# Has environmental evangelism replaced the religious envagelism?



## Bunkermagnet (Sep 10, 2019)

Whenever anything related to environmental issues comes up, there are always those that are so forceful with there views and what you should be doing just as there used to be those so forthright in their religious views.
But now it seems there are (thankfully) fewer religious preachers, but they seem to be outnumbered by the environmental preachers.
Is this something you find?


----------



## IanM (Sep 10, 2019)

There are a set of sentiments on various subjects, if you don't comply with the party line, expect vilification, violence and insult.


----------



## woody69 (Sep 10, 2019)

I guess the difference is Climate change is actually real.


----------



## Robster59 (Sep 10, 2019)

IanM said:



			There are a set of sentiments on various subjects, if you don't comply with the party line, expect vilification, violence and insult.
		
Click to expand...

As someone who somebody has tried to vilify (not that it bothered me as their comments where so inaccurate with no facts to back it up) you can get some earache from those who see themselves as holier than thou and then criticise anyone who doesn't agree with their viewpoint, at times in a quite extreme way. 
You would have to be blind not to see the impact humans are having on the planet and I do think about how what we do impact on that.  One person can't make a major difference but, as the phrase goes, every little bit helps.  
I was putting out our grey (general waste) bin last night and I am so used to recycling that I feel guilty about anything I put into it but I am trying to do my best to keep it to a minimum.  
As for the religious preachers, read about what is happening in Glasgow at the moment ref the marches.  It isn't getting any better and I just can't understand that either.  It's mass stupidity of the highest order.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 10, 2019)

As Robster says, we all know whats going on, and I dare say we've all seen list of animals that are now extinct or endangered. Beyond that, apart from putting the right things in the right bins I'm genuinely not interested in the detail behind the screeching, flag waving and preaching.

Do the various governments around the world really legislate enough? The USA have pulled back from it, and allegedly China, India and many of the developing nations are doing very little. Can the man in the street do any more? I don't think they can. Governments will do something along the lines of what the intelligent information tells them they should do, and that info won't come from the man in the street.


----------



## IanM (Sep 10, 2019)

woody69 said:



			I guess the difference is Climate change is actually real.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe you've just proved the OPs point!  

Climate change is a cyclical process that started at the dawn of time.   The current debate (or lack thereof) is the degree to which current issues are purely man-made and what can be done about it.   

Regardless, the lack of responsible use of resources or care for the environment in some places is downright criminal.   As is the "holier than thou" attitude of some folk on the subject.

Me, I have no qualifications on the subject at all, but can clearly see the loonies at work on both sides of the fence.


----------



## adam6177 (Sep 10, 2019)

woody69 said:



			I guess the difference is Climate change is actually real.
		
Click to expand...

No-one can deny that the climate is changing, but the debate is - are we speeding up climate change or is it just the earth going through is natural fluctuations?

Around 15,000 years ago sheets of ice covered all of Antarctica, large parts of Europe, North America, and South America, and small areas in Asia. In North America they stretched over Greenland and Canada and parts of the northern United States.  (copied and pasted from an article about pleistocene epoch).

There have also been 5 ice ages during the earths 4.6 billion years and it just so happens that our records of temperatures have started as we're coming out of one.  I have a feeling that there are a lot of scientists keeping themselves in jobs by riding the climate change rollercoaster.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 10, 2019)

Robster59 said:



			As someone who somebody has tried to vilify (not that it bothered me as their comments where so inaccurate with no facts to back it up) you can get some earache from those who see themselves as holier than thou and then criticise anyone who doesn't agree with their viewpoint, at times in a quite extreme way.
You would have to be blind not to see the impact humans are having on the planet and I do think about how what we do impact on that.  One person can't make a major difference but, as the phrase goes, every little bit helps. 
I was putting out our grey (general waste) bin last night and I am so used to recycling that I feel guilty about anything I put into it but I am trying to do my best to keep it to a minimum. 
As for the religious preachers, read about what is happening in Glasgow at the moment ref the marches.  It isn't getting any better and I just can't understand that either. * It's mass stupidity of the highest order.*

Click to expand...

All to do with being a member of a tribe.  Simply _Them _and _Us, _with _We _nowhere to be seen.  Are the marches though not more to do with Irish Republicanism and Loyalism/Unionism - nothing actually to do with religion.


----------



## bobmac (Sep 10, 2019)

Environmental evangelism doesnt demand that you fear it, worship it, pray to it, give it half your money and if don't, you will burn in hell for eternity.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 10, 2019)

bobmac said:



			Environmental evangelism doesnt demand that you fear it, worship it, pray to it, give it half your money and if don't, you will burn in hell for eternity.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry - that statement suggests a misunderstanding of Christian denominations - and that different Christian denominations can have significantly different beliefs and practices - albeit all linked by the common denominator of Christ (rather goes with the Christian territory).

What you list _might _apply to Roman Catholicism (of which I know not a lot) - or _maybe _in part to Anglicanism (again of which I know not a lot) - but in my denomination of what you list I recognise the words worship, prayer and give.  In some part worship and prayer are the one and same thing - just add in a good dose of singing and giving (in a whole variety of ways and means) as best I can, on top of prayer, and that's worship.

Have your own beliefs about religion and Christianity - but please respect that what is for one denomination is so very much not for all.

As it happens - what you list would for me - be closer to the demands of environmental evangelism than for any thing to do with my relgious beliefs


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Sep 10, 2019)

Itâ€™s the Evangelical Vegans that scare me

There does seem to be less environmental activity now the schools and colleges have gone back


----------



## IanM (Sep 11, 2019)

....no fun marching in the cold and wet....


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 11, 2019)

Here is a tip for the climate deniers, you can buy some really cheap seaside property close to the Lincs/Yorks coast. 
You don't even need to pay any insurance on your property.


----------



## oxymoron (Sep 11, 2019)

Got stopped by a clean air campaigner a few weeks ago and he was really pushy to the point of almost aggression because i asked one question , it was ,
If we do set up a clean air zone banning cars , buses and such how are we going to stop someone else's dirty air from coming in ?
He nearly blew up when he heard that one


----------



## bobmac (Sep 11, 2019)

oxymoron said:



			Got stopped by a clean air campaigner a few weeks ago and he was really pushy to the point of almost aggression because i asked one question , it was ,
If we do set up a clean air zone banning cars , buses and such how are we going to stop someone else's dirty air from coming in ?
He nearly blew up when he heard that one 

Click to expand...

I suppose some may get emotional about the clean air argument, especially if they have lost a family member/loved one whos death was linked to air pollution.
If you were in their position, wouldn't you want cleaner air, especially as the population continues to rise so will the pollution.


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Sep 11, 2019)

I think anyone looking at the climate change debate, with an open mind, must realise that there have been tremendous changes in how the world has been affected by and since the Industrial Age , and by the increase in population.
They are not transient changes of nature. 
The one thing about those that deny these alleged causes, is how much it is like bosses I knew .
You know them, - You point out a problem and offer and seek a decision. Boss doesn't like this and perceives it as aggravation. So the stock answer is
"Problem? What problem . There's no problem"

Likewise,  as soon as the ( some) governments acknowledge a climate change problem, they know they will be asked " what are you going to do about it , then?"


----------



## oxymoron (Sep 11, 2019)

bobmac said:



			I suppose some may get emotional about the clean air argument, especially if they have lost a family member/loved one whos death was linked to air pollution.
If you were in their position, wouldn't you want cleaner air, especially as the population continues to rise so will the pollution.
		
Click to expand...

 I do indeed want cleaner air , an isolated zone is very unlikely to make much difference in the grand scheme of things , however if we can get China,India and indeed the good old US of A to agree to stop spewing out tonnes of pollutants and Brazil to stop burning the Amazon, then count me in.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Sep 11, 2019)

Climate change is fuelled (excuse the pun) by one thingâ€” population growth, 6 billion humans and growing to 7 billion shortly.

We either stop breeding, have a nuclear war or a couple of plagues to reduce the population by a huge amount.

Grim


----------



## stefanovic (Sep 11, 2019)

We've gone from snowball earth to heat death earth, and the 'human' infestation of the planet is to blame. 
Let's also make this clear. There are no humans, only a bipedal ape like mammal which for the last 200,000 years has proceeded to wreck the planet. 
Cut down the forests, created harmful agriculture and industry, polluted the air and oceans.
And most of the damage has been done in the last 30 years. 
It will soon be irreversible, but that will please the religious evangelists who want Jesus back.


----------



## Orikoru (Sep 11, 2019)

I see more vegan preachers than environmental preachers tbh.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Sep 11, 2019)

bobmac said:



			I suppose some may get emotional about the clean air argument, especially if they have lost a family member/loved one whos death was linked to air pollution.
If you were in their position, wouldn't you want cleaner air, especially as the population continues to rise so will the pollution.
		
Click to expand...

Problem I see is that the clean air pushers have got their way with the anti diesel lobby, but since we have demonised diesel our CO2 output has risen for the first time, and that is put primarily on the decline of (cleaner) diesel cars and people returning to petrol and electric. So we have world issues overtaken by local issues.


----------



## bobmac (Sep 12, 2019)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Sorry - that statement suggests a misunderstanding of Christian denominations - and that different Christian denominations can have significantly different beliefs and practices - albeit all linked by the common denominator of Christ (rather goes with the Christian territory).

What you list _might _apply to Roman Catholicism (of which I know not a lot) - or _maybe _in part to Anglicanism (again of which I know not a lot) - but in my denomination of what you list I recognise the words worship, prayer and give.  In some part worship and prayer are the one and same thing - just add in a good dose of singing and giving (in a whole variety of ways and means) as best I can, on top of prayer, and that's worship.

Have your own beliefs about religion and Christianity - but please respect that what is for one denomination is so very much not for all.

As it happens - what you list would for me - be closer to the demands of environmental evangelism than for any thing to do with my relgious beliefs
		
Click to expand...

I'm not disrespecting your beliefs, I'm quoting your bible

Proverbs 15:33 
John 4:24
Proverbs 3:9
John 5:24


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Sep 12, 2019)

Can we move away from the religious stuff, thread is about environmental issues

Ta muchly


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 12, 2019)

bobmac said:



			I'm not disrespecting your beliefs, I'm quoting your bible

Proverbs 15:33
John 4:24
Proverbs 3:9
John 5:24
		
Click to expand...

Quote away.  It's not *my *bible - it's *the *Bible.  Different denominations interpret the Bible - especially the old testament - in very different ways.

Some denominations even consider what the Bible says in the context of what is understood and acceptable today - shock, horror

And since you have an interest.  My denomination considers, not that 'the Bible' is the authority, but that 'God's Word in the Bible' is what we should look to understand.  I read and interpret with the help of the Holy Spirit - and it is in this way of reading that those of my denomination believe offers our best chance of working out what our God wants of and for us.

