Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do we all like the hot weather? I do, do you think this is an natural cyckle of the earth as its hotting up everywhere? Europe, japan and in sweden, there are about 80 forrest fires in sweden, due to the heat "I think this year's is more to do with geological events. This next few years they have found that the earths mantle is spinning slower.. which causes an Increase in seismic activity. We have had a lot more sustained or big eruptions this year than normal. All of this affects the climate ..luckily it's not been more as in moderation it makes it warmer but it can also cause the climate to rapidly cool. It's a delicate balance and a flip the earth does every so often | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do we all like the hot weather? I do, do you think this is an natural cyckle of the earth as its hotting up everywhere? Europe, japan and in sweden, there are about 80 forrest fires in sweden, due to the heat "Climate change is just about it being warmer. It’s much more about increased amounts of extreme weather. As much as it’s a well known fact the earth goes though climate cycles there’s just no way you can pump toxic chemicals into the atmosphere for hundreds years and not expect it to have some effect. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not worried. The human race will fuck it up to the point where the environment will be uninhabitable for us. We will end and the world will recover and new lifeforms will evolve. There have been at least 6 extinction level events on earth in her 8 billion years. We will be nothing more than a footnote in her history. " Happy Friday to you too  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We can't live without this planet but this planet can live without us " Spot on  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not worried. The human race will fuck it up to the point where the environment will be uninhabitable for us. We will end and the world will recover and new lifeforms will evolve. There have been at least 6 extinction level events on earth in her 8 billion years. We will be nothing more than a footnote in her history. " There have been five mass extinction events in the Earths history, but what’s one mass extinction event between friends !  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not worried. The human race will fuck it up to the point where the environment will be uninhabitable for us. We will end and the world will recover and new lifeforms will evolve. There have been at least 6 extinction level events on earth in her 8 billion years. We will be nothing more than a footnote in her history. There have been five mass extinction events in the Earths history, but what’s one mass extinction event between friends ! ". And what's 4 billon years between friends either | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think climate change is merely a symptom of the real problem. Overpopulation." . Don't worry, I think mother nature will be a long any minute to solve that problem  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not worried. The human race will fuck it up to the point where the environment will be uninhabitable for us. We will end and the world will recover and new lifeforms will evolve. There have been at least 6 extinction level events on earth in her 8 billion years. We will be nothing more than a footnote in her history. There have been five mass extinction events in the Earths history, but what’s one mass extinction event between friends ! .
And what's 4 billon years between friends either "Well, 3.5 but I let that one slide ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not worried. The human race will fuck it up to the point where the environment will be uninhabitable for us. We will end and the world will recover and new lifeforms will evolve. There have been at least 6 extinction level events on earth in her 8 billion years. We will be nothing more than a footnote in her history. There have been five mass extinction events in the Earths history, but what’s one mass extinction event between friends ! .
And what's 4 billon years between friends either
Well, 3.5 but I let that one slide ! ". 3.75 and let's call the whole thing off | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think climate change is merely a symptom of the real problem. Overpopulation.. Don't worry, I think mother nature will be a long any minute to solve that problem "Or another war | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think climate change is merely a symptom of the real problem. Overpopulation.. Don't worry, I think mother nature will be a long any minute to solve that problem
Or another war ". We like to over complicate things, it will be more than likely a very simple bacteria. Hard as nails though and we'll go bye bye very quickly | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think climate change is merely a symptom of the real problem. Overpopulation.. Don't worry, I think mother nature will be a long any minute to solve that problem
Or another war "Maybe, but the 20th century was the bloodiest ever and the population at the start was about 1.6 billion but finished on 6 billion. We've since added another billion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe climate change exists as a scientific concept, I'm just not sure that it's wholly, partially or not at all caused or contributed to by humans. I don't like the hot weather "I kind of am convinced that it is. Possibly because of the overwhelming consensus of peer reviewed science on the subject. Are you also still not sure that smoking is bad for you, or gravity will get the better of you if you fall out of a tree? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe climate change exists as a scientific concept, I'm just not sure that it's wholly, partially or not at all caused or contributed to by humans. I don't like the hot weather
I kind of am convinced that it is. Possibly because of the overwhelming consensus of peer reviewed science on the subject.
Are you also still not sure that smoking is bad for you, or gravity will get the better of you if you fall out of a tree? "Look up the keeling curve. It shows that rising co2 levels, and increased global temperature since 1950 and shows that the two go hand in hand. We are causing the increase in ghg's and emmisions, the accelerated global warming is the result. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think climate change is merely a symptom of the real problem. Overpopulation." This | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe climate change exists as a scientific concept, I'm just not sure that it's wholly, partially or not at all caused or contributed to by humans. I don't like the hot weather
I kind of am convinced that it is. Possibly because of the overwhelming consensus of peer reviewed science on the subject.
Are you also still not sure that smoking is bad for you, or gravity will get the better of you if you fall out of a tree?
Look up the keeling curve. It shows that rising co2 levels, and increased global temperature since 1950 and shows that the two go hand in hand.
We are causing the increase in ghg's and emmisions, the accelerated global warming is the result.
