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 Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They are saying that "The Big One" will see 100,000 people at Westminster to protest, but the big counter on their website says that just under 27,000 have signed up to attend. I wonder if that number will be used against them when the media reports how many attendees there were." What's the objective of the counter protestors? To heat up an make the planet uninhabitable even faster? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They are saying that "The Big One" will see 100,000 people at Westminster to protest, but the big counter on their website says that just under 27,000 have signed up to attend. I wonder if that number will be used against them when the media reports how many attendees there were. What's the objective of the counter protestors? To heat up an make the planet uninhabitable even faster?" Wait. I misunderstood. Carry on everyone. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They are saying that "The Big One" will see 100,000 people at Westminster to protest, but the big counter on their website says that just under 27,000 have signed up to attend. I wonder if that number will be used against them when the media reports how many attendees there were. What's the objective of the counter protestors? To heat up an make the planet uninhabitable even faster?" I'm sure the big counter on the web site is over 27k by now.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They are saying that "The Big One" will see 100,000 people at Westminster to protest, but the big counter on their website says that just under 27,000 have signed up to attend. I wonder if that number will be used against them when the media reports how many attendees there were." To answer the question. Yes the media will do everything in its power to discredit the protests and to avoid any meaningful discussion of the issues. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
End fossil fuels NOW
Couldn't help myself | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just wondering if you all will be walking there to save on fossil fuels??" I doubt it …why ? Do they have to  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As a coach driver. Tired of taking them to demo’s all over the place. Even the OP was using fossil fuels to travel on holiday to beziers and back not 20 weeks ago. They are mostly full of shit and jumping on the bandwagon to be trendy " Err, is that the ‘bandwagon’ supported by the science and evidence ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As a coach driver. Tired of taking them to demo’s all over the place. Even the OP was using fossil fuels to travel on holiday to beziers and back not 20 weeks ago. They are mostly full of shit and jumping on the bandwagon to be trendy Err, is that the ‘bandwagon’ supported by the science and evidence ? " No. It’s the bandwagon of all the travel to meetings and demonstrations they do to glue themselves to things using oil based glue | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As a coach driver. Tired of taking them to demo’s all over the place. Even the OP was using fossil fuels to travel on holiday to beziers and back not 20 weeks ago. They are mostly full of shit and jumping on the bandwagon to be trendy Err, is that the ‘bandwagon’ supported by the science and evidence ? No. It’s the bandwagon of all the travel to meetings and demonstrations they do to glue themselves to things using oil based glue " How are they supposed to get there if they don't travel? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As a coach driver. Tired of taking them to demo’s all over the place. Even the OP was using fossil fuels to travel on holiday to beziers and back not 20 weeks ago. They are mostly full of shit and jumping on the bandwagon to be trendy Err, is that the ‘bandwagon’ supported by the science and evidence ? No. It’s the bandwagon of all the travel to meetings and demonstrations they do to glue themselves to things using oil based glue How are they supposed to get there if they don't travel?" Why demonstrate against the use of fossil fuels whilst using them to demonstrate against their use? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As a coach driver. Tired of taking them to demo’s all over the place. Even the OP was using fossil fuels to travel on holiday to beziers and back not 20 weeks ago. They are mostly full of shit and jumping on the bandwagon to be trendy Err, is that the ‘bandwagon’ supported by the science and evidence ? No. It’s the bandwagon of all the travel to meetings and demonstrations they do to glue themselves to things using oil based glue " So no one has a right to demonstrate if they use, or ever have used, an oil based material ?!?! Jeez ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As a coach driver. Tired of taking them to demo’s all over the place. Even the OP was using fossil fuels to travel on holiday to beziers and back not 20 weeks ago. They are mostly full of shit and jumping on the bandwagon to be trendy Err, is that the ‘bandwagon’ supported by the science and evidence ? No. It’s the bandwagon of all the travel to meetings and demonstrations they do to glue themselves to things using oil based glue How are they supposed to get there if they don't travel? Why demonstrate against the use of fossil fuels whilst using them to demonstrate against their use?" Because they have no other option to get to the protests. Glad I could clear that up for you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As a coach driver. Tired of taking them to demo’s all over the place. Even the OP was using fossil fuels to travel on holiday to beziers and back not 20 weeks ago. They are mostly full of shit and jumping on the bandwagon to be trendy Err, is that the ‘bandwagon’ supported by the science and evidence ? No. It’s the bandwagon of all the travel to meetings and demonstrations they do to glue themselves to things using oil based glue How are they supposed to get there if they don't travel? Why demonstrate against the use of fossil fuels whilst using them to demonstrate against their use? Because they have no other option to get to the protests. Glad I could clear that up for you. " Do what they would do if there was no fossil fuels ... Jeez it's not rocket science!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As a coach driver. Tired of taking them to demo’s all over the place. Even the OP was using fossil fuels to travel on holiday to beziers and back not 20 weeks ago. They are mostly full of shit and jumping on the bandwagon to be trendy Err, is that the ‘bandwagon’ supported by the science and evidence ? No. It’s the bandwagon of all the travel to meetings and demonstrations they do to glue themselves to things using oil based glue How are they supposed to get there if they don't travel? Why demonstrate against the use of fossil fuels whilst using them to demonstrate against their use? Because they have no other option to get to the protests. Glad I could clear that up for you. Do what they would do if there was no fossil fuels ... Jeez it's not rocket science!!!" Good grief …they aren’t trying to change history; they are repeating what the science says and that we must have an urgent transition away from fossil fuels. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As a coach driver. Tired of taking them to demo’s all over the place. Even the OP was using fossil fuels to travel on holiday to beziers and back not 20 weeks ago. They are mostly full of shit and jumping on the bandwagon to be trendy Err, is that the ‘bandwagon’ supported by the science and evidence ? No. It’s the bandwagon of all the travel to meetings and demonstrations they do to glue themselves to things using oil based glue How are they supposed to get there if they don't travel? Why demonstrate against the use of fossil fuels whilst using them to demonstrate against their use? Because they have no other option to get to the protests. Glad I could clear that up for you. Do what they would do if there was no fossil fuels ... Jeez it's not rocket science!!! Good grief …they aren’t trying to change history; they are repeating what the science says and that we must have an urgent transition away from fossil fuels. " Timescales, transition to what, would this be a global change and what would the future look like? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them." They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them."  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately." It would be good to get your opinion on my previous questions. Timescales, transition to what, would this be a global change and what would the future look like? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. It would be good to get your opinion on my previous questions. Timescales, transition to what, would this be a global change and what would the future look like?" Timescale. I don't know. Transition to renewables. Yes global change. Future would look good. What are your opinions on those? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. It would be good to get your opinion on my previous questions. Timescales, transition to what, would this be a global change and what would the future look like? Timescale. I don't know. Transition to renewables. Yes global change. Future would look good. What are your opinions on those?" I'm not being argumentative, genuine questions. Timescales are important for milestones, no timescales no plan. Renewables providing what exactly, to power what? What will be sacrificed have we got the infrastructure? Global change, do all countries in the world have the desire to change, the infrastructure? How would a global change be enforced, or managed. Would the economic and social impact of change be accepted by 3rd world countries reliant on fossil fuels? The future looks good from your view point today, how? What are the global ramifications in this change, politically, militarily, economically and socially? Would there be sacrifices to what we have today, would the general population accept change or resist in the very human trait of selfishness. Timescales are important to allow all of these factors to be considered and managed, flicking a no fossil fuel switch today would be disastrous. I think there is a lot more conversation and consideration to be had to make this work, globally or nationally. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately." The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As a coach driver. Tired of taking them to demo’s all over the place. Even the OP was using fossil fuels to travel on holiday to beziers and back not 20 weeks ago. They are mostly full of shit and jumping on the bandwagon to be trendy Err, is that the ‘bandwagon’ supported by the science and evidence ? No. It’s the bandwagon of all the travel to meetings and demonstrations they do to glue themselves to things using oil based glue How are they supposed to get there if they don't travel? Why demonstrate against the use of fossil fuels whilst using them to demonstrate against their use? Because they have no other option to get to the protests. Glad I could clear that up for you. " i would of thought they would have electric cars if there worried about the planet | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. It would be good to get your opinion on my previous questions. Timescales, transition to what, would this be a global change and what would the future look like? Timescale. I don't know. Transition to renewables. Yes global change. Future would look good. What are your opinions on those? I'm not being argumentative, genuine questions. Timescales are important for milestones, no timescales no plan. Renewables providing what exactly, to power what? What will be sacrificed have we got the infrastructure? Global change, do all countries in the world have the desire to change, the infrastructure? How would a global change be enforced, or managed. Would the economic and social impact of change be accepted by 3rd world countries reliant on fossil fuels? The future looks good from your view point today, how? What are the global ramifications in this change, politically, militarily, economically and socially? Would there be sacrifices to what we have today, would the general population accept change or resist in the very human trait of selfishness. Timescales are important to allow all of these factors to be considered and managed, flicking a no fossil fuel switch today would be disastrous. I think there is a lot more conversation and consideration to be had to make this work, globally or nationally. " Yes. Timescales are vitally important. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As a coach driver. Tired of taking them to demo’s all over the place. Even the OP was using fossil fuels to travel on holiday to beziers and back not 20 weeks ago. They are mostly full of shit and jumping on the bandwagon to be trendy Err, is that the ‘bandwagon’ supported by the science and evidence ? No. It’s the bandwagon of all the travel to meetings and demonstrations they do to glue themselves to things using oil based glue How are they supposed to get there if they don't travel? Why demonstrate against the use of fossil fuels whilst using them to demonstrate against their use? Because they have no other option to get to the protests. Glad I could clear that up for you. i would of thought they would have electric cars if there worried about the planet " Presumably they can't afford them. Just like the majority of us. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination?" Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. It would be good to get your opinion on my previous questions. Timescales, transition to what, would this be a global change and what would the future look like? Timescale. I don't know. Transition to renewables. Yes global change. Future would look good. What are your opinions on those? I'm not being argumentative, genuine questions. Timescales are important for milestones, no timescales no plan. Renewables providing what exactly, to power what? What will be sacrificed have we got the infrastructure? Global change, do all countries in the world have the desire to change, the infrastructure? How would a global change be enforced, or managed. Would the economic and social impact of change be accepted by 3rd world countries reliant on fossil fuels? The future looks good from your view point today, how? What are the global ramifications in this change, politically, militarily, economically and socially? Would there be sacrifices to what we have today, would the general population accept change or resist in the very human trait of selfishness. Timescales are important to allow all of these factors to be considered and managed, flicking a no fossil fuel switch today would be disastrous. I think there is a lot more conversation and consideration to be had to make this work, globally or nationally. Yes. Timescales are vitally important. " Come on, a lot more to unpack.. What are your thoughts? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. It would be good to get your opinion on my previous questions. Timescales, transition to what, would this be a global change and what would the future look like? Timescale. I don't know. Transition to renewables. Yes global change. Future would look good. What are your opinions on those? I'm not being argumentative, genuine questions. Timescales are important for milestones, no timescales no plan. Renewables providing what exactly, to power what? What will be sacrificed have we got the infrastructure? Global change, do all countries in the world have the desire to change, the infrastructure? How would a global change be enforced, or managed. Would the economic and social impact of change be accepted by 3rd world countries reliant on fossil fuels? The future looks good from your view point today, how? What are the global ramifications in this change, politically, militarily, economically and socially? Would there be sacrifices to what we have today, would the general population accept change or resist in the very human trait of selfishness. Timescales are important to allow all of these factors to be considered and managed, flicking a no fossil fuel switch today would be disastrous. I think there is a lot more conversation and consideration to be had to make this work, globally or nationally. Yes. Timescales are vitally important. Come on, a lot more to unpack.. What are your thoughts?" I'm a bit confused why you're asking me specifically. You're asking things I have no idea about. The impact of renewable energy on the military, for example. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. It would be good to get your opinion on my previous questions. Timescales, transition to what, would this be a global change and what would the future look like? Timescale. I don't know. Transition to renewables. Yes global change. Future would look good. What are your opinions on those? I'm not being argumentative, genuine questions. Timescales are important for milestones, no timescales no plan. Renewables providing what exactly, to power what? What will be sacrificed have we got the infrastructure? Global change, do all countries in the world have the desire to change, the infrastructure? How would a global change be enforced, or managed. Would the economic and social impact of change be accepted by 3rd world countries reliant on fossil fuels? The future looks good from your view point today, how? What are the global ramifications in this change, politically, militarily, economically and socially? Would there be sacrifices to what we have today, would the general population accept change or resist in the very human trait of selfishness. Timescales are important to allow all of these factors to be considered and managed, flicking a no fossil fuel switch today would be disastrous. I think there is a lot more conversation and consideration to be had to make this work, globally or nationally. Yes. Timescales are vitally important. Come on, a lot more to unpack.. What are your thoughts? I'm a bit confused why you're asking me specifically. You're asking things I have no idea about. The impact of renewable energy on the military, for example. " You advocate for renewable energy at every opportunity, I would have thought these questions would have been considered at length from your advocacy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people " Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. It would be good to get your opinion on my previous questions. Timescales, transition to what, would this be a global change and what would the future look like? Timescale. I don't know. Transition to renewables. Yes global change. Future would look good. What are your opinions on those? I'm not being argumentative, genuine questions. Timescales are important for milestones, no timescales no plan. Renewables providing what exactly, to power what? What will be sacrificed have we got the infrastructure? Global change, do all countries in the world have the desire to change, the infrastructure? How would a global change be enforced, or managed. Would the economic and social impact of change be accepted by 3rd world countries reliant on fossil fuels? The future looks good from your view point today, how? What are the global ramifications in this change, politically, militarily, economically and socially? Would there be sacrifices to what we have today, would the general population accept change or resist in the very human trait of selfishness. Timescales are important to allow all of these factors to be considered and managed, flicking a no fossil fuel switch today would be disastrous. I think there is a lot more conversation and consideration to be had to make this work, globally or nationally. Yes. Timescales are vitally important. Come on, a lot more to unpack.. What are your thoughts? I'm a bit confused why you're asking me specifically. You're asking things I have no idea about. The impact of renewable energy on the military, for example. You advocate for renewable energy at every opportunity, I would have thought these questions would have been considered at length from your advocacy." Some yes, others not. None of these are the major barriers to transitioning to renewables. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want." Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. It would be good to get your opinion on my previous questions. Timescales, transition to what, would this be a global change and what would the future look like? Timescale. I don't know. Transition to renewables. Yes global change. Future would look good. What are your opinions on those? I'm not being argumentative, genuine questions. Timescales are important for milestones, no timescales no plan. Renewables providing what exactly, to power what? What will be sacrificed have we got the infrastructure? Global change, do all countries in the world have the desire to change, the infrastructure? How would a global change be enforced, or managed. Would the economic and social impact of change be accepted by 3rd world countries reliant on fossil fuels? The future looks good from your view point today, how? What are the global ramifications in this change, politically, militarily, economically and socially? Would there be sacrifices to what we have today, would the general population accept change or resist in the very human trait of selfishness. Timescales are important to allow all of these factors to be considered and managed, flicking a no fossil fuel switch today would be disastrous. I think there is a lot more conversation and consideration to be had to make this work, globally or nationally. Yes. Timescales are vitally important. Come on, a lot more to unpack.. What are your thoughts? I'm a bit confused why you're asking me specifically. You're asking things I have no idea about. The impact of renewable energy on the military, for example. You advocate for renewable energy at every opportunity, I would have thought these questions would have been considered at length from your advocacy." I'm asking from militarily perspective, would there be an impact on a countries capabilities to defend itself. Don't get hung upon that 1 particular question there was plenty more | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. It would be good to get your opinion on my previous questions. Timescales, transition to what, would this be a global change and what would the future look like? Timescale. I don't know. Transition to renewables. Yes global change. Future would look good. What are your opinions on those? I'm not being argumentative, genuine questions. Timescales are important for milestones, no timescales no plan. Renewables providing what exactly, to power what? What will be sacrificed have we got the infrastructure? Global change, do all countries in the world have the desire to change, the infrastructure? How would a global change be enforced, or managed. Would the economic and social impact of change be accepted by 3rd world countries reliant on fossil fuels? The future looks good from your view point today, how? What are the global ramifications in this change, politically, militarily, economically and socially? Would there be sacrifices to what we have today, would the general population accept change or resist in the very human trait of selfishness. Timescales are important to allow all of these factors to be considered and managed, flicking a no fossil fuel switch today would be disastrous. I think there is a lot more conversation and consideration to be had to make this work, globally or nationally. Yes. Timescales are vitally important. Come on, a lot more to unpack.. What are your thoughts? I'm a bit confused why you're asking me specifically. You're asking things I have no idea about. The impact of renewable energy on the military, for example. You advocate for renewable energy at every opportunity, I would have thought these questions would have been considered at length from your advocacy. I'm asking from militarily perspective, would there be an impact on a countries capabilities to defend itself. Don't get hung upon that 1 particular question there was plenty more "That question is more to do with the purpose of having a military and the purpose of war than of renewable energy. To answer you. What I know about military strategy, military capabilities, could be written on the back of a postage stamp with plenty of room left for a signature. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. It would be good to get your opinion on my previous questions. Timescales, transition to what, would this be a global change and what would the future look like? Timescale. I don't know. Transition to renewables. Yes global change. Future would look good. What are your opinions on those? I'm not being argumentative, genuine questions. Timescales are important for milestones, no timescales no plan. Renewables providing what exactly, to power what? What will be sacrificed have we got the infrastructure? Global change, do all countries in the world have the desire to change, the infrastructure? How would a global change be enforced, or managed. Would the economic and social impact of change be accepted by 3rd world countries reliant on fossil fuels? The future looks good from your view point today, how? What are the global ramifications in this change, politically, militarily, economically and socially? Would there be sacrifices to what we have today, would the general population accept change or resist in the very human trait of selfishness. Timescales are important to allow all of these factors to be considered and managed, flicking a no fossil fuel switch today would be disastrous. I think there is a lot more conversation and consideration to be had to make this work, globally or nationally. Yes. Timescales are vitally important. Come on, a lot more to unpack.. What are your thoughts? I'm a bit confused why you're asking me specifically. You're asking things I have no idea about. The impact of renewable energy on the military, for example. You advocate for renewable energy at every opportunity, I would have thought these questions would have been considered at length from your advocacy. I'm asking from militarily perspective, would there be an impact on a countries capabilities to defend itself. Don't get hung upon that 1 particular question there was plenty more
That question is more to do with the purpose of having a military and the purpose of war than of renewable energy.
To answer you. What I know about military strategy, military capabilities, could be written on the back of a postage stamp with plenty of room left for a signature. "Isn't that the issue here, all of the implications of such a monumental change to the way the world supplies and uses energy has not been fully considered by Extinction Rebellion or the majority of others who want to stop fossil fuels. "Wanting it now", gives that away. So many considerations and so many consequences that prevent the switch being switched right away, and can't they see we are already heading that way? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. " Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. It would be good to get your opinion on my previous questions. Timescales, transition to what, would this be a global change and what would the future look like? Timescale. I don't know. Transition to renewables. Yes global change. Future would look good. What are your opinions on those? I'm not being argumentative, genuine questions. Timescales are important for milestones, no timescales no plan. Renewables providing what exactly, to power what? What will be sacrificed have we got the infrastructure? Global change, do all countries in the world have the desire to change, the infrastructure? How would a global change be enforced, or managed. Would the economic and social impact of change be accepted by 3rd world countries reliant on fossil fuels? The future looks good from your view point today, how? What are the global ramifications in this change, politically, militarily, economically and socially? Would there be sacrifices to what we have today, would the general population accept change or resist in the very human trait of selfishness. Timescales are important to allow all of these factors to be considered and managed, flicking a no fossil fuel switch today would be disastrous. I think there is a lot more conversation and consideration to be had to make this work, globally or nationally. Yes. Timescales are vitally important. Come on, a lot more to unpack.. What are your thoughts? I'm a bit confused why you're asking me specifically. You're asking things I have no idea about. The impact of renewable energy on the military, for example. You advocate for renewable energy at every opportunity, I would have thought these questions would have been considered at length from your advocacy. I'm asking from militarily perspective, would there be an impact on a countries capabilities to defend itself. Don't get hung upon that 1 particular question there was plenty more
That question is more to do with the purpose of having a military and the purpose of war than of renewable energy.
To answer you. What I know about military strategy, military capabilities, could be written on the back of a postage stamp with plenty of room left for a signature.
Isn't that the issue here, all of the implications of such a monumental change to the way the world supplies and uses energy has not been fully considered by Extinction Rebellion or the majority of others who want to stop fossil fuels.
"Wanting it now", gives that away.
So many considerations and so many consequences that prevent the switch being switched right away, and can't they see we are already heading that way?"No, the issue is, as the above poster says, the lack of political will. The money is in the fossil fuels industry. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. " How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. It would be good to get your opinion on my previous questions. Timescales, transition to what, would this be a global change and what would the future look like? Timescale. I don't know. Transition to renewables. Yes global change. Future would look good. What are your opinions on those? I'm not being argumentative, genuine questions. Timescales are important for milestones, no timescales no plan. Renewables providing what exactly, to power what? What will be sacrificed have we got the infrastructure? Global change, do all countries in the world have the desire to change, the infrastructure? How would a global change be enforced, or managed. Would the economic and social impact of change be accepted by 3rd world countries reliant on fossil fuels? The future looks good from your view point today, how? What are the global ramifications in this change, politically, militarily, economically and socially? Would there be sacrifices to what we have today, would the general population accept change or resist in the very human trait of selfishness. Timescales are important to allow all of these factors to be considered and managed, flicking a no fossil fuel switch today would be disastrous. I think there is a lot more conversation and consideration to be had to make this work, globally or nationally. Yes. Timescales are vitally important. Come on, a lot more to unpack.. What are your thoughts? I'm a bit confused why you're asking me specifically. You're asking things I have no idea about. The impact of renewable energy on the military, for example. You advocate for renewable energy at every opportunity, I would have thought these questions would have been considered at length from your advocacy. I'm asking from militarily perspective, would there be an impact on a countries capabilities to defend itself. Don't get hung upon that 1 particular question there was plenty more
That question is more to do with the purpose of having a military and the purpose of war than of renewable energy.
To answer you. What I know about military strategy, military capabilities, could be written on the back of a postage stamp with plenty of room left for a signature.
Isn't that the issue here, all of the implications of such a monumental change to the way the world supplies and uses energy has not been fully considered by Extinction Rebellion or the majority of others who want to stop fossil fuels.
"Wanting it now", gives that away.
So many considerations and so many consequences that prevent the switch being switched right away, and can't they see we are already heading that way?
No, the issue is, as the above poster says, the lack of political will.
The money is in the fossil fuels industry. "That is simply not true. I asked a lot of questions above to you being a renewable energy advocate and the only one you answered was you didn't know the timeline. It is not as simple as stopping fossil fuel production and use, doing that would break this country while the rest of the world transition at the correct rate of change needed to establish continuity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. It would be good to get your opinion on my previous questions. Timescales, transition to what, would this be a global change and what would the future look like? Timescale. I don't know. Transition to renewables. Yes global change. Future would look good. What are your opinions on those? I'm not being argumentative, genuine questions. Timescales are important for milestones, no timescales no plan. Renewables providing what exactly, to power what? What will be sacrificed have we got the infrastructure? Global change, do all countries in the world have the desire to change, the infrastructure? How would a global change be enforced, or managed. Would the economic and social impact of change be accepted by 3rd world countries reliant on fossil fuels? The future looks good from your view point today, how? What are the global ramifications in this change, politically, militarily, economically and socially? Would there be sacrifices to what we have today, would the general population accept change or resist in the very human trait of selfishness. Timescales are important to allow all of these factors to be considered and managed, flicking a no fossil fuel switch today would be disastrous. I think there is a lot more conversation and consideration to be had to make this work, globally or nationally. Yes. Timescales are vitally important. Come on, a lot more to unpack.. What are your thoughts? I'm a bit confused why you're asking me specifically. You're asking things I have no idea about. The impact of renewable energy on the military, for example. You advocate for renewable energy at every opportunity, I would have thought these questions would have been considered at length from your advocacy. I'm asking from militarily perspective, would there be an impact on a countries capabilities to defend itself. Don't get hung upon that 1 particular question there was plenty more
That question is more to do with the purpose of having a military and the purpose of war than of renewable energy.
To answer you. What I know about military strategy, military capabilities, could be written on the back of a postage stamp with plenty of room left for a signature.
Isn't that the issue here, all of the implications of such a monumental change to the way the world supplies and uses energy has not been fully considered by Extinction Rebellion or the majority of others who want to stop fossil fuels.
"Wanting it now", gives that away.
So many considerations and so many consequences that prevent the switch being switched right away, and can't they see we are already heading that way?
No, the issue is, as the above poster says, the lack of political will.
The money is in the fossil fuels industry.
That is simply not true.
I asked a lot of questions above to you being a renewable energy advocate and the only one you answered was you didn't know the timeline.
It is not as simple as stopping fossil fuel production and use, doing that would break this country while the rest of the world transition at the correct rate of change needed to establish continuity. "It's a global problem that needs everyone to work together. There are advantages of being at the forefront. As mentioned, the oil industry is where the money is at. This is the single biggest reason we, as in the planet, have little to no political will in this field. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite?" As I said, there are plenty of alternatives. Show us you mean it by your actions. It's actually quite simple. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. It would be good to get your opinion on my previous questions. Timescales, transition to what, would this be a global change and what would the future look like? Timescale. I don't know. Transition to renewables. Yes global change. Future would look good. What are your opinions on those? I'm not being argumentative, genuine questions. Timescales are important for milestones, no timescales no plan. Renewables providing what exactly, to power what? What will be sacrificed have we got the infrastructure? Global change, do all countries in the world have the desire to change, the infrastructure? How would a global change be enforced, or managed. Would the economic and social impact of change be accepted by 3rd world countries reliant on fossil fuels? The future looks good from your view point today, how? What are the global ramifications in this change, politically, militarily, economically and socially? Would there be sacrifices to what we have today, would the general population accept change or resist in the very human trait of selfishness. Timescales are important to allow all of these factors to be considered and managed, flicking a no fossil fuel switch today would be disastrous. I think there is a lot more conversation and consideration to be had to make this work, globally or nationally. Yes. Timescales are vitally important. Come on, a lot more to unpack.. What are your thoughts? I'm a bit confused why you're asking me specifically. You're asking things I have no idea about. The impact of renewable energy on the military, for example. You advocate for renewable energy at every opportunity, I would have thought these questions would have been considered at length from your advocacy. I'm asking from militarily perspective, would there be an impact on a countries capabilities to defend itself. Don't get hung upon that 1 particular question there was plenty more
That question is more to do with the purpose of having a military and the purpose of war than of renewable energy.