It may disappoint some to find out that not all Christians believe every word in the Bible literally - and that we are absolutely comfortable that we don't have to - and some of us positively *reject *literal understanding of some of what is written - especially some of what is written in the books of 'the law' of the Old Testament - that which the Jewish faith call the Torah.

And since you lead with it.  In my current denomination as well as that in which I was brought up in - there is absolutely NO requirement to be in fear the Lord.  In fact the opposite is true.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Sep 12, 2019)

May I refer EVERYONE to Post 23

This is now not a request.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 12, 2019)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Climate change is fuelled (excuse the pun) by one thingâ€” population growth, 6 billion humans and growing to 7 billion shortly.

We either stop breeding, have a nuclear war or a couple of plagues to reduce the population by a huge amount.

Grim
		
Click to expand...

^^^^ This with brass knobs on.


----------



## Hitdaball (Sep 12, 2019)

adam6177 said:



			No-one can deny that the climate is changing, but the debate is - are we speeding up climate change or is it just the earth going through is natural fluctuations?
		
Click to expand...

Thatâ€™s not a debate the scientific community is having, they reached a consensus on that many years ago.


----------



## bobmac (Sep 12, 2019)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Problem I see is that the clean air pushers have got their way with the anti diesel lobby, but since we have demonised diesel *our CO2 output has risen for the first time*, and that is put primarily on the decline of (cleaner) diesel cars and people returning to petrol and electric. So we have world issues overtaken by local issues.
		
Click to expand...

I'd like to see where you got that information please.
I don't think anyone can deny that the religious beliefs of the truck owner has little or no affect on my life. However, the toxic fumes that comes out of the back of the lorry do.



PhilTheFragger said:



			Climate change is fuelled (excuse the pun) by one thingâ€” population growth, 6 billion humans and growing to 7 billion shortly.

We either stop breeding, have a nuclear war or a couple of plagues to reduce the population by a huge amount.

Grim
		
Click to expand...

I agree, as the population continues to grow, so does the air pollution, however I think there is another solution.
Rather than a nuclear war or a couple of plagues or indeed another global flood would indeed reduce the population, I think that changing the way we use energy would be the more humane way to improve the air quality and would help prevent the unnecessary deaths in the world.

From the World Health Orginisation..........

''In 2016, air pollution has caused* 7 million deaths* globally, including ambient and household air pollution''
https://www.who.int/airpollution/NCD_AP_2_pager_May_2018_v3.pdf?ua=1

It's a problem that will only get worse unless we do something and fortunately, lots of people are.
While some may indeed think it's grimm, I believe that when people catch up with greener alternatives to diesel, petrol, coal, fraking and oil, the next generations will benefit from cleaner air.

Deaths caused by Brexit...........0
Deaths caused by air pollution .......7 million
Where are your priorities when it comes to the health of your children and your childrens children.
Forget Brexit, go electric.

Renewable energy is clean, everlasting and is the cheapest energy source we have, and that is based on SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.


----------



## Griffsters (Sep 12, 2019)

Its a nightmare all this climate guff honestly.


----------



## Tashyboy (Sep 12, 2019)

I don't just think it's climate change where people are pushy. This forum being the classic example. I understand people have differing opinions. But at times people, and I mean both on here and in general just don't know how to shut up and listen and let it sink in. Example, Brexit. In this day and age of social media, everything is easy to copy and paste. It seems that people are losing the ability to think for themselves and are quite happy to quote extremists.
Re climate change, for Tashyboys tuppence worth, it's happening. Think I will be dead by a generation before people realise it has gone to far.


----------



## IanM (Sep 13, 2019)

............trying to kill people flying in or out of Heathrow now.  Yep, maybe that's a smidge too far.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Sep 13, 2019)

Electirc...oops
Doesn't look to good, nor reflect well for the electric industry or the push towards electirc.


----------



## bobmac (Sep 14, 2019)

Bunkermagnet said:



Electirc...oops
Doesn't look to good, nor reflect well for the electric industry or the push towards electirc.
		
Click to expand...

This was news to me so I did some research.
SF6 was first used in 1953 so not new.
If it leaks it's not good news. (The same could be said about gas, oil, petrol, nuclear energy)
Scientists have been aware of this and have been working hard to find an alternative and it seems they have been successful 

''Scottish Power Renewables has installed one of world's biggest wind farms where the turbines will be free of SF6 gas''.

So maybe not quite a big 'oops' after all.

Here's a question for everyone .........

If your child/grandchild is walking alongside a busy road everyday to school, would you rather a diesel bus belching carbon monoxide drives slowly by or an electric bus with 0 emissions?


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 14, 2019)

bobmac said:



			This was news to me so I did some research.
SF6 was first used in 1953 so not new.
If it leaks it's not good news. (The same could be said about gas, oil, petrol, nuclear energy)
Scientists have been aware of this and have been working hard to find an alternative and it seems they have been successful

''Scottish Power Renewables has installed one of world's biggest wind farms where the turbines will be free of SF6 gas''.

So maybe not quite a big 'oops' after all.

Here's a question for everyone .........

If your child/grandchild is walking alongside a busy road everyday to school, would you rather a diesel bus belching carbon monoxide drives slowly by or an electric bus with 0 emissions?

View attachment 28205

Click to expand...

Kids walking to school ðŸ˜±


----------



## bobmac (Sep 14, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			Kids walking to school ðŸ˜±
		
Click to expand...

That's all you can say about children dying from air pollution?
Far better off driving them to school in a 3 ton 4x4 diesel with nitrous oxide pouring out the back end.
That will help


----------



## Cherry13 (Sep 20, 2019)

Interested to hear peoples thoughts on the marches today?  

I think itâ€™s fantastic, and Iâ€™m strongly behind it.  My wife and I do our best to reduce plastic in particular, we even run a small Facebook page which shares ideas for reducing plastic consumption.  The amount of plastic still in use which is unnecessary is unbelievable, and in America it was eye watering (apples individually wrapped in cling film etc).  

We often â€˜shameâ€™ companies on twitter for unnecessary usage as well, and itâ€™s very clearly a topic that drives strong opinions as we see from the responses.  

As for the recent holiday in America, we landed back home today and we discussed before going how we can offset the emissions.  I must be honest and say Iâ€™m not convinced by that as an action.  It feels like a privileged â€˜money washâ€™ for something that was ultimately a luxury break.  Weâ€™ll discuss it further though and explore the potions properly because know one Iâ€™ve seen who does it is particularly reputable so far (limited research).


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 20, 2019)

@Cherry. The march highlights the passion of the argument but I'm not sure they are effective. That's not something we'll ever know. How do you gauge the impact on the world's decision makers? Does it educate the masses? It will do so for some, and some won't care. Do the "don't cares" need to be educated? Trying might be a lot more effort than its worth, and distract the efforts from where they have the most impact - bit like the 80-20 rule. But, equally, those that it (newly) resonates with might go on to reduce their global footprint - maybe small steps, a bit like the Sky Cycling team's incremental improvements. Its an exponential curve but the effort has to be focused in the right areas.

On a personal level, seeing and hearing adults talk about it only resonated to the extent I've heard it before, and the vast majority of it will be reasonably accurate. What I didn't like was seeing and hearing brainwashed kids talking like adults. How do they fully understand what they've heard? When do they get to enjoy their childhood? How do they rationalise some of the frightening things they've heard? Do they have nightmares about it? Was it right to put them in front of cameras? I'm all for protecting them by addressing the issues but I'm against exposing them to the arguments till they're old enough to rationalise those arguments. Talk to them about it, yes but to expose them to the march and the media, no it was too soon for some of them. Let them play and enjoy life, and then let them take up the banner when the generation before them has to put it down.

On the offsetting of the emissions; sorry but that does seem a bit of a champagne socialist sop. Once the emission is out there it can't be taken back. the offsetting might balance an already out of kilter emission level to the level it was before you left but it doesn't reduce it. And that emission could do some damage before it is reduced back down. The plane will fly whether you are on it or not. But it won't fly when not enough people are there to make it economical. And if flying isn't getting done then where is the need or investment to improve the efficiencies required to reduce emissions.

Just my simple thoughts...


----------



## robinthehood (Sep 21, 2019)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Climate change is fuelled (excuse the pun) by one thingâ€” population growth, 6 billion humans and growing to 7 billion shortly.

We either stop breeding, have a nuclear war or a couple of plagues to reduce the population by a huge amount.

Grim
		
Click to expand...

And if you can get some of those billions to make small changes, then that can really make a difference.
Sadly too many people think it's someone else's problem to fix.


----------



## Cherry13 (Sep 24, 2019)

@Hobbit as ever an insightful and thought provoking post.  Been mulling a few points over for a few days before responding. 

Iâ€™ve went backward and forward on your second paragraph with regards to young kids being exposed to much too young, I donâ€™t know if Iâ€™ve yet formed a solid opinion on whether I agree with you or not, but what I would say is that the current generation of young teenagers is generally very engaged and articulate. They also seem to care greatly about social  issues and want to do something about them.  Your point about them being able to rationalise an argument and contextualise it is very interesting and probably the area Iâ€™m stuck on most.  On the one hand I think they have more access to data/news/insight than any generation ever beforehand, but I think they are also more susceptible to echo chambers and misinformation.  
The other thing Iâ€™ll add to this point, and this is a bit of a generalisation, but to some â€˜protestingâ€™ is play... itâ€™s getting out on social media and making statements, building a profile and being known for something.  I see lots of examples in my work of this, and although itâ€™s usually good natured it can be dangerous when it gets competitive. 

On your first paragraph.  This is easier for me.  Iâ€™m a big believer in big business, they usually have the answer or will create the answer and consumers will then follow.  This is a bigger challenge than ever before because itâ€™s worldwide, but I strongly believe that an Amazon/Walmart type size org will crack this and then others will HAVE to follow.  
I believe it will happen in auto within the next five years, I believe Nissan think the qahqai might be the one for them that cracks it, and will show how strong and viable the market can be. Hereâ€™s hoping anyway. 

Lastly, re offsetting.  My wife and I discussed it again, and she really does have her doubts. Both about the orgs that do it, and the effect it has. Like you say itâ€™s kind of done already.  
Weâ€™re also sadly both of the opinion that itâ€™s actually already too late as well, just in general all over the world. Thereâ€™s too much plastic, too much waste, too much emissions, too much nuclear waste, too much everything unfortunately and I fear now that there is no way of reversing it all.  

Sorry to end on such a dour note...


