Welcome to the world of volatility – politicalbetting.com

bondegezou said:

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FPT.

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

stodge said:

148grss said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23

https://x.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1805178596496916957?t=FbkrYEX9BLIRAmfyfRtbcg&s=19

Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.

Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.

Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.

Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.

There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.

There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.

We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.

The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.

You don't believe in net zero, do you?

If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.

If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?

If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.

I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.

So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.

Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.

Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.

It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.

It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.

I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.

Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.

If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.

What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?

If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.

Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.

*It is.

It is shocking that it took COVID-19 to teach us how much we can use online calls for our international collaborations, and the vast majority of collaboration is now done online. (Most meetings I have with colleagues at the same university as me I do on Teams, rather than getting us all to meet up.)

However, I don't think that's an excuse for MisterBedfordshire or anyone else to believe or push batshit crazy conspiracy theories.

Peter_the_Punter said:

Farooq said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The irony is that for 38 years the Scots sang songs about Maradona and wore Argentina shirts and it’s an Argie ref who stiffs them for a stonewall penalty. Absolute theatre last night 😂😂😂 #EURo2024

https://x.com/njones179/status/1805125649431961949

I don't think it was stonewall penalty. I wanted it given, but objectively speaking it wasn't a terrible decision not to give it.

I do think there was a question off offside on the Hungary goal, but honestly that only made a difference to them, not us. A draw wasn't enough. Good luck to Hungary. We were 4th best in the group overall, so there's no use moaning about the result.

Agreed, Farooq.

Neither defender nor attacker were attempting to play the ball. The pair of them just fell over in a messy heap.

Phil said:

NB. On the Letby retrial. I was fairly neutral on the whole “Letby is innocent” thing, leaning pretty strongly towards a “there was a long court case & the jury saw all the evidence & got to make their judgement” position but this kind of thing is making me question that:

https://x.com/LucyLetbyTrials/status/1804980240139366627

Obviously this is a pro-Letby Twitter account, but seriously? The evidence in the original trial /reversed/ the entry & exit of every single person involved? So key witnesses in the original trial claimed “very strong recollections” of things that the entry / exit records suggest simply didn’t happen?

WTF were the police doing?

FF43 said:

TimS said:

Have we done this fun test yet?

https://www.idrlabs.com/conflict-coordinates/test.php

Very pro Ukraine and somewhat pro Palestine in my case. Which I guess is about right, even though I think it's complicated and the questions somewhat simplistic.

Scott_xP said:

@focaldataHQ
💥 EXCLUSIVE: Our first MRP poll of the campaign suggests Labour are on course for a 250-seat majority.

Probabilistic seat counts:
Labour: 450
Conservative: 110
Liberal Democrats: 50
SNP: 16
Plaid Cymru: 2
Reform UK: 1
Green: 1

https://x.com/focaldataHQ/status/1805265098803450304

BartholomewRoberts said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FPT.

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

stodge said:

148grss said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23

https://x.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1805178596496916957?t=FbkrYEX9BLIRAmfyfRtbcg&s=19

Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.

Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.

Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.

Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.

There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.

There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.

We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.

The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.

You don't believe in net zero, do you?

If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.

If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?

If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.

I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.

So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.

Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.

Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.

It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.

It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.

I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.

Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.

If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.

What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?

If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.

Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.

*It is.

Its not just international conferences that are vastly better in person, so is almost everything else people fly for too.

Which is why cutting flights is not a credible suggestion and is not going to happen. If it won't happen for these conferences, it won't happen anywhere else either.

What is a credible suggestion is developing net zero clean technologies for flights. Which will take longer to implement than say net zero clean technologies for cars, but should still happen ultimately.

It's not either/or. We can cut some flights, and should, and we should also be developing and implementing clean technologies.

The problem is so great that doing one of the things won't be enough. We need to do all of the things!

I disagree. The problem is so great we need to be doing clean technologies.

Cutting a few flights does piss all. If 99% of flights still take off, then reducing the flights by 1% does bugger all.

OTOH ensuring the flights that take off emit 10% less in one step, and then emit nothing eventually, transitions us to clean flights without cutting anything.

The latter is a serious, credible, scientific way to address the problem.

It would be if it was possible to achieve it with the laws of physics as we understand it.

Just the initial 10% involves switching to burning oil crops (as with E5 and E10 petrol) so reducing arable land needed for food and putting food prices up with particular impact on the global south, most of whom don't get to fly anywhere - ever.

No it doesn't.

Long term for the past fifty years there has been a compound 1.3% reduction in fuel burn per passenger km per annum and this has been continuing in recent years.

New planes are routinely using better technologies and are more fuel efficient than old ones.

A modern Airbus is much more fuel efficient than an old 747 was.

Farooq said:

Nigelb said:

Farooq said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The irony is that for 38 years the Scots sang songs about Maradona and wore Argentina shirts and it’s an Argie ref who stiffs them for a stonewall penalty. Absolute theatre last night 😂😂😂 #EURo2024

https://x.com/njones179/status/1805125649431961949

I don't think it was stonewall penalty. I wanted it given, but objectively speaking it wasn't a terrible decision not to give it.

I do think there was a question off offside on the Hungary goal, but honestly that only made a difference to them, not us. A draw wasn't enough. Good luck to Hungary. We were 4th best in the group overall, so there's no use moaning about the result.

It was a very poor decision not to have a look at VAR.
(In the view of this football ignoramus.)

The decision was absolutely correct. I just rewatched it and Armstrong puts his leg across, slowing down to initiate contact. He actually doesn't get the contact he was looking for until his foot went down.
I've changed my mind: the Scotland player should have been booked.

Carnyx said:

Flatlander said:

Farooq said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FPT.

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

stodge said:

148grss said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23

https://x.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1805178596496916957?t=FbkrYEX9BLIRAmfyfRtbcg&s=19

Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.

Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.

Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.

Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.

There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.

There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.

We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.

The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.

You don't believe in net zero, do you?

If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.

If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?

If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.

I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.

So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.

Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.

Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.

It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.

It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.

I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.

Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.

If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.

What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?

I, too, am very green. Instead of burning lots of calories staying warm, I insulate my uppermost extremity by donning a cylindrical structure of thin metal that reflects back infrared emitted from my scalp.

It also reflects... external... electromagnetic waves...

Surely you'd be better letting the microwaves through to get an extra bit of heating?

Doesn't it absorb RF energy and downgrade it to warmth anyway?

Farooq said:

Nigelb said:

Farooq said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The irony is that for 38 years the Scots sang songs about Maradona and wore Argentina shirts and it’s an Argie ref who stiffs them for a stonewall penalty. Absolute theatre last night 😂😂😂 #EURo2024

https://x.com/njones179/status/1805125649431961949

I don't think it was stonewall penalty. I wanted it given, but objectively speaking it wasn't a terrible decision not to give it.

I do think there was a question off offside on the Hungary goal, but honestly that only made a difference to them, not us. A draw wasn't enough. Good luck to Hungary. We were 4th best in the group overall, so there's no use moaning about the result.

It was a very poor decision not to have a look at VAR.
(In the view of this football ignoramus.)

The decision was absolutely correct. I just rewatched it and Armstrong puts his leg across, slowing down to initiate contact. He actually doesn't get the contact he was looking for until his foot went down.
I've changed my mind: the Scotland player should have been booked.

MisterBedfordshire said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FPT.

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

stodge said:

148grss said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23

https://x.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1805178596496916957?t=FbkrYEX9BLIRAmfyfRtbcg&s=19

Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.

Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.

Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.

Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.

There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.

There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.

We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.

The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.

You don't believe in net zero, do you?

If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.

If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?

If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.

I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.

So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.

Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.

Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.

It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.

It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.

I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.

Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.

If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.

What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?

If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.

Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.

*It is.

Its not just international conferences that are vastly better in person, so is almost everything else people fly for too.

Which is why cutting flights is not a credible suggestion and is not going to happen. If it won't happen for these conferences, it won't happen anywhere else either.

What is a credible suggestion is developing net zero clean technologies for flights. Which will take longer to implement than say net zero clean technologies for cars, but should still happen ultimately.

It's not either/or. We can cut some flights, and should, and we should also be developing and implementing clean technologies.

The problem is so great that doing one of the things won't be enough. We need to do all of the things!

I disagree. The problem is so great we need to be doing clean technologies.

Cutting a few flights does piss all. If 99% of flights still take off, then reducing the flights by 1% does bugger all.

OTOH ensuring the flights that take off emit 10% less in one step, and then emit nothing eventually, transitions us to clean flights without cutting anything.

The latter is a serious, credible, scientific way to address the problem.

It would be if it was possible to achieve it with the laws of physics as we understand it.

Just the initial 10% involves switching to burning oil crops (as with E5 and E10 petrol) so reducing arable land needed for food and putting food prices up with particular impact on the global south, most of whom don't get to fly anywhere - ever.

No it doesn't.

Long term for the past fifty years there has been a compound 1.3% reduction in fuel burn per passenger km per annum and this has been continuing in recent years.

New planes are routinely using better technologies and are more fuel efficient than old ones.

A modern Airbus is much more fuel efficient than an old 747 was.

But we are approaching the limit of what can be achieved, Driving up efficiency increases economy but there is a limit.

PedestrianRock said:

https://x.com/redfieldwilton/status/1805269652861231157?s=46

Redfield and Wilton

Labour leads Reform by 23%.

Joint-highest Reform %.

Joint-lowest Conservative %.

🇬🇧 Westminster VI (21-24 June):

Labour 42% (–)
Reform UK 19% (–)
Conservative 18% (–)
Lib Dem 12% (+1)
Green 6% (+1)
SNP 3% (–)
Other 2% (+1)

BAXTERED

LAB 501
LIB DEMS 60
CONS 38
REFUK 5
GRN 2

Farooq said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Farooq said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FPT.

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

stodge said:

148grss said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23

https://x.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1805178596496916957?t=FbkrYEX9BLIRAmfyfRtbcg&s=19

Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.

Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.

Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.

Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.

There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.

There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.

We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.

The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.

You don't believe in net zero, do you?

If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.

If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?

If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.

I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.

So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.

Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.

Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.

It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.

It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.

I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.

Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.

If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.

What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?

I, too, am very green. Instead of burning lots of calories staying warm, I insulate my uppermost extremity by donning a cylindrical structure of thin metal that reflects back infrared emitted from my scalp.

It also reflects... external... electromagnetic waves...

I hope you earth it then otherwise you are wasting your time. PS don't wear it during thunderstorms.

We very rarely get thunderstorms in Aberdeenshire. Sure the "climate" "scientists" say that it's due "to" prevailing winds, latitude, and the lack of warm, moist air. But I know it because we're too near Lossiemouth. And it's well known that nowhere on "Earth" does more chemtrails than Lossiemouth.

Grandcanyon said:

PedestrianRock said:

https://x.com/redfieldwilton/status/1805269652861231157?s=46

Redfield and Wilton

Labour leads Reform by 23%.

Joint-highest Reform %.

Joint-lowest Conservative %.

🇬🇧 Westminster VI (21-24 June):

Labour 42% (–)
Reform UK 19% (–)
Conservative 18% (–)
Lib Dem 12% (+1)
Green 6% (+1)
SNP 3% (–)
Other 2% (+1)

BAXTERED

LAB 501
LIB DEMS 60
CONS 38
REFUK 5
GRN 2

Absolutely disastrous for the conservatives given it includes faragegate. No impact whatsoever on polling.

Scott_xP said:

@RedfieldWilton
Lowest % of 2019 Conservatives EVER to say they will vote Conservative again.

