Climate change seen as top threat, but U.S. power a growing worry - poll

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Why not? The Green/Left blames everybody else for the fact that far from enough is being done.

 

Unless we accept as an article of faith that the Green/Left is right and good, and everyone else is bad and evil, and that's not a good starting point. Everybody wants to have a nice environment and a stable climate, if we can achieve that. That's trivial.

 

Finger-pointing, droning on about "deniers", building conspiracy theories about funding of opposition, is simply not going to achieve anything in future, just as it hasn't in the past.

I think your answer is just as twisted as your first statement, you're not discussing, just blaming everybody but yourself.

 

But very telling that you did not question my first statement about your own post, thereby admitting it was a post that was an extremely dishonest post, pretending it was something when it clearly wasn't by your own admission.

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

I think your answer is just as twisted as your first statement, you're not discussing, just blaming everybody but yourself.

 

But very telling that you did not question my first statement about your own post, thereby admitting it was a post that was an extremely dishonest post, pretending it was something when it clearly wasn't by your own admission.

I didn't dispute your first statement because it was an assumption on your part which was wrong, and therefore not worth arguing about.

 

To accuse me of dishonesty on that basis is precisely the kind of silly combative zero-sum game I've been explaining over the past few posts regarding the Green/Left, which on the bigger stage has derailed any attempts to make progress on climate.

 

Truly, you're part of the problem, not of the solution. But I guess you'll never be able to see that.

[Rimmer]

A couple of off topic posts have been removed

[blazes]

Too many sad individuals on here (well, two or three or so) appeal to Science in the same way a hell-fire preacher in Alabama would respond to an atheist who questioned God's authority.

"Listen to the Voice of God, son, or else your soul will rot in the oven of Hell."

 

It says, in Genesis 66.99, that those who don't believe in God and obey His ordinances will be drowned in the rising oceans of this polluted world....

 

I really am saddened to see these few souls on ThaiVisa believing in the grossest bu££sh!t so unquestioningly.  Saddened and baffled.  

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, blazes said:

Too many sad individuals on here (well, two or three or so) appeal to Science in the same way a hell-fire preacher in Alabama would respond to an atheist who questioned God's authority.

"Listen to the Voice of God, son, or else your soul will rot in the oven of Hell."

 

It says, in Genesis 66.99, that those who don't believe in God and obey His ordinances will be drowned in the rising oceans of this polluted world....

 

I really am saddened to see these few souls on ThaiVisa believing in the grossest bu££sh!t so unquestioningly.  Saddened and baffled.  

Attempting personal attacks by means of making a false equivalence between faith in deities and understanding of science.

 

[gamb00ler]

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Taking action to reduce pollution, protect the environment, protect wild life and wild life habitats.

 

These are the core of environmentalism.

 

What is your argument against taking these actions?

Not necessarily in order of importance, the arguments against are:

requires effort to read and understand,

reduction of time available for watching m/billionaire's teams battling,

requires introspection,

will lead to inconvenience,

will require some sacrifice in standard of living.

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, talahtnut said:

America cleaned up with 2 atomic bombs, napalm,

daisy cutters, agent orange, and a list of hideous

weapons too numerous to list..US has been involved

in over 100 wars, and 60 or so regime changes since

1945.  All for profit.  Venezuela next?

Hopefully.

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Not necessarily in order of importance, the arguments against are:

requires effort to read and understand,

reduction of time available for watching m/billionaire's teams battling,

requires introspection,

will lead to inconvenience,

will require some sacrifice in standard of living.

Will require some sacrifice such as no home heating, air travel, cars, shipping of cargo by ships at sea, and other modern conveniences such as reliable electrical power.

[gamb00ler]

4 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

 I read on this thread that only 97% of scientists even agree that the climate is changing. This makes it an unproven theory.

If you were very rich and skeptical you would perhaps seek the opinion of 100 doctors regarding a seriously debilitating health issue.  If 97% said "Get some exercise and eat more fruits and vegetables" and 3% said, "Don't worry, do nothing" what would you do?