----------



## bobmac (Sep 24, 2019)

It's clear to me that the electric/hydrogen cars are the future so it saddens me to see car manufacturers still bringing out new petrol and diesel cars.
And in 5-10 years time, they will still be trying to sell off these petrol and diesel cars that they are making today.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Sep 24, 2019)

bobmac said:



			It's clear to me that the electric/hydrogen cars are the future so it saddens me to see car manufacturers still bringing out new petrol and diesel cars.
And in 5-10 years time, they will still be trying to sell off these petrol and diesel cars that they are making today.


Click to expand...

In 5-10 years time we still wonâ€™t have enough generating capacity to charge all the electric cars you want to see out there.


----------



## bobmac (Sep 24, 2019)

Bunkermagnet said:



			In 5-10 years time we still wonâ€™t have enough generating capacity to charge all the electric cars you want to see out there.
		
Click to expand...

You don't think we'll come up with more energy in the next 5-10 years?


----------



## robinthehood (Sep 24, 2019)

Bunkermagnet said:



			In 5-10 years time we still wonâ€™t have enough generating capacity to charge all the electric cars you want to see out there.
		
Click to expand...

If someone can come up with a way to cheaply produce hydrogen then we will be fine.


----------



## nickjdavis (Sep 24, 2019)

robinthehood said:



			If someone can come up with a way to cheaply produce hydrogen then we will be fine.
		
Click to expand...

and then the government will tax it to death.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Sep 24, 2019)

bobmac said:



			You don't think we'll come up with more energy in the next 5-10 years?
		
Click to expand...

In short.....no.
It takes a good 20-25 years to have anything like power production researched, planned, debated, replanned, contracts drawn, building then testing before going live.
So no, 5-10 years is no-where near the time frame it takes.


----------



## bobmac (Sep 24, 2019)

Bunkermagnet said:



			In short.....no.
It takes a good 20-25 years to have anything like power production researched, planned, debated, replanned, contracts drawn, building then testing before going live.
So no, 5-10 years is no-where near the time frame it takes.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't mean new energy, I just meant more, as in expanding the sources we have now like solar, hydro and wind.


----------



## GB72 (Sep 24, 2019)

bobmac said:



			I didn't mean new energy, I just meant more, as in expanding the sources we have now like solar, hydro and wind.
		
Click to expand...

We are going to have enough on our plate replacing our existing, aging power stations, some of which are well past their planned life, before being able to expand energy production


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Sep 24, 2019)

bobmac said:



			I didn't mean new energy, I just meant more, as in expanding the sources we have now like solar, hydro and wind.
		
Click to expand...

They won't fill the need.
W have no chance of having enough energy on tap for the massive increase electric cars would put on the system, and currently our generating rate is only just enough for our current needs due to the ageing power stations and the closing of all the coal powered without there being an immediate replacement.


----------



## USER1999 (Sep 24, 2019)

But if we all stopped eating meat, we could turn the refrigerator off?


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Sep 24, 2019)

murphthemog said:



			But if we all stopped eating meat, we could turn the refrigerator off?
		
Click to expand...

Is it only meat in your fridge then?
We dont have to worry about things like that now anyway, the Chinese are illegally producing plenty of CFC gases for their air conditioning demands, the hole in the ozone layer in the Southern hemispere is growing again, very rapidly.


----------



## bobmac (Sep 24, 2019)

Bunkermagnet said:



			They won't fill the need.
W have no chance of having enough energy on tap for the massive increase electric cars would put on the system, and currently our generating rate is only just enough for our current needs due to the ageing power stations and the closing of all the coal powered without there being an immediate replacement.
		
Click to expand...

So what will happen when everyone starts buying electric cars?


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Sep 24, 2019)

bobmac said:



			So what will happen when everyone starts buying electric cars?
		
Click to expand...

They won't.
However if (as you hope) everyone did, you would see blackouts.


----------



## USER1999 (Sep 24, 2019)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Is it only meat in your fridge then?
We dont have to worry about things like that now anyway, the Chinese are illegally producing plenty of CFC gases for their air conditioning demands, the hole in the ozone layer in the Southern hemispere is growing again, very rapidly.
		
Click to expand...

No, but in reality, veg, milk, butter, etc used to be kept in a larder, and could be again. Very little in the fridge actually needs to be there.


----------



## bobmac (Sep 24, 2019)

Bunkermagnet said:



			They won't.
However if (as you hope) everyone did, you would see blackouts.
		
Click to expand...

Have you got any evidence of that because according to the National Grid there wouldn't be any blackouts


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Sep 24, 2019)

murphthemog said:



			No, but in reality, veg, milk, butter, etc used to be kept in a larder, and could be again. Very little in the fridge actually needs to be there.
		
Click to expand...

But kitchens no longer have a larder cupboard any more. Produce also lasted longer because it came from local farms and producers. Now it comes from half way aroudn the world, and the farms  that used to supply us now have solar panels, or housing estates on them.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 25, 2019)

Cherry13 said:



@Hobbit as ever an insightful and thought provoking post.  Been mulling a few points over for a few days before responding.

Iâ€™ve went backward and forward on your second paragraph with regards to young kids being exposed to much too young, I donâ€™t know if Iâ€™ve yet formed a solid opinion on whether I agree with you or not, but what I would say is that the current generation of young teenagers is generally very engaged and articulate. They also seem to care greatly about social  issues and want to do something about them.  Your point about them being able to rationalise an argument and contextualise it is very interesting and probably the area Iâ€™m stuck on most.  On the one hand I think they have more access to data/news/insight than any generation ever beforehand, but I think they are also more susceptible to echo chambers and misinformation. 
The other thing Iâ€™ll add to this point, and this is a bit of a generalisation, but to some â€˜protestingâ€™ is play... itâ€™s getting out on social media and making statements, building a profile and being known for something.  I see lots of examples in my work of this, and although itâ€™s usually good natured it can be dangerous when it gets competitive.

On your first paragraph.  This is easier for me.  Iâ€™m a big believer in big business, they usually have the answer or will create the answer and consumers will then follow.  This is a bigger challenge than ever before because itâ€™s worldwide, but I strongly believe that an Amazon/Walmart type size org will crack this and then others will HAVE to follow. 
I believe it will happen in auto within the next five years, I believe Nissan think the qahqai might be the one for them that cracks it, and will show how strong and viable the market can be. Hereâ€™s hoping anyway.

Lastly, re offsetting.  My wife and I discussed it again, and she really does have her doubts. Both about the orgs that do it, and the effect it has. Like you say itâ€™s kind of done already. 
Weâ€™re also sadly both of the opinion that itâ€™s actually already too late as well, just in general all over the world. Thereâ€™s too much plastic, too much waste, too much emissions, too much nuclear waste, too much everything unfortunately and I fear now that there is no way of reversing it all. 

Sorry to end on such a dour note...
		
Click to expand...

TBH, I think we're more or less on the same page.

Seeing a 15-16 yr old being interviewed, no problem, but the 2x 10yr olds, no it just didn't seem right.

Big business; I agree that big business will come up with the answers. But, and its a big but, to a large extent only when pushed by legislation. Some industries will make the change of their own volition if it means cost saving or producing a product that is streets ahead. You also have to consider the rate of change is different from country to country, e.g. a steel producer in China throws out way more muck than one in a modern plant in Europe.

Is it too late? No it isn't providing it becomes big (state sponsored) business to do environmental clean ups. The scale of the clean ups will, in some areas, have to be huge but I still think the planet can be saved.


----------



## bobmac (Sep 25, 2019)

According to the National travel survey, the average distance people drive is just under 8,000 miles per year.
153 miles per week.
https://www.thinkmoney.co.uk/news-a...-miles-driven-per-year-in-the-uk-0-8581-0.htm

A Nissan Leaf will travel 168 miles on one charge.
https://pod-point.com/guides/vehicles/nissan/2018/leaf
Some say nearer 130 miles
The Hyundai Kona will do 250 miles
https://www.buyacar.co.uk/cars/econ...range-how-far-will-they-really-go-on-a-single

So you only need to charge your car once or twice per week overnight when the demand for electricity is very small.
Or at a fast public charger at your local supermarket.
It's not like everyone gets home from work and plugs their car in at 6pm every night.
https://theenergyst.com/millions-electric-vehicles-sooner-predicted-no-sweat-says-national-grid/

And for those who say there aren't enough charging points, how many petrol stations were there when the petrol car was invented?
But to answer your question .........
12 months ago the were 17,673 charging points
This month there are 26,222 so they are getting there.

All these figures are based on scientific research.

Religious envagelism is based on.........emmmmmm.......a 2000 year old book.

I know who I'd rather talk to on the street.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 25, 2019)

Bob, I largely agree with what you are saying but we are just not there yet. The right cars are not there, the availability of charging is not there, the range of larger cars is not there.

My mum and in laws definitely could go electric as they fit your model perfectly. The downside for them, apart from getting their heads around it, is the cost new. I checked out a new Nissan Leaf, perfect size and range, and it is Â£31k. They can buy a similar sized petrol Micra for Â£13k. Yes, they could buy second hand but the gap still exists. Until that gap reduces uptake will remain low.

I'm hoping mfrs will be bringing out new models in the next 12 months or so that give a better range of size, much lower in cost. Fingers crossed.

Edit - Renault have just released a new version of their Zoe model. Â£21k. That is going in the right direction.


----------



## bobmac (Sep 25, 2019)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Bob, I largely agree with what you are saying but we are just not there yet. The right cars are not there, the availability of charging is not there, the range of larger cars is not there.

My mum and in laws definitely could go electric as they fit your model perfectly. The downside for them, apart from getting their heads around it, is the cost new. I checked out a new Nissan Leaf, perfect size and range, and it is Â£31k. They can buy a similar sized petrol Micra for Â£13k. Yes, they could buy second hand but the gap still exists. Until that gap reduces uptake will remain low.

I'm hoping mfrs will be bringing out new models in the next 12 months or so that give a better range of size, much lower in cost. Fingers crossed.

Edit - Renault have just released a new version of their Zoe model. Â£21k. That is going in the right direction.
		
Click to expand...

I agree, we're not there yet but
My local garage has 2 Leafs (Leaves?) for sale, both 2016 
Â£11.000 and Â£13,000 .........different specs

https://www.johnpeatmotors.co.uk/used-vehicles-in-lincolnshire/?Make=Nissan&Model=Leaf 

And as I mentioned above the Kona has a realistic range of 250 miles
How far does your mum drive in one go without stopping?
Bare in mind the fast chargers will charge an average car up to 80% full in about 30 mins

And if you want to go up market and talk Tesla 3.......
Range 348 miles
0-60  3.2 sec
Top speed 162mph
Cost Â£52,000............Â£8,000 cheaper than an M3


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 25, 2019)

bobmac said:



			I agree, we're not there yet but
My local garage has 2 Leafs (Leaves?) for sale, both 2016
Â£11.000 and Â£13,000 .........different specs

https://www.johnpeatmotors.co.uk/used-vehicles-in-lincolnshire/?Make=Nissan&Model=Leaf

And as I mentioned above the Kona has a realistic range of 250 miles
How far does your mum drive in one go without stopping?
Bare in mind the fast chargers will charge an average car up to 80% full in about 30 mins

And if you want to go up market and talk Tesla 3.......
Range 348 miles
0-60  3.2 sec
Top speed 162mph
Cost Â£52,000............Â£8,000 cheaper than an M3
		
Click to expand...

