We have updated our Privacy Notice, you can read the updated document here
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

2020 officially saw a record number of $1 billion weather and climate disasters.

1121315171866

Comments

  • #2


    I wouldn't say it's been a complete backward step, but designing societies around the private car is a complete disaster in my opinion, and the opinion of many others! It has held back public transport, led to people requiring a car to live, etc. etc.
    I can't find my post to see why I brought it up, but cars often come up in discussions on climate change.
    The number of cars being sold and on the road is higher than ever, so it's not like anything is going to drastically change any time soon, it doesn't mean some people think we should be doing things in other ways.

    Your post was 4 months ago. So what's your solution to the scenario in my previous post?


  • #2


    Your post was 4 months ago. So what's your solution to the scenario in my previous post?

    I never said I had a solution to people living in the middle of nowhere, they are car reliant, I simply believe we should be encouraged and should plan better so people can live in ways where owning a car is not a requirement, we have failed badly in that sense in Ireland in my opinion which has led to congestion and pollution in urban areas.


  • #2


    I never said I had a solution to people living in the middle of nowhere, they are car reliant, I simply believe we should be encouraged and should plan better so people can live in ways where owning a car is not a requirement, we have failed badly in that sense in Ireland in my opinion which has led to congestion and pollution in urban areas.

    That's all fluff, but what about actual practical solutions? How can we plan better so people live in a way that owning a car is not a requirement? You made the sweeping statement that you want things to go that way, but how? You can't make a statement like that without having actual practical solutions in mind. People live where theye live, so should we get them to up stick and move to the city?


  • #2


    That's all fluff, but what about actual practical solutions? How can we plan better so people live in a way that owning a car is not a requirement? You made the sweeping statement that you want things to go that way, but how? You can't make a statement like that without having actual practical solutions in mind. People live where theye live, so should we get them to up stick and move to the city?

    Look if you think everyone owning a car is sustainable and wont lead and hasn't already led to all kinds of problems that's fine, I don't want to discuss this with you here, the discussion has been done to death in other threads, you win this argument that's fine.


  • #2


    Look if you think everyone owning a car is sustainable and wont lead and hasn't already led to all kinds of problems that's fine, I don't want to discuss this with you here, the discussion has been done to death in other threads, you win this argument that's fine.

    I must have a look for that discussion to see if someone else had solution to no cars. It was done to death, so if it's viable then there must be a way. The science is settled, afterall, and a clear pathway ahead has been set. Just not on roads, it seems.


  • #2


    It's as simple as this -- you aren't free if you cannot go where you want to go, when you want to go there. We have an elite class now who want to make this primary foundation of freedom a thought crime. But I note that they always give themselves an exemption, the stay at home regime will be for the peasants, not the new aristocracy, who will be quite free to go where they want, and enjoy the uncluttered landscape as they do so.

    This pandemic has given this mentality a legal foundation and now there will be considerable difficulty in removing its presence even after the COVID is gone.

    What follows is obviously that owning property is "anti-social" and then it's on to diets, lifestyles, within decades they will be rounding people up if they aren't growing carrots on their balcony.


  • #2


    Too much Internet for one day.


  • #2


    It's as simple as this -- you aren't free if you cannot go where you want to go, when you want to go there. We have an elite class now who want to make this primary foundation of freedom a thought crime. But I note that they always give themselves an exemption, the stay at home regime will be for the peasants, not the new aristocracy, who will be quite free to go where they want, and enjoy the uncluttered landscape as they do so.

    This pandemic has given this mentality a legal foundation and now there will be considerable difficulty in removing its presence even after the COVID is gone.

    What follows is obviously that owning property is "anti-social" and then it's on to diets, lifestyles, within decades they will be rounding people up if they aren't growing carrots on their balcony.

    JQOjpNk.png

    Though if I had my way M.T, I'd round up anyone that did grow carrots.


  • #2


    No private cars ? What a miserable backwards leap. Especially with electric cars being manufactured today. They'll come down in price eventually too.

    That's exactly the sort of stuff that makes people wonder if there is an alternate agenda. Alot of people would also prefer, if given the option, of a warmer world with private transport rather than a soylent green/1984 type of so called eco friendly existence where nobody can have a car or light a fire or eat meat and all live crammed in tower blocks.