[johnnybangkok]

16 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

The late 1940s, 50s, 60s and early 70s until the effects of mass immigration began to take effect. And for many decades earlier obviously before the Blitz.

 

I live there and we could go about our business unmolested in those years and could even leave our street doors open. Old folk could go shopping in safety. Stabbings were virtually unheard of, Acid attacks did not take place and neither did moped crime.

 

Until the later 60s the term mugging did not exist in the UK. Any murder made front page news now we have more murders than New York and barely get a mention. We actually have more fatal knife attacks than New York, Detroit and Chicago combined.

 

I detect a degree of doubt in your post. If I am correct say why, what do you know that I as a Londoner am unaware of.

What absolute nonsense. If you are going to argue anything to support your racism then at least get your facts straight.

Although violent crime in London (as a percentage of the population ) was at it's highest for a decade in 2018, it had been steadily falling from it's peak in the 80's to an all time low in 2014 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_London). 

You also don't have more murders in London than New York; this has been debunked as fake news perpetuated by the likes of Katie Hopkins and other erstwhile right wing nutters. For two months in 2018 murders in London outpaced New York but this was only for 2 months in 2018. In the whole of 2017 there were 116 murders in London which was fewer than half New York’s total of 290.  In 2016 there were 334 murders in New York compared to 102 in London. In 2015 New York had 352 murders compared to London's 109. I could go on but I think you get the point (by the way a 5 minute Google search gets you all these stats but then that would not be adding to your echo chamber would it).

Perhaps things were seemingly better in the 50's but then you had plenty of other things to worry about such as wide spread poverty, infant mortality and what was then unpreventable diseases to contend with. This idea that everything was sooooo much better back in the good ol' days is just a myth perpetuated by the baby boomer generation to blame everyone else but themselves for their now sad and pathetic lives.

Footnote: - the word 'mugging' has been around since the 1840's (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mugging)

Also - I lived in London for 25 years, in places such as Croydon, East Ham, Brixton, and Whitechapel so don't try and tell me I 'don't know what I'm talking about' when it comes to living with the effects of immigration in London. You're just trying desperately to prove what can clearly be seen as racist views.  

 

 

 

 

[gamb00ler]

25 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Will require some sacrifice such as no home heating, air travel, cars, shipping of cargo by ships at sea, and other modern conveniences such as reliable electrical power.

Exaggeration is more effectively utilized in the production of humor (humour for you Brits and Canucks).

[Ahab]

23 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Exaggeration is more effectively utilized in the production of humor (humour for you Brits and Canucks).

Please explain how these types of activities are going to be effectively done without fossil fuels and I will admit that what I posted earlier could be exaggeration. Realistic solutions and nuclear powered skittle s!@#$$ing unicorns do not count as "realistic solutions".

[stevenl]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Please explain how these types of activities are going to be effectively done without fossil fuels and I will admit that what I posted earlier could be exaggeration. Realistic solutions and nuclear powered skittle s!@#$$ing unicorns do not count as "realistic solutions".

Agree with you, if you want to achieve a considerable reduction right now we will have to do without "home heating, air travel, cars, shipping of cargo by ships at sea, and other modern conveniences such as reliable electrical power. ".

However who exactly is proposing to achieve this reduction right here and right now? And who is saying 'stop with fossil fuels right now'?

[blazes]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Agree with you, if you want to achieve a considerable reduction right now we will have to do without "home heating, air travel, cars, shipping of cargo by ships at sea, and other modern conveniences such as reliable electrical power. ".

However who exactly is proposing to achieve this reduction right here and right now? And who is saying 'stop with fossil fuels right now'?

 

Clearly you don't read the pronouncements of the eco-warriors worldwide...

[stevenl]

3 minutes ago, blazes said:

 

Clearly you don't read the pronouncements of the eco-warriors worldwide...

Looking forward to more clear quotes.

 

Greenpeace e.g., I presume you count them as an eco warrior, says

Quote

To make the most impact on climate change we need to stop all oil, coal, and gas expansion, massively accelerate the growth of renewable energy, support workers with a just transition to a sustainability-based economy and climate-impacted communities with a just recovery from extreme weather, and hold corporate polluters and political leaders accountable for their role in putting us in harm’s way. Without stopping oil, coal, and gas expansion as soon as possible, though, we won’t get anywhere close to where we need to be to stave off the worst of climate change.