I totally agree that for my mum it would make sense. She does make the occasional 200 mile journey, to visit me , but in reality those trips will reduce anyway due to her age. She would suit the template of 10k p/a most trips within 2-10 miles per time. The odd 60-70 mile round trip but that is not a problem with those ranges. She also has a drive so charging at home is simple.

She is not looking to change her car, she has a 12yr + petrol Avensis that she will drive until it packs in, but if she has to get another car I will be pushing her towards an electric one.

I drive 21k per year and the only car on the market that could fit my mileage and size requirement currently is a Tesla. Unfortunately I do not have Â£52k, or anywhere near, so that is going to have to wait a few years . Next one for me could well be a hybrid, a half way house until the tech catches up.


----------



## bobmac (Sep 25, 2019)

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classi...sing-location=at_cars&postcode=ng348xf&page=1


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 25, 2019)

bobmac said:



https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201908211369347?make=TESLA&onesearchad=Used&onesearchad=Nearly New&onesearchad=New&model=MODEL S&sort=price-asc&radius=1500&advertising-location=at_cars&postcode=ng348xf&page=1



Click to expand...

Sexy car but Â£29.5k for a 5yr old car with 102k on the clock .


----------



## Rooter (Sep 25, 2019)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Sexy car but Â£29.5k for a 5yr old car with 102k on the clock .
		
Click to expand...

A 5 year old car thats batteries have been cycled up and down charge 1000's of times! Wouldn't touch it with a barge pole unless it had a very decent warranty, specifically around the batteries.


----------



## bobmac (Sep 25, 2019)

And if electric cars were the same price as the petrol or diesel equivalent, would you buy electric then, bearing in mind the small running costs of electric?


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 25, 2019)

Aren't Electric cars just as polluting as Petrol/Diesel, they just push the pollution somewhere else like power stations, Battery disposal, lithium mining etc.


----------



## bobmac (Sep 25, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			Aren't Electric cars just as polluting as Petrol/Diesel, they just push the pollution somewhere else like power stations, Battery disposal, lithium mining etc.
		
Click to expand...

When batteries finally have to be replaced they have other uses such as storing solar/wind power for homes and eventually get recycled into new batteries.
Lithium only makes up 2% of a battery so not a lot. Besides, if that clever My Dyson produces an electric car with solid state batteries, there will be no need for any lithium.
As for pollution, every month shows we are using more and more clean cheap renewable energy to produce electricity


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 25, 2019)

Here's a link to a (quite old now) film I helped fund, in a small way, that addresses a more sinister contributor to the demise of our plant as we know it.
Note: Free for Amazon Prime subscribers; available elewhere too.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Critical-M...&qid=1552422268&sr=1-1&keywords=critical+mass


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 25, 2019)

bobmac said:



			And if electric cars were the same price as the petrol or diesel equivalent, would you buy electric then, bearing in mind the small running costs of electric?
		
Click to expand...

My wife's car, definitely. My car, the family car, if the range could top the 300 mile genuine range then yes as well. Why not?


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Sep 25, 2019)

Lord Tyrion said:



			My wife's car, definitely. My car, the family car, if the range could top the 300 mile genuine range then yes as well. Why not?
		
Click to expand...

But can your feet reach the pedals?


Iâ€™ll get my coat and stop now ðŸ‘


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 25, 2019)

PhilTheFragger said:



			But can your feet reach the pedals?


Iâ€™ll get my coat and stop now ðŸ‘
		
Click to expand...

It's an open goal every time to be fair. Hard to resist ðŸ˜„


----------



## Beezerk (Sep 25, 2019)

murphthemog said:



			No, but in reality, veg, milk, butter, etc used to be kept in a larder, and could be again. Very little in the fridge actually needs to be there.
		
Click to expand...

Erm warm beer?
No thank you ðŸ˜”


----------



## KenL (Sep 25, 2019)

Orikoru said:



			I see more vegan preachers than environmental preachers tbh.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe there is a link.  Livestock farming seems to play a major part.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 26, 2019)

I find the way young people are being schooled to blame older generations for ruining their lives is worrying, divisive and unfair.
When older people were growing up there were less use of disposable items, less plastic, more recyclable items like milk and lemonade bottles, food was wrapped in paper bags, fish and chips in newspaper, we used busses and trains as not many had cars, we walked to school or rode bikes as our mothers never had SUVs to take us, we holidayed in the UK and didn't fly off abroad, no mobile phones, no computers, much less to eat.  How about getting back to this kids?


----------



## bobmac (Sep 26, 2019)

bobmac said:



			And if electric cars were the same price as the petrol or diesel equivalent, would you buy electric then, bearing in mind the small running costs of electric?
		
Click to expand...




Lord Tyrion said:



			My wife's car, definitely. My car, the family car, if the range could top the 300 mile genuine range then yes as well.* Why not?*

Click to expand...

Because as I said in post no. 40, the manufacturers can't sell electric cars at the same price as petrol and diesel because the vast majority would choose the electric and all the petrol and diesel wouldn't be sold. So they keep the electric prices high to encourage you to buy the cheaper p&d cars they are still making today, no doubt encouraged by the oil companies.

Whether we like it or not, electric cars with their stunning performance, 0 road tax, no congestion charge and zero emmissions will be the norm in the future and it will be sooner than most think.
And if/when the solid state batteries are rolled out, they will double the range of todays cars.


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 26, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			I find the way young people are being schooled to blame older generations for ruining their lives is worrying, divisive and unfair.
		
Click to expand...

Or maybe the way previous generations started embracing cars, plastics, SUVs, foreign holidays, mobile phones, computers and cheap processed food without much forethought was worrying, divisive and unfair and the youth today have every right to say "thanks but no thanks" to the absolute mess their generations will have to clean up and live through, all because that once the previous generations saw any grain of comfort they seized it without any care in the world.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 26, 2019)

Kellfire said:



			Or maybe the way previous generations started embracing cars, plastics, SUVs, foreign holidays, mobile phones, computers and cheap processed food without much forethought was worrying, divisive and unfair and the youth today have every right to say "thanks but no thanks" to the absolute mess their generations will have to clean up and live through, all because that once the previous generations saw any grain of comfort they seized it without any care in the world.
		
Click to expand...

Whilst they themselves drive SUVâ€™s etc. And where are you drawing the cut off point for these older/younger generations? I assume itâ€™s way below the age of the countless staff I employed, none of which were any greener than the older generations.


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 26, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			Whilst they themselves drive SUVâ€™s etc. And where are you drawing the cut off point for these older/younger generations? I assume itâ€™s way below the age of the countless staff I employed, none of which were any greener than the older generations.
		
Click to expand...

I was merely offering a counterpoint to SocketRocket's typical "Woe is me, the kids today are clueless" stance. I myself don't know quite where I stand on it all, as I have a selfish streak in me.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 26, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			Whilst they themselves drive SUVâ€™s etc. And where are you drawing the cut off point for these older/younger generations? I assume itâ€™s way below the age of the countless staff I employed, none of which were any greener than the older generations.
		
Click to expand...

I don't know that any generation can claim moral superiority. All have gained from and used products, tech etc that has abused the environment. If it becomes a young v old thing then it ends up being like Brexit and we can see how that doesn't help. My daughter was taking the high ground with me only recently on this subject until I pointed out that she has had more long haul flights than anyone else in our family in the last 2 years.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 26, 2019)

Lord Tyrion said:



			I don't know that any generation can claim moral superiority. All have gained from and used products, tech etc that has abused the environment. If it becomes a young v old thing then it ends up being like Brexit and we can see how that doesn't help. My daughter was taking the high ground with me only recently on this subject until I pointed out that she has had more long haul flights than anyone else in our family in the last 2 years.
		
Click to expand...

There is no moral high ground to take. And I will put my mortgage, if I had one, that some the green initiatives being proposed today will be denigrated in years to come.

Weâ€™re already hearing some people say that lithium batteries are more  un-environmentally friendly to make and dispose of than other current technologies. Hell, I can remember the arguments around nuclear power in the early 70â€™s. Some said it was super clean, no smoke, at a time when sulphurous emissions from coal powered power stations were the big thing.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Sep 26, 2019)

bobmac said:



			Whether we like it or not, electric cars with their stunning performance, 0 road tax, no congestion charge and zero emmissions will be the norm in the future and it will be sooner than most think.
.
		
Click to expand...

Why do you think electric cars will always be road tax or congestion charge free? Governments need the tax from the motorist to fund so much.
They use and cause damage to the roads just as every other vehicle does, and actually create more particulate pollution from needing heavier braking systems


----------



## bobmac (Sep 26, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			Hell, I can remember the arguments around nuclear power in the early 70â€™s. Some said it was super clean, no smoke, at a time when sulphurous emissions from coal powered power stations were the big thing.
		
Click to expand...

And yet the government are pumping Â£20bn into building Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant  which will add Â£10-15 to the average household bill until 2060
And it won't be 'online' until 2025.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 26, 2019)

Kellfire said:



			Or maybe the way previous generations started embracing cars, plastics, SUVs, foreign holidays, mobile phones, computers and cheap processed food without much forethought was worrying, divisive and unfair and the youth today have every right to say "thanks but no thanks" to the absolute mess their generations will have to clean up and live through, all because that once the previous generations saw any grain of comfort they seized it without any care in the world.
		
Click to expand...

The general public just live their lives, there were no warnings about climate change or how plastics could spread into the ecco system. If you lived through this period would you have been an ecco warrior? I doubt it very much, you would have got on with living unaware of such issues.


----------



## bobmac (Sep 26, 2019)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Why do you think electric cars will always be road tax or congestion charge free? Governments need the tax from the motorist to fund so much.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe they could save Â£106bn by cancelling HS2. That would help
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/hs2-costs-top-106bn-oakervee-review-told-25-09-2019/ 



Bunkermagnet said:



			They use and cause damage to the roads just as every other vehicle does, and* actually create more particulate pollution from needing heavier braking systems*

Click to expand...

You'll have to show evidence of that claim as I've read the opposite thanks to regen braking where the motor slows down the car, not the brakes. The only real side affect is the motor creates electricity when slowing the car which charges the battery.

_''A next-gen Leaf driver will never need the brake pedal, although it will still be there, for those â€œaggressive braking situationsâ€ according to Nissan. (In other words, panic stops.)

