Climate change, unequivocal evidence.

On your computer, consuming energy, supported by the very technology you object to the impact of?

"Radically change your consumer habits".......... unless there is a few quid in it eh?? Hypocrite.
That's a bit trong. Im happy to have reduced the size of my green/carbon footprint. Changing consumer habits doesn't mean going back to the 1700s. Anyway, whatever. We could micro analyse everything we do, like cooking on gas. Im just saying on a day to day basis we should all pollute less
 
The other problem is the disconnect that people have from their food.
As a kid we ate seasonal stuff....... and if it wasn`t in season we didn`t have it.
Now the "consumer is king" so you get food from around the globe, irrespective of seasons, irrespective of impact on the local environment where it is grown/produced.....................

A few years of post Brexit hunger might do the planet some good. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
That's because we shopped on the high street and they could only get local stuff, but at least we knew what we were eating. Today it is all about convenient food, ready meals etc. We have stopped questioning it's origin, and it is sent to us wrapped in plastic. Less people seem to be able to cook, or maybe just can't be arsed, so the demand is there. Supermarkets hold local producers to ransom over prices versus say imported chicken from Thailand, and eventually all our food is coming from overseas. That's surely a national security risk. Amongst villages in the shires, who often commute to London and have disposable income, I think there would be an appetite for a high street with a fishmonger, a local butcher, baker etc. They could afford it, but the supermarkets have got us all hooked on mass produced cheap crap. I buy all my fruit and veg loose, and leave the unnecessary plastic wrapping behind at the supermarket, usually to bewilderment.
 
When people like Caroline Lucas attach the Green New Deal to this, they alienate people from it by making it political. We're not taking about custodianship of our home, we're talking politics. on the side to get voted in. I'm surprised that she is so naive on what she calls a crisis, to bring votes in to it. Sounds like she shilling for local elections
 
When people like Caroline Lucas attach the Green New Deal to this, they alienate people from it by making it political. We're not taking about custodianship of our home, we're talking politics. on the side to get voted in. I'm surprised that she is so naive on what she calls a crisis, to bring votes in to it. Sounds like she shilling for local elections
If the Greens were doing their job properly there wouldn't be an XR movement. They are so passive. Sometimes timing is everything to harnessing support - Lucas has presumably been waiting for a volcano to erupt beneath the streets of London before people turn to the Greens for answers. XR need a political voice, otherwise all they have is nodding heads from politicians, even when Greta joins for talks. This should be the moment for the Greens. To invite XR for talks where they agree to 1/ adopt the three core principals of XR as their demands in parliament 2/ immediately set up a "committee" made up of Green MPs, (David Attenborough ? :)) and XR/academic representatives to openly discuss workable solutions/alternatives to plastic/fossil fuels etc 3/ Rewrite their manifesto adopting these additions as core. This is the moment politically they have surely waited for. Reduce Farage votes in EU and local/general elections - XR are signing up 5k people per day as the Green stand still. If the Greens don't adopt, I think there will be an alternative political movement rise and flush them away. If there is a collapse of the two tier party and Labour/Tory implode, there will hopefully be a birth of something liberal and environmentally friendly
 
Scientific evidence is only postulating, basically best guess.

This is nothing to do about the earth, it’s about mankind’s existence and how people think they can manage it.
Scientific evidence is postulating and what mankind can best hues on the short time we have been on earth, do we really know if there’s and answer or even if we are creating the problems ourselves, it might be even with our best perceived efforts it might all be in vain, will mankind cause its own extinction or a natural phenomenon cease it?

Science over the centuries has had the original thought process changed as we understand more today, the same might be said of today’s climate change.

I think mankind will cause its own extinction as it will outgrow the earth at the current rate, maybe more population control might help, but again does anyone know where mankind will end up in a 100, 500, 1000, 10,000 years time on this spinning disc of rock.
Interesting points, existential and otherwise. In the meantime we have unequivocal EVIDENCE (not hypotheses) that our actions are causing (or contributing to) global warming. The domino effect of our own behaviour is staggeringly stark We have a choice, ruminate at the expense of the planet and it's ability to continue to provide habitation for all its species, or act and stop further damage and replenish what we can.
If every person in the UK planted two trees, what do you imagine the benefits would be ? (think de-forestation effects)
 
Interesting points, existential and otherwise. In the meantime we have unequivocal EVIDENCE (not hypotheses) that our actions are causing (or contributing to) global warming. The domino effect of our own behaviour is staggeringly stark We have a choice, ruminate at the expense of the planet and it's ability to continue to provide habitation for all its species, or act and stop further damage and replenish what we can.
If every person in the UK planted two trees, what do you imagine the benefits would be ? (think de-forestation effects)
I think if everyone planted 2 trees, I would be worried about the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, you?
 
Scientific evidence is only postulating, basically best guess.

LOL. Evidence is facts (in this case global warming trends, weather pattern changes, storm frequency/severity, rising sea levels etc). The conclusions you draw from those facts may be 'postulating'. In the same way that a doctor taking blood samples, doing an MRI scan and reading a heart monitor trace might 'postulate' that you are ill. It's a guess (if you want to put it that way) but it's a guess based on the available evidence - and given such a situation, you can either admit that the guess is worth taking notice of and change your ways, or you can dismiss the doctor's opinion as meaningless before drinking ten pints, smoking a packet of fags, eating a nice fried breakfast ('none of that did me any harm before'!) and dropping down dead.
 
LOL. Evidence is facts (in this case global warming trends, weather pattern changes, storm frequency/severity, rising sea levels etc). The conclusions you draw from those facts may be 'postulating'. In the same way that a doctor taking blood samples, doing an MRI scan and reading a heart monitor trace might 'postulate' that you are ill. It's a guess (if you want to put it that way) but it's a guess based on the available evidence - and given such a situation, you can either admit that the guess is worth taking notice of and change your ways, or you can dismiss the doctor's opinion as meaningless before drinking ten pints, smoking a packet of fags, eating a nice fried breakfast ('none of that did me any harm before'!) and dropping down dead.
Poor analogy that brings nothing to the debate in hand, humans lifespan could be long or short and they die from a multitude of reasons at any age, that’s with or without seeing an expert.
 
Also, stop using peat based compost for your garden, there are alternatives which do a good job.
 
No
I think you should do a bit more research than a simple no, forests and the soil around them are releasing more carbon into the atmosphere accelerating the global warming process, research is ongoing all the time and the thought process is always changing.
 
I think you should do a bit more research than a simple no, forests and the soil around them are releasing more carbon into the atmosphere accelerating the global warming process, research is ongoing all the time and the thought process is always changing.

Well there are some who are challenging this premise, but they are a minority. In any case, whatever measure we take there is no argument to be had about whether or not intervention is required, and we don't have the luxury of procrastination or Ostrich syndrome to fall back on.
 

Well there are some who are challenging this premise, but they are a minority. In any case, whatever measure we take there is no argument to be had about whether or not intervention is required, and we don't have the luxury of procrastination or Ostrich syndrome to fall back on.
Ok so you say intervention is required, hard to see how that’s achievable if it’s a natural phenomenon. If it’s man made I don’t think anything suggested is radical enough to have any short term effect, the world population keeps growing so fast with its growing footprint and that will be the end demise unless abated.
 
If the Greens were doing their job properly there wouldn't be an XR movement. They are so passive. Sometimes timing is everything to harnessing support - Lucas has presumably been waiting for a volcano to erupt beneath the streets of London before people turn to the Greens for answers. XR need a political voice, otherwise all they have is nodding heads from politicians, even when Greta joins for talks. This should be the moment for the Greens. To invite XR for talks where they agree to 1/ adopt the three core principals of XR as their demands in parliament 2/ immediately set up a "committee" made up of Green MPs, (David Attenborough ? :)) and XR/academic representatives to openly discuss workable solutions/alternatives to plastic/fossil fuels etc 3/ Rewrite their manifesto adopting these additions as core. This is the moment politically they have surely waited for. Reduce Farage votes in EU and local/general elections - XR are signing up 5k people per day as the Green stand still. If the Greens don't adopt, I think there will be an alternative political movement rise and flush them away. If there is a collapse of the two tier party and Labour/Tory implode, there will hopefully be a birth of something liberal and environmentally friendly
I mean respect here, but XR will be another carve up of left wing politics. The fundamental maths don't change about people's voting habits, in terms of left or right, but where they land their 'x' in the party choice does. With Brexit looming as well, it further muddies the political landscape as Climate Change really isn't a major voting issue for many of us, despite what social media and the traditional media say. Until XR can become something more than a bourgeois cause celebre, it will sit on the fringes as the Green party do. Especially if it involves paying more taxes.

There is a large history of people joining causes, the issue is retention., especially in an age of petitions and protests that largely go nowhere.
 
Back
Top Bottom