State of the Planet

mudsticks

Über Member
I'm not denying climate change, almost no scientist is, as it is a fact that the climate changes. However i'm skeptical amongst a lot of scientist and other critical voices that it is caused or sped up by human and in addition that co2 is an important ingredient in this mix. A car or boat exhaust has far more damaging output for example. I also hate the way this discussion is being catties out, you and others brand me 'as someone who denies climate change' while that is'nt true, the world is'nt all black and white so i'm not fully on the side of the climate hoaxers neither on the side of the deniers.
How much Extra CO2 are you talking about then? Because partucally that number seems to vary a lot also it is in important fuel for plants, i would say the gasses that only cause damage to humans and plants are far more dangerous.

Totally agree with that but that is an different discussion,

which technology or technologies are you talking about?

So you're linking something measureable like we have 10 liters of gas but we've have used up 5 liters already to climate change, interesting can you explain how you link these two?


As long as China is allowed to be seen as ''emerging market'' or something like that and can set his autograph under a climate deal with no actions expected from them at all those things are not gonna help a thing. That's why Trump and Canada pulled from it, it is a bad deal. As it allows China to join to feel good boat with minimal efforts as one of the biggest sources.




It is very expensive to own something like a farm or with a large garden, but if you have or can have a reasonable plot of land to grow vegetables on it takes work and effort but is possible to be self-subtainable. If you eat meat it's more complicated because i believe you not allowed to slaughter animals yourself but i'm not to informed about the exact rules on this matter.

It has never stopped happening, yet we do exactly what you tell is bad, because the leading thesis seem to be ''Whatever IPCC related scientist say is right'' While you say here it is hard to predict so in other words like most science we don't know yet. Is'nt it very dangerous then to accept one model as the absolute reality? And discard any others or divide it in a black and white camp like ''climate deniers or climate hoaxers''?
I'm not labelling anyone as anything,
But I do get exasperated with people who argue on about the fact that what we are doing has no effect, or that we don't need to change, or that why should we do anything cos those people over there are worse.

It's easy to blame China, and I'm not saying they're not culpable.

But so are we, their economy has gone through a massive boom lately partly based on our demand for cheap goods.
Which we love.

But we're not interested in the hidden costs to people and planet that lie behind it all.

Like many others I feel what I'm doing is a tiny drop in the ocean.
But an ocean is ultimately made up of tiny drops.
Believe me I've gone through periods of thinking "What is the point of all this hard work, pushing an unpopular stone up a hill.. Why don't I just sack it all off, I could earn more money doing less work."

But what we do here, has inspired others to give it a go.

And I'm not suggesting everyone should go 'back to the land' or whatever, but I know a good few who would like to.

As you say - land is expensive.. I'm still paying the mortgage on it

One thing I'm helping to campaign on is better access to land - especially closer to cities, for people who would like to make a living from growing fresh food for their communities.

Lord knows we're going to need it soon.
Can't keep importing food for ever, and it could create jobs, and give people access to decent diets.

Government - or at least their civil servants are making some positive noises about this - we shall see.

All this would be good, with or without CC looming.

Ultimately we can only do so much, but looking for what we can do, rather than negging, or indulging in lazy cynicism.

((which is just laziness, made to sound clever))
is at least a nicer way to live a life... And who knows it might help a bit.
 
Last edited:

mudsticks

Über Member
[QUOTE 5502849, member: 9609"]Yes badgers will prey on hedgehogs but the slight increase in badger numbers has very little to do with the collapse of the hedgehog population. There would have been vast amounts of both a century or two ago.

Hedgehog numbers have collapsed due to herbicides and pesticides that has both poisoned them directly and decimated their natural food supply, and then there is the loss of habitat due to intensive farming (of course loss of good habitat gives them less cover from badgers, but badgers are not the problem)[/QUOTE]

Yes agree, habitat loss, and toxins are far worse than badgers for hedgehog depredations.
But badgers don't help.

We have tonnes of habitat, and don't use any toxins.
But still.. No hedgehogs.
 

mudsticks

Über Member
I know depressing isn't it. :sad:

And only just now i was reading about a study carried out by Exxon scientists in the 1970's

They predicted themselves, that burning fossil fuels would cause catastrophic climate change.

But also realised that the knowledge would hit their profits massively.

So spent the next couple of decades sowing the seeds of doubt, and rubbishing the idea.

All for short term profit.