The advantages of maximizing regen braking are huge. Maintenance costs are lower because barely-used brake pads last for many thousands more miles. There are fewer particles of dust created which pollute the air and waterways. Stopping distances will be shorter too, as the car will start slowing down as soon as the driver begins to lift off the accelerator, rather than when he moves his foot to another pedal.

Most importantly, energy is recaptured rather than wasted, so the range in electric cars is improved''_

_https://www.wired.com/story/look-ma-no-brake-youll-drive-electric-cars-with-one-pedal/ _

Oops, almost forgot to mention reduction of CO2 emmissions and cleaner air in towns and cities


----------



## robinthehood (Sep 26, 2019)

Modern electric cars use regenerative breaking. Much better and less polluting than the breaking you refer to.


----------



## robinthehood (Sep 26, 2019)

bobmac said:



			Maybe they could save Â£106bn by cancelling HS2. That would help
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/hs2-costs-top-106bn-oakervee-review-told-25-09-2019/



You'll have to show evidence of that claim as I've read the opposite thanks to regen braking where the motor slows down the car, not the brakes. The only real side affect is the motor creates electricity when slowing the car which charges the battery.

_''A next-gen Leaf driver will never need the brake pedal, although it will still be there, for those â€œaggressive braking situationsâ€ according to Nissan. (In other words, panic stops.)_

_The advantages of maximizing regen braking are huge. Maintenance costs are lower because barely-used brake pads last for many thousands more miles. There are fewer particles of dust created which pollute the air and waterways. Stopping distances will be shorter too, as the car will start slowing down as soon as the driver begins to lift off the accelerator, rather than when he moves his foot to another pedal._

_Most importantly, energy is recaptured rather than wasted, so the range in electric cars is improved''_

_https://www.wired.com/story/look-ma-no-brake-youll-drive-electric-cars-with-one-pedal/ _

Oops, almost forgot to mention reduction of CO2 emmissions and cleaner air in towns and cities
		
Click to expand...

Exactly  , using the motors to slow the car rather than pressing a break.


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 26, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			The general public just live their lives, there were no warnings about climate change or how plastics could spread into the ecco system. If you lived through this period would you have been an ecco warrior? I doubt it very much, you would have got on with living unaware of such issues.
		
Click to expand...

So should the general public continue in that manner?


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 27, 2019)

Kellfire said:



			So should the general public continue in that manner?
		
Click to expand...

No, but hindsight is a fine thing, its wrong to castigate previous generations for things they were not and could not control or understand.


----------



## Fade and Die (Sep 28, 2019)

Back on Topic of environmental evangelism Greta Thunberg is irritating for sure but sheâ€™s just a kid whoâ€™s condition leaves her terrified of Climate change, the same way I was convinced that a nuclear war with the soviets was imminent when I was a kid. (Threads gave me nightmares)

Greta has been and is being used...the people behind her want to solve climate change with communism wrapped up in Agenda 21.

Greta has been convinced we adults are monsters by real monsters who would manipulate a childâ€™s illness.

See past Greta, research the organisation behind her and draw your own conclusions.


----------



## Hitdaball (Sep 28, 2019)

Perhaps she is terrified by climate change because itâ€™s actually bloody terrifying, rather than because of her Aspergers.


----------



## Fade and Die (Sep 28, 2019)

Hitdaball said:



			Perhaps she is terrified by climate change because itâ€™s actually bloody terrifying, rather than because of her Aspergers.
		
Click to expand...


She is actually terrified, no doubt about it but the poor little sock puppet is being manipulated awfully.

Take a few minutes to read this article. 

https://quillette.com/2019/04/23/se...eater-good-greta-thunberg-and-child-activism/

I think her parents should be locked up.


----------



## Hitdaball (Sep 28, 2019)

I donâ€™t see anything in that article suggesting she is a â€œlittle
Sock puppetâ€.   

I see lots of references to other health issues which she has and how those have impacted her. 

I donâ€™t doubt that her politics are formed in large part from her family, as most 16yr olds likely are but I donâ€™t see a great deal of difference between this and say Hague at the Tory conference as a kid (albeit clearly one is much more successful than the other) and I donâ€™t recall a great deal of fuss about Hauge.   

Any intelligent  16 old who wanted to read up on the scientific consensus of human influenced climate change and its current path would understand it.


----------



## pendodave (Sep 28, 2019)

Thank goodness we can just shoot the messenger (or their parents). Can't believe I was ever worried about any of this stuff...


----------



## Fade and Die (Sep 28, 2019)

Donâ€™t fret...man made global warming is a myth... Itâ€™s an industry,
Scientists who sign up get lucrative grants and new jobs. Scientists who disagree get finished.

The world is still pulling out of the last ice age and temps are expected to rise, as they are.
They are just abusing this fact.

Iâ€™ll keep it simple but the warming lobby tell you that carbon dioxide is causing the planet to warm to a level where we will be generally flooded in 50 years.
That this CO2 is produced by us burning fossil fuels. Material that is naturally on this planet.

The amount of CO2 which Mount St. Helens blew out over 2 days when it blew in the early 80â€™s is
more than the industrialised world has exhaled in the last 30 years.

The â€œexpertsâ€ were telling us 20 years ago that London, Holland and Maldives would be under water by now...Result- no sea level rise at all!

Told us ice caps would all be gone...
Northern ice caps reached a 50 year high 3 winters ago. 

Remember the Romans were growing grapes as far North as Lincolnshire 2000 years ago. 

Do some  research...Another myth btw is that 95% of scientists agree about MMGW. No â€“ 95% of the scientists attached to the International Panel on Climate Change agree but they have a vested interest. There are thousands of scientists who are sceptical about our part in global warming. They just donâ€™t get any air time.


----------



## robinthehood (Sep 28, 2019)

Fade and Die said:



			Donâ€™t fret...man made global warming is a myth... Itâ€™s an industry,
Scientists who sign up get lucrative grants and new jobs. Scientists who disagree get finished.

The world is still pulling out of the last ice age and temps are expected to rise, as they are.
They are just abusing this fact.

Iâ€™ll keep it simple but the warming lobby tell you that carbon dioxide is causing the planet to warm to a level where we will be generally flooded in 50 years.
That this CO2 is produced by us burning fossil fuels. Material that is naturally on this planet.

The amount of CO2 which Mount St. Helens blew out over 2 days when it blew in the early 80â€™s is
more than the industrialised world has exhaled in the last 30 years.

The â€œexpertsâ€ were telling us 20 years ago that London, Holland and Maldives would be under water by now...Result- no sea level rise at all!

Told us ice caps would all be gone...
Northern ice caps reached a 50 year high 3 winters ago.

Remember the Romans were growing grapes as far North as Lincolnshire 2000 years ago.

Do some  research...Another myth btw is that 95% of scientists agree about MMGW. No â€“ 95% of the scientists attached to the International Panel on Climate Change agree but they have a vested interest. There are thousands of scientists who are sceptical about our part in global warming. They just donâ€™t get any air time.
		
Click to expand...

There is  a reason those scientists don't get any air time....


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 28, 2019)

Fade and Die said:



			Donâ€™t fret...*man made global warming is a myth..*. Itâ€™s an industry,
Scientists who sign up get lucrative grants and new jobs. Scientists who disagree get finished.

The world is still pulling out of the last ice age and temps are expected to rise, as they are.
They are just abusing this fact.

Iâ€™ll keep it simple but the warming lobby tell you that carbon dioxide is causing the planet to warm to a level where we will be generally flooded in 50 years.
That this CO2 is produced by us burning fossil fuels. Material that is naturally on this planet.

The amount of CO2 which Mount St. Helens blew out over 2 days when it blew in the early 80â€™s is
more than the industrialised world has exhaled in the last 30 years.

The â€œexpertsâ€ were telling us 20 years ago that London, Holland and Maldives would be under water by now...Result- no sea level rise at all!

Told us ice caps would all be gone...
Northern ice caps reached a 50 year high 3 winters ago.

Remember the Romans were growing grapes as far North as Lincolnshire 2000 years ago.

Do some  research...Another myth btw is that 95% of scientists agree about MMGW. No â€“ 95% of the scientists attached to the International Panel on Climate Change agree but they have a vested interest. There are thousands of scientists who are sceptical about our part in global warming. They just donâ€™t get any air time.
		
Click to expand...

A myth ðŸ˜‚ reckon you have been reading too many of those articles that get passed around Facebook - and those scientists that donâ€™t get air time ? Itâ€™s for a reason


----------



## robinthehood (Sep 28, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			A myth ðŸ˜‚ reckon you have been reading too many of those articles that get passed around Facebook - and those scientists that donâ€™t get air time ? Itâ€™s for a reason
		
Click to expand...

Of course it's a myth. Also the earth is flat and dinosaurs never existed.


----------



## Hitdaball (Sep 28, 2019)

Random old gent on internet knows more than IPCC shocker. 

Iâ€™m totally convinced by your post.


----------



## Fade and Die (Sep 28, 2019)

robinthehood said:



			There is  a reason those scientists don't get any air time....
		
Click to expand...




Liverpoolphil said:



			A myth ðŸ˜‚ reckon you have been reading too many of those articles that get passed around Facebook - and those scientists that donâ€™t get air time ? Itâ€™s for a reason
		
Click to expand...




Hitdaball said:



			Random old gent on internet knows more than IPCC shocker.

Iâ€™m totally convinced by your post.
		
Click to expand...


Ok.... show me proof.


----------



## Hitdaball (Sep 28, 2019)

Fade and Die said:



			Ok.... show me proof.
		
Click to expand...

Iâ€™d suggest itâ€™s incumbent on the guy who has googled a bit between medications to show proof rather than those standing by the body of work of 97% of the finest scientific minds on the planet no?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 28, 2019)

Fade and Die said:



			Ok.... show me proof.
		
Click to expand...

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/evidence.amp

https://www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-climate-change


Simple chemistry â€“ when we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in 1900s)
Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in 1970s)
Measuring CO2 in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find that it's increasing, with levels higher than anything we've seen in hundreds of thousands of years (measurements beginning in 1950s)
Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in 1950s)
Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in 1820s)
Monitoring climate conditions to find that recent warming of the Earth is correlated to and follows rising CO2 emissions (research beginning in 1930s)
Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in 1830s)
Employing computer models to run experiments of natural versus human-influenced simulations of Earth (research beginning in 1960s)
Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in 1990s)


----------



## ColchesterFC (Sep 28, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/evidence.amp

https://www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-climate-change


Simple chemistry â€“ when we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in 1900s)
Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in 1970s)
Measuring CO2 in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find that it's increasing, with levels higher than anything we've seen in hundreds of thousands of years (measurements beginning in 1950s)
Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in 1950s)
Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in 1820s)
Monitoring climate conditions to find that recent warming of the Earth is correlated to and follows rising CO2 emissions (research beginning in 1930s)
Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in 1830s)
Employing computer models to run experiments of natural versus human-influenced simulations of Earth (research beginning in 1960s)
Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in 1990s)


Click to expand...