To answer you. What I know about military strategy, military capabilities, could be written on the back of a postage stamp with plenty of room left for a signature.
Isn't that the issue here, all of the implications of such a monumental change to the way the world supplies and uses energy has not been fully considered by Extinction Rebellion or the majority of others who want to stop fossil fuels.
"Wanting it now", gives that away.
So many considerations and so many consequences that prevent the switch being switched right away, and can't they see we are already heading that way?
No, the issue is, as the above poster says, the lack of political will.
The money is in the fossil fuels industry.
That is simply not true.
I asked a lot of questions above to you being a renewable energy advocate and the only one you answered was you didn't know the timeline.
It is not as simple as stopping fossil fuel production and use, doing that would break this country while the rest of the world transition at the correct rate of change needed to establish continuity.
It's a global problem that needs everyone to work together. There are advantages of being at the forefront.
As mentioned, the oil industry is where the money is at. This is the single biggest reason we, as in the planet, have little to no political will in this field."I'm not buying no political will just because it is thrown about as a reason to be angry. There is a plenty of political will, to change the way we produce and consume energy. The reliance on gas and oil from foreign states is not ideal and you think the governments of this country haven't know this? The considerations and implications of this change need to be understood, the technology and infrastructure is not in place for us to move to renewables today. It will happen but not as quickly as you or XR may want it, that is not the government not having the will to do it, that is the reality of capabilities. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite? As I said, there are plenty of alternatives. Show us you mean it by your actions. It's actually quite simple." So people should walk to London barefoot? Seems impractical. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. It would be good to get your opinion on my previous questions. Timescales, transition to what, would this be a global change and what would the future look like? Timescale. I don't know. Transition to renewables. Yes global change. Future would look good. What are your opinions on those? I'm not being argumentative, genuine questions. Timescales are important for milestones, no timescales no plan. Renewables providing what exactly, to power what? What will be sacrificed have we got the infrastructure? Global change, do all countries in the world have the desire to change, the infrastructure? How would a global change be enforced, or managed. Would the economic and social impact of change be accepted by 3rd world countries reliant on fossil fuels? The future looks good from your view point today, how? What are the global ramifications in this change, politically, militarily, economically and socially? Would there be sacrifices to what we have today, would the general population accept change or resist in the very human trait of selfishness. Timescales are important to allow all of these factors to be considered and managed, flicking a no fossil fuel switch today would be disastrous. I think there is a lot more conversation and consideration to be had to make this work, globally or nationally. Yes. Timescales are vitally important. Come on, a lot more to unpack.. What are your thoughts? I'm a bit confused why you're asking me specifically. You're asking things I have no idea about. The impact of renewable energy on the military, for example. You advocate for renewable energy at every opportunity, I would have thought these questions would have been considered at length from your advocacy. I'm asking from militarily perspective, would there be an impact on a countries capabilities to defend itself. Don't get hung upon that 1 particular question there was plenty more
That question is more to do with the purpose of having a military and the purpose of war than of renewable energy.
To answer you. What I know about military strategy, military capabilities, could be written on the back of a postage stamp with plenty of room left for a signature.
Isn't that the issue here, all of the implications of such a monumental change to the way the world supplies and uses energy has not been fully considered by Extinction Rebellion or the majority of others who want to stop fossil fuels.
"Wanting it now", gives that away.
So many considerations and so many consequences that prevent the switch being switched right away, and can't they see we are already heading that way?
No, the issue is, as the above poster says, the lack of political will.
The money is in the fossil fuels industry.
That is simply not true.
I asked a lot of questions above to you being a renewable energy advocate and the only one you answered was you didn't know the timeline.
It is not as simple as stopping fossil fuel production and use, doing that would break this country while the rest of the world transition at the correct rate of change needed to establish continuity.
It's a global problem that needs everyone to work together. There are advantages of being at the forefront.
As mentioned, the oil industry is where the money is at. This is the single biggest reason we, as in the planet, have little to no political will in this field.
I'm not buying no political will just because it is thrown about as a reason to be angry.
There is a plenty of political will, to change the way we produce and consume energy. The reliance on gas and oil from foreign states is not ideal and you think the governments of this country haven't know this?
The considerations and implications of this change need to be understood, the technology and infrastructure is not in place for us to move to renewables today.
It will happen but not as quickly as you or XR may want it, that is not the government not having the will to do it, that is the reality of capabilities. "Fair enough. The more you read about it, the more you may change your opinion. But maybe not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite? As I said, there are plenty of alternatives. Show us you mean it by your actions. It's actually quite simple. So people should walk to London barefoot? Seems impractical." Using oil as a means to send their message may be practical in your mind. Hypocritical in mine. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite? As I said, there are plenty of alternatives. Show us you mean it by your actions. It's actually quite simple. So people should walk to London barefoot? Seems impractical. Using oil as a means to send their message may be practical in your mind. Hypocritical in mine." Indeed. Do you have an alternative, what would you do? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite? As I said, there are plenty of alternatives. Show us you mean it by your actions. It's actually quite simple. So people should walk to London barefoot? Seems impractical. Using oil as a means to send their message may be practical in your mind. Hypocritical in mine. Indeed. Do you have an alternative, what would you do?" I'm not looking for an alternative. It's up to you/them to convince me otherwise. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite? As I said, there are plenty of alternatives. Show us you mean it by your actions. It's actually quite simple. So people should walk to London barefoot? Seems impractical. Using oil as a means to send their message may be practical in your mind. Hypocritical in mine. Indeed. Do you have an alternative, what would you do? I'm not looking for an alternative. It's up to you/them to convince me otherwise." I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything. In fairness, people more interested in laughing at those trying to promote change, more than the actual issues, probably aren't their target audience. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite? As I said, there are plenty of alternatives. Show us you mean it by your actions. It's actually quite simple. So people should walk to London barefoot? Seems impractical. Using oil as a means to send their message may be practical in your mind. Hypocritical in mine. Indeed. Do you have an alternative, what would you do? I'm not looking for an alternative. It's up to you/them to convince me otherwise. I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything. In fairness, people more interested in laughing at those trying to promote change, more than the actual issues, probably aren't their target audience. " You seem to be very vocal in their defence. If you read what I wrote, I'm laughing at the 'NOW'. It's not possible nor practical, if they changed their message I'd stop laughing. I do actually agree that we should be (and we are) moving towards renewable long term. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite? As I said, there are plenty of alternatives. Show us you mean it by your actions. It's actually quite simple. So people should walk to London barefoot? Seems impractical. Using oil as a means to send their message may be practical in your mind. Hypocritical in mine. Indeed. Do you have an alternative, what would you do? I'm not looking for an alternative. It's up to you/them to convince me otherwise. I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything. In fairness, people more interested in laughing at those trying to promote change, more than the actual issues, probably aren't their target audience. You seem to be very vocal in their defence. If you read what I wrote, I'm laughing at the 'NOW'. It's not possible nor practical, if they changed their message I'd stop laughing. I do actually agree that we should be (and we are) moving towards renewable long term." I agree, the 'now" is not doable as you mention but we do need to get there, not 100% sure renewable is the full answer though. I think we need nuclear investment to speed things up | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite? As I said, there are plenty of alternatives. Show us you mean it by your actions. It's actually quite simple. So people should walk to London barefoot? Seems impractical. Using oil as a means to send their message may be practical in your mind. Hypocritical in mine. Indeed. Do you have an alternative, what would you do? I'm not looking for an alternative. It's up to you/them to convince me otherwise." It’s upto you to convince us, given what the science says, unless you don’t believe the science ? Or don’t believe the consequences ? It’s ridiculous to suggest those that want a rapid transition shouldn’t use any oil based product/transport … | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite? As I said, there are plenty of alternatives. Show us you mean it by your actions. It's actually quite simple. So people should walk to London barefoot? Seems impractical. Using oil as a means to send their message may be practical in your mind. Hypocritical in mine. Indeed. Do you have an alternative, what would you do? I'm not looking for an alternative. It's up to you/them to convince me otherwise. It’s upto you to convince us, given what the science says, unless you don’t believe the science ? Or don’t believe the consequences ? It’s ridiculous to suggest those that want a rapid transition shouldn’t use any oil based product/transport … " I don't need to convince you of anything, I use what I wanna use, you want me to change, it's on you to convince me to change. What's so ridiculous about suggesting you dont use the very thing youre protesting against? Alternative options are available. Surely the irony isn't really lost on you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite? As I said, there are plenty of alternatives. Show us you mean it by your actions. It's actually quite simple. So people should walk to London barefoot? Seems impractical. Using oil as a means to send their message may be practical in your mind. Hypocritical in mine. Indeed. Do you have an alternative, what would you do? I'm not looking for an alternative. It's up to you/them to convince me otherwise. It’s upto you to convince us, given what the science says, unless you don’t believe the science ? Or don’t believe the consequences ? It’s ridiculous to suggest those that want a rapid transition shouldn’t use any oil based product/transport … I don't need to convince you of anything, I use what I wanna use, you want me to change, it's on you to convince me to change. What's so ridiculous about suggesting you dont use the very thing youre protesting against? Alternative options are available. Surely the irony isn't really lost on you?" Yes it is….as the the evidence points to what XR are saying; unless you know differently ! You have an opinion, but don’t confuse that with evidence or facts !!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite? As I said, there are plenty of alternatives. Show us you mean it by your actions. It's actually quite simple. So people should walk to London barefoot? Seems impractical. Using oil as a means to send their message may be practical in your mind. Hypocritical in mine. Indeed. Do you have an alternative, what would you do? I'm not looking for an alternative. It's up to you/them to convince me otherwise. It’s upto you to convince us, given what the science says, unless you don’t believe the science ? Or don’t believe the consequences ? It’s ridiculous to suggest those that want a rapid transition shouldn’t use any oil based product/transport … I don't need to convince you of anything, I use what I wanna use, you want me to change, it's on you to convince me to change. What's so ridiculous about suggesting you dont use the very thing youre protesting against? Alternative options are available. Surely the irony isn't really lost on you? Yes it is….as the the evidence points to what XR are saying; unless you know differently ! You have an opinion, but don’t confuse that with evidence or facts !!!" No it isn't, I'm not the one asking for change... Keep talking about evidence, I'm not denying it. I just find it hypocritical. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As a coach driver. Tired of taking them to demo’s all over the place. Even the OP was using fossil fuels to travel on holiday to beziers and back not 20 weeks ago. They are mostly full of shit and jumping on the bandwagon to be trendy Err, is that the ‘bandwagon’ supported by the science and evidence ? No. It’s the bandwagon of all the travel to meetings and demonstrations they do to glue themselves to things using oil based glue " I think it would make a big statement if they do travel there without the aid of fossil fuels. At least they can then say look it is possible right now and We are not asking you to do anything we won't do. Even at 27000 it will be very busy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I understand what XR are protesting about to cut fossil fuels so as to reduce CO2. Do any XR members know what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2?" Percentage in volume or weight? It's usually measured in parts per million. CO2 is at 421 ppm as of May last year. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I understand what XR are protesting about to cut fossil fuels so as to reduce CO2. Do any XR members know what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2? Percentage in volume or weight? It's usually measured in parts per million. CO2 is at 421 ppm as of May last year. "or 0.04% if it drops to 0.02% and all plant life dies just saying, everything sould be decused, it's not as black and white as just banning everything? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I understand what XR are protesting about to cut fossil fuels so as to reduce CO2. Do any XR members know what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2? Percentage in volume or weight? It's usually measured in parts per million. CO2 is at 421 ppm as of May last year. or 0.04% if it drops to 0.02% and all plant life dies just saying, everything sould be decused, it's not as black and white as just banning everything?"Is that by weight or volume? Also, you said "reduce CO2" the actual aim is to "reduce CO2 emissions". Among other greenhouse gasses. I don't know if you're right or not. But the CO2 levels are going up, not down. We have no way to remove 50% or the carbon in the atmosphere. So you probably don't need to worry. Not sure what you mean by "banning everything". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I understand what XR are protesting about to cut fossil fuels so as to reduce CO2. Do any XR members know what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2? Percentage in volume or weight? It's usually measured in parts per million. CO2 is at 421 ppm as of May last year. or 0.04% if it drops to 0.02% and all plant life dies just saying, everything sould be decused, it's not as black and white as just banning everything?
Is that by weight or volume?
Also, you said "reduce CO2" the actual aim is to "reduce CO2 emissions". Among other greenhouse gasses.
I don't know if you're right or not. But the CO2 levels are going up, not down. We have no way to remove 50% or the carbon in the atmosphere. So you probably don't need to worry.
Not sure what you mean by "banning everything"."421 is 0.04% of 1m. That's basic maths. It doesn't matter whether it's weight or volume when you turn it into a percentage. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I understand what XR are protesting about to cut fossil fuels so as to reduce CO2. Do any XR members know what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2? Percentage in volume or weight? It's usually measured in parts per million. CO2 is at 421 ppm as of May last year. or 0.04% if it drops to 0.02% and all plant life dies just saying, everything sould be decused, it's not as black and white as just banning everything?
Is that by weight or volume?
Also, you said "reduce CO2" the actual aim is to "reduce CO2 emissions". Among other greenhouse gasses.
