Climate Change,

[kzb]

46 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

A Johnson hater would probably want to go for something like December 2010. That was very cold. I remember arriving at work and it was -13 degrees C on the car thermometer at about 10 in the morning.

https://www.netweather.tv/weather-forecasts/news/8607-look-back-at-december-2010---the-coldest-in-100-years

Funnily enough when I mention it to most people they can't remember it.

1983 was a cold winter.  I have recollection Cheshire got down to minus 23 C.

December 2010/January 2011 is the coldest in recent memory I would think.  Minus 20 just south of Manchester.  Deep snow in many places, and it persisted for weeks.

Let us not forget that January 2021 was the coldest January since.

[smash]

25 minutes ago, kzb said:

If that is referring to me, I didn't say that.  My point was more subtle.

Fella, you are about as subtle and non-transparent as the boredom expressed on the face of someone who flips burgers for a living.

Its just a fact of (your) life.

[kzb]

4 hours ago, smash said:

Sorry, you don't think that engaging with other people in the way you are doing here; detracting from action on climate change as a social activism is absurd?

And the springboard for this social activism is via a valuing of your own death, not absurd? Beyond Camus levels of absurdity to my mind.

 

I am not questioning that CO2 causes climate warming.  What I am questioning is our absurd reaction to it here in the UK.

What is really absurd is the level of hysteria and also hubris.  Hysteria in the belief that it is an immediate life threatening emergency.  Hubris in thinking the current UK population can do anything about it.

There is also a massive disconnect on this forum (and elsewhere) between concern on standards of living and the cost of accelerated carbon reductions in advance of the rest of the world.

We still have no response from PB on his support for that Guardian article which basically said the tax on fossil fuels should be doubled.  Do you?

What is your plan to finance your transition to carbon zero?

[kzb]

20 minutes ago, smash said:

Fella, you are about as subtle and non-transparent as the boredom expressed on the face of someone who flips burgers for a living.

Its just a fact of (your) life.

Maybe but I always turn out to be right.  Actually I'm very transparent I don't know why you would say non-transparent.

[Riedquat]

21 minutes ago, smash said:

Fella, you are about as subtle and non-transparent as the boredom expressed on the face of someone who flips burgers for a living.

Its just a fact of (your) life.

I've noticed a lot of your posts seems to boil down to "I disagree so I'll call you names."

[smash]

4 hours ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

Sorry, you don't think that engaging with other people in the way you are doing here; detracting from action on climate change as a social activism is absurd?

No not at all. People can choose to be interested in it and do something about it, or people can chose not to. I'm not going to judge them either way. I don't think I'm detracting people. My stance on the issue is pretty much neutral, although I do get pretty annoyed about pointless waste, which is ... pointless. I think climate change is going to happen, the question is more whether we want to do something about it. If your position is "if you're not with us then you're against us" then that's your interpretation not mine. I try not to impose my morality or belief systems re this on other people, either by force or any other method. I'm not into witch hunting or burning people at the stake because they don't agree with my moral choices on what should happen in the future - that's pretty much quasi religious behaviour to me. There's a big difference to me in saying "climate change is not going to happen and the data doesn't support it" and saying "climate change is going to happen and we need to make a choice as to how much effort we are going to put in to try to avoid it". One position is trying to stop people from making the choice on the basis of their morals by offering a path of deniability and an easy get out IMO.

And the springboard for this social activism is via a valuing of your own death, not absurd? Beyond Camus levels of absurdity to my mind.

It's all quasi religious stuff. That doesn't mean it's "wrong". It just means you can't rationalize it and it has to be a moral choice. It's all about your own personal beliefs. And therefore its not possible to make any objective criticism of anyone else's opinion on the matter.

Ultimately the human race will reach some sort of equilibrium position on how much it cares about sustainability and how much it cares about living for the moment, and that path will either lead us in the future to a place of survival or a place of destruction.

OK thats fine as long as you are not being disingenuous in what motivates you, perhaps I should of directed my comment at others on this thread, it just worked out the way it did. I'm not into chasing people down and burning them at the stake and I don't block roads with XR or insulate britain, more into thought experimentation and learning what makes people tick Also, as I'm getting on an aeroplane next week I would be a hypocrite for claiming to have squeaky clean knickers on.