Yeah, but apart from all of that where's the evidence?  ;-)


----------



## Fade and Die (Sep 28, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/evidence.amp

https://www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-climate-change


Simple chemistry â€“ when we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in 1900s)
Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in 1970s)
Measuring CO2 in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find that it's increasing, with levels higher than anything we've seen in hundreds of thousands of years (measurements beginning in 1950s)
Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in 1950s)
Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in 1820s)
Monitoring climate conditions to find that recent warming of the Earth is correlated to and follows rising CO2 emissions (research beginning in 1930s)
Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in 1830s)
Employing computer models to run experiments of natural versus human-influenced simulations of Earth (research beginning in 1960s)
Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in 1990s)


Click to expand...

Read my post, only scientist that tow the line get funding. Itâ€™s all a con.

It is a wonderful excuse for governments to add a â€˜greenâ€™ tax and pick our wallets though.
Notice how it isnâ€™t even called global warming anymore, since a lot of people figured out that it is actually getting cooler in many places.
Climate change, as it is now called has been occuring naturally since time began.
But that is no excuse not to tax people for it.
I wish they would focus their efforts on the mass pollution and fracking thatâ€™s more of a threat to us. 
Obviously you lads have swallowed it hook line and sinker so Iâ€™ll leave you to it.ðŸ‘


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 28, 2019)

ColchesterFC said:



			Yeah, but apart from all of that where's the evidence?  ;-)
		
Click to expand...

Google is our friend. I had to delete half of the Scientists as the list was too big for a single post.

These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.[86][87]
Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[88][89][90]
Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.[91][92][93]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[94][95]
Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences.[96]
Doug Edmeades, soil scientist, officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit.[97]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.[98][99]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.[100][101]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University.[42][102]
Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Theoretical Physicist and Researcher, Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.[103]
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.[104][105]
WibjÃ¶rn KarlÃ©n, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[106][107]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.[108][109]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.[110][111]
Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.[112][113]
Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian biologist, former director of the Australian Environment Foundation.[114][115]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[116][117]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[118][119]


----------



## bobmac (Sep 29, 2019)

So all the scientists who say climate change/global warming is real and man made are all lying to keep their jobs?
And if so what should we do?
With the population/demand for energy continuing to rise, do we carry on burning fossil fuels or not, bearing in mind they will run out sooner or later or push now for cleaner, cheaper and renewable energy that won't run out?


----------



## pauljames87 (Sep 29, 2019)

Fade and Die said:



			Donâ€™t fret...man made global warming is a myth... Itâ€™s an industry,
Scientists who sign up get lucrative grants and new jobs. Scientists who disagree get finished.

The world is still pulling out of the last ice age and temps are expected to rise, as they are.
They are just abusing this fact.

Iâ€™ll keep it simple but the warming lobby tell you that carbon dioxide is causing the planet to warm to a level where we will be generally flooded in 50 years.
That this CO2 is produced by us burning fossil fuels. Material that is naturally on this planet.

The amount of CO2 which Mount St. Helens blew out over 2 days when it blew in the early 80â€™s is
more than the industrialised world has exhaled in the last 30 years.

The â€œexpertsâ€ were telling us 20 years ago that London, Holland and Maldives would be under water by now...Result- no sea level rise at all!

Told us ice caps would all be gone...
Northern ice caps reached a 50 year high 3 winters ago.

Remember the Romans were growing grapes as far North as Lincolnshire 2000 years ago.

Do some  research...Another myth btw is that 95% of scientists agree about MMGW. No â€“ 95% of the scientists attached to the International Panel on Climate Change agree but they have a vested interest. There are thousands of scientists who are sceptical about our part in global warming. They just donâ€™t get any air time.
		
Click to expand...

I knew your posts made sense, all falls into place Donald.


----------



## Hitdaball (Sep 29, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			Google is our friend. I had to delete half of the Scientists as the list was too big for a single post.
		
Click to expand...

SocketRocket is a flat eather too.   

Seriously, who would have thunk it?


----------



## Hitdaball (Sep 29, 2019)

Fade and Die said:



			Read my post, only scientist that tow the line get funding. Itâ€™s all a con.

It is a wonderful excuse for governments to add a â€˜greenâ€™ tax and pick our wallets though.
Notice how it isnâ€™t even called global warming anymore, since a lot of people figured out that it is actually getting cooler in many places.
Climate change, as it is now called has been occuring naturally since time began.
But that is no excuse not to tax people for it.
I wish they would focus their efforts on the mass pollution and fracking thatâ€™s more of a threat to us.
Obviously you lads have swallowed it hook line and sinker so Iâ€™ll leave you to it.ðŸ‘
		
Click to expand...

We should tax stupidity, we could use the revenue to fund solar R&D.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 29, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			Google is our friend. I had to delete half of the Scientists as the list was too big for a single post.

These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

....
		
Click to expand...

They may or may not be the case. Personally, I believe there are BOTH natural and 'un-natural' causes. And I'm uncertain whether 'more likely' is the correct term, simply 'also'. 

But even if there is a 'natural' it certainly doesn't mean that we should (greatly) accelerate that effect by adding - significantly - to the problem! 

That's the same 'logic' that I apply to the effect that very likely killed my mother early - the ozone layer. Always been one, but atmospheric CFCs greatly expanded it - so much that school-children in NZ have restrictions on 'outdoor time' - and there's an excellent Aussie slogan 'Slip, slop, slap' for outdoor activity.

Having said all that, I'm about to harness clothing made with/using PFCs (another hazardoud range of chemicals) - GoreTex jacket, pants and shoes, so a touch of hypocrisy there! Btw. I understand Gore are actively trying to replace that product/process with a less 'hazardous' one.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 29, 2019)

Hitdaball said:



			SocketRocket is a flat eather too.  

Seriously, who would have thunk it?
		
Click to expand...

Easier using an insult than engage in debate when someone posts contrary.  And I get accused of using insultsðŸ™„


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 29, 2019)

bobmac said:



			So all the scientists who say climate change/global warming is real and man made are all lying to keep their jobs?
And if so what should we do?
With the population/demand for energy continuing to rise, do we carry on burning fossil fuels or not, bearing in mind they will run out sooner or later or push now for cleaner, cheaper and renewable energy that won't run out?
		
Click to expand...

The answer is 'Yes' but we should do that irrespective of the climate.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 29, 2019)

Hitdaball said:



			We should tax stupidity, we could use the revenue to fund solar R&D.
		
Click to expand...

ðŸ™„


----------



## Fade and Die (Sep 29, 2019)

pauljames87 said:



			I knew your posts made sense, all falls into place Donald.
		
Click to expand...


Iâ€™ll take that.ðŸ‘


----------



## Fade and Die (Sep 29, 2019)

Hitdaball said:



			We should tax stupidity, we could use the revenue to fund solar R&D.
		
Click to expand...


As long as we donâ€™t try taxing common sense as we will be skint in a week!


----------



## Hitdaball (Sep 29, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			Easier using an insult than engage in debate when someone posts contrary.  And I get accused of using insultsðŸ™„
		
Click to expand...

You could post links to a 100s of scientists who are donâ€™t believe human activity is affecting climate change  and it would not change the fact that 97% of them agree with the consensus as already linked by @Liverpoolphil before your post.   But you ignored that. 

Therefore in the face of overriding evidence to the contrary by people far more intelligent  than your good self you choose to hold a contrarian view and share it in here.  Iâ€™d say thats fair game. 

I thought you would take Flat Earther as a compliment to be honest, you probably like to think you are a bit edgy and outside of the establishment, above sheeple like me who listen to experts. You strike me as someone who would type experts in parenthesis, fair play to you.


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 29, 2019)

Gravity isnâ€™t a thing either. Things fall due to density. ðŸ˜¬


----------



## Hitdaball (Sep 29, 2019)

Kellfire said:



			Gravity isnâ€™t a thing either. Things fall due to density. ðŸ˜¬
		
Click to expand...

They do in here.


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Sep 29, 2019)

Fade and Die said:



			Donâ€™t fret...man made global warming is a myth... Itâ€™s an industry,
Scientists who sign up get lucrative grants and new jobs. Scientists who disagree get finished.

The world is still pulling out of the last ice age and temps are expected to rise, as they are.
They are just abusing this fact.

Iâ€™ll keep it simple but the warming lobby tell you that carbon dioxide is causing the planet to warm to a level where we will be generally flooded in 50 years.
That this CO2 is produced by us burning fossil fuels. Material that is naturally on this planet.

The amount of CO2 which Mount St. Helens blew out over 2 days when it blew in the early 80â€™s is
more than the industrialised world has exhaled in the last 30 years.

The â€œexpertsâ€ were telling us 20 years ago that London, Holland and Maldives would be under water by now...Result- no sea level rise at all!

Told us ice caps would all be gone...
Northern ice caps reached a 50 year high 3 winters ago.

Remember the Romans were growing grapes as far North as Lincolnshire 2000 years ago.

Do some  research...Another myth btw is that 95% of scientists agree about MMGW. No â€“ 95% of the scientists attached to the International Panel on Climate Change agree but they have a vested interest. There are thousands of scientists who are sceptical about our part in global warming. They just donâ€™t get any air time.
		
Click to expand...

Well, as someone who believes that increased CO2 ( if not absorbed sufficiently) would contribute to global warming ( forget the dolts who think all it means is the planet gets warmer), I nevertheless note that this post alleges some facts. !
So, are they facts?  No one yet has said that StHelens did not spew out what is alleged, nor that the Northern ice caps ........, And , yes, grapes in Lincs would have needed good temps.
If they are facts, there is some relevance there to F and D 's point.
Which is, as far as I can see, that though there is increased industrial CO2, it is not going to be critical as feared, and the natural cycle of the planet will accommodate it.
However, he has not addressed the ( to my mind) valid accusation that denying human caused climate change is usually found to be done by business minded people and politicians who know full well that if they acknowledge climate change, they will be asked to make financial sacrifices to correct it.
AKA, Problem? What problem?

Personally  I think we humans should reduce carbon emissions somewhat, after all we seem to be discovering ways technologically to do it. So, why not use them. 
What is undeniable is the effects of plastic. No way is that a natural cycle.
Now , that requires really urgent action.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 29, 2019)

Hitdaball said:



			You could post links to a 100s of scientists who are donâ€™t believe human activity is affecting climate change  and it would not change the fact that 97% of them agree with the consensus as already linked by @Liverpoolphil before your post.   But you ignored that. 

