I compared the 2 for one reason Leo. Holocaust denial is stupid and also illegal - here you can go to prison for it. However, when not accompanied by other crimes it is, relatively harmless in itself. Global warming denial is more dangerous because of its consequences.
Off Topic The Environment
- Thread starter Leo
- 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
-
I think that we should just go on as we have been doing. After all if there is to be catastrophic problems caused by climate change, virtually all of us on this board will be dead long before it begins to matter, then our children or grandchildren can argue the toss....
Or am I being a tadge selfish and complacent?
Or am I being a tadge selfish and complacent?
Totally agree that lignite mining is just wrong as is mining of rare minerals used in super magnets necessary for wind turbines. Can't be selective and its not wrong to try and get at the hydrates in the sea for energy or get at shale gas and oil in a responsible manner, add that ok for Uranium as well if controlled properly. I want a healthy planet and plant more trees and we'll have it if we also stop the radical elements from getting away with their lies. As for natural CO2 level in the oceans and atmosphere its cyclic ad changes with time, it has been up in the thousands in the past before man was on the scene and can get to well over a 1000 for optimum life sustaining. Without CO2 we would die!!! At 280 it was very sub optimal and in fact dangerously close to the lower limit for sustaining vegetation growth. Darwinism teaches us that species evolve or die and this is natural. A desire to maintain a status quo is unhealthy and contrary to nature.
I've stated thatwe need population reduction to save the panet, if we don't do it then nature will force it, it's like culling deer you either cull or nature takes over and theyy die a horrible death of starvation or disease, we are a mirror of this, we're only another animal and cannot survive over the capacity of the enviroment to support us. We've changed our enviroment (heat, shelter food cropping etc) to increase capacity but its still finite. I will stand on any stage and not seek popularity by stating this, nice to know greens understand this problem but votes are more important for them than the truth! Unfortunately thats why I do not respect the green movement, it is not green its political!!!!
They do not bear any relation or comparison, really is a very poor argument, please focus on the enviroment without resorting to sensationalism.... As I stated very offensive comparison and I know you are better than that! (I made a poor reference in the past to jackboots and you rightly pulled me up on it your reference here is even worse and less appropriate)
It will not affect our offspring negatively ever.... We are behaving responsibly to the environment the way we currently have our society set up. Yes there is fine tuning to be done and we need to keep a close eye on raw materials and focus on more recycling and indeed molecular modification to create what we need maybe in a few hundred years time at an atomic level.
If global warming denial, based upon a few studies which are far from neutral (supported as they are from the fossil fuel lobby), is being used to justify going on poisoning the earth in the way that we have been doing. Acting God in as much as the rate of extinction of species has multiplied by about 1,000 more than it would have been if left to nature. Then I would regard it as the more dangerous denial of the 2.
I never said that votes were more important than the truth but you are confusing 2 things here (very conveniently) the green movement and the green party - what do you expect the latter to do, bring it into their manifesto that they will reduce population - of course the Green Party is political what would you expect it to be !
'We are behaving responsibly to the environment`- The rate of extinction of animals is estimated as being anything between 1,000 and 10,000 times the natural extinction rate due to our influence. Is this meant to be a joke ?
Poisoning the earth? More sensationalism sorry but you're so ar off the ball with this. I would question the sanity or at least rationality of this standpoint.
"The best thing you can do for the environment is not to have children, but this standpoint does not win any votes" your words.... I'm not confusing anything. I don't need convenience, what I expect from every political party is honesty. I know I'll never get it from any of them but when a movement or party takes such a high moral stance I have to attack all hypocricy which to me is the first thing that causes lack of credibility.
Not a joke, I'm not aware of this so enlighten me. If its true and we are causing extinction beyond obsolescence then that is wrong but I need evidence not just platitudes.
Very difficult to actually provide proof here because we do not know exactly how many species there are. However if we restrict this to insects then the UK. insect population is down by 45% in the last 35 years (according to scientific journals) this being linked primarily to loss of habitats, hedgerows, woodlands (Britain lost around 97% of it's wild meadows in the 20th century) - this drop would automatically then lead to changes in the bird populations etc. These are changes which are not 'natural' in as much as they are directly related to human activity. In the USA. it has arrived at the stage that half of all states are now free of all types of bumble bee - which they are only now realizing the costs of for agriculture. With respect to my use of the expression `poisoning the earth' I stick by this - when it comes to the stage that air, water or ground pollution have become so bad that they are either a health hazard for local inhabitants or wildlife, or leave whole areas incapable of supporting life then 'poisoning' is not too strong a word - in the worst effected cities of this World (now Indian and no longer Chinese) the actual lung capacity of children is being adversely affected - if you want cases closer to home then look at the rates of Asthma amongst children living close to motorways.
I agree with you regarding our lack of forethought in selecting farming methods and indeed at a smaller scale gardening!!! Looking around its obvious that we have a lazy approach in modern life paving or gravelling over vast areas rather than have hedges or grass to tend and destroying inter field heges, this is something we learnt at school 40 years ago so is nothing new! Pesticide use is a big issue that hasn't been thought through properly and along with fertilizer is something that needs to be assessed properly, those naturally farmed areas can be managed to produce higher productivity by promoting natural soil management and eliminating synthetic chemical use. Air water and ground pollution is under control in the old and new world, not the third world. Water is my biggest interest having had a concern with its safe supply for the past 30 years and its mans influence on this that makes the planet capable of supporting the vast human population it does and the chemicals used for this come as products from the hydrocarbon (gas and liquid) industry. Our children in this modern era are healthier than any other previous generation with lower infant mortality and higher performance in sport which can be directly correlated to lung and heart condition. I wonder if there are any non Greenpeace or other Green politically motivated lobby that point to asthma and motorways etc? The Green lobby is very quick to rubbish any study with even a $ of corporate funding whilst peddling their own studies as gospel, rather hypocritical don't you think? Asthma and other allergies I would opine are more a result of non native cropping where populations have no immunity to artificially introduced pathogens in the environment, you see I am concerned about the environment but am not a fossil fuel or capitalism hater, like to look at the issues objectively.
yorkshirehornet
Well-Known Member
I remember a few years back there was an environmentalist.... cant remember who... who after examining all the science came out the the nuclear option as the safest and least polluting..... he suffered overwhelming abuse as a result. But an interesting logical process.
Fair to say that an environmentalist would question the partiality of a study underwritten by an main profiteers in the relevant industries. and of course vice versa
In medicine where research is central to improving practice there are strict guidelines e.g randomised studies, double blind testing and replicable studies.... all refereed by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Even then there are some controversial developments. To get impartial research is very challenging as so much money and profit involved etc etc
To my mind the internal combustion engine is on of the biggest pollutants and threats to health ( and i drive a 2.0 diesel Skoda ( thanks for the news VW
)
Fair to say that an environmentalist would question the partiality of a study underwritten by an main profiteers in the relevant industries. and of course vice versa
In medicine where research is central to improving practice there are strict guidelines e.g randomised studies, double blind testing and replicable studies.... all refereed by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Even then there are some controversial developments. To get impartial research is very challenging as so much money and profit involved etc etc
To my mind the internal combustion engine is on of the biggest pollutants and threats to health ( and i drive a 2.0 diesel Skoda ( thanks for the news VW
)
The internal combustion engine is the greatest invention ever and should be reserved for petrolheads. We've got a few and the best of these does just 8 to 10mpg. You only live once and the smiles on the face are not to be taken away by any electric or the like. We must be allowed our indulgances limited of course by economics which means whilst one person may smoke cancer sticks I can smoke tyres.I remember a few years back there was an environmentalist.... cant remember who... who after examining all the science came out the the nuclear option as the safest and least polluting..... he suffered overwhelming abuse as a result. But an interesting logical process.
Fair to say that an environmentalist would question the partiality of a study underwritten by an main profiteers in the relevant industries. and of course vice versa
In medicine where research is central to improving practice there are strict guidelines e.g randomised studies, double blind testing and replicable studies.... all refereed by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Even then there are some controversial developments. To get impartial research is very challenging as so much money and profit involved etc etc
To my mind the internal combustion engine is on of the biggest pollutants and threats to health ( and i drive a 2.0 diesel Skoda ( thanks for the news VW
The difference between car driving and smoking is that non smokers are now protected from second hand smoke - if I breath my smoke in your face then you have full reason to complain about it. Yet I am required to breath in the muck that comes out of your exhaust without complaint. I have not flown in about 15 years but the last time I did, and looked down on a city from above, I was struck by exactly how much space was filled by cars - honestly, from above they appear to be the dominant life form with us humans having to regulate our spacial activity around them. Over a period of about 50-60 years we have also seen public transport deliberately run down in many countries as a means of supporting the car industry - was it not the case that both Germany and the UK. had more railway stations in 1900 than they do now ?
With respect to asthma - this is really not an issue which I have heard discussed by Greens so far - rather from medical sources which are desparately asking why Britain's rate of this is so high compared to other European nations.
I fully agree that in terms of emissions that agriculture may be the more serious problem, but it is worth remembering the role which agriculture plays within modern capitalism ie. to press food prices down in order to create spending power in other areas of consumption. Do you think that people would be driving cars around or flying away on exotic holidays if the relative price of food were the same as in 1900 ? I have no car - in common with Corbyn I have 2 bicycles. Although I live in the countryside I get by with a combination of walking and public transport. I do not need a car (although I do have a licence) and neither do most other people, yet they are persistently brainwashed into believing that this is a necessity and not a luxury - and furthermore brainwashed into believing that it has something to do with masculinity or sex appeal (but then that was once the same with Marlboro before people grew up).