Always follow the money to find the root cause of these things
 

Johnno260

Über Member
Location
East Sussex
I know depressing isn't it. :sad:

And only just now i was reading about a study carried out by Exxon scientists in the 1970's

They predicted themselves, that burning fossil fuels would cause catastrophic climate change.
I saw a documentary about this, it was disgraceful, they poured a ton of money and research into this and knew the damage it would cause.

And then like you said denied it for decades to protect profit margins.
 

mudsticks

Über Member
I saw a documentary about this, it was disgraceful, they poured a ton of money and research into this and knew the damage it would cause.

And then like you said denied it for decades to protect profit margins.
yes - and in a way for us to say that Governments should take action is kind of missing the point too.

Its big business, and their powerful paid lobbyists who drive government decisions.

I've seen this loads, just in the small amount of involvement I've had in trying to get more ecologically, and socially benign food production recognised.

The agri-business lobby - which of course in many ways is tied up with the fossil fuel industry has massive power of persuasion - they can pay very clever full time lobbyists to make out that business as usual is Ok - when it demonstrably isn't - and to silence any dissenting view - sometimes in very underhand ways.

Same with Big Pharma , Global conglomerates such as Unilever , Ama3on and so on.
And we keep voting for more of the same stuff with our hard earned £££

i'm no conspiracy theorists - there is no conspiracy - its just a massive profit first driven behemoth - which is incredibly difficult to resist .

They've got everything nicely stitched up, in their own best interests -
People and planet??

Nah - not interested - just a bit of greenwashing or corporate responsibility around the edges if they are forced to .
Its all about shareholder profits.
 
Last edited:

dutchguylivingintheuk

Well-Known Member
So, in summary, it is exactly as I said: you don't really know very much and you don't want to know any more. So I won't waste any more of my time.
You don't know what i know have read/seen/whatever so please don't try to predict what i know or might not know. What i was saying that we have a difference of opinion and that i already seen those 197 arguments come by earlier along with the reasons why they are true, blantant lies or disputed. But you're right don't waste you're time because i won't be wasting my time with you on this matter either. You put yourself on a stand claiming to know it all i invited you to explain but you refuse, so then there is no room for discussion, defacto proving my earlier points but leaving open the reasoning behind it.
 

dutchguylivingintheuk

Well-Known Member
In the meantime, Zurich international Airport switches off/disables/incidents all his webcams because otherwise we might notice all the guys coming on a polluting private plane to the ''World Economic Forum'' Saving the planet is only cool if you haven't have to downgrade yourself to flying an commercial flight off course.
 
Last edited:

FishFright

More wheels than sense
In the meantime, Zurich international Airport switches off/disables/incidents all his webcams because otherwise we might notice all the guys coming on a polluting private plane to the ''World Economic Forum'' Saving the planet is only cool if you haven't have to downgrade yourself to flying an commercial flight off course.
That's standard security for WEF meetings.
 

dutchguylivingintheuk

Well-Known Member
Not as much fun as a conspiracy theory.
Still BS if large companies can make multi million $/£/€ decisions using a conference or video call why would you need to meetup to talk about the so called destruction of the planet? And even if surely there are a few high profile people who might need their own private plane, but more then enough other could use something like carpooling but then with planes with other high security needing guys, whats wrong with that?
 

Rusty Nails

We remember
Location
Here and there
Still BS if large companies can make multi million $/£/€ decisions using a conference or video call why would you need to meetup to talk about the so called destruction of the planet? And even if surely there are a few high profile people who might need their own private plane, but more then enough other could use something like carpooling but then with planes with other high security needing guys, whats wrong with that?
Nothing wrong with the principles you espouse, but the decision to shut off webcams appears to be on security reasons, not out of any embarrassment at flying so many politicians.
 

raleighnut

Guru
Location
On 3 Wheels
Still BS if large companies can make multi million $/£/€ decisions using a conference or video call why would you need to meetup to talk about the so called destruction of the planet? And even if surely there are a few high profile people who might need their own private plane, but more then enough other could use something like carpooling but then with planes with other high security needing guys, whats wrong with that?
It's hard to slip 'brown envelopes' to a pal by teleconferencing though.
 
Location
Reading
Personally I reckon we'll start geo-engineering the climate if and when things really start getting bad. I've given up hope that governments will take enough action fast enough to stop dangerous climate change any other way.
 

dutchguylivingintheuk

Well-Known Member
Personally I reckon we'll start geo-engineering the climate if and when things really start getting bad. I've given up hope that governments will take enough action fast enough to stop dangerous climate change any other way.
If they are not prepared to save the climate and start a video call instead of polluting airplanes or at the very least carpool wit airplanes, what can you realistically expect?
 
Top Bottom