ToBeFrank123 wrote: » . At the same time, we don't burn down rainforest to rear our cattle.
baaba maal wrote: » I don't get this point of view at all to be honest- she is a kid that started taking action, realised it was gaining traction and has followed through on the issues as a teenage activist. She isn't preventing anyone else from quietly (or loudly) playing their part as well. Iwould say that both approaches are necessary. And for the love of everything holy, please don't quote Clarkson as somebody whose opinion should be valued on this subject at all!!
hetuzozaho wrote: » Presumably we got rid of it all at some stage for all our cattle? There was someone on the radio about how we in Europe removed massive forests for farming (centuries ago?) and are now looking at others and saying, how dare you! I must read up on it myself. If anyone has any links would be an interesting read.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » Like him or loathe him, he at least cuts through the PC bullsh*t and snowflakery. I don't agree with him on much but he made some good points on this. If you think the Chinese or Russians give a damn about what a 16 year old girl thinks you are naïve. They just laugh at people like that.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » So we should just carry on as is because Russia and China? If we changed our ways China wouldn't have as many people to sell their rubbish to would they?
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » Clarkson made the point her boat was expensively manufactured carbon fibre with a backup diesel engine. Hardly the greenest. In fact, it would have been far greener of her to fly by airplane.
KyussB wrote: » Rapidly solving these low-hanging-fruit problems allows worldwide mass-production of this tech, for a rapid transfer of all economies to renewable energy.
You know this though, as it's been said so many times already - and you only go on about Star-Trek level tech, because your argument is rhetorical - aiming to make R&D seem impractical.
The sheer breadth of R&D that can be done, across all areas of our economy, is staggering - absolutely enormous, there is no lack of useful research to do - but the private sector is limited to doing research on a for-profit basis, which means it simply can not scale - we need government funded R&D, to scale it up several orders of magnitude.
The principle problem is this: The private sector can never scale to the level of effort that governments can, simply because governments have whole-economy-scale spending power, that nobody in the private sector will ever have - that's why you need governments to undertake projects/missions, that are of unusually large scale, like this.
It's just something the private sector is completely incapable of doing in a timely manner - simply down to the way our economies are built, and the constraints on the private sector.
In the meantime, there is still a metric shitload of work to do even while developing new tech - such as retrofitting every single building out there, to maximize energy efficiency - massive expansions of public transport infrastructure - retrofitting energy infrastructure to support the adaptation of renewable energy storage/generation - etc..
There is completely no lack of useful work to be done - the scale of available useful work, is enormous.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Right but she did it raise awareness, which she managed to do very successfully. As someone previously said, air travel has gone down 4% in Sweden because of the Greta effect. So regardless of how the boat was made, she's already made quite a difference.
Pa ElGrande wrote: » You did not contest why the explanations they gave were wrong so I must conclude they are correct in their assessment or you either did not read those links or failed to comprehend what they said and you instead resorted to attacking the messengers. For background Richard Tol agrees with the AGW hypothesis and was involved with previous IPCC reports, however he fell out of favour when he disagreed with the many unsupported claims of the climate alarmists and asked for his name to be removed from the IPCC reports. [noparse] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8lCWDeoWzo [/noparse] If you are a scientist or even economist who wishes to disagree with the IPCC reports, you will pay a high price professionally and you will be targeted by university administrations, lawfare plus will be smeared by activist organisations like Greenpeace, SKS and desmog blog. Understandably scientists and economists are human and have families to care for, they have seen the intimidation tactics visited on those individuals who dare to disagree and have wisely decided to keep their heads down. In the long term of course the facts prevail and the scares will just be added to decades of climate scares. As an example Dr. Tim Ball was a retired Canadian who was targeted 3 times with strategic lawsuits against public participation. In the process he and his wife lost their entire life savings contesting these. He was lucky that a wealthy sponsor who was also a scientist came to his aid, it took several years but they prevailed and won defending against Dr. Micheal Mann of the discredited hockeystick fame. Defending against these lawfare cases cost over $1 million. A current case in Australia involves Dr. Peter Ridd, which has cost Mr. Ridd and his wife AU$200,000 of their life savings and their ordeal is not over as James Cook University is appealing with the intention knowing that Dr. Ridd does not have the resources to continue this fight without huge personal sacrifice.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » Knowing the Swedes, they are very responsive to this kind of thing and eager to do their bit. They are almost unique in that regard. Most other countries are not like that. Look at all the social media influencers in this country. They fly out to sunnier climes 10 times a year and post photos of themselves somewhere fancy. If a couple of them made a conscious decision to cut back on that, it might make a difference. A 4% drop in air travel is not got going to make a significant difference.
baaba maal wrote: » I didn't say the Chinese or Russians would listen to her- and that isn't who she is speaking to. She cannot be expected to reach seven billion people to be fair. I think people (not necessarily you) are deliberately conflating her trying to bring focus to the problem, with her somehow becoming personally responsible for fixing the problem. And if you are suggesting Clarkson is worth listening to on this, you might highlight all the things he is doing to fix the problem- oh wait, he is the guy that is paid to drive around in gas guzzlers telling us how great V12 engines are. So no, Clarkson isn't making any good points on this because he is effectively a spokesman for the automotive and fossil fuel lobby.
