Performance of the new government

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Performance of the new government

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 19 of 38 < 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 >

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 13 Jul 24 6.57pm
Originally posted by The groover Yeah because carbon is the only green house gas......... I've been banging on about methane for decades and now its been accepted as the number one issue. The report below explains it. But to take one part. "Over a 20-year period, one ton of methane has a global warming potential that is 84 to 87 times greater than carbon dioxide. Over a century, that warming potential is 28 to 36 times greater. The difference occurs because methane is mostly scrubbed out of the air by chemical reactions within about ten years, while carbon dioxide persists in the atmosphere for much longer than a century. “That means the climate effects of methane are front-loaded,” explained Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at Duke University. “Part of the reason there is so much interest in methane right now is because reducing those emissions could slow warming over the next few decades." We need to reduce MME effects now. Carbon reduction will take 100's of years to have an effect. Putting that into perspective. Focusing on methane reduction for the next 100 years will give CO2 reduction a chance to have an effect. Its not rocket science but given how the politicians behave you would think so! [Link] I am not so sure it is accepted as the No 1 issue. Important certainly but whether the approach you describe is the most effective I will leave to our experts to debate and decide. [Link] What is certainly true is that man made climate change is real and cannot just be kicked into the long grass because it’s difficult to deal with. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 13 Jul 24 6.57pm

Originally posted by The groover

Yeah because carbon is the only green house gas.........

I've been banging on about methane for decades and now its been accepted as the number one issue.

The report below explains it. But to take one part.

"Over a 20-year period, one ton of methane has a global warming potential that is 84 to 87 times greater than carbon dioxide. Over a century, that warming potential is 28 to 36 times greater. The difference occurs because methane is mostly scrubbed out of the air by chemical reactions within about ten years, while carbon dioxide persists in the atmosphere for much longer than a century.

“That means the climate effects of methane are front-loaded,” explained Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at Duke University. “Part of the reason there is so much interest in methane right now is because reducing those emissions could slow warming over the next few decades."

We need to reduce MME effects now. Carbon reduction will take 100's of years to have an effect. Putting that into perspective. Focusing on methane reduction for the next 100 years will give CO2 reduction a chance to have an effect.

Its not rocket science but given how the politicians behave you would think so!

[Link]

I am not so sure it is accepted as the No 1 issue. Important certainly but whether the approach you describe is the most effective I will leave to our experts to debate and decide.

[Link]

What is certainly true is that man made climate change is real and cannot just be kicked into the long grass because it’s difficult to deal with.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 13 Jul 24 7.07pm
Originally posted by The groover Solar panels in the winter, when its need the most, are worthless. I know as I have them. Cloud cover, low sun angle, and reduced daylight hours mean that next to FA will be generated when its really needed. In the summer more than is needed will be generated. But without battery storage it will again be mostly unused. The power is needed between 5pm and 11pm. When the sun is on its way down, therefore very little will be generated at that time. Less effective certainly but worthless, no. [Link] For sure they are not a complete solution, especially in a temperate climate such as ours. They contribute an energy source. I don’t think anyone has argued differently. In places where there is lots of sunshine with little seasonal variation they have much more potential. Wind, ground and water source, plus tidal all have their part to play. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 13 Jul 24 7.07pm

Originally posted by The groover

Solar panels in the winter, when its need the most, are worthless. I know as I have them. Cloud cover, low sun angle, and reduced daylight hours mean that next to FA will be generated when its really needed.

In the summer more than is needed will be generated. But without battery storage it will again be mostly unused. The power is needed between 5pm and 11pm. When the sun is on its way down, therefore very little will be generated at that time.

Less effective certainly but worthless, no.

[Link]

For sure they are not a complete solution, especially in a temperate climate such as ours. They contribute an energy source. I don’t think anyone has argued differently.

In places where there is lots of sunshine with little seasonal variation they have much more potential.

Wind, ground and water source, plus tidal all have their part to play.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 13 Jul 24 7.37pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger That's not the problem. The problem is a low birth rate in Europe. The Earth's yearly supply of resources is being used up quicker as population grows. You are accepting that we will get a smaller share in the West. Why would anyone vote to have a lower standard of living? Who are our governments representing? Every policy seems to be geared towards making the super rich richer while the rest of us fight over what is left. This is the future you support. It’s both our aging populations and the lower birthrate which is the issue. You cannot separate them, as they both contribute. For sure the Earth’s resources are ultimately finite but we are a very long way from needing to be overly concerned. New sources and more efficient methods of extraction are being found. New ways to use old materials are being discovered and previously disregarded materials being used. We are also recycling much more than in the past. Making sure that the third world get enough does not mean that we won’t or that our living standards will decline. The human race is pretty smart at finding ways. Things will continue to change, as they always have. Just at increased pace. That’s inevitable and should be embraced rather than imitating Canute. Our governments exist to serve us, but not be dictated to by us. This idea that they serve the “super rich” is nonsense. The super rich exist and can find ways around the controls of individual governments, but that doesn’t mean policy is designed for them. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 13 Jul 24 7.37pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

That's not the problem. The problem is a low birth rate in Europe.

The Earth's yearly supply of resources is being used up quicker as population grows.
You are accepting that we will get a smaller share in the West.

Why would anyone vote to have a lower standard of living?

Who are our governments representing?

Every policy seems to be geared towards making the super rich richer while the rest of us fight over what is left.

This is the future you support.

It’s both our aging populations and the lower birthrate which is the issue. You cannot separate them, as they both contribute.

For sure the Earth’s resources are ultimately finite but we are a very long way from needing to be overly concerned.

New sources and more efficient methods of extraction are being found. New ways to use old materials are being discovered and previously disregarded materials being used. We are also recycling much more than in the past.

Making sure that the third world get enough does not mean that we won’t or that our living standards will decline. The human race is pretty smart at finding ways.

Things will continue to change, as they always have. Just at increased pace. That’s inevitable and should be embraced rather than imitating Canute.

Our governments exist to serve us, but not be dictated to by us. This idea that they serve the “super rich” is nonsense. The super rich exist and can find ways around the controls of individual governments, but that doesn’t mean policy is designed for them.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 13 Jul 24 7.42pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle You consistently deny the existence of climate change, thus seeking to dismiss the consensus of worldwide expert opinion on the issue. I prefer we listen to those experts, rather than those who just wish and hope, and take heed before it’s too late. Not for me. I’ll be long gone by the time a real disaster hits, but for the unborn generations who follow us. I care about them. And you constantly don’t read what I post. I have never denied climate change is happening, ever. My argument is how much is man made and how much is the earths doing, you know natural which would happen even if we were not here. If some of these scientists and governments had the bollox to tell us they know the kick back from most would be a WTF moment as ours is tiny. On the other hand if the earth is in imminent mortal danger from our carbon output and the only way to save it is to reduce drastically and quickly why do we have to pay. Surely money is pretty useless if you haven’t got a planet to spend it on. Do you understand why I’m cynical and I repeat all the models we are shown are worst case scenarios. Not the best or the mean or even the median, just the worst so f*** the dolphins
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 13 Jul 24 7.42pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

You consistently deny the existence of climate change, thus seeking to dismiss the consensus of worldwide expert opinion on the issue.

I prefer we listen to those experts, rather than those who just wish and hope, and take heed before it’s too late. Not for me. I’ll be long gone by the time a real disaster hits, but for the unborn generations who follow us.

I care about them.

And you constantly don’t read what I post. I have never denied climate change is happening, ever. My argument is how much is man made and how much is the earths doing, you know natural which would happen even if we were not here. If some of these scientists and governments had the bollox to tell us they know the kick back from most would be a WTF moment as ours is tiny. On the other hand if the earth is in imminent mortal danger from our carbon output and the only way to save it is to reduce drastically and quickly why do we have to pay. Surely money is pretty useless if you haven’t got a planet to spend it on. Do you understand why I’m cynical and I repeat all the models we are shown are worst case scenarios. Not the best or the mean or even the median, just the worst so f*** the dolphins

Alert a moderator to this post

Behind Enemy Lines Sussex 13 Jul 24 7.53pm
Originally posted by cryrst And you constantly don’t read what I post. I have never denied climate change is happening, ever. My argument is how much is man made and how much is the earths doing, you know natural which would happen even if we were not here. If some of these scientists and governments had the bollox to tell us they know the kick back from most would be a WTF moment as ours is tiny. On the other hand if the earth is in imminent mortal danger from our carbon output and the only way to save it is to reduce drastically and quickly why do we have to pay. Surely money is pretty useless if you haven’t got a planet to spend it on. Do you understand why I’m cynical and I repeat all the models we are shown are worst case scenarios. Not the best or the mean or even the median, just the worst so f*** the dolphins Exactly. hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing.
Alert a moderator to this post

Behind Enemy Lines

Sussex 13 Jul 24 7.53pm

Send a Private Message to Behind Enemy Lines

Originally posted by cryrst

Exactly.

hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 13 Jul 24 9.15pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle It’s both our aging populations and the lower birthrate which is the issue. You cannot separate them, as they both contribute. For sure the Earth’s resources are ultimately finite but we are a very long way from needing to be overly concerned. New sources and more efficient methods of extraction are being found. New ways to use old materials are being discovered and previously disregarded materials being used. We are also recycling much more than in the past. Making sure that the third world get enough does not mean that we won’t or that our living standards will decline. The human race is pretty smart at finding ways. Things will continue to change, as they always have. Just at increased pace. That’s inevitable and should be embraced rather than imitating Canute. Our governments exist to serve us, but not be dictated to by us. This idea that they serve the “super rich” is nonsense. The super rich exist and can find ways around the controls of individual governments, but that doesn’t mean policy is designed for them. Ah yes. Everything will just magically work out. Your golden age will never arrive. At least, not for the vast majority of us. By the way. Canute did not think he could command the sea. It was the exact opposite. It was his subjects who foolishly thought he could. You know. The sort of dumbasses who believe in magic.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

13 Jul 24 9.15pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

It’s both our aging populations and the lower birthrate which is the issue. You cannot separate them, as they both contribute.

For sure the Earth’s resources are ultimately finite but we are a very long way from needing to be overly concerned.

Making sure that the third world get enough does not mean that we won’t or that our living standards will decline. The human race is pretty smart at finding ways.

Things will continue to change, as they always have. Just at increased pace. That’s inevitable and should be embraced rather than imitating Canute.

Ah yes. Everything will just magically work out.

Your golden age will never arrive. At least, not for the vast majority of us.

By the way. Canute did not think he could command the sea. It was the exact opposite. It was his subjects who foolishly thought he could.

You know. The sort of dumbasses who believe in magic.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 14 Jul 24 12.01am
Originally posted by cryrst And you constantly don’t read what I post. I have never denied climate change is happening, ever. My argument is how much is man made and how much is the earths doing, you know natural which would happen even if we were not here. If some of these scientists and governments had the bollox to tell us they know the kick back from most would be a WTF moment as ours is tiny. On the other hand if the earth is in imminent mortal danger from our carbon output and the only way to save it is to reduce drastically and quickly why do we have to pay. Surely money is pretty useless if you haven’t got a planet to spend it on. Do you understand why I’m cynical and I repeat all the models we are shown are worst case scenarios. Not the best or the mean or even the median, just the worst so f*** the dolphins OK, I should have precessed climate change with “man made”. For that I apologise. However everything else I said remains true. The contribution of natural climate change is well understood and takes place over much longer time periods. Always many centuries and often thousands of years. During which time we have been able to adjust and move. Man made has all occurred since the Industrial Revolution and there are vastly increased numbers of us now. Of course we look at worst case scenarios! Do you think they must be ignored? We must prepare for the worst, expect the median and hope for the best. Right now it’s looking as though the worst will be exceeded. Edited by Wisbech Eagle (14 Jul 2024 8.24am) For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 14 Jul 24 12.01am

Originally posted by cryrst

OK, I should have precessed climate change with “man made”. For that I apologise. However everything else I said remains true. The contribution of natural climate change is well understood and takes place over much longer time periods. Always many centuries and often thousands of years. During which time we have been able to adjust and move.

Man made has all occurred since the Industrial Revolution and there are vastly increased numbers of us now. Of course we look at worst case scenarios! Do you think they must be ignored?

We must prepare for the worst, expect the median and hope for the best. Right now it’s looking as though the worst will be exceeded.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (14 Jul 2024 8.24am)

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 14 Jul 24 12.06am
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Ah yes. Everything will just magically work out. Your golden age will never arrive. At least, not for the vast majority of us. By the way. Canute did not think he could command the sea. It was the exact opposite. It was his subjects who foolishly thought he could. You know. The sort of dumbasses who believe in magic. No magic, nor a golden age. Just a different one. Not involving us, but our children’s children who will wonder what on earth grandad was getting in a strop about. Just as we did with ours over some of their attitudes. They might though get cross about us being selfish and not tackling climate change because we didn’t want our cozy lifestyles disrupted. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 14 Jul 24 12.06am

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Ah yes. Everything will just magically work out.

Your golden age will never arrive. At least, not for the vast majority of us.

By the way. Canute did not think he could command the sea. It was the exact opposite. It was his subjects who foolishly thought he could.

You know. The sort of dumbasses who believe in magic.

No magic, nor a golden age. Just a different one. Not involving us, but our children’s children who will wonder what on earth grandad was getting in a strop about.

Just as we did with ours over some of their attitudes.

They might though get cross about us being selfish and not tackling climate change because we didn’t want our cozy lifestyles disrupted.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 16 Jul 24 8.16pm
Already, Labour have shelved plans to limit employing migrant workers. Of course, we knew we couldn't trust them. The whole country is disintegrating, but this suggests that these fools don't care. Stand by for more crime, more sectarianism, more housing shortages, more pressure on services, more wage suppression and a bigger reduction in personal wealth. Please remember to vote for a party who might do something to stop this lunacy next time you have the chance.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

16 Jul 24 8.16pm

Already, Labour have shelved plans to limit employing migrant workers.
Of course, we knew we couldn't trust them.

The whole country is disintegrating, but this suggests that these fools don't care.
Stand by for more crime, more sectarianism, more housing shortages, more pressure on services, more wage suppression and a bigger reduction in personal wealth.

Please remember to vote for a party who might do something to stop this lunacy next time you have the chance.

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 16 Jul 24 10.11pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle OK, I should have precessed climate change with “man made”. For that I apologise. However everything else I said remains true. The contribution of natural climate change is well understood and takes place over much longer time periods. Always many centuries and often thousands of years. During which time we have been able to adjust and move. Man made has all occurred since the Industrial Revolution and there are vastly increased numbers of us now. Of course we look at worst case scenarios! Do you think they must be ignored? We must prepare for the worst, expect the median and hope for the best. Right now it’s looking as though the worst will be exceeded. Edited by Wisbech Eagle (14 Jul 2024 8.24am) Ok then I accept your very rare acceptance of making a mistake and again ask why the % of natural to man made is never given. Some of these scientists must have calculated it so where are the figures. Probably tucked away with the instructions on a water driven car! For example when the Icelandic volcanos went up a few years ago do you think that was a greater amount in a short time compared to how long it would take man made CO2 to generate. Oh and what figures are you reading for worst case as they’ve been up and down more times than a whores draws. Also you don’t look at worst case being the best around immigration and it’s affect but do with climate change and brexit. Is that not either a double standard or fence sitting ? Edited by cryrst (16 Jul 2024 10.14pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 16 Jul 24 10.11pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Man made has all occurred since the Industrial Revolution and there are vastly increased numbers of us now. Of course we look at worst case scenarios! Do you think they must be ignored?

We must prepare for the worst, expect the median and hope for the best. Right now it’s looking as though the worst will be exceeded.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (14 Jul 2024 8.24am)

Ok then I accept your very rare acceptance of making a mistake and again ask why the % of natural to man made is never given. Some of these scientists must have calculated it so where are the figures. Probably tucked away with the instructions on a water driven car!
For example when the Icelandic volcanos went up a few years ago do you think that was a greater amount in a short time compared to how long it would take man made CO2 to generate.
Oh and what figures are you reading for worst case as they’ve been up and down more times than a whores draws. Also you don’t look at worst case being the best around immigration and it’s affect but do with climate change and brexit. Is that not either a double standard or fence sitting ?

Edited by cryrst (16 Jul 2024 10.14pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

EverybodyDannsNow SE19 17 Jul 24 7.55am
Originally posted by cryrst Ok then I accept your very rare acceptance of making a mistake and again ask why the % of natural to man made is never given. Some of these scientists must have calculated it so where are the figures. Probably tucked away with the instructions on a water driven car! For example when the Icelandic volcanos went up a few years ago do you think that was a greater amount in a short time compared to how long it would take man made CO2 to generate. Oh and what figures are you reading for worst case as they’ve been up and down more times than a whores draws. Also you don’t look at worst case being the best around immigration and it’s affect but do with climate change and brexit. Is that not either a double standard or fence sitting ? Edited by cryrst (16 Jul 2024 10.14pm) Is there any other field of science where you feel you have a better grasp on the data and what is happening than the near-unanimous view of the scientific community? Or is it specific to climate change?
Alert a moderator to this post

EverybodyDannsNow

SE19 17 Jul 24 7.55am

Send a Private Message to EverybodyDannsNow

Originally posted by cryrst

Edited by cryrst (16 Jul 2024 10.14pm)

Is there any other field of science where you feel you have a better grasp on the data and what is happening than the near-unanimous view of the scientific community? Or is it specific to climate change?

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 17 Jul 24 9.27am
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow Is there any other field of science where you feel you have a better grasp on the data and what is happening than the near-unanimous view of the scientific community? Or is it specific to climate change? I’m asking a question about how much humans create compared to natural. Don’t you think that’s logical before we are all forced back into caves; and on the answers I may have a different opinion. Your opinion isn’t necessarily more accurate or correct than mine so are you a scientist alongside all the other skills you have ! Oh and science doesn’t have the correct outcome on numbers, that’s down to avoiding cancellation and being made poor for not going along with the masses when this subject is on the table.
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 17 Jul 24 9.27am

Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow

I’m asking a question about how much humans create compared to natural. Don’t you think that’s logical before we are all forced back into caves; and on the answers I may have a different opinion. Your opinion isn’t necessarily more accurate or correct than mine so are you a scientist alongside all the other skills you have !
Oh and science doesn’t have the correct outcome on numbers, that’s down to avoiding cancellation and being made poor for not going along with the masses when this subject is on the table.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 19 of 38 < 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Performance of the new government

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors