The Politics of 'Climate-change'

[Wisbech Eagle]

Pure doublespeak. This insistence on defending the official line serves no purpose other than to protect your own ego and inability to admit being wrong. Remember when you tried to pretend the virus didn't originate in the Wuhan lab because it didn't fit with the official line?

That’s all bs!

I have never pretended the virus didn’t originate in the Wuhan lab! I said we didn’t know and probably would never know, given the lack of cooperation from the Chinese. That remains true. The lab leak hypothesis remains a credible theory. It’s not proven.

Nor am defending an official line, myself or anyone else.

I am speaking the truth as I perceive it. You are entitled to disagree but not to call me a liar.

I do not believe a statement made for any positive purpose, even if technically untrue, can accurately be described as a lie. It’s a well intended untruth, fabrication or harmless exaggeration.

Language matters. Context matters. Nuance is important. If we reduce everything to simple black and white definitions then our understanding decreases.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

So what? Is selfishness a crime? If you want to pay for others to have a heat pump installed on their property then feel free if you think it will help demonstrate our dedication to saving the planet.

Selfishness is not a crime but it is not a virtue either. The world would be a better place with less of it.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

That’s all bs!

I have never pretended the virus didn’t originate in the Wuhan lab! I said we didn’t know and probably would never know, given the lack of cooperation from the Chinese. That remains true. The lab leak hypothesis remains a credible theory. It’s not proven.

Nor am defending an official line, myself or anyone else.

I am speaking the truth as I perceive it. You are entitled to disagree but not to call me a liar.

I do not believe a statement made for any positive purpose, even if technically untrue, can accurately be described as a lie. It’s a well intended untruth, fabrication or harmless exaggeration.

Language matters. Context matters. Nuance is important. If we reduce everything to simple black and white definitions then our understanding decreases.

Where did I say you were a liar? I said you're defending the lies of others.
You spent months denying the origin of the virus but that has apparently conveniently been forgotten.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Selfishness is not a crime but it is not a virtue either. The world would be a better place with less of it.

Very evangelical.

 

[cryrst]

You probably perceive me as pompous because you know I am right and find it so difficult to accept you must insult me. That’s fine. I really don’t care but if my tone does come over that way to others I apologise.

There’s no guesswork involved these days. The computer modelling is now very well advanced even if the outcomes are not precisely predictable. Which is why they are expressed as ranges. The climate change we are witnessing is all man made.

Volcanoes erupting will happen. They might have short or long term impacts. As with even today’s technology we don’t know when they will occur we just have to cope when that happens.

That though has nothing to do with climate change. It’s a separate issue.

A perception on how I read your post isn’t insulting you it’s an observation.
Models are not always correct and all along I’ve never denied climate change. I’ve never searched for best case scenario on it but constantly see worst case. Why is that?

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

Climate change is happening. Will nature step up and do something ? Because humans live in such fractured societies it will be impossible to co-ordinate any kind of mitigating action.
We can only go on data presented to us, but here's the rub. Government and large industries employ scientists and academics, purely to give mis-information and lie to us.
The raw data is out there, you can look and judge for yourselves.
Should we adopt a precautionary approach, and go vegan and swap your car for a bicycle and holiday in Barry Island ? Or should you do like your MP and industrial leaders do, and get a big petrol car, eat exotic foods and take your holidays by plane to the other side of the world ?
It's very likely that mankind's activities are causing an unstoppable change in the earth's atmosphere. A big factor in stopping it, is when we run out of fossil fuels to burn, and we run out of options. That probably won't happen in my lifetime, but certainly this century (unless you want to believe Government figures, or those of OPEC or other oil producers).
Then society (if it hasn't destroyed itself with warfare), will be forced to revert back to horse and cart, natural population decline, and possible breakdown of societies existing structures.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Where did I say you were a liar? I said you're defending the lies of others.
You spent months denying the origin of the virus but that has apparently conveniently been forgotten.

Anyone, outside of China, who claims they know the origin of the virus is a liar. It’s not denying the origin when no one actually knows. Suppositions aren’t knowledge.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

A perception on how I read your post isn’t insulting you it’s an observation.
Models are not always correct and all along I’ve never denied climate change. I’ve never searched for best case scenario on it but constantly see worst case. Why is that?

The reason I believe you decided to make the insulting “observation” is because you know what I say is true but are unable to openly accept it.

One model can be incorrect and none are likely to be 100% correct as there are too many variables for that. When all the models show the same problem then it’s time to take them seriously.

With a range of possible outcomes, all of which are bad but some worse than others, you have no choice other than to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

With the level of denial in play, the complacency being demonstrated by those who it won’t personally impact, the selfishness of politicians who put their own survival above that of future generations, it is necessary to use shock tactics to shake people and get things done.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Climate change is happening. Will nature step up and do something ? Because humans live in such fractured societies it will be impossible to co-ordinate any kind of mitigating action.
We can only go on data presented to us, but here's the rub. Government and large industries employ scientists and academics, purely to give mis-information and lie to us.
The raw data is out there, you can look and judge for yourselves.
Should we adopt a precautionary approach, and go vegan and swap your car for a bicycle and holiday in Barry Island ? Or should you do like your MP and industrial leaders do, and get a big petrol car, eat exotic foods and take your holidays by plane to the other side of the world ?
It's very likely that mankind's activities are causing an unstoppable change in the earth's atmosphere. A big factor in stopping it, is when we run out of fossil fuels to burn, and we run out of options. That probably won't happen in my lifetime, but certainly this century (unless you want to believe Government figures, or those of OPEC or other oil producers).
Then society (if it hasn't destroyed itself with warfare), will be forced to revert back to horse and cart, natural population decline, and possible breakdown of societies existing structures.

