Off Topic News & Current affairs

The only good thing is my old banger will soon be considered a “classic “

 

A very disrespectful way to talk about your dear lady wife.

 

They both need MOT’s !

 

Insult Britain are now using the tactics of terrorism.

They have ramped up their rhetoric to ridiculously shrill and hysterical heights, accusing the Government of Genocide and killing children.
That kind of talk is what terrorist leaders use to brainwash their followers and groom them to commit atrocities including suicide attacks.

How can these deluded idiots believe they can throw around such horrific accusations like confetti, effectively accusing our elected politicians of being as evil as the killers who run countries like Myanmar or North Korea, and then expect Boris Johnson to appease them by issuing the statement they want on insulating UK homes?

This - in its own way - is another manifestation of the extremist twisting of free speech that caused the attack on the Capitol Building in Washington DC. The language of all-out War or violent Revolution, where the destroyed lives of innocent people can be written off as collateral damage for the greater good.

Who the f**k do these pathetic people think they are?
Self-appointed saviours of Humanity, believing that anything they do is justified. How long will it be before they - or another "offshoot" of XR decide to actually begin murdering people in order to try to force the UK Government into banning plastic food packaging or stop work on HS2?

Sounds laughable. But the language that Insult Britain now uses has already reached that extremist point.
What else do you do with perpetrators of 'Genocide' or people who are 'killing our kids'?
You stop them, with (in your own twisted mind) justified violence and deadly force.

All the people - including well meaning folk like David Attenborough and the Prince of Wales - demanding "action now" to reverse the Climate emergency should perhaps consider the language that they are using.
Because they are breeding a class of fanatical followers who will stop at nothing including actual terrorism in support of the ecstatic fundamentalist vision of a saved planet and living in harmony with nature that they are selling.

 

The trouble is that "action now" is what is needed. The scientists told us the truth 50 years ago and nobody listened. There are memos available which show that the fossil fuel industry accepted their findings and decided to wage war on the scientific evidence any way they could. The Murdoch News Empire has been complicit in this, and if you are interested in finding out more about the whole history of the business I suggest The New Climate Wars by Michael Mann. It really is a fastidiously researched story of lies and deceit, and young people have every right to fear for their future. Our eco-warrior Prime Minister using a private jet, and telling kids not to recycle plastic isonly a small part of the problem. The modern protestors don't have the answers, but neither does anyone else.

 

I don't think you can read the phrase 'action now' from David Attenborough or the Prince of Wales as demanding any sort of violent protest. What they are clearly asking/begging for is a complete revision of the way we live, and not some sort of vague promise to cut emmisions by 25% by 2050 by starting to do so in 2049 and actually giving money designated to climate control to the fossil fuel companies. And maybe not allowing the water companies to allow sewage to be discharged into the water system.
Insulate Britain is another bag - while I agree 100% with their desire to see insulation improved to try and cut emmisions and waste, they are merely pissing people off and driving their potential allies to thinking that climate control is a realm inhabited by crazies and arseholes. I caught a member of the Green Party discussing that they are seeing a real upswing in voting intention among the youth, and feeling the best way to try and get something done would be by being elected. Obviously if they do this by snatching votes away from Labour, it will keep the conservatives nicely in control, and climate change will move swiftly nearer, but the fact that the message is reaching down is a good sign, The Insulate Britain types might pause to consider just what they are achieving with their protests - I don't see the conservatives being unduly influenced, though they may decide it would be a good idea to have even more draconian policing of protests.

 

Yes, agreed, action by governments is what Attenborough wants.

 

Attenborough and Prince Charles do not of course sling words like Genocide around, or speak of governments killing kids.
But disparaging remarks about just talking, or blah blah (as Greta calls it) give the impression that politics will never provide the answer.
Its a very short step from that, to saying that politicians - and democracy - are irrelevant, and the only way to achieve anything is direct action.

Is saving the planet more important than liberty?
Once enough people think it is, then the rest of us will be forced to travel the road to year zero.

