Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[Diggers]

First topic message reminder :

Re Sterling, he’s got more PL assists than any English player in the last year, 3rd most of anyone. As well as a shedload of goals, what a poopie player he is!!
Could this be it for Jose, I certainly hope so.

[super_realist]

Well if both are rotten, why only choose to criticise one government? It's always very trendy to be seen to attack the Tories, but almost forbidden and only ever begrudgingly that anyone criticises Labour who were responsible for some truly terrible acts.

What makes you think that Labour caters for the 95% you claim the Tories don't? A huge percentage of people simply won't be affected positively by any form of government.

I would imagine JAS that are you probably are in the top 5% anyway. You only need a household income of 48k to be in the top 5%. Tough on Mac perhaps, but I'm sure you earn that much between you and your wife.

[Diggers]

Why make a choice about supporting one type of govt? Maybe because from your perspective they do make different choices? To suggest that schools have the same level of support under this govt as the last Labour govt would simply be wrong. That has a direct effect on people. Cutting the number of police officers - direct effect.
So you can lump it all together if you want, but you'd be talking crap and once again just showing that you have fixed mindset. Which isn't surprising, because you do.

[super_realist]

It's not that there's anything wrong with that in particular, just that it seems like a very childish thing to do to attack one government, but sweep under the table the harm the other governments do.

People almost seem to think it's a cultural necessity to be seen to bash the Tories, which is fine if the party you support is blameless, but when the opposition instituted tuition fees, took us into Iraq and sold all the gold you can hardly just target one side.

I'm no fan of any particular party, but if I were, i'd be gracious enough to acknowledge my own party's failings. You seem intent on ignoring Labour ineptitude just because you like attacking the Tories in a Mac style effort. Hilarious that you accuse me of a fixed mindset, when you wake up every morning and take your "I hate the tories " pill.

Shouldn't you be teaching anyway Diggers, or did the terrible, heartless Tories put you out of a job too?

[JAS]

Well if both are rotten, why only choose to criticise one government? It's always very trendy to be seen to attack the Tories, but almost forbidden and only ever begrudgingly that anyone criticises Labour who were responsible for some truly terrible acts.

I think I spent most of my last response highlighting what a disappointment the last Labour Govt was and there was nothing begrudging about it.

What makes you think that Labour caters for the 95% you claim the Tories don't?

Have to say that's a Mac type leap which wouldn't even be true if we were a 2 party state (which we're not). Yes I'll quite happily reaffirm that the Tories care not one jot about the majority of the people. That has been the case for centuries and will continue to be. They are the party of the vested interests of the few. They do a brilliant job of convincing a significant proportion of the gullible poor that they are there for them and that anyone else would trash the country blah blah blah but anyone with half a brain knows that they are serial liars.

I would imagine JAS that are you probably are in the top 5% anyway. You only need a household income of 48k to be in the top 5%. Tough on Mac perhaps, but I'm sure you earn that much between you and your wife.

New partner not wife (deceased) and we are both there individually, so probably top 1% joint. However, many people vote solely on their position in the income distribution spectrum, many do not. Our income alone won't bring down hospital waiting lists, won't fill potholes in the roads, make trains run on time. I honestly shudder at the thought of my grandchildren having to navigate the threadbare state education system in the coming years. For those with older children/grandchildren, what job GOOD opportunities are out there for them? So yes, some of us think a bit wider and with a bit of a social conscience than the narrow self interest of "how much of my income can I keep".

[super_realist]

I think you could also say that Labour do a great job of convincing the public that they care about them too. I don't see life as being any different under a Labour government. How were public services under Labour? Were cancer survival rates any better? Waiting times any better? No. How were schools? My old primary school and secondary school have had virtually no improvement since I was there over 20 years ago, that's successively bad governments on both sides.

It's not the governments job to make trains run on time, it's the train companies. They're mostly private, and do you remember how bad the trains were when they were under National ownership? British Rail was absolutely terrible. Public ownership doesn't make things run well, look at the NHS if you want evidence of that.

It's not the governments job to fill in potholes either, that's the local council, and I see no evidence that Labour Councils are any better at doing this than Tory led councils or any other party. I've never seen worse potholes in Scotland, and there's precious few Tory councils here.

I only mentioned Income because you brought it up in regards to Tories only caring about the 5% being that you admit to being in the 1%, but you're claiming now that they now aren't taking care of you. Seems a bit odd and contradictory.

[McLaren]

Super

I posted a comment somewhere recently that answered your question.  It went something like this.

