Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

weldoninhio wrote: »

Yes, all those ums, ahs, wells, ehs were masterful deflections. FFS.

Again, a 16 year old, advocating for action so as to maintain our climate with minimum human caused change for as long as possible.

That is her message. She has enticed over 10M people to protest in support of this message. It is a suggested supported by the majority of scientists worldwide.

Why do you have an issue with this?

weldoninhio

Tell me how wrote: »

Again, a 16 year old, advocating for action so as to maintain our climate with minimum human caused change for as long as possible.

That is her message. She has enticed over 10M people to protest in support of this message. It is a suggested supported by the majority of scientists worldwide.

Why do you have an issue with this?

Looks like the other few billion on the planet don’t give a fcuk. May as well just enjoy the days we have left, eh? And when the sky doesn’t fall down we can all laugh at the 10m suckered by a child puppet on a string.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/climate-heating-greenhouse-gases-hit-record-high-un-says-1.4094376

weldoninhio wrote: »

Looks like the other few billion on the planet don’t give a fcuk. May as well just enjoy the days we have left, eh? And when the sky doesn’t fall down we can all laugh at the 10m suckered by a child puppet on a string.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/climate-heating-greenhouse-gases-hit-record-high-un-says-1.4094376

You didn't answer the question from my last post.

Also, you post evidence here further showing that action is needed and yet you still think Greta is a 'child puppet'.

Why is that?

weldoninhio

Tell me how wrote: »

You didn't answer the question from my last post.

Also, you post evidence here further showing that action is needed and yet you still think Greta is a 'child puppet'.

Why is that?

I’ve no doubt whatsoever that the climate is changing. It’s the chicken little, the sky is falling act that I don’t believe. None of the previous catastrophe’s have happened, so forgive me for not building an ark this time around.

Professor Moriarty

Tell me how wrote: »

You didn't answer the question from my last post.

Also, you post evidence here further showing that action is needed and yet you still think Greta is a 'child puppet'.

Why is that?

I'd say you're wasting your time. Too afraid to deal with reality.

weldoninhio wrote: »

I’ve no doubt whatsoever that the climate is changing. It’s the chicken little, the sky is falling act that I don’t believe. None of the previous catastrophe’s have happened, so forgive me for not building an ark this time around.

Okay, 2 points;

1 - The evidence is there that the 'sky is falling'
more frequent extreme weather events that previously the case

As the world has warmed, that warming has triggered many other changes to the Earth’s climate. Changes in extreme weather and climate events, such as heat waves and droughts, are the primary way that most people experience climate change. Human-induced climate change has already increased the number and strength of some of these extreme events. Over the last 50 years, much of the U.S. has seen increases in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, heavy downpours, and in some regions, severe floods and droughts.

2 - Why wouldn't you (we) advocate for more sustainable use of our resources anyway?

Tuisceanch

weldoninhio wrote: »

It’s a discussion board buddy, don’t like being called out on your nonsense you can block me.

Read, understand and then give your considered opinion would constitute a discussion. Spouting inaccuracies without context as you did, devoid of substance is trolling. I don't need to block you as you might have something substantive to say which might be of interest and if not, well bud, who cares.

weldoninhio

Tell me how wrote: »

Okay, 2 points;

1 - The evidence is there that the 'sky is falling'
more frequent extreme weather events that previously the case

2 - Why wouldn't you (we) advocate for more sustainable use of our resources anyway?

Tax tax tax isn’t sustainable. I’m happy enough with gas central heating, cheap holidays in foreign countries, the ability to drive from a to b. Amongst other things. If the sky is falling, fcuk it, let’s go out with a bang.

weldoninhio wrote: »

Tax tax tax isn’t sustainable. I’m happy enough with gas central heating, cheap holidays in foreign countries, the ability to drive from a to b. Amongst other things. If the sky is falling, fcuk it, let’s go out with a bang.

Governments world wide have been shown to be slow to introduce tax and MR Trump has gone at full speed in the opposite direction in terms of trying to re-open coal mines so the argument that this is being driven by a desire to introduce tax is entirely false. But, tax will come, it has to unfortunately, because it is only then that real change will start to happen. See plastic bag tax for previous example.