 

As The Queen says, irritating when people talk but don't do.

 

But who exactly is willing to give up their modern way of life to go backwards 40 or 50 years ?

Certainly not the likes of Charlie, Attenborough, Greta or all the eco-activists etc etc who won't give up all their benefits from the modern world but implore everyone else to do so. It won't happen. It's called evolution I'm afraid. And as for direct action and ignoring the will of the majority there's also a word for that - it's called anarchy followed by dictatorship once the people who have the biggest weapons and use the most violence manage to triumph.

 

And as for "saving the planet" what exactly does that mean ? (Lardi, I know you're just using the phrase, not promoting it).

I don't understand what it means. There is no-one who understands enough about the earth, nature, evolution etc etc to say we are "killing the planet" and that we need to "save it".

Humans have been around for just a blink of an eyelid since the earth was formed and it has gone through far more major changes in the past before we came along. It will carry on in the same way after we have gone as well. It's not "our" planet and it's not our job to "save it". Democracy is the best system we have come up with so far and anyone who seeks to undermine it, by taking direct action to physically halt the free will of others should be dealt with fairly but very firmly.

 

The only viable means of returning the Earth to a state where human industry (including industrial farming) no longer affects the environment, is to return global technology to around where it was in about 1750 AD.
Before the invention of steam engines.
Also, things like gunpowder and large scale coal mining (and mining for metal ores) would have to go.

Agrarian subsistence culture on a Global scale.
No microchips, no internet. No new batteries. No new solar cells or windmills (except the old fashioned ones used for grinding wheat).
No hospitals, no modern surgery, no new medicines or vaccines.
No oil, no gas.
No charcoal burning or wood burning (massive carbon footprints).
Electricity from renewable sources for as long as the machinery lasts. A couple of generations maybe.
The same with communications. Maybe 50 years of radio, then folks will have to play their own instruments if they want some music.

Nothing but flowers...

 

But you have read what problems future generations face? How do you feel about that?
Is Attenborough wrong to say that if we don't act now it'll be too late? Serious questions.

 

Personally, I have some fears for them, but I really do not know how things will pan out if we don't make changes. I have far more fears for future generations if we try to hurtle backwards and remove all the advances we have made.

There are lies and exaggeration in everything and I don't trust either argument completely as I don't know enough about it personally.

What I do know, is that if we do as Greta, Charlie, DA and the eco-warriors want, and return to the sort of existence that Lardi mentions above, that will definitely lead to anarchy and the breakdown of our present civilisation. You cannot just undo 50/100/200 years of civil evolution and expect everything will be ok. Maybe it would stop the seas rising, maybe it would make the atmosphere less polluted, maybe it would make the earths resources last a bit longer, but what's the point of all that if society has broken down and law and order has failed ?

We can all do our bit to help and I am aghast at the wastefulness of our current model, but trying to turn the clock back is not the answer. And in any case I do not trust those advocating doing so. Many of them are motivated by greed and profit.

As one example that I do have personal knowledge of, heat pumps do not work and cannot replace boilers. And yet we are being told that we will be forced to use them and to give up our trusty boilers that do the job. When someone comes up with a way to replace boilers which is just as effective as keeping them, but is better for the environment, then they will gain support. But the technology doesn't exist at present and so we shouldn't rush to decay our way of living on a false promise, which just makes huge financial profits for those advocating the change.

 

Personally I find no fault in the simple scientific facts, firstly that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, methane much more so, and they are increasing, therefore warming the environment slowly but surely. This is where we diverge, since you and Lardy don't trust the scientific evidence. All I have to say is that we must hope there is a flaw in it somewhere, but I don't see it. There have been a few scientists who have challenged the data, but they all have links to the fossil fuel industry, and they have only produced bogus arguments to earn themselves a pretty penny. I don't expect anyone to take my word for it, but The New Climate Wars by Michael Mann is full of verifiable facts which should be of interest to anyone wanting to get at the truth.

