FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Climate change denial
Climate change denial
Jump to: Newest in thread
Yes the question is loaded but I am interested. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"climate change I agree is happening . . .,As for the causes, I'm Not totally convinced. Geological science shows that climate change has happened numerous times in the past. Global temperatures have ebbed and flowed for millennia. . . For me, the jury is still out on it being a natural cycle or man made. " Well lets examine 2 key points. Co2 is a substance that is well studied characteristics in terms of a greenhouse gas. We've released shit loads of it into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. Given the above 2 observations, i would say thats a higher possibility of climate change than say, sun spots, earth's axis shifting etc.. Natural events can't be ruled out, but can you say what we've done won't affect anything? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"climate change I agree is happening . . .,As for the causes, I'm Not totally convinced. Geological science shows that climate change has happened numerous times in the past. Global temperatures have ebbed and flowed for millennia. . . For me, the jury is still out on it being a natural cycle or man made. " You are absolutely correct that the planets climate has changed through its history - as have atmospheric levels of CO2 and other gases. I assume though that you have not undertaken detailed studies upon CO2 levels of the past few million years and specifically what has happened since the industrial revolution. On the basis that you have not, it would appear prudent to accept the overwhelming majority of climatologists in the world who have a near 100% conference in current global warming being largely caused by human activity. I love good scientific research, so if you identify any research that you have had published in reputable journals, I will happily study it. Otherwise I just perceive that you are conflating known and accepted warming and cooling cycles with the current warming which has a different cause. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"climate change I agree is happening . . .,As for the causes, I'm Not totally convinced. Geological science shows that climate change has happened numerous times in the past. Global temperatures have ebbed and flowed for millennia. . . For me, the jury is still out on it being a natural cycle or man made. You are absolutely correct that the planets climate has changed through its history - as have atmospheric levels of CO2 and other gases. I assume though that you have not undertaken detailed studies upon CO2 levels of the past few million years and specifically what has happened since the industrial revolution. On the basis that you have not, it would appear prudent to accept the overwhelming majority of climatologists in the world who have a near 100% conference in current global warming being largely caused by human activity. I love good scientific research, so if you identify any research that you have had published in reputable journals, I will happily study it. Otherwise I just perceive that you are conflating known and accepted warming and cooling cycles with the current warming which has a different cause. " That should have said 'near 100% confidence'  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"climate change I agree is happening . . .,As for the causes, I'm Not totally convinced. Geological science shows that climate change has happened numerous times in the past. Global temperatures have ebbed and flowed for millennia. . . For me, the jury is still out on it being a natural cycle or man made. " What would convince you either way given that its something that can be measured? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
.
I will be smiling each winter when I drive past all the electric cars stuck in the snow, want a tow out, should have bought a Hilux like myself
.
Hilux is best 4x4 for winter driving, | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"LOL, remember when they used to say the main cause was CFC's
.
I will be smiling each winter when I drive past all the electric cars stuck in the snow, want a tow out, should have bought a Hilux like myself
.
Hilux is best 4x4 for winter driving, "Exactly. CFCs were damaging the Ozone layer. We stopped releasing as much CFCs and we have reduced the depletion of ozone. Alas, whilst that was a huge success in terms of public policy and perception, the rise of stupid recently means we are screwed. -Matt | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I've taken to thinking about it this way: Lock a bunch of primary school kids in one of these two rooms; 1. Petrol car, motor running 2. Electric car, motor running Even if you don't "believe" that human activity is effecting global warming is their a particular reason why you might object to not creating as much pollution?" It reminds me of the (Larson?) cartoon in which an audience member at a conference puts their hand up and asks ‘What if it is all a hoax, and we make the world a better place for nothing?’ -Matt | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"LOL, remember when they used to say the main cause was CFC's
.
I will be smiling each winter when I drive past all the electric cars stuck in the snow, want a tow out, should have bought a Hilux like myself
.
Hilux is best 4x4 for winter driving,
Exactly. CFCs were damaging the Ozone layer. We stopped releasing as much CFCs and we have reduced the depletion of ozone. Alas, whilst that was a huge success in terms of public policy and perception, the rise of stupid recently means we are screwed.
-Matt"YOU may be screwed, im living life to the full The Hilux will be offroad most of December though as a long haul flight to Hawaii (London to San Fran 11hours), but a good chance to try some new SUV's over there, all nice n clean petrol too, no diesel  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Nobody cares look at they way people vote.Climate change is irrelevant.How many people in this forum have ever voted for green polices.Less than 1%.Stop whining and suck up the inevitable.Grab some popcorn and watch the end of the world show. ". Nail head hit firmly  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Nobody cares look at they way people vote.Climate change is irrelevant.How many people in this forum have ever voted for green polices.Less than 1%.Stop whining and suck up the inevitable.Grab some popcorn and watch the end of the world show. " | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"LOL, remember when they used to say the main cause was CFC's
.
I will be smiling each winter when I drive past all the electric cars stuck in the snow, want a tow out, should have bought a Hilux like myself
.
Hilux is best 4x4 for winter driving, "So, for clarity, of the two options: Lock a bunch of primary school kids in one of these two rooms; 1. Petrol car, motor running 2. Electric car, motor running You are choosing option 1? Yes/No is fine. Add an emoji if you like. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"LOL, remember when they used to say the main cause was CFC's
.
I will be smiling each winter when I drive past all the electric cars stuck in the snow, want a tow out, should have bought a Hilux like myself
.
Hilux is best 4x4 for winter driving,
So, for clarity, of the two options:
Lock a bunch of primary school kids in one of these two rooms;
1. Petrol car, motor running
2. Electric car, motor running
You are choosing option 1?
Yes/No is fine. Add an emoji if you like."We all still choose option 1 and hope someone opens a window. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I've taken to thinking about it this way: Lock a bunch of primary school kids in one of these two rooms; 1. Petrol car, motor running 2. Electric car, motor running Even if you don't "believe" that human activity is effecting global warming is their a particular reason why you might object to not creating as much pollution? It reminds me of the (Larson?) cartoon in which an audience member at a conference puts their hand up and asks ‘What if it is all a hoax, and we make the world a better place for nothing?’ -Matt"
Even if you ignore climate change, no ones denies that fossil fuels are limited, they are a finite resource. It doesn't make sense to have a society based on a resource that's going to run out. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just one tiny point.. how is that electricity that your motor is using generated?? One piece of food for thought (and this comes from a PHD chap in Nuclear science - our daughters chap!!) If everyone used an electric car, you would have to double the capacity of powerstations 'cause all of the 'green' sources combined don't produce anywhere near enough steady power. And just one other thing, those batteries in the electric cars have a very finite life before they all need changing, the cost of which, apparently, is pretty much the same cost of the car!" In the US, the Tesla charging stations are all solar powered. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just one tiny point.. how is that electricity that your motor is using generated?? One piece of food for thought (and this comes from a PHD chap in Nuclear science - our daughters chap!!) If everyone used an electric car, you would have to double the capacity of powerstations 'cause all of the 'green' sources combined don't produce anywhere near enough steady power. And just one other thing, those batteries in the electric cars have a very finite life before they all need changing, the cost of which, apparently, is pretty much the same cost of the car!" Dont worry you wont need cars where we are going. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just one tiny point.. how is that electricity that your motor is using generated?? One piece of food for thought (and this comes from a PHD chap in Nuclear science - our daughters chap!!) If everyone used an electric car, you would have to double the capacity of powerstations 'cause all of the 'green' sources combined don't produce anywhere near enough steady power. And just one other thing, those batteries in the electric cars have a very finite life before they all need changing, the cost of which, apparently, is pretty much the same cost of the car! In the US, the Tesla charging stations are all solar powered. " Oh, and you have 2 charging options, either plug in and wait 15 minutes for a free charge, or pay about £60 to have your battery swapped our entirely and a new one installed. This takes less time than it takes a regular petrol/diesel car to fill the tank. Pretty nifty. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just one tiny point.. how is that electricity that your motor is using generated?? One piece of food for thought (and this comes from a PHD chap in Nuclear science - our daughters chap!!) If everyone used an electric car, you would have to double the capacity of powerstations 'cause all of the 'green' sources combined don't produce anywhere near enough steady power. And just one other thing, those batteries in the electric cars have a very finite life before they all need changing, the cost of which, apparently, is pretty much the same cost of the car! In the US, the Tesla charging stations are all solar powered. " except when its cloudy..... | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"LOL, remember when they used to say the main cause was CFC's
"Look at those pointdexters, working to increase our understanding of the world around us, what a bunch of buffoons! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just one tiny point.. how is that electricity that your motor is using generated?? One piece of food for thought (and this comes from a PHD chap in Nuclear science - our daughters chap!!) If everyone used an electric car, you would have to double the capacity of powerstations 'cause all of the 'green' sources combined don't produce anywhere near enough steady power. And just one other thing, those batteries in the electric cars have a very finite life before they all need changing, the cost of which, apparently, is pretty much the same cost of the car! In the US, the Tesla charging stations are all solar powered. except when its cloudy..... " No, they are always solar powered. Even at night. When the sun shines, the electricity is stored in batteries, that then dispense the power as needed. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just one tiny point.. how is that electricity that your motor is using generated?? One piece of food for thought (and this comes from a PHD chap in Nuclear science - our daughters chap!!) If everyone used an electric car, you would have to double the capacity of powerstations 'cause all of the 'green' sources combined don't produce anywhere near enough steady power. And just one other thing, those batteries in the electric cars have a very finite life before they all need changing, the cost of which, apparently, is pretty much the same cost of the car! In the US, the Tesla charging stations are all solar powered. Oh, and you have 2 charging options, either plug in and wait 15 minutes for a free charge, or pay about £60 to have your battery swapped our entirely and a new one installed. This takes less time than it takes a regular petrol/diesel car to fill the tank. Pretty nifty. "So more than the cost of filling your car up with petrol, to go less than half the distance? Yep, really nifty. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just one tiny point.. how is that electricity that your motor is using generated?? One piece of food for thought (and this comes from a PHD chap in Nuclear science - our daughters chap!!) If everyone used an electric car, you would have to double the capacity of powerstations 'cause all of the 'green' sources combined don't produce anywhere near enough steady power. And just one other thing, those batteries in the electric cars have a very finite life before they all need changing, the cost of which, apparently, is pretty much the same cost of the car!" a Ph.D in the declining nuclear industry would say that though wouldn't they | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just one tiny point.. how is that electricity that your motor is using generated?? One piece of food for thought (and this comes from a PHD chap in Nuclear science - our daughters chap!!) If everyone used an electric car, you would have to double the capacity of powerstations 'cause all of the 'green' sources combined don't produce anywhere near enough steady power. And just one other thing, those batteries in the electric cars have a very finite life before they all need changing, the cost of which, apparently, is pretty much the same cost of the car! In the US, the Tesla charging stations are all solar powered. Oh, and you have 2 charging options, either plug in and wait 15 minutes for a free charge, or pay about £60 to have your battery swapped our entirely and a new one installed. This takes less time than it takes a regular petrol/diesel car to fill the tank. Pretty nifty.