    When TM doesn’t want everyone owning a car he means the ordinary bloke. He defended private jets on another thread while supporting a carbon tax. There’s a lot of class war in the green movement which probably explains where their support is based.


  • #2


    fvp4 wrote: »
    When TM doesn’t want everyone owning a car he means the ordinary bloke. He defended private jets on another thread while supporting a carbon tax. There’s a lot of class war in the green movement which probably explains where their support is based.

    I think I may have said that flights are too cheap nowadays as Eamon Ryan had brought it up, and it's leading to unfettered expansion of the airline industry which apparently isn't good for the planet.
    They don't even tax aviation fuel. You completely fabricated the private jets thing, I think they're obscene.


  • #2


    I think I may have said that flights are too cheap nowadays as Eamon Ryan had brought it up, and it's leading to unfettered expansion of the airline industry which apparently isn't good for the planet.
    They don't even tax aviation fuel. You completely fabricated the private jets thing, I think they're obscene.

    The problem is that 1% of people take 20% of flights, 10% take 50% of flights. That’s in any one year. 47% only fly every other year. A punitive tax won’t help that much.


  • #2


    fvp4 wrote: »
    There’s a lot of class war in the green movement which probably explains where their support is based.

    Spot on.


  • #2


    I suppose this may be an over-simplification, but consider this -- if you heard there was a one in three chance of a nearby river overflowing its banks and affecting your property, you would very likely start rounding up sandbags or moving vulnerable items to higher ground.

    When we hear that there's a one in three chance of the seas rising, our response is to tax gasoline and airline flights.

    I tuned in some program which promised (or threatened) a Dutch environmentalist touring Greenland to look into the climate change situation. Yes, I am somewhat of a masochist. But actually, I was rather surprised that he blended into his presentation a mixture of the usual stuff and interviews with more practical-minded Dutch government officials who were talking basically the way I tend to do, the seas are probably going to rise, so what should we be doing about that?

    Of course in the Netherlands, they can't afford to fool around with impractical solutions, the bulk of the country could be floating away if they don't plan ahead.


  • #2


    I suppose this may be an over-simplification, but consider this -- if you heard there was a one in three chance of a nearby river overflowing its banks and affecting your property, you would very likely start rounding up sandbags or moving vulnerable items to higher ground.

    When we hear that there's a one in three chance of the seas rising, our response is to tax gasoline and airline flights.

    I tuned in some program which promised (or threatened) a Dutch environmentalist touring Greenland to look into the climate change situation. Yes, I am somewhat of a masochist. But actually, I was rather surprised that he blended into his presentation a mixture of the usual stuff and interviews with more practical-minded Dutch government officials who were talking basically the way I tend to do, the seas are probably going to rise, so what should we be doing about that?

    Of course in the Netherlands, they can't afford to fool around with impractical solutions, the bulk of the country could be floating away if they don't plan ahead.

    I did see a map once where rising seas by 2100 put parts of Europe under water. Holland was the worst affected but of course it is already under sea in parts.


  • #2


    The Netherlands is a great example, your can deal with rising seal levels. Expensive but it can be done. A warmer world is preferable to a colder one if given the choice. You can't do a thing about a mile of ice above Europe etc. Not a thing. But we already do have air conditioning.


  • #2


    fvp4 wrote: »
    There’s a lot of class war in the green movement which probably explains where their support is based.

    The world's biggest cruise liner company Carnival Corporation emits ten times more pollution than all European cars on the road every year. In Ireland, fuels for such industries are exempt from Mineral Oil Taxes. The second largest cruise liner company Royal Caribbean is a wee bit more environmentally friendly with just four times more pollution than all European cars on the road every year. Gotta make sure the wealthy going on their jollies from port to port are not emptying their pockets for the privilege, however Jane Doe driving her modest car to the local SuperValu to serve you your groceries will be forced to pay top carbon-tax €uro just to keep a roof over her head.

    Why are airliners exempt from carbon taxes? Well, if the costs of flying in cheap labour into western Europe hinders such movement of cheap labour and you've several factories to run - just threaten to cut the party political donations and hey presto, a press statement is released stating that such a move would "prove difficult" and would require a cross-EU "consensus" on such matters. €64bln banking debt - they'll stay on 'til 2am to get that one around the necks of taxpayers.

    You can see where this is going, right?