I don't know if you're right or not. But the CO2 levels are going up, not down. We have no way to remove 50% or the carbon in the atmosphere. So you probably don't need to worry.
Not sure what you mean by "banning everything".
421 is 0.04% of 1m.
That's basic maths. It doesn't matter whether it's weight or volume when you turn it into a percentage."It does if the gas has different density then the % can be very different. Hence the PPM measure. In any case. This person doesn't need to worry about 50% of the CO2 in the atmosphere disappearing. Climate change is probably more important seeing as it's actually happening. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I understand what XR are protesting about to cut fossil fuels so as to reduce CO2. Do any XR members know what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2? Percentage in volume or weight? It's usually measured in parts per million. CO2 is at 421 ppm as of May last year. or 0.04% if it drops to 0.02% and all plant life dies just saying, everything sould be decused, it's not as black and white as just banning everything?
Is that by weight or volume?
Also, you said "reduce CO2" the actual aim is to "reduce CO2 emissions". Among other greenhouse gasses.
I don't know if you're right or not. But the CO2 levels are going up, not down. We have no way to remove 50% or the carbon in the atmosphere. So you probably don't need to worry.
Not sure what you mean by "banning everything".
421 is 0.04% of 1m.
That's basic maths. It doesn't matter whether it's weight or volume when you turn it into a percentage."Your point being …? You denying the impact of co2 on temperature ? Science that has been understood for 100yrs ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite? As I said, there are plenty of alternatives. Show us you mean it by your actions. It's actually quite simple. So people should walk to London barefoot? Seems impractical. Using oil as a means to send their message may be practical in your mind. Hypocritical in mine. Indeed. Do you have an alternative, what would you do? I'm not looking for an alternative. It's up to you/them to convince me otherwise. It’s upto you to convince us, given what the science says, unless you don’t believe the science ? Or don’t believe the consequences ? It’s ridiculous to suggest those that want a rapid transition shouldn’t use any oil based product/transport … I don't need to convince you of anything, I use what I wanna use, you want me to change, it's on you to convince me to change. What's so ridiculous about suggesting you dont use the very thing youre protesting against? Alternative options are available. Surely the irony isn't really lost on you? Yes it is….as the the evidence points to what XR are saying; unless you know differently ! You have an opinion, but don’t confuse that with evidence or facts !!! No it isn't, I'm not the one asking for change... Keep talking about evidence, I'm not denying it. I just find it hypocritical." Your the one happy to push us toward catastrophe, as opposed to changes which can be readily accommodated to mitigate the worst impacts. I know where the onus lies …. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite? As I said, there are plenty of alternatives. Show us you mean it by your actions. It's actually quite simple. So people should walk to London barefoot? Seems impractical. Using oil as a means to send their message may be practical in your mind. Hypocritical in mine. Indeed. Do you have an alternative, what would you do? I'm not looking for an alternative. It's up to you/them to convince me otherwise. It’s upto you to convince us, given what the science says, unless you don’t believe the science ? Or don’t believe the consequences ? It’s ridiculous to suggest those that want a rapid transition shouldn’t use any oil based product/transport … I don't need to convince you of anything, I use what I wanna use, you want me to change, it's on you to convince me to change. What's so ridiculous about suggesting you dont use the very thing youre protesting against? Alternative options are available. Surely the irony isn't really lost on you? Yes it is….as the the evidence points to what XR are saying; unless you know differently ! You have an opinion, but don’t confuse that with evidence or facts !!! No it isn't, I'm not the one asking for change... Keep talking about evidence, I'm not denying it. I just find it hypocritical. Your the one happy to push us toward catastrophe, as opposed to changes which can be readily accommodated to mitigate the worst impacts. I know where the onus lies …." I asked a number of questions further up the the thread, it could be useful if you could answer those
2 posts around 20 down, second post has more detail | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite?" They could have walked. They could have started a few weeks ago in, say, Manchester, and then walked 10 miles a day in a wiggly route towards London. They could have coordinated it so that they picked up more walkers on the route, with more joining every day. The press would have loved it, and the 'march' would have been on the news constantly. The general populace would have been impressed that these people actually took their cause seriously, and that the walkers weren't deliberately annoying everyone around them. That would have got them much more positive coverage. It's far easier to convince people that you have a good point if you don't scream at them and call them a murderer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately." So if use of fossil fuels stops immediately how the hell will they get home again | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So people should walk to London barefoot? Seems impractical." As impractical as stopping the use of all fossil fuels immediately? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite? As I said, there are plenty of alternatives. Show us you mean it by your actions. It's actually quite simple. So people should walk to London barefoot? Seems impractical. Using oil as a means to send their message may be practical in your mind. Hypocritical in mine. Indeed. Do you have an alternative, what would you do? I'm not looking for an alternative. It's up to you/them to convince me otherwise. It’s upto you to convince us, given what the science says, unless you don’t believe the science ? Or don’t believe the consequences ? It’s ridiculous to suggest those that want a rapid transition shouldn’t use any oil based product/transport … I don't need to convince you of anything, I use what I wanna use, you want me to change, it's on you to convince me to change. What's so ridiculous about suggesting you dont use the very thing youre protesting against? Alternative options are available. Surely the irony isn't really lost on you? Yes it is….as the the evidence points to what XR are saying; unless you know differently ! You have an opinion, but don’t confuse that with evidence or facts !!! No it isn't, I'm not the one asking for change... Keep talking about evidence, I'm not denying it. I just find it hypocritical. Your the one happy to push us toward catastrophe, as opposed to changes which can be readily accommodated to mitigate the worst impacts. I know where the onus lies …. I asked a number of questions further up the the thread, it could be useful if you could answer those
2 posts around 20 down, second post has more detail "A transition we are on which needs to be accelerated…we know what targets we need to achieve which can be fine with existing tech. Tell me about the future consequences if we don’t do this …it’s unrecoverable. You do understand that, don’t you ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite? They could have walked. They could have started a few weeks ago in, say, Manchester, and then walked 10 miles a day in a wiggly route towards London. They could have coordinated it so that they picked up more walkers on the route, with more joining every day. The press would have loved it, and the 'march' would have been on the news constantly. The general populace would have been impressed that these people actually took their cause seriously, and that the walkers weren't deliberately annoying everyone around them. That would have got them much more positive coverage. It's far easier to convince people that you have a good point if you don't scream at them and call them a murderer." What a silly post. The press would destroy them for this. Same as they would for not walking there. 'Rich wankers that can afford to spend two weeks walking to London, I bet their shoes are made of plastics that come from oil, I bet they are good delivered in a diesel van.' etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So people should walk to London barefoot? Seems impractical. As impractical as stopping the use of all fossil fuels immediately?" Stopping fossil fuels immediately silly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us to keep laughing at them. They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite? As I said, there are plenty of alternatives. Show us you mean it by your actions. It's actually quite simple. So people should walk to London barefoot? Seems impractical. Using oil as a means to send their message may be practical in your mind. Hypocritical in mine. Indeed. Do you have an alternative, what would you do? I'm not looking for an alternative. It's up to you/them to convince me otherwise. It’s upto you to convince us, given what the science says, unless you don’t believe the science ? Or don’t believe the consequences ? It’s ridiculous to suggest those that want a rapid transition shouldn’t use any oil based product/transport … I don't need to convince you of anything, I use what I wanna use, you want me to change, it's on you to convince me to change. What's so ridiculous about suggesting you dont use the very thing youre protesting against? Alternative options are available. Surely the irony isn't really lost on you? Yes it is….as the the evidence points to what XR are saying; unless you know differently ! You have an opinion, but don’t confuse that with evidence or facts !!! No it isn't, I'm not the one asking for change... Keep talking about evidence, I'm not denying it. I just find it hypocritical. Your the one happy to push us toward catastrophe, as opposed to changes which can be readily accommodated to mitigate the worst impacts. I know where the onus lies …." Stopping the use of fossil fuels immediately cannot be readily accommodated | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I understand what XR are protesting about to cut fossil fuels so as to reduce CO2. Do any XR members know what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2? Percentage in volume or weight? It's usually measured in parts per million. CO2 is at 421 ppm as of May last year. or 0.04% if it drops to 0.02% and all plant life dies just saying, everything sould be decused, it's not as black and white as just banning everything?
Is that by weight or volume?
Also, you said "reduce CO2" the actual aim is to "reduce CO2 emissions". Among other greenhouse gasses.
I don't know if you're right or not. But the CO2 levels are going up, not down. We have no way to remove 50% or the carbon in the atmosphere. So you probably don't need to worry.
Not sure what you mean by "banning everything".
421 is 0.04% of 1m.
That's basic maths. It doesn't matter whether it's weight or volume when you turn it into a percentage.
Your point being …? You denying the impact of co2 on temperature ? Science that has been understood for 100yrs ? "Who's denying anything? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite? As I said, there are plenty of alternatives. Show us you mean it by your actions. It's actually quite simple. So people should walk to London barefoot? Seems impractical. Using oil as a means to send their message may be practical in your mind. Hypocritical in mine. Indeed. Do you have an alternative, what would you do? I'm not looking for an alternative. It's up to you/them to convince me otherwise. It’s upto you to convince us, given what the science says, unless you don’t believe the science ? Or don’t believe the consequences ? It’s ridiculous to suggest those that want a rapid transition shouldn’t use any oil based product/transport … I don't need to convince you of anything, I use what I wanna use, you want me to change, it's on you to convince me to change. What's so ridiculous about suggesting you dont use the very thing youre protesting against? Alternative options are available. Surely the irony isn't really lost on you? Yes it is….as the the evidence points to what XR are saying; unless you know differently ! You have an opinion, but don’t confuse that with evidence or facts !!! No it isn't, I'm not the one asking for change... Keep talking about evidence, I'm not denying it. I just find it hypocritical. Your the one happy to push us toward catastrophe, as opposed to changes which can be readily accommodated to mitigate the worst impacts. I know where the onus lies …. I asked a number of questions further up the the thread, it could be useful if you could answer those
2 posts around 20 down, second post has more detail
A transition we are on which needs to be accelerated…we know what targets we need to achieve which can be fine with existing tech. Tell me about the future consequences if we don’t do this …it’s unrecoverable. You do understand that, don’t you ? "You missed this: and I’ve added a few points based on your last response. I’m not looking to bait you, I want to hear your views. Timescales are important for milestones, no timescales no plan. You mention accelerating, what does that mean and how is it supported, as per below? Renewables providing what exactly, to power what? What will be sacrificed and do we have the infrastructure to support our needs? How would the NHS be supported by renewables as an example Global change, do all countries in the world have the desire to change, the infrastructure? How would a global change be enforced, or managed. Would the economic and social impact of change be accepted by 3rd world countries reliant on fossil fuels? The future looks good from your view point today, how? What are the global ramifications in this change, politically, militarily, economically, and socially? Would there be sacrifices to what we have today, would the general population accept change or resist in the very human trait of selfishness. Timescales are important to allow all of these factors to be considered and managed, flicking a no fossil fuel switch today would be disastrous. I think there is a lot more conversation and consideration to be had to make this work, globally or nationally. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite? As I said, there are plenty of alternatives. Show us you mean it by your actions. It's actually quite simple. So people should walk to London barefoot? Seems impractical. Using oil as a means to send their message may be practical in your mind. Hypocritical in mine. Indeed. Do you have an alternative, what would you do? I'm not looking for an alternative. It's up to you/them to convince me otherwise. It’s upto you to convince us, given what the science says, unless you don’t believe the science ? Or don’t believe the consequences ? It’s ridiculous to suggest those that want a rapid transition shouldn’t use any oil based product/transport … I don't need to convince you of anything, I use what I wanna use, you want me to change, it's on you to convince me to change. What's so ridiculous about suggesting you dont use the very thing youre protesting against? Alternative options are available. Surely the irony isn't really lost on you? Yes it is….as the the evidence points to what XR are saying; unless you know differently ! You have an opinion, but don’t confuse that with evidence or facts !!! No it isn't, I'm not the one asking for change... Keep talking about evidence, I'm not denying it. I just find it hypocritical. Your the one happy to push us toward catastrophe, as opposed to changes which can be readily accommodated to mitigate the worst impacts. I know where the onus lies …. I asked a number of questions further up the the thread, it could be useful if you could answer those
2 posts around 20 down, second post has more detail
A transition we are on which needs to be accelerated…we know what targets we need to achieve which can be fine with existing tech. Tell me about the future consequences if we don’t do this …it’s unrecoverable. You do understand that, don’t you ?
You missed this: and I’ve added a few points based on your last response. I’m not looking to bait you, I want to hear your views.
Timescales are important for milestones, no timescales no plan.
You mention accelerating, what does that mean and how is it supported, as per below?
Renewables providing what exactly, to power what? What will be sacrificed and do we have the infrastructure to support our needs? How would the NHS be supported by renewables as an example
Global change, do all countries in the world have the desire to change, the infrastructure? How would a global change be enforced, or managed. Would the economic and social impact of change be accepted by 3rd world countries reliant on fossil fuels?
The future looks good from your view point today, how? What are the global ramifications in this change, politically, militarily, economically, and socially?
Would there be sacrifices to what we have today, would the general population accept change or resist in the very human trait of selfishness.
