Forum menu
I have been DNA tested. One side of my family were early arrivals here ( not immediately after the ice age but pretty early we believe). the other side the jonny come lately angles, saxons and gauls ie invasive species taking over our land.
Ah but some of us came here shortly after the ice age. All you Anglo Saxons and Normans are jonny come latelys ie invasive species.
Pre which ice age? there have been a few.
So all the archaeological evidence points towards multiple homosapien colonisations of the UK with extinctions of homo sapiens (and other hominids) in-between when it became uninhabitable...
Not all that different to equines originating in the Americas, spreading to Eurasia, evolving to step ponies and being reintroduced to the Americas.. so really saying homosapiens didn't evolve in Europe is incorrect just as say Nepalese or Peruvian homosapiens have evolved a different mechanism to low oxygen (that is completely different to Kenyan and Ethiopian high altitude evolution) .. hence why grey squirrels are not such a big deal in the vast scheme of things...
Like many other things like preserving ancient heaths .. that were man made is really just picking a time.
Just for the record I've nothing against red squirrels or heaths... but they are both just a time and place.
Ernielynch
Yup. The question is how damaging are they to the ecosystem where they are nonnative. Grey squirrels certainly are and if rabbits pose a similar threat I would want a switch for them.
and here is the problem, you give a **** about your pet ecosystems... ecosystems are just what they are.. parts of them evolve and keep up, others don't be they introduced by man or not.
Red squirrels are dying because of squirrel pox virus that the grey squirrels have evolved to be unaffected.
It's inconsequential because it's just the continued evolution of squirrels as they diverge from their common ancestor just as millions of other species have before.
You are suggesting that it is difficult to know where to draw the line between plants scrambling to shade each other out and the melting of the polar caps, collapse of the Gulf Stream, etc. as if they are all perfectly normal natural phenomenons.
Do you know what the definition of an ice age is? .. it's having ice on the poles all year, its not "normal" in geologic time, it's what defines an ice age. That's not saying we aren't accelerating it but one way or another we are either going back into an ice age or a return to the higher temperatures and unless WE evolve then we will go the way of the red squirrels
Crosshair
Surely constructing things out of oil that was locked away in the ground is actually more sustainable than cutting down wood to build thing
Green tech needs to allow people to consume as much or even more with less emissions. As I say- nuclear power and almost infinite free electricity would be a good starting point.
The problem here is people who went to uni to do micky mouse environmental degrees... they have their own definitions of sustainable that mean **** everything else. They are the love children of the anti-nuclear tree huggers who caused the whole mess and continue to make it worse and the populist politicians.
The problem here is people who went to uni to do micky mouse environmental degrees… they have their own definitions of sustainable that mean **** everything else. They are the love children of the anti-nuclear tree huggers who caused the whole mess and continue to make it worse and the populist politicians.
Who died and made you the arbiter of degree quality?
What's your credentials?
I love the idea that those of us who have been fighting climate change are to blame for climate change.
The problem here is people who went to uni to do micky mouse environmental degrees… they have their own definitions of sustainable that mean **** everything else. They are the love children of the anti-nuclear tree huggers who caused the whole mess and continue to make it worse and the populist politicians.
It sounds like a yoghurt knitter stole your lunch money. Try and chill out. Hugging a tree might help.
It’s all just so depressing and dull and grey and negative and pessimistic and regressive 😴 👴🏻
Whereas the possibilities of imaging a future of energy super abundance are endless. Desalination plants, massive pumps and pipe networks to redistribute water around the country to restock over-exploited aquifers and rivers.
Heated greenhouses to grow currently imported food on your doorstep.
Slashed construction and transport costs allowing innovation and inspiration to flourish rather than corner cutting and penny pinching.
It really interested me to find out that BMW Motorrad sold 200,000 motorbikes in 2022.
By contrast, Royal Enfield in India produced over a million and sold 766,000!!!
A few crusty haired European bed wetters depriving themselves of holidays and possessions really is irrelevant to most global corporations.
So much to think about.
I seem to remember that pollution in some cities (Athens springs to mind) got so bad that drivers could only go out on certain days, according to their registration plate.
Nobody likes being told what to do and when to do it, but very soon we will have this thrust upon us.