Westminster VI, 2019 Conservatives (21-24 June):

Conservative 35% (-2)
Reform 28% (–)
Labour 19% (-1)
Other 8% (+1)
Don't Know 9% (+1)

Changes +/- 19-20 June

https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1805271013518721200

tlg86 said:

FF43 said:

Phil said:

NB. On the Letby retrial. I was fairly neutral on the whole “Letby is innocent” thing, leaning pretty strongly towards a “there was a long court case & the jury saw all the evidence & got to make their judgement” position but this kind of thing is making me question that:

https://x.com/LucyLetbyTrials/status/1804980240139366627

Obviously this is a pro-Letby Twitter account, but seriously? The evidence in the original trial /reversed/ the entry & exit of every single person involved? So key witnesses in the original trial claimed “very strong recollections” of things that the entry / exit records suggest simply didn’t happen?

WTF were the police doing?

I wouldn't go as far as saying Letby is innocent. Ultimately you have to take a call on these things on the evidence in front of you. But I have a nagging uncomfortable feeling about just how safe this conviction is.

Moreover, it was agreed by everyone that someone was killing babies. If it wasn't Letby, the real killer is still out there.

Grandcanyon said:

PedestrianRock said:

Scott_xP said:

@RedfieldWilton
Lowest % of 2019 Conservatives EVER to say they will vote Conservative again.

Westminster VI, 2019 Conservatives (21-24 June):

Conservative 35% (-2)
Reform 28% (–)
Labour 19% (-1)
Other 8% (+1)
Don't Know 9% (+1)

Changes +/- 19-20 June

https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1805271013518721200

28% of 2019 Tories voting for Reform, despite fieldwork spanning Putingate?

Wow.

Yes the media and the tories threw everything at this and nothing stuck. Peoples minds are made up and likely many reform voters secretly agreed with Farage. Clearly Farage aims to change the debate on Ukraine.

TimS said:

First.

And FPT because it took me a while to write

Here in Lewisham we got the usual one-off dump of leaflets today via the postman. So in total we have

Vicky Foxcroft (Labour). Slick, standardised and professionally produced Labour leaflet. Little tick-box questionnaire about what we'd like Labour to do in the constituency. 8/10 for the leaflet, only 4/10 for actually being visible or active between elections.

Two from Jean Branch (Lib Dem). Why 2 leaflets, Jean? This is Lewisham North, Labour rosette on donkey territory. Spend your time helping Bobby Dean in Carshalton & Wallington. OK, reasonably personal leaflets but message isn't clear. 6/10

Wrong leaflet from Reform (Marian Newton, Lewisham W and W Dulwich. Should be Edward Powell Lewisham North). Slick turquoise one pager with Nigel and Richard. Stop the boats etc. I'll begrudgingly have to give this 8/10 but with a 2 point deduction to 6 for getting the constituency wrong

[Big] John [Owls] Lloyd (Alliance for green socialism). Quaintly homemade vibe. Classic old trot photo, looking miserable. "John considers Starmer to be as bad as the Tories. The same right wing policies at home....failure to condemn Israeli war crimes in Palestine". SKS fans please explain.

Gwenton Dennis (Workers Party of GB). Another one going to the wrong constituency - he's Lewisham West & West Dulwich too. Maybe the royal mail messed it up. Similar content to John Lloyd but much slicker production values. No mention here of the traditionalist themes Galloway used in Rochdale. Rather touching dedication and picture of candidate's late mum and sister on the back. 7/10

No Green (surprising, must be on the way) or Conservative leaflets yet.

rcs1000 said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

bondegezou said:

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FPT.

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

stodge said:

148grss said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23

https://x.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1805178596496916957?t=FbkrYEX9BLIRAmfyfRtbcg&s=19

Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.

Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.

Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.

Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.

There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.

There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.

We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.

The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.

You don't believe in net zero, do you?

If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.

If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?

If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.

I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.

So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.

Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.

Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.

It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.

It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.

I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.

Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.

If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.

What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?

If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.

Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.

*It is.

It is shocking that it took COVID-19 to teach us how much we can use online calls for our international collaborations, and the vast majority of collaboration is now done online. (Most meetings I have with colleagues at the same university as me I do on Teams, rather than getting us all to meet up.)

However, I don't think that's an excuse for MisterBedfordshire or anyone else to believe or push batshit crazy conspiracy theories.

Since when is the rich wanting the pie for themselves and the crumbs for the plebs a batshit crazy conspiracy theory?

Its been the norm throughout most of recorded history

It becomes a conspiracy theory when you start assuming the conspiring.

Everyone wants more for themselves. That is simple human nature.

Grandcanyon said:

PedestrianRock said:

https://x.com/redfieldwilton/status/1805269652861231157?s=46

Redfield and Wilton

Labour leads Reform by 23%.

Joint-highest Reform %.

Joint-lowest Conservative %.

🇬🇧 Westminster VI (21-24 June):

Labour 42% (–)
Reform UK 19% (–)
Conservative 18% (–)
Lib Dem 12% (+1)
Green 6% (+1)
SNP 3% (–)
Other 2% (+1)

BAXTERED

LAB 501
LIB DEMS 60
CONS 38
REFUK 5
GRN 2

Absolutely disastrous for the conservatives given it includes faragegate. No impact whatsoever on polling.

MisterBedfordshire said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FPT.

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

stodge said:

148grss said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23

https://x.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1805178596496916957?t=FbkrYEX9BLIRAmfyfRtbcg&s=19

Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.

Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.

Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.

Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.

There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.

There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.

We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.

The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.

You don't believe in net zero, do you?

If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.

If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?

If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.

I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.

So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.

Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.

Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.

It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.

It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.

I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.

Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.

If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.

What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?

If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.

Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.

*It is.

Its not just international conferences that are vastly better in person, so is almost everything else people fly for too.

Which is why cutting flights is not a credible suggestion and is not going to happen. If it won't happen for these conferences, it won't happen anywhere else either.