"My bad keeling curve only shows co2 rises. But the graphs in the link pretty much show how much we've been fucking things up over the years. https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/climate-change-in-ten-graphs | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all irrelevant in reality. None of us are going to stop flying on holiday and shopping in cars. Were not going to change the entire worlds economic system and lives of EVERYBODY on it just because of some data and peer reviewed bollocks" That’s the spirit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Volcanoes spew out more c02 than the whole of human race . (But we do add to it ) So do cows and their farts But it’s all a natural cycle which cannot be reversed by science . The sun will still shine beating down on us The earth will revolve creating cold winters and hot summers as it’s done for millions of years . Dickensian times has a mini ice age when the Thames froze . I bet they thought it would wipe them all out then too . " Volcano co2 emissions per year: 65 - 319 million tonnes World co2 emissions from fossil fuel per year: 29 billion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all irrelevant in reality. None of us are going to stop flying on holiday and shopping in cars. Were not going to change the entire worlds economic system and lives of EVERYBODY on it just because of some data and peer reviewed bollocks That’s the spirit." . Exactly, were wasting the talents of some of our best egg heads as well as billions of pounds on this pointless crap. They could be doing something far more useful | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all irrelevant in reality. None of us are going to stop flying on holiday and shopping in cars. Were not going to change the entire worlds economic system and lives of EVERYBODY on it just because of some data and peer reviewed bollocks That’s the spirit.. Exactly, were wasting the talents of some of our best egg heads as well as billions of pounds on this pointless crap. They could be doing something far more useful" Like? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all irrelevant in reality. None of us are going to stop flying on holiday and shopping in cars. Were not going to change the entire worlds economic system and lives of EVERYBODY on it just because of some data and peer reviewed bollocks That’s the spirit.. Exactly, were wasting the talents of some of our best egg heads as well as billions of pounds on this pointless crap. They could be doing something far more useful Like? " . Like any of the massive problems the world faces. Like pollution, plastics, resource depletion, energy production, new antibiotics, cancer drugs, robotics, nuclear energy, fresh water production, malaria drugs, infrastructure. And last but not least some fucking sea defences, new reservoirs and new drainage | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Volcanoes spew out more c02 than the whole of human race . (But we do add to it ) So do cows and their farts But it’s all a natural cycle which cannot be reversed by science . The sun will still shine beating down on us The earth will revolve creating cold winters and hot summers as it’s done for millions of years . Dickensian times has a mini ice age when the Thames froze . I bet they thought it would wipe them all out then too . Volcano co2 emissions per year: 65 - 319 million tonnes World co2 emissions from fossil fuel per year: 29 billion. " Cherry picking time. The evidence agreed by almost 100% of the world's best suitably qualified experts is that it supports the reality that human induced global warming is caused by humans - and that any other natural contributions, volcanoes, natural cycles etc have insignificant, near negligible effect on the last 3 centuries of warming. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all irrelevant in reality. None of us are going to stop flying on holiday and shopping in cars. Were not going to change the entire worlds economic system and lives of EVERYBODY on it just because of some data and peer reviewed bollocks That’s the spirit.. Exactly, were wasting the talents of some of our best egg heads as well as billions of pounds on this pointless crap. They could be doing something far more useful Like? . Like any of the massive problems the world faces. Like pollution, plastics, resource depletion, energy production, new antibiotics, cancer drugs, robotics, nuclear energy, fresh water production, malaria drugs, infrastructure. And last but not least some fucking sea defences, new reservoirs and new drainage "Pretty sure about half of what you just listed has a direct effect on the climate anyway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I love the human hubris in the whole debate -as if our existence is the most important thing to the planet -who knows maybe evolutionary needs require shit loads of plastic and toxic chemicals for the Earth to fulfill its true potential? P.S. I am not in the climate denial camp lest someone get offended by the intentionally obscure comment above" My existance is high up on my list of priorities.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe climate change exists as a scientific concept, I'm just not sure that it's wholly, partially or not at all caused or contributed to by humans. I don't like the hot weather
I kind of am convinced that it is. Possibly because of the overwhelming consensus of peer reviewed science on the subject.
Are you also still not sure that smoking is bad for you, or gravity will get the better of you if you fall out of a tree? "I take your points, but many people who smoke live long lives and don't die of cancer-related illnesses, and if you only fell out of a very short tree you'd probably survive. Scientific analysis can usually find whatever whoever is paying for it wants it to find. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" My existance is high up on my list of priorities.." Tell that to the Black Holes man  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe climate change exists as a scientific concept, I'm just not sure that it's wholly, partially or not at all caused or contributed to by humans. I don't like the hot weather
I kind of am convinced that it is. Possibly because of the overwhelming consensus of peer reviewed science on the subject.
Are you also still not sure that smoking is bad for you, or gravity will get the better of you if you fall out of a tree?
I take your points, but many people who smoke live long lives and don't die of cancer-related illnesses, and if you only fell out of a very short tree you'd probably survive. Scientific analysis can usually find whatever whoever is paying for it wants it to find."You’re confusing the idea that something is generally likely to be harmful. The fact that some people smoke all their lives and don’t get cancer certainly doesn’t disprove the fact that if you smoke even a moderate amount for a prolonged period of time, the chances of you getting cancer are greatly increases. And surviving a fall out of a tree hardly disproves the existence of gravity. 
If on the one hand we have the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed science, and on the other some lame cliche about that science somehow being paid for, then you’re just clutching at the most desperate of straws.
It doesn’t even make sense, seeing as the people with the biggest pay cheques would be the big business polluters who presumably want the exact opposite conclusion.