Timescales are important to allow all of these factors to be considered and managed, flicking a no fossil fuel switch today would be disastrous. I think there is a lot more conversation and consideration to be had to make this work, globally or nationally."Try ipcc for starters. Timescales, risks and consequences. Actions for equality are also outlined …’just transition’ … I’m not sure you would be asking these questions if you truly understood the ramifications ….the consequences of inaction vastly outweigh those you cite …that’s a choice, but I know which side I’m on ! Technologies largely exist today for the transition to mitigate the worst impacts … | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite? As I said, there are plenty of alternatives. Show us you mean it by your actions. It's actually quite simple. So people should walk to London barefoot? Seems impractical. Using oil as a means to send their message may be practical in your mind. Hypocritical in mine. Indeed. Do you have an alternative, what would you do? I'm not looking for an alternative. It's up to you/them to convince me otherwise. It’s upto you to convince us, given what the science says, unless you don’t believe the science ? Or don’t believe the consequences ? It’s ridiculous to suggest those that want a rapid transition shouldn’t use any oil based product/transport … I don't need to convince you of anything, I use what I wanna use, you want me to change, it's on you to convince me to change. What's so ridiculous about suggesting you dont use the very thing youre protesting against? Alternative options are available. Surely the irony isn't really lost on you? Yes it is….as the the evidence points to what XR are saying; unless you know differently ! You have an opinion, but don’t confuse that with evidence or facts !!! No it isn't, I'm not the one asking for change... Keep talking about evidence, I'm not denying it. I just find it hypocritical. Your the one happy to push us toward catastrophe, as opposed to changes which can be readily accommodated to mitigate the worst impacts. I know where the onus lies …. I asked a number of questions further up the the thread, it could be useful if you could answer those
2 posts around 20 down, second post has more detail
A transition we are on which needs to be accelerated…we know what targets we need to achieve which can be fine with existing tech. Tell me about the future consequences if we don’t do this …it’s unrecoverable. You do understand that, don’t you ?
You missed this: and I’ve added a few points based on your last response. I’m not looking to bait you, I want to hear your views.
Timescales are important for milestones, no timescales no plan.
You mention accelerating, what does that mean and how is it supported, as per below?
Renewables providing what exactly, to power what? What will be sacrificed and do we have the infrastructure to support our needs? How would the NHS be supported by renewables as an example
Global change, do all countries in the world have the desire to change, the infrastructure? How would a global change be enforced, or managed. Would the economic and social impact of change be accepted by 3rd world countries reliant on fossil fuels?
The future looks good from your view point today, how? What are the global ramifications in this change, politically, militarily, economically, and socially?
Would there be sacrifices to what we have today, would the general population accept change or resist in the very human trait of selfishness.
Timescales are important to allow all of these factors to be considered and managed, flicking a no fossil fuel switch today would be disastrous. I think there is a lot more conversation and consideration to be had to make this work, globally or nationally.
Try ipcc for starters. Timescales, risks and consequences. Actions for equality are also outlined …’just transition’ …
I’m not sure you would be asking these questions if you truly understood the ramifications ….the consequences of inaction vastly outweigh those you cite …that’s a choice, but I know which side I’m on !
Technologies largely exist today for the transition to mitigate the worst impacts …"You haven't answered my questions with your thoughts and considerations. You're not alone or unique in this, I would really like to get onboard to the urgency that these protests are calling for and maybe I could if one person would answer fully my questions above with logical arguments | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite? As I said, there are plenty of alternatives. Show us you mean it by your actions. It's actually quite simple. So people should walk to London barefoot? Seems impractical. Using oil as a means to send their message may be practical in your mind. Hypocritical in mine. Indeed. Do you have an alternative, what would you do? I'm not looking for an alternative. It's up to you/them to convince me otherwise. It’s upto you to convince us, given what the science says, unless you don’t believe the science ? Or don’t believe the consequences ? It’s ridiculous to suggest those that want a rapid transition shouldn’t use any oil based product/transport … I don't need to convince you of anything, I use what I wanna use, you want me to change, it's on you to convince me to change. What's so ridiculous about suggesting you dont use the very thing youre protesting against? Alternative options are available. Surely the irony isn't really lost on you? Yes it is….as the the evidence points to what XR are saying; unless you know differently ! You have an opinion, but don’t confuse that with evidence or facts !!! No it isn't, I'm not the one asking for change... Keep talking about evidence, I'm not denying it. I just find it hypocritical. Your the one happy to push us toward catastrophe, as opposed to changes which can be readily accommodated to mitigate the worst impacts. I know where the onus lies …. I asked a number of questions further up the the thread, it could be useful if you could answer those
2 posts around 20 down, second post has more detail
A transition we are on which needs to be accelerated…we know what targets we need to achieve which can be fine with existing tech. Tell me about the future consequences if we don’t do this …it’s unrecoverable. You do understand that, don’t you ?
You missed this: and I’ve added a few points based on your last response. I’m not looking to bait you, I want to hear your views.
Timescales are important for milestones, no timescales no plan.
You mention accelerating, what does that mean and how is it supported, as per below?
Renewables providing what exactly, to power what? What will be sacrificed and do we have the infrastructure to support our needs? How would the NHS be supported by renewables as an example
Global change, do all countries in the world have the desire to change, the infrastructure? How would a global change be enforced, or managed. Would the economic and social impact of change be accepted by 3rd world countries reliant on fossil fuels?
The future looks good from your view point today, how? What are the global ramifications in this change, politically, militarily, economically, and socially?
Would there be sacrifices to what we have today, would the general population accept change or resist in the very human trait of selfishness.
Timescales are important to allow all of these factors to be considered and managed, flicking a no fossil fuel switch today would be disastrous. I think there is a lot more conversation and consideration to be had to make this work, globally or nationally.
Try ipcc for starters. Timescales, risks and consequences. Actions for equality are also outlined …’just transition’ …
I’m not sure you would be asking these questions if you truly understood the ramifications ….the consequences of inaction vastly outweigh those you cite …that’s a choice, but I know which side I’m on !
Technologies largely exist today for the transition to mitigate the worst impacts …
You haven't answered my questions with your thoughts and considerations.
You're not alone or unique in this, I would really like to get onboard to the urgency that these protests are calling for and maybe I could if one person would answer fully my questions above with logical arguments "You would get behind the movement to work against climate change if a randomer on a swingers site answered some of your questions? Amazing.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite? As I said, there are plenty of alternatives. Show us you mean it by your actions. It's actually quite simple. So people should walk to London barefoot? Seems impractical. Using oil as a means to send their message may be practical in your mind. Hypocritical in mine. Indeed. Do you have an alternative, what would you do? I'm not looking for an alternative. It's up to you/them to convince me otherwise. It’s upto you to convince us, given what the science says, unless you don’t believe the science ? Or don’t believe the consequences ? It’s ridiculous to suggest those that want a rapid transition shouldn’t use any oil based product/transport … I don't need to convince you of anything, I use what I wanna use, you want me to change, it's on you to convince me to change. What's so ridiculous about suggesting you dont use the very thing youre protesting against? Alternative options are available. Surely the irony isn't really lost on you? Yes it is….as the the evidence points to what XR are saying; unless you know differently ! You have an opinion, but don’t confuse that with evidence or facts !!! No it isn't, I'm not the one asking for change... Keep talking about evidence, I'm not denying it. I just find it hypocritical. Your the one happy to push us toward catastrophe, as opposed to changes which can be readily accommodated to mitigate the worst impacts. I know where the onus lies …. I asked a number of questions further up the the thread, it could be useful if you could answer those
2 posts around 20 down, second post has more detail
A transition we are on which needs to be accelerated…we know what targets we need to achieve which can be fine with existing tech. Tell me about the future consequences if we don’t do this …it’s unrecoverable. You do understand that, don’t you ?
You missed this: and I’ve added a few points based on your last response. I’m not looking to bait you, I want to hear your views.
Timescales are important for milestones, no timescales no plan.
You mention accelerating, what does that mean and how is it supported, as per below?
Renewables providing what exactly, to power what? What will be sacrificed and do we have the infrastructure to support our needs? How would the NHS be supported by renewables as an example
Global change, do all countries in the world have the desire to change, the infrastructure? How would a global change be enforced, or managed. Would the economic and social impact of change be accepted by 3rd world countries reliant on fossil fuels?
The future looks good from your view point today, how? What are the global ramifications in this change, politically, militarily, economically, and socially?
Would there be sacrifices to what we have today, would the general population accept change or resist in the very human trait of selfishness.
Timescales are important to allow all of these factors to be considered and managed, flicking a no fossil fuel switch today would be disastrous. I think there is a lot more conversation and consideration to be had to make this work, globally or nationally.
Try ipcc for starters. Timescales, risks and consequences. Actions for equality are also outlined …’just transition’ …
I’m not sure you would be asking these questions if you truly understood the ramifications ….the consequences of inaction vastly outweigh those you cite …that’s a choice, but I know which side I’m on !
Technologies largely exist today for the transition to mitigate the worst impacts …
You haven't answered my questions with your thoughts and considerations.
You're not alone or unique in this, I would really like to get onboard to the urgency that these protests are calling for and maybe I could if one person would answer fully my questions above with logical arguments
You would get behind the movement to work against climate change if a randomer on a swingers site answered some of your questions?
Amazing.
"Why not? are peoples views and opinions less because they are on a swingers site? Can you answer my questions, as a positive voice for renewables? Or are you saying your views are also worthless as a random on a swinging site? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite? As I said, there are plenty of alternatives. Show us you mean it by your actions. It's actually quite simple. So people should walk to London barefoot? Seems impractical. Using oil as a means to send their message may be practical in your mind. Hypocritical in mine. Indeed. Do you have an alternative, what would you do? I'm not looking for an alternative. It's up to you/them to convince me otherwise. It’s upto you to convince us, given what the science says, unless you don’t believe the science ? Or don’t believe the consequences ? It’s ridiculous to suggest those that want a rapid transition shouldn’t use any oil based product/transport … I don't need to convince you of anything, I use what I wanna use, you want me to change, it's on you to convince me to change. What's so ridiculous about suggesting you dont use the very thing youre protesting against? Alternative options are available. Surely the irony isn't really lost on you? Yes it is….as the the evidence points to what XR are saying; unless you know differently ! You have an opinion, but don’t confuse that with evidence or facts !!! No it isn't, I'm not the one asking for change... Keep talking about evidence, I'm not denying it. I just find it hypocritical. Your the one happy to push us toward catastrophe, as opposed to changes which can be readily accommodated to mitigate the worst impacts. I know where the onus lies …. I asked a number of questions further up the the thread, it could be useful if you could answer those
2 posts around 20 down, second post has more detail
A transition we are on which needs to be accelerated…we know what targets we need to achieve which can be fine with existing tech. Tell me about the future consequences if we don’t do this …it’s unrecoverable. You do understand that, don’t you ?
You missed this: and I’ve added a few points based on your last response. I’m not looking to bait you, I want to hear your views.
Timescales are important for milestones, no timescales no plan.
You mention accelerating, what does that mean and how is it supported, as per below?
Renewables providing what exactly, to power what? What will be sacrificed and do we have the infrastructure to support our needs? How would the NHS be supported by renewables as an example
Global change, do all countries in the world have the desire to change, the infrastructure? How would a global change be enforced, or managed. Would the economic and social impact of change be accepted by 3rd world countries reliant on fossil fuels?
The future looks good from your view point today, how? What are the global ramifications in this change, politically, militarily, economically, and socially?
Would there be sacrifices to what we have today, would the general population accept change or resist in the very human trait of selfishness.
Timescales are important to allow all of these factors to be considered and managed, flicking a no fossil fuel switch today would be disastrous. I think there is a lot more conversation and consideration to be had to make this work, globally or nationally.
Try ipcc for starters. Timescales, risks and consequences. Actions for equality are also outlined …’just transition’ …
I’m not sure you would be asking these questions if you truly understood the ramifications ….the consequences of inaction vastly outweigh those you cite …that’s a choice, but I know which side I’m on !
Technologies largely exist today for the transition to mitigate the worst impacts …
You haven't answered my questions with your thoughts and considerations.
You're not alone or unique in this, I would really like to get onboard to the urgency that these protests are calling for and maybe I could if one person would answer fully my questions above with logical arguments
You would get behind the movement to work against climate change if a randomer on a swingers site answered some of your questions?
Amazing.
Why not? are peoples views and opinions less because they are on a swingers site?
Can you answer my questions, as a positive voice for renewables? Or are you saying your views are also worthless as a random on a swinging site?"To you, my views are worthless yes. If you're genuinely interested in the subject. I am sure you can find better sources of information than randomers on here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue I have with XR is that they don't know what they are asking for. If you read their website there's a long list of bad things that will happen, things that cause the problems, and activities that we must move away from, but there's absolutely nothing on what we should be moving to. There seems to have been no thought put in to what our society would be like if we just stopped using fossil fuels, and how everybody would be fed and clothed and helped to lead a useful life in the future. They know they don't want to be where they are, and they know that they should move, but they have no idea which direction to take." I agree. Climate Change (assuming you believe the science coming from the majority of scientists) is an existential threat to the future of the planet and the human race. Most people get that. But you don’t simply stop the activities contributing to it. Society would collapse. So the activism needs to be backed up with tangible sensible alternatives. A phased plan to gradually change behaviour. XR will no doubt say we don’t have time for a phased approach but that is the only practical way we will achieve anything. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite? As I said, there are plenty of alternatives. Show us you mean it by your actions. It's actually quite simple. So people should walk to London barefoot? Seems impractical. Using oil as a means to send their message may be practical in your mind. Hypocritical in mine. Indeed. Do you have an alternative, what would you do? I'm not looking for an alternative. It's up to you/them to convince me otherwise. It’s upto you to convince us, given what the science says, unless you don’t believe the science ? Or don’t believe the consequences ? It’s ridiculous to suggest those that want a rapid transition shouldn’t use any oil based product/transport … I don't need to convince you of anything, I use what I wanna use, you want me to change, it's on you to convince me to change. What's so ridiculous about suggesting you dont use the very thing youre protesting against? Alternative options are available. Surely the irony isn't really lost on you? Yes it is….as the the evidence points to what XR are saying; unless you know differently ! You have an opinion, but don’t confuse that with evidence or facts !!! No it isn't, I'm not the one asking for change... Keep talking about evidence, I'm not denying it. I just find it hypocritical. Your the one happy to push us toward catastrophe, as opposed to changes which can be readily accommodated to mitigate the worst impacts. I know where the onus lies …. I asked a number of questions further up the the thread, it could be useful if you could answer those
2 posts around 20 down, second post has more detail
A transition we are on which needs to be accelerated…we know what targets we need to achieve which can be fine with existing tech. Tell me about the future consequences if we don’t do this …it’s unrecoverable. You do understand that, don’t you ?