Also, would you consider yourself selfish? Would you say that it is more important that you get to live without compromise even if it means your grandchildren will be affected as a consequence of this?

Thelonious Monk

weldoninhio wrote: »

I’ve no doubt whatsoever that the climate is changing. It’s the chicken little, the sky is falling act that I don’t believe. None of the previous catastrophe’s have happened, so forgive me for not building an ark this time around.

So you think the earth is finite and we can keep consuming as we are? That we are not polluting our oceans? That wildlife and insects aren't depleting like never before?
All this is a hoax?

Professor Moriarty

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

So you think the earth is finite and we can keep consuming as we are? That we are not polluting our oceans? That wildlife and insects aren't depleting like never before?
All this is a hoax?

No, I'd say he doesn't care.

Tuisceanch

Tuisceanch wrote: »

At the Q and A you are referring to she was deflecting attention away from herself to allow the other activists the opportunity to speak. If you had watched the whole session you would have observed that all the questions were being directed at her and that was unfair and disrespectful of both the other activists and the subject matter. She showed great maturity in handling the situation which it's a pity more people wouldn't emulate.

weldoninhio wrote: »

Yes, all those ums, ahs, wells, ehs were masterful deflections. FFS.

Well she didn't resort to going FFS, which would have been tempting,since she was only been asked the same question over and over again despite her polite insistence that her interrogators should give the other activists an opportunity to express their opinions. To you that's not evident, probably because you've not had that experience yourself.More to the point, since you obviously have no interest in what's she saying anyway, one would have to wonder why it bothers you so much what she does. I'm personally interested in learning more about the science of climate change and the socioeconomic impacts and there are some well qualified people on this and other forums whom I'm keen to learn from. You, obviously, have decided that you're not and come what may you may as well just enjoy yourself. I get that, but is posting for the sake of posting,without really engaging with the subject matter, really enjoying life to the full?

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

And if you'd care to read my posts properly you'd see that I've repeatedly said I haven't denied any of that. Have another read of what I said.

Now, did you find anything on why temperatures are not rising as quickly as the RCP4.5 projection consensus? I note you've conveniently ignored that bit.

I've never discussed the RCP4.5 so why would I answer that?

Tell me how wrote: »

Governments world wide have been shown to be slow to introduce tax and MR Trump has gone at full speed in the opposite direction in terms of trying to re-open coal mines so the argument that this is being driven by a desire to introduce tax is entirely false. But, tax will come, it has to unfortunately, because it is only then that real change will start to happen. See plastic bag tax for previous example.

An important distinction is that while taxes on 'bads' (plastic bags, carbon emissions, unrecycled materials) may increase - taxes overall can stay neutral and even decrease, in order to expand net government spending - so on the latter point, it isn't true that taxes need to increase.

This is one of the big things in the narrative, that those advocating action on climate change (even Sanders/AOC), are tripping up on: Climate change can't be tackled without a significant change in economic narrative, especially in terms of how government finances work.

KyussB wrote: »

An important distinction is that while taxes on 'bads' (plastic bags, carbon emissions, unrecycled materials) may increase - taxes overall can stay neutral and even decrease, in order to expand net government spending - so on the latter point, it isn't true that taxes need to increase.

This is one of the big things in the narrative, that those advocating action on climate change (even Sanders/AOC), are tripping up on: Climate change can't be tackled without a significant change in economic narrative, especially in terms of how government finances work.

I'm more coming from the place that in order to instil real change, there has to be a motivation to consider moving away from the status quo.

There are 2 options usually. Legislation to make an action illegal (smoking in the workplace) or taxation (plastic bag tax).

I suspect the latter will be utilised in a lot of cases (such as penalties for single use plastics) as it is less dictatorial than outright laws banning something.

Not to mention, society will look for funding support to consider alternatives and a reduction in use of fossil fuels (such as car fuel) will likely mean a reduction in government revenue intake.

Tell me how wrote: »

Governments world wide have been shown to be slow to introduce tax and MR Trump has gone at full speed in the opposite direction in terms of trying to re-open coal mines so the argument that this is being driven by a desire to introduce tax is entirely false. But, tax will come, it has to unfortunately, because it is only then that real change will start to happen. See plastic bag tax for previous example. Also, would you consider yourself selfish? Would you say that it is more important that you get to live without compromise even if it means your grandchildren will be affected as a consequence of this?