Humans in the West have wasted food, bought unnecessary tat, chosen not to look after the wild, thrown litter and just taken the easy life for too long.
As for red and grey squirrels, yes the greys need culling, they are preventing 'new forests' from growing, they eat the bark and the young tree ends up dying. They spread disease amongst the reds. Other species eg American mink and crayfish do untold damage to our ecosystems. This all impacts the environment.
Crossfire - it's great that you are seeing all this fabulous bird and wildlife on your patch, sadly it's in decline on the moors and wild places that I know well (been visiting for over 50 years).
It really interested me to find out that BMW Motorrad sold 200,000 motorbikes in 2022.
By contrast, Royal Enfield in India produced over a million and sold 766,000!!!
What are you drawing attention to here- overproduction by RE therefore waste of resources, if so, what is the BMW relevance. Just not sure if I've missed a point you're making.
I guess it’s just lag in registrations (I just googled both figures separately).
Just highlighting how insignificant we are really.
Considering it’s people who were largely on the Remain side of the argument where they were happy to belittle us as a nation- there are astonishing delusions of grandeur when it comes to their purchasing power.
Right - I am now sorry I defended crosshair - his satements have become more outrageous and offensive and slid straight to right wing memes. The mask has slipped
"Remain belittling our nation"
"bedwetters"
Lost all credibility
🤣🤣 Thank god for that.
It’s true though- on one hand we’re (apparently) parochial little Englanders with all the influence of a gnat.
On the other, by depriving ourselves of a steak or a package holiday- we have the purchasing power to move mountains (like those Yellowstone wolves 🤣🤣).
Behave.
For every one of you depriving yourselves there’s 100,000 Chinese or Indian’s with cash for the first time ready to take your place.
Whereas the possibilities of imaging a future of energy...
...it ain't fossil fuels. Even if we don't move to renewable sources, they're going to run out eventually. Not ****ing up the planet and technological advancement aren't mutually exclusive...in fact, them fire-rocks and dino-juice is about as old as "modern" technology gets. I really don't understand your stance, it's all over the place. Is it "welp, looks like we're ****ed: in for a penny..."?
For every one of you depriving yourselves there’s 100,000 Chinese or Indian’s with cash for the first time ready to take your place.
Sooo, we do nothing? Oddly defeatist position for someone claiming not to be a bedwetter.
Most people would say we should do nothing and I can see why. If the UK government put limits of things people can do and have (which they really need to do if any impact is to be seen on climate change) pretty much everyone in the country would be opposed to them and a good question is why are we screwing up our own lives when nobody else is.
The majority of the biggest impacting countries all need to be doing similar things to get everybody to accept them and to actually make a difference. We have seen how governments and countries work together though haven't we...
I never said do nothing- I said any changes need to come from the manufacturers.
With 100 new coal fired power stations set to be built in China- you're gonna need to don a rabbit skin thong and head to the woods with a spear in order to offset those bad boys and their influence on almost anything you buy (or don't buy and someone else buys instead).
I almost admire the naivety of it all (thinking you're more influential than you are)- it would be quite charming if team Armageddon weren't so condescending about people who have retained some logic and common sense.
The point I was actually making is that it’s nobody’s right in a free and equal society to tell another person that their consumption is the problem if you haven’t 100% eliminated your own.
@crosshair, you don't understand how society works.
If someone is caught drink driving, am I allowed to condemn them, even though I drove after half a glass of wine the other night?
Well, yes, because we have set a crude drink driving law that takes away people's freedom in order to safeguard society at large. I was well under it.
Living in a society means living by a set of rules that limit our personal freedoms so we don't harm others, and these laws tend to be crude because setting them to be completely fair for everyone isn't practical. Some people could drink 5 units of alcohol and drive as well as me after 0.5 units -- does that mean we should have never implemented drink driving laws because they are unfair?
In the case of ecological impacts the issue is more complex still, because offender and victim aren't directly linked. But the answer is in theory the same -- we have to do something, and that will involve tradeoffs.
I use drink driving as an example, as watching drivers of the 60s, before laws come in, is fascinating. There is the same liberty and unfairness arguments that you get today about sustainablilty and consumptions debates.
you don’t understand how society works.