What is a credible suggestion is developing net zero clean technologies for flights. Which will take longer to implement than say net zero clean technologies for cars, but should still happen ultimately.

It's not either/or. We can cut some flights, and should, and we should also be developing and implementing clean technologies.

The problem is so great that doing one of the things won't be enough. We need to do all of the things!

I disagree. The problem is so great we need to be doing clean technologies.

Cutting a few flights does piss all. If 99% of flights still take off, then reducing the flights by 1% does bugger all.

OTOH ensuring the flights that take off emit 10% less in one step, and then emit nothing eventually, transitions us to clean flights without cutting anything.

The latter is a serious, credible, scientific way to address the problem.

It would be if it was possible to achieve it with the laws of physics as we understand it.

Just the initial 10% involves switching to burning oil crops (as with E5 and E10 petrol) so reducing arable land needed for food and putting food prices up with particular impact on the global south, most of whom don't get to fly anywhere - ever.

No it doesn't.

Long term for the past fifty years there has been a compound 1.3% reduction in fuel burn per passenger km per annum and this has been continuing in recent years.

New planes are routinely using better technologies and are more fuel efficient than old ones.

A modern Airbus is much more fuel efficient than an old 747 was.

But we are approaching the limit of what can be achieved, Driving up efficiency increases economy but there is a limit.

Why is there a limit?

We are continuously iterating better technology and there is no end in sight for that.

Longer term there are plausible zero (net) carbon options for aviation but they're not here yet, but shorter term there absolutely is ways to continue to iterate better efficiency. We've not hit the wall yet.

Oh dear. Even if aeroplanes were able to turn fuel to propulsion with 100% efficiency(which they never will) they are still going to burn a vast amount of oil.

williamglenn said:

Jordan Bardella says that if elected, he will end France’s policy of recognising the state of Palestine because this would be to reward terrorism.

https://x.com/bfmtv/status/1805186384698720481

JosiasJessop said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

turbotubbs said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FPT.

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

stodge said:

148grss said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23

https://x.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1805178596496916957?t=FbkrYEX9BLIRAmfyfRtbcg&s=19

Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.

Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.

Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.

Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.

There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.

There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.

We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.

The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.

You don't believe in net zero, do you?

If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.

If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?

If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.

I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.

So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.

Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.

Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.

It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.

It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.

I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.

Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.

If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.

What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?

If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.

Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.

*It is.

Its not just international conferences that are vastly better in person, so is almost everything else people fly for too.

Which is why cutting flights is not a credible suggestion and is not going to happen. If it won't happen for these conferences, it won't happen anywhere else either.

What is a credible suggestion is developing net zero clean technologies for flights. Which will take longer to implement than say net zero clean technologies for cars, but should still happen ultimately.

It's not either/or. We can cut some flights, and should, and we should also be developing and implementing clean technologies.

The problem is so great that doing one of the things won't be enough. We need to do all of the things!

I disagree. The problem is so great we need to be doing clean technologies.

Cutting a few flights does piss all. If 99% of flights still take off, then reducing the flights by 1% does bugger all.

OTOH ensuring the flights that take off emit 10% less in one step, and then emit nothing eventually, transitions us to clean flights without cutting anything.

The latter is a serious, credible, scientific way to address the problem.

It would be if it was possible to achieve it with the laws of physics as we understand it.

Just the initial 10% involves switching to burning oil crops (as with E5 and E10 petrol) so reducing arable land needed for food and putting food prices up with particular impact on the global south, most of whom don't get to fly anywhere - ever.

There are other ways. Colleagues here are working on growing bio oils in algae. No need to agricultural land.

Yet. Yet.

I'm all for things like bio oils in algae. If so much money hadn't been spaffed away to spivs pushing wind turbines when there is not yet the technology to store what they generate, we might be further down that road.

There absolutely is the technology to store what they generate, its just not completely rolled out yet.

Within a decade it will be though. It will be on my driveway.

From what I recall, nowhere near enough energy storage in cars for that. Or in all transportation.

JosiasJessop said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

turbotubbs said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FPT.

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

stodge said:

148grss said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23

https://x.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1805178596496916957?t=FbkrYEX9BLIRAmfyfRtbcg&s=19

Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.

Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.

Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.

Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.

There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.

There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.

We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.

The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.

You don't believe in net zero, do you?

If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.

If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?

If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.

I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.

So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.

Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.

Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.

It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.

It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.

I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.

Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.

If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.

What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?

If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.

Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.

*It is.

Its not just international conferences that are vastly better in person, so is almost everything else people fly for too.

Which is why cutting flights is not a credible suggestion and is not going to happen. If it won't happen for these conferences, it won't happen anywhere else either.

What is a credible suggestion is developing net zero clean technologies for flights. Which will take longer to implement than say net zero clean technologies for cars, but should still happen ultimately.

It's not either/or. We can cut some flights, and should, and we should also be developing and implementing clean technologies.

The problem is so great that doing one of the things won't be enough. We need to do all of the things!

I disagree. The problem is so great we need to be doing clean technologies.

Cutting a few flights does piss all. If 99% of flights still take off, then reducing the flights by 1% does bugger all.

OTOH ensuring the flights that take off emit 10% less in one step, and then emit nothing eventually, transitions us to clean flights without cutting anything.

The latter is a serious, credible, scientific way to address the problem.

It would be if it was possible to achieve it with the laws of physics as we understand it.

Just the initial 10% involves switching to burning oil crops (as with E5 and E10 petrol) so reducing arable land needed for food and putting food prices up with particular impact on the global south, most of whom don't get to fly anywhere - ever.

There are other ways. Colleagues here are working on growing bio oils in algae. No need to agricultural land.

Yet. Yet.

I'm all for things like bio oils in algae. If so much money hadn't been spaffed away to spivs pushing wind turbines when there is not yet the technology to store what they generate, we might be further down that road.