So more than the cost of filling your car up with petrol, to go less than half the distance?
Yep, really nifty. "It costs more than £60 to fill my tank. Like a said, you can charge it for free, OR you can swap out your flat battery, for a fully charged one, for a fee. I think record so far for a Tesla on a single charge is 670 miles. I seriously doubt claim that your car goes twice as far, 1,340 miles, for less than £60. What kind of car do you have? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just one tiny point.. how is that electricity that your motor is using generated?? One piece of food for thought (and this comes from a PHD chap in Nuclear science - our daughters chap!!) If everyone used an electric car, you would have to double the capacity of powerstations 'cause all of the 'green' sources combined don't produce anywhere near enough steady power. And just one other thing, those batteries in the electric cars have a very finite life before they all need changing, the cost of which, apparently, is pretty much the same cost of the car! In the US, the Tesla charging stations are all solar powered. except when its cloudy..... " There will be a lot of cloud in the future.Youll be fine running on chip fat though. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just one tiny point.. how is that electricity that your motor is using generated?? One piece of food for thought (and this comes from a PHD chap in Nuclear science - our daughters chap!!) If everyone used an electric car, you would have to double the capacity of powerstations 'cause all of the 'green' sources combined don't produce anywhere near enough steady power. And just one other thing, those batteries in the electric cars have a very finite life before they all need changing, the cost of which, apparently, is pretty much the same cost of the car! In the US, the Tesla charging stations are all solar powered. Oh, and you have 2 charging options, either plug in and wait 15 minutes for a free charge, or pay about £60 to have your battery swapped our entirely and a new one installed. This takes less time than it takes a regular petrol/diesel car to fill the tank. Pretty nifty.
So more than the cost of filling your car up with petrol, to go less than half the distance?
Yep, really nifty.
It costs more than £60 to fill my tank. Like a said, you can charge it for free, OR you can swap out your flat battery, for a fully charged one, for a fee. I think record so far for a Tesla on a single charge is 670 miles. I seriously doubt claim that your car goes twice as far, 1,340 miles, for less than £60. What kind of car do you have? "Yes, you're right...it was at an average speed of 23 MPH, driving for 29 hours. If you're happy driving everywhere at 23 MPH, you crack on. And if you think you can get 670 miles in a single charge, how come you haven't got one? And in 2010 a Volkswagen Passat driver drove 1,531 miles on a single tank of fuel at an average speed of 45MPH. The best I've achieved is 83.1 MPG , over a 312 mile round trip. The average I get is just over 60 MPG. Do easily over 600 miles to the tankful Tesla's model 3 70KWh motor stated mileage is 230-240 miles per charge, I.e. half of what I get. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just one tiny point.. how is that electricity that your motor is using generated?? One piece of food for thought (and this comes from a PHD chap in Nuclear science - our daughters chap!!) If everyone used an electric car, you would have to double the capacity of powerstations 'cause all of the 'green' sources combined don't produce anywhere near enough steady power. And just one other thing, those batteries in the electric cars have a very finite life before they all need changing, the cost of which, apparently, is pretty much the same cost of the car! In the US, the Tesla charging stations are all solar powered. Oh, and you have 2 charging options, either plug in and wait 15 minutes for a free charge, or pay about £60 to have your battery swapped our entirely and a new one installed. This takes less time than it takes a regular petrol/diesel car to fill the tank. Pretty nifty.
So more than the cost of filling your car up with petrol, to go less than half the distance?
Yep, really nifty.
It costs more than £60 to fill my tank. Like a said, you can charge it for free, OR you can swap out your flat battery, for a fully charged one, for a fee. I think record so far for a Tesla on a single charge is 670 miles. I seriously doubt claim that your car goes twice as far, 1,340 miles, for less than £60. What kind of car do you have?
Yes, you're right...it was at an average speed of 23 MPH, driving for 29 hours. If you're happy driving everywhere at 23 MPH, you crack on.
And if you think you can get 670 miles in a single charge, how come you haven't got one?
And in 2010 a Volkswagen Passat driver drove 1,531 miles on a single tank of fuel at an average speed of 45MPH.
The best I've achieved is 83.1 MPG , over a 312 mile round trip. The average I get is just over 60 MPG. Do easily over 600 miles to the tankful
Tesla's model 3 70KWh motor stated mileage is 230-240 miles per charge, I.e. half of what I get.
"Electric cars wont save the species . | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just one tiny point.. how is that electricity that your motor is using generated?? One piece of food for thought (and this comes from a PHD chap in Nuclear science - our daughters chap!!) If everyone used an electric car, you would have to double the capacity of powerstations 'cause all of the 'green' sources combined don't produce anywhere near enough steady power. And just one other thing, those batteries in the electric cars have a very finite life before they all need changing, the cost of which, apparently, is pretty much the same cost of the car! In the US, the Tesla charging stations are all solar powered. Oh, and you have 2 charging options, either plug in and wait 15 minutes for a free charge, or pay about £60 to have your battery swapped our entirely and a new one installed. This takes less time than it takes a regular petrol/diesel car to fill the tank. Pretty nifty.
So more than the cost of filling your car up with petrol, to go less than half the distance?
Yep, really nifty.
It costs more than £60 to fill my tank. Like a said, you can charge it for free, OR you can swap out your flat battery, for a fully charged one, for a fee. I think record so far for a Tesla on a single charge is 670 miles. I seriously doubt claim that your car goes twice as far, 1,340 miles, for less than £60. What kind of car do you have?
Yes, you're right...it was at an average speed of 23 MPH, driving for 29 hours. If you're happy driving everywhere at 23 MPH, you crack on.
And if you think you can get 670 miles in a single charge, how come you haven't got one?
And in 2010 a Volkswagen Passat driver drove 1,531 miles on a single tank of fuel at an average speed of 45MPH.
The best I've achieved is 83.1 MPG , over a 312 mile round trip. The average I get is just over 60 MPG. Do easily over 600 miles to the tankful
Tesla's model 3 70KWh motor stated mileage is 230-240 miles per charge, I.e. half of what I get.
"I've never felt the need to drive for 29 hrs straight. So that's more than enough range for me. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just one tiny point.. how is that electricity that your motor is using generated?? One piece of food for thought (and this comes from a PHD chap in Nuclear science - our daughters chap!!) If everyone used an electric car, you would have to double the capacity of powerstations 'cause all of the 'green' sources combined don't produce anywhere near enough steady power. And just one other thing, those batteries in the electric cars have a very finite life before they all need changing, the cost of which, apparently, is pretty much the same cost of the car! In the US, the Tesla charging stations are all solar powered. Oh, and you have 2 charging options, either plug in and wait 15 minutes for a free charge, or pay about £60 to have your battery swapped our entirely and a new one installed. This takes less time than it takes a regular petrol/diesel car to fill the tank. Pretty nifty.
So more than the cost of filling your car up with petrol, to go less than half the distance?
Yep, really nifty.
It costs more than £60 to fill my tank. Like a said, you can charge it for free, OR you can swap out your flat battery, for a fully charged one, for a fee. I think record so far for a Tesla on a single charge is 670 miles. I seriously doubt claim that your car goes twice as far, 1,340 miles, for less than £60. What kind of car do you have?
Yes, you're right...it was at an average speed of 23 MPH, driving for 29 hours. If you're happy driving everywhere at 23 MPH, you crack on.
And if you think you can get 670 miles in a single charge, how come you haven't got one?
And in 2010 a Volkswagen Passat driver drove 1,531 miles on a single tank of fuel at an average speed of 45MPH.
The best I've achieved is 83.1 MPG , over a 312 mile round trip. The average I get is just over 60 MPG. Do easily over 600 miles to the tankful
Tesla's model 3 70KWh motor stated mileage is 230-240 miles per charge, I.e. half of what I get.