  • #2


    Below are actual videos from Davos/World Economic Forum:



    The world economic forum agenda for the year was "the great reset" I.e how can they reshape the world economy to make it greener.

    The big take from it online is their phrase "you'll own nothing and you'll be happy"

    Basically using climate change and covid as excuses to make more money. It would be conspiracy theory stuff if it wasn't so transparent and open.

    https://www.weforum.org/great-reset/



  • #2



    Basically using climate change and covid as excuses to make more money. It would be conspiracy theory stuff if it wasn't so transparent and open.

    Welcome to capitalism!


  • #2


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    Welcome to capitalism!

    Capitalism is a necessary evil. Thinking of it from an evolutionary perspective it makes perfect sense: The poor will die and the rich will survive, i.e. the fittest.

    Has anyone managed to pray themselves out of poverty? :confused:


  • #2


    Danno wrote: »
    Capitalism is a necessary evil. Thinking of it from an evolutionary perspective it makes perfect sense: The poor will die and the rich will survive, i.e. the fittest.

    Has anyone managed to pray themselves out of poverty? :confused:

    Preserve the rich, even if the rich are stupid idiots like Donald Trump who inherit all there wealth from actual business people and subsequently blow it, and simply machine gun the poor what an idiotic grasp you have on things Danno, aka the moderator.

    Has anyone prayed there way out of poverty?
    Answer: The Catholic Church.


  • #2


    Preserve the rich, even if the rich are stupid idiots like Donald Trump who inherit all there wealth from actual business people and subsequently blow it, and simply machine gun the poor what an idiotic grasp you have on things Danno, aka the moderator.

    Has anyone prayed there way out of poverty?
    Answer: The Catholic Church.

    What an idiotic grasp of English you have there, Banana Republic.

    I'm not sure what Trump has to do with anything and how he's machine-gunned the poor. Maybe I'm just an idiot too. We're all idiots!


  • #2


    What an idiotic grasp of English you have there, Banana Republic.

    I'm not sure what Trump has to do with anything and how he's machine-gunned the poor. Maybe I'm just an idiot too. We're all idiots!

    Well at least you admitted it!

    Whenever you login here does the theme tune from the Bill play in the background?

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l_Qa9dN3mI0


  • #2


    Danno wrote: »
    Capitalism is a necessary evil. Thinking of it from an evolutionary perspective it makes perfect sense: The poor will die and the rich will survive, i.e. the fittest.

    Has anyone managed to pray themselves out of poverty? :confused:

    Your fundemental theory is seriously flawed. The rich are not necessarily the fittest. Or the fittest rich.


  • #2


    Danno wrote: »
    Capitalism is a necessary evil. Thinking of it from an evolutionary perspective it makes perfect sense: The poor will die and the rich will survive, i.e. the fittest.

    Has anyone managed to pray themselves out of poverty? :confused:

    So you think Jane Doe is expendable then Danno? :P

    "Gotta make sure the wealthy going on their jollies from port to port are not emptying their pockets for the privilege, however Jane Doe driving her modest car to the local SuperValu to serve you your groceries will be forced to pay top carbon-tax €uro just to keep a roof over her head.


    I don't believe you do and I think you will agree with this lass as much as I do:

    ZVjPk07.png
    https://twitter.com/caitoz/status/1406059108550144000


  • #2


    Preserve the rich, even if the rich are stupid idiots like Donald Trump who inherit all there wealth from actual business people and subsequently blow it, and simply machine gun the poor what an idiotic grasp you have on things Danno, aka the moderator.

    Has anyone prayed there way out of poverty?
    Answer: The Catholic Church.

    It is the rich that are pushing the politics of climate (dressed up as science) down our throat every day, while they continue to flaunt in our faces how they don't really do anything about it themselves, because it wouldn't do for them to give up their luxurious lifestyles, because, unlike us plebs, they have places to go and people to see.

    Note the contemptable arrogance of this cretin for example:

    "President Biden’s new climate czar John Kerry took a gas-guzzling private jet to collect a climate change leadership award in Iceland in 2019, defending his mode of transport as “the only choice for someone like me.”

    https://nypost.com/2021/02/03/john-kerry-took-private-jet-to-iceland-for-climate-award/


  • #2


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    It is the rich that are pushing the politics of climate (dressed up as science) down our throat every day, while they continue to flaunt in our faces how they don't really do anything about it themselves, because it wouldn't do for them to give up their luxurious lifestyles, because, unlike us plebs, they have places to go and people to see.