Big difference between 'right now' and 'as soon as possible'.

[talahtnut]

Is it possible for the flood to be something that indeed

happened? The answer is yes. About 10000BCE a shift

happened in the axis of the earth because of the increased

ice on the poles, which resulted in melting ice raising

the levels of the oceans and flooding the whole world;

however, such a flood wouldn’t eliminate humanity on

Earth, and a great number of people would have survived.

We know sea levels have risen, and recently  the magnetic

north has begun to move, requiring GPS to be corrected.

I'm expecting the next flood to be a sea of plastic bags.

 

[Ahab]

15 minutes ago, blazes said:

 

Clearly you don't read the pronouncements of the eco-warriors worldwide...

Have the read the proposals put forward by the Democrats (US congress) "Green New Deal"? It makes a skittle sh$%^ing nuclear powered unicorn sound like a reasonable solution. When the eco-warriors stop flying on airplanes, heating their homes with fossil fuels in the winter time, and come up with reasonable solutions I might start listening to them, but I am not going to hold my breath until that time.

[gamb00ler]

About 57% of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the US come from transportation and power generation.  Significant reduction can be achieved with effective provision and use of public transportation, reduction in use of imported goods,  increase consumption of local agricultural products, reduce consumption of meat.  These changes are not that painful and can also have significant health benefits.

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Have the read the proposals put forward by the Democrats (US congress) "Green New Deal"? It makes a skittle sh$%^ing nuclear powered unicorn sound like a reasonable solution. When the eco-warriors stop flying on airplanes, heating their homes with fossil fuels in the winter time, and come up with reasonable solutions I might start listening to them, but I am not going to hold my breath until that time.

I take it you've missed noticing the fact renewable energies have created jobs.

 

But then perhaps you did notice but only wish to emphasise the anti-Green views you've been feeding on. 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, gamb00ler said:

About 57% of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the US come from transportation and power generation.  Significant reduction can be achieved with effective provision and use of public transportation, reduction in use of imported goods,  increase consumption of local agricultural products, reduce consumption of meat.  These changes are not that painful and can also have significant health benefits.

They also create local jobs. 

[RickBradford]

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I take it you've missed noticing the fact renewable energies have created jobs.

And what is the point of requiring more people to make the same amount of energy?

A more sensible goal would be for as much energy as possible to be produced by as few people as possible. Then the rest can get on with something else.

 

That drive towards efficiency is something we've done everywhere else we can in the economy, to the economy's benefit.

 

We could create more jobs in telecommunications by reverting to the old plug switchboards which require operators. Banning robots in car plants would create more jobs.

 

Creating jobs just for the sake of it doesn't benefit society at large, though of course it makes politicians feel good.

[stevenl]

20 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

And what is the point of requiring more people to make the same amount of energy?

A more sensible goal would be for as much energy as possible to be produced by as few people as possible. Then the rest can get on with something else.

 

That drive towards efficiency is something we've done everywhere else we can in the economy, to the economy's benefit.

 

We could create more jobs in telecommunications by reverting to the old plug switchboards which require operators. Banning robots in car plants would create more jobs.

 

Creating jobs just for the sake of it doesn't benefit society at large, though of course it makes politicians feel good.

Huh? You're trying to paint creating jobs as a negative here?

[mikebike]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

Will require some sacrifice such as no home heating, air travel, cars, shipping of cargo by ships at sea, and other modern conveniences such as reliable electrical power.

Home HVAC: heat pumps, solar, wind all work great.

 

Cars: electric, duh.

 

Cargo ships: nuclear subs are a hint.

 

Airplanes: electric works for short hauls. For intercontinental some innovation is required.

 

You seem to forget the paradigm shift from horses and coal to petro-fuels... it isn't as though we haven't done this before...

 

Any more dumb questions?

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

And what is the point of requiring more people to make the same amount of energy?