Tony EH wrote: » Colour me unsurprised that that ginger cunt would want to get in on the clickbait frenzy. :rolleyes:
Tony EH wrote: » Clarkson may say the funny ha ha thing to appeal to people who like his faux straight talk, but he has no real place in this discussion.
Veritas Libertas wrote: » These are not low hanging fruit problems. Take for example energy storage. Which is absolutely a necessary part of the GND. If you knew anything about basic physics(energy density) you would know batteries currently hold 1/100 the energy density of gas per kilogram. You would need to improve batteries by about 100x times. What does this mean? We'll probably never have battery powered flight. Batteries continue to produce a lot of carbon emissions, continue to have short life(large amounts of waste) Well now you know that the tech you've proposed isn't 'low hanging fruit' either. Why not specifically point me to some R&D that is only moments away... The Iphone was developed in the US. Do you think North Korea would ever develop an IPhone? Even given it thousands of years, do you think it would ever happen? This is you just saying words without meaning. The private sector is responsible for pretty much every single great advancement.. ever. Sure you can point to the manhattan project, but that was feasible because fission had already been discovered. What technology(Akin to fission) will enable better batteries????? Isn't Greta saying tipping point will be reached in 12 years? All pie in the sky dreams. If you or the GND have a solution... you need to outline it. Or else we're back to replicators and transporters. What useful work can be done specifically? That's what I'm asking you to outline.
KyussB wrote: » . . . . Dr. Ball is the one who began suing other people . . . .
Thelonious Monk wrote: » ToBeFrank123 wrote: » Clarkson made the point her boat was expensively manufactured carbon fibre with a backup diesel engine. Hardly the greenest. In fact, it would have been far greener of her to fly by airplane. Right but she did it raise awareness, which she managed to do very successfully. As someone previously said, air travel has gone down 4% in Sweden because of the Greta effect. So regardless of how the boat was made, she's already made quite a difference.
SafeSurfer wrote: » How do you know air travel decreased by 4% because of the Greta effect? It’s statements like this that make people sceptical.
Deleted User wrote: » That's unsubstantiated nonsense. It has gone down because of a govt tax brought in in April 2018.
Veritas Libertas wrote: » Thank god we have you around so we all know who to listen to and who is a cvnt.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/04/stayontheground-swedes-turn-to-trains-amid-climate-flight-shame ok so 3% in 2018 but I read somewhere else it was 4% so far this year, this is domestic, still a good achievement
randd1 wrote: » So they replaced planes with trains. Fair play. But which one is heavier and requires more fuel again? In terms of fuel economy per passenger, a plane is actually better, not by much, but better.
The much-discussed concept of flygskam, meaning 'shame linked to flying', was touted as one possible reason for the change, but 2018 also saw an exceptionally weak krona and a weeks-long record heatwave, two further factors encouraging Swedish residents to stay at home for the summer.
Pa ElGrande wrote: » I won't quote all you have said and what you have written is from an alternate reality. For those of you who want you can listen to Dr. Ball speak here and outline what both he and his wife have gone through. [noparse] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUKXa1pldD8 [/noparse] For your information I've been following the climate scam for over a decade you are wrong if you think I've not been reading the literature or watching these videos.
gozunda wrote: » You surprise me Gretas 'message' • Civilisation is going to end in 10 years, 3 months and 90 days. • Adults have personally destroyed my childhood and future • How dare you! BS indeed. You deliberatly ignore that greta is certainly not deferring to the scientists and instead is coming up with her own bs doomsday message / scenarios and speeches on how her childhood / future has been ruined by 'adults' yada yada. And It's because people have placed the teenager on a pedestal of their own making and refuse to allow any criticism. Truely a case of the emperors new clothes. I reckon it's certainly not going to end well and I'm not talking about climate change ...
Tony EH wrote: » Clarkson may say the funny ha ha thing to appeal to people who like his faux straight talk, but he has no real place in this discussion. It's like asking Oscar the Grouch from Sesame Street to give his opinion municipal waste collection. You know what he's going to say before he even thinks it and there will be absolutely zero nuance to any of his points.
weldoninhio wrote: » So, sorta the same as expecting a sixteen year old with Aspergers to be the voice of a scientific phenomena she has no clue about??
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a2f3ae3bc561a654d087af4d67ea885a.svg)