    Note the contemptable arrogance of this cretin for example:

    "President Biden’s new climate czar John Kerry took a gas-guzzling private jet to collect a climate change leadership award in Iceland in 2019, defending his mode of transport as “the only choice for someone like me.”

    https://nypost.com/2021/02/03/john-kerry-took-private-jet-to-iceland-for-climate-award/

    In what context is my post, which quoted danno by the why, at all relevant to what your saying?


  • #2


    In what context is my post, which quoted danno by the why, at all relevant to what your saying?

    My post is well in context of your reply. Either you can't see it or you simply just don't want to.


  • #2


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    My post is well in context of your reply. Either you can't see it or you simply just don't want to.

    No, I can’t see it….


  • #2


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    It is the rich that are pushing the politics of climate (dressed up as science) down our throat every day, while they continue to flaunt in our faces how they don't really do anything about it themselves, because it wouldn't do for them to give up their luxurious lifestyles, because, unlike us plebs, they have places to go and people to see.

    Note the contemptable arrogance of this cretin for example:

    "President Biden’s new climate czar John Kerry took a gas-guzzling private jet to collect a climate change leadership award in Iceland in 2019, defending his mode of transport as “the only choice for someone like me.”

    https://nypost.com/2021/02/03/john-kerry-took-private-jet-to-iceland-for-climate-award/

    I know these people are hypocrites, Leonardo DiCarprio etc., but it doesn't mean that our current rates of consumption and lifestyles are not completely unsustainable, especially in rich countries.


  • #2


    I haven't had the time to post much on boards recently but as usual, these threads tend to descend pretty quickly into a bit of a 'skeptic' circle jerk
    In the real world, we're heading into the obligatory bi-annual 'heatwaves and wildfires are nothing to do with climate change' debate

    Here's a recent paper by Michael Wehner a senior scientist at the
    Computational Research Division in Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
    It attributes the human influence on North American extreme heatwaves to be in the region of 2-2.5c above what they would be under natural circumstances
    https://crd.lbl.gov/assets/Uploads/CONUS-2021-heat-wave-attribution-statement1.pdf
    Currently, climate change has caused rare heat waves to be 3 to 5 degrees warmer over most of the United States (adapted from Wehner et al 2018 using the high resolution version of CAM5.1 described in Wehner et al. 2014)
    As any self respecting weather enthusiast should know, it's the 'rare'(extreme) events that do the damage. A stormy night might keep the chickens awake, but a hurricane will blow down the coop, and a hurricane with a a sting jet can blow the roof off many houses and flatten forests.

    He also projects, using the peer reviewed methodology he referred to above, an additional 2.7c on top of this across most of the US (but more importantly across areas that are already under severe heat stress) in the next 50 years if we do not meet our targets for very low carbon emissions

    In contrast, under the low emissions scenario, he projects the increase in heatwave intensity to be mostly confined to the northern lattitudes with midland and gulf regions experiencing increases on less than 1 degree C from the current maximums

    And of course, 2080 is not 'climate equilibrium, it is merely an arbitrary round number. heatwaves are likely to continue to worsen beyond 2080, moreso the more we delay investing properly in the carbon neutral global energy system

    Someone on this thread said earlier 'Sure global warming is better than global cooling where we have 6 mile thick ice sheets covering Much of the northern hemisphere

    I completely agree with this. We do not want to go into another Ice age any time soon. But as a point to make on a thread about climate change in the current, actually existing real world, it was so laughable that I won't even mention the poster by name for fear of embarrassing them.
    We do not live in a world where we have to choose between causing an ice age, or causing a 'hothouse earth' Nor do we live in a world where if we weren't emitting greenhouse gasses,we are in imminent danger of a sudden 'day after tomorrow' scenario of instant ice age. We are in a world where we have had stable and mostly favourable climate for the past 6000 years and our actions in the next decade or two will dictate whether our children will raise their children in a damaged but still hospitable planet (mostly) or one where vast swathes of habitable land becomes inhospitable for humans, and we have unimaginable conflict as hundreds of millions of people are displaced and need to find shelter


Society & Culture