 

I don’t think it’s so much a divergence or disagreement about the scientific facts, I believe it’s more to do with maybe a disagreement about the effects of trying to alter what we do. I agree that taking our world back 100/200 years in time would reduce our carbon emissions but I just think that the disadvantages of doing that (so eloquently outlined by Lardi) would make us worse off than if we didn’t do that. You would just be replacing one set of problems with another, (in my opinion), worse set of problems.

Those that advocate the changes need to be more honest about the effect of doing so. I’m waiting for Charlie, David or Greta to tell me how life will actually really be for ordinary people if they get their way. Not just the advantages but also be equally honest about the disadvantages. At that point I think people are then entitled to make up their own minds but I’m afraid that the vast, vast majority won’t want the changes. If the minority then try to force those changes upon the majority, surely that’s getting into very troubling territory isn’t it ?

 

The tragedy is that we needn't have got to this dilemma. The fossil fuel industry has admitted that the evidence is accurate in the 1950s, and fought it tooth and nail in the same way as the tobacco industry fought against the medical evidence. One J Fred Singer fought for both industries!

 

I think we are just evolutionarily bound to seek improvements for ourselves and our societies. And we have done that very successfully. Standards of living, medical science and care, the ability to produce food, life expectancy, providing shelter, warmth and safety in our homes, the list is almost endless. Why should we give all that up and go back 100/200 years ? To safeguard the future ? No one knows what may happen in the future (we may know some of it, but not everything) so why give up all the improvements we have made in the last couple of centuries ? It doesn’t make sense to do that, which is why I don’t think it will happen

That’s not to say we shouldn’t do our best and encourage things like wind, solar and the vastly under explored tidal methods of producing energy as eventually we will run out of fossil fuels anyway. Likewise cut out plastic packaging and waste where we can and innovate with things like LED bulbs instead of incandescent, but we shouldn’t undo all our progress, otherwise we will end up with even bigger problems. And I think this is where Charlie, DA, Greta, XR, IB and all go wrong. They just peddle an idealistic view without thinking through the consequences for ordinary people and unfortunately our government are starting to go along with some of what they say, instead of again being honest and pointing out what will happen if we go down that route.

 

I honestly haven't heard them say anything of the sort. I don't listen to Charlie, Greta says "Listen to the science", and Attenborough speaks purely as a naturalist, passing on his observations. XR and IB are counterproductive because they are going after the wrong people.
The whole discussion is about whether or not you accept the long-term forecasts of the effects of global warming. Put it this way, I have a radiator which doesn't work, so I've called a plumber, the car breaks down I take it to a mechanic, to find out about climate change I listen to climatologists. And I hope they are all wrong for the sake of my children and grandchildren.

 

Populations in the developed world consume too much.
And they (we) live off the cheap labour of people in the developing world.

Our children may adopt all these measures;

• Using only electricity around the home (no more gas consumption)
• Eating less meat or no meat, and less or no processed food
• Buying only locally produced food - not food grown thousands of miles away and imported.
• Not owning a car
• Not flying on holiday
• Cutting use of plastic down to an absolute minimum
• Not buying cheap, disposable, imported clothes
• Not buying disposable household electrical goods or electronic devices (smart phones etc)
• Not wasting water

All of which I have no problem with, as long as everybody adopts them. Not just those who are lowest on the social scale.

And if the next generation adopts these measures, about 90% of global trade will disappear.
There will be almost no exporting from developing countries to the developed world.
Almost no international tourism industry.
Scientific and medical advancement reduced to almost zero.

The effects on developing countries cannot be calculated.
Millions of people will have to earn a living within their domestic economy, rather than producing goods for export.
9 out of 10 of those employed in the logistics of global trade will have to find another job.

Once Russian oil is worthless and Chinese exports are reduced to a fraction of their current levels, will those Governments still be able to feed their people, let alone keep them employed?
What restraining force will then exist to prevent them launching military aggressions to secure more land where they can grow food?
Developing nations will have to suffer and suck it up. They'll have no choice.
But two global superpowers with starving populations are not going to just accept their fate for the sake of reversing global warming.