You missed this: and I’ve added a few points based on your last response. I’m not looking to bait you, I want to hear your views.
Timescales are important for milestones, no timescales no plan.
You mention accelerating, what does that mean and how is it supported, as per below?
Renewables providing what exactly, to power what? What will be sacrificed and do we have the infrastructure to support our needs? How would the NHS be supported by renewables as an example
Global change, do all countries in the world have the desire to change, the infrastructure? How would a global change be enforced, or managed. Would the economic and social impact of change be accepted by 3rd world countries reliant on fossil fuels?
The future looks good from your view point today, how? What are the global ramifications in this change, politically, militarily, economically, and socially?
Would there be sacrifices to what we have today, would the general population accept change or resist in the very human trait of selfishness.
Timescales are important to allow all of these factors to be considered and managed, flicking a no fossil fuel switch today would be disastrous. I think there is a lot more conversation and consideration to be had to make this work, globally or nationally.
Try ipcc for starters. Timescales, risks and consequences. Actions for equality are also outlined …’just transition’ …
I’m not sure you would be asking these questions if you truly understood the ramifications ….the consequences of inaction vastly outweigh those you cite …that’s a choice, but I know which side I’m on !
Technologies largely exist today for the transition to mitigate the worst impacts …
You haven't answered my questions with your thoughts and considerations.
You're not alone or unique in this, I would really like to get onboard to the urgency that these protests are calling for and maybe I could if one person would answer fully my questions above with logical arguments
You would get behind the movement to work against climate change if a randomer on a swingers site answered some of your questions?
Amazing.
Why not? are peoples views and opinions less because they are on a swingers site?
Can you answer my questions, as a positive voice for renewables? Or are you saying your views are also worthless as a random on a swinging site?
To you, my views are worthless yes. If you're genuinely interested in the subject. I am sure you can find better sources of information than randomers on here. "I have found information and I have shared with you that I do not believe switching off fossil fuels now would work and that is why it is not happening now. You advocate the ending of fossil fuels now, but you have provided zero input or thought to what those implications are. I would like to know what thought you have put into the end of fossil fuels and so would others but you are exactly the same as XR, no real idea other than the headline. You also continue to rubbish the government direction at any given chance, claiming no political will etc. You appear not be to be able to see the bigger picture and to top it off you deflect any challenge of your views by telling me what I think, and strangely dismissing peoples views on the subject because they happen to be on this site. I'm not particularly fond of that approach, not a good look. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite? As I said, there are plenty of alternatives. Show us you mean it by your actions. It's actually quite simple. So people should walk to London barefoot? Seems impractical. Using oil as a means to send their message may be practical in your mind. Hypocritical in mine. Indeed. Do you have an alternative, what would you do? I'm not looking for an alternative. It's up to you/them to convince me otherwise. It’s upto you to convince us, given what the science says, unless you don’t believe the science ? Or don’t believe the consequences ? It’s ridiculous to suggest those that want a rapid transition shouldn’t use any oil based product/transport … I don't need to convince you of anything, I use what I wanna use, you want me to change, it's on you to convince me to change. What's so ridiculous about suggesting you dont use the very thing youre protesting against? Alternative options are available. Surely the irony isn't really lost on you? Yes it is….as the the evidence points to what XR are saying; unless you know differently ! You have an opinion, but don’t confuse that with evidence or facts !!! No it isn't, I'm not the one asking for change... Keep talking about evidence, I'm not denying it. I just find it hypocritical. Your the one happy to push us toward catastrophe, as opposed to changes which can be readily accommodated to mitigate the worst impacts. I know where the onus lies …. I asked a number of questions further up the the thread, it could be useful if you could answer those
2 posts around 20 down, second post has more detail
A transition we are on which needs to be accelerated…we know what targets we need to achieve which can be fine with existing tech. Tell me about the future consequences if we don’t do this …it’s unrecoverable. You do understand that, don’t you ?
You missed this: and I’ve added a few points based on your last response. I’m not looking to bait you, I want to hear your views.
Timescales are important for milestones, no timescales no plan.
You mention accelerating, what does that mean and how is it supported, as per below?
Renewables providing what exactly, to power what? What will be sacrificed and do we have the infrastructure to support our needs? How would the NHS be supported by renewables as an example
Global change, do all countries in the world have the desire to change, the infrastructure? How would a global change be enforced, or managed. Would the economic and social impact of change be accepted by 3rd world countries reliant on fossil fuels?
The future looks good from your view point today, how? What are the global ramifications in this change, politically, militarily, economically, and socially?
Would there be sacrifices to what we have today, would the general population accept change or resist in the very human trait of selfishness.
Timescales are important to allow all of these factors to be considered and managed, flicking a no fossil fuel switch today would be disastrous. I think there is a lot more conversation and consideration to be had to make this work, globally or nationally.
Try ipcc for starters. Timescales, risks and consequences. Actions for equality are also outlined …’just transition’ …
I’m not sure you would be asking these questions if you truly understood the ramifications ….the consequences of inaction vastly outweigh those you cite …that’s a choice, but I know which side I’m on !
Technologies largely exist today for the transition to mitigate the worst impacts …
You haven't answered my questions with your thoughts and considerations.
You're not alone or unique in this, I would really like to get onboard to the urgency that these protests are calling for and maybe I could if one person would answer fully my questions above with logical arguments "Have you read the ipcc report, or the distilled findings ? If you did you clearly wouldn’t be asking these questions. You are asking a about renewables, we are on a path to renewables now…it needs rapid expansion along with major energy efficiency across all sectors. Yes, politics are important but you, as an individual, only have certain agency but you should do all you can to exert this pressure …if you really understood the issues you would. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite? As I said, there are plenty of alternatives. Show us you mean it by your actions. It's actually quite simple. So people should walk to London barefoot? Seems impractical. Using oil as a means to send their message may be practical in your mind. Hypocritical in mine. Indeed. Do you have an alternative, what would you do? I'm not looking for an alternative. It's up to you/them to convince me otherwise. It’s upto you to convince us, given what the science says, unless you don’t believe the science ? Or don’t believe the consequences ? It’s ridiculous to suggest those that want a rapid transition shouldn’t use any oil based product/transport … I don't need to convince you of anything, I use what I wanna use, you want me to change, it's on you to convince me to change. What's so ridiculous about suggesting you dont use the very thing youre protesting against? Alternative options are available. Surely the irony isn't really lost on you? Yes it is….as the the evidence points to what XR are saying; unless you know differently ! You have an opinion, but don’t confuse that with evidence or facts !!! No it isn't, I'm not the one asking for change... Keep talking about evidence, I'm not denying it. I just find it hypocritical. Your the one happy to push us toward catastrophe, as opposed to changes which can be readily accommodated to mitigate the worst impacts. I know where the onus lies …. I asked a number of questions further up the the thread, it could be useful if you could answer those
2 posts around 20 down, second post has more detail
A transition we are on which needs to be accelerated…we know what targets we need to achieve which can be fine with existing tech. Tell me about the future consequences if we don’t do this …it’s unrecoverable. You do understand that, don’t you ?
You missed this: and I’ve added a few points based on your last response. I’m not looking to bait you, I want to hear your views.
Timescales are important for milestones, no timescales no plan.
You mention accelerating, what does that mean and how is it supported, as per below?
Renewables providing what exactly, to power what? What will be sacrificed and do we have the infrastructure to support our needs? How would the NHS be supported by renewables as an example
Global change, do all countries in the world have the desire to change, the infrastructure? How would a global change be enforced, or managed. Would the economic and social impact of change be accepted by 3rd world countries reliant on fossil fuels?
The future looks good from your view point today, how? What are the global ramifications in this change, politically, militarily, economically, and socially?
Would there be sacrifices to what we have today, would the general population accept change or resist in the very human trait of selfishness.
Timescales are important to allow all of these factors to be considered and managed, flicking a no fossil fuel switch today would be disastrous. I think there is a lot more conversation and consideration to be had to make this work, globally or nationally.
Try ipcc for starters. Timescales, risks and consequences. Actions for equality are also outlined …’just transition’ …
I’m not sure you would be asking these questions if you truly understood the ramifications ….the consequences of inaction vastly outweigh those you cite …that’s a choice, but I know which side I’m on !
Technologies largely exist today for the transition to mitigate the worst impacts …
You haven't answered my questions with your thoughts and considerations.
You're not alone or unique in this, I would really like to get onboard to the urgency that these protests are calling for and maybe I could if one person would answer fully my questions above with logical arguments
Have you read the ipcc report, or the distilled findings ? If you did you clearly wouldn’t be asking these questions.
You are asking a about renewables, we are on a path to renewables now…it needs rapid expansion along with major energy efficiency across all sectors.
Yes, politics are important but you, as an individual, only have certain agency but you should do all you can to exert this pressure …if you really understood the issues you would."To clarify a point, XR aren’t saying we should immediately stop using ff, but are saying an immediate ban on new investment, drilling and ending the huge ff subsidies. Something the science supports. There has been a fair bit of misrepresentation of this on this thread …. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite? As I said, there are plenty of alternatives. Show us you mean it by your actions. It's actually quite simple. So people should walk to London barefoot? Seems impractical. Using oil as a means to send their message may be practical in your mind. Hypocritical in mine. Indeed. Do you have an alternative, what would you do? I'm not looking for an alternative. It's up to you/them to convince me otherwise. It’s upto you to convince us, given what the science says, unless you don’t believe the science ? Or don’t believe the consequences ? It’s ridiculous to suggest those that want a rapid transition shouldn’t use any oil based product/transport … I don't need to convince you of anything, I use what I wanna use, you want me to change, it's on you to convince me to change. What's so ridiculous about suggesting you dont use the very thing youre protesting against? Alternative options are available. Surely the irony isn't really lost on you? Yes it is….as the the evidence points to what XR are saying; unless you know differently ! You have an opinion, but don’t confuse that with evidence or facts !!! No it isn't, I'm not the one asking for change... Keep talking about evidence, I'm not denying it. I just find it hypocritical. Your the one happy to push us toward catastrophe, as opposed to changes which can be readily accommodated to mitigate the worst impacts. I know where the onus lies …. I asked a number of questions further up the the thread, it could be useful if you could answer those
2 posts around 20 down, second post has more detail
A transition we are on which needs to be accelerated…we know what targets we need to achieve which can be fine with existing tech. Tell me about the future consequences if we don’t do this …it’s unrecoverable. You do understand that, don’t you ?
You missed this: and I’ve added a few points based on your last response. I’m not looking to bait you, I want to hear your views.
Timescales are important for milestones, no timescales no plan.
You mention accelerating, what does that mean and how is it supported, as per below?
Renewables providing what exactly, to power what? What will be sacrificed and do we have the infrastructure to support our needs? How would the NHS be supported by renewables as an example
Global change, do all countries in the world have the desire to change, the infrastructure? How would a global change be enforced, or managed. Would the economic and social impact of change be accepted by 3rd world countries reliant on fossil fuels?
The future looks good from your view point today, how? What are the global ramifications in this change, politically, militarily, economically, and socially?
Would there be sacrifices to what we have today, would the general population accept change or resist in the very human trait of selfishness.
Timescales are important to allow all of these factors to be considered and managed, flicking a no fossil fuel switch today would be disastrous. I think there is a lot more conversation and consideration to be had to make this work, globally or nationally.
Try ipcc for starters. Timescales, risks and consequences. Actions for equality are also outlined …’just transition’ …
I’m not sure you would be asking these questions if you truly understood the ramifications ….the consequences of inaction vastly outweigh those you cite …that’s a choice, but I know which side I’m on !
Technologies largely exist today for the transition to mitigate the worst impacts …
You haven't answered my questions with your thoughts and considerations.
You're not alone or unique in this, I would really like to get onboard to the urgency that these protests are calling for and maybe I could if one person would answer fully my questions above with logical arguments
Have you read the ipcc report, or the distilled findings ? If you did you clearly wouldn’t be asking these questions.
You are asking a about renewables, we are on a path to renewables now…it needs rapid expansion along with major energy efficiency across all sectors.
Yes, politics are important but you, as an individual, only have certain agency but you should do all you can to exert this pressure …if you really understood the issues you would.