There absolutely is the technology to store what they generate, its just not completely rolled out yet.

Within a decade it will be though. It will be on my driveway.

From what I recall, nowhere near enough energy storage in cars for that. Or in all transportation.

Stuartinromford said:

Grandcanyon said:

PedestrianRock said:

https://x.com/redfieldwilton/status/1805269652861231157?s=46

Redfield and Wilton

Labour leads Reform by 23%.

Joint-highest Reform %.

Joint-lowest Conservative %.

🇬🇧 Westminster VI (21-24 June):

Labour 42% (–)
Reform UK 19% (–)
Conservative 18% (–)
Lib Dem 12% (+1)
Green 6% (+1)
SNP 3% (–)
Other 2% (+1)

BAXTERED

LAB 501
LIB DEMS 60
CONS 38
REFUK 5
GRN 2

Absolutely disastrous for the conservatives given it includes faragegate. No impact whatsoever on polling.

As we've seen here, Putingate isn't necessarily causing defectors to Farage to rethink their decision. What it might do is put off those who still have to cross the river. So the ceiling has moved down a bit, but that doesn't matter yet.

BartholomewRoberts said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FPT.

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

stodge said:

148grss said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23

https://x.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1805178596496916957?t=FbkrYEX9BLIRAmfyfRtbcg&s=19

Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.

Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.

Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.

Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.

There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.

There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.

We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.

The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.

You don't believe in net zero, do you?

If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.

If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?

If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.

I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.

So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.

Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.

Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.

It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.

It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.

I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.

Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.

If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.

What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?

If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.

Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.

*It is.

Its not just international conferences that are vastly better in person, so is almost everything else people fly for too.

Which is why cutting flights is not a credible suggestion and is not going to happen. If it won't happen for these conferences, it won't happen anywhere else either.

What is a credible suggestion is developing net zero clean technologies for flights. Which will take longer to implement than say net zero clean technologies for cars, but should still happen ultimately.

It's not either/or. We can cut some flights, and should, and we should also be developing and implementing clean technologies.

The problem is so great that doing one of the things won't be enough. We need to do all of the things!

I disagree. The problem is so great we need to be doing clean technologies.

Cutting a few flights does piss all. If 99% of flights still take off, then reducing the flights by 1% does bugger all.

OTOH ensuring the flights that take off emit 10% less in one step, and then emit nothing eventually, transitions us to clean flights without cutting anything.

The latter is a serious, credible, scientific way to address the problem.

It would be if it was possible to achieve it with the laws of physics as we understand it.

Just the initial 10% involves switching to burning oil crops (as with E5 and E10 petrol) so reducing arable land needed for food and putting food prices up with particular impact on the global south, most of whom don't get to fly anywhere - ever.

No it doesn't.

Long term for the past fifty years there has been a compound 1.3% reduction in fuel burn per passenger km per annum and this has been continuing in recent years.

New planes are routinely using better technologies and are more fuel efficient than old ones.

A modern Airbus is much more fuel efficient than an old 747 was.

But we are approaching the limit of what can be achieved, Driving up efficiency increases economy but there is a limit.

Why is there a limit?

We are continuously iterating better technology and there is no end in sight for that.

Longer term there are plausible zero (net) carbon options for aviation but they're not here yet, but shorter term there absolutely is ways to continue to iterate better efficiency. We've not hit the wall yet.

Oh dear. Even if aeroplanes were able to turn fuel to propulsion with 100% efficiency(which they never will) they are still going to burn a vast amount of oil.

There are all sorts of net zero options out there that aren't developed yet, but could be.

The RAF has flown a jet using synthetic gasoline made from used cooking oil, which is an interesting option, for instance.

There are in fact many alternatives being researched and my money is on humanity doing what it always does and that's finding a scientific solution.

BartholomewRoberts said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FPT.

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

stodge said:

148grss said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23

https://x.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1805178596496916957?t=FbkrYEX9BLIRAmfyfRtbcg&s=19

Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.

Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.

Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.

Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.

There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.

There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.

We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.

The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.

You don't believe in net zero, do you?

If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.

If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?

If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.

I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.

So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.

Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.

Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.

It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.

It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.

I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.

Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.

If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.

What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?

If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.

Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.

*It is.

Its not just international conferences that are vastly better in person, so is almost everything else people fly for too.

Which is why cutting flights is not a credible suggestion and is not going to happen. If it won't happen for these conferences, it won't happen anywhere else either.

What is a credible suggestion is developing net zero clean technologies for flights. Which will take longer to implement than say net zero clean technologies for cars, but should still happen ultimately.

It's not either/or. We can cut some flights, and should, and we should also be developing and implementing clean technologies.

The problem is so great that doing one of the things won't be enough. We need to do all of the things!

I disagree. The problem is so great we need to be doing clean technologies.

Cutting a few flights does piss all. If 99% of flights still take off, then reducing the flights by 1% does bugger all.

OTOH ensuring the flights that take off emit 10% less in one step, and then emit nothing eventually, transitions us to clean flights without cutting anything.

The latter is a serious, credible, scientific way to address the problem.

It would be if it was possible to achieve it with the laws of physics as we understand it.

Just the initial 10% involves switching to burning oil crops (as with E5 and E10 petrol) so reducing arable land needed for food and putting food prices up with particular impact on the global south, most of whom don't get to fly anywhere - ever.

No it doesn't.

Long term for the past fifty years there has been a compound 1.3% reduction in fuel burn per passenger km per annum and this has been continuing in recent years.

New planes are routinely using better technologies and are more fuel efficient than old ones.

A modern Airbus is much more fuel efficient than an old 747 was.

But we are approaching the limit of what can be achieved, Driving up efficiency increases economy but there is a limit.

Why is there a limit?

We are continuously iterating better technology and there is no end in sight for that.

Longer term there are plausible zero (net) carbon options for aviation but they're not here yet, but shorter term there absolutely is ways to continue to iterate better efficiency. We've not hit the wall yet.

Oh dear. Even if aeroplanes were able to turn fuel to propulsion with 100% efficiency(which they never will) they are still going to burn a vast amount of oil.

There are all sorts of net zero options out there that aren't developed yet, but could be.

The RAF has flown a jet using synthetic gasoline made from used cooking oil, which is an interesting option, for instance.

There are in fact many alternatives being researched and my money is on humanity doing what it always does and that's finding a scientific solution.

El_Capitano said:

Focaldata seat projections:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G7Ey3ZcEMWbosicrLKtp6LqiCh2KUUBc/edit?gid=491918608#gid=491918608

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FPT.

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

stodge said:

148grss said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23

https://x.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1805178596496916957?t=FbkrYEX9BLIRAmfyfRtbcg&s=19

Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.

Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.

Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.

Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.

There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.

There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.

We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.

The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.

You don't believe in net zero, do you?

If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.

If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?

If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.

I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.

So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.

Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.

Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.

It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.

It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.

I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.

Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.

If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.

What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?

If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.

Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.

*It is.

Its not just international conferences that are vastly better in person, so is almost everything else people fly for too.

Which is why cutting flights is not a credible suggestion and is not going to happen. If it won't happen for these conferences, it won't happen anywhere else either.

What is a credible suggestion is developing net zero clean technologies for flights. Which will take longer to implement than say net zero clean technologies for cars, but should still happen ultimately.

It's not either/or. We can cut some flights, and should, and we should also be developing and implementing clean technologies.

The problem is so great that doing one of the things won't be enough. We need to do all of the things!

I disagree. The problem is so great we need to be doing clean technologies.

Cutting a few flights does piss all. If 99% of flights still take off, then reducing the flights by 1% does bugger all.

OTOH ensuring the flights that take off emit 10% less in one step, and then emit nothing eventually, transitions us to clean flights without cutting anything.

The latter is a serious, credible, scientific way to address the problem.

It would be if it was possible to achieve it with the laws of physics as we understand it.

Just the initial 10% involves switching to burning oil crops (as with E5 and E10 petrol) so reducing arable land needed for food and putting food prices up with particular impact on the global south, most of whom don't get to fly anywhere - ever.

No it doesn't.

Long term for the past fifty years there has been a compound 1.3% reduction in fuel burn per passenger km per annum and this has been continuing in recent years.

New planes are routinely using better technologies and are more fuel efficient than old ones.

A modern Airbus is much more fuel efficient than an old 747 was.

But we are approaching the limit of what can be achieved, Driving up efficiency increases economy but there is a limit.

Why is there a limit?

We are continuously iterating better technology and there is no end in sight for that.

Longer term there are plausible zero (net) carbon options for aviation but they're not here yet, but shorter term there absolutely is ways to continue to iterate better efficiency. We've not hit the wall yet.

Oh dear. Even if aeroplanes were able to turn fuel to propulsion with 100% efficiency(which they never will) they are still going to burn a vast amount of oil.

There are all sorts of net zero options out there that aren't developed yet, but could be.

The RAF has flown a jet using synthetic gasoline made from used cooking oil, which is an interesting option, for instance.

There are in fact many alternatives being researched and my money is on humanity doing what it always does and that's finding a scientific solution.

A jet using gasoline?!

Kerosene presumably? A Tristar? Say 100 tonnes per long range flight. But the UK's chippies use about 100 kT a year. That'd be accounted for by 5 RAF jets' flying programmes, reasonably intensive, of 200 flights/year each.

[Fermi piano tuner levels of accuracy: but probably right ballpark.]

Luckyguy1983 said:

...

wooliedyed said:

🆕 @Moreincommon_ voting intention. Small changes but our highest Reform score yet. While Labour tick back up & lead by 16
🔴 LAB 41% (+2)
🔵 CON 25% (-)
🟠 LIB DEM 10% (-1)
🟣 REF UK 15% (+1)
🟢 GRN 5% (-)
🟡 SNP 2%(-1)
Dates: 21-23/6 N: 2046 Tables: moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/votin…
https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1805274012135702821?s=19

Reform up despite Putingate.

wooliedyed said:

🆕 @Moreincommon_ voting intention. Small changes but our highest Reform score yet. While Labour tick back up & lead by 16
🔴 LAB 41% (+2)
🔵 CON 25% (-)
🟠 LIB DEM 10% (-1)
🟣 REF UK 15% (+1)
🟢 GRN 5% (-)
🟡 SNP 2%(-1)
Dates: 21-23/6 N: 2046 Tables: moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/votin…
https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1805274012135702821?s=19

BartholomewRoberts said:

JosiasJessop said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

turbotubbs said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FPT.

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

stodge said:

148grss said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23

https://x.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1805178596496916957?t=FbkrYEX9BLIRAmfyfRtbcg&s=19

Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.

Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.

Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.

Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.

There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.

There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.

We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.

The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.

You don't believe in net zero, do you?

If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.

If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?

If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.

I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.

So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.

Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.

Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.

It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.

It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.

I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.

Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.

If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.

What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?

If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.

Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.

*It is.

Its not just international conferences that are vastly better in person, so is almost everything else people fly for too.

Which is why cutting flights is not a credible suggestion and is not going to happen. If it won't happen for these conferences, it won't happen anywhere else either.

What is a credible suggestion is developing net zero clean technologies for flights. Which will take longer to implement than say net zero clean technologies for cars, but should still happen ultimately.

It's not either/or. We can cut some flights, and should, and we should also be developing and implementing clean technologies.

The problem is so great that doing one of the things won't be enough. We need to do all of the things!

I disagree. The problem is so great we need to be doing clean technologies.

Cutting a few flights does piss all. If 99% of flights still take off, then reducing the flights by 1% does bugger all.

OTOH ensuring the flights that take off emit 10% less in one step, and then emit nothing eventually, transitions us to clean flights without cutting anything.

The latter is a serious, credible, scientific way to address the problem.

It would be if it was possible to achieve it with the laws of physics as we understand it.

Just the initial 10% involves switching to burning oil crops (as with E5 and E10 petrol) so reducing arable land needed for food and putting food prices up with particular impact on the global south, most of whom don't get to fly anywhere - ever.

There are other ways. Colleagues here are working on growing bio oils in algae. No need to agricultural land.

Yet. Yet.

I'm all for things like bio oils in algae. If so much money hadn't been spaffed away to spivs pushing wind turbines when there is not yet the technology to store what they generate, we might be further down that road.

There absolutely is the technology to store what they generate, its just not completely rolled out yet.

Within a decade it will be though. It will be on my driveway.

From what I recall, nowhere near enough energy storage in cars for that. Or in all transportation.

We typically use about 35GW of electricity nationwide.

33 million cars on the road. Assume an average of 80 kWh battery in each.

Equals 2,640 GWh. Or just over 3 days worth of 100% of our electricity.

Unless I've screwed up my maths, in which case I'm sure somebody on pedanticbetting will spot it.

JosiasJessop said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

JosiasJessop said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

turbotubbs said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FPT.

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

148grss said:

stodge said:

148grss said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MisterBedfordshire said:

Peter Hitchens: "Yes, it was a lawless putsch. My inch-by-inch and line-by-line examination of the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's legitimate President in 2014 (swiftly condoned, to their lasting shame, by the Western democracies)". [Plus link to an article he wrote on the subject in April 23

https://x.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1805178596496916957?t=FbkrYEX9BLIRAmfyfRtbcg&s=19

Peter Hitchens confirms once again he's as thick as pigshit, thanks for the reminder.

Climate change denier too. Moron status confirmed.

Another issue where the three main parties and their fellow travellers have the same view, view anyone who dissents as a cretin and then wonder why people like Meloni, Le Pen and Farage start getting lots of votes and decide it is because they are thick and bigoted, in much the same way a Georgian Aristocrat regarded the peasants.

Anthropogenic climate change is happening - that is a fact. The main issue is how to tackle the issue. The neoliberals want to allow big business to thrive whilst also paying lip service to the idea of being environmentally friendly, so they move taxes onto consumers rather than producers of CO2 - the petrol hikes that many rural Europeans so despise because it makes rural living more expensive is a good example of this. The right / far right want to pretend climate change isn't happening and move on to a scarcity model of politics - there isn't enough left for the Volk, so we must kick out the foreigner (and the dissenters who aren't really people like us anyway). The left propose the only viable alternative - investment in renewable energy and a reduced reliance on fossil fuels. This will mean huge phase shifts (reduced plastic use, reduced usage of hydrocarbon based fertilisers, etc), but at least the left are willing to say what the problem is (excess production and consumption for the benefit of capital) and where to get the resources to tackle the issue (those who already hoard capital) without having to scapegoat immigrants.

There is another option and that's to value sustainability and ecological impact beside profit as a business motive. It's no good making money if you're destroying the world. Supporting businesses which are ecologically sustainable and seek to mitigate the impact of climate change would be sensible options for a more business-oriented Government and if that means companies who refuse to be sustainable go to the wall so be it.

There is a fine line but Govenrment can also be about influencing public behaviour and educating people as to what is happening, why it is happening and the consequences especially for those parts of the world where the impacts are more keenly and immediately felt.

We too face issues from rising sea levels and a climate with more frequent extremes of weather and that means sensible thinking on houses including not building housing developments on flood plains.

The problem with capitalistic growth is that it is ideologically wedded not only to profit, but ever growing profit, which demand ever more extraction and squeezing of labour, along with increasingly trying to foist externalities onto public coffers (or ignoring them completely) makes it really difficult. Already we have right wingers and big businesses saying there is too much green tape and regulation etc. We also know that consumption and CO2 production is skewwed heavily towards the extremely wealthy - both globally and within individual nations. The answer, more equitable distribution of resources and an overall decrease in consumption reliant on fossil fuels, doesn't really square with the continuation of the profit motive as it currently exists.

You don't believe in net zero, do you?

If we have net zero, why do we need "equitable distribution of resources" for climate reasons, considering we can scale up or down consumption/production and anything times zero equals zero.

If we don't have net zero, how do we stop climate change?

If you were serious about tackling climate change, you wouldn't believe any of the garbage you're spouting.

I mean, I don't think globally we're going to get to net zero because many of the people saying we will are hoping carbon capture works better than it currently does - atm efficiency is too low to depend on it. So to get to net zero it will not just be countries sequestering any carbon output to equal zero (as the tech to sequester is currently not good enough), it will require a reduction in emissions. Reduction in emissions will require a reduction in production and consumption. If the logic of growth for the average worker is "you get a smaller slice, but we'll grow the pie", the logic of static growth or even degrowth for the average worker should be "you get a bigger slice, but we're slowly shrinking the pie". That will have to come via wealth redistribution - those who have a huge amount will have to give up their hoarded resources for the benefits of those who have less or none.

So you don't give a fuck about the planet and want to trash the environment and keep emitting pollution then.

Pissing about with marginal reductions in "the size of the pie" will do bugger all to reduce emissions, since we'll still have billions of people making emissions globally and the rest of the world has no desire to shrink their size of the pie - quite rightly too.

Only investing in clean technology gets us to net zero and that requires no change in pie size. And clean technologies can be adopted by the rest of the planet too.

It doesn't take much scraping the green away to reveal the nasty anti-growth agenda beneath. Carbon capture needn't even be about 'storage technology' - it can be done by dressing UK fields with basalt, to the tune of 45% of Britain's overall net zero target, and the level of carbon uptake can be verified easily by testing of soils. Terrifying for the likes of 148grss because it doesn't involve the forced decimation of the economy, which is their actual goal.

It also remineralises the soil and makes it far more fertile.

I used SEER rockdust on my allotment and it was very effective.

Funny thing is they smear me as a climate denier but I grow my own veg travel mostly by public transport and drive very little (had the car since new the thick end of two decades ago and will keep it till it packs up (the greenest way possible of driving due to the carbon cost of construction and disposal). Probably one of the greenest here in terms of what I actually do.

If they actually believed what they say then the COP and WEF summits would be held by videoconference.

What they really mean is that they want a subsistence existence stuck in 15 minute cities for most so that there is unspoiled Lebensraum for them and they can air condition their mansions and fly their private jets without the earth running out of resources any time soon. Oil isn't infinite. Lets not let the plebs waste it, what?

If you don’t want to sound like a stark raving conspiracy theorist, perhaps drop the bit about the WEF and… well, the conspiracy theory bit.

Thing is there is a bit of a point about scientists sounding alarm bells about global travel and then all meeting up after travelling thousands of miles, usually by air. Now you and I both know that international conferences are vastly better for information exchange, project seeding etc than teams/zoom meetings etc. But it is all too easy for the lay person to look at that and think that if it were really serious* then the scientists would lead by example.

*It is.

Its not just international conferences that are vastly better in person, so is almost everything else people fly for too.

Which is why cutting flights is not a credible suggestion and is not going to happen. If it won't happen for these conferences, it won't happen anywhere else either.

What is a credible suggestion is developing net zero clean technologies for flights. Which will take longer to implement than say net zero clean technologies for cars, but should still happen ultimately.

It's not either/or. We can cut some flights, and should, and we should also be developing and implementing clean technologies.

The problem is so great that doing one of the things won't be enough. We need to do all of the things!

I disagree. The problem is so great we need to be doing clean technologies.

Cutting a few flights does piss all. If 99% of flights still take off, then reducing the flights by 1% does bugger all.

OTOH ensuring the flights that take off emit 10% less in one step, and then emit nothing eventually, transitions us to clean flights without cutting anything.

The latter is a serious, credible, scientific way to address the problem.

It would be if it was possible to achieve it with the laws of physics as we understand it.

Just the initial 10% involves switching to burning oil crops (as with E5 and E10 petrol) so reducing arable land needed for food and putting food prices up with particular impact on the global south, most of whom don't get to fly anywhere - ever.

There are other ways. Colleagues here are working on growing bio oils in algae. No need to agricultural land.

Yet. Yet.

I'm all for things like bio oils in algae. If so much money hadn't been spaffed away to spivs pushing wind turbines when there is not yet the technology to store what they generate, we might be further down that road.

There absolutely is the technology to store what they generate, its just not completely rolled out yet.

Within a decade it will be though. It will be on my driveway.

From what I recall, nowhere near enough energy storage in cars for that. Or in all transportation.

We typically use about 35GW of electricity nationwide.

33 million cars on the road. Assume an average of 80 kWh battery in each.

Equals 2,640 GWh. Or just over 3 days worth of 100% of our electricity.

Unless I've screwed up my maths, in which case I'm sure somebody on pedanticbetting will spot it.

Except moving to electric will also increase electricity demand; e.g. for those cars, and heating replacing gas boilers, etc, etc.

Grandcanyon said:

wooliedyed said:

🆕 @Moreincommon_ voting intention. Small changes but our highest Reform score yet. While Labour tick back up & lead by 16
🔴 LAB 41% (+2)
🔵 CON 25% (-)
🟠 LIB DEM 10% (-1)
🟣 REF UK 15% (+1)
🟢 GRN 5% (-)
🟡 SNP 2%(-1)
Dates: 21-23/6 N: 2046 Tables: moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/votin…
https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1805274012135702821?s=19

Clearly Farages comments arent hurting Reform. Quite a lot of people agree with him and I suppose if he changes the one sided conversation on Ukraine in the Uk with public support that may make our leaders decisions regarding extra support to ukraine more difficult.

viewcode said:

TimS said:

First.

And FPT because it took me a while to write

Here in Lewisham we got the usual one-off dump of leaflets today via the postman. So in total we have

Vicky Foxcroft (Labour). Slick, standardised and professionally produced Labour leaflet. Little tick-box questionnaire about what we'd like Labour to do in the constituency. 8/10 for the leaflet, only 4/10 for actually being visible or active between elections.

Two from Jean Branch (Lib Dem). Why 2 leaflets, Jean? This is Lewisham North, Labour rosette on donkey territory. Spend your time helping Bobby Dean in Carshalton & Wallington. OK, reasonably personal leaflets but message isn't clear. 6/10

Wrong leaflet from Reform (Marian Newton, Lewisham W and W Dulwich. Should be Edward Powell Lewisham North). Slick turquoise one pager with Nigel and Richard. Stop the boats etc. I'll begrudgingly have to give this 8/10 but with a 2 point deduction to 6 for getting the constituency wrong

[Big] John [Owls] Lloyd (Alliance for green socialism). Quaintly homemade vibe. Classic old trot photo, looking miserable. "John considers Starmer to be as bad as the Tories. The same right wing policies at home....failure to condemn Israeli war crimes in Palestine". SKS fans please explain.

Gwenton Dennis (Workers Party of GB). Another one going to the wrong constituency - he's Lewisham West & West Dulwich too. Maybe the royal mail messed it up. Similar content to John Lloyd but much slicker production values. No mention here of the traditionalist themes Galloway used in Rochdale. Rather touching dedication and picture of candidate's late mum and sister on the back. 7/10

No Green (surprising, must be on the way) or Conservative leaflets yet.

Did you just doxx @bigjohnowls ?

algarkirk said:

There is a consistent and thread of polls which Baxter to a Tory wipeout - 30-60 seats, Labour towards 500. If it happens we can't say there was no evidence and we weren't warned. I certainly don't think it can't happen.