Humanity will indeed reach some sort of equilibrium in the future but what and when is the future? Like you I will be long dead.

[smash]

18 minutes ago, kzb said:

Maybe but I always turn out to be right.  Actually I'm very transparent I don't know why you would say non-transparent.

You always turn out to be right? Oh, my goodness, I had no idea.....

[smash]

21 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

I've noticed a lot of your posts seems to boil down to "I disagree so I'll call you names."

Why don't you direct the same comment to yer pal kzb who suggests upthread that "climate scientists" exist at the same hierarchical position as burger flippers?

[smash]

OK, I want to address this idea that UK national action on climate change is futile due to China and other developed or developing nations emissions.

My answer is "so what?". Why should we let the Chinese and/or others dictate how the UK should act? To concede to inaction on this basis is to  eviscerate our own sovereign volition. Why accept such a defeat? I don't get it.

[kzb]

49 minutes ago, smash said:

Why don't you direct the same comment to yer pal kzb who suggests upthread that "climate scientists" exist at the same hierarchical position as burger flippers?

You have some serious problems with comprehension.

[kzb]

34 minutes ago, smash said:

OK, I want to address this idea that UK national action on climate change is futile due to China and other developed or developing nations emissions.

My answer is "so what?". Why should we let the Chinese and/or others dictate how the UK should act? To concede to inaction on this basis is to  eviscerate our own sovereign volition. Why accept such a defeat? I don't get it.

For heavens sake.

[smash]

11 minutes ago, kzb said:

You have some serious problems with comprehension.

How so?

[smash]

10 minutes ago, kzb said:

For heavens sake.

Excuse me?

[kzb]

6 minutes ago, smash said:

Excuse me?

You're beyond excusing.

[smash]

8 minutes ago, kzb said:

You're beyond excusing.

Oh, I do apologise.

Well, I don't actually.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

9 hours ago, smash said:

OK, I want to address this idea that UK national action on climate change is futile due to China and other developed or developing nations emissions.

My answer is "so what?". Why should we let the Chinese and/or others dictate how the UK should act? To concede to inaction on this basis is to  eviscerate our own sovereign volition. Why accept such a defeat? I don't get it.

The actual contribution the UK will make to lowering emissions is futile. In isolation it makes little difference.

Our contribution is about leadership and moral imperative. You can't expect or ask other people to cut emissions if you aren't making your own contribution. And probably more importantly, you have no basis for taking action against other countries because of their out of control emissions either.

There is also the argument that in the UK we outsource a lot of our emissions to other countries, by having them manufacture things we want. So if we are to capture our true amount of emissions we need to take this into account too.

I think the amount of control we have over the situation is limited. We could for example tax incoming goods from badly behaving countries and use that tax to directly invest in lowering our own emissions to try to compensate. Or we could simply ban imports from places that don't follow sustainable practices. But other than that, the ability we have to make other countries behave is pretty limited and is probably the biggest threat to attempting to stop climate change IMO.

[kzb]

The seal level was higher than now in the Roman warm period.  The light green areas were underwater back then.  Notice the Thames must've been wider:

Harlech castle was coastal when it was built, but since then:

Harlech Castle crowns a sheer rocky crag overlooking the dunes far below – waiting in vain for the tide to turn and the distant sea to lap at its feet once again.

https://cadw.gov.wales/visit/places-to-visit/harlech-castle

 

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

13 minutes ago, kzb said:

The seal level was higher than now in the Roman warm period.  The light green areas were underwater back then.  Notice the Thames must've been wider:

Harlech castle was coastal when it was built, but since then:

Harlech Castle crowns a sheer rocky crag overlooking the dunes far below – waiting in vain for the tide to turn and the distant sea to lap at its feet once again.

https://cadw.gov.wales/visit/places-to-visit/harlech-castle

 

Wasn't the UK crushed under a giant ice sheet about 20000 years ago ? I thought it was rising, so it could be 4m higher now than it was 2000 years ago.