I just don’t get why people seem so hellbent on sticking their fingers in their ears on this particular topic, when they wouldn’t with anything else. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all irrelevant in reality. None of us are going to stop flying on holiday and shopping in cars. Were not going to change the entire worlds economic system and lives of EVERYBODY on it just because of some data and peer reviewed bollocks" No, but aeroplanes can become more efficient and pollute less, and cars are likely to transition from petrol to electric over the next couple of decades. And flippantly changing “science” to “bollocks” doesn’t really help your argument. Remember the holes in the ozone layer? After the data and peer reviewed science which identifies the problem, change did occur on a global scale, and the ozone has now virtually, if not completely, replenished itself. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all irrelevant in reality. None of us are going to stop flying on holiday and shopping in cars. Were not going to change the entire worlds economic system and lives of EVERYBODY on it just because of some data and peer reviewed bollocks No, but aeroplanes can become more efficient and pollute less, and cars are likely to transition from petrol to electric over the next couple of decades. And flippantly changing “science” to “bollocks” doesn’t really help your argument. Remember the holes in the ozone layer? After the data and peer reviewed science which identifies the problem, change did occur on a global scale, and the ozone has now virtually, if not completely, replenished itself." . No offence but you obviously know very little about the science and are just repeating sound bites on the hope of virtue signalling, for starters the hole in the ozone is still there and at best estimates will be till 2060!. Now the fundamental mistake you made was assumption on my bollocks, and we all know assumption is the mother of all fuck ups | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all irrelevant in reality. None of us are going to stop flying on holiday and shopping in cars. Were not going to change the entire worlds economic system and lives of EVERYBODY on it just because of some data and peer reviewed bollocks No, but aeroplanes can become more efficient and pollute less, and cars are likely to transition from petrol to electric over the next couple of decades. And flippantly changing “science” to “bollocks” doesn’t really help your argument. Remember the holes in the ozone layer? After the data and peer reviewed science which identifies the problem, change did occur on a global scale, and the ozone has now virtually, if not completely, replenished itself.. No offence but you obviously know very little about the science and are just repeating sound bites on the hope of virtue signalling, for starters the hole in the ozone is still there and at best estimates will be till 2060!. Now the fundamental mistake you made was assumption on my bollocks, and we all know assumption is the mother of all fuck ups "None taken. It’s not so much me knowing little about the science, as just having misremembered a detail. I remember reading about it, but not remembered the 2060 date. The science, such that it is, still stands. Data and research identified a problem, as well as the likely cause of the problems. Steps were taken on a global scale to eliminate the cause of the problem, and now things are improving. As such, I disagree with the suggestion that research and the conclusions found on climate change are irrelevant, or that progress can’t be made to reducing a likely contributor to the problem. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all irrelevant in reality. None of us are going to stop flying on holiday and shopping in cars. Were not going to change the entire worlds economic system and lives of EVERYBODY on it just because of some data and peer reviewed bollocks No, but aeroplanes can become more efficient and pollute less, and cars are likely to transition from petrol to electric over the next couple of decades. And flippantly changing “science” to “bollocks” doesn’t really help your argument. Remember the holes in the ozone layer? After the data and peer reviewed science which identifies the problem, change did occur on a global scale, and the ozone has now virtually, if not completely, replenished itself.. No offence but you obviously know very little about the science and are just repeating sound bites on the hope of virtue signalling, for starters the hole in the ozone is still there and at best estimates will be till 2060!. Now the fundamental mistake you made was assumption on my bollocks, and we all know assumption is the mother of all fuck ups
None taken. It’s not so much me knowing little about the science, as just having misremembered a detail. I remember reading about it, but not remembered the 2060 date.
The science, such that it is, still stands. Data and research identified a problem, as well as the likely cause of the problems. Steps were taken on a global scale to eliminate the cause of the problem, and now things are improving.
As such, I disagree with the suggestion that research and the conclusions found on climate change are irrelevant, or that progress can’t be made to reducing a likely contributor to the problem.". You see I never disagreed with the science. What I actually said was it was irrelevant in reality because being honest nobody is going to change the entire worlds economic system no matter what the consequences!. I mean take yourself, your a believer, yet your still flying?, still driving your car?, still buying new clothes?. Of course you are and you always will, we've all been programmed to consume for hundreds of years, you could do it less but then there's the other problem that quite a few alluded to "overpopulation" , the trouble with that theory is, well 4 billon of those 7 don't rapidly consume like we do,but they will, that's just a matter of time. The science itself is pretty concrete, it's not even new, it's a hundred and fifty years old, applying it to give us predictions was a little trickier, but hell none of them look good. The climate is going to change regardless, it always has and always will what the argument is about is how fast is going to change from this very unusual 10,000 year period which has been very stable. I would suggest that seen as none of us are going to change regardless and that change is inevitable, our time, effort and resources would be better spent on doing stuff that will mitigate the worst of it. Ie the stuff I pointed out ages up at the top of this thread because we are never ever going to make the world carbon neutral, this notion is an utter pipe dream of lefty numptys and is actually being used as a primary motive for "wealth redistribution" and frankly every time that's been tried in history has been an unmitigated disaster with hundreds of millions left dead (think Stalin, Mao,pot, Castro). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all irrelevant in reality. None of us are going to stop flying on holiday and shopping in cars. Were not going to change the entire worlds economic system and lives of EVERYBODY on it just because of some data and peer reviewed bollocks No, but aeroplanes can become more efficient and pollute less, and cars are likely to transition from petrol to electric over the next couple of decades. And flippantly changing “science” to “bollocks” doesn’t really help your argument. Remember the holes in the ozone layer? After the data and peer reviewed science which identifies the problem, change did occur on a global scale, and the ozone has now virtually, if not completely, replenished itself.. No offence but you obviously know very little about the science and are just repeating sound bites on the hope of virtue signalling, for starters the hole in the ozone is still there and at best estimates will be till 2060!. Now the fundamental mistake you made was assumption on my bollocks, and we all know assumption is the mother of all fuck ups
None taken. It’s not so much me knowing little about the science, as just having misremembered a detail. I remember reading about it, but not remembered the 2060 date.
The science, such that it is, still stands. Data and research identified a problem, as well as the likely cause of the problems. Steps were taken on a global scale to eliminate the cause of the problem, and now things are improving.
As such, I disagree with the suggestion that research and the conclusions found on climate change are irrelevant, or that progress can’t be made to reducing a likely contributor to the problem..
