How do you take how dare you speech in united nations for environmental from the girl?
31-35, M
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
tallpowerhouseblonde · 31-35, F
View 2 more replies »
ArishMell · 70-79, M
A self-important, attention-seeking creep useful to Green politicians and whom no-one dares tell to shut up.
Climate change and how it's met is a very serious subject - so let's learn about it from, and discuss it intelligently with, professional scientists and engineers. Not school-pupils or that ranting Extinction Rebellion shower. I suspect the noisiest of the latter are the least likely to know something even as basic as the differences between energy and power, and heat and temperature, and the respective units of measurement.
Climate change and how it's met is a very serious subject - so let's learn about it from, and discuss it intelligently with, professional scientists and engineers. Not school-pupils or that ranting Extinction Rebellion shower. I suspect the noisiest of the latter are the least likely to know something even as basic as the differences between energy and power, and heat and temperature, and the respective units of measurement.
gol979 · 41-45, M
@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout what's the "truth" through your eyes?
BlueVeins · 22-25
@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ToEvz-7trY]
4meAndyou · F
I think we need to protect children. Always.
I was very angry when I saw that child's tears, and when she said that her childhood had been stolen, and that she did not want to be there, I wanted to call the police to arrest her parents for child abuse, and I wanted to club her teachers and the folks who are using her like this about the head with a baseball bat.
If I were her mother, I would not allow my child to be emotionally damaged on an ongoing basis, or used, when it is SO obvious that she is traumatized.
I was very angry when I saw that child's tears, and when she said that her childhood had been stolen, and that she did not want to be there, I wanted to call the police to arrest her parents for child abuse, and I wanted to club her teachers and the folks who are using her like this about the head with a baseball bat.
If I were her mother, I would not allow my child to be emotionally damaged on an ongoing basis, or used, when it is SO obvious that she is traumatized.
tallpowerhouseblonde · 31-35, F
@KA9ha the uk is committed to being carbon neutral.Only electric cars to be sold from 2040,alternative energy power stations are being built and wind farms,and a major investment in nuclear fusion research.All new homes will be geothermally heated.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@tallpowerhouseblonde It's all very laudable but I do wonder how well it's all been thought through - by people capable of doing so, not whining school-children playing truant.
I ignore campaigners and silly clichés like "zero carbon", "carbon neutral" and "renewable energy". I want genuine science and engineering but we hear precious little when the reality is so badly filtered, misunderstood and distorted by politicians, journalists and campaigners.
Recently I learnt of one study estimating the world's known oil and gas reserves at [i]present[/i] rates of use, to have only about 50 years left. Coal, about 100.
These are NOT just "fossil fuels". Yes, coal and gas are direct fuels; but coal and petroleum also provide raw chemicals for all manner of products we all rely on in our ordinary lives, every day. Coal distilled to produce coke (and those other chemicals), is also vital for smelting iron, the origin of steel; and steel underlies or is involved somewhere in [i]everything[/i] in [i]all[/i] our everyday lives, even if very indirectly. THINK!
Finding new reserves is becoming harder and costlier, and demand is rising. What will we do when we run out? We might have slowed our effects on the climate by using less fuel from those sources, but after that, how do we make everything currently dependent on those minerals? Leaving the stuff in the ground as Aunty Greta suggests, is not a sensible option unless and until we can find genuine, fully-viable alternatives before it runs out. THINK!
The UK is also building [i]new nuclear power stations [/i]- wind, solar and tidal power will NOT be enough because those commitments will bring huge demands for electricity. Here is a classic example of not thinking it through. The builders and owners are France and China so losing a lot of the capital cost and operating profits to those countries, and the costs are astronomical; but what [i]sensible[/i] choice to such power is there?
The UK were world leaders in nuclear-power research and is still a major worker in nuclear-fusion research; but like so many other British technical achievements, successive Governments of both parties, ignorant of anything technical and terrified of equally ignorant "greens", threw it all away. The remnants of a major part of that work are now being demolished, not 15 miles from my home and this computer. Unlike those governments, THINK!
Massive [i]off-shore wind-turbines[/i] require a lot of steel, copper, rare-earth metals, plus a lot of materials synthesised from petroleum derivatives(paints, adhesives, plastics, lubricants). Erecting and maintaining them also takes a goodly amount of diesel fuel for the special ships used. These all have to be found, sometimes in politically-difficult areas, refined and shipped around the world. When such plant is worn out the metals and to an extent, the oils and some of the plastics can be salvaged for re-use - the petroleum-derived materials can not. Again, don't be like Aunty Greta, THINK instead.
[i]Electric cars[/i]: for various pretty obvious reasons, I foresee many people in the future will unable to own a cars, and I doubt public transport will be any more comprehensive than now. Motoring will become as it was in its beginning, the costly preserve of the rich. Like the hire-car-on demand idea, tax-funded loans to buy the cars are a chimera. They would be [i]loans[i] even if cheaper than the usual credit schemes; and the present taxes on liquid fuels will also certainly have to be replaced by pro-rata tax on car electricity or Road Fund Licence. This might explain why a properly-installed home car-charger has to have its own ("smart"?) meter. This will have enormous deleterious effects on the nation's social and cultural life, tourism and leisure interests and their supporting trades, etc., and many communities are likely to become more isolated. Hence extremely damaging for the country as a whole. Yet we will still have to move huge tonnages of goods around the country, to farm land, to build homes and work-places... we will still need diesel vehicles, trains and plant for years to come - possibly until there is no more petroleum? THINK!
[i]Geothermal heating[/i]: fine but only where the quantity of heat in the ground is sufficient for the demand. Also, if you draw out heat at a greater rate than its is being replaced naturally, does it create an effect similar to an over-drawn water-well: a funnel-shaped volume of surrounding depleted ground that takes a while to replenish itself? If so, what is the depletion/recovery balance for an entire housing-estate of, say 1000 homes? Has anyone THOUGHT about this?
[i]Solar heating[/i] is the better option in some respects. The source of my quoted oil-depletion figures was a graph from an oil company, shown in a lecture by a Professor Khan whose Uni. of Bournemouth team is studying thermal-efficiency improvements to such heating. The Sun of course does not shine every day and all day, and even less in Winter, especially in the latitudes of Scotland and Northwards, but it is inexhaustible for all practical purposes. Also, a solar heating or photovoltaic panel cannot create a depletion well. It is how we capture solar light and heat we need consider, returning us to the materials question. Hence my calls to THINK.
'
There is, they say, no such things as a free lunch- there most certainly is not, in trying to rid the world of this evil element, Carbon. Not the compound, Carbon Dioxide, then...?
+++
I do not know exactly how much Mankind is altering the [i]rate[/i] of climate change, and no-one can actually define the "correct" climate. The whole debate has become desperately toxic thanks to vested commercial and political interests, ignorance and a strange human tendency to follow to the ignorant and excitable much more than the knowledgeable and analytical.
Nevertheless, it seems we are altering it, and dangerously so; even if Mr. Trump does call it a lie. We cannot be complacent but we have to look ahead and THINK ahead.
Our real problem is The Unspoken One. A population increasing rapidly and unsustainably, on a planet whose natural minerals it is depleting rapidly. And anything we do now can only buy time for several generations to come anyway.
Those future generations might enjoy a world with a stabilised [i] but still non-linear [u]rate[/u] of climate change[/i], [u]not[/u] stabilised climate; but will lack almost anything and everything we take for granted in our normal lives in developed countries now.
They would still in the [i]present[/i] Ice Age's warming - either an Interglacial or its complete end - but no-one can do anything about that! (An Ice Age, or at least "ours", is not a single frigid spell, but a climatic oscillation of cold and warm phases.) Even without that problem, many of us here will be lucky enough not to live to be among The Devoid, but younger SW users may be, as that fifty years is not long, historically: two generations.
That is really looking ahead! An interglacial would be bad enough (at least 10 metres sea-level rise). If the final thawing from the Ice Age, tough, for then humanity would have to come to terms with Nature as it has never faced it, in our entire hominid history; and is very unlikely to have any means to cope with it on any large scale.
Just be glad we here now, probably not even Aunty Greta bless her knitted woollen Scandinavian Winter socks, will live to see even a full Interglacial. Palaeolithic peoples could have coped with that. Modern ones would find it difficult...
I ignore campaigners and silly clichés like "zero carbon", "carbon neutral" and "renewable energy". I want genuine science and engineering but we hear precious little when the reality is so badly filtered, misunderstood and distorted by politicians, journalists and campaigners.
Recently I learnt of one study estimating the world's known oil and gas reserves at [i]present[/i] rates of use, to have only about 50 years left. Coal, about 100.
These are NOT just "fossil fuels". Yes, coal and gas are direct fuels; but coal and petroleum also provide raw chemicals for all manner of products we all rely on in our ordinary lives, every day. Coal distilled to produce coke (and those other chemicals), is also vital for smelting iron, the origin of steel; and steel underlies or is involved somewhere in [i]everything[/i] in [i]all[/i] our everyday lives, even if very indirectly. THINK!
Finding new reserves is becoming harder and costlier, and demand is rising. What will we do when we run out? We might have slowed our effects on the climate by using less fuel from those sources, but after that, how do we make everything currently dependent on those minerals? Leaving the stuff in the ground as Aunty Greta suggests, is not a sensible option unless and until we can find genuine, fully-viable alternatives before it runs out. THINK!
The UK is also building [i]new nuclear power stations [/i]- wind, solar and tidal power will NOT be enough because those commitments will bring huge demands for electricity. Here is a classic example of not thinking it through. The builders and owners are France and China so losing a lot of the capital cost and operating profits to those countries, and the costs are astronomical; but what [i]sensible[/i] choice to such power is there?
The UK were world leaders in nuclear-power research and is still a major worker in nuclear-fusion research; but like so many other British technical achievements, successive Governments of both parties, ignorant of anything technical and terrified of equally ignorant "greens", threw it all away. The remnants of a major part of that work are now being demolished, not 15 miles from my home and this computer. Unlike those governments, THINK!
Massive [i]off-shore wind-turbines[/i] require a lot of steel, copper, rare-earth metals, plus a lot of materials synthesised from petroleum derivatives(paints, adhesives, plastics, lubricants). Erecting and maintaining them also takes a goodly amount of diesel fuel for the special ships used. These all have to be found, sometimes in politically-difficult areas, refined and shipped around the world. When such plant is worn out the metals and to an extent, the oils and some of the plastics can be salvaged for re-use - the petroleum-derived materials can not. Again, don't be like Aunty Greta, THINK instead.
[i]Electric cars[/i]: for various pretty obvious reasons, I foresee many people in the future will unable to own a cars, and I doubt public transport will be any more comprehensive than now. Motoring will become as it was in its beginning, the costly preserve of the rich. Like the hire-car-on demand idea, tax-funded loans to buy the cars are a chimera. They would be [i]loans[i] even if cheaper than the usual credit schemes; and the present taxes on liquid fuels will also certainly have to be replaced by pro-rata tax on car electricity or Road Fund Licence. This might explain why a properly-installed home car-charger has to have its own ("smart"?) meter. This will have enormous deleterious effects on the nation's social and cultural life, tourism and leisure interests and their supporting trades, etc., and many communities are likely to become more isolated. Hence extremely damaging for the country as a whole. Yet we will still have to move huge tonnages of goods around the country, to farm land, to build homes and work-places... we will still need diesel vehicles, trains and plant for years to come - possibly until there is no more petroleum? THINK!
[i]Geothermal heating[/i]: fine but only where the quantity of heat in the ground is sufficient for the demand. Also, if you draw out heat at a greater rate than its is being replaced naturally, does it create an effect similar to an over-drawn water-well: a funnel-shaped volume of surrounding depleted ground that takes a while to replenish itself? If so, what is the depletion/recovery balance for an entire housing-estate of, say 1000 homes? Has anyone THOUGHT about this?
[i]Solar heating[/i] is the better option in some respects. The source of my quoted oil-depletion figures was a graph from an oil company, shown in a lecture by a Professor Khan whose Uni. of Bournemouth team is studying thermal-efficiency improvements to such heating. The Sun of course does not shine every day and all day, and even less in Winter, especially in the latitudes of Scotland and Northwards, but it is inexhaustible for all practical purposes. Also, a solar heating or photovoltaic panel cannot create a depletion well. It is how we capture solar light and heat we need consider, returning us to the materials question. Hence my calls to THINK.
'
There is, they say, no such things as a free lunch- there most certainly is not, in trying to rid the world of this evil element, Carbon. Not the compound, Carbon Dioxide, then...?
+++
I do not know exactly how much Mankind is altering the [i]rate[/i] of climate change, and no-one can actually define the "correct" climate. The whole debate has become desperately toxic thanks to vested commercial and political interests, ignorance and a strange human tendency to follow to the ignorant and excitable much more than the knowledgeable and analytical.
Nevertheless, it seems we are altering it, and dangerously so; even if Mr. Trump does call it a lie. We cannot be complacent but we have to look ahead and THINK ahead.
Our real problem is The Unspoken One. A population increasing rapidly and unsustainably, on a planet whose natural minerals it is depleting rapidly. And anything we do now can only buy time for several generations to come anyway.
Those future generations might enjoy a world with a stabilised [i] but still non-linear [u]rate[/u] of climate change[/i], [u]not[/u] stabilised climate; but will lack almost anything and everything we take for granted in our normal lives in developed countries now.
They would still in the [i]present[/i] Ice Age's warming - either an Interglacial or its complete end - but no-one can do anything about that! (An Ice Age, or at least "ours", is not a single frigid spell, but a climatic oscillation of cold and warm phases.) Even without that problem, many of us here will be lucky enough not to live to be among The Devoid, but younger SW users may be, as that fifty years is not long, historically: two generations.
That is really looking ahead! An interglacial would be bad enough (at least 10 metres sea-level rise). If the final thawing from the Ice Age, tough, for then humanity would have to come to terms with Nature as it has never faced it, in our entire hominid history; and is very unlikely to have any means to cope with it on any large scale.
Just be glad we here now, probably not even Aunty Greta bless her knitted woollen Scandinavian Winter socks, will live to see even a full Interglacial. Palaeolithic peoples could have coped with that. Modern ones would find it difficult...
basilfawlty89 · 31-35, M
What?