[PeanutButter]

[smash]

1 hour ago, kzb said:

The seal level was higher than now in the Roman warm period.  The light green areas were underwater back then.  Notice the Thames must've been wider:

Harlech castle was coastal when it was built, but since then:

Harlech Castle crowns a sheer rocky crag overlooking the dunes far below – waiting in vain for the tide to turn and the distant sea to lap at its feet once again.

https://cadw.gov.wales/visit/places-to-visit/harlech-castle

 

LoLs into the stratosphere now for the guy who is always right and is qualified to be a climate scientist as well as licensed to tell others to engage critical faculties.

The Fens, and Somerset Levels have been drained, its a map depicting reclaimed land you idiot. Sand dunes around a castle? Where does the sand for any sand dune come from? Duurrrr it's stuff that created by the sea depositing it there.

You can't even interpret a map of your own country without involving your bias prejudice.

What's up had a hard day in the kitchen, I should image theres a lot of burgers to flip on Fridays....

[kzb]

6 hours ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

Wasn't the UK crushed under a giant ice sheet about 20000 years ago ? I thought it was rising, so it could be 4m higher now than it was 2000 years ago.

Yes I believe the NW is rising and the SE sinking.

The point was to illustrate that seal level as a concept is more complex than people think.

[kzb]

5 hours ago, smash said:

LoLs into the stratosphere now for the guy who is always right and is qualified to be a climate scientist as well as licensed to tell others to engage critical faculties (1)

The Fens, and Somerset Levels have been drained, its a map depicting reclaimed land you idiot. Sand dunes around a castle? Where does the sand for any sand dune come from? Duurrrr it's stuff that created by the sea depositing it there. (2)

You can't even interpret a map of your own country without involving your bias prejudice.

What's up had a hard day in the kitchen, I should image theres a lot of burgers to flip on Fridays....(3)

(1) This was all about critical facilities.  Sea level is a complicated subject.  You only hear about sea level rising, you don't hear about the Pacific islands increasing in area, or former British ports now left high and dry.

(2) Some places get flooded, others get left high and dry.

(3)  You can't get research money for finding no climate emergency.  What else can you do with a PhD ?  OK you could spend another £6k on becoming an HGV driver I suppose.

 

 

 

[kzb]

5 hours ago, PeanutButter said:

We're still waiting for your carbon zero finance plans for your properties.

Also your agreement or not with doubling the prices of fossil fuels.

[smash]

1 hour ago, kzb said:

(1) This was all about critical facilities.  Sea level is a complicated subject.  You only hear about sea level rising, you don't hear about the Pacific islands increasing in area, or former British ports now left high and dry.

(2) Some places get flooded, others get left high and dry.

(3)  You can't get research money for finding no climate emergency.  What else can you do with a PhD ?  OK you could spend another £6k on becoming an HGV driver I suppose.

 

 

 

Oh, its complicated is it and beyond the ken of the mere mortal, strictly only for sceptic fetishist internet trolls. You seriously don't know why a Pacific atol cant grow, fvck you're thick. Next you'll be saying that a volcanic islands growth after a major eruption is inexplicable, durrrrr.

So, these British ports that have been left "high and dry", which ones?

Edited October 16, 2021 by smash

[winkie]

19 hours ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

The actual contribution the UK will make to lowering emissions is futile. In isolation it makes little difference.

Our contribution is about leadership and moral imperative. You can't expect or ask other people to cut emissions if you aren't making your own contribution. And probably more importantly, you have no basis for taking action against other countries because of their out of control emissions either.

There is also the argument that in the UK we outsource a lot of our emissions to other countries, by having them manufacture things we want. So if we are to capture our true amount of emissions we need to take this into account too.

I think the amount of control we have over the situation is limited. We could for example tax incoming goods from badly behaving countries and use that tax to directly invest in lowering our own emissions to try to compensate. Or we could simply ban imports from places that don't follow sustainable practices. But other than that, the ability we have to make other countries behave is pretty limited and is probably the biggest threat to attempting to stop climate change IMO.

I agree with your points......what we do as a country will have little impact because we import so much pollution created by others for us to use, using carbon to get it here, we don't even recycle effectively enough including recycling for energy use,we export a large amount of our rubbish......far too much plastic is still everywhere much of which we have made, used once and has been found in deep seas throughout the globe and we still keep producing it.....the plastic age.

If we are really serious about cutting down on co2 emission we need targets to reduce growth or GDP not increase it.