hilts
Well-Known Member
Nice analogy yourself but it minimises the location of the burning fire. You’re a few thousand miles out so the copper could remonstrate with me or have a donut.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Extinction Rebellion
- Thread starter George Hannah
- Start date
Nice analogy yourself but it minimises the location of the burning fire. You’re a few thousand miles out so the copper could remonstrate with me or have a donut.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
An interesting piece on the Amazon forest fires:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/08...the-amazon-fires-is-the-apocalyptic-rhetoric/
Cristiano Ronaldo is a Portuguese expert on forests who also plays football, so when he shared a picture online of a recent forest fire in the Amazon, it went viral. Perhaps he was in a rush that day to get out of the laboratory to football training, because it later transpired that the photograph was actually taken in 2013, not this year, and in southern Brazil, nowhere near the Amazon.
But at least his picture was only six years old. Emmanuel Macron, another forest ecologist who moonlights as president of France, claimed that ‘the Amazon rainforest — the lungs which produce 20 per cent of our planet’s oxygen — is on fire!’ alongside a picture that was 20 years old. A third bioscientist, who goes under the name of Madonna and sings, capped both their achievements by sharing a 30-year-old picture.
Now imagine if some celebrity — Donald Trump, say, or Nigel Lawson — had shared a picture of a pristine tropical forest with the caption ‘Amazon rainforest’s doing fine!’ and it had turned out to be decades old or from the wrong area. The BBC’s ‘fact-checkers’ would have been all over it, seizing the opportunity to mock, censor and ostracise.
In fact the Amazon rainforest does not contribute 20% of the earth's oxygen, at most it's 6%, and probably less. And the numbers of fires are no more than on many previous years.
The article goes on,
according to Nasa. Deforestation, too, is happening less and less. The United Nations’ ‘state of the world’s forests’report concluded last year that ‘the net loss of forest area continues to slow, from 0.18 per cent [a year] in the 1990s to 0.08 per cent over the last five-year period’. A study in Nature last year by scientists from the University of Maryland concluded that even this is too pessimistic: ‘We show that — contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally — tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2(+7.1 per cent relative to the 1982 level).
The trouble with the apocalyptic rhetoric is that it can seem to justify drastic but dangerous solutions. The obsession with climate change has slowed the decline of deforestation. An estimated 700,000 hectares of forest has been felled in South-East Asia to grow palm oil to add to supposedly green ‘bio-diesel’ fuel in Europe, while the world is feeding 5 per cent of its grain crop to motor cars rather than people,’
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/08...the-amazon-fires-is-the-apocalyptic-rhetoric/
Cristiano Ronaldo is a Portuguese expert on forests who also plays football, so when he shared a picture online of a recent forest fire in the Amazon, it went viral. Perhaps he was in a rush that day to get out of the laboratory to football training, because it later transpired that the photograph was actually taken in 2013, not this year, and in southern Brazil, nowhere near the Amazon.
But at least his picture was only six years old. Emmanuel Macron, another forest ecologist who moonlights as president of France, claimed that ‘the Amazon rainforest — the lungs which produce 20 per cent of our planet’s oxygen — is on fire!’ alongside a picture that was 20 years old. A third bioscientist, who goes under the name of Madonna and sings, capped both their achievements by sharing a 30-year-old picture.
Now imagine if some celebrity — Donald Trump, say, or Nigel Lawson — had shared a picture of a pristine tropical forest with the caption ‘Amazon rainforest’s doing fine!’ and it had turned out to be decades old or from the wrong area. The BBC’s ‘fact-checkers’ would have been all over it, seizing the opportunity to mock, censor and ostracise.
In fact the Amazon rainforest does not contribute 20% of the earth's oxygen, at most it's 6%, and probably less. And the numbers of fires are no more than on many previous years.
The article goes on,
according to Nasa. Deforestation, too, is happening less and less. The United Nations’ ‘state of the world’s forests’report concluded last year that ‘the net loss of forest area continues to slow, from 0.18 per cent [a year] in the 1990s to 0.08 per cent over the last five-year period’. A study in Nature last year by scientists from the University of Maryland concluded that even this is too pessimistic: ‘We show that — contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally — tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2(+7.1 per cent relative to the 1982 level).
The trouble with the apocalyptic rhetoric is that it can seem to justify drastic but dangerous solutions. The obsession with climate change has slowed the decline of deforestation. An estimated 700,000 hectares of forest has been felled in South-East Asia to grow palm oil to add to supposedly green ‘bio-diesel’ fuel in Europe, while the world is feeding 5 per cent of its grain crop to motor cars rather than people,’
Last edited:
Ancient Citizen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 15,712
Very interesting that, I certainly wasn't aware of these facts. As with many of these campaigns, hysteria and hyperboleAn interesting piece on the Amazon forest fires:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/08...the-amazon-fires-is-the-apocalyptic-rhetoric/
Cristiano Ronaldo is a Portuguese expert on forests who also plays football, so when he shared a picture online of a recent forest fire in the Amazon, it went viral. Perhaps he was in a rush that day to get out of the laboratory to football training, because it later transpired that the photograph was actually taken in 2013, not this year, and in southern Brazil, nowhere near the Amazon.
But at least his picture was only six years old. Emmanuel Macron, another forest ecologist who moonlights as president of France, claimed that ‘the Amazon rainforest — the lungs which produce 20 per cent of our planet’s oxygen — is on fire!’ alongside a picture that was 20 years old. A third bioscientist, who goes under the name of Madonna and sings, capped both their achievements by sharing a 30-year-old picture.
Now imagine if some celebrity — Donald Trump, say, or Nigel Lawson — had shared a picture of a pristine tropical forest with the caption ‘Amazon rainforest’s doing fine!’ and it had turned out to be decades old or from the wrong area. The BBC’s ‘fact-checkers’ would have been all over it, seizing the opportunity to mock, censor and ostracise.
In fact the Amazon rainforest does not contribute 20% of the earth's oxygen, at most it's 6%, and probably less. And the numbers of fires are no more than on many previous years.
The article goes on,
according to Nasa. Deforestation, too, is happening less and less. The United Nations’ ‘state of the world’s forests’report concluded last year that ‘the net loss of forest area continues to slow, from 0.18 per cent [a year] in the 1990s to 0.08 per cent over the last five-year period’. A study in Nature last year by scientists from the University of Maryland concluded that even this is too pessimistic: ‘We show that — contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally — tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2(+7.1 per cent relative to the 1982 level).
The trouble with the apocalyptic rhetoric is that it can seem to justify drastic but dangerous solutions. The obsession with climate change has slowed the decline of deforestation. An estimated 700,000 hectares of forest has been felled in South-East Asia to grow palm oil to add to supposedly green ‘bio-diesel’ fuel in Europe, while the world is feeding 5 per cent of its grain crop to motor cars rather than people,’
cloud the issues, and people who do not succumb it get smeared for not bowing to it.
I love the 'Macron, another forest ecologist who moonlights as the president of France' dig.
Yet, some may prove the article false, it may be, let's see.
Sir peace frog
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 18,879
- Location
- stalking the canals and rivers
- Team supported
- Manchester City Football Club
me and the Mrs had a trip to London, saw all the sights, she wanted to see Westminster cathedral ,im not really arsed ,got to Westminster and there was a Chinese demo on protesting against the Chinese leader who was visiting, she went into Westminster cathedral I joined in the demo,it was fucking brilliant :)
Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
Noise a
Noise and light pollution are often ignored, but can have a devastating effect on the health and wellbeing of a community, and wildlife (birds, bats, insects, sea life).The area should be pedestrianised. One of the things I can't stand about Manchester on a night out is the amount of tools in cars just driving about playing wank music. Don't get me wrong, I expect to see it generally and it doesn't really bother me but whilst out on the piss in town it's something that irritates me so my reasoning for it is nothing to do with the environment. It's a different type of emission coming from the vehicles that is harmful to your ears that bothers me.
George Hannah
Well-Known Member
Boris just said we're on the (broad) verge of fusion reactors - has something happened?Sorry for the delay, I took a break from your nonsense.
"Magnets will melt long before the thermic energy thresholds"? What sort of funny talk is that? Honestly mate, you're sounding more and more bonkers by the minute.
And the plasma doesn't go anywhere near the magnets (liquid helium-cooled superconducting electromagnets, to be a bit more accurate). Er that's what the magnets are for, no shit Sherlock.
Melting magnets??? Good grief. You might as well have said it can't work because the custard is too lumpy. Give it up before you make yourself sound more silly... if that is indeed possible.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
No but we've been around for a couple of million years been researching fusion reactors for about 30 years and will have them in maybe another 20 or 30. That's pretty close.Boris just said we're on the (broad) verge of fusion reactors - has something happened?
As with a lot of things the guy on the street isn’t to blame, it’s the billionaires that own the companies that make the products.
We can only buy what they sell, and they make shit as cheap as possible usually from plastic.
Hey could band together and fund the biggest group of scientists ever assembled to tackle these problems but they’d rather stick to hoarding the worlds money to make sure that when the titanic sinks they have a place on the lifeboat
We can only buy what they sell, and they make shit as cheap as possible usually from plastic.
Hey could band together and fund the biggest group of scientists ever assembled to tackle these problems but they’d rather stick to hoarding the worlds money to make sure that when the titanic sinks they have a place on the lifeboat
Scottyboi
Well-Known Member
Some of the packaging you get in supermarkets is ridiculous, why does cereal have a paper box and then a plastic bag. Stop selling chopped fucking onions in plastic boxes for lazy people.
grunge
Well-Known Member
No but we've been around for a couple of million years been researching fusion reactors for about 30 years and will have them in maybe another 20 or 30. That's pretty close.
there are a few interesting things going on with fusion. This one has piqued my interest a bit. Fusion without having to deal with super heated plasma.
inchy14
Well-Known Member
As with a lot of things the guy on the street isn’t to blame, it’s the billionaires that own the companies that make the products.
We can only buy what they sell, and they make shit as cheap as possible usually from plastic.
Hey could band together and fund the biggest group of scientists ever assembled to tackle these problems but they’d rather stick to hoarding the worlds money to make sure that when the titanic sinks they have a place on the lifeboat
Wait, let me get this straight, it’s the big companies fault that you’re too weak minded to not buy something new when it comes on the market?
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
That is Labour's view. The government should protect us idiotic citizens by interfering to make sure we don't do anything stupid. God forbid anyone should handle a sharp knife or any other potentially fatal activity.Wait, let me get this straight, it’s the big companies fault that you’re too weak minded to not buy something new when it comes on the market?
Banned Tosspot
Well-Known Member
Fuckers keep wasting glue and most of them are vegetarian/vegans.
Or the stuff that you need, like your food shopping wrapped in layers of plastic.Wait, let me get this straight, it’s the big companies fault that you’re too weak minded to not buy something new when it comes on the market?
But that’s alright point the finger at me you ****
Don’t you think they are in a better position to make big changes compared to me or you?
inchy14
Well-Known Member
****?Or the stuff that you need, like your food shopping wrapped in layers of plastic.
But that’s alright point the finger at me you ****
Don’t you think they are in a better position to make big changes compared to me or you?
Fucking ****?
Haha, that’s one way to win an argument.
I’m not the silly **** out buying stuff they don’t need just because big business made or advertise it, that’ll be you. And if you can come up with a cheaper alternative way to get your packaged food to you then you’ll make millions, however it’ll cost you more in the the end and then you can blame them for that instead. ****.
You keep saying I’m the one who buys this stuff, didn’t know you know me, and what I spend my money on.****?
Fucking ****?
Haha, that’s one way to win an argument.
I’m not the silly **** out buying stuff they don’t need just because big business made or advertise it, that’ll be you. And if you can come up with a cheaper alternative way to get your packaged food to you then you’ll make millions, however it’ll cost you more in the the end and then you can blame them for that instead. ****.
Again don’t you think a group of people with billions of pounds at their disposal have a better chance of coming up with ways to cut down emissions to do with big business, such as shipping which I believe is one of the biggest contributors to the carbon footprint, than me or you?
If not I think I was right the first time.
Also, just to add, I called you a **** as you called me weak minded without any evidence. I had evidence for my accusation. But don’t get hung up on that
Last edited:
inchy14
Well-Known Member
Firstly you’re the one who started off by saying it’s big businesses fault that people buy stuff, so I’m safe I’d think in assuming that you’re lumping yourself in that group.You keep saying I’m the one who buys this stuff, didn’t know you know me, and what I spend my money on.