You see I never disagreed with the science.
What I actually said was it was irrelevant in reality because being honest nobody is going to change the entire worlds economic system no matter what the consequences!.
I mean take yourself, your a believer, yet your still flying?, still driving your car?, still buying new clothes?.
Of course you are and you always will, we've all been programmed to consume for hundreds of years, you could do it less but then there's the other problem that quite a few alluded to "overpopulation" , the trouble with that theory is, well 4 billon of those 7 don't rapidly consume like we do,but they will, that's just a matter of time.
The science itself is pretty concrete, it's not even new, it's a hundred and fifty years old, applying it to give us predictions was a little trickier, but hell none of them look good.
The climate is going to change regardless, it always has and always will what the argument is about is how fast is going to change from this very unusual 10,000 year period which has been very stable.
I would suggest that seen as none of us are going to change regardless and that change is inevitable, our time, effort and resources would be better spent on doing stuff that will mitigate the worst of it.
Ie the stuff I pointed out ages up at the top of this thread because we are never ever going to make the world carbon neutral, this notion is an utter pipe dream of lefty numptys and is actually being used as a primary motive for "wealth redistribution" and frankly every time that's been tried in history has been an unmitigated disaster with hundreds of millions left dead (think Stalin, Mao,pot, Castro).
"To be fair, you cynically swapped “science” for “bollocks”. You disagreeing that positive change can happen doesn’t make it bollocks. I disagree with the notion that the climate is going to change anyway, therefore there is no point trying to affect positive change to limit that change where it is practical to try to do so. And why do you use the term “believer”? Presumably in an attempt to cynically compare science to religion, to suggest that doing so is akin to having the blind faith of a religious believer. And yes, I do those things, but not in excess, and am happy to do make changes where it is practical to do so. Global carbon neutrality may be overly ambitious in the short to medium term, but I don’t think that means it isn’t worth taking steps where possible. Heck, Apple in the US is now entirely carbon neutral following massive investment in renewable energy. And yes, I know that’s only one company, but progress is never made if the attitude from the off is a shrug of the shoulders and a ‘why bother?’. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all irrelevant in reality. None of us are going to stop flying on holiday and shopping in cars. Were not going to change the entire worlds economic system and lives of EVERYBODY on it just because of some data and peer reviewed bollocks No, but aeroplanes can become more efficient and pollute less, and cars are likely to transition from petrol to electric over the next couple of decades. And flippantly changing “science” to “bollocks” doesn’t really help your argument. Remember the holes in the ozone layer? After the data and peer reviewed science which identifies the problem, change did occur on a global scale, and the ozone has now virtually, if not completely, replenished itself.. No offence but you obviously know very little about the science and are just repeating sound bites on the hope of virtue signalling, for starters the hole in the ozone is still there and at best estimates will be till 2060!. Now the fundamental mistake you made was assumption on my bollocks, and we all know assumption is the mother of all fuck ups
None taken. It’s not so much me knowing little about the science, as just having misremembered a detail. I remember reading about it, but not remembered the 2060 date.
The science, such that it is, still stands. Data and research identified a problem, as well as the likely cause of the problems. Steps were taken on a global scale to eliminate the cause of the problem, and now things are improving.
As such, I disagree with the suggestion that research and the conclusions found on climate change are irrelevant, or that progress can’t be made to reducing a likely contributor to the problem..
You see I never disagreed with the science.
What I actually said was it was irrelevant in reality because being honest nobody is going to change the entire worlds economic system no matter what the consequences!.
I mean take yourself, your a believer, yet your still flying?, still driving your car?, still buying new clothes?.
Of course you are and you always will, we've all been programmed to consume for hundreds of years, you could do it less but then there's the other problem that quite a few alluded to "overpopulation" , the trouble with that theory is, well 4 billon of those 7 don't rapidly consume like we do,but they will, that's just a matter of time.
The science itself is pretty concrete, it's not even new, it's a hundred and fifty years old, applying it to give us predictions was a little trickier, but hell none of them look good.
The climate is going to change regardless, it always has and always will what the argument is about is how fast is going to change from this very unusual 10,000 year period which has been very stable.
I would suggest that seen as none of us are going to change regardless and that change is inevitable, our time, effort and resources would be better spent on doing stuff that will mitigate the worst of it.
Ie the stuff I pointed out ages up at the top of this thread because we are never ever going to make the world carbon neutral, this notion is an utter pipe dream of lefty numptys and is actually being used as a primary motive for "wealth redistribution" and frankly every time that's been tried in history has been an unmitigated disaster with hundreds of millions left dead (think Stalin, Mao,pot, Castro).
To be fair, you cynically swapped “science” for “bollocks”. You disagreeing that positive change can happen doesn’t make it bollocks.
I disagree with the notion that the climate is going to change anyway, therefore there is no point trying to affect positive change to limit that change where it is practical to try to do so.
And why do you use the term “believer”? Presumably in an attempt to cynically compare science to religion, to suggest that doing so is akin to having the blind faith of a religious believer. And yes, I do those things, but not in excess, and am happy to do make changes where it is practical to do so.