Nature won’t stop it. Nature doesn’t care. Our planet will survive as will life on it. Homo sapiens may not.

Why you are so cynical about scientists and academics beats me. The vast majority are devoted to finding the truth and not the least interested in protecting governments. What we can do as individuals on our own is a waste of time. It must be done collectively and that can only be organised by government.

We can, and are, replacing fossil fuels as our energy source. There’s more than enough sunshine falling on the planet every day to do that, whether we harvest it directly or via the waves and wind it creates. Tidal flows provided by the moon and gravity are other sources. What’s lacking is not the energy. It’s the will to use it and to find the ways to manage and store it that are. There is no need to return to pre industrial life styles. Just the need to accept that change is an imperative to avoid it.

 

[DANGERCLOSE]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1890020272130154520

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Nature won’t stop it. Nature doesn’t care. Our planet will survive as will life on it. Homo sapiens may not.

Why you are so cynical about scientists and academics beats me. The vast majority are devoted to finding the truth and not the least interested in protecting governments. What we can do as individuals on our own is a waste of time. It must be done collectively and that can only be organised by government.

We can, and are, replacing fossil fuels as our energy source. There’s more than enough sunshine falling on the planet every day to do that, whether we harvest it directly or via the waves and wind it creates. Tidal flows provided by the moon and gravity are other sources. What’s lacking is not the energy. It’s the will to use it and to find the ways to manage and store it that are. There is no need to return to pre industrial life styles. Just the need to accept that change is an imperative to avoid it.

Like the government who wanted drivers to change to diesel twenty years ago.

Why officials in Labour government pushed 'dash for diesel'

Documents show why Gordon Brown's officials promoted diesel vehicles despite pollution concerns.

www.bbc.com

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Like the government who wanted drivers to change to diesel twenty years ago.

Why officials in Labour government pushed 'dash for diesel'

Documents show why Gordon Brown's officials promoted diesel vehicles despite pollution concerns.

www.bbc.com

This is a report written 8 years ago about something that happened 24 years ago. Something that with hindsight was wrong but reading the reasoning at the time was considered the best answer to a dilemma. We know better now.

We all make decisions that with hindsight can be seen as inappropriate. That doesn’t mean they were badly made. Just that learning demands we recognise errors so they aren’t repeated. Having made any decision then trying to ensure it’s targeted take up is achieved becomes a new, and separate task.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

This is a report written 8 years ago about something that happened 24 years ago. Something that with hindsight was wrong but reading the reasoning at the time was considered the best answer to a dilemma. We know better now.

We all make decisions that with hindsight can be seen as inappropriate. That doesn’t mean they were badly made. Just that learning demands we recognise errors so they aren’t repeated. Having made any decision then trying to ensure it’s targeted take up is achieved becomes a new, and separate task.

And we'll know better again in 24 years so let's not panic.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

And we'll know better again in 24 years so let's not panic.

We won’t.

We knew about diesel being a pollutant back then. The wrong decision wasn’t not knowing. It was to let other considerations override it. Just as some do now on climate change, only this time this isn’t just a contribution to a problem. It’s the problem itself that’s disputed.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

We won’t.

We knew about diesel being a pollutant back then. The wrong decision wasn’t not knowing. It was to let other considerations override it. Just as some do now on climate change, only this time this isn’t just a contribution to a problem. It’s the problem itself that’s disputed.

And how do we know other considerations aren't overriding anything now?

 

[Stirlingsays]

Climate change is happening. Will nature step up and do something ? Because humans live in
Then society (if it hasn't destroyed itself with warfare), will be forced to revert back to horse and cart, natural population decline, and possible breakdown of societies existing structures.

At least someone will end up remaking Steptoe and Son.....reshooting those scripts would be three times as better than any of the sh1te they put on today.

 

[DANGERCLOSE]

That’s all bs!

I have never pretended the virus didn’t originate in the Wuhan lab! I said we didn’t know and probably would never know, given the lack of cooperation from the Chinese. That remains true. The lab leak hypothesis remains a credible theory. It’s not proven.

Nor am defending an official line, myself or anyone else.

I am speaking the truth as I perceive it. You are entitled to disagree but not to call me a liar.

I do not believe a statement made for any positive purpose, even if technically untrue, can accurately be described as a lie. It’s a well intended untruth, fabrication or harmless exaggeration.

Language matters. Context matters. Nuance is important. If we reduce everything to simple black and white definitions then our understanding decreases.

The bigger the list of believers, the more carbon TAX for the perpetrators of the lie

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

And how do we know other considerations aren't overriding anything now?

In places like this some try to do it. Not though, fortunately, at government level. At least I here and every developed country bar one.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

In places like this some try to do it. Not though, fortunately, at government level. At least I here and every developed country bar one.

It was at government level then, why not now?

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

It was at government level then, why not now?

Deny climate change?

You can disagree with the politics of whatever British party you choose but you won’t find one denying climate change.

You might find some prepared to avoid taking the needed actions in order to be popular and get power. Which is why we need to take this out of daily politics and agree a cross party strategy that all sign up to for the long term. Dealing with such an existential threat demands such an approach.