Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Riedquat

Members
  • Posts

    21,783
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Riedquat

  1. Is there even enough coal generation capacity left in the UK for that to be a meaningful threat? Sure, they'll fire it up when needed but it's still a pretty tiny proportion of the overall nowadays. But when it comes to power stations they can just chuck it on a big heap nearby. It's easy stuff to store, whether or not there's a risk of the few remaining ones here running short depends on how much they've got stockpiled.
  2. See the rest of my post - I guess I must've made the edit whilst you were writing yours.
  3. Caused by positive feedback levels event producing a one-way street to Venus? None. Just what was your point supposed to be? I've already pointed out the importance of identifying just what consequences you're concerned about, and just what exactly are people worried about when they're talking about tipping points. Because the end of humanity is not on the cards from climate change. And I've already mentioned that pretty serious consequences that still fall short of that very much are something to be concerned about.
  4. Exactly - the risk of a positive feedback end-of-all tipping point is pretty much zero, because if it wasn't it would've happened long ago.
  5. The likelihood of a massive asteroid strike big enough to wipe us all out is also a an extreme far-fetched scenario - again, big enough to cause serious, massive damage and death - possible. Big enough to wipe out the entire human race - rather less so (high likelihood that it would've been discovered by now).
  6. This is the distinction that needs to be made. We won't be completely wiped out. The consequences however might well be very unpleasant for a lot. But the most vocal on the situation never appear to be terribly concerned about exactly what consequences they're concerned about - exactly what consequences are they trying to avoid?
  7. Yes, this is why I roll my eyes at the extreme doom-mongers. The lack of those wildly implausible extremes though doesn't mean that serious issues aren't a very likely reality.
  8. What's that got to do with it? Are you denying that temperatures have been higher in Earth's history? So have CO2 levels for that matter, even though we're talking a very long time ago. Doesn't matter where it came from (e.g. volcanic activity) when discussing whether or not it adds up to a self-increasing positive feedback mechanism or not. The problems involved in burning fossil fuels are the rate of change (and hence the inability for the natural world to adapt , the human impact of that change, and the fact that we're in a situation where the change is one we (theoretically) control.
  9. With the control of the media there I'd expect a lot more trust in their own vaccine (which apparently works fairly well, unlike the Chinese one).
  10. It's a possibility and I guess it might be the one that the models are showing as most likely but there isn't a binary state of ice in the world, it's varied from none at the poles to lots more. It's not as if all glaciers will suddenly melt at the same time so the question is whether or not a large enough amount of ice is right on the borderline at the moment. The other issue about tipping points is whether or not there's one where there's a positive feedback mechanism at a certain point for further heating even without additional human contribution; it's hard to imagine that if there is one around where we are that the world wouldn't have already become uninhabitable long before humans appeared.
  11. It's called "progress." How can you possibly argue with a world doing its hardest to get rid of obnoxious hardships like "self responsibility"?
  12. So you can legally own something by buying it from someone who it never belonged to in the first place? Anyone want to sell 10 Downing Street?
  13. It saves money because businesses get to use peoples' houses as rent-free office space.
  14. So many? Lots? Really? Can't say I've noticed any sign of that. Yes, it's been repeated often enough that the chances of bad reactions are not zero even though they are low. WIth many millions of people even extremely low risks will hit someone from time to time. To bang on about those examples demonstrates an inability to put numbers in to context (a problem shared by a lot of people to be fair).
  15. That appears to be the reality of the situation but it's hardly right IMO.
  16. Not really the point though, things don't need to be useful most of the time if they're very useful indeed when they are needed. That makes them useful (as long as it's not ridiculously infrequent). The implication being that the 20 year old with a broken arm is somehow more worthwhile. There is a point where I think treatment is just prolonging suffering but anything below that point is worthwhile.
  17. Was that shift the Conservatives gaining at the older end even more or Labour losing?
  18. Should point out that that's not typical garden maintenance costs though. Much of those are one-off (or at least very infrequent) expenses, some of which could be reduced if you're prepared to do the work yourself (depends on the size of the trees of course) and sound like they were at least partially down to making up for years of lack of maintenance. £1000 for a mower and some pots?! (mind you I've got far less lawn to mow and a cheap £100-odd thing does the job fine). Only time I've ever watered the lawn was when I put a bit of new seed down, although living on the edge of the Peak District I'm not usually lacking for rain. A few water butts gets the garden through dry patches. But gardening is one of those things where you can maintain something basic for not much but can also keep spending with no end if you get carried away.
  19. All rather less useful than a doctor I'd say. Humanity managed without most of those for a long, long time (except maybe brewing beer).
  20. Amen! But don't expect anything other than to get patronised (at best) for saying that. It's telling that CofVI says it's a mystery to him why someone would be bothered about it. Another one freely criticising something that he openly admits he cannot understand. I've said it before and I'll say it again - "do something unless you have a good reason not to" is an obnoxious, dismissive, and unthinking retort to someone who is unimpressed by what you think they should do. I'll stick with "don't bother unless I think there's a good reason to." So I'll happily wear a seatbelt (or take a Covid vaccine) because it seems to me that the risks justify that level of mitigation. I'll usually, but not always, wear a bike helmet (depends where I'm going), but I'd utterly condemn anyone who says "then wear it all the time you're on your bike" - or suggests that it should be law.
  21. Or you have difficulty understand peoples' motivations and desires. I've disagreed with Bruce Banner over his vaccination stance (strongly enough to piss him off quite a lot) but during that disagreement nothing he said gave me the impression that he didn't understand the relative risks. There's more to life than just saying "which is the safer choice?" "I'd just prefer to carry on and take my chance" even if the mitigation is trivial is a perfectly valid choice. "The risk's at a level I don't give a **** about so I find it silly to mitigate against it at all, no matter how trivial the mitigation" is a position that I don't find so hard to understand. The arguments were that I disagreed that that is indeed the case with Covid, but the principle is entirely reasonable.
  22. Although even £30,000 is only around the median UK salary.
  23. I suppose I can tolerate them for that long, it's not as if we're likely to be able to build enough reactors in that time to be able to afford to replace them anyway.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.