To clarify a point, XR aren’t saying we should immediately stop using ff, but are saying an immediate ban on new investment, drilling and ending the huge ff subsidies. Something the science supports. There has been a fair bit of misrepresentation of this on this thread …."Where does it say that on the XR website, what is it they want? It is very unclear and you say that is people misrepresenting
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite? As I said, there are plenty of alternatives. Show us you mean it by your actions. It's actually quite simple. So people should walk to London barefoot? Seems impractical. Using oil as a means to send their message may be practical in your mind. Hypocritical in mine. Indeed. Do you have an alternative, what would you do? I'm not looking for an alternative. It's up to you/them to convince me otherwise. It’s upto you to convince us, given what the science says, unless you don’t believe the science ? Or don’t believe the consequences ? It’s ridiculous to suggest those that want a rapid transition shouldn’t use any oil based product/transport … I don't need to convince you of anything, I use what I wanna use, you want me to change, it's on you to convince me to change. What's so ridiculous about suggesting you dont use the very thing youre protesting against? Alternative options are available. Surely the irony isn't really lost on you? Yes it is….as the the evidence points to what XR are saying; unless you know differently ! You have an opinion, but don’t confuse that with evidence or facts !!! No it isn't, I'm not the one asking for change... Keep talking about evidence, I'm not denying it. I just find it hypocritical. Your the one happy to push us toward catastrophe, as opposed to changes which can be readily accommodated to mitigate the worst impacts. I know where the onus lies …. I asked a number of questions further up the the thread, it could be useful if you could answer those
2 posts around 20 down, second post has more detail
A transition we are on which needs to be accelerated…we know what targets we need to achieve which can be fine with existing tech. Tell me about the future consequences if we don’t do this …it’s unrecoverable. You do understand that, don’t you ?
You missed this: and I’ve added a few points based on your last response. I’m not looking to bait you, I want to hear your views.
Timescales are important for milestones, no timescales no plan.
You mention accelerating, what does that mean and how is it supported, as per below?
Renewables providing what exactly, to power what? What will be sacrificed and do we have the infrastructure to support our needs? How would the NHS be supported by renewables as an example
Global change, do all countries in the world have the desire to change, the infrastructure? How would a global change be enforced, or managed. Would the economic and social impact of change be accepted by 3rd world countries reliant on fossil fuels?
The future looks good from your view point today, how? What are the global ramifications in this change, politically, militarily, economically, and socially?
Would there be sacrifices to what we have today, would the general population accept change or resist in the very human trait of selfishness.
Timescales are important to allow all of these factors to be considered and managed, flicking a no fossil fuel switch today would be disastrous. I think there is a lot more conversation and consideration to be had to make this work, globally or nationally.
Try ipcc for starters. Timescales, risks and consequences. Actions for equality are also outlined …’just transition’ …
I’m not sure you would be asking these questions if you truly understood the ramifications ….the consequences of inaction vastly outweigh those you cite …that’s a choice, but I know which side I’m on !
Technologies largely exist today for the transition to mitigate the worst impacts …
You haven't answered my questions with your thoughts and considerations.
You're not alone or unique in this, I would really like to get onboard to the urgency that these protests are calling for and maybe I could if one person would answer fully my questions above with logical arguments
Have you read the ipcc report, or the distilled findings ? If you did you clearly wouldn’t be asking these questions.
You are asking a about renewables, we are on a path to renewables now…it needs rapid expansion along with major energy efficiency across all sectors.
Yes, politics are important but you, as an individual, only have certain agency but you should do all you can to exert this pressure …if you really understood the issues you would.
To clarify a point, XR aren’t saying we should immediately stop using ff, but are saying an immediate ban on new investment, drilling and ending the huge ff subsidies. Something the science supports. There has been a fair bit of misrepresentation of this on this thread …."XR want Net Zero by 2025. How do you propose we do that without immediately banning FF? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite? As I said, there are plenty of alternatives. Show us you mean it by your actions. It's actually quite simple. So people should walk to London barefoot? Seems impractical. Using oil as a means to send their message may be practical in your mind. Hypocritical in mine. Indeed. Do you have an alternative, what would you do? I'm not looking for an alternative. It's up to you/them to convince me otherwise. It’s upto you to convince us, given what the science says, unless you don’t believe the science ? Or don’t believe the consequences ? It’s ridiculous to suggest those that want a rapid transition shouldn’t use any oil based product/transport … I don't need to convince you of anything, I use what I wanna use, you want me to change, it's on you to convince me to change. What's so ridiculous about suggesting you dont use the very thing youre protesting against? Alternative options are available. Surely the irony isn't really lost on you? Yes it is….as the the evidence points to what XR are saying; unless you know differently ! You have an opinion, but don’t confuse that with evidence or facts !!! No it isn't, I'm not the one asking for change... Keep talking about evidence, I'm not denying it. I just find it hypocritical. Your the one happy to push us toward catastrophe, as opposed to changes which can be readily accommodated to mitigate the worst impacts. I know where the onus lies …. I asked a number of questions further up the the thread, it could be useful if you could answer those
2 posts around 20 down, second post has more detail
A transition we are on which needs to be accelerated…we know what targets we need to achieve which can be fine with existing tech. Tell me about the future consequences if we don’t do this …it’s unrecoverable. You do understand that, don’t you ?
You missed this: and I’ve added a few points based on your last response. I’m not looking to bait you, I want to hear your views.
Timescales are important for milestones, no timescales no plan.
You mention accelerating, what does that mean and how is it supported, as per below?
Renewables providing what exactly, to power what? What will be sacrificed and do we have the infrastructure to support our needs? How would the NHS be supported by renewables as an example
Global change, do all countries in the world have the desire to change, the infrastructure? How would a global change be enforced, or managed. Would the economic and social impact of change be accepted by 3rd world countries reliant on fossil fuels?
The future looks good from your view point today, how? What are the global ramifications in this change, politically, militarily, economically, and socially?
Would there be sacrifices to what we have today, would the general population accept change or resist in the very human trait of selfishness.
Timescales are important to allow all of these factors to be considered and managed, flicking a no fossil fuel switch today would be disastrous. I think there is a lot more conversation and consideration to be had to make this work, globally or nationally.
Try ipcc for starters. Timescales, risks and consequences. Actions for equality are also outlined …’just transition’ …
I’m not sure you would be asking these questions if you truly understood the ramifications ….the consequences of inaction vastly outweigh those you cite …that’s a choice, but I know which side I’m on !
Technologies largely exist today for the transition to mitigate the worst impacts …
You haven't answered my questions with your thoughts and considerations.
You're not alone or unique in this, I would really like to get onboard to the urgency that these protests are calling for and maybe I could if one person would answer fully my questions above with logical arguments
You would get behind the movement to work against climate change if a randomer on a swingers site answered some of your questions?
Amazing.
Why not? are peoples views and opinions less because they are on a swingers site?
Can you answer my questions, as a positive voice for renewables? Or are you saying your views are also worthless as a random on a swinging site?
To you, my views are worthless yes. If you're genuinely interested in the subject. I am sure you can find better sources of information than randomers on here.
I have found information
"Excellent " and I have shared with you that I do not believe switching off fossil fuels now would work and that is why it is not happening now. You advocate the ending of fossil fuels now, " Nope. You made that up. " but you have provided zero input or thought to what those implications are. " Because that's not what anyone is saying. " I would like to know what thought you have put into the end of fossil fuels and so would others but you are exactly the same as XR, no real idea other than the headline. You also continue to rubbish the government direction at any given chance, claiming no political will etc. " If you don't think it's a lack of political will, and don't understand that the fossil fuels industry is where the money is. Then I don't know how to help you. " You appear not be to be able to see the bigger picture and to top it off you deflect any challenge of your views by telling me what I think, and strangely dismissing peoples views on the subject because they happen to be on this site. I'm not particularly fond of that approach, not a good look." This is all a combination of you not liking me, getting deliberately caught up on a misunderstanding of what the purpose of the movement is. I haven't told you what you think. You've made a lot of assumptions about me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite? As I said, there are plenty of alternatives. Show us you mean it by your actions. It's actually quite simple. So people should walk to London barefoot? Seems impractical. Using oil as a means to send their message may be practical in your mind. Hypocritical in mine. Indeed. Do you have an alternative, what would you do? I'm not looking for an alternative. It's up to you/them to convince me otherwise. It’s upto you to convince us, given what the science says, unless you don’t believe the science ? Or don’t believe the consequences ? It’s ridiculous to suggest those that want a rapid transition shouldn’t use any oil based product/transport … I don't need to convince you of anything, I use what I wanna use, you want me to change, it's on you to convince me to change. What's so ridiculous about suggesting you dont use the very thing youre protesting against? Alternative options are available. Surely the irony isn't really lost on you? Yes it is….as the the evidence points to what XR are saying; unless you know differently ! You have an opinion, but don’t confuse that with evidence or facts !!! No it isn't, I'm not the one asking for change... Keep talking about evidence, I'm not denying it. I just find it hypocritical. Your the one happy to push us toward catastrophe, as opposed to changes which can be readily accommodated to mitigate the worst impacts. I know where the onus lies …. I asked a number of questions further up the the thread, it could be useful if you could answer those
2 posts around 20 down, second post has more detail
A transition we are on which needs to be accelerated…we know what targets we need to achieve which can be fine with existing tech. Tell me about the future consequences if we don’t do this …it’s unrecoverable. You do understand that, don’t you ?
You missed this: and I’ve added a few points based on your last response. I’m not looking to bait you, I want to hear your views.
Timescales are important for milestones, no timescales no plan.
You mention accelerating, what does that mean and how is it supported, as per below?
Renewables providing what exactly, to power what? What will be sacrificed and do we have the infrastructure to support our needs? How would the NHS be supported by renewables as an example
Global change, do all countries in the world have the desire to change, the infrastructure? How would a global change be enforced, or managed. Would the economic and social impact of change be accepted by 3rd world countries reliant on fossil fuels?
The future looks good from your view point today, how? What are the global ramifications in this change, politically, militarily, economically, and socially?
Would there be sacrifices to what we have today, would the general population accept change or resist in the very human trait of selfishness.
Timescales are important to allow all of these factors to be considered and managed, flicking a no fossil fuel switch today would be disastrous. I think there is a lot more conversation and consideration to be had to make this work, globally or nationally.
Try ipcc for starters. Timescales, risks and consequences. Actions for equality are also outlined …’just transition’ …
I’m not sure you would be asking these questions if you truly understood the ramifications ….the consequences of inaction vastly outweigh those you cite …that’s a choice, but I know which side I’m on !
Technologies largely exist today for the transition to mitigate the worst impacts …
You haven't answered my questions with your thoughts and considerations.
You're not alone or unique in this, I would really like to get onboard to the urgency that these protests are calling for and maybe I could if one person would answer fully my questions above with logical arguments
You would get behind the movement to work against climate change if a randomer on a swingers site answered some of your questions?
Amazing.
Why not? are peoples views and opinions less because they are on a swingers site?
Can you answer my questions, as a positive voice for renewables? Or are you saying your views are also worthless as a random on a swinging site?
To you, my views are worthless yes. If you're genuinely interested in the subject. I am sure you can find better sources of information than randomers on here.
I have found information
Excellent
and I have shared with you that I do not believe switching off fossil fuels now would work and that is why it is not happening now.
You advocate the ending of fossil fuels now,
Nope. You made that up.
but you have provided zero input or thought to what those implications are.
Because that's not what anyone is saying.
I would like to know what thought you have put into the end of fossil fuels and so would others but you are exactly the same as XR, no real idea other than the headline.
You also continue to rubbish the government direction at any given chance, claiming no political will etc.
If you don't think it's a lack of political will, and don't understand that the fossil fuels industry is where the money is. Then I don't know how to help you.
You appear not be to be able to see the bigger picture and to top it off you deflect any challenge of your views by telling me what I think, and strangely dismissing peoples views on the subject because they happen to be on this site. I'm not particularly fond of that approach, not a good look.
This is all a combination of you not liking me, getting deliberately caught up on a misunderstanding of what the purpose of the movement is.
I haven't told you what you think. You've made a lot of assumptions about me. "It’s got nothing to do with not liking you
I’m really surprised you haven’t considered the consequences, I’m starting to see a pattern though and as I said earlier it isn’t only you.
I have also realised I’m having conversations with people who can only see their side of the line, no point talking really. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite? As I said, there are plenty of alternatives. Show us you mean it by your actions. It's actually quite simple. So people should walk to London barefoot? Seems impractical. Using oil as a means to send their message may be practical in your mind. Hypocritical in mine. Indeed. Do you have an alternative, what would you do? I'm not looking for an alternative. It's up to you/them to convince me otherwise. It’s upto you to convince us, given what the science says, unless you don’t believe the science ? Or don’t believe the consequences ? It’s ridiculous to suggest those that want a rapid transition shouldn’t use any oil based product/transport … I don't need to convince you of anything, I use what I wanna use, you want me to change, it's on you to convince me to change. What's so ridiculous about suggesting you dont use the very thing youre protesting against? Alternative options are available. Surely the irony isn't really lost on you? Yes it is….as the the evidence points to what XR are saying; unless you know differently ! You have an opinion, but don’t confuse that with evidence or facts !!! No it isn't, I'm not the one asking for change... Keep talking about evidence, I'm not denying it. I just find it hypocritical. Your the one happy to push us toward catastrophe, as opposed to changes which can be readily accommodated to mitigate the worst impacts. I know where the onus lies …. I asked a number of questions further up the the thread, it could be useful if you could answer those
2 posts around 20 down, second post has more detail
A transition we are on which needs to be accelerated…we know what targets we need to achieve which can be fine with existing tech. Tell me about the future consequences if we don’t do this …it’s unrecoverable. You do understand that, don’t you ?
