|
Post by stuart1974 on Oct 21, 2021 11:02:21 GMT
A few small changes by many will add up to big changes overall.
As far as regional leagues go, not too sure distances involved in European leagues will result in too much but it's an interesting topic. If things move that way, then it's more likely to be financial costs to clubs rather than environmental ones. I can certainly see L2 and the National League going that way, maybe less L1 with some of the traditionally bigger clubs residing there.
A more short term idea could be greater online viewing for away fans and incentives for more organised coach travel.
|
|
|
Post by gulfofaden on Oct 21, 2021 11:05:18 GMT
The article claims that “Arctic summers will be ice free from 2013” Now, you can make all the claims that experts are all agreed etc etc, but that means either the experts who made that prediction in 2007 were mistaken, or deliberately misleading. Not really sure what you're talking about here. This is fundamentally misunderstanding what science is and the idea that experts all agree is nonsense. Using this as some sort of bullshitty response to undermine climate change science is desperate. I think you know exactly what I’m talking about, you don’t like it, as it presents a challenge, and you’re therefore getting hostile. Agree to disagree. Just to spell it out in case you genuinely don’t understand: Climate scientist predicts event. Media run article endorsing this to awaken public to risk. Prediction demonstrably false from observed evidence. Climate scientists predict more future events. Gulf of Aden says we should show some caution with these predictions. Antonio Fargas says this is some bullshitty way to undermine climate science.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Oct 21, 2021 11:24:44 GMT
Not really sure what you're talking about here. This is fundamentally misunderstanding what science is and the idea that experts all agree is nonsense. Using this as some sort of bullshitty response to undermine climate change science is desperate. I think you know exactly what I’m talking about, you don’t like it, as it presents a challenge, and you’re therefore getting hostile. Agree to disagree. Just to spell it out in case you genuinely don’t understand: Climate scientist predicts event. Media run article endorsing this to awaken public to risk. Prediction demonstrably false from observed evidence. Climate scientists predict more future events. Gulf of Aden says we should show some caution with these predictions. Antonio Fargas says this is some bullshitty way to undermine climate science. This is more gibberish. The only challenge you offer is working out what you're even talking about. How does "Now, you can make all the claims that experts are all agreed etc etc, but that means either the experts who made that prediction in 2007 were mistaken, or deliberately misleading." make any sense. Here's a metaphor for you: Poster A predicts we'll lose 4-0 Poster B predicts we'll lose 3-1 Poster C predicts we'll lose 1-0 We lose 2-0 Gulf of Aden claims three points.
|
|
|
Post by gulfofaden on Oct 21, 2021 11:49:39 GMT
I think you know exactly what I’m talking about, you don’t like it, as it presents a challenge, and you’re therefore getting hostile. Agree to disagree. Just to spell it out in case you genuinely don’t understand: Climate scientist predicts event. Media run article endorsing this to awaken public to risk. Prediction demonstrably false from observed evidence. Climate scientists predict more future events. Gulf of Aden says we should show some caution with these predictions. Antonio Fargas says this is some bullshitty way to undermine climate science. This is more gibberish. The only challenge you offer is working out what you're even talking about. How does "Now, you can make all the claims that experts are all agreed etc etc, but that means either the experts who made that prediction in 2007 were mistaken, or deliberately misleading." make any sense. Here's a metaphor for you: Poster A predicts we'll lose 4-0 Poster B predicts we'll lose 3-1 Poster C predicts we'll lose 1-0 We lose 2-0 Gulf of Aden claims three points. If you make a claim which is untrue, you are either mistaken, or deliberately misleading. Whichever way you boil it down, it’s one of the two. I’m not sure why this is so controversial and why you’re raging about it. This is a considered discussion between adults. I don’t think either of us are going to get much more out of this discussion. I’ve already said I accept the consensus opinion. I’ve merely pointed out predictions which didn’t come true. If you can’t handle that without getting emotional then end of discussion.
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Oct 21, 2021 11:49:48 GMT
Doing that will only be a token gesture and will make almost no difference to global warming. The main contributors are the USA, China, India and Russia and only when these nations make significant changes and reduce their emissions will we see any difference and that is unlikely in our lifetimes E.G. China: its absolute coal consumption has been on the rise since 2017 as its total energy consumption continues to grow. We (the human race) have been aware of global warming and the causes for 125 years and have done absolutely * all about it I’ve been in that sort of depressed mindset about climate change for quite some time, what difference can we make when other countries emit more carbon and do less to combat that than ourselves. I don’t think that mentality gets you anywhere though, I mean either we all do nothing and the world suffers the effects of climate change or some of us do something and encourage the rest of us to give it a go, and there’s a chance we don’t. Sometimes I think you’ve just got to lead by example, you can hardly complain about the next person not doing enough to combat climate change when you don’t yourself. Token gestures over time force bigger gestures from others. If we push ahead and find innovative solutions to reverse climate change, the more likely they are to be adopted elsewhere. Yes, Rovers using paper cups instead of plastic (Just an example off the top of my head) means nothing in the grand scheme of things but what if 100,000 Rovers sized businesses do one eco-friendly thing, which in turn encourages a large multinational corporation to do something, which in turns encourages a large Chinese business to imitate the large multinational, which is what happens already. A few weeks back I had the opportunity to spend some time in the company of a government minister of the opposition purely on a business matter. Now I have little time for politicians or their manifestos as most of them are bull faced liars and any ones persons ideology is flawed no matter which side of the electoral fence you sit. However the conversation turned to environmental impact of certain industries and what could be done to kerb emmisions etc. One interesting stat he pulled was that the UK was only actually responsible for around 1.5% of the worlds total greenhouse emmisions. But he also said we were guilty of some fairly horrendous practices where we pass on a lot of our problems to poorer or third world countries and their economies so likely the amount was closer to 2.5%. But he said the UK has an obligation as one of the world powers to set the example to countries like the USA, China, Russia and developing industrial nations. A small island country in the north atlantic cant do it all on its own but it will be a collective effort from the whole world to rectify the issue. Which is why, before the world commits to a project, and ill use EV as an example, to look at where the raw material comes from, how its dug from the earths surface, the lasting impact of that to the environment, the sustainability of that raw material, together with its end of life recyclability, reuse or biodegrading impact. This is why i am predominantly against EV. To change the worlds infrastructure to EV is an environmental diaster in itself, the way lithium ion ore is mined is a humanitarian disaster in waiting, the life cycle of the end product is short compared to internal combustion and how are we to dispose of millions of batteries in years to come that are encased in unrecyclable plastics? And yet the worlds governments are insisting its the way forward so are pushing the manufacturers to adopt the idea. If you could apply that logic across every industry instead then the 50 year target might be met and you wouldnt go through the 15-20 year tail chasing of realising what we are creating now is actually a bad idea and needs to be stopped.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Oct 21, 2021 11:59:11 GMT
This is more gibberish. The only challenge you offer is working out what you're even talking about. How does "Now, you can make all the claims that experts are all agreed etc etc, but that means either the experts who made that prediction in 2007 were mistaken, or deliberately misleading." make any sense. Here's a metaphor for you: Poster A predicts we'll lose 4-0 Poster B predicts we'll lose 3-1 Poster C predicts we'll lose 1-0 We lose 2-0 Gulf of Aden claims three points. If you make a claim which is untrue, you are either mistaken, or deliberately misleading. Whichever way you boil it down, it’s one of the two. I’m not sure why this is so controversial and why you’re raging about it. This is a considered discussion between adults. I don’t think either of us are going to get much more out of this discussion. I’ve already said I accept the consensus opinion. I’ve merely pointed out predictions which didn’t come true. If you can’t handle that without getting emotional then end of discussion. I'm asking you what you meant by "Now, you can make all the claims that experts are all agreed etc etc, but that means either the experts who made that prediction in 2007 were mistaken, or deliberately misleading." I don't understand what's so difficult for you. Obviously you can take bits out of the sentence that make sense out of context. I'm asking what you meant by the whole thing, coz the whole thing is gibberish as it stands. Why, for example, do you think claiming that experts are all agreed implies what follows? What, for another example, makes you think anyone is claiming experts are all agreed on this specific point, in any case? Not sure why you think I'm raging, I'm merely disagreeing with you. If you can't stand being disagreed with then best not post bullshitty stuff to a forum. I think actually it sounds a bit like you're the one getting emotional, maybe you should take your own advice.
|
|
|
Post by axegas on Oct 21, 2021 12:05:23 GMT
I’ve been in that sort of depressed mindset about climate change for quite some time, what difference can we make when other countries emit more carbon and do less to combat that than ourselves. I don’t think that mentality gets you anywhere though, I mean either we all do nothing and the world suffers the effects of climate change or some of us do something and encourage the rest of us to give it a go, and there’s a chance we don’t. Sometimes I think you’ve just got to lead by example, you can hardly complain about the next person not doing enough to combat climate change when you don’t yourself. Token gestures over time force bigger gestures from others. If we push ahead and find innovative solutions to reverse climate change, the more likely they are to be adopted elsewhere. Yes, Rovers using paper cups instead of plastic (Just an example off the top of my head) means nothing in the grand scheme of things but what if 100,000 Rovers sized businesses do one eco-friendly thing, which in turn encourages a large multinational corporation to do something, which in turns encourages a large Chinese business to imitate the large multinational, which is what happens already. A few weeks back I had the opportunity to spend some time in the company of a government minister of the opposition purely on a business matter. Now I have little time for politicians or their manifestos as most of them are bull faced liars and any ones persons ideology is flawed no matter which side of the electoral fence you sit. However the conversation turned to environmental impact of certain industries and what could be done to kerb emmisions etc. One interesting stat he pulled was that the UK was only actually responsible for around 1.5% of the worlds total greenhouse emmisions. But he also said we were guilty of some fairly horrendous practices where we pass on a lot of our problems to poorer or third world countries and their economies so likely the amount was closer to 2.5%. But he said the UK has an obligation as one of the world powers to set the example to countries like the USA, China, Russia and developing industrial nations. A small island country in the north atlantic cant do it all on its own but it will be a collective effort from the whole world to rectify the issue. Which is why, before the world commits to a project, and ill use EV as an example, to look at where the raw material comes from, how its dug from the earths surface, the lasting impact of that to the environment, the sustainability of that raw material, together with its end of life recyclability, reuse or biodegrading impact. This is why i am predominantly against EV. To change the worlds infrastructure to EV is an environmental diaster in itself, the way lithium ion ore is mined is a humanitarian disaster in waiting, the life cycle of the end product is short compared to internal combustion and how are we to dispose of millions of batteries in years to come that are encased in unrecyclable plastics? And yet the worlds governments are insisting its the way forward so are pushing the manufacturers to adopt the idea. If you could apply that logic across every industry instead then the 50 year target might be met and you wouldnt go through the 15-20 year tail chasing of realising what we are creating now is actually a bad idea and needs to be stopped. Just on your point about electric vehicles, I did read a report the other day where researchers in Estonia had found a way to make Sodium ion batteries with the potential to power a car out of Peat, which contains organic materials and is fairly easy and cheap to extract. Now I don’t think that technology is very advanced and it seems the lithium component will be in electric car batteries for a little while longer yet but research into Sodium batteries has so far from what I can tell been very promising. I also believe there have also been lithium mines that have been opened in places such as Australia, where there are stricter labour laws in place. So I do think there is merit in transitioning across from fossil fuels to electric powered vehicles with the anticipation that technologies will limit and prevent the unethical practice and regulation of lithium mining in certain parts of the world so that we can start tackling carbon emissions in a meaningful way.
|
|
|
Post by gulfofaden on Oct 21, 2021 12:25:06 GMT
If you make a claim which is untrue, you are either mistaken, or deliberately misleading. Whichever way you boil it down, it’s one of the two. I’m not sure why this is so controversial and why you’re raging about it. This is a considered discussion between adults. I don’t think either of us are going to get much more out of this discussion. I’ve already said I accept the consensus opinion. I’ve merely pointed out predictions which didn’t come true. If you can’t handle that without getting emotional then end of discussion. I'm asking you what you meant by "Now, you can make all the claims that experts are all agreed etc etc, but that means either the experts who made that prediction in 2007 were mistaken, or deliberately misleading." I don't understand what's so difficult for you. Obviously you can take bits out of the sentence that make sense out of context. I'm asking what you meant by the whole thing, coz the whole thing is gibberish as it stands. Why, for example, do you think claiming that experts are all agreed implies what follows? What, for another example, makes you think anyone is claiming experts are all agreed on this specific point, in any case? Not sure why you think I'm raging, I'm merely disagreeing with you. If you can't stand being disagreed with then best not post bullshitty stuff to a forum. I think actually it sounds a bit like you're the one getting emotional, maybe you should take your own advice. Bubbles. If you ask stupid questions, you get stupid answer. This is an irrelevant sideshow and I’m not interested.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Oct 21, 2021 12:28:42 GMT
I'm asking you what you meant by "Now, you can make all the claims that experts are all agreed etc etc, but that means either the experts who made that prediction in 2007 were mistaken, or deliberately misleading." I don't understand what's so difficult for you. Obviously you can take bits out of the sentence that make sense out of context. I'm asking what you meant by the whole thing, coz the whole thing is gibberish as it stands. Why, for example, do you think claiming that experts are all agreed implies what follows? What, for another example, makes you think anyone is claiming experts are all agreed on this specific point, in any case? Not sure why you think I'm raging, I'm merely disagreeing with you. If you can't stand being disagreed with then best not post bullshitty stuff to a forum. I think actually it sounds a bit like you're the one getting emotional, maybe you should take your own advice. Bubbles. If you ask stupid questions, you get stupid answer. This is an irrelevant sideshow and I’m not interested. All I'm doing is asking you to explain a simple sentence you wrote. I find it quite extraordinary how defensive and out of shape you've got over it, especially as you know what you're talking about, right?
|
|
|
Post by gulfofaden on Oct 21, 2021 12:30:59 GMT
Bubbles. If you ask stupid questions, you get stupid answer. This is an irrelevant sideshow and I’m not interested. All I'm doing is asking you to explain a simple sentence you wrote. I find it quite extraordinary how defensive and out of shape you've got over it, especially as you know what you're talking about, right? I’m not answering questions. Interpret how you wish but I’m not sitting here justifying myself to a sixth form debating tactic which is entirely intellectually dishonest, to win petty points against someone who has perceived me as a political opponent. You know exactly the meaning of it, you can claim socratic ignorance all you wish. I’m not buying it.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Oct 21, 2021 12:39:39 GMT
All I'm doing is asking you to explain a simple sentence you wrote. I find it quite extraordinary how defensive and out of shape you've got over it, especially as you know what you're talking about, right? I’m not answering questions. Interpret how you wish but I’m not sitting here justifying myself to an overgrown sixth former who is being intellectual dishonest to score points against someone whom he perceives as a political opponent. And yet you've just tried to justify yourself by making up things about me in that very post. It's like you have no idea of what you're actually typing. It's pretty clear you were being intellectually dishonest (in your original post which you don't seem to have a hope of explaining) in order to score points. It's weird how you keep turning stuff about you onto me (like all that stuff about me getting emotional and raging when it's pretty clear you're all raging and emotional). I believe it's called projection. btw, I can't interpret it, coz it's gibberish. That's why I'm asking you what you meant by it. How is that so difficult?
|
|
|
Post by gulfofaden on Oct 21, 2021 13:18:33 GMT
I’m not answering questions. Interpret how you wish but I’m not sitting here justifying myself to an overgrown sixth former who is being intellectual dishonest to score points against someone whom he perceives as a political opponent. And yet you've just tried to justify yourself by making up things about me in that very post. It's like you have no idea of what you're actually typing. It's pretty clear you were being intellectually dishonest (in your original post which you don't seem to have a hope of explaining) in order to score points. It's weird how you keep turning stuff about you onto me (like all that stuff about me getting emotional and raging when it's pretty clear you're all raging and emotional). I believe it's called projection. btw, I can't interpret it, coz it's gibberish. That's why I'm asking you what you meant by it. How is that so difficult? :-) Cheer up, the sky hasn’t fallen in yet old boy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2021 14:23:10 GMT
A few small changes by many will add up to big changes overall. As far as regional leagues go, not too sure distances involved in European leagues will result in too much but it's an interesting topic. If things move that way, then it's more likely to be financial costs to clubs rather than environmental ones. I can certainly see L2 and the National League going that way, maybe less L1 with some of the traditionally bigger clubs residing there. A more short term idea could be greater online viewing for away fans and incentives for more organised coach travel. How do you persuade all of the people in to making these small changes? Who's stopping someone from taking two baths a day, driving everywhere or not recycling their plastic bottles etc... There are lots of idiots who think that being forced to take ecological measures is an affront to their 'freedoms'.
|
|
|
Post by axegas on Oct 21, 2021 14:37:28 GMT
A few small changes by many will add up to big changes overall. As far as regional leagues go, not too sure distances involved in European leagues will result in too much but it's an interesting topic. If things move that way, then it's more likely to be financial costs to clubs rather than environmental ones. I can certainly see L2 and the National League going that way, maybe less L1 with some of the traditionally bigger clubs residing there. A more short term idea could be greater online viewing for away fans and incentives for more organised coach travel. How do you persuade all of the people in to making these small changes? Who's stopping someone from taking two baths a day, driving everywhere or not recycling their plastic bottles etc... There are lots of idiots who think that being forced to take ecological measures is an affront to their 'freedoms'. In a sense you don’t. You focus on technological developments and industry regulations that protect the environment and one day the types of people you are on about will live in insulated homes, drive electric cars, use sustainable energy, all without being realised they’ve been led in that particular direction. I think it’s so much easier to force more environmentally friendly products on the consumer than it is to enforce Covid safety measures on the population as long as such products don’t particularly affect quality in any way.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Oct 21, 2021 14:38:38 GMT
A few small changes by many will add up to big changes overall. As far as regional leagues go, not too sure distances involved in European leagues will result in too much but it's an interesting topic. If things move that way, then it's more likely to be financial costs to clubs rather than environmental ones. I can certainly see L2 and the National League going that way, maybe less L1 with some of the traditionally bigger clubs residing there. A more short term idea could be greater online viewing for away fans and incentives for more organised coach travel. How do you persuade all of the people in to making these small changes? Who's stopping someone from taking two baths a day, driving everywhere or not recycling their plastic bottles etc... There are lots of idiots who think that being forced to take ecological measures is an affront to their 'freedoms'. Small steps, doesn't have to be everyone all the time. If we wait until everyone is on board then nothing will be done. Lead by example and gradually people will understand and realise.
|
|
|
Post by barumgas on Oct 21, 2021 14:39:54 GMT
We all need to make changes to limit the impact of climate change. Its just a matter of time before sport comes onto the agenda. For me, I would like to see Formula 1 take the lead but that's a personal preference as I can't see the sense of the sport
|
|
|
Post by barumgas on Oct 21, 2021 14:41:59 GMT
Would muzzling Joey have a positive effect on climate change
|
|
|
Post by gas2 on Oct 21, 2021 14:45:41 GMT
League one and two should have been regonalised years ago
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Oct 21, 2021 14:49:54 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2021 15:23:58 GMT
How do you persuade all of the people in to making these small changes? Who's stopping someone from taking two baths a day, driving everywhere or not recycling their plastic bottles etc... There are lots of idiots who think that being forced to take ecological measures is an affront to their 'freedoms'. Small steps, doesn't have to be everyone all the time. If we wait until everyone is on board then nothing will be done. Lead by example and gradually people will understand and realise. Can't agree to that. It'll take a lot more to stop the mega oil/fossil fuel industry and the hyper consumerism it enables. Are you happy to lead by example and forego any air travel, limit your water, electricity and fuel use? If yes, do you mind if your neighbor flys to Australia & New Zealand for a month then afterwards invites you into their new garden hot tub to tell you all about it?
|
|