Once you accept that any party in government will make at least some decisions you don't support you have to side with the party whose main goals most closely align with your own.

It is part of what labour are to try and have better state education, better NHS, more workers rights, a more progressive tax system, increase the welfare state and reduction of discrimination.  And in the past a more charitable take on immigration.

The Torries do not aim for any of the above. They want to hand schooling and the NHS to private companies, reduce regulation around workers rights, give tax breaks to the better off and reduce the welfare state.

Given this pretty obvious contrast can you not see that someone of my persuasion could never support any important policy the Torries have because it will by definition be the opposite to what I think should happen?

To help you with this I recommend you think about it like you are taught to do by the prominent online atheists when it comes to religion. 

I have rejected the claims made by the right wing (Their evidence for why right wing policy works) and accepted many of the claims about the efficacy of left wing policy.

My positions when it comes to politics are not tribal it is just that I have never seen a paper or other form of evidence which has convinced me that a right wing policy could really work.


(It is now the case that I am not sure if the current labor party reflect my positions and for that reason I have not voted for them in at least the last two general elections.  Going for the Greens if a candidate was standing or the Lib dems in the most recent election because of their policy on not going through with #brexit.)

[JAS]

I think you could also say that Labour do a great job of convincing the public that they care about them too.

The original aim of the Labour party and indeed ingrained in its constitution is to look after the many not the few. Whether it achieves it or not when it gets an opportunity to govern is another story.

I don't see life as being any different under a Labour government. How were public services under Labour? Were cancer survival rates any better? Waiting times any better? No. How were schools? My old primary school and secondary school have had virtually no improvement since I was there over 20 years ago, that's successively bad governments on both sides.

I don't think it would be massively different on our income level, yes we'd probably pay a bit more in taxation but it wouldn't be life changing. Lower down the income distribution I really think it would be significant. Cancer survival rates?? I think medical advances have a much bigger influence on cancer survival rates over time than governments although I have read recently that we are slipping down the league table of survival rates. Waiting times any better? No!! Seriously???
Schools? I'll leave Diggers to tear that one to pieces although I could write several pages on it given the utterly impossible job my partner and her peers have balancing school budgets with the measly amount they receive for what they're asked to do with it. If you're into sado masochism - go ask a teacher how they intend to spend their money for "little extras"!!

It's not the governments job to make trains run on time, it's the train companies. They're mostly private, and do you remember how bad the trains were when they were under National ownership? British Rail was absolutely terrible. Public ownership doesn't make things run well, look at the NHS if you want evidence of that.

One area where you do have a point, yes British Rail was awful. That being said, whilst it might not be Governments job to make train companies run on time, it is Governments job to hold train companies to account if they are not performing. Also the whole issue of Public Ownership and it's inefficiencies DOES need looked at afresh.

It's not the governments job to fill in potholes either, that's the local council, and I see no evidence that Labour Councils are any better at doing this than Tory led councils or any other party. I've never seen worse potholes in Scotland, and there's precious few Tory councils here.

...and local councils are primarily funded by?? duh!!

I only mentioned Income because you brought it up in regards to Tories only caring about the 5% being that you admit to being in the 1%, but you're claiming now that they now aren't taking care of you. Seems a bit odd and contradictory.

I'm not claiming I'm not ok financially and that they are not taking care of me. I think I'm saying quite clearly that for me it's about more than where I sit in the Income distribution

[Diggers]

British Rail was far, far better than Southern. I just find it weird we think a govt ran model would be the same as one 30-40 years ago. Such a stuck argument that we can’t try something again but differently. In fact in the last few years entirely govt ran networks in the UK have been successful. Just this week a report came out saying the main problem with UK trains is over complicated systems between various organisations.

[navyblueshorts]

I'm not sure the countries you mention won't be affected by global warming though - flooded? Nope. Other affects? Almost certainly.

Isolated the menioned countries will benefit from global warming.

Not sure what you wrote makes any sense. Australia is enjoying its increasing drought conditions is it? North America having fun with its autumnal hurricane systems is it?

It was  Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Russia, Canada, Alaska, Finland I was referring to.

Fair point. Not sure Russia (although Putin probably thinks so) is better off if its permafrost thaws and releases all that trapped methane into the atmosphere though. Try all you like, global warming is not a positive.

[navyblueshorts]

I'm not sure the countries you mention won't be affected by global warming though - flooded? Nope. Other affects? Almost certainly.

Isolated the menioned countries will benefit from global warming.