Not everybody agrees that it should work the same way, not even within one country
Quite some gap between communist and right wing libertarian
The only way that analogy would be accurate would be if our streets were still filled with Chinese drink-drivers in speeding articulated lorries but the UK government was stopping me from having a sip of shandy before riding so much as a bicycle let alone driving a car.
The algorithm must be monitoring my threads as this popped up just now and I have to say- the background of this thread makes it even more hilarious 🤣 (And I hated Brand in his original incarnation)
"It's not MY VW Camper, it's my WIFE'S VW Camper" 🤣
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">I never said do nothing- I said any changes need to come from the manufacturers.</span>
For it to come from the manufacturer, the government needs to legislate, for the government to legislate they need public support. Manufacturers concentrate on profit and shareholders, not environmental concerns.
I almost admire the naivety of it all (thinking you’re more influential than you are)- it would be quite charming if team Armageddon weren’t so condescending about people who have retained some logic and common sense.
For political and manufacturing change to happen, individual change needs to be implemented first to drive it. Yes one individual has very little power, but millions of individuals do.
Unfortunately this is where our downfall ultimately lies, democratic society is too slow to put the changes in place that we need.
The EU seemed quite capable of implementing restrictive policies without any democratic consent 🤷🏻♂️
The EU seemed quite capable of implementing restrictive policies without any democratic consent
Apart from it being a democratic body?
The only way that analogy would be accurate would be if our streets were still filled with Chinese drink-drivers in speeding articulated lorries but the UK government was stopping me from having a sip of shandy before riding so much as a bicycle let alone driving a car.
Nope, your saying it's OK to drink and drive in the UK because the Chinese drink and drive in China.
The only way that analogy would be accurate would be if our streets were still filled with Chinese drink-drivers in speeding articulated lorries but the UK government was stopping me from having a sip of shandy before riding so much as a bicycle let alone driving a car.
The carbon footprint per person in China is the same as the UK, so I don't really understand your reponse at all sorry
@klunk No because they sell their products here.
If we stopped all imports then you’d be right.
Apart from it being a democratic body?
Where they have one person elections for senior positions and policy questions are altered at the last minute so the MEP’s accidentally press the “yes” button when they should now need to press the “no” button?
Sounds great 🎉
Not everybody agrees that it should work the same way, not even within one country
Quite some gap between communist and right wing libertarian
True, but our society is neither, we amble through everything and come up with some kind of comprimise that aims to balance individual freedom and harm
At first, the former tends to win out as we don't understand the harms
The carbon footprint per person in China is the same as the UK, so I don’t really understand your reponse at all sorry
The drink driving law analogy fails because we still import “dirty” produce from elsewhere.
So restrictive policies that only harm our own industries are counterproductive. Especially as shipping ain’t exactly green is it 🤣
Sounds great 🎉
That's the system, not the body.
Criticism of the system is good, because that's how things are changed.
@crosshair, you've actually nicely sidestepped my main point, which was that your argument...
The point I was actually making is that it’s nobody’s right in a free and equal society to tell another person that their consumption is the problem if you haven’t 100% eliminated your own.
...doesn't make any sense given how society works.
True, but our society is neither, we amble through everything and come up with some kind of comprimise that aims to balance individual freedom and harm
At first, the former tends to win out as we don’t understand the harms
And that is the problem. To deal with climate change we need to move the balance away from individual freedom and people clearly don't like that and won't support it. Well they won't until the climate is impacting their freedoms more than the government in which case it will then be "why aren't the government sorting this out for me"
It does make sense in the context of this thread. And it clearly made sense to John Kerry as he had to make his wife sell 'her' private jet to retain credibility.
"Knit me an essay from nettle-fronds in your roe deer skinned yurt and deliver it on foot and I'll listen to what you have to say about how I should turn my heating down. Otherwise do one you hypocritical turd 👋🏻" is basically the gist.
The climate change religion is now so strong that people only see what they want to see- which is usually telling people to stop doing things they personally are guilty about.
Who died and made you the arbiter of degree quality?
It's pretty simple, any degree claiming to be a science should be a science.
@kerley, that's why I linked the drink driving video. People were outraged that the drink driving laws were taking away their freedoms, only a few decades ago
@crosshair, ah, OK, I think I understand your argument now
I just kind of wish you'd cut to the point without all the esoteric mental gymnastics -- but prob my fault for engaging
It’s pretty simple, any degree claiming to be a science should be a science.