Forget Trump 'trying' to open coal mines. The way things are it looks like China is planning on 'capping' it's growth to building to just 2 large coal power stations a month for the next 12 years, which will grow the country’s capacity by an amount nearly twice the size of Europe’s total coal capacity.

Even "If this happens it could single-handedly end any chance of keeping global warming below 1.5C, and also conflicts with the 2C target, with even a conservative analysis of the goal requiring that China cut its coal capacity by roughly 200GW by 2030."

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/03/28/china-new-coal-plants-2030-climate/

And still western governments are ramping up to tax the crap out of people here because hey why turn down the chance to push a bit more tax eh! Pity it's not going to make any difference to the global reality of continuing greenhouse gas emissions from places like China ...

And if being serious about personal responsibility and not being 'selfish' / reducing your greenhouse gas emissions - then you might need to forgoe some of those grandkids for the sake of the planet.

gozunda wrote: »

And still western governments are ramping up to tax the crap out of people here because hey why turn down the chance to push a bit more tax eh! Pity it's not going to make any difference to the global reality of continuing greenhouse gas emissions from places like China ...

Except this is not happening outside of the narrative by those trying to find something to claim about Greta's message.

You might remember FG being called out for not introducing a carbon tax in 2018 budget.

Tell me how wrote: »

Except this is not happening outside of the narrative by those trying to find something to claim about Greta's message. You might remember FG being called out for not introducing a carbon tax in 2018 budget.

Oh but it is - and that is just the start of increases of carbon taxes in lots of new creative ways

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/tax/motor_carbon_other_taxes/carbon_tax.html

As for gretas 'message' that civilisation is going tits up in the next decade and the adults have ruined her childhood- I'll leave that where it belongs thanks.

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm more coming from the place that in order to instil real change, there has to be a motivation to consider moving away from the status quo.

There are 2 options usually. Legislation to make an action illegal (smoking in the workplace) or taxation (plastic bag tax).

I suspect the latter will be utilised in a lot of cases (such as penalties for single use plastics) as it is less dictatorial than outright laws banning something.

Not to mention, society will look for funding support to consider alternatives and a reduction in use of fossil fuels (such as car fuel) will likely mean a reduction in government revenue intake.

Problem is, those are too close to relying on market solutions

(though I get you, it is more than that, with government involvement - just still tilts towards that)

It's my view - and I hope it gets to be a more widely spread view, taken on by advocates for climate action in general - that there needs to be direct work put in by governments worldwide, in employing people to work on these problems, and in eating the capital cost of e.g. retrofitting peoples homes (done using labour/materials directly employed/manufactured by government), and that overall almost the entire task can only be done on a big enough scale by governments - and that we are unable to rely on tax-based-discincentives, as they just won't be effective.

There's no time left where incentives/disincentives can work fast enough - so it all has to be "get up and get it done, immediately" - and only governments are capable of that, now.

The key to it is, government tax intake - and money in general - isn't a limit to governments undertaking this, but the prevailing (and false) economic narrative everyone is fed, is that money is such a restriction.
Economically, it isn't a restriction. Government finances actually don't work that way. Only politically is it a restriction. Governments are completely capable managing the resources in an economy, to undertake this at the right scale - without money being an issue (only the availability of resources and labour restrict the level of acton the government can undertake - and the government can reallocate resources/labour away from private industry, as it needs to, to achieve the task).

[Deleted User]

a five year plan should be a good start eh :-D

KyussB wrote: »

Problem is, those are too close to relying on market solutions (though I get you, it is more than that, with government involvement - just still tilts towards that)It's my view - and I hope it gets to be a more widely spread view, taken on by advocates for climate action in general - that there needs to be direct work put in by governments worldwide, in employing people to work on these problems, and in eating the capital cost of e.g. retrofitting peoples homes (done using labour/materials directly employed/manufactured by government), and that overall almost the entire task can only be done on a big enough scale by governments - and that we are unable to rely on tax-based-discincentives, as they just won't be effective.There's no time left where incentives/disincentives can work fast enough - so it all has to be "get up and get it done, immediately" - and only governments are capable of that, now.The key to it is, government tax intake - and money in general - isn't a limit to governments undertaking this, but the prevailing (and false) economic narrative everyone is fed, is that money is such a restriction.