Global carbon neutrality may be overly ambitious in the short to medium term, but I don’t think that means it isn’t worth taking steps where possible. Heck, Apple in the US is now entirely carbon neutral following massive investment in renewable energy. And yes, I know that’s only one company, but progress is never made if the attitude from the off is a shrug of the shoulders and a ‘why bother?’. ". I see you've been reading more blogs again?. Apple isn't even close to being carbon neutral and that's because it's nearly impossible to do, of course there'll plant some trees and invest in renewable energy and get "credits" to install the idea in your head via a blogger that they are. So you do those things but "not to excess" could you point me to the peer reviewed paper that says not doing stuff to excess means we'll be fine?. Good luck finding it but I will point you to Tim Garretts 2008 peer reviewed paper "civilization is a heat engine", where he confirms taking energy and converting it into heat (which is the primary output of work ie an economy) has exactly the same effect!. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all irrelevant in reality. None of us are going to stop flying on holiday and shopping in cars. Were not going to change the entire worlds economic system and lives of EVERYBODY on it just because of some data and peer reviewed bollocks No, but aeroplanes can become more efficient and pollute less, and cars are likely to transition from petrol to electric over the next couple of decades. And flippantly changing “science” to “bollocks” doesn’t really help your argument. Remember the holes in the ozone layer? After the data and peer reviewed science which identifies the problem, change did occur on a global scale, and the ozone has now virtually, if not completely, replenished itself.. No offence but you obviously know very little about the science and are just repeating sound bites on the hope of virtue signalling, for starters the hole in the ozone is still there and at best estimates will be till 2060!. Now the fundamental mistake you made was assumption on my bollocks, and we all know assumption is the mother of all fuck ups
None taken. It’s not so much me knowing little about the science, as just having misremembered a detail. I remember reading about it, but not remembered the 2060 date.
The science, such that it is, still stands. Data and research identified a problem, as well as the likely cause of the problems. Steps were taken on a global scale to eliminate the cause of the problem, and now things are improving.
As such, I disagree with the suggestion that research and the conclusions found on climate change are irrelevant, or that progress can’t be made to reducing a likely contributor to the problem..
You see I never disagreed with the science.
What I actually said was it was irrelevant in reality because being honest nobody is going to change the entire worlds economic system no matter what the consequences!.
I mean take yourself, your a believer, yet your still flying?, still driving your car?, still buying new clothes?.
Of course you are and you always will, we've all been programmed to consume for hundreds of years, you could do it less but then there's the other problem that quite a few alluded to "overpopulation" , the trouble with that theory is, well 4 billon of those 7 don't rapidly consume like we do,but they will, that's just a matter of time.
The science itself is pretty concrete, it's not even new, it's a hundred and fifty years old, applying it to give us predictions was a little trickier, but hell none of them look good.
The climate is going to change regardless, it always has and always will what the argument is about is how fast is going to change from this very unusual 10,000 year period which has been very stable.
I would suggest that seen as none of us are going to change regardless and that change is inevitable, our time, effort and resources would be better spent on doing stuff that will mitigate the worst of it.
Ie the stuff I pointed out ages up at the top of this thread because we are never ever going to make the world carbon neutral, this notion is an utter pipe dream of lefty numptys and is actually being used as a primary motive for "wealth redistribution" and frankly every time that's been tried in history has been an unmitigated disaster with hundreds of millions left dead (think Stalin, Mao,pot, Castro).
To be fair, you cynically swapped “science” for “bollocks”. You disagreeing that positive change can happen doesn’t make it bollocks.
I disagree with the notion that the climate is going to change anyway, therefore there is no point trying to affect positive change to limit that change where it is practical to try to do so.
And why do you use the term “believer”? Presumably in an attempt to cynically compare science to religion, to suggest that doing so is akin to having the blind faith of a religious believer. And yes, I do those things, but not in excess, and am happy to do make changes where it is practical to do so.
Global carbon neutrality may be overly ambitious in the short to medium term, but I don’t think that means it isn’t worth taking steps where possible. Heck, Apple in the US is now entirely carbon neutral following massive investment in renewable energy. And yes, I know that’s only one company, but progress is never made if the attitude from the off is a shrug of the shoulders and a ‘why bother?’. .
I see you've been reading more blogs again?.
Apple isn't even close to being carbon neutral and that's because it's nearly impossible to do, of course there'll plant some trees and invest in renewable energy and get "credits" to install the idea in your head via a blogger that they are.
So you do those things but "not to excess" could you point me to the peer reviewed paper that says not doing stuff to excess means we'll be fine?.
Good luck finding it but I will point you to Tim Garretts 2008 peer reviewed paper "civilization is a heat engine", where he confirms taking energy and converting it into heat (which is the primary output of work ie an economy) has exactly the same effect!.
"Oh, I don’t know. They are using 100% renewable energy. Apparently. Although probably with some offsetting going on. Point is they’ve done a hell of lot. There is no peer reviewed paper that says not doing things to excess means we’ll be fine. But seeing as that wasn’t my argument, it’s kinda moot. I just disagree with the idea that if something can’t be 100% there is no point in doing anything. Do you also believe that there is no point treating people for cancer, because cancer treatments will never be able to cure everyone? Or that if people can’t get themselves as for as Olympic athletes there’s no point in exercising at all, or eating healthily? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all irrelevant in reality. None of us are going to stop flying on holiday and shopping in cars. Were not going to change the entire worlds economic system and lives of EVERYBODY on it just because of some data and peer reviewed bollocks No, but aeroplanes can become more efficient and pollute less, and cars are likely to transition from petrol to electric over the next couple of decades. And flippantly changing “science” to “bollocks” doesn’t really help your argument. Remember the holes in the ozone layer? After the data and peer reviewed science which identifies the problem, change did occur on a global scale, and the ozone has now virtually, if not completely, replenished itself.. No offence but you obviously know very little about the science and are just repeating sound bites on the hope of virtue signalling, for starters the hole in the ozone is still there and at best estimates will be till 2060!. Now the fundamental mistake you made was assumption on my bollocks, and we all know assumption is the mother of all fuck ups
None taken. It’s not so much me knowing little about the science, as just having misremembered a detail. I remember reading about it, but not remembered the 2060 date.
The science, such that it is, still stands. Data and research identified a problem, as well as the likely cause of the problems. Steps were taken on a global scale to eliminate the cause of the problem, and now things are improving.