Explain further for those not as clever as you.
TJagain
I love the idea that those of us who have been fighting climate change are to blame for climate change.
It's not fighting climate change that has caused the crisis it's the rest of the stuff that gets tagged on.
Most people don't give a flying **** about the numbers of skylarks, red squirrels or whales any more than any other obscure remote subject - it's simply not on their radar and trying to connect the two is doing no good for perception and whilst we have lying organisations like Greenpeace full of grubby people its more negative than good.
Disclaimer ... I actually do care and I'm grubby... but at this juncture, faced with an existential threat all that goes into the "nice to have box".
Greenpeace are STILL anti-nuclear... faced with a climate crisis they just continue spreading the lies and drivel.
The German green party is opening coal mines and coal powered stations .. in the last years we have to mitigate the climate crisis... because they are anti-nuclear and they realised renewables don't work alone...
I'm left with a limited number of interconnected explanations...
Greenpeace/Green Party do not BELIEVE in anthropomorphic climate change?
They think it's more important not to use nuclear and if millions die that is a good thing?
They are so used to lying they don't know any other way?
They think they can get their other agenda's pushed forwards using a proven scientific fact as to how it is going to kill millions and think they can latch on and if a few million of the worlds excess population die it's worth it.
or combinations of the above ???
Anyway, the other issue is populist government exploiting this apathy and ignorance leaving the electorate thinking that they are helping the existential threat by doing stuff that is "green" or "eco".
I've mentioned before the concrete and steel tower blocks ... that aren't needed and after all concerned made money they stuck in a green wall and called them carbon negative.
When Joe Bloggs buys his "eco" shampoo driving to the supermarket just round the corner in his "eco" car he's been convinced he's fighting climate change.
At the other end we in the west exploit this by outbidding developing nations on CLEANER energy... when we import LPG for example it puts up LPG prices in India for 1.5 BILLION people many of whom will then burn wood and dung to cook.
This completely undermines the Indian governments attempts to reduce their carbon emissions and brings us full circle in that as a developed nation we shouldn't be using gas power stations in 2023 because we should have a nuclear base load but thanks to fear mongering by the environmentalists we don't.
It won't be the climate change that'll get us, it'll be the war(s) over water and arable land that'll do it.
Anyway, that's a bit depressing, so I'll leave this here to cheer us up.
Explain further for those not as clever as you.
It's nothing to do with being clever or not...
In science you follow a scientific method, you don't get to make stuff up and manipulate results or extrapolate them to meet an agenda.
There is a simple example in this thread .. on skylarks. If you have an agenda to measure the skylark population you don't get to extrapolate their moving their nesting from location 1 to "skylarks have decreased in the UK".
In the same way you can't extrapolate red squirrels being replaced by grey squirrels as "devastating the entire ecosystem" without proving how grey squirrels are not filling the same niche and affecting "the entire ecosystem".
Nor can you then claim without any proof that grey squirrels or skylark nests are CAUSING climate change.
IHN
It won’t be the climate change that’ll get us, it’ll be the war(s) over water and arable land that’ll do it.
It might not affect us in the same way as places that become completely unliveable but it will still affect us badly.
However: The a great deal of the history of Europe for the last 3000+ yrs can be put into a context of Westward migrations from climate change at the fringes of the Gobi... and desperate peoples displacing others at least in terms of major changes
The drink driving law analogy fails because we still import “dirty” produce from elsewhere.
So restrictive policies that only harm our own industries are counterproductive. Especially as shipping ain’t exactly green is it 🤣
Which is why the EU is pushing to implement the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) which will place a tax on products from high carbon intensity production to level the playing field with production from areas that have moved to low carbon industry
Over a third of all shipping emissions is just moving fossil fuels around
It’s nothing to do with being clever or not…
In science you follow a scientific method, you don’t get to make stuff up and manipulate results or extrapolate them to meet an agenda.
@stevextc - you're just ranting. I want to see evidence to support your attack on the Mickey Mouse environmental degrees. What methodology did you use? Can you show your working? Was it peer reviewed? And of course we'll need verifiable evidence not just shit you made up.
. If you have an agenda to measure the skylark population you don’t get to extrapolate their moving their nesting from location 1 to “skylarks have decreased in the UK”.
