Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)

[Kawasicki]

turbobloke said:

Climate voodoo is doing a good job in 2019, taking away jobs.

De-industrialise the west...then wonder why it all went wrong. It’s like they don’t see it is a competition for wealth.

[Randy Winkman]

Gadgetmac said:

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.

Exactly. That argument is a complete distraction.

[Kawasicki]

Randy Winkman said:

Gadgetmac said:

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.

Exactly. That argument is a complete distraction.

Well, no, it is pertinent. You have to wonder who the real deniers are sometimes. Those who don’t believe we are wrecking the climate and live a normal life, or those who do believe and live the exact same way?

[LongQ]

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.

As for the rest, well, it sounds like a clarion call for Extinction Rebellion.

Well done.

My comment would apply the the entire "industry" list you proffered in the section I have emboldened above.

In fact add to that the Games industry - especially the online component - for which energy consumption is not insignificant yet produces nothing of lasting value that offers the population of the planet any of the 3 basic needs. Food, shelter and security. (Other than, maybe, some extremely marginal claims that remotely flying drones in a war zone could be a skill identified by game playing. However the demand for recruits to that line of work probably does not justify global game playing as a necessary overhead.)

[dickymint]

LongQ said:

My comment would apply the the entire "industry" list you proffered in the section I have emboldened above.

In fact add to that the Games industry - especially the online component - for which energy consumption is not insignificant yet produces nothing of lasting value that offers the population of the planet any of the 3 basic needs. Food, shelter and security. (Other than, maybe, some extremely marginal claims that remotely flying drones in a war zone could be a skill identified by game playing. However the demand for recruits to that line of work probably does not justify global game playing as a necessary overhead.)

Now there's a way to save a pilots carbon footprint ... 10 stone+ weight reduction, working from home - garden shed should be fine

[zygalski]

LongQ said:

My comment would apply the the entire "industry" list you proffered in the section I have emboldened above.

In fact add to that the Games industry - especially the online component - for which energy consumption is not insignificant yet produces nothing of lasting value that offers the population of the planet any of the 3 basic needs. Food, shelter and security. (Other than, maybe, some extremely marginal claims that remotely flying drones in a war zone could be a skill identified by game playing. However the demand for recruits to that line of work probably does not justify global game playing as a necessary overhead.)

This is the old "anyone concerned about the environment should live in a cave" argument dressed up in different clothes.
It's still just as pathetic. Well done

[Etypephil]

Etypephil said:

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.

As for the rest, well, it sounds like a clarion call for Extinction Rebellion.

Well done.

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.

Gadgetmac said:

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.

Yes, but now I am beginning to understand Gretianity; you believe that modern life is going to destroy the planet, but only the faithful are allowed to continue in it, it's the kafirs who must give up everything.

Edited for contex.

Edited by Etypephil on Wednesday 20th November 07:13

Edited by Etypephil on Wednesday 20th November 07:16

[dickymint]

Randy Winkman said:

Exactly. That argument is a complete distraction.

Distraction from what? It’s bang on topic at the moment.

[Randy Winkman]

dickymint said:

Randy Winkman said:

Exactly. That argument is a complete distraction.

Distraction from what? It’s bang on topic at the moment.

A distraction because it's on such a small scale from the main point of concern that's being made. Though I do think that people campaigning against human-made climate change should take reasonable steps to reduce their own impact. I don't think that individual choices are really what they are campaigning about though. They are mostly campaigning for Government/global action. It's not like saying "don't drop litter" whilst doing it.

[jshell]

Randy Winkman said:

dickymint said:

Randy Winkman said:

Exactly. That argument is a complete distraction.

Distraction from what? It’s bang on topic at the moment.

A distraction because it's on such a small scale from the main point of concern that's being made. Though I do think that people campaigning against human-made climate change should take reasonable steps to reduce their own impact. I don't think that individual choices are really what they are campaigning about though. They are mostly campaigning for Government/global action. It's not like saying "don't drop litter" whilst doing it.

Yup, there's always some interfering tt who wants to change things for everyone else whilst not adhering or being an example. Sounds a bit like Communism to me...

[jagnet]

You can't beat a big fat government subsidy for encouraging individual choice and responsibility.

[ZeroGroundZero]

jshell said:

Yup, there's always some interfering tt who wants to change things for everyone else whilst not adhering or being an example. Sounds a bit like Communism to me...

Well it is a big left wing movement to be honest.
"A redistribution of wealth" as it has been defined (by the pro-warming side) - from big corporations not to the individual citizen but to governments of the world. Which is why the likes of China, and many governments in fact, are more than happy to go along with the shyteshow.

(All the while the global economy struggles to pick up).


I noticed on the election TV debate last night that both Corbyn and Johnson looked scared to death to not say a single opposing word on the question "is global warming the most important issue of politics".
So many people out there being pushed in to a "one political narrative" mindset (much like "political correctness" does), that any leader daring to question that entrenched narrative would face huge media backlash and would quite likely impact on votes at election time.

It is worrying times that people are fed the same narrative over and over again and as such our potential leaders not be in a position to even question it.

[jagnet]

ZeroGroundZero said:

"A redistribution of wealth" as it has been defined (by the pro-warming side) - from big corporations not to the individual citizen but to governments of the world.