As such, I disagree with the suggestion that research and the conclusions found on climate change are irrelevant, or that progress can’t be made to reducing a likely contributor to the problem..
You see I never disagreed with the science.
What I actually said was it was irrelevant in reality because being honest nobody is going to change the entire worlds economic system no matter what the consequences!.
I mean take yourself, your a believer, yet your still flying?, still driving your car?, still buying new clothes?.
Of course you are and you always will, we've all been programmed to consume for hundreds of years, you could do it less but then there's the other problem that quite a few alluded to "overpopulation" , the trouble with that theory is, well 4 billon of those 7 don't rapidly consume like we do,but they will, that's just a matter of time.
The science itself is pretty concrete, it's not even new, it's a hundred and fifty years old, applying it to give us predictions was a little trickier, but hell none of them look good.
The climate is going to change regardless, it always has and always will what the argument is about is how fast is going to change from this very unusual 10,000 year period which has been very stable.
I would suggest that seen as none of us are going to change regardless and that change is inevitable, our time, effort and resources would be better spent on doing stuff that will mitigate the worst of it.
Ie the stuff I pointed out ages up at the top of this thread because we are never ever going to make the world carbon neutral, this notion is an utter pipe dream of lefty numptys and is actually being used as a primary motive for "wealth redistribution" and frankly every time that's been tried in history has been an unmitigated disaster with hundreds of millions left dead (think Stalin, Mao,pot, Castro).
To be fair, you cynically swapped “science” for “bollocks”. You disagreeing that positive change can happen doesn’t make it bollocks.
I disagree with the notion that the climate is going to change anyway, therefore there is no point trying to affect positive change to limit that change where it is practical to try to do so.
And why do you use the term “believer”? Presumably in an attempt to cynically compare science to religion, to suggest that doing so is akin to having the blind faith of a religious believer. And yes, I do those things, but not in excess, and am happy to do make changes where it is practical to do so.
Global carbon neutrality may be overly ambitious in the short to medium term, but I don’t think that means it isn’t worth taking steps where possible. Heck, Apple in the US is now entirely carbon neutral following massive investment in renewable energy. And yes, I know that’s only one company, but progress is never made if the attitude from the off is a shrug of the shoulders and a ‘why bother?’. .
I see you've been reading more blogs again?.
Apple isn't even close to being carbon neutral and that's because it's nearly impossible to do, of course there'll plant some trees and invest in renewable energy and get "credits" to install the idea in your head via a blogger that they are.
So you do those things but "not to excess" could you point me to the peer reviewed paper that says not doing stuff to excess means we'll be fine?.
Good luck finding it but I will point you to Tim Garretts 2008 peer reviewed paper "civilization is a heat engine", where he confirms taking energy and converting it into heat (which is the primary output of work ie an economy) has exactly the same effect!.
Oh, I don’t know. They are using 100% renewable energy. Apparently. Although probably with some offsetting going on. Point is they’ve done a hell of lot.
There is no peer reviewed paper that says not doing things to excess means we’ll be fine.
But seeing as that wasn’t my argument, it’s kinda moot. I just disagree with the idea that if something can’t be 100% there is no point in doing anything.
Do you also believe that there is no point treating people for cancer, because cancer treatments will never be able to cure everyone?
Or that if people can’t get themselves as for as Olympic athletes there’s no point in exercising at all, or eating healthily?
". 100% renewable energy!. Where did the energy come from to dig up the rare earths which is the mainstay of all pc equipment?. Where did the energy come from to produce the turbines, PV arrays, where does the energy come from for the guys servicing them, how do the thousands of workers get to work?. To claim there carbon neutral is typical blog speak. The climate scientists are very dishonest about the scale of the problem, let's face facts, even if they proved completely 100% (I personally think they are very close or at least within scientific tolerances) that even numptys could agree, do you honestly think Steve is going home to Sharon saying cancel that holiday love, were all fucked in 50 years!! And fuck that new car off as well. No I'm afraid it's an inevitable consequence of civilization, and we should stop dreaming and telling fibs of cures and start living in reality. We need to start the rebuilding NOW. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We can't live without this planet but this planet can live without us " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do we all like the hot weather? I do, do you think this is an natural cyckle of the earth as its hotting up everywhere? Europe, japan and in sweden, there are about 80 forrest fires in sweden, due to the heat "I like your avatar, it makes me think of my holiday!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think climate change is merely a symptom of the real problem. Overpopulation." Only famine,disease, and world wars make any difference, but Its not long before we,re back to square one again nothing ever changes in that respect long term. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not worried. The human race will fuck it up to the point where the environment will be uninhabitable for us. We will end and the world will recover and new lifeforms will evolve. There have been at least 6 extinction level events on earth in her 8 billion years. We will be nothing more than a footnote in her history. There have been five mass extinction events in the Earths history, but what’s one mass extinction event between friends ! "There have always been variations in the Earth's temperature causing hot desserts & ice ages, Egypt was lush vegetation when the pyramids were built but look at it now & nothing to do with man. The planet will change for better or worse all without our help like it's always done, don't eat yourself up with worry over global warming as a lot of it is a con by governments to get that extra bit of coin out of you. Real problems like the plastic build up in the seas will be pushed aside as normal because the governments haven't thought of a way to extract money from us as it's a visible problem they can't fool us with. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all irrelevant in reality. None of us are going to stop flying on holiday and shopping in cars. Were not going to change the entire worlds economic system and lives of EVERYBODY on it just because of some data and peer reviewed bollocks No, but aeroplanes can become more efficient and pollute less, and cars are likely to transition from petrol to electric over the next couple of decades. And flippantly changing “science” to “bollocks” doesn’t really help your argument. Remember the holes in the ozone layer? After the data and peer reviewed science which identifies the problem, change did occur on a global scale, and the ozone has now virtually, if not completely, replenished itself.. No offence but you obviously know very little about the science and are just repeating sound bites on the hope of virtue signalling, for starters the hole in the ozone is still there and at best estimates will be till 2060!. Now the fundamental mistake you made was assumption on my bollocks, and we all know assumption is the mother of all fuck ups
None taken. It’s not so much me knowing little about the science, as just having misremembered a detail. I remember reading about it, but not remembered the 2060 date.