Or alternatively, they find out what mass immigration really means.

Indeed. Kind of a lose-lose situation whatever way you cut it.

And what’s wrong with immigrants? Which by the way wouldn’t be an issue unless there’s over-population mac?

I knew someone was going to do that. For me, not a lot, but surely you can see how mass migrations might, just might, cause some issues?

[navyblueshorts]

Hard to think what I'm more bored of, Brexit or the constant "impending doom" from Climate Change.
I'm sick of hearing about both.
We keep hearing threats of human extinction, yet I don't see how that is remotely possible when humans have lived through far worse environments and climates in the last 200k years all without the benefit of technology.

We should stop worrying about the state of the climate and trying to reverse it (who decides on a base level anyway, as it's a bit like trying to hold back the tide) and put our efforts into using technology to deal with the impact of climate change.
 As Europeans, there is pretty much nothing we can do to stop it given the pollution from America, China and India and in most parts of the developed world outweigh by many times what we as a fairly efficient continent,  the effects of climate change are pretty manageable for all of us in Europe anyway. The over-reaction is getting far too hysterical.

How is climate change going to kill off Europe? It won't. What's the worst that can happen in Europe or Britain? A wee bit of flooding? Big deal.

Strangely, some of us might feel that, say, Bangladesh or the Maldives being submerged is kind of a big deal. The World's a little bigger than your pre-WWI imperial/monarchist view would suggest. The idea that we have 'technology' (whatever the **** that means) to fix it, and that's a panacea, is daft. It'll also come way too late.

Christ, Talk about missing the point. I didn't claim we had technology to FIX climate change, I said we can develop methods using technology which will help to mitigate the effects of it, for example coastal defences, flood measures, better drainage, more green spaces, flood storage etc. That's what we should be concentrating on. The gases changing climate change are already out there. If we reduced our output by 50% today, it would still take decades for anything to change in the climate, hence we have to use what methods we have, and will develop to fight the effects of climate change, not look for a way to reverse it. We should be looking at BOTH, reducing greenhouse gases AND developing methods to fight the effects.

I don't think I did miss your point, which was Europe's OK, Jack; the rest can go drown/desiccate/freeze/be blown to oblivion. Just so you know, it's not all about rising flood waters - have a look at the UK's latitude sometime and refresh your memory as to what drives the Gulf Stream and how that'll be affected if the Greenland ice sheet disappears. Thought you might have appreciated that; but maybe not.

You're correct re. the role that technology can play as part of any fix, but the rest of your attitude appears misinformed and a little narrow-minded.

That wasn't my point, my point was that if something is claimed as being an extinction event, then how can that possibly be when Australia, South America, North America, Russia, most of Africa and Europe would be affected to a fairly minimal level.

I've yet to hear from these doom mongers by what means we are all likely to perish, have you?

Yes, I'm aware of what will happen if the gulf stream changes, we get more Nordic/Arctic weather, but that doesn't mean we'll all suddenly die off. It's not affected Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Russia, Canada, Alaska, Finland in a human extinction way has it? We simply learn to adapt and develop our infrastructure and lives to cope. It's what we've done for hundreds of thousands of years, and at no time in human history have we been better prepared to adapt to change.

Yes, Climate change is real, and we as a population have contributed over the last 500 years to some sort of level to this, but people are getting rather hysterical about something which isn't really all that catastrophic, and certainly not a mass extinction event.

There. If only you'd phrased things like that in the first place. You're right of course in that a bit of arctic weather isn't going to do for all of us, but I'm not sure that's a reason to ignore the climate scientists re. CO2 etc. I'm not sure the countries you mention won't be affected by global warming though - flooded? Nope. Other affects? Almost certainly.

Anyway, it's not just us is it? Other species are not going to have time to adapt - some species might make it, but many won't. Yes, I know about the dinosaurs etc, but again, I'm not sure that saying some people/species will be OK is reason to sit on our arses and ignore the climate science and the warnings from those scientists etc.

I'm not saying to ignore their claims on CO2, I'm saying that interspersing the science with  their specific and ridiculous claims that it's an " human extinction event" is not helpful to the debate. It's scaremongering, sensationalism and simply not true.

Human's didn't die out in the last ice age in Europe which was only 10,000 years ago, we haven't died out through all the terrible diseases we've seen throughout the millennia like the bubonic plague , we haven't all died from cancer or from wars or natural disasters.  We adapt to change, and we'll adapt to climate change too, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do something about it, but saying we're all going to die makes a mockery of the actual science.

An extinction event would be something like  the meteor 66million years ago, not a bit of a change to weather patterns, which might manifest in some countries and some people suffering, but it's not an event which will do much more than inconvenience a lot of  people, now I'm not saying sit on your hands and get on with it, or that it's ok that people will suffer as long as it isn't me, Europe, etc but calling that a mass extinction event of the human race is as crazy as denying climate change is happening in the first place.

We're going round in circles here. Clearly, a new ice age comparable with the last one would wipe out huge numbers of people. Have you looked at just how many the plague killed in Europe alone? Up to 50% - the same proportion of deaths now would be pretty mind boggling.
We're arguing the toss over whether a huge number or a massive number of deaths (to say nothing of other issues) is somehow OK as a result of man-made global warming. I suggest it's not.

[navyblueshorts]

...The most annoying thing is that the absurd claim is we are facing a "human extinction" event due to climate change. Utter claptrap.

What's more annoying is that, given we don't actually know but the consequences could be a 'human extinction', we're doing stuff all about minimising the sorts of pollution that may well precipitate just that. It should be standard practice to stop polluting the planet with schidt, but we're so dumb that's what we do.

You're probably correct in suggesting humanity may well survive whatever might be on the way, but you can bet it'll be a tiny proportion of the global population and doing so will be a jolly time for all. Glad you're happy with the probable deaths of billions in order to argue that humanity won't actually become extinct.

Your arguments re. UK pollution in the Victorian age vs. that of India/China now are pretty specious given we're talking about maybe 20-30 million (or less?) in the UK then vs. >1 billion in India and even more than that in China now. Happy to bet that per capita, we were just as bad then as they are now.

There's no evidence that "billions" will die though Navy, that's the entire point and is making the entire climate change argument rather misleading. Yes, climate change is real, but spreading scare stories about "Billions of people dying" based on no evidence is taking credibility away from the argument, just like your claim that only a "tiny proportion" will survive. Humanity has dealt with a great deal worse than the sort of climate change they are talking about throughout history and survived.

How are billions of people going to die exactly? I've yet to hear any reasons why or how this could happen.

The term "extinction event" makes people believe it's both rapid and imminent. It's sensationalist journalism at its worst.

As for your claim that we shouldn't be polluting, yes that's true, but in reality there is pretty much no alternative if we want to continue living the way we want to live. In effect it's nimbyism. We want to stop polluting, or rather we want others to stop polluting, but we don't want to be inconvenienced by it. We can't have it both ways. Think of everything in your life that you enjoy or even that you deem necessary and which has a polluting effect which is pretty much everything you use, buy, consume, take part in. How many would be willing to give them up? Plenty will claim they would, in reality they won't. Champagne Environmentalism, typical of your Mac type person.

All good points. As I said before, we don't know what the end point of this is in respect of climate. We also don't know what the knock-on effects (i.e. wars) will be. One would hope billions aren't going to end up dead as a result, but they could. I'm not suggesting it's next week, and it's not my fault if Joe Public hears 'extinction event' and are daft enough to think it's imminent.
Your last paragraph is spot on, but it's clear we (i.e. the so-called 'first world') are the one's who have to lead on this. We're causing the damage.

India and China aren't really first world countries. 2 Countries that are responsible for over 1/3rd of the worlds pollution and at best they're developing countries, while a lot of slash and burn is done in the developing, third world. Yes, the "first world countries" have a part to play, but every country does, and we shouldn't just blame the wealthy countries and self flagellate. Third world countries aren't just still living in mud huts off the land, they're also guilty.

By any chance, did you watch that recent Youtube link of Macs?

[Davie]

Clearly, a new ice age comparable with the last one would wipe out huge numbers of people.

Nope - still not getting it. Where is this "clearly" defined? You might think so - others disagree yet you keep on stating it as fact without a shred of evidence

[Diggers]

If you were to decide that we weren’t causing climate change - I think we are - wouldn’t you still try and reduce emissions that are the main reason for increasing asthmatic problems, which are a cause of major illness and death. Or are we saying that’s a lie as well? And that’s just one small example of how fossil fuels have a negative impact.

[McLaren]

Davie

All your questions can be answered in the 2014 IPCC report.

check it out.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

[Davie]

That's 150 page document. The next ice age will have come and gone before I get through all that - maybe just point out to me where it says the next ice age will wipe out huge numbers of people

[navyblueshorts]

Clearly, a new ice age comparable with the last one would wipe out huge numbers of people.

