Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[STEMO]

Yes indeed, some are just not looking around, using their eyes and ears, and watching what is actually happening around this planet we rely on. Instead they spend time just reading non-mainstream, "reports" that completely ignore what the real environmental scientist and other specialists in that areana, from around the World, are stating backed up by their factual reports.

How do you know they are factual? 

Did you really just ask that? You'll be sorry 

It's a simple question that deserves a simple concise answer!   

No doubt I shall awake to the booklet tomorrow. 

[Doctor Gollum]

Yes indeed, some are just not looking around, using their eyes and ears, and watching what is actually happening around this planet we rely on. Instead they spend time just reading non-mainstream, "reports" that completely ignore what the real environmental scientist and other specialists in that areana, from around the World, are stating backed up by their factual reports.

How do you know they are factual? 

Everything on tinterweb is true...

Even Abe Lincoln said so... On his twitter feed 

[Lizzie Zoom]

Yes indeed, some are just not looking around, using their eyes and ears, and watching what is actually happening around this planet we rely on. Instead they spend time just reading non-mainstream, "reports" that completely ignore what the real environmental scientist and other specialists in that areana, from around the World, are stating backed up by their factual reports.

How do you know they are factual? 

Did you really just ask that? You'll be sorry 

It's a simple question that deserves a simple concise answer!   

It does

The simple answer is not just one, but dozens that have been compliled across the globe by established and very respected scientists in this field who have convinced with facts the majority of governments, United Nations, and NGO's, that we are in trouble and action has to be taken now.

That is good enough for me as who am I to argue against that weight of concensus?  What is the problem anyway with doing that, when around us is the evidence of environmental 'pressures' and distress on this Planet?  Why not work to reduce pollution, waste, and general environmental distruction that is damaging our children, grand children, and every adult lives, often very silently and not obviously?

Why not go on from the basic controls on pollution that this country did with the Clean Air Act 1956 which rid us of the smogs of the 1950's, and be part of the clean up of the World's environment caused by our industrial past, along with current pollution caused by plastics, chemicals, and emissions from many sources? What is the problem in pushing the likes of the USA (Trump!) and China to clean up their acts, and for instance shame the latter into ceasing the building of more coal fired power stations?  What is the problem in going for newer, electric, or hydrogen cell forms of transport and rid ourselves of our vehicles that have been proved to be polluting the air in cities that in the mildest form children are having breathing ailments in growing numbers, and at worst, 1950's style London smogs as seen in China? Why argue against clearing the World's seas of at least some of our waste plastic, and the dumping of the West's waste on third World countries?

If you or anyone else think I am going to cut and paste endless reports backing the need for action, and citing endless examples of what is happening out in the big wide world, as somebody else continues to do on this forum, with pages of text, with 'conspiracies' being suggested to back up their argument, you must be joking!

But, the bottom line is why worry about cleaning up our act? What is wrong in doing what we know, in (most of ) our brains and hearts is the right thing? Do we as people really think the dumping of waste where ever we like is fine, or tipping pollutants into the air or our waters, is OK?

What harm can come out of doing that right thing?  What are some worried about? Or is it they just like to argue against wiser scientists and international bodies to look good, and again enjoy a good 'conspiracy' theory on their cut and paste contributions online for political reasons? 

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

The education "professionals" who encourage / permit / allow these children to go on srtrike from their schools should all be dismissed from their jobs and banned from the profession for life. Its beyond outrageous that they are as childish and immature as the children they teach.
The worst aspect is that children aren't taught how to think any more. They are taught what to think.

[Bigron]

Yes Albs, and there is a massive difference between "how to" and "what to" think.

Ron.

[Lizzie Zoom]

The education "professionals" who encourage / permit / allow these children to go on srtrike from their schools should all be dismissed from their jobs and banned from the profession for life. Its beyond outrageous that they are as childish and immature as the children they teach.
The worst aspect is that children aren't taught how to think any more. They are taught what to think.

You think?

During my school years everything was about conformity, and how you had to fit in to society and think within the box.Then during the second half of the sixties, as an impressionable young teenager there were at least three teachers that taught our classes who made very clear what we should think in political terms, both from the hard left through to the hard right of the spectrum. Our individual views though, according to them, did not exist!

At home conformity was the rule, being in a Royal Navy family, although my dear dad was pushing the boundaries towards the communist point of view which, I was reliably told by a close friend and naval colleague of his, led to men in "dark suits" watching him!!  At home my parents reinforced their political and general views on us.  That seemed to be very typical of parents of the era.  How we must think, not learning how to think came first, with the latter second.

It was only from the very late sixties and then seventies that a more liberal way of thinking came generally into being.  The kids of today are far more open minded, especially with the internet and media now around, than we ever were in "conformist" Britain.  In fact they are far more argumentative and combatant in approach than we were allowed to be, which in other threads would attract much criticism for those children "not just doing what they are told to do" with the punishments of the past being threatened and suggested!

So, make up your minds and think twice about criticising the majority of the great kids around today, having to mature far earlier and becoming "worldly" before their time

[Doctor Gollum]

The head of economics at my school was sickeningly pro EU, which had an impact across the school in terms of projects and trips.

This is probably the single biggest reason that I am so anti EU because I simply refuse to be coerced into a particular mindset.

[Bigron]

Good for you, DG. I was lucky; the masters at my school absolutely refused to give a political opinion, for fear of influencing our young minds.

Ron.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Good for you, DG. I was lucky; the masters at my school absolutely refused to give a political opinion, for fear of influencing our young minds.

Ron.

The headmaster at my school said that Harold Wilson was a communist spy during assembly one morning. He also said we were lucky that no 'coloured children' were at the school.

Nice chap called Mr York. Caned me more times than I can remember.

Those were the days.

[Sir Tigger KC]

Yes indeed, some are just not looking around, using their eyes and ears, and watching what is actually happening around this planet we rely on. Instead they spend time just reading non-mainstream, "reports" that completely ignore what the real environmental scientist and other specialists in that areana, from around the World, are stating backed up by their factual reports.

How do you know they are factual? 

Did you really just ask that? You'll be sorry 

It's a simple question that deserves a simple concise answer!   

It does

The simple answer is not just one, but dozens that have been compliled across the globe by established and very respected scientists in this field who have convinced with facts the majority of governments, United Nations, and NGO's, that we are in trouble and action has to be taken now.

That is good enough for me as who am I to argue against that weight of concensus?  What is the problem anyway with doing that, when around us is the evidence of environmental 'pressures' and distress on this Planet?  Why not work to reduce pollution, waste, and general environmental distruction that is damaging our children, grand children, and every adult lives, often very silently and not obviously?

Why not go on from the basic controls on pollution that this country did with the Clean Air Act 1956 which rid us of the smogs of the 1950's, and be part of the clean up of the World's environment caused by our industrial past, along with current pollution caused by plastics, chemicals, and emissions from many sources? What is the problem in pushing the likes of the USA (Trump!) and China to clean up their acts, and for instance shame the latter into ceasing the building of more coal fired power stations?  What is the problem in going for newer, electric, or hydrogen cell forms of transport and rid ourselves of our vehicles that have been proved to be polluting the air in cities that in the mildest form children are having breathing ailments in growing numbers, and at worst, 1950's style London smogs as seen in China? Why argue against clearing the World's seas of at least some of our waste plastic, and the dumping of the West's waste on third World countries?

If you or anyone else think I am going to cut and paste endless reports backing the need for action, and citing endless examples of what is happening out in the big wide world, as somebody else continues to do on this forum, with pages of text, with 'conspiracies' being suggested to back up their argument, you must be joking!

But, the bottom line is why worry about cleaning up our act? What is wrong in doing what we know, in (most of ) our brains and hearts is the right thing? Do we as people really think the dumping of waste where ever we like is fine, or tipping pollutants into the air or our waters, is OK?

What harm can come out of doing that right thing?  What are some worried about? Or is it they just like to argue against wiser scientists and international bodies to look good, and again enjoy a good 'conspiracy' theory on their cut and paste contributions online for political reasons? 

You miss the point Lizzie! 

You are completely right that we should stop polluting and contaminating our planet in so many ways and you won't find an argument from me about that! 

My query though is to the extent that our activities affect the climate and I'm sceptical about that. 

People say the science is irrefutable, but they are just believing without question what they are being told by their governments and international NGO's, in the same way people used to believe whatever their local vicar/priest used to tell them without question.... 

I come from an area where the ground is full of fossils of animals that lived in a tropical climate.  In medieval times, vine yards were common in southern England and as mentioned earlier there was a mini ice age 300-400 years ago which in geological terms and the grand scheme of things we are still coming out of. 

[Lizzie Zoom]

Yes indeed, some are just not looking around, using their eyes and ears, and watching what is actually happening around this planet we rely on. Instead they spend time just reading non-mainstream, "reports" that completely ignore what the real environmental scientist and other specialists in that areana, from around the World, are stating backed up by their factual reports.

How do you know they are factual? 

Did you really just ask that? You'll be sorry 

It's a simple question that deserves a simple concise answer!   

It does

The simple answer is not just one, but dozens that have been compliled across the globe by established and very respected scientists in this field who have convinced with facts the majority of governments, United Nations, and NGO's, that we are in trouble and action has to be taken now.

That is good enough for me as who am I to argue against that weight of concensus?  What is the problem anyway with doing that, when around us is the evidence of environmental 'pressures' and distress on this Planet?  Why not work to reduce pollution, waste, and general environmental distruction that is damaging our children, grand children, and every adult lives, often very silently and not obviously?

Why not go on from the basic controls on pollution that this country did with the Clean Air Act 1956 which rid us of the smogs of the 1950's, and be part of the clean up of the World's environment caused by our industrial past, along with current pollution caused by plastics, chemicals, and emissions from many sources? What is the problem in pushing the likes of the USA (Trump!) and China to clean up their acts, and for instance shame the latter into ceasing the building of more coal fired power stations?  What is the problem in going for newer, electric, or hydrogen cell forms of transport and rid ourselves of our vehicles that have been proved to be polluting the air in cities that in the mildest form children are having breathing ailments in growing numbers, and at worst, 1950's style London smogs as seen in China? Why argue against clearing the World's seas of at least some of our waste plastic, and the dumping of the West's waste on third World countries?

If you or anyone else think I am going to cut and paste endless reports backing the need for action, and citing endless examples of what is happening out in the big wide world, as somebody else continues to do on this forum, with pages of text, with 'conspiracies' being suggested to back up their argument, you must be joking!

But, the bottom line is why worry about cleaning up our act? What is wrong in doing what we know, in (most of ) our brains and hearts is the right thing? Do we as people really think the dumping of waste where ever we like is fine, or tipping pollutants into the air or our waters, is OK?

What harm can come out of doing that right thing?  What are some worried about? Or is it they just like to argue against wiser scientists and international bodies to look good, and again enjoy a good 'conspiracy' theory on their cut and paste contributions online for political reasons? 

You miss the point Lizzie! 

You are completely right that we should stop polluting and contaminating our planet in so many ways and you won't find an argument from me about that! 

My query though is to the extent that our activities affect the climate and I'm sceptical about that. 

People say the science is irrefutable, but they are just believing without question what they are being told by their governments and international NGO's, in the same way people used to believe whatever their local vicar/priest used to tell them without question.... 

I come from an area where the ground is full of fossils of animals that lived in a tropical climate.  In medieval times, vine yards were common in southern England and as mentioned earlier there was a mini ice age 300-400 years ago which in geological terms and the grand scheme of things we are still coming out of. 

Now again I actually agree in part with that.  However, I favour erroring on the side of caution, and as I am no scientist in any form, I would sooner do what seems to be the correct thing to do, and not do any more damage to the environment that in my life I probably have - and still do when I drive my 3.2 the limited miles compared to my "bad" business days - rather than carry on regardless, then realise all the scientists and environmentalists were absolutely right, and me and everyone else keeping on doing what we have all our lives has added to the deaths of millions of children.

My argument is we take stock, clean up our act, and if nature decides to wipe us all out regardless of what we do, at least we did something to reduce any possible human effect on the Armageddon to come, which probably will be the result of war given our history!

My conscience at least may be feeling a little less guilty!

So, again, I would say, why not take that route with the environment, regardless of business and political messages to the contrary from those who wish to protect their source of massive wealth at the cost of our children, the future?   

[Sir Tigger KC]

So, again, I would say, why not take that route with the environment, regardless of business and political messages to the contrary from those who wish to protect their source of massive wealth at the cost of our children, the future? 

Because according to the climate fanatics we have to be carbon neutral by 2025 otherwise we will face armageddon! 

Carbon neutral by 2050 (which is government policy) is bloody ambitious in my view and probably will involve moving heaving emitting business and industry out of the UK to countries with less onerous regulations, with all the job losses and wealth drain from ordinary people that it will entail.

And what will we achieve?  The source of emissions will be transferred elsewhere, the source of wealth will be transferred elsewhere and we will just import stuff that we used to produce here.... 

The UK has one of the cleanest economies on the planet and accounts for about 1% of global emissions, but apparently we have to put ourselves back to the stoneage to save the planet!  It's just madness! 

[Doctor Gollum]

A minor detail, but one seemingly not covered/conveniently ignored*, if we stop producing tat in order to become carbon neutral, what happens to all the newly unemployed people whose wages were paid by everyone buying said tat?

Do they enter the food chain?

* you decide...

[Sir Tigger KC]

A minor detail, but one seemingly not covered/conveniently ignored*, if we stop producing tat in order to become carbon neutral, what happens to all the newly unemployed people whose wages were paid by everyone buying said tat?

Do they enter the food chain?

* you decide...

It doesn't matter as long as we save the planet! 

[Doctor Gollum]

In that case, it might be time to become a wholesale butcher. In China...