A more sensible goal would be for as much energy as possible to be produced by as few people as possible. Then the rest can get on with something else.

Of course!! Why didn't we all think of that!! Automation and unemployment are the panacea for the current economic crisis and dearth of well-paying, full-time jobs!! Brilliant!!

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, RickBradford said:

And what is the point of requiring more people to make the same amount of energy?

A more sensible goal would be for as much energy as possible to be produced by as few people as possible. Then the rest can get on with something else.

 

That drive towards efficiency is something we've done everywhere else we can in the economy, to the economy's benefit.

 

We could create more jobs in telecommunications by reverting to the old plug switchboards which require operators. Banning robots in car plants would create more jobs.

 

Creating jobs just for the sake of it doesn't benefit society at large, though of course it makes politicians feel good.

How about more people making the same amount of energy but with a reduction in environmental damage.

 

Your simplistic ‘efficiency’ mantra completely misses the environmental costs of current energy production and the the social and wider economic costs of putting people out of work.

 

 

[yogi100]

5 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

What absolute nonsense. If you are going to argue anything to support your racism then at least get your facts straight.

Although violent crime in London (as a percentage of the population ) was at it's highest for a decade in 2018, it had been steadily falling from it's peak in the 80's to an all time low in 2014 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_London). 

You also don't have more murders in London than New York; this has been debunked as fake news perpetuated by the likes of Katie Hopkins and other erstwhile right wing nutters. For two months in 2018 murders in London outpaced New York but this was only for 2 months in 2018. In the whole of 2017 there were 116 murders in London which was fewer than half New York’s total of 290.  In 2016 there were 334 murders in New York compared to 102 in London. In 2015 New York had 352 murders compared to London's 109. I could go on but I think you get the point (by the way a 5 minute Google search gets you all these stats but then that would not be adding to your echo chamber would it).

Perhaps things were seemingly better in the 50's but then you had plenty of other things to worry about such as wide spread poverty, infant mortality and what was then unpreventable diseases to contend with. This idea that everything was sooooo much better back in the good ol' days is just a myth perpetuated by the baby boomer generation to blame everyone else but themselves for their now sad and pathetic lives.

Footnote: - the word 'mugging' has been around since the 1840's (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mugging)

Also - I lived in London for 25 years, in places such as Croydon, East Ham, Brixton, and Whitechapel so don't try and tell me I 'don't know what I'm talking about' when it comes to living with the effects of immigration in London. You're just trying desperately to prove what can clearly be seen as racist views.  

 

 

 

 

What have I said that's 'racist'

 

Just because something is a fact does not mean it's 'racist' even if it does not fit in with a multicultural agenda.

 

And if you're so familiar with London why call yourself johnnybangkok, you should call yourself Johnny London.

 

What baby boomers do you know that have sad and pathetic lives. I dunno any.

[stevenl]

5 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

What have I said that's 'racist'

Would you be happy to call your post xenophobic in stead of racist?

[yogi100]

15 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Would you be happy to call your post xenophobic in stead of racist?

Call it what you like, just don't call it late for its dinner.

[RickBradford]

47 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Your simplistic ‘efficiency’ mantra completely misses the environmental costs of current energy production and the the social and wider economic costs of putting people out of work.

Creating windmills and solar panels have environmental costs as well, just different ones. The fantasy of free, clean energy is just that - a fantasy.

 

Nobody's "putting people out of work". Green jobs are overwhelmingly funded by government schemes (Obama set aside $150 billion for that purpose in 2008.)  If the jobs hadn't been green jobs, they would have been in another sector.

 

Talk about simplistic.....

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Creating windmills and solar panels have environmental costs as well, just different ones. The fantasy of free, clean energy is just that - a fantasy.

 

Nobody's "putting people out of work". Green jobs are overwhelmingly funded by government schemes (Obama set aside $150 billion for that purpose in 2008.)  If the jobs hadn't been green jobs, they would have been in another sector.

 

Talk about simplistic.....

So give us a comparison between the environmental impacts of windmills/solar energy and any fosil

fuel of your choosing.