Therefore in the face of overriding evidence to the contrary by people far more intelligent  than your good self you choose to hold a contrarian view and share it in here.  Iâ€™d say thats fair game. 

I thought you would take Flat Earther as a compliment to be honest, you probably like to think you are a bit edgy and outside of the establishment, above sheeple like me who listen to experts. You strike me as someone who would type experts in parenthesis, fair play to you.
		
Click to expand...

I am making the point that going to google and picking out a list that supports your preferred view is not a way to argue your case when its possible to do the same and produce a contrary view.  Thats why I did it, hopefully showing how shallow an arguement that is.
Read the post above for a sensible responce.


----------



## Hitdaball (Sep 29, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			I am making the point that going to google and picking out a list that supports your preferred view is not a way to argue your case when its possible to do the same and produce a contrary view.  Thats why I did it, hopefully showing how shallow an arguement that is.
Read the post above for a sensible responce.
		
Click to expand...

I completed a degree in environmental science 15 years ago in my spare time for giggles. Thatâ€™s what has helped formed my opinion.  Do you have a degree in google?


----------



## Hitdaball (Sep 29, 2019)

Swinglowandslow said:



			So, are they facts?  No one yet has said that StHelens did not spew out what is alleged
		
Click to expand...

No , they are not facts . Iâ€™ll take one. 

USGS suggests Mount St. Helens eruption was equivalent to 2.5hrs  of man made emissions. 

Mind what do those pesky â€œexpertsâ€ at the USGS know.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 29, 2019)

Hitdaball said:



			I completed a degree in environmental science 15 years ago in my spare time for giggles. Thatâ€™s what has helped formed my opinion.  Do you have a degree in google?
		
Click to expand...

Your degree didnt take away your ability to be a sarcastic [Mod Edit] You use the typical socialist methodology of personal attack in place of debate as its a lazier way of scoring points.

I explained my reason for posting the list of scientests but you prefer to ignore that and persist in cheap insults.  I admire your accedemic achievement and do inderstand it takes more than an affinity with giggles to achieve, I have degrees in Enginerring and Business Management although I declined a fellowship in the Chartered Institute of Flat Earth Fanatics as I didnt like the Uniform or Dancing.


----------



## Hitdaball (Sep 29, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			Your degree didnt take away your ability to be a sarcastic [Mod Edit] You use the typical socialist methodology of personal attack in place of debate as its a lazier way of scoring points.

I explained my reason for posting the list of scientests but you prefer to ignore that and persist in cheap insults.  I admire your accedemic achievement and do inderstand it takes more than an affinity with giggles to achieve, I have degrees in Enginerring and Business Management although I declined a fellowship in the Chartered Institute of Flat Earth Fanatics as I didnt like the Uniform or Dancing.
		
Click to expand...

I did post some information  to deride the nonsense and point out the pointlessness of your list . Nonsense can be dangerous in the wrong hands.

Given your MO in forum posts I didnâ€™t expect you to spit the dummy so soon but I often misjudge, from my corbinista bunker here in Cuba itâ€™s hard to get a clear view. ðŸ‘ðŸ»


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 29, 2019)

Fade and Die said:



			I hardly think itâ€™s comparable, a degree in Engineering is a world class degree that has real use in Aeronautical and automotive industries. A part time Environmental sciences degree is the degree of choice for Baristas. (Or geography teachers in the local comp)
		
Click to expand...

You really should read posts before you reply and try to make yourself look clever!

He said â€œI completed a degree in environmental science 15 years ago in my spare timeâ€ why not ask him what he was doing the rest of the time instead of claiming he has a â€œpart time Environmental sciences degreeâ€

Itâ€™s laughable you try and demean another personâ€™s degree of any sort.


----------



## Hitdaball (Sep 29, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			You really should read posts before you reply and try to make yourself look clever!

He said â€œI completed a degree in environmental science 15 years ago in my spare timeâ€ why not ask him what he was doing the rest of the time instead of claiming he has a â€œpart time Environmental sciences degreeâ€

Itâ€™s laughable you try and demean another personâ€™s degree of any sort.
		
Click to expand...

ðŸ¤£ðŸ˜‚ðŸ¤£ðŸ˜‚ðŸ¤£ðŸ˜‚

Oh for shame @Fade and Die looks like someone copied your post before you deleted it to save yourself embarrassment.  

Iâ€™m sure @SocketRocket doesnâ€™t need you to play too trumps with our qualifications, he seems pretty capable of fighting his own battles.  You should probably utilise that time doing some reading up on Climate Change instead ðŸ˜œ

Jog on mate ðŸ˜‚


----------



## Fade and Die (Sep 29, 2019)

Hitdaball said:



			ðŸ¤£ðŸ˜‚ðŸ¤£ðŸ˜‚ðŸ¤£ðŸ˜‚

Oh for shame @Fade and Die looks like someone copied your post before you deleted it to save yourself embarrassment. 

Iâ€™m sure @SocketRocket doesnâ€™t need you to play too trumps with our qualifications, he seems pretty capable of fighting his own battles.  You should probably utilise that time doing some reading up on Climate Change instead ðŸ˜œ

Jog on mate ðŸ˜‚
		
Click to expand...


I sent a message to Paul that said

I have deleted my post after reading fraggers mum has just died. I do think an environmental degree is pretty worthless but I do not want to get in a slanging match at this time.

I stand by this.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 29, 2019)

Hitdaball said:



			I did post some information  to deride the nonsense and point out the pointlessness of your list . Nonsense can be dangerous in the wrong hands.

Given your MO in forum posts I didnâ€™t expect you to spit the dummy so soon but I often misjudge, from my corbinista bunker here in Cuba itâ€™s hard to get a clear view. ðŸ‘ðŸ»
		
Click to expand...

If you deride the views of the accedemics I posted then explain why they are wrong.  It may portray you more as someone enlightened in the subject rather than assinous.


----------



## Hitdaball (Sep 29, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			If you deride the views of the accedemics I posted then explain why they are wrong.  It may portray you more as someone enlightened in the subject rather than assinous.
		
Click to expand...


The point is that the overwhelming concensus amongst the scientific community is that climate change is being hugely influenced by man made CO2 emissions.  We donâ€™t need to seriously debate why a few outliers are different  any more than we would need to debate the few people who claim the world is flat.

But.

Letâ€™s accept the possibility that the consensus is wrong - the precautionary principle would still mean we should act in such a way as to discount that possibility. ðŸ˜†


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 29, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			I am making the point that going to google and picking out a list that supports your preferred view is not a way to argue your case when its possible to do the same and produce a contrary view.  Thats why I did it, hopefully showing how shallow an arguement that is.
Read the post above for a sensible responce.
		
Click to expand...

So is google not a great method of research? Someone asked for proof that itâ€™s not myth and I produced scientific proof from fully qualified scientists- why is it shallow or any less valid because itâ€™s come from google ? 

Would it be more valid if I went to a library and found the publication and then copied it ?


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 29, 2019)

If 97% of scientific papers state that human creation of CO2 is significantly impacting global warming, I'm inclined to agree that humans are causing the problem. And if humans are not only the main cause for the increase in CO2, and the obvious reason for the reduction on CO2 sinks, i.e. the removal of forests, I'm very much inclined to believe that humans are causing global warming. And if the trend graph climbs in-line with industrialisation there is a fairly obvious conclusion.

And if someone wants to believe 3% of the academics instead of 97% of the academics, you've got to look at them with a bit of scepticism.


----------



## Twire (Sep 29, 2019)

Fella's, please debate without getting personal.

To many threads are being ruined by petty, personal, point scoring comments. If it carrys on I'll lock the thread and issue infractions.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 29, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			If 97% of scientific papers state that human creation of CO2 is significantly impacting global warming, I'm inclined to agree that humans are causing the problem. And if humans are not only the main cause for the increase in CO2, and the obvious reason for the reduction on CO2 sinks, i.e. the removal of forests, I'm very much inclined to believe that humans are causing global warming. And if the trend graph climbs in-line with industrialisation there is a fairly obvious conclusion.

And if someone wants to believe 3% of the academics instead of 97% of the academics, you've got to look at them with a bit of scepticism.
		
Click to expand...

I am not suggesting those Scientests supporting human activities being a major influence on climate change are wrong, my post was to portray that cutting and pasting a list of supporters is not the best way to promote this  belief. Its possible to trawl the internet and find articles to support almost any theory, I did it myself.  A poster gave his views on Climate change and why he disagreed with the belief that most of it is caused by human activity, I guess he is entitled to his opinion.  If someone wants to disagree then surely the correct way is to disprove those views rather than using sarcasm and suggesting anyone with such views are stupid.


----------



## bobmac (Sep 29, 2019)

How about we try and suggest ways of fixing the problem that the vast majority of experts IN THIS FIELD agree is happening.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 29, 2019)

bobmac said:



			How about we try and suggest ways of fixing the problem that the vast majority of experts IN THIS FIELD agree is happening.
		
Click to expand...

The real problem is that Homo Sapiens have overpopulated the planet and are destroying its ecco systems.  Population is still increasing at unsustainable levels.

Does anyone here have ideas on how we fix that as unless its fixed anything else is just fiddling with symptoms.


----------



## bobmac (Sep 29, 2019)

So we either reduce the population or we use clean, cheap energy that doesn't pollute the environment.


----------



## USER1999 (Sep 29, 2019)

It's not just energy though, is it. It's burning forest to cultivate beef, it's bunging plastics in the ocean, it's unplugging oil wells in Africa to liberate a bucket of oil, and flooding acres with it when you don't turn it off, it's littering in general, it's an attitude of stuff you mate, I am ok.

It is a selfish world out there.


----------



## bobmac (Sep 29, 2019)

murphthemog said:



			It's not just energy though, is it. It's burning forest to cultivate beef, it's bunging plastics in the ocean, it's unplugging oil wells in Africa to liberate a bucket of oil, and flooding acres with it when you don't turn it off, it's littering in general, it's an attitude of stuff you mate, I am ok.

It is a selfish world out there.
		
Click to expand...

I agree, but we've all got to breath and it's a good place to start.
Maybe the religious evangelists could use some of their spare millions to help finance initiatives to clean up the planet. Maybe they could even lift the ban on contraception which would help with population growth, especially in some of the developing countries.


----------



## Fade and Die (Sep 29, 2019)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Whenever anything related to environmental issues comes up, there are always those that are so forceful with there views and what you should be doing just as there used to be those so forthright in their religious views.
But now it seems there are (thankfully) fewer religious preachers, but they seem to be outnumbered by the environmental preachers.
Is this something you find?
		
Click to expand...


