Off Topic COP 26
- Thread starter balkan tiger
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
In 5 billion years the sun will burn the earth to a crisp. Fact, according to the boy Cox. Therefore its going up 5hit creek, whatever.
That has been known long before Cox was on TV, or indeed well before TV was invented.
The Sun is a G2 Yellow Dwarf.
Edit: Come to think of it, we'll all be fried well before then when Betelgeuse goes supernova.
Last edited:
COP26? Sanctamonious ****s of the world unite! Good to hear such world leading climatologists such as Darren Hale, The Archbishop of Canterbury and Prince ****ing Charles lecturing to us thick bastards.
End of humanity in 5 billion years?
End of humanity in a few decades?
Lay your preference on the table, kids.
Not us old bastards.
Kids.
Did he happen to mention if that would be a Tuesday, as that's quiz night, and I'd hate to miss it.
Just arrange to bring quiz night forward to a Monday that week, silly.
Jeez. We ain't gonna solve this problem unless we start thinking outside the box.
On a football related riff, neither are City.
Unbelievable the same Darren Hale who his pushing for the destruction of the wetlands/ancient wildflower meadow on the outskirts of Hull i mentioned in my prevouis post on this thread, it was Hales idea and the main person from the council pushing to build on this particulat flood meadow that presently helps to protect the neighbouring estate and residents from flooding, fair to say he is one Hyporcrital **** for speaking at Cop 26.
I wish I was as confident about my opinion as you are about yours DMD
what if you are actually wrong ?
what if you are actually wrong ?
This^
Simple really.
Reduce emissions & adapt for change.
Not politically sexy and not useful for people who like to horde wealth though.
COP26 is just a big show that is being used for political point scoring and some organisations to make you look the other way about what they’re doing.
If the attending countries really want to change they could just get on and do it. No need to fly to meet and lecture each other.
“Email to all world leaders - World’s looking a bit ****ed everyone. We’ve had a look and it turns out we need to reduce emissions.
Reply to all - Good point, also thinking about it there’s only a certain amount of stuff and the world…if we use it all up we won’t have enough stuff left, shall we use less for a bit and see what happens
Everyone-
“BUT - actually doing it needs decisions that’s aren’t going to be popular…and that doesn’t fit political election cycles or powerful people’s greed.
Take reducing deforestation. Good idea, very simple, BUT are the people relying on it to live going to be given free cash so they don’t need to do it or have other ways of earning cash created for them? We’ll see.
Banning meat production and the dairy industry would help…but apart from me who would agree with that? And if they did who would agree with the work needed to replace income for all those people?
There will be some good stuff come out of COP26, but COP26 shouldn’t have been needed for them.
…anyway this isn’t about saving the planet, the planet will be absolutely fine for a few million years at least. We’ll all be gone, but we probably deserve that.
My opinion is based on the science, the engineering and the data provided from official research. If I'm wrong, so are the experts.
What if those that have put themselves to the forefront are advocating changes that will shift one problem for another, and at great financial and social cost to many around the world?
Just to be clear once again, I'm not saying that there isn't a problem, and that nothing should be done, far from it, I just have reservations about some of the major measures proposed, and a tinge of sadness that people don't dig deeper themselves, and instead try to stifle conversations, which are far from black and white, or defend measures that are far from robust at the moment.
This^
Simple really.
Reduce emissions & adapt for change.
Not politically sexy and not useful for people who like to horde wealth though.
COP26 is just a big show that is being used for political point scoring and some organisations to make you look the other way about what they’re doing.
If the attending countries really want to change they could just get on and do it. No need to fly to meet and lecture each other.
“Email to all world leaders - World’s looking a bit ****ed everyone. We’ve had a look and it turns out we need to reduce emissions.
Reply to all - Good point, also thinking about it there’s only a certain amount of stuff and the world…if we use it all up we won’t have enough stuff left, shall we use less for a bit and see what happens
Everyone-
BUT - actually doing it needs decisions that’s aren’t going to be popular…and that doesn’t fit political election cycles or powerful people’s greed.
Take reducing deforestation. Good idea, very simple, BUT are the people relying on it to live going to be given free cash so they don’t need to do it or have other ways of earning cash created for them? We’ll see.
Banning meat production and the dairy industry would help…but apart from me who would agree with that? And if they did who would agree with the work needed to replace income for all those people?
There will be some good stuff come out of COP26, but COP26 shouldn’t have been needed for them.
…anyway this isn’t about saving the planet, the planet will be absolutely fine for a few million years at least. We’ll all be gone, but we probably deserve that.
One point to raise from that, the National Union of Farmers commissioned and produced a peer reviewed report that demonstrated that they were advocating measures that would be in line with the reductions in emissions, and the findings were accepted, only for someone to later alter the Government document to explicitly include livestock production, which wasn't in the initial draft. That hints at the science not being the driver for that.
Both sides of that, if I’m understanding you correctly, display concerning aspects.
I think even with peer reviewed reports you should look at who commissioned it. There’s sometimes a steer to what the commissioner wanted the answer to be, and sometimes that’s how they set the parameters of the research.
Similarly although, in my opinion, an assessment of environmental impact of the meat industry should include livestock production (I’m not aware of the work so it may have been a different title, back to point 1) the Govt should simply leave it out of the report wasn’t relevant to their needs or commission their own report, or use others that did cover the whole life and death cycle if that’s what they wanted. Of course if they commission it you could have the point 1 issue again
Fair points. I would point out the NFU report was appraised by independent experts which contributed to it being approved.