployed in order to appease gaia who will bless thee.-Compounding the sector’s difficulties is a surge in the price of carbon that steel companies in Europe must pay to offset emissions
-The price of carbon has increased by around 230% since the start of 2018, ArcelorMittal said
Climate voodoo is doing a good job in 2019, taking away jobs.
PRTVR said:
...given that globally the UK CO2 output is only around 1%...
Politicians = Clueless On ClimateDid they even notice this and appreciate its significance in view of the 1%?
https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff