Global Warming

Norpig wrote:
 Enjoy all your holidays mate, we aren't all bitter about it on here 

Sluffy wrote:Labour ditches £28bn green investment pledge

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68232133


This comes as no surprise to me - and what I've been trying to explain to W63 for months and months, and even more months as well!

In simple terms, the quicker  we get on top of keeping global warming from increasing by 1.5C by reducing the usage of the burning fossil fuels the better.

However that would take a massive shift away fossil fuel to green energy and at stupendous financial cost that will have to be borne by the taxpayer either through taxation or rising energy costs.

That will be very, very unpopular to the electorate and therefore no political party who pledges to spend £28 billion per year isn't going to get elected - look for example the effect of the London Emissions Charge had on the by-election for Boris seat which the Conservatives unexpectedly held!

So the move to go green WILL happen but gradually over a number of years - and will almost certainly mean keeping below the target of 1.5C will not be achieved although it may be clawed back by the target date of the year 2100.

So no wind turbines, solar panels and heat pumps on every street corner - as per the propaganda W63 has swallowed and rants about - but decidedly a worse world to inhabit for our children and their children thereafter.

So do as much as we can, no matter how little it might be in the scheme of things - because something is better than nothing for those who will be living with the effects of the planet which we have fucked up for them.

Sluffy wrote:Almost as though I knew what I was talking about...

boltonbonce wrote:

Sluffy wrote:Almost as though I knew what I was talking about...

I've given up arguing with the nay sayers. It's like arguing with Trumpers.

Whitesince63 wrote:China, India, USA, Brazil, etc. What we do is totally irrelevant and we’ve already done more than almost anybody else. All we’ve done is self harm our economy by exporting our carbon emissions to others like we’re doing with the steel production. UK production 6m tonnes, China 1 billion plus tonnes and you think we can affect global warming. You’re deluded.

Sluffy wrote:





...as I couldn't find one with its head up its arse!

Sluffy wrote:Thank you, I guess!

Fwiw I never looked to see if there was one.

Trust you to do though!!!

boltonbonce wrote:
My google search history can't get any worse, so what the hell!

Sluffy wrote:



Actually the picture I posted above was of a real ostrich - it wasn't photoshopped or manipulated in any way as I thought it had been - this is what the explanation was...

Do ostriches really bury their head in the sand?

As flightless birds, ostriches are unable to build nests in trees, so they lay their eggs in holes dug in the ground. To make sure that the eggs are evenly heated, they occasionally stick their heads into the nest to rotate the eggs, which makes it look like they’re trying to hide – hence the myth.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/do-ostriches-really-bury-their-head-in-the-sand


It's more fun I think, looking things up and finding things out, I guess that's what you do too with your searches - much better than believing any old shite written by some random nutjob on social media is true and believable like most seem to do.

I wonder how many weeks Baxter will be out with his sore finger...?


(Only joking W63, only joking).

Sluffy wrote:



Actually the picture I posted above was of a real ostrich - it wasn't photoshopped or manipulated in any way as I thought it had been - this is what the explanation was...

Do ostriches really bury their head in the sand?

As flightless birds, ostriches are unable to build nests in trees, so they lay their eggs in holes dug in the ground. To make sure that the eggs are evenly heated, they occasionally stick their heads into the nest to rotate the eggs, which makes it look like they’re trying to hide – hence the myth.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/do-ostriches-really-bury-their-head-in-the-sand


It's more fun I think, looking things up and finding things out, I guess that's what you do too with your searches - much better than believing any old shite written by some random nutjob on social media is true and believable like most seem to do.

I wonder how many weeks Baxter will be out with his sore finger...?


(Only joking W63, only joking).

boltonbonce wrote:
It's the beauty of the internet, Sluffy. One thing leads to another, and another, and another.
The tragedy is, many people take everything they read as gospel, without cross checking their sources. It's why I never trust Wikipedia.
Great as it is, it's not a source I'd stake my life on.

Sluffy wrote:

Deluded am I?

Certainly isn't what the science already shows if you had bothered yourself to actually read the article that Bonce posted the link to...

But researchers are keen to emphasise that humans can still make a difference to the world's warming trajectory.

The world has made some progress, with green technologies like renewables and electric vehicles booming in many parts of the world.

This has meant some of the very worst case scenarios of 4C warming or more this century - thought possible a decade ago - are now considered much less likely, based on current policies and pledges.

Here is a picture with an ostrich with it's head in the sand to represent your views on global warming...



...as I couldn't find one with its head up its arse!

Ten Bobsworth wrote:
Coleman might be keen as mustard but I reckon we'd be in the soup without Baxter.
I'll get mi coat.