From various studies I have seen, motorway verges have provided a great environment for many small mammals and insects. Which ever country you drive through where new stretches of road have been built they have been accompanied by plenty of tree planting schemes. The local re-cycling centre is being overwhelmed by the amount that people are sending off for reuse rather than landfill, so applied to enlarge the premises, but that required removing 400 metres of hedging. Permission was granted, but a condition was that they should plant 2 km of new hedging. If only some of the local farmers were placed under the same restraints before they removed yet another hedgerow.
Public transport is fine, if you have any. Nearest train station here is 28 km away, the nearest bus stop, no idea as there are no buses until you get into a large town. The same situation existed in the UK when our village had no buses. The Parish Council paid for a shoppers bus on market day so the elderly could visit the town once a week. Even that was put under threat when bus passes were issued by government and the contribution from them withdrawn.
Planners have a lot to answer for. New housing estates and warehouses being built on flood plains that creates flooding as the natural water courses are destroyed. Out of town shopping centres which mean people need cars to get to them. This is also having an effect on the traditional town centres where people could visit their local shops on foot, but now those small shops have a double trouble of competition from the out of town developments and parking charges. As someone who through work spent a lot of time in the District Council planning office, I came to the conclusion that not too much thought was given to how a development would fit into the countryside, as targets from central government had to be met.
The days when the local carrier would get his horse and cart, travel into town to collect several items that people could choose from, then return the unsold items the next week have long since gone, or have they? Maybe we are seeing the same thing with people using on-line shopping, having the white van instead of the horse of course.
Public transport is fine, if you have any. Nearest train station here is 28 km away, the nearest bus stop, no idea as there are no buses until you get into a large town. The same situation existed in the UK when our village had no buses. The Parish Council paid for a shoppers bus on market day so the elderly could visit the town once a week. Even that was put under threat when bus passes were issued by government and the contribution from them withdrawn.
Planners have a lot to answer for. New housing estates and warehouses being built on flood plains that creates flooding as the natural water courses are destroyed. Out of town shopping centres which mean people need cars to get to them. This is also having an effect on the traditional town centres where people could visit their local shops on foot, but now those small shops have a double trouble of competition from the out of town developments and parking charges. As someone who through work spent a lot of time in the District Council planning office, I came to the conclusion that not too much thought was given to how a development would fit into the countryside, as targets from central government had to be met.
The days when the local carrier would get his horse and cart, travel into town to collect several items that people could choose from, then return the unsold items the next week have long since gone, or have they? Maybe we are seeing the same thing with people using on-line shopping, having the white van instead of the horse of course.
I fly about 40 times a year and have not noticed cars proliferating at all. The overwhelming dominant features are agriculture and wind turbines. I am not protected from second hand smoking, I went into the high street last night t see some Christmas lights turned on and appalled by the odor of smoke from cigarettes and that cancerous rubbish that serves no purpose beyond the gratification of the smoker is present even when you can't smell it and the danger to small children is far greater than living next to a motorway.
With respect to Asthma not one I brought up but was your assertion that studies said children living by motorways were suffering, I couldn't find that study but did find that incidence of Asthma is dropping not increasing and has many causal factors one of which "might" be emissions from diesel engines. I have an aversion to buses not logical but feel its some kind of transport to punitative locations (prisons and camps) I know it isn't but thats my emotion. Having loved cars since the age of 5 and been underneath working on them for fun from age of 10 I really do not care if they are luxury or necessity, I want and I can have and should be allowed freedom of choice for my pleasure as in the form I have them they cause no harm. I do not object to agriculture but you know that the methods we use of intensive farming with fertilizers and pesticides is not in fact the best way to maximize production. For myself I have four cars and two bicycles of which only one car is used as a tool the bikes and other cars are for pleasure, I can only drive one at a time so not an issue with over poluting and the one that does 10mpg only does about 400 miles a year of very pleasurable recreation.
Good points, I was thinking the other day how we seem to be going full circle with online shopping plus delivery replacing the trip to the supermarket which really means there is once more a place for the local milkman to return except in a broader role. Great idea to have delivery by electric vehicles and you may see a decline in urban areas in the need for cars. I believe in a modular transport system with efficient electrified mass transit in towns/cities with out of town car parks. The motor car is no longer a practical means of transport in cities just so long as you can remove the need to carry large personal loads, city and town centres could become quiet fast transit systems with trams and bicycles or even in my futuristic mind individual transportation pods that are automatically piloted, it is all very possible witth the technology available now, if you were creating a brand new state you certainly wouldn't build it as cities currently exist. There is a new town being built close tp Aberdeen that is car less if I remember rightly.