Electric cars wont save the species . "Not on their own, no. But then, nobody ever said they would. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just one tiny point.. how is that electricity that your motor is using generated?? One piece of food for thought (and this comes from a PHD chap in Nuclear science - our daughters chap!!) If everyone used an electric car, you would have to double the capacity of powerstations 'cause all of the 'green' sources combined don't produce anywhere near enough steady power. And just one other thing, those batteries in the electric cars have a very finite life before they all need changing, the cost of which, apparently, is pretty much the same cost of the car! In the US, the Tesla charging stations are all solar powered. Oh, and you have 2 charging options, either plug in and wait 15 minutes for a free charge, or pay about £60 to have your battery swapped our entirely and a new one installed. This takes less time than it takes a regular petrol/diesel car to fill the tank. Pretty nifty.
So more than the cost of filling your car up with petrol, to go less than half the distance?
Yep, really nifty.
It costs more than £60 to fill my tank. Like a said, you can charge it for free, OR you can swap out your flat battery, for a fully charged one, for a fee. I think record so far for a Tesla on a single charge is 670 miles. I seriously doubt claim that your car goes twice as far, 1,340 miles, for less than £60. What kind of car do you have?
Yes, you're right...it was at an average speed of 23 MPH, driving for 29 hours. If you're happy driving everywhere at 23 MPH, you crack on.
And if you think you can get 670 miles in a single charge, how come you haven't got one?
And in 2010 a Volkswagen Passat driver drove 1,531 miles on a single tank of fuel at an average speed of 45MPH.
The best I've achieved is 83.1 MPG , over a 312 mile round trip. The average I get is just over 60 MPG. Do easily over 600 miles to the tankful
Tesla's model 3 70KWh motor stated mileage is 230-240 miles per charge, I.e. half of what I get.
Electric cars wont save the species .
Not on their own, no.
But then, nobody ever said they would."Thats true we have no plan. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just one tiny point.. how is that electricity that your motor is using generated?? One piece of food for thought (and this comes from a PHD chap in Nuclear science - our daughters chap!!) If everyone used an electric car, you would have to double the capacity of powerstations 'cause all of the 'green' sources combined don't produce anywhere near enough steady power. And just one other thing, those batteries in the electric cars have a very finite life before they all need changing, the cost of which, apparently, is pretty much the same cost of the car! In the US, the Tesla charging stations are all solar powered. Oh, and you have 2 charging options, either plug in and wait 15 minutes for a free charge, or pay about £60 to have your battery swapped our entirely and a new one installed. This takes less time than it takes a regular petrol/diesel car to fill the tank. Pretty nifty.
So more than the cost of filling your car up with petrol, to go less than half the distance?
Yep, really nifty.
It costs more than £60 to fill my tank. Like a said, you can charge it for free, OR you can swap out your flat battery, for a fully charged one, for a fee. I think record so far for a Tesla on a single charge is 670 miles. I seriously doubt claim that your car goes twice as far, 1,340 miles, for less than £60. What kind of car do you have?
Yes, you're right...it was at an average speed of 23 MPH, driving for 29 hours. If you're happy driving everywhere at 23 MPH, you crack on.
And if you think you can get 670 miles in a single charge, how come you haven't got one?
And in 2010 a Volkswagen Passat driver drove 1,531 miles on a single tank of fuel at an average speed of 45MPH.
The best I've achieved is 83.1 MPG , over a 312 mile round trip. The average I get is just over 60 MPG. Do easily over 600 miles to the tankful
Tesla's model 3 70KWh motor stated mileage is 230-240 miles per charge, I.e. half of what I get.
Electric cars wont save the species .
Not on their own, no.
But then, nobody ever said they would. Thats true we have no plan. "You're more than welcome to join the other recalcitrant children in sulking that everything's hopeless. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just one tiny point.. how is that electricity that your motor is using generated?? One piece of food for thought (and this comes from a PHD chap in Nuclear science - our daughters chap!!) If everyone used an electric car, you would have to double the capacity of powerstations 'cause all of the 'green' sources combined don't produce anywhere near enough steady power. And just one other thing, those batteries in the electric cars have a very finite life before they all need changing, the cost of which, apparently, is pretty much the same cost of the car! In the US, the Tesla charging stations are all solar powered. Oh, and you have 2 charging options, either plug in and wait 15 minutes for a free charge, or pay about £60 to have your battery swapped our entirely and a new one installed. This takes less time than it takes a regular petrol/diesel car to fill the tank. Pretty nifty.
So more than the cost of filling your car up with petrol, to go less than half the distance?
Yep, really nifty.
It costs more than £60 to fill my tank. Like a said, you can charge it for free, OR you can swap out your flat battery, for a fully charged one, for a fee. I think record so far for a Tesla on a single charge is 670 miles. I seriously doubt claim that your car goes twice as far, 1,340 miles, for less than £60. What kind of car do you have?
Yes, you're right...it was at an average speed of 23 MPH, driving for 29 hours. If you're happy driving everywhere at 23 MPH, you crack on.
And if you think you can get 670 miles in a single charge, how come you haven't got one?
And in 2010 a Volkswagen Passat driver drove 1,531 miles on a single tank of fuel at an average speed of 45MPH.
The best I've achieved is 83.1 MPG , over a 312 mile round trip. The average I get is just over 60 MPG. Do easily over 600 miles to the tankful
Tesla's model 3 70KWh motor stated mileage is 230-240 miles per charge, I.e. half of what I get.
I've never felt the need to drive for 29 hrs straight. So that's more than enough range for me."So how come you haven't got one then? I've looked into it, not enough range for me, not enough charging points, takes too long to charge, and cost inhibitive. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just one tiny point.. how is that electricity that your motor is using generated?? One piece of food for thought (and this comes from a PHD chap in Nuclear science - our daughters chap!!) If everyone used an electric car, you would have to double the capacity of powerstations 'cause all of the 'green' sources combined don't produce anywhere near enough steady power. And just one other thing, those batteries in the electric cars have a very finite life before they all need changing, the cost of which, apparently, is pretty much the same cost of the car! In the US, the Tesla charging stations are all solar powered. Oh, and you have 2 charging options, either plug in and wait 15 minutes for a free charge, or pay about £60 to have your battery swapped our entirely and a new one installed. This takes less time than it takes a regular petrol/diesel car to fill the tank. Pretty nifty.
So more than the cost of filling your car up with petrol, to go less than half the distance?
Yep, really nifty.
It costs more than £60 to fill my tank. Like a said, you can charge it for free, OR you can swap out your flat battery, for a fully charged one, for a fee. I think record so far for a Tesla on a single charge is 670 miles. I seriously doubt claim that your car goes twice as far, 1,340 miles, for less than £60. What kind of car do you have?
Yes, you're right...it was at an average speed of 23 MPH, driving for 29 hours. If you're happy driving everywhere at 23 MPH, you crack on.
And if you think you can get 670 miles in a single charge, how come you haven't got one?
And in 2010 a Volkswagen Passat driver drove 1,531 miles on a single tank of fuel at an average speed of 45MPH.
The best I've achieved is 83.1 MPG , over a 312 mile round trip. The average I get is just over 60 MPG. Do easily over 600 miles to the tankful
Tesla's model 3 70KWh motor stated mileage is 230-240 miles per charge, I.e. half of what I get.
I've never felt the need to drive for 29 hrs straight. So that's more than enough range for me."You never feel the urge to drive full stop, your always sat on your arse in front of pc on this forum 24/7 | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just one tiny point.. how is that electricity that your motor is using generated?? One piece of food for thought (and this comes from a PHD chap in Nuclear science - our daughters chap!!) If everyone used an electric car, you would have to double the capacity of powerstations 'cause all of the 'green' sources combined don't produce anywhere near enough steady power. And just one other thing, those batteries in the electric cars have a very finite life before they all need changing, the cost of which, apparently, is pretty much the same cost of the car! In the US, the Tesla charging stations are all solar powered. Oh, and you have 2 charging options, either plug in and wait 15 minutes for a free charge, or pay about £60 to have your battery swapped our entirely and a new one installed. This takes less time than it takes a regular petrol/diesel car to fill the tank. Pretty nifty.
So more than the cost of filling your car up with petrol, to go less than half the distance?
Yep, really nifty.
It costs more than £60 to fill my tank. Like a said, you can charge it for free, OR you can swap out your flat battery, for a fully charged one, for a fee. I think record so far for a Tesla on a single charge is 670 miles. I seriously doubt claim that your car goes twice as far, 1,340 miles, for less than £60. What kind of car do you have?
Yes, you're right...it was at an average speed of 23 MPH, driving for 29 hours. If you're happy driving everywhere at 23 MPH, you crack on.
And if you think you can get 670 miles in a single charge, how come you haven't got one?
And in 2010 a Volkswagen Passat driver drove 1,531 miles on a single tank of fuel at an average speed of 45MPH.
The best I've achieved is 83.1 MPG , over a 312 mile round trip. The average I get is just over 60 MPG. Do easily over 600 miles to the tankful
Tesla's model 3 70KWh motor stated mileage is 230-240 miles per charge, I.e. half of what I get.
I've never felt the need to drive for 29 hrs straight. So that's more than enough range for me.