Who is doing that?
when we import LPG for example it puts up LPG prices in India for 1.5 BILLION people many of whom will then burn wood and dung to cook.
Renewable and carbon neutral dung and wood versus CO2 and methane emitting LPG - the higher the LPG price for 1.5 BILLION people the better.
Renewables, stevextc, renewables and reducing consumption, anythjing else will exacerbate the mess we're in. More storms and landslides here in areas stable since the last ice age last night in places we'd cycled through hours before but kept moving. Those alertes on the phone sure are persistent.
The Met Office says summers will be 40C by 2060. The weather tomorrow, however, remains a mystery to them!
I wonder what’s the next latest distraction we will be told to support?
98% of climate scientists agree
They don’t. But even if they did, then so what – science is about finding the truth, it is not a popularity contest.
Meanwhile whilst we self-flagellate ourselves here in the West, the whole nations of China and India, all 3 billion of them, judging by the rate at which they are expanding their fossil fuel usage, do not seemingly agree that man-made CO2 is a problem.
As China and India fuel up their newest coal fired power stations giving them cheap, abundant and reliable energy, they must be laughing about how we are crippling our own economies and impoverishing ourselves here in the West with our deluded push to Net Zero. They must look on in utter disbelief as we hamstring ourselves with an obsessive guilt complex (bordering on a mental health problem) about issues relating to climate, race, gender, diversity, whether a woman can have a penis, whether a man can get pregnant, the sins of our grandfathers etc, etc.
That said, China and India seem perfectly happy to let us continue down our path of self-destruction. Perhaps that is because they are making so much money from us all, selling us billions of dollars of solar panels and EV’s and all of the other things they now manufacture for us as we sink further and further into debt.
They used to say that the greatest threat would come from Chinese military might. Surpassing that of the USA even. But you have to wonder why China would even need a military when their future enemies (us in the West) seem to have already lost their collective minds.
So what’s the solution then guys?
If you truly believe that man-made CO2 is the problem (I don’t by the way). But if you do, then you need to start putting severe pressure on China and India to mend their ways. All of you do now, as a matter of urgency. As you say, we only have a small window to act. Otherwise, without significant change of course in China and India, whatever else you do, however grand and fashionable, is simply akin to re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.
So instead of blocking roads in London, perhaps go and protest in China by blocking their roads? Perhaps instead of giving up home farmed beef, you should instead be boycotting all Chinese made products and goods from your life? Perhaps you should write to a Chinese MP to tell them how you feel? Perhaps go to China with your vegan cookbook and cook for them, so they realise how wrong they are about their diet and how tasty, delicious and healthy not eating meat could be. Perhaps instead of supporting a ULEZ scheme that taxes UK residents, pressure our MP’s to apply extra tariffs onto the Chinese for the privilege of importing their goods to us? Perhaps support a ban on our own Western car manufacturers from selling our luxury petrol powered cars into China and India past 2030? Perhaps you could make up a derogatory term for Chinese and Indian people to try and shame them into compliance, a bit like we did with the anti-vaxxers? I’m all ears to other ideas if anyone has any better suggestions?
But will any of you do any of this – or are you all just a bunch of moaning old Guardian reading, BBC licence fee paying, wet lettuces?
This thread has surely got the record for attracting the highest number of new members just to post on it. They already seem to know we are Guardian reading and BBC license fee paying. Guessing they think we believe Covid was real as well.
Go away aeronrides.
Well look who it is. Another green expert who does not agree with the agenda.
Greenpeace co-founder, Dr. Patrick Moore, on the genocidal consequences of Net Zero
Anyone remember conservationist David Bellamy, the English Botanist and TV presenter? Got cancelled by the BBC after outing the man made CO2 warming BS. How many more have they cancelled?
Again, all scientists agree of course, provided you censor the ones who don't agree.
I mean, the largest investor in renewables is China, and by quite some margin but nevermind.
I mean, the largest investor in renewables is China, and by quite some margin but nevermind.
Ah but you are just believing what the Guardian, BBC, Bill Gates tells you.
Well, nothing I can do about it now Ive had that 5g chip injected (any idea how those things work btw, did they install a modem at birth, and whats the power supply? Coz otherwise surely its just some inert material ?)
Money spent on renewables is irrelevant if you have to build another 100 coal power stations to back them up.
The Spectator on point here I'd say:
We are living in an age of incredible environmental achievement. Things are good and getting better. Studies suggest UK carbon emissions are at their lowest since Victorian times and London’s air quality is purer now than under the Stuarts four hundred years ago. The average household now uses almost a third less energy than it did even 20 years ago. Energy from renewables will soon overtake that from fossil fuels.
We are learning to tread more lightly on the planet – thanks mainly to the forces of technology, innovation and consumer choice. This is driven by a desire of millions of people to lead a cleaner, greener lives.
But as we see all over Europe, these same people are unwilling to believe the more hyperbolic claims of politicians and pay large taxes for pointless schemes. The Tories may not yet be willing to drop May’s commitment to reach net zero by 2050. But any party which wants to win the next election is going to have to convince the public that green policies are not going to condemn them to a poorer future – and be prepared to relax cherished green policies where necessary.
I still remember groaning the day May waved that pledge through with barely a debate 🤦🏻♂️
I’ll just leave this here
BBC propaganda as usual. Aren't we lucky to be forced to pay to terrify ourselves with this tripe 🙄
I love how when criticising the accuracy of weather forecasts V climate change forecasts all I hear is "Climate isn't weather!!!" yet "weather*" is allowed to be a proxy for climate when it makes for scary imagery 🤔
*Arson and poor land management practices
BBC propaganda as usual. Aren’t we lucky to be forced to pay to terrify ourselves with this tripe
LOL after quoting the spectator.
Britain should not obsess about cutting its carbon emissions, Sir Tony Blair said yesterday.
In a break with Labour policy, the former prime minister suggested it was futile to make big sacrifices to drive down the UK's emissions when they are dwarfed by those from countries such as China.
Holy **** !! Other than admitting in his book that the Hunting Act was a mistake- that's the first sensible thing the man has said.
Hopefully you'll all be tweeting your cute memes at him to re-educate him 🤣
The Met Office says summers will be 40C by 2060. The weather tomorrow, however, remains a mystery to them!
Weather forecasting is predicting what numbers the dice will roll tomorrow.
Climate prediction is understanding how the dice are weighted and how that weighting will change with time - these are very different things
@piemonster beat me to it. I just think and do as instructed by the 5g chip implant. My life is so much easier without free-thought.
By the way, I think they're powered by the magnetic radiation from power lines 🤷🏼♂️ your modem question, however, brings back a 4th directive error in my core user system. YMMV
I'm not sure that the mods have time to read every post Daz but don't let that distract you from your cornflakes
Make me a mod and I’ll do it for them.
And what was that about China?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/29/china-wind-solar-power-global-renewable-energy-leader
Edukator
Renewable and carbon neutral dung and wood versus CO2 and methane emitting LPG – the higher the LPG price for 1.5 BILLION people the better.
Renewables, stevextc, renewables and reducing consumption, anythjing else will exacerbate the mess we’re in. More storms and landslides here in areas stable since the last ice age last night in places we’d cycled through hours before but kept moving. Those alertes on the phone sure are persistent.
Help me understand this... you want to increase the amount of CO2 released because "anythjing else will exacerbate the mess we’re in"
Do you deny anthropomorphic climate change ?
Do you think it has nothing to do with CO2 emissions ?
Do you just not care about climate change or think it's not that important compared to using something "organic" and if millions die that's fine?
Do you think the word "renewables" is magic along with anything labelled "eco" or "green"?
Are you unaware that dung and wood release more CO2 than LPG or do you just deny that dung and wood release more CO2 than LPG?
Burning wood efficiently results in 2.5 times higher CO2 than natural gas (used in a stove with smokestack) but gathering wood and just burning it loose to boil your drinking water is worse.
Are you unaware that dung and wood release more CO2 than LPG or do you just deny that dung and wood release more CO2 than LPG?
I think the point is how much carbon does wood and dung lock in during its lifetime versus how much is released when burnt. Is it about the same?
Can you say the same about LPG usage?
I think the point is how much carbon does wood and dung lock in during its lifetime versus how much is released when burnt. Is it about the same?
Can you say the same about LPG usage?
That's the quasi science approach again... you want to compare apples and oranges.