To bring this back to the original post by Bunker Magnet and his question
â€œ Has environmental evangelism replaced the religious envagelism?â€œ

I think this thread has given us a resounding answer, YES! they are just another fundamentalist, as intolerant of other peopleâ€™s views as anyone from The Finsbury Park Mosque or The Westboro Baptist Church!ðŸ˜‚


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 29, 2019)

bobmac said:



			So we either reduce the population or we use clean, cheap energy that doesn't pollute the environment.
		
Click to expand...

Energy is a scarce resorce, most of the earths population dont have much access to it. What about when more of these people want more energy by either moving to wealthier countries or developing it in their current ones, will renewables be able to cope with the demand?


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Sep 29, 2019)

Perhaps we should all be thinking more about water..........


----------



## bobmac (Sep 29, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			Energy is a scarce resorce, most of the earths population dont have much access to it. What about when more of these people want more energy by either moving to wealthier countries or developing it in their current ones, will renewables be able to cope with the demand?
		
Click to expand...

Renewable energy is what it says on the tin.......renewable.

Oil and gas will run out between 50 and 60 years time so we have no choice.
Renewable won't
Renewable is the cheapest, cleanest source of power available today and will only get cheaper as more wind and solar come online.
Granted the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow but battery technology is improving all the time which means we store the power for use when the sun doesn't shine

https://constructionreviewonline.com/2018/08/ghana-to-construct-largest-solar-farm/


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 29, 2019)

bobmac said:



			Renewable energy is what it says on the tin.......renewable.

Oil and gas will run out between 50 and 60 years time so we have no choice.
Renewable won't
Renewable is the cheapest, cleanest source of power available today and will only get cheaper as more wind and solar come online.
Granted the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow but battery technology is improving all the time which means we store the power for use when the sun doesn't shine
		
Click to expand...

We should be looking at the Oceans and Seas as well, using tidal forces to produce energy.
Itâ€™s an area thatâ€™s on the up and is proving successful in trials.


----------



## Hitdaball (Sep 29, 2019)

Fade and Die said:



			To bring this back to the original post by Bunker Magnet and his question
â€œ Has environmental evangelism replaced the religious envagelism?â€œ

I think this thread has given us a resounding answer, YES! they are just another fundamentalist, as intolerant of other peopleâ€™s views as anyone from The Finsbury Park Mosque or The Westboro Baptist Church!ðŸ˜‚
		
Click to expand...

What a crock of crap.

You have posted nonsense data that isnâ€™t true, ignored it when this is pointed out, ignored everything Phil posted , derided environmental science as a subject, derided me studying it individually and then worst of all slagged of geography teachers of all people. ( that cuts deep I loved my old geography teacherðŸ˜†)


----------



## Hitdaball (Sep 29, 2019)

bobmac said:



			Renewable energy is what it says on the tin.......renewable.

Oil and gas will run out between 50 and 60 years time so we have no choice.
Renewable won't
Renewable is the cheapest, cleanest source of power available today and will only get cheaper as more wind and solar come online.
Granted the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow but battery technology is improving all the time which means we store the power for use when the sun doesn't shine
		
Click to expand...

We need to consume less energy by making equipment more efficient and using it less.  

Oil probably has 50 years as you say but the longer we rely on it as the supply contracts the more chance for conflict.  Oil is needed to build most of the things we currently need for renewables and should be targeted towards that. 

We need a less centralised grid infrastructure able to utilise smaller scale feed in renewable sources closer to the demand and we need storage for that at a more local level. We also unfortunately need nuclear to avoid large scale social issues as the depletion of fossil fuels starts to bite. 

Whether we have the time to do any of this properly without large scale conflict and societal collapse in the coming decades is  debateable, espcially in the current political climate.  Itâ€™s entirely possible that energy wars will see us off way before the worst affects of climate change are felt. 

Water scarcity is a similar issue if you look around the world at potential conflicts to come, made worse by continued climate change.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Sep 29, 2019)

Hitdaball said:



			Water scarcity is a similar issue if you look around the world at potential conflicts to come, made worse by continued climate change.
		
Click to expand...

This perhaps is where the arguement about global warming gets lost. I have no doubt about climate change, but to hammer the point about CO2 (when our own Government has demonised a lower CO2 outputting engine over the higher one) is where it loses its focus to me. The main point should be the global reduction in drinking water, and how that can be avoided. 
If your lead arguement is something so far away from our own existance  it's going to be  harder to get everyone to buy into it. Tell everyone that in so many years, our water supply will be this low level and how all those lovely golf courses we play on will be just brown dead grass and you might get more people to buy into it, how every summer will be drought conditions, perhaps how half of Spain will be like the African deserts then you might get more to buy into it.
Ultimately the same base points and changes need to be made, but its what you focus the minds on that matters.


----------



## Fade and Die (Sep 29, 2019)

Hitdaball said:



			What a crock of crap.

You have posted nonsense data that isnâ€™t true, ignored it when this is pointed out, ignored everything Phil posted , derided environmental science as a subject, derided me studying it individually and then worst of all slagged of geography teachers of all people. ( that cuts deep I loved my old geography teacherðŸ˜†)
		
Click to expand...

Donâ€™t be a hater brother...I just donâ€™t believe in the stuff you believe in.ðŸ‘


----------



## USER1999 (Sep 29, 2019)

Where is the water going to go? It rains, it soaks into the ground, ends up in rivers, goes back to the sea, evaporates, it rains.
Or, it rains, goes into reservoirs, gets drunk, peed into drains, filtered, to rivers, etc.
Water is pretty indestructible. It is out there. The same amount there always was.
May be the human race needs to look at ways of shipping it around, but it is a renewable resource, possibly the easiest one.


----------



## Hitdaball (Sep 29, 2019)

Resource use ,  climate change and population growth are all linked but yes itâ€™s not an easy sell as this thread proves.  

@Foxholer posted a link elsewhere in the forum to a good film he part funded, for which we should all be grateful, which looked at the population growth side but also touched on resource depletion - itâ€™s called Critical Mass on Amazon prime. Worth 90mins of most peopleâ€™s time.


----------



## Hitdaball (Sep 29, 2019)

Fade and Die said:



			Donâ€™t be a hater brother...I just donâ€™t believe in the stuff you believe in.ðŸ‘
		
Click to expand...

I donâ€™t hate you at all, I have some pity tbh.   

Itâ€™s not belief, itâ€™s science. I pity that you see science as belief and would equate a defence of scientific knowledge on a similar level to a defence of religion.


----------



## Hitdaball (Sep 29, 2019)

murphthemog said:



			Where is the water going to go? It rains, it soaks into the ground, ends up in rivers, goes back to the sea, evaporates, it rains.
Or, it rains, goes into reservoirs, gets drunk, peed into drains, filtered, to rivers, etc.
Water is pretty indestructible. It is out there. The same amount there always was.
May be the human race needs to look at ways of shipping it around, but it is a renewable resource, possibly the easiest one.
		
Click to expand...

This is true but there is a finite amount which at any one time will be in one of various states in the system.   Plenty of major rivers no longer make it to the sea in Asia, USA and Africa from overuse.  

Yes there is the same as ever but we are using more , and for more people.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 29, 2019)

Bunkermagnet said:



			This perhaps is where the arguement about global warming gets lost. I have no doubt about climate change, but to hammer the point about CO2 (when our own Government has demonised a lower CO2 outputting engine over the higher one) is where it loses its focus to me. The main point should be the global reduction in drinking water, and how that can be avoided.
If your lead arguement is something so far away from our own existance  it's going to be  harder to get everyone to buy into it. Tell everyone that in so many years, our water supply will be this low level and how all those lovely golf courses we play on will be just brown dead grass and you might get more people to buy into it, how every summer will be drought conditions, perhaps how half of Spain will be like the African deserts then you might get more to buy into it.
Ultimately the same base points and changes need to be made, but its what you focus the minds on that matters.
		
Click to expand...

Surely the answer is desalination plants, we already have the technology at a lower level to produce drinking water.
I donâ€™t think people take the future of water shortages seriously enough to invest in large scale production.


----------



## Hitdaball (Sep 29, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Surely the answer is desalination plants, we already have the technology at a lower level to produce drinking water.
I donâ€™t think people take the future of water shortages seriously enough to invest in large scale production.
		
Click to expand...

Desalination plants use an awful lot of energy from memory.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 29, 2019)

Hitdaball said:



			Desalination plants use an awful lot of energy from memory.
		
Click to expand...

Currently yes, but they are also investigating using the same location(tides/wind etc) to provide the power thatâ€™s needed.
They are already in use around the Middle East, Israel is one of the top users for producing a fair share of its own drinking water.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 29, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Surely the answer is desalination plants, we already have the technology at a lower level to produce drinking water.
I donâ€™t think people take the future of water shortages seriously enough to invest in large scale production.
		
Click to expand...

What water shortage? Here in south east Spain we live on the edge of Europe's only desert. Again, what water shortage? Said for effect of course. We rarely have a water shortage, don't remember one, even allowing for the massive irrigation used in agriculture. But there's a huge desalination plant just up the coast from us.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 29, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			What water shortage? Here in south east Spain we live on the edge of Europe's only desert. Again, what water shortage? Said for effect of course. We rarely have a water shortage, don't remember one, even allowing for the massive irrigation used in agriculture. But there's a huge desalination plant just up the coast from us.
		
Click to expand...

The conversation was more about the future Bri and what we could do to avert water shortages from happening.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 29, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			The conversation was more about the future Bri and what we could do to avert water shortages from happening.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe that's the future in some areas. My point was that what is someone else's future already is a reality here.


----------



## USER1999 (Sep 29, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			Maybe that's the future in some areas. My point was that what is someone else's future already is a reality here.
		
Click to expand...

But then you have the sunshine to power the desal plant. That said, maybe soon, we all will.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 29, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			Maybe that's the future in some areas. My point was that what is someone else's future already is a reality here.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed, thatâ€™s why I mentioned Israel.
The issue in the future might be enough desalination plants to supply areas that may suffer.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 29, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Agreed, thatâ€™s why I mentioned Israel.
The issue in the future might be enough desalination plants to supply areas that may suffer.
		
Click to expand...

LT touched on something earlier in the thread. In some cases the need drives the political will to make something happen.


----------



## Hitdaball (Sep 29, 2019)

It looks like some think large nuclear desalination plants are the answer. Iâ€™d prefer to see smaller scale solar, unless the economies of scale are very significant. 

Decentralise as much of this stuff as we can to make it more resilient.


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Sep 29, 2019)

bobmac said:



			So we either reduce the population or we use clean, cheap energy that doesn't pollute the environment.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think there is an "or". It's an inconvenient truth that there are too many people on this planet for all, or most , to live a comfortable life.
And those areas where life is comfortable at present will come under threat from the other areas.
Not a nice prospect, but , I fear, a realistic one.
I think of Lincoln''s words
" As our case is new, we must think anew. We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country (planet.)"


----------