You never feel the urge to drive full stop, your always sat on your arse in front of pc on this forum 24/7 "Option 1 or option 2? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just one tiny point.. how is that electricity that your motor is using generated?? One piece of food for thought (and this comes from a PHD chap in Nuclear science - our daughters chap!!) If everyone used an electric car, you would have to double the capacity of powerstations 'cause all of the 'green' sources combined don't produce anywhere near enough steady power. And just one other thing, those batteries in the electric cars have a very finite life before they all need changing, the cost of which, apparently, is pretty much the same cost of the car! In the US, the Tesla charging stations are all solar powered. Oh, and you have 2 charging options, either plug in and wait 15 minutes for a free charge, or pay about £60 to have your battery swapped our entirely and a new one installed. This takes less time than it takes a regular petrol/diesel car to fill the tank. Pretty nifty.
So more than the cost of filling your car up with petrol, to go less than half the distance?
Yep, really nifty.
It costs more than £60 to fill my tank. Like a said, you can charge it for free, OR you can swap out your flat battery, for a fully charged one, for a fee. I think record so far for a Tesla on a single charge is 670 miles. I seriously doubt claim that your car goes twice as far, 1,340 miles, for less than £60. What kind of car do you have?
Yes, you're right...it was at an average speed of 23 MPH, driving for 29 hours. If you're happy driving everywhere at 23 MPH, you crack on.
And if you think you can get 670 miles in a single charge, how come you haven't got one?
And in 2010 a Volkswagen Passat driver drove 1,531 miles on a single tank of fuel at an average speed of 45MPH.
The best I've achieved is 83.1 MPG , over a 312 mile round trip. The average I get is just over 60 MPG. Do easily over 600 miles to the tankful
Tesla's model 3 70KWh motor stated mileage is 230-240 miles per charge, I.e. half of what I get.
I've never felt the need to drive for 29 hrs straight. So that's more than enough range for me.
So how come you haven't got one then?
I've looked into it, not enough range for me, not enough charging points, takes too long to charge, and cost inhibitive. "Option 1 or option 2? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Like I said at the beginning and have done awhile.... Too little too late, although name calling and arguing will obviously make us all feel better "Option 1 or option 2? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just one tiny point.. how is that electricity that your motor is using generated?? One piece of food for thought (and this comes from a PHD chap in Nuclear science - our daughters chap!!) If everyone used an electric car, you would have to double the capacity of powerstations 'cause all of the 'green' sources combined don't produce anywhere near enough steady power. And just one other thing, those batteries in the electric cars have a very finite life before they all need changing, the cost of which, apparently, is pretty much the same cost of the car!" Electric vehicles provide a range of options for power generation from inherently low carbon to the potential for carbon capture in conventional plant. The pollution is also not generated in cities at street level. Option 1 or option 2? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"LOL, remember when they used to say the main cause was CFC's
.
I will be smiling each winter when I drive past all the electric cars stuck in the snow, want a tow out, should have bought a Hilux like myself
.
Hilux is best 4x4 for winter driving,
So, for clarity, of the two options:
Lock a bunch of primary school kids in one of these two rooms;
1. Petrol car, motor running
2. Electric car, motor running
You are choosing option 1?
Yes/No is fine. Add an emoji if you like. We all still choose option 1 and hope someone opens a window. "Option 1 or option 2? You. Personally. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"LOL, remember when they used to say the main cause was CFC's
.
I will be smiling each winter when I drive past all the electric cars stuck in the snow, want a tow out, should have bought a Hilux like myself
.
Hilux is best 4x4 for winter driving,
So, for clarity, of the two options:
Lock a bunch of primary school kids in one of these two rooms;
1. Petrol car, motor running
2. Electric car, motor running
You are choosing option 1?
Yes/No is fine. Add an emoji if you like. We all still choose option 1 and hope someone opens a window.
Option 1 or option 2?
You. Personally."Its pretty obvious everyone dies in option 1. However i don't own an electric car.So I'm more of an option 2 guy by the fact i drive a diesil van. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"LOL, remember when they used to say the main cause was CFC's
.
I will be smiling each winter when I drive past all the electric cars stuck in the snow, want a tow out, should have bought a Hilux like myself
.
Hilux is best 4x4 for winter driving, "They didn't. Thst was fluro carbons from aerosols and fridge coolant that was damaging the ozone layer and is not used now | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Like I said at the beginning and have done awhile.... Too little too late, although name calling and arguing will obviously make us all feel better
Option 1 or option 2?". Me personally, oooo I don't drive unless absolutely necessary and when I do I drive a 25 year old diesel van that i run on homemade fuel from vegetable oil or occasionally stolen heating oil .
I don't think it's possible to "save" us from industrialization, it's just a question of time | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just one tiny point.. how is that electricity that your motor is using generated?? One piece of food for thought (and this comes from a PHD chap in Nuclear science - our daughters chap!!) If everyone used an electric car, you would have to double the capacity of powerstations 'cause all of the 'green' sources combined don't produce anywhere near enough steady power. And just one other thing, those batteries in the electric cars have a very finite life before they all need changing, the cost of which, apparently, is pretty much the same cost of the car! In the US, the Tesla charging stations are all solar powered. Oh, and you have 2 charging options, either plug in and wait 15 minutes for a free charge, or pay about £60 to have your battery swapped our entirely and a new one installed. This takes less time than it takes a regular petrol/diesel car to fill the tank. Pretty nifty.
So more than the cost of filling your car up with petrol, to go less than half the distance?
Yep, really nifty.
It costs more than £60 to fill my tank. Like a said, you can charge it for free, OR you can swap out your flat battery, for a fully charged one, for a fee. I think record so far for a Tesla on a single charge is 670 miles. I seriously doubt claim that your car goes twice as far, 1,340 miles, for less than £60. What kind of car do you have?
Yes, you're right...it was at an average speed of 23 MPH, driving for 29 hours. If you're happy driving everywhere at 23 MPH, you crack on.
And if you think you can get 670 miles in a single charge, how come you haven't got one?
And in 2010 a Volkswagen Passat driver drove 1,531 miles on a single tank of fuel at an average speed of 45MPH.
The best I've achieved is 83.1 MPG , over a 312 mile round trip. The average I get is just over 60 MPG. Do easily over 600 miles to the tankful
Tesla's model 3 70KWh motor stated mileage is 230-240 miles per charge, I.e. half of what I get.
I've never felt the need to drive for 29 hrs straight. So that's more than enough range for me.
So how come you haven't got one then?
I've looked into it, not enough range for me, not enough charging points, takes too long to charge, and cost inhibitive. "I would love a Tesla, but can't afford one. They are amazing cars, 0-60 in 2.28 seconds is impressive by anyone's standards. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Perhaps I'm not positing that question very well. Everybody is limited in their choice of what they are able to purchase for a number of reasons. However, this is a moral choice. Which decision should you make for those children? Option 1 or option 2. This defines which side of the argument that you should be on in principle." Just about everyone will choose to save the hypothetical kids.Yet most of these moral individuals will not vote for a green candidate.Until we have some real global suffering and a concerning body count nobody is really concerned at present. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Perhaps I'm not positing that question very well. Everybody is limited in their choice of what they are able to purchase for a number of reasons. However, this is a moral choice. Which decision should you make for those children? Option 1 or option 2. This defines which side of the argument that you should be on in principle. Just about everyone will choose to save the hypothetical kids.Yet most of these moral individuals will not vote for a green candidate.Until we have some real global suffering and a concerning body count nobody is really concerned at present. " Except at the moment, I'm yet to see which of the hydrocarbon fans here are willing to commit to either option... | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Perhaps I'm not positing that question very well. Everybody is limited in their choice of what they are able to purchase for a number of reasons. However, this is a moral choice. Which decision should you make for those children? Option 1 or option 2. This defines which side of the argument that you should be on in principle. Just about everyone will choose to save the hypothetical kids.Yet most of these moral individuals will not vote for a green candidate.Until we have some real global suffering and a concerning body count nobody is really concerned at present. " What on earth has you convinced that the election of green party candidates are any indicator at all of people's concern? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Me personally, oooo I don't drive unless absolutely necessary and when I do I drive a 25 year old diesel van that i run on homemade fuel from vegetable oil or occasionally stolen heating oil .
I don't think it's possible to "save" us from industrialization, it's just a question of time"You saying your a thief | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just one tiny point.. how is that electricity that your motor is using generated?? One piece of food for thought (and this comes from a PHD chap in Nuclear science - our daughters chap!!) If everyone used an electric car, you would have to double the capacity of powerstations 'cause all of the 'green' sources combined don't produce anywhere near enough steady power. And just one other thing, those batteries in the electric cars have a very finite life before they all need changing, the cost of which, apparently, is pretty much the same cost of the car! In the US, the Tesla charging stations are all solar powered. Oh, and you have 2 charging options, either plug in and wait 15 minutes for a free charge, or pay about £60 to have your battery swapped our entirely and a new one installed. This takes less time than it takes a regular petrol/diesel car to fill the tank. Pretty nifty.
So more than the cost of filling your car up with petrol, to go less than half the distance?
Yep, really nifty.
It costs more than £60 to fill my tank. Like a said, you can charge it for free, OR you can swap out your flat battery, for a fully charged one, for a fee. I think record so far for a Tesla on a single charge is 670 miles. I seriously doubt claim that your car goes twice as far, 1,340 miles, for less than £60. What kind of car do you have?
Yes, you're right...it was at an average speed of 23 MPH, driving for 29 hours. If you're happy driving everywhere at 23 MPH, you crack on.
And if you think you can get 670 miles in a single charge, how come you haven't got one?