Nope - still not getting it. Where is this "clearly" defined? You might think so - others disagree yet you keep on stating it as fact without a shred of evidence

No, you aren't are you?

[navyblueshorts]

That's 150 page document. The next ice age will have come and gone before I get through all that - maybe just point out to me where it says the next ice age will wipe out huge numbers of people

You wanted a , so there you go.

[JAS]

Meanwhile... Could Kilmarnock possibly do a “Leicester”?

[Diggers]

Meanwhile... Could Kilmarnock possibly to a “Leicester”?

From all the talk about Rangers being a poisoned chalice and having no chance of competing with Celtic, surely them winning would also be “doing a Leicester”.

[JAS]

Meanwhile... Could Kilmarnock possibly to a “Leicester”?

From all the talk about Rangers being a poisoned chalice and having no chance of competing with Celtic, surely them winning would also be “doing a Leicester”.

Ultimately though Rangers winning would be a case of restoring the natural order of things (albeit against substantial financial obstacles). Kilmarnock however would be much more fairytale stuff. In terms of fan base, resources etc they are tiny.

Harks back to the early 80s when the old firm monopoly was last broken with Aberdeen winning several titles, Dundee Utd winning one and Hearts coming within a couple of minutes of winning one too. Infact since that Hearts title challenge in 1986 the Old Firm have won them all.

Obviously I’d want to see Rangers win the title but I’d love to see Kilmarnock do it.

[Diggers]

Meanwhile... Could Kilmarnock possibly to a “Leicester”?

From all the talk about Rangers being a poisoned chalice and having no chance of competing with Celtic, surely them winning would also be “doing a Leicester”.

Ultimately though Rangers winning would be a case of restoring the natural order of things (albeit against substantial financial obstacles). Kilmarnock however would be much more fairytale stuff. In terms of fan base, resources etc they are tiny.

Harks back to the early 80s when the old firm monopoly was last broken with Aberdeen winning several titles, Dundee Utd winning one and Hearts coming within a couple of minutes of winning one too. Infact since that Hearts title challenge in 1986 the Old Firm have won them all.

Obviously I’d want to see Rangers win the title but I’d love to see Kilmarnock do it.

I agree, Jas, in fact my very point in the Summer was that a balancing in power was inevitable and didn’t take that much of a seismic shift, like for instance Gerrard being a pull for some decent players. Long way to go, you’d stop make Celtic a decent favourite, but must be nice to have a semblance of a title race going on.

[pedro]

If you were to decide that we weren’t causing climate change - I think we are - wouldn’t you still try and reduce emissions that are the main reason for increasing asthmatic problems, which are a cause of major illness and death. Or are we saying that’s a lie as well? And that’s just one small example of how fossil fuels have a negative impact.

Nobody on here are denying that we’re causing climate change. So yes we need to a) reduce emissions, and/or b) mitigate negative effects. The question is just how and at what cost. Just blindly spending trillions and trillions on something that undoubtedly will feel good, but will have a limited effect, MUST be debated.

[JAS]

Meanwhile... Could Kilmarnock possibly to a “Leicester”?

From all the talk about Rangers being a poisoned chalice and having no chance of competing with Celtic, surely them winning would also be “doing a Leicester”.

Ultimately though Rangers winning would be a case of restoring the natural order of things (albeit against substantial financial obstacles). Kilmarnock however would be much more fairytale stuff. In terms of fan base, resources etc they are tiny.

Harks back to the early 80s when the old firm monopoly was last broken with Aberdeen winning several titles, Dundee Utd winning one and Hearts coming within a couple of minutes of winning one too. Infact since that Hearts title challenge in 1986 the Old Firm have won them all.

Obviously I’d want to see Rangers win the title but I’d love to see Kilmarnock do it.

I agree, Jas, in fact my very point in the Summer was that a balancing in power was inevitable and didn’t take that much of a seismic shift, like for instance Gerrard being a pull for some decent players. Long way to go, you’d stop make Celtic a decent favourite, but must be nice to have a semblance of a title race going on.

To be fair Digs Gerrard has surpassed my expectations, I was open to the appointment if slightly skeptical, I know hindsight is a wonderful science but it now looks more of an inspired choice than a gamble. Crikey my Xmas shopping all done and Rangers still in Europe. 10-11 years since that happened :-p

[Diggers]

If you were to decide that we weren’t causing climate change - I think we are - wouldn’t you still try and reduce emissions that are the main reason for increasing asthmatic problems, which are a cause of major illness and death. Or are we saying that’s a lie as well? And that’s just one small example of how fossil fuels have a negative impact.