Economically, it isn't a restriction. Government finances actually don't work that way. Only politically is it a restriction. Governments are completely capable managing the resources in an economy, to undertake this at the right scale - without money being an issue (only the availability of resources and labour restrict the level of acton the government can undertake - and the government can reallocate resources/labour away from private industry, as it needs to, to achieve the task).

Yeah Cuba tried that - it worked real well too. Well no it didnt really. The government of Cuba owned and operated most industries and most of the labor force is still employed by the state. However the country needed massive subventions from the former USSR to keep it going and things are really only improving now with an ever increasing proportion of the population now participating in the private sector and operating their own businesses. That or emigrating.

http://theconversation.com/fidels-cuba-is-long-gone-120271

Gaoth Laidir

Tuisceanch wrote: »

So you admit you're wrong but not really, because you were only being ironic, and then admit subsequently that you you don't deny the evidence presented to you, that completely contradicts your position, but you still prefer your own opinion, even if it's not substantiated by your own sources. What sort of logic is that? How can you expect anybody to understand your position? Imagine if you wrote a scientific paper and presented your argument like that and submitted it for peer review and then told the reviewers that you'd rather discuss something else. Doubly baffling considering your umbrage with the media and their shoddy covering of the facts.

Am I really reading still reading this? Have my posts come out in Japanese or something? How difficult can it be? You've just made up some rambling analysis that resembles nothing I've said.

The IOD is a totally natural phenomenon. Nothing to do with humans. Any effects that ghgs have on its intensity, while possible, are still highly uncertain and have not been quantified, as stated by the Australian BOM in a link already posted. It is therefore incorrect for the media or anyone else to state categorically, which is what has been done, that the link with increased ghgs is tangible in this case. THAT is what I've been saying. The same with the other events around the globe that I mentioned.

KyussB wrote: »

I've never discussed the RCP4.5 so why would I answer that?

I know you didn't, I did. But you've been attacking me for merely pointing out what I see to be glaring omissions from the climate frenzy, so I put it back to you to explain one major difference in what has been forecast and what's actually happening.

gozunda wrote: »

Oh but it is - and that is just the start of increases of carbon taxes in lots of new creative ways

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/tax/motor_carbon_other_taxes/carbon_tax.html

As for gretas 'message' that civilisation is going tits up in the next decade and the adults have ruined her childhood- I'll leave that where it belongs thanks.

You're in this thread since the start and still don't understand her message. LOL Gozunda, LOL (Except not really)

rossie1977

Victoria Falls one of the great natural wonders of the world has almost dried up. This crisis is moving at incredible speed

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/science-environment-50549711/could-victoria-falls-dry-up

KyussB wrote: »

Problem is, those are too close to relying on market solutions (though I get you, it is more than that, with government involvement - just still tilts towards that)

It's my view - and I hope it gets to be a more widely spread view, taken on by advocates for climate action in general - that there needs to be direct work put in by governments worldwide, in employing people to work on these problems, and in eating the capital cost of e.g. retrofitting peoples homes (done using labour/materials directly employed/manufactured by government), and that overall almost the entire task can only be done on a big enough scale by governments - and that we are unable to rely on tax-based-discincentives, as they just won't be effective.

There's no time left where incentives/disincentives can work fast enough - so it all has to be "get up and get it done, immediately" - and only governments are capable of that, now.

The key to it is, government tax intake - and money in general - isn't a limit to governments undertaking this, but the prevailing (and false) economic narrative everyone is fed, is that money is such a restriction.
Economically, it isn't a restriction. Government finances actually don't work that way. Only politically is it a restriction. Governments are completely capable managing the resources in an economy, to undertake this at the right scale - without money being an issue (only the availability of resources and labour restrict the level of acton the government can undertake - and the government can reallocate resources/labour away from private industry, as it needs to, to achieve the task).

I don't think we can rely on governments to do anything really other than provide the motivation to change. Market and industry will then provide solutions.