And in 2010 a Volkswagen Passat driver drove 1,531 miles on a single tank of fuel at an average speed of 45MPH.
The best I've achieved is 83.1 MPG , over a 312 mile round trip. The average I get is just over 60 MPG. Do easily over 600 miles to the tankful
Tesla's model 3 70KWh motor stated mileage is 230-240 miles per charge, I.e. half of what I get.
I've never felt the need to drive for 29 hrs straight. So that's more than enough range for me.
You never feel the urge to drive full stop, your always sat on your arse in front of pc on this forum 24/7 " | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just one tiny point.. how is that electricity that your motor is using generated?? One piece of food for thought (and this comes from a PHD chap in Nuclear science - our daughters chap!!) If everyone used an electric car, you would have to double the capacity of powerstations 'cause all of the 'green' sources combined don't produce anywhere near enough steady power. And just one other thing, those batteries in the electric cars have a very finite life before they all need changing, the cost of which, apparently, is pretty much the same cost of the car! In the US, the Tesla charging stations are all solar powered. Oh, and you have 2 charging options, either plug in and wait 15 minutes for a free charge, or pay about £60 to have your battery swapped our entirely and a new one installed. This takes less time than it takes a regular petrol/diesel car to fill the tank. Pretty nifty.
So more than the cost of filling your car up with petrol, to go less than half the distance?
Yep, really nifty.
It costs more than £60 to fill my tank. Like a said, you can charge it for free, OR you can swap out your flat battery, for a fully charged one, for a fee. I think record so far for a Tesla on a single charge is 670 miles. I seriously doubt claim that your car goes twice as far, 1,340 miles, for less than £60. What kind of car do you have?
Yes, you're right...it was at an average speed of 23 MPH, driving for 29 hours. If you're happy driving everywhere at 23 MPH, you crack on.
And if you think you can get 670 miles in a single charge, how come you haven't got one?
And in 2010 a Volkswagen Passat driver drove 1,531 miles on a single tank of fuel at an average speed of 45MPH.
The best I've achieved is 83.1 MPG , over a 312 mile round trip. The average I get is just over 60 MPG. Do easily over 600 miles to the tankful
Tesla's model 3 70KWh motor stated mileage is 230-240 miles per charge, I.e. half of what I get.
I've never felt the need to drive for 29 hrs straight. So that's more than enough range for me.
So how come you haven't got one then?
I've looked into it, not enough range for me, not enough charging points, takes too long to charge, and cost inhibitive.
Option 1 or option 2?"Both - Tesla are the only car that offers a 15 minute charge - a Tesla 3 starts at £57K. And changing the battery twice a for a cost of £120, when you can go just as far, or further, for £60 of fuel? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just one tiny point.. how is that electricity that your motor is using generated?? One piece of food for thought (and this comes from a PHD chap in Nuclear science - our daughters chap!!) If everyone used an electric car, you would have to double the capacity of powerstations 'cause all of the 'green' sources combined don't produce anywhere near enough steady power. And just one other thing, those batteries in the electric cars have a very finite life before they all need changing, the cost of which, apparently, is pretty much the same cost of the car! In the US, the Tesla charging stations are all solar powered. Oh, and you have 2 charging options, either plug in and wait 15 minutes for a free charge, or pay about £60 to have your battery swapped our entirely and a new one installed. This takes less time than it takes a regular petrol/diesel car to fill the tank. Pretty nifty.
So more than the cost of filling your car up with petrol, to go less than half the distance?
Yep, really nifty.
It costs more than £60 to fill my tank. Like a said, you can charge it for free, OR you can swap out your flat battery, for a fully charged one, for a fee. I think record so far for a Tesla on a single charge is 670 miles. I seriously doubt claim that your car goes twice as far, 1,340 miles, for less than £60. What kind of car do you have?
Yes, you're right...it was at an average speed of 23 MPH, driving for 29 hours. If you're happy driving everywhere at 23 MPH, you crack on.
And if you think you can get 670 miles in a single charge, how come you haven't got one?
And in 2010 a Volkswagen Passat driver drove 1,531 miles on a single tank of fuel at an average speed of 45MPH.
The best I've achieved is 83.1 MPG , over a 312 mile round trip. The average I get is just over 60 MPG. Do easily over 600 miles to the tankful
Tesla's model 3 70KWh motor stated mileage is 230-240 miles per charge, I.e. half of what I get.
I've never felt the need to drive for 29 hrs straight. So that's more than enough range for me.
So how come you haven't got one then?
I've looked into it, not enough range for me, not enough charging points, takes too long to charge, and cost inhibitive.
I would love a Tesla, but can't afford one. They are amazing cars, 0-60 in 2.28 seconds is impressive by anyone's standards. "And if you drive like that you'll get nowhere near your 670 miles. In anything. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Perhaps I'm not positing that question very well. Everybody is limited in their choice of what they are able to purchase for a number of reasons. However, this is a moral choice. Which decision should you make for those children? Option 1 or option 2. This defines which side of the argument that you should be on in principle. Just about everyone will choose to save the hypothetical kids.Yet most of these moral individuals will not vote for a green candidate.Until we have some real global suffering and a concerning body count nobody is really concerned at present. What on earth has you convinced that the election of green party candidates are any indicator at all of people's concern?" Because no other party puts climate change front and center.What on earth leads you to believe any other party has any idea about tackling climate change.The only thing labour or the tories are interested in is power.Losing it or gaining it.The goverment put gove in charge of the environment.That says only one thing.Not a fuck is given. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Perhaps I'm not positing that question very well. Everybody is limited in their choice of what they are able to purchase for a number of reasons. However, this is a moral choice. Which decision should you make for those children? Option 1 or option 2. This defines which side of the argument that you should be on in principle. Just about everyone will choose to save the hypothetical kids.Yet most of these moral individuals will not vote for a green candidate.Until we have some real global suffering and a concerning body count nobody is really concerned at present. What on earth has you convinced that the election of green party candidates are any indicator at all of people's concern? Because no other party puts climate change front and center.What on earth leads you to believe any other party has any idea about tackling climate change.The only thing labour or the tories are interested in is power.Losing it or gaining it.The goverment put gove in charge of the environment.That says only one thing.Not a fuck is given. "They also have, frankly obscene, stances on things like nuclear power and GMOs. And given that mainstream political parties have begun adopting green policies their usefulness as a marker of concern is at an end. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Perhaps I'm not positing that question very well. Everybody is limited in their choice of what they are able to purchase for a number of reasons. However, this is a moral choice. Which decision should you make for those children? Option 1 or option 2. This defines which side of the argument that you should be on in principle. Just about everyone will choose to save the hypothetical kids.Yet most of these moral individuals will not vote for a green candidate.Until we have some real global suffering and a concerning body count nobody is really concerned at present. What on earth has you convinced that the election of green party candidates are any indicator at all of people's concern? Because no other party puts climate change front and center.What on earth leads you to believe any other party has any idea about tackling climate change.The only thing labour or the tories are interested in is power.Losing it or gaining it.The goverment put gove in charge of the environment.That says only one thing.Not a fuck is given.
They also have, frankly obscene, stances on things like nuclear power and GMOs.
And given that mainstream political parties have begun adopting green policies their usefulness as a marker of concern is at an end."The main stream parties will jump on the next issue that gets them elected and climate change doesnt get votes.Your faith in mainstream politics being an effective force in tackling climate change is baseless. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Perhaps I'm not positing that question very well. Everybody is limited in their choice of what they are able to purchase for a number of reasons. However, this is a moral choice. Which decision should you make for those children? Option 1 or option 2. This defines which side of the argument that you should be on in principle. Just about everyone will choose to save the hypothetical kids.Yet most of these moral individuals will not vote for a green candidate.Until we have some real global suffering and a concerning body count nobody is really concerned at present. What on earth has you convinced that the election of green party candidates are any indicator at all of people's concern? Because no other party puts climate change front and center.What on earth leads you to believe any other party has any idea about tackling climate change.The only thing labour or the tories are interested in is power.Losing it or gaining it.The goverment put gove in charge of the environment.That says only one thing.Not a fuck is given.
They also have, frankly obscene, stances on things like nuclear power and GMOs.
And given that mainstream political parties have begun adopting green policies their usefulness as a marker of concern is at an end.
The main stream parties will jump on the next issue that gets them elected and climate change doesnt get votes.Your faith in mainstream politics being an effective force in tackling climate change is baseless."Well, that doesn't make any sense. The only action that has been taken on a national level about climate change has been by mainstream politics. So, hardly baseless. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Perhaps I'm not positing that question very well. Everybody is limited in their choice of what they are able to purchase for a number of reasons. However, this is a moral choice. Which decision should you make for those children? Option 1 or option 2. This defines which side of the argument that you should be on in principle. Just about everyone will choose to save the hypothetical kids.Yet most of these moral individuals will not vote for a green candidate.Until we have some real global suffering and a concerning body count nobody is really concerned at present. What on earth has you convinced that the election of green party candidates are any indicator at all of people's concern? Because no other party puts climate change front and center.What on earth leads you to believe any other party has any idea about tackling climate change.The only thing labour or the tories are interested in is power.Losing it or gaining it.The goverment put gove in charge of the environment.That says only one thing.Not a fuck is given.
They also have, frankly obscene, stances on things like nuclear power and GMOs.
And given that mainstream political parties have begun adopting green policies their usefulness as a marker of concern is at an end.
