Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change
Comments
-
If I read another thing regarding this nonsensical smoking analogy I'll scream. I smoke (I'm having one right now.. lovely fags) I know it is bad for my health, but I also do not preach to other smokers about how bad it is for theirs.
New Moon
0 -
If I read another thing regarding this nonsensical smoking analogy I'll scream. I smoke (I'm having one right now.. lovely fags) I know it is bad for my health, but I also do not preach to other smokers about how bad it is for theirs.
Did you know that Rule III states that the cross section of a cigarette is not circular, despite what the cretins have believed for centuries, and when it burns it does in fact get longer, not shorter.0 -
M.T. Cranium wrote: »As for Oriel36, I already told you that just because I know what a frame of reference is and just because I can identify the concept of sidereal day does not somehow logically imply that I ignore solar day in any aspect of my forecasting work.
The heroes in all this are the familiar days of Monday,Tuesday,Wednesday... - the foundation of cause and effect where one rotation follows the next with noon as an anchor. There is no late 17th century fiction of the sidereal day, solar day, synodic day or bad hair day, there is just the cyclical day by which you and everyone lives by, as one day elapses into the next and one rotation follows the next.
There is another cycle, the polar day/night cycle and its rotational cause so axial inclination is freed up to explain what planetary climate is within a solar system context as all planets exist within a climate spectrum based on inclination to the orbital plane. This project hasn't even begun for not only does it provide an escape route for those locked into the 'scientific method', it also takes genuine researchers back to the infancy of heliocentricity 500 years ago to clean up deficiencies in their scheme -
https://calgary.rasc.ca/images/planet_inclinations.gif
I know you can't affirm what normal people find so easy, after all, when the late 17th century airheads/ empty craniums decided to bypass cause and effect for one rotation, they conjured up a solar vs sidereal fiction so they could create a celestial sphere universe with themselves and their clocks at the centre and that is a technical fact and not an insult
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYy0EQBnqHI
What breaks the dull and dreary world of modelers, whether opponents or proponents of 'climate change', is life itself in all its colours across a day and rotation of our home planet -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhAic6lySkc0 -
If I read another thing regarding this nonsensical smoking analogy I'll scream. I smoke (I'm having one right now.. lovely fags) I know it is bad for my health, but I also do not preach to other smokers about how bad it is for theirs.
Isn't smoking supposed to have a calming effect?0 -
You might guess I am no fan of Bernie Sanders but at least the guy is intellectually consistent and you know where he is coming from. My fear is that younger voters might imagine that what he promises is something he can deliver. Nations have been wrecked by people like that in the recent past.
The frustrating thing is that the liars and two-faced hypocrites who dominate "centrist" politics have just enough relation to everyday normalcy that they can get away with their sham politics and keep the pieces on the board. Is it ideal? Far from it. But is there anything better? Most of the populist alternatives have not been given much chance of a road test.
Trump at least is showing that the fear factor was overblown. Ironically, with the exception of that missile strike on Suleiman recently, he has kept a lower military profile than any other recent president. Yet he was supposed to be a warmonger. As you said, Oneiric3, he may be more of a liberal in the true sense of the word. Some libertarians go to an extreme that I don't visit over immigration (unlimited at all times for all people). I guess my politics are a bit of a blend of several things and so I'm generally seeking peace, order and good government in the interests of the average person, with more than the Ayn Rand contempt for the less fortunate, but still a desire to be left alone to do my own thing.
Schemes like the carbon tax paradigm naturally arouse my suspicion that once again it is Big Brother appealing to the gullible nature of the masses (you will save the earth from what will otherwise be the extinction of the human race) in order to increase the power of the already bloated state and public sector. Just following the money flowing in from these taxes will show who is really being saved -- the retiring civil servant is being saved from having to downsize from his or her working lifestyle. Prove me wrong.
I'll give you one sidereal day as I'm in a bit of a hurry.0 -
Advertisement
-
Isn't smoking supposed to have a calming effect?
I gave up smoking about 15 years ago by reading a book where it was pointed out that if smoking helps you concentrate but also helps you relax then the mind is playing tricks as there is no drug out there which gives two opposite effects.
The book by Allan Carr basically says that the reason people smoke is to kill the craving caused by the previous cigarette so everything else is how the mind deals with the craving as to why a cigarette is needed. Once it clicks in how the cycle of craving is broken, then the person will realise how silly they are all along during their smoking years.