The amount of CO2 captured by dung or wood will be EXACTLY the same regardless of it it's burned or not.
Burning gas instead will not affect how much wood or dung is produced nor how much carbon it sequesters but it will reduce the CO2 released into the atmosphere significantly.
This is the same old arguments of "it's natural so it must be better so lets look elsewhere.
greentricky
Who is doing that?
It's in this thread a page or so previous.
Careful now, you’ll get banned for challenging the right of the trolls to use this place as a platform for their right-wing pro-oil companies campaign. Personally I reckon creating a new account to post conspiracy theory bollocks should be met with an instant ban and deletion of the posts but someone somewhere seems to disagree.
You were banned for abuse, Said troll was also dealt with, they’re a repeat offender.
People have the right to post conflicting arguments against a discussion, even if they are bat shit crazy claims. However, please discuss why not just hurl abuse. If we find evidence they only posted to troll they will be removed.
Lots of talk about China and India on here yet the USA is exponentially worse when it comes to carbon footprint per capita.
I have a couple of suggestions for you, Stevexctc. Read other people's posts more carefully and thoroughly before replying to them. Then reread your own replies equally carefully and thoroughly before hitting return.
You've clearly misread mine and I'm sure everyone else is reading your replies and shaking their heads at the same points as me so there's no need to elaborate.
My wood burner is fueled with wood from trimming/felling trees in my neighbours gardens. There are just as many trees growing in those gardens as twenty years ago - no change in stored carbon. The trees get trimmed/felled with an electric chain saw, split with a hydraulic splitter (collectively owned) and transported in a whell barrow. That's about as close to carbon neutral fuel as you'll get.
When the local electricty mix is 100% renewable even in mid Winter I'll use electricity, till then I believe reducing CO2 emisions is more important than improving local air quality. I need about 3800 kWh of heat in a typical Winter, that's as close to passive house standards as I can get with retro-fitting a 1930s house - though I've got some ideas based on creating and living in a super-insulated part of the house for the few really cold weeks in Winter.
This thread has surely got the record for attracting the highest number of new members just to post on it.
members is definitely the best description for sure. Anthropogenic climate change is real. What you believe has no bearing on that. So I’m just enjoying reading the uneducated shite being posted by some. It’s just like flat earth, Covid and (whispers it) organised religion. Some people just want to be part of a gang, even if it is a really, really crap one.
Citing David Bellamy is class too. He claimed 555 of the worlds 625 major glaciers were growing, not shrinking. The team who monitor them for a living gave the rather curt reply of “bullshit” Bellamy was a great botanist and full of energy and passion. Something went awry though. He didn’t even have any evidence to back up his ascertains. Just unfounded claims with nothing behind them. All rather sad really.
There needs to be some sort of specialist mental health programme set up for oil and gas workers in the coming years. As it begins to become obvious what they have been a part of the toll on their mental health will be enormous. I'm not talking about the CEOs and the Think tankers - but the average roughneck, fabricator etc.
ideally the O&G industry should fund it - but they are quite happy to burn everything down.
Perhaps something that should be part of the inevitable wider diversification programme for eg Aberdeen
If they’re anything like ex-miners then they won’t give a shit and will whine for 40 years about them closing down.
I was mtbing with oil and gas workers this morning. They know that they're no more responsible than any other person switching on their gas central heating, firing up their ICE car or flying half way around the world to ride an mtb, ski or get sunburnt. It's the people creating the demand that are the problem. If you drink, smoke dope or snort coke take your part of the responsibilty for the resulting social issues, crime and violence rather than blaming the government, the police, the drug cartels and dealers, social services... .
I met some New Zealanders having a holiday riding TdeF cols a couple of days ago. They'd flown half way around the world, rented a stinking old diesel van and were driving it around behind the riders on every circuit they did. I did a count in the car park at the top of the Soulor, about a quarter of the stinking cars/vans smoking out the cyclists were following cyclists - not a single EV seen on either col. I wouldn't fly to New Zealand to ride a bike, I understand the consequences.
So how much hotter is it now, compared to 10, 20, 30, 100, 200, 500 years ago?
Note the last line on that graph and now go look for a graph of this year's sea ice versus historic records - I saw one in the Guardian today. This year looks like breaking point in that respect.
Edit: found it: