Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
LOL  very good!! |
| |
|
|
quote: It may seem silly driving stuff around 1/2 the country but this is perhaps better than having 15 extra plants operating on a small and less efficient scale.
It is extremely silly, given that this was from the supplier to me - I have no idea how many miles it had done to get as far as the supplier. I don't think that everything needs to be produced locally, but it just seems daft for goods to be transported 400% further than they need to be. I chose the supplier because I knew they were local - I don't expect everything I need to be on my doorstep - that's just silly!
¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ buzz buzz buzz¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Geowizard:
this is actually the funniest thing abut the AGW argument, the ONLY possible solution at the moment is to kill around 5,000,000,000 people!
Who on the AGW side, advocates KILLING 5bn people? Or are you making the rather large assumption this involves some sort of genocide? Read James Lovelock he'll show the way. Cannot the "superior manifestation of life on earth" (thanks Roger58) sort out a real solution to the real problem of his over consumption spread out over say 100-150 years? Possibly involving tactical solutions such as nuclear energy to buy time whilst reversing the population trend. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay: quote: Originally posted by Geowizard:
this is actually the funniest thing abut the AGW argument, the ONLY possible solution at the moment is to kill around 5,000,000,000 people!
Who on the AGW side, advocates KILLING 5bn people? Or are you making the rather large assumption this involves some sort of genocide?
Well when you use terms like "destroying the planet" or "Save the planet" that implicitly implies that everyone one will die (c 6 Bn people) because of GW. Of course GeoWizard was just joking but all the environmentalists out there who use terminology like that are lying. Ask yourself which is worse? So just to clarify: Destroying the planet = massive asteroid collision. Saving the planet = diverting said asteroid. Making the planet a bit warmer & incoveniencing some people who live too close to the sea = global warming/climate change. Preventing the planet from getting a bit warmer = using energy efficient lightbulbs (but never mind the Mercury) etc... Bit of a difference huh? |
| |
|
|
I think you are all missing the point. One of the possible scenarios is that 5 billion people will die whatever we do. AGW aside, we are close reaching to point at which this planet cannot support this many people. We could use technology to help support further increases in population, but if we all want the achieve "western" standards of living, we are not moving nearly fast enough. If AGW proves to be a reality and we can't do anything to stop it or slow it down, it is not just increasing sea levels that will pose a problem. Increased drought at the tropics will increase demand for water, and cause mass migration on a scale we have never previously seen. This may result in civil unrest, war, famine, disease and the consequent deaths of possibly billions of people. To be a denier of AGW is all very well, but I think is a luxury that we cannot afford - to belive that it will all be OK is a risk we cannot afford to take. Therefore, anything we do now is better than nothing - and if it enables us to cut our heating and electricity bills and have more spare cash, I really can't see why everyone wouldn't want to do it, even if they don't believe in the ultimate aim.
¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ buzz buzz buzz¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lucibee:
I think you are all missing the point.
One of the possible scenarios is that 5 billion people will die whatever we do. ...
I have not heard this one before - where did this scenario come from and is there any evidence to back it up? |
| |
|
|
No, of course there's no evidence yet, it's a scenario, an hypothesis, a conjecture. Try reading on a bit...
¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ buzz buzz buzz¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸
|
| |
|
|
I think there is quite a lot of evidence that if everyone currently on the planet had the average standards of the UK, we'd need at least another 2 planet's worth of resources. If the population growth trend continues and we reach 10 billion by 2050, and if the majority have reached or expect those living standards, then I'd say quite a large proportion are going to be in trouble.
¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ buzz buzz buzz¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Mubbers: quote: Originally posted by Lucibee:
I think you are all missing the point.
One of the possible scenarios is that 5 billion people will die whatever we do. ...
I have not heard this one before - where did this scenario come from and is there any evidence to back it up?
Where have you been? Environmental commentators have been trying to get this message (in its various forms) across for decades. Every single Attenborough block buster series that I can remember contains these warnings. Jonathon Porritt has been banging on about sustainabiility for years. Its a supply and demand equation at the end of the day - a no brainer. Its interesting to me that the so called 'primitive' peoples of this world who lie close to the land understand this argument intuitively - they would not need evidence to support the blindlingly obvious. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay: quote: Originally posted by Mubbers: quote: Originally posted by Lucibee:
I think you are all missing the point.
One of the possible scenarios is that 5 billion people will die whatever we do. ...
I have not heard this one before - where did this scenario come from and is there any evidence to back it up?
Where have you been? Environmental commentators have been trying to get this message (in its various forms) across for decades. Every single Attenborough block buster series that I can remember contains these warnings. Jonathon Porritt has been banging on about sustainabiility for years. Its a supply and demand equation at the end of the day - a no brainer. Its interesting to me that the so called 'primitive' peoples of this world who lie close to the land understand this argument intuitively - they would not need evidence to support the blindlingly obvious.
Beware also some of the so called solutions to AGW such as wind farms and bio fuels. I read the other day - can't remember where - about a proposal to tear down rain forest to grow bio fuel crops. What utter madness - rip your lungs out to save your sweat glands! Another thought: If you don't think about your future you haven't got one !! |
| |
|
|
quote:
Beware also some of the so called solutions to AGW such as wind farms and bio fuels. I read the other day - can't remember where - about a proposal to tear down rain forest to grow bio fuel crops. What utter madness - rip your lungs out to save your sweat glands!
Another thought: If you don't think about your future you haven't got one !!
Yes you wonder if Carbon Offsets are actually just a ploy to whip up investment capital for Palm Oil plantations... :0 |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Mubbers: quote:
Beware also some of the so called solutions to AGW such as wind farms and bio fuels. I read the other day - can't remember where - about a proposal to tear down rain forest to grow bio fuel crops. What utter madness - rip your lungs out to save your sweat glands!
Another thought: If you don't think about your future you haven't got one !!
Yes you wonder if Carbon Offsets are actually just a ploy to whip up investment capital for Palm Oil plantations... :0
Nothing would surprise me but I genuinely think we are on the road to oblivion unless we act now, not just on climate change but on our whole approach to a sustainable future. Lucibee has already drawn attention to some of the pressures and the reaction to them (eg mass migration). Gordon Brown announced today he wants to build hundreds of thousands of new homes (on green field sites and flood plains I wonder). Very progressive that. Will we have any land left to grow our food in the not too distant future? Why not take an alternative approach and build exclusively on brown field sites and tax second (and third) homes out of existance? Whole communities in Devon and Cornwall might then regenerate !! |
| |
|
|
Just one little thing. We probably need those second homes if people owning them are letting them out to holiday-makers, and thus encouraging people to stay in the UK rather than fly abroad...
¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ buzz buzz buzz¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
...I genuinely think we are on the road to oblivion unless we act now...
Well your 'genuinely' thinking something Seskinreay, doesn't necessarily make it a fact... no matter how much you wish to believe it does. I suppose what you needed to let us know is that the emotionalism you INVEST in your thinking makes it difficult for you to separate out reality from your fantasy. When your sentence is put another way: "We must be on the road to oblivion, because I think it" - it reveals the vicious cycle you are in... and how you perpetuate this by seeking others to collude in it. It might be much closer to the mark (and far more of a self-help) if you could say: "I am on the road to oblivion, because I 'genuinely think' too much"... and move forward from that good starting point. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
Beware also some of the so called solutions to AGW such as wind farms and bio fuels. I read the other day - can't remember where - about a proposal to tear down rain forest to grow bio fuel crops. What utter madness - rip your lungs out to save your sweat glands!
It's already happened. Large parts of the Borneo rainforest have already gone mono. 
¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ buzz buzz buzz¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lucibee: quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
Beware also some of the so called solutions to AGW such as wind farms and bio fuels. I read the other day - can't remember where - about a proposal to tear down rain forest to grow bio fuel crops. What utter madness - rip your lungs out to save your sweat glands!
It's already happened. Large parts of the Borneo rainforest have already gone mono.
This is bad. The Borneo peat bogs have massive amounts of carbon. Indeed some estimates say that 1.7gig tonnes of carbon was released from the bogs in 1997. I can't rememeber now but I saw a comparison between the amount of carbon in the Amazon rainforest and the Borneo peat bogs and was surprised just how much carbon there was in Borneo.
God Bless Dave Rado!
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Roger58: quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
...I genuinely think we are on the road to oblivion unless we act now...
Well your 'genuinely' thinking something Seskinreay, doesn't necessarily make it a fact... no matter how much you wish to believe it does. I suppose what you needed to let us know is that the emotionalism you INVEST in your thinking makes it difficult for you to separate out reality from your fantasy. When your sentence is put another way: "We must be on the road to oblivion, because I think it" - it reveals the vicious cycle you are in... and how you perpetuate this by seeking others to collude in it. It might be much closer to the mark (and far more of a self-help) if you could say: "I am on the road to oblivion, because I 'genuinely think' too much"... and move forward from that good starting point.
Roger, you need help. I am expressing my view which may or not be fact. Its up to you to decide the merit or otherwise. I'm not dogmatic, unlike you appear to be, I've changed my opinion radically since joining this forum thanks to the reasoned argumemts of the people I initially opposed and the material they pointed to. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay: quote: Originally posted by Roger58: quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
...I genuinely think we are on the road to oblivion unless we act now...
Well your 'genuinely' thinking something Seskinreay, doesn't necessarily make it a fact... no matter how much you wish to believe it does.
Roger, you need help. I am expressing my view which may or not be fact. Its up to you to decide the merit or otherwise. I'm not dogmatic, unlike you appear to be, I've changed my opinion radically since joining this forum thanks to the reasoned argumemts of the people I initially opposed and the material they pointed to.
OK, well maybe you can help me. You now accept that your 'genuine' thought could be un-factual, and that it's possible we might not, after all, be 'on the road to oblivion unless we act now...'? As you may already know, roads to Oblivion - like roads to Paradise - are not particularly useful roads for a person to be on. Anyone travelling these roads may be so preoccupied with their 'genuine thoughts' that they fail to notice Oblivion and Paradise are, in fact, the same place! And all the wishing in the world for other people 'to act now' won't make the destination anything other than what its names suggest... Nothing. Better off taking the next exit and getting on with real life, I would have thought (but I'm just expressing a view, of course). |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Roger58:
OK, well maybe you can help me. You now accept that your 'genuine' thought could be un-factual, and that it's possible we might not, after all, be 'on the road to oblivion unless we act now...'?
As you may already know, roads to Oblivion - like roads to Paradise - are not particularly useful roads for a person to be on. Anyone travelling these roads may be so preoccupied with their 'genuine thoughts' that they fail to notice Oblivion and Paradise are, in fact, the same place! And all the wishing in the world for other people 'to act now' won't make the destination anything other than what its names suggest... Nothing.
Better off taking the next exit and getting on with real life, I would have thought (but I'm just expressing a view, of course).
Roger, no I can't help you - sorry (genuinely). |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
Roger, no I can't help you - sorry (genuinely).
No need to apologise Seskinreay. I'll accept you as help-less. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Roger58: quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
Roger, no I can't help you - sorry (genuinely).
No need to apologise Seskinreay. I'll accept you as help-less.
You are a one aren't you Rog? Can you strip wallpaper with your blistering wit and wisdom? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
You are a one aren't you Rog? Can you strip wallpaper with your blistering wit and wisdom?
Depends on how stuck it is.  |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Roger58:
| |