The same happens with the inter-generational 'scientific method' as pretense is passed on from one generation to the next until one day people discover how damaging it is for their perceptive and inspirational qualities. It was already expressed previously in this thread regards 'climate change' -
"This assemblage of imperfect dogmas bequeathed by one age to another-- this physical philosophy, which is composed
of popular prejudices,--is not only injurious because it perpetuates error with the obstinacy engendered by the evidence
of ill observed facts, but also because it hinders the mind from attaining to higher views of nature. Instead of seeking to
discover the mean or medium point, around which oscillate, in apparent independence of forces, all the phenomena of the
external world, this system delights in multiplying exceptions to the law, and seeks, amid phenomena and in organic forms,
for something beyond the marvel of a regular succession, and an internal and progressive development. Ever inclined to
believe that the order of nature isdisturbed, it refuses to recognise in the present any analogy with the past, and guided by
its own varying hypotheses, seeks at hazard, either in the interior of the globe or in the regions of space, for the cause of
these pretended perturbations. It is the special object of the present work to combat those errors which derive their source
from a vicious empiricism and from imperfect inductions." Von Homboldt ,Cosmos
There is a thin line between a subculture and a cult so the area where Newton hijacks the astronomical works of the original heliocentric astronomers to go on an experimental rampage is a subculture whereas early 20th century relativity is a mathematical cult and can safely be dealt with later.
You are all addicted to empiricism where the proponents make themselves bigger than the topics being dealt with.0 -
-
M.T. Cranium wrote: »
I'll give you one sidereal day as I'm in a bit of a hurry.
" It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year" NASA /Harvard
So, a meteorologist subscribes to a belief that Monday is not one rotation nor is Tuesday while giving daily forecasts where temperatures rise and fall in response to each rotation of the planet . How much credibility can this self-designated airhead have !.
https://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com/f/1179343887/crerar%20temperature%20variation.jpg
There are no undisciplined indulgences of 'frames of reference', there are no solar vs sidereal days, there is just the familiar sunrise/noon/sunset cycle of Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and on indefinitely with one rotation following the next.
The 24 hour clock was always a useful tool when allied with the Lat/Long system, in the hands of modelers it becomes a weapon just as computers have done the same to climate research within the same empirical 'method'. The heroes are the days of the week and those who experience the cycles as all people have throughout history whether they believed the Sun traveled around the Earth or the correct view that the Earth rotated once each 24 hour day with all its effects.
The enemy of academic modelers in the footsteps of the late 17th century mt craniums is common sense. Those who suffer intellectual pretense always find inspirational things unbearable as it disturbs their view of themselves and their position among humanity while the genuine innovators of our race are ignored with their insights misused so these modelers can drag the people of the planet into a dull and murky world full of pessimism. The imperative is therefore to wake up from 'Newton's sleep' rather than grow up.0 -
Speaking of hypocrites, Rand was one of the biggest going. She was delusional as well-as is anyone who epouses her rancid beliefs. Give me someone like Sanders over Rand any day.0
-
Fwiw, I haven't set foot in a plane since the early 1990s - but I've only ever flown twice. I use a tiny car I intend to run into the ground - the best use of its embedded CO2 I can make. The house is heated by, well dried, wood. I too shop locally - I have a farmers market to go to on Saturday.
Good man. At least one who practices what he preaches. Maybe you should a word with Akrasia and Eamonn. I'd say Retorgamer and Thargor could do with some direction too.
I haven't been on a plane in more than a decade either. I car pool to work every day and I grow my own vegetables in my garden
Absolutely none of that is in any way relevant to my position that we need global concerted political action to tackle climate change.0 -
Advertisement
-
M.T. Cranium wrote: »Oneiric3 ... what you said is no doubt true, but I can fully understand your point of view and all I'm saying is that the left now owns globalism and climate change as their own pet projects, whoever may have started globalism for whatever motivations, and that does not rule out that they still lurk in the shadows hoping to reclaim full ownership. I agree with your apparent belief that globalism in its early stages was a neo-con project. Some prominent globalists are still neo-cons too.
You have the leftist academic version and you have the centre-right Bilderberg cartel version. They are acting as though they are in agreement but are they really? At some later stage of any globalist total success (something they have not yet reached) they would probably turn on each other, don't you agree?
I wouldn't abandon the discussion out of any fear of disagreements, when people argue in a logical framework and remain "gentlemen" then there's no danger or harm done, in my view, it would be a dull world indeed if everyone agreed on all things. And I am always a flexible thinker, my goal is to get at the truth of matters, not to prove I am right or assert my power over anyone. I've certainly changed some of my political views and climate opinions in the light of "later data."