The main stream parties will jump on the next issue that gets them elected and climate change doesnt get votes.Your faith in mainstream politics being an effective force in tackling climate change is baseless.
Well, that doesn't make any sense.
The only action that has been taken on a national level about climate change has been by mainstream politics.
So, hardly baseless."The science says we haven't deviated from our final destination of catastrophic climate change.So what exactly has been achieved over the past 20 years.That we've known we have a serious problem ? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Perhaps I'm not positing that question very well. Everybody is limited in their choice of what they are able to purchase for a number of reasons. However, this is a moral choice. Which decision should you make for those children? Option 1 or option 2. This defines which side of the argument that you should be on in principle. Just about everyone will choose to save the hypothetical kids.Yet most of these moral individuals will not vote for a green candidate.Until we have some real global suffering and a concerning body count nobody is really concerned at present. What on earth has you convinced that the election of green party candidates are any indicator at all of people's concern? Because no other party puts climate change front and center.What on earth leads you to believe any other party has any idea about tackling climate change.The only thing labour or the tories are interested in is power.Losing it or gaining it.The goverment put gove in charge of the environment.That says only one thing.Not a fuck is given.
They also have, frankly obscene, stances on things like nuclear power and GMOs.
And given that mainstream political parties have begun adopting green policies their usefulness as a marker of concern is at an end.
The main stream parties will jump on the next issue that gets them elected and climate change doesnt get votes.Your faith in mainstream politics being an effective force in tackling climate change is baseless.
Well, that doesn't make any sense.
The only action that has been taken on a national level about climate change has been by mainstream politics.
So, hardly baseless.
The science says we haven't deviated from our final destination of catastrophic climate change.So what exactly has been achieved over the past 20 years.That we've known we have a serious problem ?
"I mean, I could point to the increase in funding for renewables, the Paris accords and so on. But I forgot that you're of the opinion that we're all doomed, so it's a waste of time talking with you, isn't it? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Me personally, oooo I don't drive unless absolutely necessary and when I do I drive a 25 year old diesel van that i run on homemade fuel from vegetable oil or occasionally stolen heating oil .
I don't think it's possible to "save" us from industrialization, it's just a question of time
You saying your a thief". Let's say it was going to waste anyhow so I'm just making use of it | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Me personally, oooo I don't drive unless absolutely necessary and when I do I drive a 25 year old diesel van that i run on homemade fuel from vegetable oil or occasionally stolen heating oil .
I don't think it's possible to "save" us from industrialization, it's just a question of time
You saying your a thief.
Let's say it was going to waste anyhow so I'm just making use of it "stealing is a crime and nothing to boast about  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Perhaps I'm not positing that question very well. Everybody is limited in their choice of what they are able to purchase for a number of reasons. However, this is a moral choice. Which decision should you make for those children? Option 1 or option 2. This defines which side of the argument that you should be on in principle. Just about everyone will choose to save the hypothetical kids.Yet most of these moral individuals will not vote for a green candidate.Until we have some real global suffering and a concerning body count nobody is really concerned at present. What on earth has you convinced that the election of green party candidates are any indicator at all of people's concern? Because no other party puts climate change front and center.What on earth leads you to believe any other party has any idea about tackling climate change.The only thing labour or the tories are interested in is power.Losing it or gaining it.The goverment put gove in charge of the environment.That says only one thing.Not a fuck is given.
They also have, frankly obscene, stances on things like nuclear power and GMOs.
And given that mainstream political parties have begun adopting green policies their usefulness as a marker of concern is at an end.
The main stream parties will jump on the next issue that gets them elected and climate change doesnt get votes.Your faith in mainstream politics being an effective force in tackling climate change is baseless.
Well, that doesn't make any sense.
The only action that has been taken on a national level about climate change has been by mainstream politics.
So, hardly baseless.
The science says we haven't deviated from our final destination of catastrophic climate change.So what exactly has been achieved over the past 20 years.That we've known we have a serious problem ?
I mean, I could point to the increase in funding for renewables, the Paris accords and so on.
But I forgot that you're of the opinion that we're all doomed, so it's a waste of time talking with you, isn't it?". That's right, attack the messenger and not the message. 1 Paris accord, absolutely fucking hopeless at solving climate change, fuck me they've even announced only last week they can't even manage they're own worst case target of 2 degrees above baseline?. . . The science says you had two choices!. Reduce c02 limits by 85% within 15 years of face one big fucking disaster. We've chosen distaster, you've chose disaster, you fly, you drive, you eat out of season foods, you drink imported wine, you consume imported goods, cheap flights, freedom to move anywhere, nuclear energy... These are policies not applicable to reducing c02 by 85% in 15 years, there is only one policy which achieves that..... deindustrialization of the entire world, now if your not keen.. Meh, that's your choice. But let's stop with the bullshit sanctimonious lectures on morality | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Perhaps I'm not positing that question very well. Everybody is limited in their choice of what they are able to purchase for a number of reasons. However, this is a moral choice. Which decision should you make for those children? Option 1 or option 2. This defines which side of the argument that you should be on in principle. Just about everyone will choose to save the hypothetical kids.Yet most of these moral individuals will not vote for a green candidate.Until we have some real global suffering and a concerning body count nobody is really concerned at present. What on earth has you convinced that the election of green party candidates are any indicator at all of people's concern? Because no other party puts climate change front and center.What on earth leads you to believe any other party has any idea about tackling climate change.The only thing labour or the tories are interested in is power.Losing it or gaining it.The goverment put gove in charge of the environment.That says only one thing.Not a fuck is given.
They also have, frankly obscene, stances on things like nuclear power and GMOs.
And given that mainstream political parties have begun adopting green policies their usefulness as a marker of concern is at an end.
The main stream parties will jump on the next issue that gets them elected and climate change doesnt get votes.Your faith in mainstream politics being an effective force in tackling climate change is baseless.
Well, that doesn't make any sense.
The only action that has been taken on a national level about climate change has been by mainstream politics.
So, hardly baseless.
The science says we haven't deviated from our final destination of catastrophic climate change.So what exactly has been achieved over the past 20 years.That we've known we have a serious problem ?
I mean, I could point to the increase in funding for renewables, the Paris accords and so on.
But I forgot that you're of the opinion that we're all doomed, so it's a waste of time talking with you, isn't it?.
That's right, attack the messenger and not the message.
1 Paris accord, absolutely fucking hopeless at solving climate change, fuck me they've even announced only last week they can't even manage they're own worst case target of 2 degrees above baseline?.
.
.
The science says you had two choices!.
Reduce c02 limits by 85% within 15 years of face one big fucking disaster.
We've chosen distaster, you've chose disaster, you fly, you drive, you eat out of season foods, you drink imported wine, you consume imported goods, cheap flights, freedom to move anywhere, nuclear energy... These are policies not applicable to reducing c02 by 85% in 15 years, there is only one policy which achieves that..... deindustrialization of the entire world, now if your not keen.. Meh, that's your choice.
But let's stop with the bullshit sanctimonious lectures on morality"Yes, yes, yes. We're all doomed. How very insightful. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Me personally, oooo I don't drive unless absolutely necessary and when I do I drive a 25 year old diesel van that i run on homemade fuel from vegetable oil or occasionally stolen heating oil .
I don't think it's possible to "save" us from industrialization, it's just a question of time
You saying your a thief.
Let's say it was going to waste anyhow so I'm just making use of it
stealing is a crime and nothing to boast about ". Who said I was boasting  .
Heating oil comes my way via it no longer being "wanted",I just make use of it rather than let it go to waste | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Perhaps I'm not positing that question very well. Everybody is limited in their choice of what they are able to purchase for a number of reasons. However, this is a moral choice. Which decision should you make for those children? Option 1 or option 2. This defines which side of the argument that you should be on in principle. Just about everyone will choose to save the hypothetical kids.Yet most of these moral individuals will not vote for a green candidate.Until we have some real global suffering and a concerning body count nobody is really concerned at present. What on earth has you convinced that the election of green party candidates are any indicator at all of people's concern? Because no other party puts climate change front and center.What on earth leads you to believe any other party has any idea about tackling climate change.The only thing labour or the tories are interested in is power.Losing it or gaining it.The goverment put gove in charge of the environment.That says only one thing.Not a fuck is given.
They also have, frankly obscene, stances on things like nuclear power and GMOs.
And given that mainstream political parties have begun adopting green policies their usefulness as a marker of concern is at an end.
The main stream parties will jump on the next issue that gets them elected and climate change doesnt get votes.Your faith in mainstream politics being an effective force in tackling climate change is baseless.
Well, that doesn't make any sense.
The only action that has been taken on a national level about climate change has been by mainstream politics.
So, hardly baseless.
The science says we haven't deviated from our final destination of catastrophic climate change.So what exactly has been achieved over the past 20 years.That we've known we have a serious problem ?
I mean, I could point to the increase in funding for renewables, the Paris accords and so on.
But I forgot that you're of the opinion that we're all doomed, so it's a waste of time talking with you, isn't it?.
That's right, attack the messenger and not the message.
1 Paris accord, absolutely fucking hopeless at solving climate change, fuck me they've even announced only last week they can't even manage they're own worst case target of 2 degrees above baseline?.
.
.
The science says you had two choices!.
Reduce c02 limits by 85% within 15 years of face one big fucking disaster.
We've chosen distaster, you've chose disaster, you fly, you drive, you eat out of season foods, you drink imported wine, you consume imported goods, cheap flights, freedom to move anywhere, nuclear energy... These are policies not applicable to reducing c02 by 85% in 15 years, there is only one policy which achieves that..... deindustrialization of the entire world, now if your not keen.. Meh, that's your choice.
But let's stop with the bullshit sanctimonious lectures on morality
Yes, yes, yes. We're all doomed.
How very insightful. ". You had a choice, you chose yours, stop fucking moaning | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Me personally, oooo I don't drive unless absolutely necessary and when I do I drive a 25 year old diesel van that i run on homemade fuel from vegetable oil or occasionally stolen heating oil .
I don't think it's possible to "save" us from industrialization, it's just a question of time
You saying your a thief.
Let's say it was going to waste anyhow so I'm just making use of it
stealing is a crime and nothing to boast about .
Who said I was boasting .
Heating oil comes my way via it no longer being "wanted",I just make use of it rather than let it go to waste "Your own comments are; stolen heating oil | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Perhaps I'm not positing that question very well. Everybody is limited in their choice of what they are able to purchase for a number of reasons. However, this is a moral choice. Which decision should you make for those children? Option 1 or option 2. This defines which side of the argument that you should be on in principle. Just about everyone will choose to save the hypothetical kids.Yet most of these moral individuals will not vote for a green candidate.Until we have some real global suffering and a concerning body count nobody is really concerned at present. What on earth has you convinced that the election of green party candidates are any indicator at all of people's concern? Because no other party puts climate change front and center.What on earth leads you to believe any other party has any idea about tackling climate change.The only thing labour or the tories are interested in is power.Losing it or gaining it.The goverment put gove in charge of the environment.That says only one thing.Not a fuck is given.
They also have, frankly obscene, stances on things like nuclear power and GMOs.
And given that mainstream political parties have begun adopting green policies their usefulness as a marker of concern is at an end.
The main stream parties will jump on the next issue that gets them elected and climate change doesnt get votes.Your faith in mainstream politics being an effective force in tackling climate change is baseless.
Well, that doesn't make any sense.
The only action that has been taken on a national level about climate change has been by mainstream politics.
So, hardly baseless.
The science says we haven't deviated from our final destination of catastrophic climate change.So what exactly has been achieved over the past 20 years.That we've known we have a serious problem ?
I mean, I could point to the increase in funding for renewables, the Paris accords and so on.
But I forgot that you're of the opinion that we're all doomed, so it's a waste of time talking with you, isn't it?"The ecosytem you see around you is doomed thats the scientific consensus on our present trajectory. Not my opinion.Theyve even given this present epoch of extinction a name.The anthropocene. I like to think we'll survive and build something better afterwards. Sick boy thinks well end up like venus.A barren dead planet.He might be right.I think hes wrong.He is right that you should stop moaning | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I've taken to thinking about it this way: Lock a bunch of primary school kids in one of these two rooms; 1. Petrol car, motor running 2. Electric car, motor running Even if you don't "believe" that human activity is effecting global warming is their a particular reason why you might object to not creating as much pollution?" powerstation generator running. 1000's in china and coal fired . | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Perhaps I'm not positing that question very well. Everybody is limited in their choice of what they are able to purchase for a number of reasons. However, this is a moral choice. Which decision should you make for those children? Option 1 or option 2. This defines which side of the argument that you should be on in principle. Just about everyone will choose to save the hypothetical kids.Yet most of these moral individuals will not vote for a green candidate.Until we have some real global suffering and a concerning body count nobody is really concerned at present. What on earth has you convinced that the election of green party candidates are any indicator at all of people's concern? Because no other party puts climate change front and center.What on earth leads you to believe any other party has any idea about tackling climate change.The only thing labour or the tories are interested in is power.Losing it or gaining it.The goverment put gove in charge of the environment.That says only one thing.Not a fuck is given.
They also have, frankly obscene, stances on things like nuclear power and GMOs.
And given that mainstream political parties have begun adopting green policies their usefulness as a marker of concern is at an end.
The main stream parties will jump on the next issue that gets them elected and climate change doesnt get votes.Your faith in mainstream politics being an effective force in tackling climate change is baseless.
Well, that doesn't make any sense.
The only action that has been taken on a national level about climate change has been by mainstream politics.
So, hardly baseless.
The science says we haven't deviated from our final destination of catastrophic climate change.So what exactly has been achieved over the past 20 years.That we've known we have a serious problem ?
I mean, I could point to the increase in funding for renewables, the Paris accords and so on.
But I forgot that you're of the opinion that we're all doomed, so it's a waste of time talking with you, isn't it?
The ecosytem you see around you is doomed thats the scientific consensus on our present trajectory. Not my opinion.Theyve even given this present epoch of extinction a name.The anthropocene.
I like to think we'll survive and build something better afterwards.
Sick boy thinks well end up like venus.A barren dead planet.He might be right.I think hes wrong.He is right that you should stop moaning ""Doomed" is not the consensus. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yes, I'm certain you believe you've come to uncovered a hard truth, but frankly I find that kind of undercooked nihilism to be a wretched waste of time. So, no, I won't be taking your, I'm certain, well meaning advice or subscribing to your useless attitude. Dreadfully sorry." . That's fine I look forward to hearing how you've reduced your personal c02 consumption by 85% any minute?...I mean you have haven't you? If not what's stopping you?. Me personally I don't give a flying fuck what's gonna happen to you or anybody else not a rat's arse of difference will it make to my existence. If consumption makes you happy or anybody else, feel free to wallow knee deep in it. my "nihilism" and your "moaning" still ain't fixing shit though so maybe you should examine your message to others | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" Me personally I don't give a flying fuck what's gonna happen to you or anybody else not a rat's arse of difference will it make to my existence. " Gosh, I wish I could be as cool and edgy as you. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I reckon he's run off to look at a website to see how it's possible to reduce your c02 emissions by 85% ..... And you know what the answer will be?. Oh yes, you need to buy something, it's funny how the solution is always buying shit, buy this new car, buy this diesel car, buy this electric car, buy this new house, buy this insulation, buy some solar panels, buy a bike, buy a book about running, buy buy buy buy buy until you go bye bye bye bye "So edgy.... | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Perhaps I'm not positing that question very well. Everybody is limited in their choice of what they are able to purchase for a number of reasons. However, this is a moral choice. Which decision should you make for those children? Option 1 or option 2. This defines which side of the argument that you should be on in principle. Just about everyone will choose to save the hypothetical kids.Yet most of these moral individuals will not vote for a green candidate.Until we have some real global suffering and a concerning body count nobody is really concerned at present. What on earth has you convinced that the election of green party candidates are any indicator at all of people's concern? Because no other party puts climate change front and center.What on earth leads you to believe any other party has any idea about tackling climate change.The only thing labour or the tories are interested in is power.Losing it or gaining it.The goverment put gove in charge of the environment.That says only one thing.Not a fuck is given.
They also have, frankly obscene, stances on things like nuclear power and GMOs.
And given that mainstream political parties have begun adopting green policies their usefulness as a marker of concern is at an end.
The main stream parties will jump on the next issue that gets them elected and climate change doesnt get votes.Your faith in mainstream politics being an effective force in tackling climate change is baseless.
Well, that doesn't make any sense.
The only action that has been taken on a national level about climate change has been by mainstream politics.
So, hardly baseless.
The science says we haven't deviated from our final destination of catastrophic climate change.So what exactly has been achieved over the past 20 years.That we've known we have a serious problem ?
I mean, I could point to the increase in funding for renewables, the Paris accords and so on.
But I forgot that you're of the opinion that we're all doomed, so it's a waste of time talking with you, isn't it?
The ecosytem you see around you is doomed thats the scientific consensus on our present trajectory. Not my opinion.Theyve even given this present epoch of extinction a name.The anthropocene.
I like to think we'll survive and build something better afterwards.
Sick boy thinks well end up like venus.A barren dead planet.He might be right.I think hes wrong.He is right that you should stop moaning
"Doomed" is not the consensus. "Scientists estimate we're now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day.Between 1900 and 2017, nearly half of 177 surveyed mammal species lost more than 80 per cent of their distribution.The term used at the moment within the scientific community is biological annihilation its pretty close to "Doomed". | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Aghhh my nihilism is preventing my buying shit, fuck were all doooomed "I doubt your nihilism prevents you buying things, rather it prevents you from having anything worth saying. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Perhaps I'm not positing that question very well. Everybody is limited in their choice of what they are able to purchase for a number of reasons. However, this is a moral choice. Which decision should you make for those children? Option 1 or option 2. This defines which side of the argument that you should be on in principle. Just about everyone will choose to save the hypothetical kids.Yet most of these moral individuals will not vote for a green candidate.Until we have some real global suffering and a concerning body count nobody is really concerned at present. What on earth has you convinced that the election of green party candidates are any indicator at all of people's concern? Because no other party puts climate change front and center.What on earth leads you to believe any other party has any idea about tackling climate change.The only thing labour or the tories are interested in is power.Losing it or gaining it.The goverment put gove in charge of the environment.That says only one thing.Not a fuck is given.
They also have, frankly obscene, stances on things like nuclear power and GMOs.
And given that mainstream political parties have begun adopting green policies their usefulness as a marker of concern is at an end.
The main stream parties will jump on the next issue that gets them elected and climate change doesnt get votes.Your faith in mainstream politics being an effective force in tackling climate change is baseless.
Well, that doesn't make any sense.
The only action that has been taken on a national level about climate change has been by mainstream politics.
So, hardly baseless.
The science says we haven't deviated from our final destination of catastrophic climate change.So what exactly has been achieved over the past 20 years.That we've known we have a serious problem ?
I mean, I could point to the increase in funding for renewables, the Paris accords and so on.
But I forgot that you're of the opinion that we're all doomed, so it's a waste of time talking with you, isn't it?
The ecosytem you see around you is doomed thats the scientific consensus on our present trajectory. Not my opinion.Theyve even given this present epoch of extinction a name.The anthropocene.
I like to think we'll survive and build something better afterwards.
Sick boy thinks well end up like venus.A barren dead planet.He might be right.I think hes wrong.He is right that you should stop moaning
"Doomed" is not the consensus. Scientists estimate we're now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day.Between 1900 and 2017, nearly half of 177 surveyed mammal species lost more than 80 per cent of their distribution.The term used at the moment within the scientific community is biological annihilation its pretty close to "Doomed". "So, the consensus is.... What exactly? Because I think you just wrote a lot of words to say " I was wrong" | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Tell us the solution ooh lord demonjohnsays!!. Were hanging on your words for salvation "...........Yes...hurry up demonjohnknowsfuckingeverything...we are running out of time. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Tell us the solution ooh lord demonjohnsays!!. Were hanging on your words for salvation "You seem to have confused "mumbling that people are shit and we're all doomed is a worthless endeavour" with "I am the way and the light" Or you're going to be daft enough to try and reason that if someone doesn't have all the answers, then they shouldn't say anything. Either way, you're shit out of luck if you think I'm entertaining you. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Tell us the solution ooh lord demonjohnsays!!. Were hanging on your words for salvation
You seem to have confused "mumbling that people are shit and we're all doomed is a worthless endeavour" with "I am the way and the light"
Or you're going to be daft enough to try and reason that if someone doesn't have all the answers, then they shouldn't say anything.
Either way, you're shit out of luck if you think I'm entertaining you.". So no answers then? . | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Tell us the solution ooh lord demonjohnsays!!. Were hanging on your words for salvation
You seem to have confused "mumbling that people are shit and we're all doomed is a worthless endeavour" with "I am the way and the light"
Or you're going to be daft enough to try and reason that if someone doesn't have all the answers, then they shouldn't say anything.
Either way, you're shit out of luck if you think I'm entertaining you..
So no answers then? ."Let's say no. Now what. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yea sure I've not done fuck all to stop it but.... Look at how holier than thou I am "I see you're only interesting in arguing against things you've imagined to have been said. I'll leave you be. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Tell us the solution ooh lord demonjohnsays!!. Were hanging on your words for salvation
You seem to have confused "mumbling that people are shit and we're all doomed is a worthless endeavour" with "I am the way and the light"
Or you're going to be daft enough to try and reason that if someone doesn't have all the answers, then they shouldn't say anything.
Either way, you're shit out of luck if you think I'm entertaining you..
So no answers then? .
Let's say no.
Now what.". Now what nothing, I've already told you there's no solutions to predicaments.... That's why there called predicaments | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
.
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"#demonjohnsays.... I've got no solutions and I'm not even sure what the problem is but I still think you should be doing as I'm saying and not doing myself .
"Except I never said any of that, now did I? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"#demonjohnsays.... I've got no solutions " . Standard... Same with all the societal stuff Seeking problems with no solution can be a dangerous game | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"#demonjohnsays.... I've got no solutions . Standard... Same with all the societal stuff " Except that's not true either, is it. " Seeking problems with no solution can be a dangerous game " What kind of fortune cookie bullshit is this? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I pressed you many times for solutions to all the ills of society (in your view) " And because you don't believe they exist, I declined. And without agreeing that a problem exists, discussing solutions is pointless. Something that was explained to you again and again, but you keep pretending otherwise. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"#demonjohnsays.... I've got no solutions and I'm not even sure what the problem is but I still think you should be doing as I'm saying and not doing myself .
Except I never said any of that, now did I?". I can't take you seriously!! You can't even get a meet on website designed for fucking!. Come back and we'll chat shit once you've grown a beard | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I pressed you many times for solutions to all the ills of society (in your view) And because you don't believe they exist, I declined. And without agreeing that a problem exists, discussing solutions is pointless. Something that was explained to you again and again, but you keep pretending otherwise. " . Semantics and weasle talk | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Perhaps I'm not positing that question very well. Everybody is limited in their choice of what they are able to purchase for a number of reasons. However, this is a moral choice. Which decision should you make for those children? Option 1 or option 2. This defines which side of the argument that you should be on in principle. Just about everyone will choose to save the hypothetical kids.Yet most of these moral individuals will not vote for a green candidate.Until we have some real global suffering and a concerning body count nobody is really concerned at present. What on earth has you convinced that the election of green party candidates are any indicator at all of people's concern? Because no other party puts climate change front and center.What on earth leads you to believe any other party has any idea about tackling climate change.The only thing labour or the tories are interested in is power.Losing it or gaining it.The goverment put gove in charge of the environment.That says only one thing.Not a fuck is given.
They also have, frankly obscene, stances on things like nuclear power and GMOs.
And given that mainstream political parties have begun adopting green policies their usefulness as a marker of concern is at an end.
The main stream parties will jump on the next issue that gets them elected and climate change doesnt get votes.Your faith in mainstream politics being an effective force in tackling climate change is baseless.
Well, that doesn't make any sense.
The only action that has been taken on a national level about climate change has been by mainstream politics.
So, hardly baseless.
The science says we haven't deviated from our final destination of catastrophic climate change.So what exactly has been achieved over the past 20 years.That we've known we have a serious problem ?
I mean, I could point to the increase in funding for renewables, the Paris accords and so on.
But I forgot that you're of the opinion that we're all doomed, so it's a waste of time talking with you, isn't it?
The ecosytem you see around you is doomed thats the scientific consensus on our present trajectory. Not my opinion.Theyve even given this present epoch of extinction a name.The anthropocene.
I like to think we'll survive and build something better afterwards.
Sick boy thinks well end up like venus.A barren dead planet.He might be right.I think hes wrong.He is right that you should stop moaning
"Doomed" is not the consensus. Scientists estimate we're now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day.Between 1900 and 2017, nearly half of 177 surveyed mammal species lost more than 80 per cent of their distribution.The term used at the moment within the scientific community is biological annihilation its pretty close to "Doomed".
So, the consensus is.... What exactly?
Because I think you just wrote a lot of words to say " I was wrong""The consensus on climate change is we havent got any hope of meeting the Paris agreement targets.We do have a solution in atmospheric modification. Volcanoes cool the planet. So we need an artificial volcano to do the same . We have the technology .We can spray from planes high up . The biggest problem is once we start we cant stop for centuries and theres also the problem of getting everyone on earth to agree to altering the earths atmosphere. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"#demonjohnsays.... I've got no solutions and I'm not even sure what the problem is but I still think you should be doing as I'm saying and not doing myself .
Except I never said any of that, now did I?.
I can't take you seriously!! You can't even get a meet on website designed for fucking!.
Come back and we'll chat shit once you've grown a beard "Well, by your own words, why would you take anyone seriously, you "don't care" about anyone, right? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I felt that the problems weren't as problematic as you did..not that they don't exist.. And you had no solutions or plan... Only a quest for random change " No, you explicitly denied they exist, as "we have laws" against that sort of thing, remember? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The best thing to do at the moment is to buy a fuel efficient 2nd hand car unless you particulraly need something newer. The carbon saved on not getting the raw materials for the car will outweigh the benefit of getting an electric car. If you are buying new then you should absolutely get a hybrid or electric car. And while we need to be doing as much as we can to combat climate change we're still in with a chance to right our wrongs. Theres a landmark report just a few weeks ago that if we improve our land management over the next decade we could use these resources to more effectively "store" carbon in these plants and accouny for 37% reduction needed of carbon emissions by 2030. Thats the equivalent of completely eliminating all oil burning across the globe. Plant based meat substitutes are on the verge of becoming mainstream and are seeing billions and billions of dollars in investment. While Im personally skeptical it will be as good as real meat till I taste it a lot of people will go for this dramatically reducing our impact on the environment. Renewable energy is growing exponentially and if its not the cheapest source of energy in your country it soon will be. In the UK coal has dropped from providing 40% of electricity to just 2%." Yup, the basic idea has always been to modify behaviour. And governments are actually very well placed to do this. By investing in renewables and encouraging people reducing meat consumption, buying local in so far as possible, and reducing the power you consume. Moving to electric cars shifts the pollution point to tens of power stations rather than millions of vehicles. The idea that we need to destroy everything just displays a fantastic lack of imagination. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Your nihilism is boring." . Unlike you who can't even get a shag?. Everything you say is boring, your arse is boring, I fall asleep looking at it, the words that come out of it are even more boring, your a mangina coma boring... Honestly no woman would fuck you... Even out of sympathy | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Your nihilism is boring.. Unlike you who can't even get a shag?. Everything you say is boring, your arse is boring, I fall asleep looking at it, the words that come out of it are even more boring, your a mangina coma boring... Honestly no woman would fuck you... Even out of sympathy "I see you never quite progressed past the wretched phase of empty teenage posturing where the only way to measure your worth is with fanciful takes of your imagined sexual prowess. How dull. And more to the point, let's pretend you're right about all that. What on earth do you imagine that has to do with your nihilistic nonsense being a waste of time. You do understand they're not mutually exclusive, right? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