The science, such that it is, still stands. Data and research identified a problem, as well as the likely cause of the problems. Steps were taken on a global scale to eliminate the cause of the problem, and now things are improving.
As such, I disagree with the suggestion that research and the conclusions found on climate change are irrelevant, or that progress can’t be made to reducing a likely contributor to the problem..
You see I never disagreed with the science.
What I actually said was it was irrelevant in reality because being honest nobody is going to change the entire worlds economic system no matter what the consequences!.
I mean take yourself, your a believer, yet your still flying?, still driving your car?, still buying new clothes?.
Of course you are and you always will, we've all been programmed to consume for hundreds of years, you could do it less but then there's the other problem that quite a few alluded to "overpopulation" , the trouble with that theory is, well 4 billon of those 7 don't rapidly consume like we do,but they will, that's just a matter of time.
The science itself is pretty concrete, it's not even new, it's a hundred and fifty years old, applying it to give us predictions was a little trickier, but hell none of them look good.
The climate is going to change regardless, it always has and always will what the argument is about is how fast is going to change from this very unusual 10,000 year period which has been very stable.
I would suggest that seen as none of us are going to change regardless and that change is inevitable, our time, effort and resources would be better spent on doing stuff that will mitigate the worst of it.
Ie the stuff I pointed out ages up at the top of this thread because we are never ever going to make the world carbon neutral, this notion is an utter pipe dream of lefty numptys and is actually being used as a primary motive for "wealth redistribution" and frankly every time that's been tried in history has been an unmitigated disaster with hundreds of millions left dead (think Stalin, Mao,pot, Castro).
To be fair, you cynically swapped “science” for “bollocks”. You disagreeing that positive change can happen doesn’t make it bollocks.
I disagree with the notion that the climate is going to change anyway, therefore there is no point trying to affect positive change to limit that change where it is practical to try to do so.
And why do you use the term “believer”? Presumably in an attempt to cynically compare science to religion, to suggest that doing so is akin to having the blind faith of a religious believer. And yes, I do those things, but not in excess, and am happy to do make changes where it is practical to do so.
Global carbon neutrality may be overly ambitious in the short to medium term, but I don’t think that means it isn’t worth taking steps where possible. Heck, Apple in the US is now entirely carbon neutral following massive investment in renewable energy. And yes, I know that’s only one company, but progress is never made if the attitude from the off is a shrug of the shoulders and a ‘why bother?’. .
I see you've been reading more blogs again?.
Apple isn't even close to being carbon neutral and that's because it's nearly impossible to do, of course there'll plant some trees and invest in renewable energy and get "credits" to install the idea in your head via a blogger that they are.
So you do those things but "not to excess" could you point me to the peer reviewed paper that says not doing stuff to excess means we'll be fine?.
Good luck finding it but I will point you to Tim Garretts 2008 peer reviewed paper "civilization is a heat engine", where he confirms taking energy and converting it into heat (which is the primary output of work ie an economy) has exactly the same effect!.
Oh, I don’t know. They are using 100% renewable energy. Apparently. Although probably with some offsetting going on. Point is they’ve done a hell of lot.
There is no peer reviewed paper that says not doing things to excess means we’ll be fine.
But seeing as that wasn’t my argument, it’s kinda moot. I just disagree with the idea that if something can’t be 100% there is no point in doing anything.
Do you also believe that there is no point treating people for cancer, because cancer treatments will never be able to cure everyone?
Or that if people can’t get themselves as for as Olympic athletes there’s no point in exercising at all, or eating healthily?
.
100% renewable energy!.
Where did the energy come from to dig up the rare earths which is the mainstay of all pc equipment?.
Where did the energy come from to produce the turbines, PV arrays, where does the energy come from for the guys servicing them, how do the thousands of workers get to work?.
To claim there carbon neutral is typical blog speak.
The climate scientists are very dishonest about the scale of the problem, let's face facts, even if they proved completely 100% (I personally think they are very close or at least within scientific tolerances) that even numptys could agree, do you honestly think Steve is going home to Sharon saying cancel that holiday love, were all fucked in 50 years!! And fuck that new car off as well.
No I'm afraid it's an inevitable consequence of civilization, and we should stop dreaming and telling fibs of cures and start living in reality.
We need to start the rebuilding NOW.
"If someone has solar panels and they are providing 100% of someone’s energy usage, it seems more than a little pedantic to say ‘Ah! But what about the energy required to make the solar panels?’. It kind of missed the point spectacularly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not worried. The human race will fuck it up to the point where the environment will be uninhabitable for us. We will end and the world will recover and new lifeforms will evolve. There have been at least 6 extinction level events on earth in her 8 billion years. We will be nothing more than a footnote in her history. There have been five mass extinction events in the Earths history, but what’s one mass extinction event between friends !
There have always been variations in the Earth's temperature causing hot desserts & ice ages, Egypt was lush vegetation when the pyramids were built but look at it now & nothing to do with man.
The planet will change for better or worse all without our help like it's always done, don't eat yourself up with worry over global warming as a lot of it is a con by governments to get that extra bit of coin out of you.