With reference to the neo-cons, do you still think the globalist project is under their full control now? The neo-cons may have drifted from the political right into the centre over a generation but they are not real progressives or leftists, albeit they may have taken on some socially liberal positions.
A good example of the dual approach can be seen in the political positions taken around mass immigration, much of it illegal, into the southern U.S. ... the political left supports it for reasons of social justice and expediency, those people can very often be relied upon to morph into Democrat voters. But the big business portion of the right also support it as it provides them with a large pool of cheap and exploitable labour. Those opposed to it are also on both left and right. Unionized workers especially "blue collar Democrats" are opposed because the practice drives down wages and benefits. And the alt right are opposed on cultural and sovereignty grounds. So I think for every example of right or left being the real globalists, you can find a balancing counter-example. It probably points to a need to look at politics in two dimensions, left-right, and big-small. Unlimited immigration tends to be the ultimate "big government" policy since it requires that governments meddle in the sovereignty of other countries.
The current U.S. political dynamic on the right is basically old-style consensus conservatives vs alt-right supporters of the populist agenda that they think the president favours. What he actually favours, I would argue, is not entirely clear. Some things about him suggest that he has not moved far from his big government Democrat roots. Big business and big government often make comfortable partners.
But in any case, I tend to be skeptical of populist politicians, they have clearly decided to cater to a market that they identified, but as with anything, that does not always mean a deep sympathy with that marketplace. Boris Johnson comes to mind in this regard. In Canada some of us have had reservations about the actual motivation or sincerity of leaders posing as populists. We had one case where somebody gained a lot of support for that stance and then sold out the supporters for his own personal gain. It happens a lot in politics. Very few people go into it, especially with any success, for altruistic reasons. I sometimes wonder if we elected a government of the sort of cranks who get fifty votes as independents if we might not be pleasantly surprised with the results.
Forget the politicians and the activists,
Can you give me a single example of even one reputable scientific body that hasn't been 'corrupted by leftists' and shares your view on climate change?0 -
Thanks for the link
Considering large part of the warming occurred in the the first half of the 20th century when anthropogenic CO2 was a quarter of today’s. Is it strange strange that the rates of warming are the same with different CO2 concentrations?
With the tuning of the models to reflect observations, In your opinion are the models subjective or objective?
Most of the warming has occured since the 2nd half of the 20th century when the natural forcings were all negative (cooling)
Climate change 'skeptics' simply have no answer for this problem other than pretending it's not happening, or denying that the temperature records are reliable0 -
If I read another thing regarding this nonsensical smoking analogy I'll scream. I smoke (I'm having one right now.. lovely fags) I know it is bad for my health, but I also do not preach to other smokers about how bad it is for theirs.
Do you support restrictions on young people starting smoking. Do you think it was a good idea for the government to change the minimum age to smoke from 16 to 18?0 -
So, a meteorologist subscribes to a belief that Monday is not one rotation nor is Tuesday while giving daily forecasts where temperatures rise and fall in response to each rotation of the planet . How much credibility can this self-designated airhead have.
.
You have a real bee in your bonnet about this. Temperature trends do not follow daily cycles. We can identify 'singularities' for any particular day using climate averages etc, but that is not the point.New Moon
0 -
nacho libre wrote: »Speaking of hypocrites, Rand was one of the biggest going. She was delusional as well-as is anyone who epouses her rancid beliefs. Give me someone like Sanders over Rand any day.
The Godmother of yuppiedom.New Moon
0 -
Temperature trends do not follow daily cycles.
Goodness me !, daily temperature follows a particular response to daily rotation where temperatures rise past noon and decline around 3 PM -
https://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com/f/1179343887/crerar%20temperature%20variation.jpg
When the dominant argument is that the Earth turns once more often then daily temperature rises and drops or better still, people refuse to accept that one weekday is the same as one rotation then welcome to a level of 'thinking', if it can be dignified as that, the world has never seen before -
" It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year" NASA /Harvard0 -
Sigh
A complete and total lack of the ability to grasp nuance. A symptom of the kind of person who thinks they are an expert in a subject they have never properly studied
There's nothing nuanced about you telling everyone else what to do, and then doing the opposite.
It is the very definition of hypocrisy, regardless of who is right and who is wrong on climate change.
No matter how much you wriggle and squirm around this fact, you cannot avoid the charge. At least Ryan has the grace at admit "I'm a sinner".