Nobody on here are denying that we’re causing climate change. So yes we need to a) reduce emissions, and/or b) mitigate negative effects. The question is just how and at what cost. Just blindly spending trillions and trillions on something that undoubtedly will feel good, but will have a limited effect, MUST be debated.

Really, I’m not convinced we don’t have a few who don’t agree. Where have I said we should spend trillions, or indeed anything. I’ve said the Govts policies are crap (again I refer you to Mr Gove, surely a constant contender for must duplicitous, arrogant Cnut of the year award).
I’ve also said that big business has far too much control and this needs to change.
Quite how you’ve come up with your interpretation, or a need for caps, is beyond me.

[kwinigolfer]

Meanwhile... Could Kilmarnock possibly to a “Leicester”?

From all the talk about Rangers being a poisoned chalice and having no chance of competing with Celtic, surely them winning would also be “doing a Leicester”.

Ultimately though Rangers winning would be a case of restoring the natural order of things (albeit against substantial financial obstacles). Kilmarnock however would be much more fairytale stuff. In terms of fan base, resources etc they are tiny.

Harks back to the early 80s when the old firm monopoly was last broken with Aberdeen winning several titles, Dundee Utd winning one and Hearts coming within a couple of minutes of winning one too. Infact since that Hearts title challenge in 1986 the Old Firm have won them all.

Obviously I’d want to see Rangers win the title but I’d love to see Kilmarnock do it.

I agree, Jas, in fact my very point in the Summer was that a balancing in power was inevitable and didn’t take that much of a seismic shift, like for instance Gerrard being a pull for some decent players. Long way to go, you’d stop make Celtic a decent favourite, but must be nice to have a semblance of a title race going on.

To be fair Digs Gerrard has surpassed my expectations, I was open to the appointment if slightly skeptical, I know hindsight is a wonderful science but it now looks more of an inspired choice than a gamble. Crikey my Xmas shopping all  done and Rangers still in Europe. 10-11 years since that happened :-p

Steve Clarke should be GB Manager Of The Year - what a change in fortunes since he took the reins.
Makes one wonder what went wrong at WBA and Reading - or were the problems there the club or him?
Is he too old to have missed the chance at redemption south of the border?

Agree about Stevie G.

[kwinigolfer]

As far as climate change and the environment is concerned, whatever one's ideas about it, the fact is that pretty much all corporations are incented to produce more than the consumer needs and the consumer is, by and large, indifferent to waste so buys stuff they will never consume, still less need.

You could extend this thought as far and deep as you want, but it would be tough to argue that almost everyone would be better off if we consumed less and wasted less. All simplistic but you gotta start somewhere, and it doesn't cost Joe Blow a thing - in fact Joe B would save and be in better health.

Tough for super to argue about that, or even that benefits would be felt almost immediately.

[Diggers]

As far as climate change and the environment is concerned, whatever one's ideas about it, the fact is that pretty much all corporations are incented to produce more than the consumer needs and the consumer is, by and large, indifferent to waste so buys stuff they will never consume, still less need.

You could extend this thought as far and deep as you want, but it would be tough to argue that almost everyone would be better off if we consumed less and wasted less. All simplistic but you gotta start somewhere, and it doesn't cost Joe Blow a thing - in fact Joe B would save and be in better health.

Tough for super to argue about that, or even that benefits would be felt almost immediately.

Spot on, Kwini. And don't get me started on packaging, what an utter waste in cost to produce it and dispose of it. That could surely be changed so easily, or govt abd business could work together to reduce it. No need for trillions to be spent, quite the reverse.

[dynamark]

All a bit heavy gents.
Most of us have got on with our lives regardless of who is in no 10 .It makes little difference if you get stuck in and work hard treat folk right.Just a matter of who you would rather trust.
Sure Digs would like more dosh in his school and in his pay packet,others more pension,benefits etc but life today is infinitely better than 40 years back.
Global warming we could all dp better individually but not likely to make a jot of difference to the temperature.We all get just a few seconds here in truth and need to make the most of it.
I'm not even going to start on religion.6 months disruption at the ports does that mean Tesco may not have any red peppers on a Tuesday end of the world is nigh.