Again don’t you think a group of people with billions of pounds at their disposal have a better chance of coming up with ways to cut down emissions to do with big business, such as shipping which I believe is one of the biggest contributors to the carbon footprint, than me or you?
If not I think I was right the first time.
As for your point regarding shipping, how do you propose goods arrive on your doorstep?
If the customer wants goods from abroad then they have to get here somehow.
The problem is joe public wants goods from all over the world, Joe public isn’t going to accept going back to the days of little choice in the supermarket, to not being able to have new electrical goods or fashion items every month, they want it now, ironically the kids being the biggest demanding of all yet can’t see the irony in complaints about climate change by themselves.
Until they change their and our demands, big business will continue to do what it does best, make money.
I agree with most of that, apart from the first sentence. You assuming about me is what made me call you in the first place.Firstly you’re the one who started off by saying it’s big businesses fault that people buy stuff, so I’m safe I’d think in assuming that you’re lumping yourself in that group.
As for your point regarding shipping, how do you propose goods arrive on your doorstep?
If the customer wants goods from abroad then they have to get here somehow.
The problem is joe public wants goods from all over the world, Joe public isn’t going to accept going back to the days of little choice in the supermarket, to not being able to have new electrical goods or fashion items every month, they want it now, ironically the kids being the biggest demanding of all yet can’t see the irony in complaints about climate change by themselves.
Until they change their and our demands, big business will continue to do what it does best, make money.
The rest is what I mean though. Pushing shit on us that ends up in a landfill a year later after the upgrade has been bought.
We’re constantly fed guilt stories of why we should do this do that for the sake of the planet which we do. All while the people with the power to make changes have morals as low as a snakes tits and just want our money
inchy14
Well-Known Member
As with a lot of things the guy on the street isn’t to blame, it’s the billionaires that own the companies that make the products.
We can only buy what they sell, and they make shit as cheap as possible usually from plastic.
Hey could band together and fund the biggest group of scientists ever assembled to tackle these problems but they’d rather stick to hoarding the worlds money to make sure that when the titanic sinks they have a place on the lifeboat
Your words not mine, WE. That implies yourself does it not.
Or the stuff that you need, like your food shopping wrapped in layers of plastic.
But that’s alright point the finger at me you ****
Don’t you think they are in a better position to make big changes compared to me or you?
You started the name calling as you were losing an argument that hadn't even started. And i've already asked you, how do you propose food arrives to your home? plastic happens to be the best way to keep it fresh as possible.
You keep saying I’m the one who buys this stuff, didn’t know you know me, and what I spend my money on.
Again don’t you think a group of people with billions of pounds at their disposal have a better chance of coming up with ways to cut down emissions to do with big business, such as shipping which I believe is one of the biggest contributors to the carbon footprint, than me or you?
If not I think I was right the first time.
Also, just to add, I called you a **** as you called me weak minded without any evidence. I had evidence for my accusation. But don’t get hung up on that
These billions of pounds they have earned are through their hard work and supplying of products that people like you want and demand in the first place, and yes i'm including myself in that, secondly why would they change they way they are earning money unless forced to and the best way to do that is not buy certain products until things change.
I agree with most of that, apart from the first sentence. You assuming about me is what made me call you in the first place.
The rest is what I mean though. Pushing shit on us that ends up in a landfill a year later after the upgrade has been bought.
We’re constantly fed guilt stories of why we should do this do that for the sake of the planet which we do. All while the people with the power to make changes have morals as low as a snakes tits and just want our money
Again i assumed because YOU used the word WE in the very first sentence!! No one pushes shit on anyone, you buy it from peer pressure due to be weak minded, it's as simple as that.
The top and bottom of it all really is we all want to act like we give a fuck about the climate, we all want to say look at me on whatever social media platform we use but in reality very very few of us give a fuck.
We'll all drive our cars, wear the latest brands, buy the next gadget that comes out, fly abroad couple of times a year, put the heating on instead of wearing an extra layer, put air-con on instead of opening windows and demand foods from the other side of the world.
Hypocrites the lot of us.
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,882
That is Labour's view. The government should protect us idiotic citizens by interfering to make sure we don't do anything stupid. God forbid anyone should handle a sharp knife or any other potentially fatal activity.
Well in fairness you wouldn’t trust either Corbyn or Johnson with a pair of sharp scissors so they are at least setting a good example