I've stated clearly several times that I have zero expertise in all of this and that I'm here to be educated which you have clearly missed.
With that in mind, I'm still waiting for an answer to the question I raised about your cartoon.
If the warming which began at 17,500 was followed by a jump in Co2, and then an accelerated warming, can you show me why I shouldn't reach the obvious conclusion that CO2 increase was a consequence of the warming rather than a driver.
I'm all ears for an explanation and if it's nuanced, I'll manage. I can do nuance0 -
Goodness me !, daily temperature follows a particular response to daily rotation where temperatures rise past noon and decline around 3 PM -
https://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com/f/1179343887/crerar%20temperature%20variation.jpg
When the dominant argument is that the Earth turns once more often then daily temperature rises and drops or better still, people refuse to accept that one weekday is the same as one rotation then welcome to a level of 'thinking', if it can be dignified as that, the world has never seen before -
" It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year" NASA /Harvard
Apologies, I put that badly, I meant day by day trends rather than trends within a particular day.
But even if we were to have a historical record of daily temperature based within the confines of the true solar midnight and true solar noon (which would be complicated task in itself) there would be no reason to assume that long term temperature trends would be any different to what they are now.New Moon
0 -
There's nothing nuanced about you telling everyone else what to do, and then doing the opposite.
It is the very definition of hypocrisy, regardless of who is right and who is wrong on climate change.
No matter how much you wriggle and squirm around this fact, you cannot avoid the charge. At least Ryan has the grace at admit "I'm a sinner".
I've stated clearly several times that I have zero expertise in all of this and that I'm here to be educated which you have clearly missed.
With that in mind, I'm still waiting for an answer to the question I raised about your cartoon.
If the warming which began at 17,500 was followed by a jump in Co2, and then an accelerated warming, can you show me why I shouldn't reach the obvious conclusion that CO2 increase was a consequence of the warming rather than a driver.
I'm all ears for an explanation and if it's nuanced, I'll manage. I can do nuance
I did answer your question
The initial warming was caused by changes in insolation, and this caused an outgassing of CO2 from the oceans which was a positive feedback and caused more warming
So the CO2 increase was both caused by warming and was itself a cause of further warming
The same greenhouse effect is happening now, except that rather than being triggered by changes in insolation, the increase is being directly released into the environment by Human activity.0 -
I dont run a car, I cycle everywhere including a 20km daily commute for the past 8 years and prefer my holidays to be cycling based in Ireland or France so Id say Im better than most. Ive also eliminated most meat from my diet in recent years aswell and am debating about going full vegetarian.If "people" see hypocrisy, what should they do. Ignore it?
Eamonn tells us that this is the greatest crisis facing humanity, an imminent and existential threat to us all. But not in his personal life. He carries on as if nothing is wrong. If you cannot see the madness of that position, there's no point in trying to discuss this at all.
I'm not ignoring the problem. I'm debating the issue with you, trying to educate myself. I'm not taking an "easy out". You don't have much faith in "people".
I take it from your response that you don't do anything practical.
Another hypocrite.
Thragor, Retrogamer? Same story as Eamonn, Akrasia and Posidonia?
Interesting. I have doubts about the narrative all of you are describing, that climate change is caused by "people" but it would appear that I'm doing more to help than any of you. I cycle as much as I can, where I used to drive. I have solar panels. I'm looking at the possibility of a small wind turbine. As much as possible I shop local and buy local produce. I bought diesel (1.6ltr) when the advice was to buy diesel. Can't afford an EV so that will have to wait.
Should I just scrap all of this and do what Eamonn has been doing?
That is completely irrelevant to the scale of the problem and the response required from government and industry though, when you see people like you harping on about anyone who uses modern conveniences being a hypocrite you know you're dealing with someone blissfully ignorant about the whole issue.0 -
Advertisement
-
Apologies, I put that badly, I meant day by day trends rather than trends within a particular day.
But even if we were to have a historical record of daily temperature based within the confines of the true solar midnight and true solar noon (which would be complicated task in itself) there would be no reason to assume that long term temperature trends would be any different to what they are now.
Most here would prefer to be beggars at the door of astronomy and Earth sciences than deal with the solar vs sidereal gibberish inherited from Royal Society England.
One weekday is also one rotation of the planet and it is anchored to the sunrise/noon/sunset cycle and particular noon where the variations with each individual cycle each day is averaged to a 24 hour average.