Real problems like the plastic build up in the seas will be pushed aside as normal because the governments haven't thought of a way to extract money from us as it's a visible problem they can't fool us with."So are you saying that all the independent, peer reviewed evidence about climate change is wrong, or made up? What even are all these green taxes that we’re supposed to be paying anyway? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all irrelevant in reality. None of us are going to stop flying on holiday and shopping in cars. Were not going to change the entire worlds economic system and lives of EVERYBODY on it just because of some data and peer reviewed bollocks No, but aeroplanes can become more efficient and pollute less, and cars are likely to transition from petrol to electric over the next couple of decades. And flippantly changing “science” to “bollocks” doesn’t really help your argument. Remember the holes in the ozone layer? After the data and peer reviewed science which identifies the problem, change did occur on a global scale, and the ozone has now virtually, if not completely, replenished itself.. No offence but you obviously know very little about the science and are just repeating sound bites on the hope of virtue signalling, for starters the hole in the ozone is still there and at best estimates will be till 2060!. Now the fundamental mistake you made was assumption on my bollocks, and we all know assumption is the mother of all fuck ups
None taken. It’s not so much me knowing little about the science, as just having misremembered a detail. I remember reading about it, but not remembered the 2060 date.
The science, such that it is, still stands. Data and research identified a problem, as well as the likely cause of the problems. Steps were taken on a global scale to eliminate the cause of the problem, and now things are improving.
As such, I disagree with the suggestion that research and the conclusions found on climate change are irrelevant, or that progress can’t be made to reducing a likely contributor to the problem..
You see I never disagreed with the science.
What I actually said was it was irrelevant in reality because being honest nobody is going to change the entire worlds economic system no matter what the consequences!.
I mean take yourself, your a believer, yet your still flying?, still driving your car?, still buying new clothes?.
Of course you are and you always will, we've all been programmed to consume for hundreds of years, you could do it less but then there's the other problem that quite a few alluded to "overpopulation" , the trouble with that theory is, well 4 billon of those 7 don't rapidly consume like we do,but they will, that's just a matter of time.
The science itself is pretty concrete, it's not even new, it's a hundred and fifty years old, applying it to give us predictions was a little trickier, but hell none of them look good.
The climate is going to change regardless, it always has and always will what the argument is about is how fast is going to change from this very unusual 10,000 year period which has been very stable.
I would suggest that seen as none of us are going to change regardless and that change is inevitable, our time, effort and resources would be better spent on doing stuff that will mitigate the worst of it.
Ie the stuff I pointed out ages up at the top of this thread because we are never ever going to make the world carbon neutral, this notion is an utter pipe dream of lefty numptys and is actually being used as a primary motive for "wealth redistribution" and frankly every time that's been tried in history has been an unmitigated disaster with hundreds of millions left dead (think Stalin, Mao,pot, Castro).
To be fair, you cynically swapped “science” for “bollocks”. You disagreeing that positive change can happen doesn’t make it bollocks.
I disagree with the notion that the climate is going to change anyway, therefore there is no point trying to affect positive change to limit that change where it is practical to try to do so.
And why do you use the term “believer”? Presumably in an attempt to cynically compare science to religion, to suggest that doing so is akin to having the blind faith of a religious believer. And yes, I do those things, but not in excess, and am happy to do make changes where it is practical to do so.
Global carbon neutrality may be overly ambitious in the short to medium term, but I don’t think that means it isn’t worth taking steps where possible. Heck, Apple in the US is now entirely carbon neutral following massive investment in renewable energy. And yes, I know that’s only one company, but progress is never made if the attitude from the off is a shrug of the shoulders and a ‘why bother?’. .
I see you've been reading more blogs again?.
Apple isn't even close to being carbon neutral and that's because it's nearly impossible to do, of course there'll plant some trees and invest in renewable energy and get "credits" to install the idea in your head via a blogger that they are.
So you do those things but "not to excess" could you point me to the peer reviewed paper that says not doing stuff to excess means we'll be fine?.
Good luck finding it but I will point you to Tim Garretts 2008 peer reviewed paper "civilization is a heat engine", where he confirms taking energy and converting it into heat (which is the primary output of work ie an economy) has exactly the same effect!.
Oh, I don’t know. They are using 100% renewable energy. Apparently. Although probably with some offsetting going on. Point is they’ve done a hell of lot.
There is no peer reviewed paper that says not doing things to excess means we’ll be fine.
But seeing as that wasn’t my argument, it’s kinda moot. I just disagree with the idea that if something can’t be 100% there is no point in doing anything.
Do you also believe that there is no point treating people for cancer, because cancer treatments will never be able to cure everyone?
Or that if people can’t get themselves as for as Olympic athletes there’s no point in exercising at all, or eating healthily?
.
100% renewable energy!.
Where did the energy come from to dig up the rare earths which is the mainstay of all pc equipment?.
Where did the energy come from to produce the turbines, PV arrays, where does the energy come from for the guys servicing them, how do the thousands of workers get to work?.
To claim there carbon neutral is typical blog speak.
The climate scientists are very dishonest about the scale of the problem, let's face facts, even if they proved completely 100% (I personally think they are very close or at least within scientific tolerances) that even numptys could agree, do you honestly think Steve is going home to Sharon saying cancel that holiday love, were all fucked in 50 years!! And fuck that new car off as well.
No I'm afraid it's an inevitable consequence of civilization, and we should stop dreaming and telling fibs of cures and start living in reality.
We need to start the rebuilding NOW.
If someone has solar panels and they are providing 100% of someone’s energy usage, it seems more than a little pedantic to say ‘Ah! But what about the energy required to make the solar panels?’. It kind of missed the point spectacularly.". Life's a bit short for this argument. Good luck with your efforts though | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
