Diesel and petrol car ban: Plan for 2040

[JamesKPolkEsq]

5 minutes ago, PigFish said:

... Move over here boys the diesel thread is still open!!! -LOL

-Piggy

Piggy, you are quite amusing

Thanks for the chuckles!

[PigFish]

6 minutes ago, JamesKPolkEsq said:

Piggy, you are quite amusing

Thanks for the chuckles!

Thanks mate... Between you and me, gotta' get some laughs. Life is too short.

Nothing personal on any of the threads (I hope you know!!!).

-Ray

[Ken Gargett]

21 minutes ago, PigFish said:

... Move over here boys the diesel thread is still open!!! -LOL

-Piggy

not for long if it heads the same way, ray.

[JamesKPolkEsq]

35 minutes ago, PigFish said:

Thanks mate... Between you and me, gotta' get some laughs. Life is too short.

Nothing personal on any of the threads (I hope you know!!!).

-Ray

Ha, take offense on the internet at your own peril! Just a bit of fun at my expense, have at it

[PigFish]

1 hour ago, Ken Gargett said:

not for long if it heads the same way, ray.

You were front and center at that one mate, not me!!! Even Bwana said I was doin' okay! -LOL

-R

[Ken Gargett]

10 minutes ago, PigFish said:

You were front and center at that one mate, not me!!! Even Bwana said I was doin' okay! -LOL

-R

sorry ray, was not aiming that comment at you or anyone. a general comment.

[PigFish]

15 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

sorry ray, was not aiming that comment at you or anyone. a general comment.

... I know amigo, not the way I took it. I apparently was the only one on the thread having a good time!

Peace, love (nothing I believe in but a good cliché) and call a mate stupid now and again, all in good fun! -R

[Ken Gargett]

1 minute ago, PigFish said:

... I know amigo, not the way I took it. I apparently was the only one on the thread having a good time!

Peace, love (nothing I believe in but a good cliché) and call a mate stupid now and again, all in good fun! -R

welcome to the balcony!!

[PigFish]

Park one in the ashtray for me. We can call it the missing "wing'r" formation!

Cheers! -Ray

[MooseAMuffin]

Unfortunately I missed the entertaining comments of the conversation...I curse myself for ever closing that thread on my browser...why, God, why????? 

[PigFish]

24 minutes ago, MooseAMuffin said:

Unfortunately I missed the entertaining comments of the conversation...I curse myself for ever closing that thread on my browser...why, God, why????? 

Don't you get email updates?

[PigFish]

I figured I would sum it up for you!!

 

-Piggy

[Fugu]

15 hours ago, PigFish said:

... Move over here boys the diesel thread is still open!!! -LOL

-Piggy

It really amazes me to see so much denial, scepticism up to even epic conspiracy theories about global warming (here and in particular in the other thread - has it been shut down already? ). It simply is happening folks, there really is no question about it (as Ken sais, flat earth debate anyone?).

The main question by far isn't anymore is it man-made or not (while the answer with regard to CO2 is a clear one), the question is - can we, should we and, if we agree so, how can we mitigate it? It's moot, not to say childish, to debate "who's done it?"....

See, actions are being taken to deal with earthquakes, hell, we are even monitoring outer space for comets and meteors - I never heard somebody questioning whom being responsible for those menaces. Do the firefighters debate the arsonist before they are rolling out of the station?! But folks are questioning global warming and whether or not we should do something about it? Seriously?! Global warming is just so happening, and it is happening quickly. The effects can plainly be seen already, perhaps in some corners of this planet more apparently than in others (not everybody is living happily on his Man'ly Isle of splendid isolation...). That doesn't mean for those who don't experience it personally (yet) that it isn't happening!

The true and only aspect in question in all this is - risks and costs! Will it be cheaper to try and limit the effects of global warming at an earlier stage or eventually deal with its effects in full? And will those most heavily affected be left behind? Costs of building dykes, translocation of population or whole cities are the least of them. Even in the US, at the doorsteps of the current official denier-govt. - how many "New Orleanses" or "New Yorks" can we and are we willing to handle in the future? Draughts in the West and Middle West of US of A, in Afrika, flooding in Asia. An incredibly fast ocean acidification and heating - effects on marine ecosystems? The life basis for so many. The struggle for water, harvest calamities and the implications of climate-induced migration - the full consequences cannot even be overseen at this moment. It needs a very basic, level-headed, unemotional consideration: What will be the risks and what the costs and consequences of ignoring climate change.

Sure, one can continue debating it, but the factual risk we are facing is that there is a very long time-lag in the system: React too hesitantly and the ship can't be stopped anymore. Perhaps we can't stop it anymore anyway, but isn't it worth all trying? At the very least the basic precautionary principle has to be applied.

Of course, climate change has been occurring continually (thanks for this truism folks!). But with the tiny little footnote - *) mankind had evolved in a comparatively short period of relative stability (and at atm. CO2-levels never before as high as observed now). The world will continue to exist long after us, that much is sure.

[Fuzz]

The debate on climate change is exactly the same as the debates on: does God (pick any religion) exists, are aliens out there (and what's with all the probing?), are ghosts/spirits real, and is this really the face of Jesus in my breakfast burrito?

[JamesKPolkEsq]

3 hours ago, Fugu said:

It really amazes me to see so much denial, scepticism up to even epic conspiracy theories about global warming (here and in particular in the other thread - has it been shut down already? ). It simply is happening folks, there really is no question about it (as Ken sais, flat earth debate anyone?).

The main question by far isn't anymore is it man-made or not (while the answer with regard to CO2 is a clear one), the question is - can we, should we and, if we agree so, how can we mitigate it? It's moot, not to say childish, to debate "who's done it?"....

See, actions are being taken to deal with earthquakes, hell, we are even monitoring outer space for comets and meteors - I never heard somebody questioning whom being responsible for those menaces. Do the firefighters debate the arsonist before they are rolling out of the station?! But folks are questioning global warming and whether or not we should do something about it? Seriously?! Global warming is just so happening, and it is happening quickly. The effects can plainly be seen already, perhaps in some corners of this planet more apparently than in others (not everybody is living happily on his Man'ly Isle of splendid isolation...). That doesn't mean for those who don't experience it personally (yet) that it isn't happening!

The true and only aspect in question in all this is - risks and costs! Will it be cheaper to try and limit the effects of global warming at an earlier stage or eventually deal with its effects in full? And will those most heavily affected be left behind? Costs of building dykes, translocation of population or whole cities are the least of them. Even in the US, at the doorsteps of the current official denier-govt. - how many "New Orleanses" or "New Yorks" can we and are we willing to handle in the future? Draughts in the West and Middle West of US of A, in Afrika, flooding in Asia. An incredibly fast ocean acidification and heating - effects on marine ecosystems? The life basis for so many. The struggle for water, harvest calamities and the implications of climate-induced migration - the full consequences cannot even be overseen at this moment. It needs a very basic, level-headed, unemotional consideration: What will be the risks and what the costs and consequences of ignoring climate change.

Sure, one can continue debating it, but the factual risk we are facing is that there is a very long time-lag in the system: React too hesitantly and the ship can't be stopped anymore. Perhaps we can't stop it anymore anyway, but isn't it worth all trying? At the very least the basic precautionary principle has to be applied.

Of course, climate change has been occurring continually (thanks for this truism folks!). But with the tiny little footnote - *) mankind had evolved in a comparatively short period of relative stability (and at atm. CO2-levels never before as high as observed now). The world will continue to exist long after us, that much is sure.

Brilliant. 

I do like to have people on the record as their representing NASA data as biased - helps classify the reality deniers!

Denial of data from a peer reviewed source means that the rest of their opinions should be treated appropriate skepticism. 

EDIT: Removed indelicate phrasing - Better to be Politically Correct to avoid hurting feelings, I suppose!

Edited August 6, 2017 by JamesKPolkEsq

[MooseAMuffin]

14 hours ago, PigFish said:

Don't you get email updates?

Only of new threads, not new posts...but that ends today 

[PigFish]

So James has once again started the name calling and the flag has been planted once more. I can see that 'a' government organization 'can' have a bias so I am a loon... 

Me, I have been called worse by better people... -LOL

I will end this with a whimsical outlook.

I have been a Christian for as long as I can remember. Many of the earth's major religions have a doomsday scenario... During my short life there have been waves of people, motivated by 'fear and religion' that believe that the end is near! They drink laced Koolaid, hence the term Koolaid drinkers! I am not one of them. Since the beginning of history man has believed that his generation would be the last to survive. There is nothing new or scientific about people fearing the end of days. There are just people motivated by fear, following people more imaginative than themselves, usually bent on taking their money. I have to laugh at how many of those that claim to believe in science, to be above the religious masses, cower behind ancient fears of the tomorrow, just as primitive man did... So much for the theory that people evolve!!! -LOL

The earth might be a cookin' but your cigars don't have to be... CigarClimatology!

Invite a polar bear over for a smoke... He will think you're smokes are cool... CigarClimatology... Still working on the 'doomsday' jingle!

Have a great day folks...! -Piggy

 

[Dave O)))]

Reconciling science and religion is one of lifes great incongruities. It's beyond my ken I'm afraid!

[Hayden]

8 hours ago, Fugu said:

It really amazes me to see so much denial, scepticism up to even epic conspiracy theories about global warming (here and in particular in the other thread - has it been shut down already? ). It simply is happening folks, there really is no question about it (as Ken sais, flat earth debate anyone?).

The main question by far isn't anymore is it man-made or not (while the answer with regard to CO2 is a clear one), the question is - can we, should we and, if we agree so, how can we mitigate it? It's moot, not to say childish, to debate "who's done it?"....

See, actions are being taken to deal with earthquakes, hell, we are even monitoring outer space for comets and meteors - I never heard somebody questioning whom being responsible for those menaces. Do the firefighters debate the arsonist before they are rolling out of the station?! But folks are questioning global warming and whether or not we should do something about it? Seriously?! Global warming is just so happening, and it is happening quickly. The effects can plainly be seen already, perhaps in some corners of this planet more apparently than in others (not everybody is living happily on his Man'ly Isle of splendid isolation...). That doesn't mean for those who don't experience it personally (yet) that it isn't happening!

The true and only aspect in question in all this is - risks and costs! Will it be cheaper to try and limit the effects of global warming at an earlier stage or eventually deal with its effects in full? And will those most heavily affected be left behind? Costs of building dykes, translocation of population or whole cities are the least of them. Even in the US, at the doorsteps of the current official denier-govt. - how many "New Orleanses" or "New Yorks" can we and are we willing to handle in the future? Draughts in the West and Middle West of US of A, in Afrika, flooding in Asia. An incredibly fast ocean acidification and heating - effects on marine ecosystems? The life basis for so many. The struggle for water, harvest calamities and the implications of climate-induced migration - the full consequences cannot even be overseen at this moment. It needs a very basic, level-headed, unemotional consideration: What will be the risks and what the costs and consequences of ignoring climate change.

Sure, one can continue debating it, but the factual risk we are facing is that there is a very long time-lag in the system: React too hesitantly and the ship can't be stopped anymore. Perhaps we can't stop it anymore anyway, but isn't it worth all trying? At the very least the basic precautionary principle has to be applied.

Of course, climate change has been occurring continually (thanks for this truism folks!). But with the tiny little footnote - *) mankind had evolved in a comparatively short period of relative stability (and at atm. CO2-levels never before as high as observed now). The world will continue to exist long after us, that much is sure.

An excellent post that sums up my views. 

[gweilgi]

8 hours ago, Fugu said:

It really amazes me to see so much denial, scepticism up to even epic conspiracy theories about global warming (here and in particular in the other thread - has it been shut down already? ). It simply is happening folks, there really is no question about it (as Ken sais, flat earth debate anyone?).

From observation, part of the issue is simply one of labelling: "Global Warming" was an early term for what scientists observed and theorised.  But it is hard to communicate a theory predicting climate change to people sitting in the middle of a snow storm.  "Global Climate Change" is much more appropriate a term, and one we should stick to.  For one thing, my beloved green and sceptre'd isle will, in the doomsday scenarios of the climate apocalyptics, not get any warmer -- quite the contrary.  The prediction is that the British Isles will in fact get a whole lot colder as the melting permafrost will slow down or even stop the Gulf Stream which is largely responsible for our temperate climate.  No more palm trees and lizards in Cornwall ....

 

8 hours ago, Fugu said:

The main question by far isn't anymore is it man-made or not (while the answer with regard to CO2 is a clear one), the question is - can we, should we and, if we agree so, how can we mitigate it? It's moot, not to say childish, to debate "who's done it?"....

Note that individual measures can have beneficial effects irrespective of their effect on climate change.  The ban on CFCs, for example, has not destroyed entire industries as was feared.  Efforts to curb waste and pollution as well as petroleum consumption have brought benefits to our resource management, have not only made our lives and personal environment cleaner and healthier but have created entire new industries and created many new jobs.  Building higher dams and flood defences will protect coastal communities better even if there were no climate change.  Drives to improve the efficiency of our water and energy usage has spurred much better and imaginative engineering.

 

8 hours ago, Fugu said:

See, actions are being taken to deal with earthquakes, hell, we are even monitoring outer space for comets and meteors - I never heard somebody questioning whom being responsible for those menaces. Do the firefighters debate the arsonist before they are rolling out of the station?! But folks are questioning global warming and whether or not we should do something about it? Seriously?! Global warming is just so happening, and it is happening quickly. The effects can plainly be seen already, perhaps in some corners of this planet more apparently than in others (not everybody is living happily on his Man'ly Isle of splendid isolation...). That doesn't mean for those who don't experience it personally (yet) that it isn't happening!

The true and only aspect in question in all this is - risks and costs! Will it be cheaper to try and limit the effects of global warming at an earlier stage or eventually deal with its effects in full? And will those most heavily affected be left behind? Costs of building dykes, translocation of population or whole cities are the least of them. Even in the US, at the doorsteps of the current official denier-govt. - how many "New Orleanses" or "New Yorks" can we and are we willing to handle in the future? Draughts in the West and Middle West of US of A, in Afrika, flooding in Asia. An incredibly fast ocean acidification and heating - effects on marine ecosystems? The life basis for so many. The struggle for water, harvest calamities and the implications of climate-induced migration - the full consequences cannot even be overseen at this moment. It needs a very basic, level-headed, unemotional consideration: What will be the risks and what the costs and consequences of ignoring climate change.

That is one side of the equation.  And that is, perhaps, the biggest problem in this whole debate: the fixation on the costs, the risks, and all the other negative aspects.  Far too little attention, IMHO, has been paid to any positives.  Change is never just calamity -- it is also opportunity (hey, another truism).  That, too, needs careful consideration and a whole lot more PR.  So climate change creates drought, failed harvests and famine.  But wait -- if this spurs African farmers to change their antiquated farming techniques and use better crops, is that not a plus?  Climate-induced water shortages are a massive problem, of course -- but it also means the development and introduction of new varietals of rice that use less water, are more productive and are more nutritious (google "Golden Rice").  And so on...

 

8 hours ago, Fugu said:

Sure, one can continue debating it, but the factual risk we are facing is that there is a very long time-lag in the system: React too hesitantly and the ship can't be stopped anymore. Perhaps we can't stop it anymore anyway, but isn't it worth all trying? At the very least the basic precautionary principle has to be applied.

I reckon we cannot stop this ship from sailing.  Even if by some miracle of divine intervention the entire world were to wake up tomorrow and implement all the measures demanded by the eco-fanatics, it would be too little too late.  Plus, Mother Nature can be a real bitch: all it takes to wipe out all our efforts is one decent burp by some Icelandic volcano.  

 

8 hours ago, Fugu said:

Of course, climate change has been occurring continually (thanks for this truism folks!). But with the tiny little footnote - *) mankind had evolved in a comparatively short period of relative stability (and at atm. CO2-levels never before as high as observed now). The world will continue to exist long after us, that much is sure.

I spent my life dedicated to killing cockroaches.  I am not too keen on seeing them inherit the earth anytime soon...

 

[JamesKPolkEsq]

https://qz.com/929794/has-lithium-battery-genius-john-goodenough-done-it-again-colleagues-are-skeptical/

Interesting potential new battery technology from the creator of the lithium ion battery.

[clutch5150]

On 8/6/2017 at 11:50 AM, PigFish said:

So James has once again started the name calling and the flag has been planted once more. I can see that 'a' government organization 'can' have a bias so I am a loon... 

Me, I have been called worse by better people... -LOL

I will end this with a whimsical outlook.

I have been a Christian for as long as I can remember. Many of the earth's major religions have a doomsday scenario... During my short life there have been waves of people, motivated by 'fear and religion' that believe that the end is near! They drink laced Koolaid, hence the term Koolaid drinkers! I am not one of them. Since the beginning of history man has believed that his generation would be the last to survive. There is nothing new or scientific about people fearing the end of days. There are just people motivated by fear, following people more imaginative than themselves, usually bent on taking their money. I have to laugh at how many of those that claim to believe in science, to be above the religious masses, cower behind ancient fears of the tomorrow, just as primitive man did... So much for the theory that people evolve!!! -LOL

The earth might be a cookin' but your cigars don't have to be... CigarClimatology!

Invite a polar bear over for a smoke... He will think you're smokes are cool... CigarClimatology... Still working on the 'doomsday' jingle!

Have a great day folks...! -Piggy

 

It must be due to the famous faces of religious figures in tree trunks and the clouds...

[Ken Gargett]

interesting timing.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html?emc=edit_na_20170807&nl=breaking-news&nlid=62389403&ref=cta&_r=0

[wabashcr]

11 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

interesting timing.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html?emc=edit_na_20170807&nl=breaking-news&nlid=62389403&ref=cta&_r=0

The deniers (including the ones in charge) are already out in force on this one.  Seems if you can just make it about not trusting anything the government or the media says or does, you're absolved from having to use facts to refute any of the findings.  

[Ken Gargett]

25 minutes ago, wabashcr said:

The deniers (including the ones in charge) are already out in force on this one.  Seems if you can just make it about not trusting anything the government or the media says or does, you're absolved from having to use facts to refute any of the findings.  

it does seem that if christ himself came down and explained climate change (i do agree with the above post that it is a better term than global warming), there would still be plenty who would not accept it. and no doubt it will be the same here. for some, there will never be any proof. what really surprised me, on the previous thread now hidden (and i do not want to set all that off again) is that so many deniers simply seem to crucify the messenger, on the basis that if you repeat something about them often enough (talking general sense here), no matter if it is true or not, the mud might stick. so if you do not deny climate change/global warming, you must be a liberal elitists (i must say that would amaze most of my friends who would consider me anything but, but i guess everything is relative).

but it really made me giggle when i was watching something recently that had clips from speeches by both reagan and bush snr, when they were president, both warning of the dangers of global warming. reagan was especially interesting as he had been strongly opposed to the idea of climate change but the science convinced him he was wrong.

if those guys are liberal elitists then perhaps it is not the worst club going around.