"Draw a Meridian line upon a floor and then hang two plummets, each by a small thread or wire, directly over the said Meridian, at the distance of some two feet or more one from the other, as the smallness of the thread will admit. When the middle of the Sun (the Eye being placed so, as to bring both the threads into one line) appears to be in the same line exactly you are then immediately to set the Watch, not precisely to the hour of 12 but by so much less, as is the Aequation of the day by the Table."
Huygens
https://adcs.home.xs4all.nl/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
There are deficiences in Huygen's overall description, however, both midday when a location is midway between the planet's circle of illumination and sunrise/sunset, keeps timekeeping of Monday,Tuesday,Wednesday and so on anchored to the rotation of the Earth.
This process goes on to be used for the Lat/Long system where the planet turns at a rate of 15 degrees/1037.5 mph at the Equator.
People grow up but often do not wake up to the awful notions they inherited from other eras which leads them to squirm away trying not to affirm that one weekday also represents one rotation of the Earth. This is meteorology as daily temperatures reflect what goes on beneath the feet of readers here in a Sun centred system.
The weekday becomes the hero in all this, the familiar cycle that mocks those who would impose silly notions to promote themselves and their Royal Society modeling.0 -
I dont run a car, I cycle everywhere including a 20km daily commute for the past 8 years and prefer my holidays to be cycling based in Ireland or France so Id say Im better than most. Ive also eliminated most meat from my diet in recent years aswell and am debating about going full vegetarian.
That is completely irrelevant to the scale of the problem and the response required from government and industry though, when you see people like you harping on about anyone who uses modern conveniences being a hypocrite you know you're dealing with someone blissfully ignorant about the whole issue.
Well done on your practical attempt to limit the production of Co2. I do seem to be doing better than you or Akrasia so you've plenty more to do. Keep at it.
"People" like me. Such disdain. And me doing more than you to limit my Co2. How odd.
It's as if anyone asking a question or pointing out hypocrisy is part of some kind of sub-species. You are having a hard time convincing qualified people on this thread and dismissing those without expertise who have questions doesn't help in any way I can see. I wonder is that part of the reason why "people" like me exist?
This is what Arkasia said in 2018 on the other CC thread here. I note his answer above which seems to suggest that he has changed his position and is growing his own veg. Excellent.
"Individual action won't make a difference. 1 person can boycott coffee cups forever and do less good than a lobby group that push for tougher environmental regulations.
If all environmentalists choose to never use oil or gas, it just makes the price lower for the people who don't care to waste more energy. Well thought out and properly implemented regulations work, personal crusades don't"
Tell that to Greta Thunberg. I'd say she's been spectacularly successful. MAybe if you and Akrasia weren't so defeatist, you could have done what Greta is doing. Some are born to greatness I suppose. Others are just "people" like me.
Environmentalists should surely be leading by example.
The relevance of this is obvious to me. Eamon Ryan drives a 2.5 litre tank, fueled by biodiesel, the same fuel that is causing wholesale destruction of biodiversity all over the world.
Why should I ignore that when I'm making a judgement, for instance, on who I vote for? If the main advocate for AGW in this country displays hypocrisy in his personal behaviour, I am less likely to take him seriously. Most "people" are probably the same. Most "people" don't understand the science or read peer reviewed papers.
I won't be voting Green and this is influenced by the smell of hypocrisy but tbh, much more by their performance the last time they were in Gov when their chronic naivete helped FF hand the country over to bankers and corporates. Once bitten, twice shy.
Anyway, I joined in to point out hypocrisy and can add nothing in terms of the science so I'll stop clogging the feed and resume lurking. I do reserve the right to point out any other hypocrisy I see.0 -
I did answer your question
The initial warming was caused by changes in insolation, and this caused an outgassing of CO2 from the oceans which was a positive feedback and caused more warming
So the CO2 increase was both caused by warming and was itself a cause of further warming
The same greenhouse effect is happening now, except that rather than being triggered by changes in insolation, the increase is being directly released into the environment by Human activity.
Well done on the veg. That's the spirit! Glad you've changed your view on that. Lead by example.
Final question before I lurk. Is it possible that changes in insolation alone were the cause of the warming and that the spike in Co2 was simply a consequence of that. Are there any other drivers of planetwide warming apart from insolation (and Co2!)0 -
How is someone like you who drives a 1.6L diesel possibly doing better than me? Your future plans for a wind turbine? Does that mean you live in one-off housing in a rural area?Well done on your practical attempt to limit the production of Co2. I do seem to be doing better than you or Akrasia so you've plenty more to do. Keep at it.