[kwinigolfer]

The good thing is though dyna, focus on a specific environmental issue by using common sense and working together can make a significant difference.
Applied locally and by itself, it may not make a universe-wide difference, but if it makes this tiny part of the world just that little bit more liveable for my daughter and any family she might have, that's well worthwhile.
And perhaps those red peppers can be grown more locally so that Tesco doesn't need a freighter to bring them in.

[Diggers]

I wouldn’t worry about your peppers, Dyna. I’m becoming pretty certain Brexit isn’t going to happen.

[McLaren]

Davie

I think pages 67 to 73 might help you out.


Here is a recent story exploring what happened to species numbers during another known rapid change in climate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/07/science/climate-change-mass-extinction.html

[Diggers]

On another note I’ve been teaching Spanish as part of my job this year, tricky when I don’t speak a word...or didn’t. Been using Duolingo for 3 weeks, still very early but amazing how quickly it helps you pick things up. Also asked the wife for some CD’s for Xmas to listen to on my commute. There is a Spanish guy who works for the premises team so when I feel a bit more confident Ill try some conversational Spanish with him.
Anyway, early but that’s my new year resolution, to follow it through and at least be competent, partly to help with my job and partly because Uve always wanted to learn a language, partly because I really think learning new stuff keeps your brain fresher.
Anyone else have something they really want to learn to do?

[pedro]

Anyone else have something they really want to learn to do?

Play golf?

[Diggers]

Anyone else have something they really want to learn to do?

Play golf?

Not for me, has to be a realistic objective.

[beninho]

My boy has started have spanish lessons at school, which is good, I know jack all other language, but wish I did.

Chelsea vs City tonight, with not an actual striker between them. Plenty of forwards though.

[Diggers]

My boy has started have spanish lessons at school, which is good, I know jack all other language, but wish I did.

Chelsea vs City tonight, with not an actual striker between them. Plenty of forwards though.

Not on Sky though, not any of last weeks midweek games, fricking annoying. Think I’ll be cancelling my sports subscription soon, anything worth watching either isn’t on or is pay per view.

[dynamark]

No city are playing spurs.
Another language is a great thing always enjoy trying my best to understand and make some sort of effort in Europe,But a bit pointless as we will not be allowed to go there next year.
A senior poli suggested today we should go no deal effectively and then gift the EU 12 months free trade regardless and see what they come back with based on our goodwill.Interesting idea.

[Diggers]

No city are playing spurs.
Another language is a great thing always enjoy trying my best to understand and make some sort of effort in Europe,But a bit pointless as we will not be allowed to go there next year.
A senior poli suggested today we should go no deal effectively and then gift the EU 12 months free trade regardless and see what they come back with based on our goodwill.Interesting idea.

Dyna, what’s your solution for the Irish border with a no deal? Bearing in mind the technology idea seems a complete non starter, as far as I can see only answer is a hard border. That just isn’t going to happen, neither signed will countenance it...but there is no other option.
So, how can we have a no deal? How do do you make it work?

[Diggers]

Big result tonight, half way through the season, Liverpool unbeaten, top of the table having scrapped a lot of wins with the fab 3 not completely firing. Not bad for a bunch of has beens.
Hats off to Janes Milner by the way, what a fantastic career the guy has had, played right back today. A managers dream and funny and self deprecating as well.

[super_realist]

Hard to think what I'm more bored of, Brexit or the constant "impending doom" from Climate Change.
I'm sick of hearing about both.
We keep hearing threats of human extinction, yet I don't see how that is remotely possible when humans have lived through far worse environments and climates in the last 200k years all without the benefit of technology.

We should stop worrying about the state of the climate and trying to reverse it (who decides on a base level anyway, as it's a bit like trying to hold back the tide) and put our efforts into using technology to deal with the impact of climate change.
 As Europeans, there is pretty much nothing we can do to stop it given the pollution from America, China and India and in most parts of the developed world outweigh by many times what we as a fairly efficient continent,  the effects of climate change are pretty manageable for all of us in Europe anyway. The over-reaction is getting far too hysterical.

How is climate change going to kill off Europe? It won't. What's the worst that can happen in Europe or Britain? A wee bit of flooding? Big deal.

Strangely, some of us might feel that, say, Bangladesh or the Maldives being submerged is kind of a big deal. The World's a little bigger than your pre-WWI imperial/monarchist view would suggest. The idea that we have 'technology' (whatever the **** that means) to fix it, and that's a panacea, is daft. It'll also come way too late.

Christ, Talk about missing the point. I didn't claim we had technology to FIX climate change, I said we can develop methods using technology which will help to mitigate the effects of it, for example coastal defences, flood measures, better drainage, more green spaces, flood storage etc. That's what we should be concentrating on. The gases changing climate change are already out there. If we reduced our output by 50% today, it would still take decades for anything to change in the climate, hence we have to use what methods we have, and will develop to fight the effects of climate change, not look for a way to reverse it. We should be looking at BOTH, reducing greenhouse gases AND developing methods to fight the effects.

I don't think I did miss your point, which was Europe's OK, Jack; the rest can go drown/desiccate/freeze/be blown to oblivion. Just so you know, it's not all about rising flood waters - have a look at the UK's latitude sometime and refresh your memory as to what drives the Gulf Stream and how that'll be affected if the Greenland ice sheet disappears. Thought you might have appreciated that; but maybe not.

You're correct re. the role that technology can play as part of any fix, but the rest of your attitude appears misinformed and a little narrow-minded.

That wasn't my point, my point was that if something is claimed as being an extinction event, then how can that possibly be when Australia, South America, North America, Russia, most of Africa and Europe would be affected to a fairly minimal level.

I've yet to hear from these doom mongers by what means we are all likely to perish, have you?

Yes, I'm aware of what will happen if the gulf stream changes, we get more Nordic/Arctic weather, but that doesn't mean we'll all suddenly die off. It's not affected Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Russia, Canada, Alaska, Finland in a human extinction way has it? We simply learn to adapt and develop our infrastructure and lives to cope. It's what we've done for hundreds of thousands of years, and at no time in human history have we been better prepared to adapt to change.

Yes, Climate change is real, and we as a population have contributed over the last 500 years to some sort of level to this, but people are getting rather hysterical about something which isn't really all that catastrophic, and certainly not a mass extinction event.

There. If only you'd phrased things like that in the first place. You're right of course in that a bit of arctic weather isn't going to do for all of us, but I'm not sure that's a reason to ignore the climate scientists re. CO2 etc. I'm not sure the countries you mention won't be affected by global warming though - flooded? Nope. Other affects? Almost certainly.

Anyway, it's not just us is it? Other species are not going to have time to adapt - some species might make it, but many won't. Yes, I know about the dinosaurs etc, but again, I'm not sure that saying some people/species will be OK is reason to sit on our arses and ignore the climate science and the warnings from those scientists etc.

I'm not saying to ignore their claims on CO2, I'm saying that interspersing the science with  their specific and ridiculous claims that it's an " human extinction event" is not helpful to the debate. It's scaremongering, sensationalism and simply not true.

Human's didn't die out in the last ice age in Europe which was only 10,000 years ago, we haven't died out through all the terrible diseases we've seen throughout the millennia like the bubonic plague , we haven't all died from cancer or from wars or natural disasters.  We adapt to change, and we'll adapt to climate change too, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do something about it, but saying we're all going to die makes a mockery of the actual science.

An extinction event would be something like  the meteor 66million years ago, not a bit of a change to weather patterns, which might manifest in some countries and some people suffering, but it's not an event which will do much more than inconvenience a lot of  people, now I'm not saying sit on your hands and get on with it, or that it's ok that people will suffer as long as it isn't me, Europe, etc but calling that a mass extinction event of the human race is as crazy as denying climate change is happening in the first place.

We're going round in circles here. Clearly, a new ice age comparable with the last one would wipe out huge numbers of people. Have you looked at just how many the plague killed in Europe alone? Up to 50% - the same proportion of deaths now would be pretty mind boggling.
We're arguing the toss over whether a huge number or a massive number of deaths (to say nothing of other issues) is somehow OK as a result of man-made global warming. I suggest it's not.

The point is that they weren't extinction events but they did affect more globally than climate change will.
For much of the world Climate Change won't be a fatal event and therefore not an extinction event. That's the point. The ridiculous hyperbolic use of language to try and con people into think we're going to be getting wiped out by this.

Yes, people will be affected, yes some people will probably die, but we have dealt with far bigger things in this world, and continue to do so, dealing with the effects of climate change are MUCH easier than dealing with something more devastating like cancer or malaria which affects far more people more seriously than climate change or the effects thereof.
To think that we'd become extinct as a species rather than cope with climate change effects is quite hilarious. We've lived through many different types of climate throughout human history, this will be no different.
My point is not that climate change might have devastating effects, rather that the use of the word "extinction event" is clearly the wrong way of describing it.



-------

https://www.606v2.com/viewtopic.forum?t=68272

[Sponsored content]