You missed this: and I’ve added a few points based on your last response. I’m not looking to bait you, I want to hear your views.
Timescales are important for milestones, no timescales no plan.
You mention accelerating, what does that mean and how is it supported, as per below?
Renewables providing what exactly, to power what? What will be sacrificed and do we have the infrastructure to support our needs? How would the NHS be supported by renewables as an example
Global change, do all countries in the world have the desire to change, the infrastructure? How would a global change be enforced, or managed. Would the economic and social impact of change be accepted by 3rd world countries reliant on fossil fuels?
The future looks good from your view point today, how? What are the global ramifications in this change, politically, militarily, economically, and socially?
Would there be sacrifices to what we have today, would the general population accept change or resist in the very human trait of selfishness.
Timescales are important to allow all of these factors to be considered and managed, flicking a no fossil fuel switch today would be disastrous. I think there is a lot more conversation and consideration to be had to make this work, globally or nationally.
Try ipcc for starters. Timescales, risks and consequences. Actions for equality are also outlined …’just transition’ …
I’m not sure you would be asking these questions if you truly understood the ramifications ….the consequences of inaction vastly outweigh those you cite …that’s a choice, but I know which side I’m on !
Technologies largely exist today for the transition to mitigate the worst impacts …
You haven't answered my questions with your thoughts and considerations.
You're not alone or unique in this, I would really like to get onboard to the urgency that these protests are calling for and maybe I could if one person would answer fully my questions above with logical arguments
You would get behind the movement to work against climate change if a randomer on a swingers site answered some of your questions?
Amazing.
Why not? are peoples views and opinions less because they are on a swingers site?
Can you answer my questions, as a positive voice for renewables? Or are you saying your views are also worthless as a random on a swinging site?
To you, my views are worthless yes. If you're genuinely interested in the subject. I am sure you can find better sources of information than randomers on here.
I have found information
Excellent
and I have shared with you that I do not believe switching off fossil fuels now would work and that is why it is not happening now.
You advocate the ending of fossil fuels now,
Nope. You made that up.
but you have provided zero input or thought to what those implications are.
Because that's not what anyone is saying.
I would like to know what thought you have put into the end of fossil fuels and so would others but you are exactly the same as XR, no real idea other than the headline.
You also continue to rubbish the government direction at any given chance, claiming no political will etc.
If you don't think it's a lack of political will, and don't understand that the fossil fuels industry is where the money is. Then I don't know how to help you.
You appear not be to be able to see the bigger picture and to top it off you deflect any challenge of your views by telling me what I think, and strangely dismissing peoples views on the subject because they happen to be on this site. I'm not particularly fond of that approach, not a good look.
This is all a combination of you not liking me, getting deliberately caught up on a misunderstanding of what the purpose of the movement is.
I haven't told you what you think. You've made a lot of assumptions about me.
It’s got nothing to do with not liking you
I’m really surprised you haven’t considered the consequences, I’m starting to see a pattern though and as I said earlier it isn’t only you.
I have also realised I’m having conversations with people who can only see their side of the line, no point talking really. "Fine. You're just playing a game, trying to "win" by asking random questions. I'm happy for you to win. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They want to stop fossil fuels immediately... If anyone can't see the irony in continuing to use something they want banned just because it's available (there are alternatives) then I don't think it's wrong of us They want the process to stop using fossil fuels to happen immediately. The process to stop using fossil fuels is already happening. Or are all the EV, solar panels, turbines etc a figment of my imagination? Presumably they are saying it's far too little, too slow etc. Hence the urgent nature of their message. Oh and feel free to laugh btw. Nothing wrong with poking fun at people Perhaps they just don't understand. Lots of chatter without any analysis of the real world implications of what they want. Perhaps. At least they're advocating for a positive change to the world we live in. Fair play to them. Actions speak louder than words I'm afraid. Any XR member/protestor who uses oil in my opinion is nothing but a hypocrite. How would they better achieve the aims, without using fossil fuels, and without you thinking they're a hypocrite? As I said, there are plenty of alternatives. Show us you mean it by your actions. It's actually quite simple. So people should walk to London barefoot? Seems impractical. Using oil as a means to send their message may be practical in your mind. Hypocritical in mine. Indeed. Do you have an alternative, what would you do? I'm not looking for an alternative. It's up to you/them to convince me otherwise. It’s upto you to convince us, given what the science says, unless you don’t believe the science ? Or don’t believe the consequences ? It’s ridiculous to suggest those that want a rapid transition shouldn’t use any oil based product/transport … I don't need to convince you of anything, I use what I wanna use, you want me to change, it's on you to convince me to change. What's so ridiculous about suggesting you dont use the very thing youre protesting against? Alternative options are available. Surely the irony isn't really lost on you? Yes it is….as the the evidence points to what XR are saying; unless you know differently ! You have an opinion, but don’t confuse that with evidence or facts !!! No it isn't, I'm not the one asking for change... Keep talking about evidence, I'm not denying it. I just find it hypocritical. Your the one happy to push us toward catastrophe, as opposed to changes which can be readily accommodated to mitigate the worst impacts. I know where the onus lies …. I asked a number of questions further up the the thread, it could be useful if you could answer those
2 posts around 20 down, second post has more detail
A transition we are on which needs to be accelerated…we know what targets we need to achieve which can be fine with existing tech. Tell me about the future consequences if we don’t do this …it’s unrecoverable. You do understand that, don’t you ?
You missed this: and I’ve added a few points based on your last response. I’m not looking to bait you, I want to hear your views.
Timescales are important for milestones, no timescales no plan.
You mention accelerating, what does that mean and how is it supported, as per below?
Renewables providing what exactly, to power what? What will be sacrificed and do we have the infrastructure to support our needs? How would the NHS be supported by renewables as an example
Global change, do all countries in the world have the desire to change, the infrastructure? How would a global change be enforced, or managed. Would the economic and social impact of change be accepted by 3rd world countries reliant on fossil fuels?
The future looks good from your view point today, how? What are the global ramifications in this change, politically, militarily, economically, and socially?
Would there be sacrifices to what we have today, would the general population accept change or resist in the very human trait of selfishness.
Timescales are important to allow all of these factors to be considered and managed, flicking a no fossil fuel switch today would be disastrous. I think there is a lot more conversation and consideration to be had to make this work, globally or nationally.
Try ipcc for starters. Timescales, risks and consequences. Actions for equality are also outlined …’just transition’ …
I’m not sure you would be asking these questions if you truly understood the ramifications ….the consequences of inaction vastly outweigh those you cite …that’s a choice, but I know which side I’m on !
Technologies largely exist today for the transition to mitigate the worst impacts …
You haven't answered my questions with your thoughts and considerations.
You're not alone or unique in this, I would really like to get onboard to the urgency that these protests are calling for and maybe I could if one person would answer fully my questions above with logical arguments
You would get behind the movement to work against climate change if a randomer on a swingers site answered some of your questions?
Amazing.
Why not? are peoples views and opinions less because they are on a swingers site?
Can you answer my questions, as a positive voice for renewables? Or are you saying your views are also worthless as a random on a swinging site?
To you, my views are worthless yes. If you're genuinely interested in the subject. I am sure you can find better sources of information than randomers on here.
I have found information
Excellent
and I have shared with you that I do not believe switching off fossil fuels now would work and that is why it is not happening now.
You advocate the ending of fossil fuels now,
Nope. You made that up.
but you have provided zero input or thought to what those implications are.
Because that's not what anyone is saying.
I would like to know what thought you have put into the end of fossil fuels and so would others but you are exactly the same as XR, no real idea other than the headline.
You also continue to rubbish the government direction at any given chance, claiming no political will etc.
If you don't think it's a lack of political will, and don't understand that the fossil fuels industry is where the money is. Then I don't know how to help you.
You appear not be to be able to see the bigger picture and to top it off you deflect any challenge of your views by telling me what I think, and strangely dismissing peoples views on the subject because they happen to be on this site. I'm not particularly fond of that approach, not a good look.
This is all a combination of you not liking me, getting deliberately caught up on a misunderstanding of what the purpose of the movement is.
I haven't told you what you think. You've made a lot of assumptions about me.
It’s got nothing to do with not liking you
I’m really surprised you haven’t considered the consequences, I’m starting to see a pattern though and as I said earlier it isn’t only you.
I have also realised I’m having conversations with people who can only see their side of the line, no point talking really.
Fine. You're just playing a game, trying to "win" by asking random questions.
I'm happy for you to win. "Calm down, Easy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Time to end the disastrous demographic experiment!" Please elaborate? Sounds interesting. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fine. You're just playing a game, trying to "win" by asking random questions. I'm happy for you to win. " What on earth are you going on about? Random questions | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fine. You're just playing a game, trying to "win" by asking random questions. I'm happy for you to win. What on earth are you going on about? Random questions " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To clarify a point, XR aren’t saying we should immediately stop using ff, but are saying an immediate ban on new investment, drilling and ending the huge ff subsidies." But one of the 'subsidies' they want banned is the tax allowance on capital expenditure for decommissioning. If a fossil fuel company buys some stuff for the purpose of permanently closing a field, they get to discount the cost of that stuff against their yearly profit. In effect it's an incentive to close down their operations. If we cancel that 'subsidy', then the fossil fuel companies will just leave the fields open. Why would XR want to cancel an incentive that reduces fossil fuel usage? Just to be clear, I've put 'subsidy' in quotes because every single company gets the same tax break if they are closing down and cleaning up. It's just that protesters call it a 'subsidy' when it's fossil fuel companies using it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Time to end the disastrous demographic experiment! Please elaborate? Sounds interesting." It is an 'in joke' relating to the spoof 'From the Message Boards' column in Private Eye, where they take the piss out of forum culture. Their version is actually 'Time to end the disastrous democratic experiment'. I changed it to 'demographic' to make it more relevant to overpopulation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To clarify a point, XR aren’t saying we should immediately stop using ff, but are saying an immediate ban on new investment, drilling and ending the huge ff subsidies. But one of the 'subsidies' they want banned is the tax allowance on capital expenditure for decommissioning. If a fossil fuel company buys some stuff for the purpose of permanently closing a field, they get to discount the cost of that stuff against their yearly profit. In effect it's an incentive to close down their operations. If we cancel that 'subsidy', then the fossil fuel companies will just leave the fields open. Why would XR want to cancel an incentive that reduces fossil fuel usage? Just to be clear, I've put 'subsidy' in quotes because every single company gets the same tax break if they are closing down and cleaning up. It's just that protesters call it a 'subsidy' when it's fossil fuel companies using it." The wording on their website is definitely the main issue. Much more important than the minor problem of climate change. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Time to end the disastrous demographic experiment! Please elaborate? Sounds interesting. It is an 'in joke' relating to the spoof 'From the Message Boards' column in Private Eye, where they take the piss out of forum culture. Their version is actually 'Time to end the disastrous democratic experiment'. I changed it to 'demographic' to make it more relevant to overpopulation." Now that is thought provoking, chapeau sir | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To clarify a point, XR aren’t saying we should immediately stop using ff, but are saying an immediate ban on new investment, drilling and ending the huge ff subsidies." "But one of the 'subsidies' they want banned is the tax allowance on capital expenditure for decommissioning. If a fossil fuel company buys some stuff for the purpose of permanently closing a field, they get to discount the cost of that stuff against their yearly profit. In effect it's an incentive to close down their operations. If we cancel that 'subsidy', then the fossil fuel companies will just leave the fields open. Why would XR want to cancel an incentive that reduces fossil fuel usage? Just to be clear, I've put 'subsidy' in quotes because every single company gets the same tax break if they are closing down and cleaning up. It's just that protesters call it a 'subsidy' when it's fossil fuel companies using it." "The wording on their website is definitely the main issue. Much more important than the minor problem of climate change. " It's nothing to do with the way that they've worded it. It's just another example of XR failing to think things through. They are complaining about a tax policy that helps to decrease fossil fuel usage, just because it means a fossil fuel company pays a bit less tax. It's almost like they don't really know what they are talking about. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To clarify a point, XR aren’t saying we should immediately stop using ff, but are saying an immediate ban on new investment, drilling and ending the huge ff subsidies. But one of the 'subsidies' they want banned is the tax allowance on capital expenditure for decommissioning. If a fossil fuel company buys some stuff for the purpose of permanently closing a field, they get to discount the cost of that stuff against their yearly profit. In effect it's an incentive to close down their operations. If we cancel that 'subsidy', then the fossil fuel companies will just leave the fields open. Why would XR want to cancel an incentive that reduces fossil fuel usage? Just to be clear, I've put 'subsidy' in quotes because every single company gets the same tax break if they are closing down and cleaning up. It's just that protesters call it a 'subsidy' when it's fossil fuel companies using it. The wording on their website is definitely the main issue. Much more important than the minor problem of climate change. It's nothing to do with the way that they've worded it. It's just another example of XR failing to think things through. They are complaining about a tax policy that helps to decrease fossil fuel usage, just because it means a fossil fuel company pays a bit less tax. It's almost like they don't really know what they are talking about."
Excellent. Good job no one is wasting time on climate change, and rightly spending all their effort and criticism on the not-a-wording-issue of the words on their website, relating to a very minor aspect of their campaign. | |||
| 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 |  |