Look at the UK government, their focus is going to be on Brexit for the foreseeable future. US is currently led by someone who denies climate change being influenced by humans, Ireland's government has spent just 9M on cycling infrastructure in latest budget while 2 individual road projects were allocated nearly 0.5B between them.

Only NZ has a government which seems in agreement that climate action has to be a priority.

I don't necessarily think money is a restriction to action but there has to be an incentive to change and unfortunately, that often comes back to having to be more of a stick than a carrot.
Look at this thread and any such conversations worldwide, at least a signficant proportion of the population are vehemently against any change, or need for change it seems. How do you over come that?

Awareness is great, but action is needed or it feeds in to the narrative, as used on this thread, that we've bee hearing about this problem for years, ergo, it's old news and not really a problem.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Am I really reading still reading this? Have my posts come out in Japanese or something? How difficult can it be? You've just made up some rambling analysis that resembles nothing I've said.

The IOD is a totally natural phenomenon. Nothing to do with humans. Any effects that ghgs have on its intensity, while possible, are still highly uncertain and have not been quantified, as stated by the Australian BOM in a link already posted. It is therefore incorrect for the media or anyone else to state categorically, which is what has been done, that the link with increased ghgs is tangible in this case. THAT is what I've been saying. The same with the other events around the globe that I mentioned.

I know you didn't, I did. But you've been attacking me for merely pointing out what I see to be glaring omissions from the climate frenzy, so I put it back to you to explain one major difference in what has been forecast and what's actually happening.

You'd probably be more comfortable in the weather forum discussing specific one off events rather than the broader topic being discussed here.

You seem to have an issue with people pointing out the pointlessness of trying focus on an individual event in the context of this discussion. Particularly when you have said yourself you weren't entirely correct in relation to that.

Plus, at least one poster doesn't like anything being discussed which isn't in the thread title so they're probably getting upset at the reference to the RCP4.5 .

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

. . . . Governments are completely capable managing the resources in an economy . . .

No. You cannot refute Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth, the essay clearly explains why all such schemes fail because they have no means of establishing a rational pricing system.

For those who are genuinely interested I encourage you to take the time to read the essay as real world events have vindicated the authors observations since it was originally written in 1920.

Tell me how wrote: »

I don't think we can rely on governments to do anything really other than provide the motivation to change. Market and industry will then provide solutions.

Look at the UK government, their focus is going to be on Brexit for the foreseeable future. US is currently led by someone who denies climate change being influenced by humans, Ireland's government has spent just 9M on cycling infrastructure in latest budget while 2 individual road projects were allocated nearly 0.5B between them.

Only NZ has a government which seems in agreement that climate action has to be a priority.

I don't necessarily think money is a restriction to action but there has to be an incentive to change and unfortunately, that often comes back to having to be more of a stick than a carrot.
Look at this thread and any such conversations worldwide, at least a signficant proportion of the population are vehemently against any change, or need for change it seems. How do you over come that?

Awareness is great, but action is needed or it feeds in to the narrative, as used on this thread, that we've bee hearing about this problem for years, ergo, it's old news and not really a problem.

Absolutely, all true - and a good way of paraphrasing, is that it's all a political problem - the economics of undertaking it don't present any show stoppers.

If it enters mainstream consciousness among the public, that economically there are zero obstacles to government undertaking it, that the obstacles are only political - then that is what would be needed to make such government action happen.

When you think about it: That is the best chance there is of making it happen (from either of the private or public sector). It is only propaganda and bad economics, that holds back the public from being able to see that stuff accurately - and we are already seeing people like Sanders/AOC making progress in overcoming that (even if they don't go for enough, yet).

In other words, if the Overton Window gets tipped far enough in that direction, it will solve the political problem.

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

No. You cannot refute Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth, the essay clearly explains why all such schemes fail because they have no means of establishing a rational pricing system.

For those who are genuinely interested I encourage you to take the time to read the essay as real world events have vindicated the authors observations since it was originally written in 1920.

Mises.org - in other words, a Libertarian think tank which peddles Austrian Economics (a branch of economics long ago discredited) - and is (once again) funded by the Koch oil oligarchs - and a document relating to an economic system that nobody presented.

The New Deal in the US and the Marshall Plan in Europe are pretty good examples of the type of mass government efforts needed, that you'd be very hard pressed to pin the big 'C' label on.