I would say that it was more redistribution of wealth from the individual to the big corporations. Whilst Governments can raise more in taxes on some things like petrol/diesel etc, the big winners are those involved in carbon trading. There's also manufacturers of green energy solutions that are cashing in very nicely. No one promotes the concept of repair over replace because there's little money in that. Consuming your way towards an environmental nirvana makes so much sense... financially.

The political left helping big corporations to ever greater profit. You've got to laugh really.

[Langweilig]

turbobloke said:

Fewer but more accurate volumes without all the diddled data to report on, as a result of politicised 'science'.

https://www.facebook.com/CraigKellyMP/photos/a.117...

Here's one of the latest ^ it's BoM Australia, an old friend in this regard, this time caught out by a member of their federal House of Representatives (Craig Kelly) no less who spotted the nation’s Bureau of Meteorology altering graphs showing the number of very hot days. This latest revisionism obscured the fact that 1952 had more very hot days than recent years, and by adding a "newly discovered” ho ho ho hot day in 2011 this made it appear that there wasn't a record low number in 2011 - 'and still they believe'.

Time-warp me back to the seventies and try to convince me that data isn't manipulated. I remember the summer of 1976. The hottest on record. Two years previously, scientists were warning us that there'd be an Ice Age by the year 2000. Now they're telling us that there's global warming/climate change and we can prevent it by saying three Hail Gretas and two our planet's and accepting a vegan lifestyle.

https://www.theweatheroutlook.com/twoother/twocont...

Edited by Langweilig on Wednesday 20th November 11:28

[turbobloke]

1976 if only we had a few more summers like that.

In recent years 2003 wasn't too bad. It was natural variation presented for political purposes as a warming calamity yet 20x more people die in extreme cold than in heatwaves and there's under-reporting of cold weather (not so much on PH).

Research on heatwave and extreme cold mortality - data included - was posted earlier in this thread.

[LongQ]

zygalski said:

LongQ said:

My comment would apply the the entire "industry" list you proffered in the section I have emboldened above.

In fact add to that the Games industry - especially the online component - for which energy consumption is not insignificant yet produces nothing of lasting value that offers the population of the planet any of the 3 basic needs. Food, shelter and security. (Other than, maybe, some extremely marginal claims that remotely flying drones in a war zone could be a skill identified by game playing. However the demand for recruits to that line of work probably does not justify global game playing as a necessary overhead.)

This is the old "anyone concerned about the environment should live in a cave" argument dressed up in different clothes.
It's still just as pathetic. Well done

Thank you.

Why not add some content to the thread and regale us with your vision for the future and how it can be achieved through political means based on the Climate Crisis movement?

[anonymous-user]

Lots of conflicting messages on this page alone.

At the top we’ve got posters saying government climate policy is losing jobs

Then we have posters saying corbyn and Boris perhaps don’t believe it all but pretend they do to get votes. Then the same poster is saying it’s about wealth redistribution but from the individual to big companies

Then another is disagreeing and saying it’s about wealth redistribution but from the big companies to the government for taxation purposes.

Then the old it’s all bks because it was hot in 1976.

So really, do you guys think ‘the government’ is pretending to agree with AGW science to raise tax and votes but lose jobs? And that most other governments are simultaneously involved in the same deception?

Seems more likely that the government agrees with the scientists that AGW is real and is trying to reduce emissions and make some money and help the economy and industry with becoming a leader in new technologies whilst not damage the economy too much along the way.

[Gadgetmac]

Etypephil said:

Yes, but now I am beginning to understand Gretianity; you believe that modern life is going to destroy the planet, but only the faithful are allowed to continue in it, it's the kafirs who must give up everything.

Bit of a comprehension fail there.

I'm not asking you, the individual, to do or not do anything. Or saying that people accepting the scientific position of AGW should be allowed to do anything you conspiracy theorists can't do.

Get a grip.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Wednesday 20th November 11:50

[Langweilig]

Only this morning, I heard some talk on Radio 5 Live that there may be an increase in the prices of meat and dairy products to encourage people to be less reliant on those things and it would help combat climate change.

Vegans may find me revolting - in more ways than one.

[LongQ]

turbobloke said:

PRTVR said:

...given that globally the UK CO2 output is only around 1%...

Politicians = Clueless On Climate

Did they even notice this and appreciate its significance in view of the 1%?

https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/...

A leaflet with information about our local Labour candidate dropped through the letterbox this morning.

In the info section "... recently led the County and District councils to declare a Climate Emergency and is determined to make this more than warm words."

That's an interesting reference to "Warm Words".

In amongst the headline token Labour offers to voters is this:

"A Green Industrial Revolution.

Tackle the Climate Emergency and create hundreds of thousands of high skilled, high wage green jobs."

High wage implies they are to be jobs that are better paid than most jobs. (If not the term is either meaningless or deliberately misleading.)

So who pays for the hundreds of thousands of better than averagely paid jobs?

This is the same claim that the Green Energy Industry has been making for years. The implication is that the cost of energy will be increased dramatically to fund "hundreds of thousands" of additional jobs. Or do they mean change a lot of existing jobs to "green" jobs at the same pay level and they are simply being duplicitous?

If one increases the overheads to produce the same amount of product (Usable energy) what does that do to the cost of the product?

Perhaps that is too difficult for some politicians to work out.

That said it seems like the Chinese abacus treatment may have a handle on reality.

Edited by LongQ on Wednesday 20th November 13:58