"People" like me. Such disdain. And me doing more than you to limit my Co2. How odd.
It's as if anyone asking a question or pointing out hypocrisy is part of some kind of sub-species. You are having a hard time convincing qualified people on this thread and dismissing those without expertise who have questions doesn't help in any way I can see. I wonder is that part of the reason why "people" like me exist?
This is what Arkasia said in 2018 on the other CC thread here. I note his answer above which seems to suggest that he has changed his position and is growing his own veg. Excellent.
"Individual action won't make a difference. 1 person can boycott coffee cups forever and do less good than a lobby group that push for tougher environmental regulations.
If all environmentalists choose to never use oil or gas, it just makes the price lower for the people who don't care to waste more energy. Well thought out and properly implemented regulations work, personal crusades don't"
Tell that to Greta Thunberg. I'd say she's been spectacularly successful. MAybe if you and Akrasia weren't so defeatist, you could have done what Greta is doing. Some are born to greatness I suppose. Others are just "people" like me.
Environmentalists should surely be leading by example.
The relevance of this is obvious to me. Eamon Ryan drives a 2.5 litre tank, fueled by biodiesel, the same fuel that is causing wholesale destruction of biodiversity all over the world.
Why should I ignore that when I'm making a judgement, for instance, on who I vote for? If the main advocate for AGW in this country displays hypocrisy in his personal behaviour, I am less likely to take him seriously. Most "people" are probably the same. Most "people" don't understand the science or read peer reviewed papers.
I won't be voting Green and this is influenced by the smell of hypocrisy but tbh, much more by their performance the last time they were in Gov when their chronic naivete helped FF hand the country over to bankers and corporates. Once bitten, twice shy.
Anyway, I joined in to point out hypocrisy and can add nothing in terms of the science so I'll stop clogging the feed and resume lurking. I do reserve the right to point out any other hypocrisy I see.0 -
I dont run a car, I cycle everywhere including a 20km daily commute for the past 8 years and prefer my holidays to be cycling based in Ireland or France so Id say Im better than most. Ive also eliminated most meat from my diet in recent years aswell and am debating about going full vegetarian.
That is completely irrelevant to the scale of the problem and the response required from government and industry though, when you see people like you harping on about anyone who uses modern conveniences being a hypocrite you know you're dealing with someone blissfully ignorant about the whole issue.
Good for you, but the demand that Gov and industry should enforce your lifestyle choice onto all others smacks a little too much of arrogance.New Moon
0 -
Good for you, but the demand that Gov and industry should enforce your lifestyle choice onto all others smacks a little too much of arrogance.
He wants govt to act by (I'm guessing) making new laws - and if that is enforcing what does you wanting to string people like me up smack of?
At best a seriously sick sense of 'humour' and a huge amount of...hypocrisy.0 -
Good for you, but the demand that Gov and industry should enforce your lifestyle choice onto all others smacks a little too much of arrogance.
Lifestyle choices lol.
Did I call for the enforcement of mandatory cycling or reduction of meat consumption laws? I must have missed that, can you quote me or do you just make this stuff up in your head?0 -
Lifestyle choices lol.
Did I call for the enforcement of mandatory cycling or reduction of meat consumption laws? I must have missed that, can you quote me or do you just make this stuff up in your head?
It's interesting that you go cycling around France, a country that relies heavily on fossil fuels to sustain its prosperity. Do you swim across to France with your bike strapped to your back? Or, do you use some gas guzzling means of transport? Well done if the former, and tut tut if the latter.New Moon
0 -
You earlier said you drive a small car. This is not good enough. Electric cars are now the 'in thing'. Do your bit and buy one.He wants govt to act by (I'm guessing) making new laws - and if that is enforcing what does you wanting to string people like me up smack of?
At best a seriously sick sense of 'humour' and a huge amount of...hypocrisy.New Moon
0 -
Advertisement
-
Why do you ask? Have you upset yourself again with another imaginary statement I didn't make? Or are you just still seething over the arrogance I displayed when I dared to express hope that government and industry will take action to decarbonise the systems of the world as much as possible while theres still time to make a difference instead of setting us up for failure by relying on piecemeal individual action?It's interesting that you go cycling around France, a country that relies heavily on fossil fuels to sustain its prosperity. Do you swim across to France with your bike strapped to your back? Or, do you use some gas guzzling means of transport? Well done if the former, and tut tut if the latter.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement