Plastic - a new start (hopefully?)

[jofra]

From CT - "Plastic bag charge to come into force from December 1".... Draft regulations ... expected to come into force from the end of this month...."
I hope it does come about; back in UK I keep shopping bags in the carboot as a matter of course - no hardship at all, so surely no problem here either?

[Mowgli597]

Except for remembering to bring them into the shop with you!

[jofra]

Became a habit a long time ago!

[Panchocat]

Mowgli, if you do that just take the trolley to the car and pack the bags there.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Every country likes to tax.
Seen very little other concerns for the environment out here.

I wouldn’t think it beyond our scientists to find a material that is cheap and biodegradable if they concentrate rather than chase research grants with dramatic the world is going to end headlines.

[tomsteel]

In Germany, supermarkets use strong brown paper bags for shopping. Biodegradable and can be used for household waste bins.

[Trigger]

Sounds like a step in the correct direction.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Id certainly like to buy shares in this global warming climate change industry.
It must be more of an earner than Christmas.

[Trigger]

Id certainly like to buy shares in this global warming climate change industry.
It must be more of an earner than Christmas.

What’s your point?

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Id certainly like to buy shares in this global warming climate change industry.
It must be more of an earner than Christmas.

What’s your point?

Well it seems as if the true agenda of the climate change movement is that the governments of the world have to control the economy down to everyday choices made by every household.
Huge government spending or taxing is the only way to save humanity from the worst outcome imaginable.

Though I don't see how governments can also legislate against sunspots, geothermal activity, volcanic eruptions and meteor impacts which change the global temperature far more than any man made 'climate change.'

I'm skeptical because it is all theory and any scientific theory has to predict accurate future results, something the climate change lobby hasn't got within a country mile of. Although they have been very succesful in crushing dissenting opinion. Plus we obviously have to ignore any positive aspects if the earth slightly warms.


But hey scientists are getting massive grants to research this and governments can exert greater control so like I said show me where I can buy shares. After all I don't suppose you actually have to believe in Santa Claus to own a toy shop.

[Trigger]

Id certainly like to buy shares in this global warming climate change industry.
It must be more of an earner than Christmas.

What’s your point?

Well it seems as if the true agenda of the climate change movement is that the governments of the world have to control the economy down to everyday choices made by every household.
Huge government spending or taxing is the only way to save humanity from the worst outcome imaginable.

Though I don't see how governments can also legislate against sunspots, geothermal activity, volcanic eruptions and meteor impacts which change the global temperature far more than any man made 'climate change.'

I'm skeptical because it is all theory and any scientific theory has to predict accurate future results, something the climate change lobby hasn't got within a country mile of. Although they have been very succesful in crushing dissenting opinion. Plus we obviously have to ignore any positive aspects if the earth slightly warms.


But hey scientists are getting massive grants to research this and governments can exert greater control so like I said show me where I can buy shares. After all I don't suppose you actually have to believe in Santa Claus to own a toy shop.

I think global warming and starting to reduce the amount of plastic we use in society are two separate things.

In this thread I thought the discussion was the introduction of a fee for carrier bags which will therefore encourage people to use reusable bags, therefore cutting down the amount of plastic we use and therefore reducing the amount we throw away.

Small steps indeed, but it is a start and everything must start somewhere.

[Jonnie]

We worked out that typically with the in shop weighing of veg and regular carrier bag use we were using 75 bags every two weeks, about 4000 per year! Since then we try to shop in places where you can weigh at the till and we generally use our own reusable carrier bag. I had a meeting years ago and made several proposals to Sibal Siber when she was in charge, nothing was heard further though I have seen some of the suggestions creeping in, though I am sure this is more down to current pressures.

One thing I would do would be to introduce a plastic tax on all new plastic production. Lets face it if oil consumption falls as a result of manufacturers shifting to electric cars etc something will have to fill the tax gap. I would also put a massive tax on single use water bottles, everyone has been won over by advertisers and seem to think it is the only way to drink water. A recent UK tv show had a family drinking water from the tap to replace their regular shop bought, no one was aware. Here I am happy to drink tap water from the mains (direct), years ago we used to boil and filter in Nigeria to produce potable, failing that use then 19 litre refillable. Most of my life I have been a diver and I have seen most of the horror stories you see on TV, yes our efforts are like wee-ing in the sea but to do nothing to me means you are culpable in killing the planet. I am not a tree hugging, woolly hat wearing, environmentalist but I am aware that humans are the single biggest threat to the planet and if we do not do something to curb waste, pollution and over population it really does not have a lot of time left.

[kibsolar1999]

Ok, some went off topic… just some comments..
What do you want to tell us? That we are all doomed because a meteor (of the size of a dino killer 60 million years ago) will wipe us all out anyway?
The magnetic shield and our atmosphere protects us from the sun and the (sunspots) eruptions.
Just to remind you.. the earth once was an iceball and volcanic eruptions and geothermal activities warmed the earth up again, but it took many many thousand of years.
Yes, the minoan eruption (Santorini), Tambora or Krakatau influenced the global temperature.. but for a year , or some years, only and usually “down” not “up”. After that, everything was back to normal.
Never in history of this planet the AVERAGE temperature measured within 100 or 200 years went up that fast.
You mix up “weather” and “climate”. As usual.
You mention: “... any scientific theory has to predict accurate future results...” which never was, is not and never will be true and you know that.
Especially the use of the word “accurate” (meaning 100%) is the “trick” of lobbyist and “climate change rejecters”.
A good example for this are medications, developed by scientists, for the human body. Eg, in 90% of all cases a medication helps, in 9% not as predicted and in 1% not at all. And.. do you take the chance or are you not “convinced” and reject, say, eg, beta blockers , cholesterin tablets or even viagra? The same lobbyists which disagree that clima change is man made offer and advertise products which have an “accurancy” of 30% and lower.
İn all the years, clima researches said that the “bandwidth of clima warmth" will be from a to b, considering the different behaviours in the future (eg, reducing (or not) CO2 emmisions).
in case a or b, the sea level will go up from x to y, the damage for the economy will vary from c to d... and so on.
In all the years the bandwidth for these very dynamic calculations became smaller and more accurate (also because computers became better) , but all theories show in one direction. Today, 99 % of all clima researchers agree to these “prediction tables”.
But 99% definitely sounds like mainstream and mainstream is bad.. it keeps you away from “real thinking”.
but a 52-48 decision is good enough for claiming “thats democracy, and now we gonna bully them all..” (ok, thats really off topic, sorry) .

But now back to topic..
For production, a plastic bag uses double the weight in oil and 500 times the weight in water. So, to produce a 10 gramm plastic bag 20 grams oil and 5 liters water are needed ! for one bag!
İn germany they charge 30 eurocent for a brown paper bag. Thats 2 lira. Here, customers will kill the girl at the till.
a brown paper bag you have to use 10 times as a bag (no chance!!) before the “eco account”, compared to a plastic bag, is on zero.
so, the production of a brown paper bag is also not very ecofriendly.
A cotton bag you have to use a 100 times.

Plastic bags are practical, hygienic.. more or less water prove... the advantages are big.
One of the problems with plastic bags is that their lifetime is far to short. Actually it is 25 minutes long.
A strong, say 10-15 kilo taking, UV stabilised recycled granulate plastic bag which can be used 100 or 1000 times (and a working recycling system) would be much better.
For other use (how do you get a kilo strawberries to the till? ), better materials and the non use of “plastic bag destroying price tags” (so we could use them several times as well) would be helpful.
For bottled liquids: The best “eco account” has a plastic bottle made of very thin plastics which is later recycled. Not downcycled.
plastic bottle deposit charge in germany: 25 eurocents, but not introduced for all plastic bottles. Crazy.

“compound” materials as used in tetra packs (eg, milk, vacuum packages... sometimes 12 layers of different materials) ) are terrible as basically “non recycable”. Same applies often for glas bottles , alu cans and plastic bottles which are all nearly 100% covered with plastic banderoles/prints.

“biodegrable plastics” are not much better, as it also takes resources (eg, from food production ) and years for composting. “the change” would have to be made “in one go”, as they otherwise are “mixed” (in the rubbish) with normal plastics and “dirty” them , now impossible for a recycling process.

Higher prices for oil (energy ) and water, deposits, “clean plastic” (no compounds) production and recycling will reduce the use of plastic materials.

[Jonnie]

Ok, some went off topic… just some comments..
What do you want to tell us? That we are all doomed because a meteor (of the size of a dino killer 60 million years ago) will wipe us all out anyway?
The magnetic shield and our atmosphere protects us from the sun and the (sunspots) eruptions.
Just to remind you.. the earth once was an iceball and volcanic eruptions and geothermal activities warmed the earth up again, but it took many many thousand of years.
Yes, the minoan eruption (Santorini), Tambora or Krakatau influenced the global temperature.. but for a year , or some years, only and usually “down” not “up”. After that, everything was back to normal.
Never in history of this planet the AVERAGE temperature measured within 100 or 200 years went up that fast.
You mix up “weather” and “climate”. As usual.
You mention: “... any scientific theory has to predict accurate future results...” which never was, is not and never will be true and you know that.
Especially the use of the word “accurate” (meaning 100%) is the “trick” of lobbyist and “climate change rejecters”.
A good example for this are medications, developed by scientists, for the human body. Eg, in 90% of all cases a medication helps, in 9% not as predicted and in 1% not at all. And.. do you take the chance or are you not “convinced” and reject, say, eg, beta blockers , cholesterin tablets or even viagra? The same lobbyists which disagree that clima change is man made offer and advertise products which have an “accurancy” of 30% and lower.
İn all the years, clima researches said that the “bandwidth of clima warmth" will be from a to b, considering the different behaviours in the future (eg, reducing (or not) CO2 emmisions).
in case a or b, the sea level will go up from x to y, the damage for the economy will vary from c to d... and so on.
In all the years the bandwidth for these very dynamic calculations became smaller and more accurate (also because computers became better) , but all theories show in one direction. Today, 99 % of all clima researchers agree to these “prediction tables”.
But 99% definitely sounds like mainstream and mainstream is bad.. it keeps you away from “real thinking”.
but a 52-48 decision is good enough for claiming “thats democracy, and now we gonna bully them all..” (ok, thats really off topic, sorry) .

But now back to topic..
For production, a plastic bag uses double the weight in oil and 500 times the weight in water. So, to produce a 10 gramm plastic bag 20 grams oil and 5 liters water are needed ! for one bag!
İn germany they charge 30 eurocent for a brown paper bag. Thats 2 lira. Here, customers will kill the girl at the till.
a brown paper bag you have to use 10 times as a bag (no chance!!) before the “eco account”, compared to a plastic bag, is on zero.
so, the production of a brown paper bag is also not very ecofriendly.
A cotton bag you have to use a 100 times.

Plastic bags are practical, hygienic.. more or less water prove... the advantages are big.
One of the problems with plastic bags is that their lifetime is far to short. Actually it is 25 minutes long.
A strong, say 10-15 kilo taking, UV stabilised recycled granulate plastic bag which can be used 100 or 1000 times (and a working recycling system) would be much better.
For other use (how do you get a kilo strawberries to the till? ), better materials and the non use of “plastic bag destroying price tags” (so we could use them several times as well) would be helpful.
For bottled liquids: The best “eco account” has a plastic bottle made of very thin plastics which is later recycled. Not downcycled.
plastic bottle deposit charge in germany: 25 eurocents, but not introduced for all plastic bottles. Crazy.

“compound” materials as used in tetra packs (eg, milk, vacuum packages... sometimes 12 layers of different materials) ) are terrible as basically “non recycable”. Same applies often for glas bottles , alu cans and plastic bottles which are all nearly 100% covered with plastic banderoles/prints.

“biodegrable plastics” are not much better, as it also takes resources (eg, from food production ) and years for composting. “the change” would have to be made “in one go”, as they otherwise are “mixed” (in the rubbish) with normal plastics and “dirty” them , now impossible for a recycling process.

Higher prices for oil (energy ) and water, deposits, “clean plastic” (no compounds) production and recycling will reduce the use of plastic materials.

Not sure who all that is directed at but I will answer some relevant to point i have made:-


I do not advocate the use of paper even from sustainable sources. Not only cost of production but also will produce methane in landfills and take an enormous amount of shipping. For shopping I use one big bag of a woven plastic material, I think they cost £1 and have lasted a long time. You may scoff at taking loose veg and fruit to the till however it works, ok strawberries is one example however the odd bag here and there is a massive improvement on 4000 per anum. Anyone can come up with arguments as to why not or but we have always done it like this, simple changes can make big differences. If there was a big charge on bags, yes 1 or 2 lira, things would change very quickly and if it was raised as a tax on the product that cash could be then used to fund alternatives like recycling initiatives. Same would be effective on bottles.

Plastics are excellent but as a race we have allowed them to take over our lives we need to take charge of it again. This will be a massive fight as we have to take on the might of the oil companies at a time when they may well start feeling the squeeze.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

What do you want to tell us? That we are all doomed because a meteor (of the size of a dino killer 60 million years ago) will wipe us all out anyway?

Well that’s a large school of thought that believes that but luckily unlike the ‘Its only money’ climate change mob that aren’t suggesting we fire up endless nuclear missiles to have a go at knocking them off course just on the off chance.

The magnetic shield and our atmosphere protects us from the sun and the (sunspots) eruptions.
Just to remind you.. the earth once was an iceball and volcanic eruptions and geothermal activities warmed the earth up again, but it took many many thousand of years.

A warmer surface means more clouds, clouds then cool the planet.
Yes throughout the history of the planet there have been long periods of cold weather and long periods of hot weather. Back in the 1970s they were predicting another Ice Age.
No one is not saying climatology isn’t a complicated subject hence the headline grabbing lines don’t do much good except stir people into quoting nonsense they don’t understand.
Eg Jerry Brown saying Los Angeles International airport will end up underwater. It’s 100 feet above sea level and the highest projected possible rise of the ocean is 4 feet over 200 hundred years. So who knows where our technology will be in 5000 years. Probably wont be using airports then.

I need a bit more than a vague theory to buy into bankrupting the world economy I’m afraid. I’m sure in 2000 years time our ancestors will be paying a very high mortgage but I don’t think it will do much good to start saving some money towards it now.
If you fancy putting our economy into the middle ages at least you have the reassurance it was a bit hotter back then, damn those cars and aeroplanes

Never in history of this planet the AVERAGE temperature measured within 100 or 200 years went up that fast.
You mix up “weather” and “climate”. As usual.

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
Interesting graphs there, they wrong?

Nope to weather and climate change don't think it's me getting confused there.

I love it when people dig up averages.
I can say with 100% certainty that the average dog on the planet has less than 4 legs. All I need is one three legged dog and that brings my average down nicely

You mention: “... any scientific theory has to predict accurate future results...” which never was, is not and never will be true and you know that.
Especially the use of the word “accurate” (meaning 100%) is the “trick” of lobbyist and “climate change rejecters”.
A good example for this are medications, developed by scientists, for the human body. Eg, in 90% of all cases a medication helps, in 9% not as predicted and in 1% not at all. And.. do you take the chance or are you not “convinced” and reject, say, eg, beta blockers , cholesterin tablets or even viagra?

Ok well let’s just throw money at some wild theories then.
Want me to list how many ‘in ten year’s time’ warnings we have had? Notice the alarmists have learnt their lessons there and now go vague.

The human body is like the planet very complicated. Throw medication into a body without research may cure one ailment and kill the body by accentuating another. So lets not throw money at this while we are whistling in the wind.

With science you say I believe that if we do X Y will happen. Or I believe that by doing X Y has happened and if we continue to do it Z will happen. I’ve got no problem with scientists earning a few quid spouting theories but before we commit to spending trillions and that’s what we are looking at then I’d like a bit of proof.

But 99% definitely sounds like mainstream and mainstream is bad.. it keeps you away from “real thinking”.
but a 52-48 decision is good enough for claiming “thats democracy, and now we gonna bully them all..” (ok, thats really off topic, sorry) .

It’s 99% now? It was 97% I find it hard to keep up. It’s still climate change though? Global Warming isn’t on trend anymore?
I think you’ll find the so called consensus comes from a handful of very selective surveys but science unfortunately isn’t a popularity contest.

As for bullying, any scientist that has taken a contrary view might have an opinion of who the bullies are in this subject.

As for the 52%, four million more people voted on a very simple question than have voted any government in power. If you based the vote as per parliamentary seats, leave won 64% of the seats.
No one to my knowledge got bullied into voting one way or the other.

[kibsolar1999]

Jonnie,
you want to tax plastic products to reduce use.. and, to have funds for eg, recycling initiatives. I agree and go further with the opinion that energy from fossil sources in general should be more expensive. in general a products price should reflect “all costs”, incl the cost for the environment. Eg, CO2 certificates must be more expensive .
Yes, these are political decisions and as all levels of “clima change supporting chemicals” ( CO2, CFCs, N2O, CH4) are on a massive rise, this seems to be a necessity to introduce changes today.
The IPPC speaks a clear language. Just recently.

Clima science has a long history and clima change is not a “vague theory” (if you like: any more)
that our economy is put into the middle ages when we try to keep the global warmth as low as possible, = eg, support Renewables as much as we can, is a myth and shows a single minded understanding from economy only.
Of course, a 4 day trip to Hongkong, a 2 week stay in cyprus, a drive with a SUV to the market and get 1 kilo of strawberries packed in 3 plastic bags.. will become either impossible or much more expensive... but it will not kill our economy.

but of course always some self appointed clima or wheather experts are around to convince people that they can go on… but I am obviously not alone to ask:
What The Hell Is Long Range Weather?

And, btw, taking in consideration that also other dangerous chemical and radioactivity levels are on the rise, i would guess that the average dog by birth has more than four legs and more than one head.

[Keithcaley]

I feel that the voting population of the USA, in particular, will be reluctant to change their habits - they have grown used to cheap fuel, and I doubt that any politicians would be willing to try to persuade them to change their lifestyle.

After all, the chief duty of a politician is to remain in office, isn't it?

As for 'Long Range Weather'... I do know what 'Medium Range Weather' is, 'cos I used to drive past the ECMWF most days, so I naturally looked it up!

[EnjoyingTheSun]

that our economy is put into the middle ages when we try to keep the global warmth as low as possible, = eg, support Renewables as much as we can, is a myth and shows a single minded understanding from economy only.

The only myth is that the likes of wind turbines can produce anything like the energy our economy requires. As for carbon credits, probably one of the more stupid ideas executed badly.

Of course, a 4 day trip to Hongkong, a 2 week stay in cyprus, a drive with a SUV to the market and get 1 kilo of strawberries packed in 3 plastic bags.. will become either impossible or much more expensive... but it will not kill our economy.

The price of energy will together with the cost of the hairbrained schemes which have neither been costed correctly or have been modelled to see if they work. Still it's only money.

As long as Al Gore doesn't have to cut his energy output i'll sleep easily. Still as long as the plebs do what they say and not as they do...….

i would guess that the average dog by birth has more than four legs and more than one head.

If the climate change mob are doing the figures anything is possible.

[kibsolar1999]

Keith,
Since years, parlamentarian and other “environmental movements” (called “the mob”) influence the society.. incl that ruling politicians finally have to introduce “energy and environment change” measures, incl wind turbines, charge on plastic bags and so on.
the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics 2018 has been given “for integrating climate change into long-run macroeconomic analysis”

Longrangewheather is a typical scam site runned by self appointed clima experts, using (impossible to verify) “datas” from half or full pseudoscientists, most of them dead since 20+ years.
Cant wait for the next link to have a nice laugh...

[EnjoyingTheSun]

half or full pseudoscientists, most of them dead since 20+ years.
Cant wait for the next link to have a nice laugh...

Here's a quote from a pseudoscientist on windfarms.

"The Whinash project, by replacing energy generation from power stations burning fossil fuel, will reduce carbon dioxide emission by 178,000 tonnes a year. This is impressive, until you discover that a single jumbo jet, flying from London to Miami and back every day, releases the climate-change equivalent of 520,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. One daily connection between Britain and Florida costs three giant wind farms.
Alternative technology permits us to imagine that we can build our way out of trouble. By responding to one form of overdevelopment with another, we can, we believe, continue to expand our total energy demands without destroying the planetary systems required to sustain human life. This might, for a while, be true. But it would soon require the use of the entire land surface of the UK."


Agree?

An onshore windfarm produces only 7% of what a nuclear power plant produces but the nuclear plant takes only a 30th of the land.
I guess we can go with offshore windfarms but they cost over three times as much to produce electricity.


Here's another link to laugh at. Bit old but I think the rationale is the same. Guess they know now to delete their emails!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylo ... 72304927ba

(1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions
(2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry
(3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

[kibsolar1999]

Just to make clear.. i do not write these replies for you.. i reply for the forum members... which may do not have the time fpr checking links or-and-- have not soo much knowledge about "real" energy prices...

We all would love to have as much energy available as we need, for 0 at its best and environment friendly.
but this is not the case and most of us know that ”something” must change and, even if we travel less, avoid plastic bags or whatsoever, we do feel, sort of, "guilty conscience" that we do not do enough. At least not enough to save the planet.
eg, being at least a vegetarian. this sort.

others run the strategy “deny until you die”, bristled with "arguments" and internet links to lay false trails...

EYS: “Here's a quote from a pseudoscientist on windfarms..... The Whinash project ....“
yes. and although Mr. Monbiot believes in nuclear power, he also has the opinion “ that drastic action coupled with strong political will is needed to combat global warming”.

We have sufficent roof space for PV, for on-shore wind we have capacities and off-shore is not as expensive as you want to tell us.
And even if.. it only reflects the “real costs” of energy.
Saving (or avoiding the use of) energy is another answer. rise energy efficiencies, smaller cars..... (heat) recovery systems, the like.
Air fare prices should, must be higher. Eg, at least tax the fuel, eg, put an “environmental damage fee “ on them. Like for plastic bags.
There is no necissity that a german (or, eg, EU-UK-US) teacher (electrician, whatever) (and his three under 18 aged children) go for a 7 (or 14) day holiday to Miami this year and to South Africa next year. they may drive for shopping for some bio eggs in a SUV and at the end of their lives they have a C02 footprint like a small volcano.
(that these people then avoid plastic bags and collect paperfor recycling.. sounds weird... )
That this will lead to job cuts here and there.. sure, but will lead to new ones, eg in the RE section.

As it already does.. and shares of Exxon and so on know only one direction--- down.

important for the economy are the Levelized Cost of Electricity, in US dollar ct/kWh ( in brackets the so called “external costs”)

- nuclear (as Hickley point C, as of contract...) – 11ct/kWh+ inflation (+ 10 to 34 ct or even up to X ,depend on studies...some say that 1-2 euros per kWh are the “real costs” ) + still high risk of deadly damages)
- nuclear, turkey, to be build as of contract - 12,5 + the mentioned X + risks
- coal- 5 to 10, + 10ct external costs, at least.
- on shore wind- 4 to 8, + 0,26ct
- off shore- 7,5 to 13, + 0,26ct
- PV, big- 3 to 8 + 1,2ct
- (for info) PV, cyprus, roof installation- approx 5-6 US ct per kWh

The investment bank Lazard gives 2017 lowest LCOEs for PV - 4,6 ct, wind- 3, coal – 6 and for nuclear 11,2 ct.

So... even without "external costs", Renewables makes our energy cheaper.. and not more expensive as always quoted from deniers...

Energy storage is a problem.. which can be solved later. İt becomes a real problem when energy production from RE reaches 50 to 60 %. Some nice ideas are around already.


The forbes link.. well , yes, a laugh... thanks.
James M. Taylor is (in 2011) senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute .....
“...The policy orientation of The Heartland Institute has been described as conservative, libertarian, and right wing.... (and after they denied that smoking causes damages...) became a leading supporter of climate change denial... and rejects the scientific consensus on global warming”...
(formally) sponsors : Philip Morris, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Koch Family Foundation, Mercer Family Foundation and ExxonMobil.
You may love these links.... İ prefer to read this one...
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2013/ ... es-taylor/

[EnjoyingTheSun]

I think you are eating up the climate change activist alarmism with a large spoon.

Their agenda is to use the power of government or an international system to control the economy and micro manage people’s lives. If the public can be convinced that areas “can literally burn up,” that the world’s glaciers will melt completely, that winter will never return, that people will starve from drought, and so on, then literally any government intervention, right down to telling people what bin to put their rubbish in, can be justified to rescue humanity and the planet.
As Joel Kotkin said ”Climate change provides cover for an agenda of total control that the public would never accept were it presented openly.”

It was called global warming but when the anticipated warming failed to arrive, they began to use the less predictive climate change. Global warming can be disproved, climate change can’t. Colder as well as warmer temperatures can be evidence of “change,” rather than ordinary weather. And because the earth’s temperature has always fluctuated, some “change” is virtually guaranteed.

What I find most suspicious is that climate change supporters seem determined to suppress any objections and indeed any solution that differs from us reverse engineering our way of life.
Science is a free exchange of ideas and data, rather than hounding skeptics out of debate and out of jobs. You measure scientific theories, not by how many people signed letters in their favour, but by whether those theories accurately explained and predicted observations in nature. True science would acknowledge the evidence in favour of climate change, but also acknowledge the failure of existing computer models, almost all of which have overestimated global warming, as a serious challenge to the hypothesis.

Even if it is irrefutable that the use of fossil fuels causes irreversible damage, it is going to be impossible to create a global regime to regulate fossil fuel use. China, the world’s leading source of greenhouse gas emissions, will resist any real restrictions as will India. The more practical answer is to find technological solutions.
Paul Crutzen, a Nobel Prize– winning chemist suggested that geoengineering might solve global warming at a millionth of the cost of ineffective rationing strategies and alternative energy fantasies but the environmental community responded by trying to suppress the publication of his paper. Now his theory could be complete rubbish in which case you print and debunk it, you don’t censor it. Why would you censor it?

I’m glad you use the label denialist as it is another example of the propaganda surrounding this.
Denialist is used as an all-purpose slur. It applies not only to those who doubt global warming but also to those who doubt warming is happening as fast as the consensus claims it is, or who reject the policy interventions suggested as a response to a warming planet. The term “denial” is chosen for a reason: it recalls Holocaust denial.
In some countries, Holocaust denial is a crime and some on the Left would like to see the same laws applied to climate change. In 2014, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. wished for a law to punish climate change skeptics.

I find holocaust denial distasteful but personally don’t think it should be a crime. If you debate it I would be confident that it could be proved 100% that the holocaust took place and make the deniers look stupid. It’s a pity the climate changes are so nervous of their case they prefer censorship.

In your post is a typical example of the tactics. I point out to a link about thousands of emails among scientists who are key to the global warming argument which points out that they are supressing data, discussing global warming as a political “cause” and admit that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data. This is in their own words.

You obviously have a google to the climate change spin site and find answer number 2,358 which is to ignore the article and especially the emails and attack the connections of the guy who broke the story. All very interesting all very irrelevant.
OK let’s say he is also a paid up member of the KKK and a kiddly fiddler to boot.
Is what he printed a lie?
Has he made it up?
If he has made it up do you have a link to where the scientists are obviously going to sue him for defamation?
I know it is a common tactic in politics to attack the speaker not what he says in politics, particularily if you can't refute what he says. But this is science...…...Isn't it?

[erol]

Paul Crutzen, a Nobel Prize– winning chemist suggested that geoengineering might solve global warming at a millionth of the cost of ineffective rationing strategies and alternative energy fantasies but the environmental community responded by trying to suppress the publication of his paper. Now his theory could be complete rubbish in which case you print and debunk it, you don’t censor it. Why would you censor it?

Censored by whom ? If it is being censored they are not doing a very good job as far as I can see. It took me under a minute to find the article online https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/1 ... 9101-y.pdf

Reading this it seems to me the article itself is somewhat different from your portrayal of it as well. His final comment in his conclusions in this paper is

Finally, I repeat: the very best would be if emissions of the greenhouse gases could be reduced so much that the stratospheric sulfur release experiment would not need to take place. Currently, this looks like a pious wish.

Not really a suggestion then to solve issues around climate change at a millionth of the cost of reducing emissions of greenhouse gasses. More like a possible emergency measure to try and buy more time for us to address our collective failure to deal with reducing emissions, which in his words is the 'best solution'. As far as he supports the need to reduce emissions, is he someone with an agenda of making up false warning to allow government an excuse to micro manage our lives I wonder ?

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Paul Crutzen, a Nobel Prize– winning chemist suggested that geoengineering might solve global warming at a millionth of the cost of ineffective rationing strategies and alternative energy fantasies but the environmental community responded by trying to suppress the publication of his paper. Now his theory could be complete rubbish in which case you print and debunk it, you don’t censor it. Why would you censor it?

Censored by whom ? If it is being censored they are not doing a very good job as far as I can see. It took me under a minute to find the article online https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/1 ... 9101-y.pdf

Reading this it seems to me the article itself is somewhat different from your portrayal of it as well. His final comment in his conclusions in this paper is

Finally, I repeat: the very best would be if emissions of the greenhouse gases could be reduced so much that the stratospheric sulfur release experiment would not need to take place. Currently, this looks like a pious wish.

Not really a suggestion then to solve issues around climate change at a millionth of the cost of reducing emissions of greenhouse gasses. More like a possible emergency measure to try and buy more time for us to address our collective failure to deal with reducing emissions, which in his words is the 'best solution'. As far as he supports the need to reduce emissions, is he someone with an agenda of making up false warning to allow government an excuse to micro manage our lives I wonder ?

Scott Barrett, “The Incredible Economics of Geoengineering,” Environmental and Resource Economics 39 (January 2008), pp. 45– 54: “Not all scientists welcomed the recent publication of a paper by, a Nobel Prize-winning chemist, on geoengineering. In the same issue of Climatic Change, Ralph Cicerone, the president of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote, ‘I am aware that various individuals opposed, for various and sincere reasons that are not wholly scientific.’

I think you have misread my point Erol, Noam would be proud of you.

I said they tried to supress his paper not that they were successful.
As regards censorship, what would you call it if one group tries to stop the publications of an opposing view? If your case is robust surely you welcome dissenting opinions as it gives you an opportunity to debunk them?

Whether the science is feasible or whatever the motivations are behind his theory my point was that he is suggesting an alternative to us immediately dumping cars, planes etc while we figure out what the problem is or how we might best solve it. For example even Monbiot doesn’t buy into windfarms.
But the climate change activists have no interest in any possible solution or view other than their own. Fine if they can prove it is the best solution or even if it is a solution but they can’t.
The solutions suggested are going to cost trillions. Surely no one can argue with that?
That’s fine for the “it’s only other people’s money” brigade but this has the potential to put the world into a depression the likes of which we have never seen before. Don’t know about you but I need a little more proof.

It's science not politics. Surely the whole ethos of science is you exchange ideas not use offensive labels to crush a debate.


My view is.

1) Let's prove there is irreversible global warming and that it's not just a phase in the history of the earth.
2) Let's prove that it is caused by mankind not external factors beyond our control.
3) If there is irreversible global warming and even if it is not man made, can we solve it and how?
4) If we can't solve it now can we look at what is needed to solve it and what technology we need to develop. People were looking at landing on the moon in Victorian times, I doubt they spent long catapulting horses up to it.
5) If all the above is proven what time scale do we have? The headlines the world will be underwater in ten years are good for getting a research grant or your name in the papers but not helpful. They also bring out the cynic in people like me. If you tell me I'm going to be under water by 2016 don't get offended if I ask you why my feet aren't wet in 2018.
6) Are we even 100% certain that the costs of global warming outweigh any potential benefits.


Obviously we do have the Emma Thompson school of socialism;

Air fare prices should, must be higher. Eg, at least tax the fuel, eg, put an “environmental damage fee “ on them. Like for plastic bags.
There is no necissity that a german (or, eg, EU-UK-US) teacher (electrician, whatever) (and his three under 18 aged children) go for a 7 (or 14) day holiday to Miami this year and to South Africa next year. they may drive for shopping for some bio eggs in a SUV and at the end of their lives they have a C02 footprint like a small volcano.

That’s the do as I say not do brand of liberalism. "I think we should cut down on the hoi polloi’s cheap airfares, in fact fire up my private jet I’m flying to the UK to lecture them."

[erol]

I said they tried to supress his paper not that they were successful.

Some scientists did not welcome the publication. Is this really them trying to suppress it ? The non scientific concern is that the paper could be used by some, like yourself, to argue that reducing emissions is not necessary at all, and we could instead induce a man made mini 'nuclear winter' by injecting sulphur or ash in to the atmosphere. The author of the paper himself recognised this 'risk'

Indeed, it is mainly because geoengineering and emission reductions are substitutes that the concept lacks “broad support from scientists” (Cicerone 2006: 221).2 Not all scientists welcomed the recent publication of a paper by Paul Crutzen, a Nobel-prize-winning chemist, on geoengineering.3 To acknowledge the feasibility of controlling the climate deliberately, these scientists fear, undercuts “human resolve to deal with the cause of the original problem, greenhouse gases in the case of climate change” (Cicerone 2006: 224). Crutzen understands this view; he only wrote about the subject reluctantly. He would prefer that emissions of greenhouse gases be cut to an extent that geoengineering would not be needed. He has only recognized the possible utility of geoengineering now because he despairs about the prospect of emissions being reduced enough, and quickly enough, to avoid dangerous climate change.

Expressing such concerns about how such a paper might be miss used to support those with an agenda of 'we do not need to worry about reducing emissions' is to my mind not seeking to 'supress', it is raising a valid concern (one shared by the author of the paper himself), that you yourself so amply demonstrate.

As regards censorship, what would you call it if one group tries to stop the publications of an opposing view? If your case is robust surely you welcome dissenting opinions as it gives you an opportunity to debunk them?

I have seen no evidence that a 'group' sought to stop publication of this paper. Sure the claim makes a good headline but where is the evidence that this happened ?

Whether the science is feasible or whatever the motivations are behind his theory my point was that he is suggesting an alternative to us immediately dumping cars, planes etc while we figure out what the problem is or how we might best solve it.

But he is not suggesting that this is an alternative to reducing emissions and he repeatedly makes this very point through out the paper. That you claim it is, is exactly the concern he and some other scientists had. The author does not doubt what the problem is and he is unequivocal as to what the best solution is - reducing emissions. The only person presenting his paper as an alternative to reducing emissions, is you. The author certainly is not.

But the climate change activists have no interest in any possible solution or view other than their own.

Let me ask once again do you consider Paul Crutzen a 'climate change activist' or not ? He does not doubt that climate change is happening or that it is the result of man's action and that the consequences of it will be increasing severe or that the best (scientific not political) solution to it is to reduce emissions and his work over decades has been funded by 'grants'.

My view is.

1) Let's prove there is irreversible global warming and that it's not just a phase in the history of the earth.
2) Let's prove that it is caused by mankind not external factors beyond our control.

The noble prize winning Paul Crutzen, who's work and authority you happily pervert to support your agenda, has no doubt that climate is changing as a result of mans activities and the results will become increasingly catastrophic and that the best solution would be to reduce our emissions. Forgive me if I give more credence to his views on this matter than I do yours ? Nor is he the only one with such views. They are in fact the views of the vast majority of scientists in the relevant fields.

For me if you really want to talk about what action any given individual can take to minimise their impact on the environment, then by far and away the biggest single act a given individual can take is to choose to not have children. How about that for a view point that is suppressed and censored and shut down and not discussable in the main stream?

[EnjoyingTheSun]

For me if you really want to talk about what action any given individual can take to minimise their impact on the environment, then by far and away the biggest single act a given individual can take is to choose to not have children.

Is that everyone or just the hoi polloi? Obviously we need to price them off aeroplanes and having cars should we go the whole hog forced sterilisation for ordinary people for their own good?
The Al Gore method of you before me reducing the carbon footprint.
People come up with this crap and can't understand how a buffoon like Trump can get power.

You've talked me round Erol. Even though they can't actually prove anything let's all pay 90% tax, return our lifestyle to the middle ages and let them throw money at any solution they want to try as an experiment.
I guess I'm old fashioned if you want £4,000 to fix my car I like you to show me what is wrong with it and that after I have spent this money it should now work.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Sure the claim makes a good headline but where is the evidence that this happened ?

Talking of good headlines what is the latest date for when the Artic is going to be ice free?

They missed 2008,2013, 2016 and it's not looking great for 2018.

I don't mind giving them every chance it was bad luck in 2007 when Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean Physics, Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge said that Arctic sea ice would be lost by 2013. Six years later when the sea ice had grown by 25% he changed it to 2016.
Just wondered what the latest is from this renowned expert.


I don't mind someone having a bit of a guess maybe making a few quid out of it. I'm not one of these who likes to micro manage other peoples lives but if you have a bet and lose on the Grand National I do object when you want me to pay for it. I do object when you try to stop me pointing it out that you backed the wrong horse. I do object if you try to stop us backing a different horse or at least discussing it. Or maybe not back any horse.

[erol]

Still wondering if you consider Paul Crutzen a 'climate change activist' or not ?

Is that everyone or just the hoi polloi?

The idea that the politics of 'do as I say and not as I do' is something unique to 'liberals' or 'the left', is quite amusing to me. I mean Trump (or Jacob Rees Mogg or Cameron or or or) would never consider policies based on the 'hoi polloi' having to do things that they themselves are not subject too or affected by, would they ?

Even though they can't actually prove anything .....

Somethings are only provable, to the level of certainty you seem to require, after it is too late to be able to do anything about it.

let's all pay 90% tax, return our lifestyle to the middle ages and let them throw money at any solution they want to try as an experiment.

Me choosing to consume less energy produced from fossil fuels does not require me to pay 90% taxes, will actually save me money as far as I reduce my energy usage and would not require me to live in the middle ages (and who says people were not happier in the middle ages anyway ?).

I guess I'm old fashioned if you want £4,000 to fix my car I like you to show me what is wrong with it and that after I have spent this money it should now work.

The warning light on your car indicating that the airbag has failed is flashing. You go to 10 garages and 9 of them tell you that you need to fix this problem or risk severe consequences in the future and one tells you 'it's just a con by the car makers to get money out of you, the airbag is fine'. You decide to go with the 10% view. You will indeed get your proof as to if they were right or the 90% were right, should you then be involved in an accident that needs to deploy the airbag but by then it will be too late if the 90% were in fact right.

I don't mind someone having a bit of a guess maybe making a few quid out of it.

Is this what nobel laureate Paul Crutzen is / does do then ?

I'm not one of these who likes to micro manage other peoples lives

But I assume that you do not believe in pure anarchy as a viable social / political system for say the UK ? I assume you accept that there is some need for regulations and limits on what people can and can not do ? I can imagine a version of you in 1952, after the killer fog in London, arguing that there was no proof that burning 'soft coal' was linked to the fog, that it was just 'weather' and that the passing of environmental legislation like City of London (Various Powers) Act 1954 and the Clean Air Acts of 1956 and 1968, was just 'liberals' indulging their desire to micro manage and control the lives of the 'hoi polloi' whilst they went back to their electric or oil fired mansions in Mayfair and Kensington and nothing to do with trying to improve the quality of life for all those living and working in London.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

The idea that the politics of 'do as I say and not as I do' is something unique to 'liberals' or 'the left', is quite amusing to me.

Damn you’re going to show that Rees Mogg is in favour of selective and private education but has sent his own children to a local non selective comprehensive?
Despite not giving a toss about global warming Trump has a 2 room mansion in Nashville that uses 20 times less electricity than average?
Honestly go for it Erol I could do with a laugh although stick to UK as no-one can make any excuses for Trump.

Me choosing to consume less energy produced from fossil fuels does not require me to pay 90% taxes, will actually save me money as far as I reduce my energy usage and would not require me to live in the middle ages (and who says people were not happier in the middle ages anyway ?).

So wind turbines are cheaper than say nuclear power? And they produce enough electricity on demand?
OK Erol this we can easily test. For the next six months whatever your electricity bill is give me double. EG if it is 800TL a month, pay it but also pay me 1600TL. For that I will move in, turn off your electricity for anything from 8 hours to three days at random times and other times turn everything in the house on. Lights, TV, cooker the lot. I promise I will ensure you have power to log on here and keep people up to date with how happy you are.

The warning light on your car indicating that the airbag has failed is flashing. You go to 10 garages and 9 of them tell you that you need to fix this problem or risk severe consequences in the future and one tells you 'it's just a con by the car makers to get money out of you, the airbag is fine'. You decide to go with the 10% view. You will indeed get your proof as to if they were right or the 90% were right, should you then be involved in an accident that needs to deploy the airbag but by then it will be too late if the 90% were in fact right.

Nice analogy but let me just refine it so it is accurate.
Nine garages cold call me saying that a warning light in some remote location I’ll never see might possibly go off in the next two, ten or a hundred years if I don’t either reduce my average speed, or not put the air con on or push my car instead of driving it or something but we’re not sure what it is. But send us £4,000 now and we will see how it goes. We’re going to be vague but we are fairly sure that in 500 years your car might not still work but to get the cash let’s say it is going to blow up tomorrow when you are driving the kids to school.
When I move in do you mind if I handle the calls for you when they tell you that you have a problem with your bank or computer and to give them your passwords. I’ll save you that 1600TL in no time.

But I assume that you do not believe in pure anarchy as a viable social / political system for say the UK ? I assume you accept that there is some need for regulations and limits on what people can and can not do ?

Erol you could poo a corkscrew straight.
So let’s just clarify, people are getting stabbed to death every day in London? I suggest increasing stop and search and you go into a chin scratching, it might not work, it might upset some people, we need to do more studies, lets not be too hasty etc etc etc.
Some else suggests that by the year 2100 the temperate of the world may rise by two degrees and you want us to do something, anything, inconvenience and money is no object, who cares if we don’t actually know what we are doing.
You are on the rooftops screaming that the world is going to end because of our selfishness when actually two degrees is about the difference in temperature between London and the surrounding countryside.

[erol]

Still wondering if you consider Paul Crutzen a 'climate change activist' or not ?

So wind turbines are cheaper than say nuclear power? And they produce enough electricity on demand?

Where did I ever say this ? Man, would you like a straw with that argument perhaps (before they get banned) ?

Erol you could poo a corkscrew straight.
So let’s just clarify, people are getting stabbed to death every day in London? I suggest increasing stop and search and you go into a chin scratching, it might not work, it might upset some people, we need to do more studies, lets not be too hasty etc etc etc.
Some else suggests that by the year 2100 the temperate of the world may rise by two degrees and you want us to do something, anything, inconvenience and money is no object, who cares if we don’t actually know what we are doing.

Well if we are clarifying perhaps we should look at what I actually said rather than your claims as to what I said ? What I said about stop and search is that 'efficiency' of such a system matters and should be looked at in terms of gauging it's effectiveness in achieving the aim of reducing knife crime in terms of how many innocent people you need to stop in order to catch one guilty person.

Globally the overwhelming majority of scientists with far greater expertise and understanding of such things than you or I all agree that climate is changing and that man's actions are a factor in this change and that the global consequences will become increasingly severe if we just ignore this, increasingly and negatively affecting 100's of millions and even billions of people and you go into a chin scratching, it might not work, it might upset some people, we need to do more studies, lets not be too hasty etc etc etc.
Rates of knife crime in London , which have always risen and fallen over time, reach levels higher than in recent years and you want us to do something, anything, inconvenience and money is no object, who cares if we don’t actually know what we are doing.

See what I did there ?

You are on the rooftops screaming that the world is going to end because of our selfishness when actually two degrees is about the difference in temperature between London and the surrounding countryside.

Not on the rooftops and not screaming. I just personally take the view that the likes of Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen, along with over 90% of his peers, are more likely to be more right about these issue that you are. If that offends then I apologise.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

So wind turbines are cheaper than say nuclear power? And they produce enough electricity on demand?

Where did I ever say this ? Man, would you like a straw with that argument perhaps (before they get banned) ?

I thought if you move away from these dirty fuels you were going to save money? Or your plan is to live by candlelight?
Offer still open to run that experiment? I'll be very fair we'll duplicate wind turbines so you'll get around ten percent of the power but unlike wind turbines I'll let you choose what couple of hours a day.

Well if we are clarifying perhaps we should look at what I actually said rather than your claims as to what I said ? What I said about stop and search is that 'efficiency' of such a system matters and should be looked at in terms of gauging it's effectiveness in achieving the aim of reducing knife crime in terms of how many innocent people you need to stop in order to catch one guilty person.

So let's not rush into anything?
So that black mother whose son is going to college tonight and is terrified that he is going to get a knife in him for his phone is panicking?

Ok well when it happens I'm sure she'll be reassured that the billions we have spent on wind farms might ensure that had her son had kids then his great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandchildren won't have to suffer a 3 degree increase in temperatures. Possibly.

But me saying we should look at say wind turbines in terms of gauging their effectiveness in achieving the aim of reducing CO2 in terms of how much it will cost the worlds economies and inconvenience people makes me a denier? No double standards there.
Talking of double standards, any news on where the children of Rees Mogg go to school etc or Trumps carbon footprint? I'm happy to go first with say Dianne Abbott, Harriet Harperson or Al Gore if you like?

Globally the overwhelming majority of scientists with far greater expertise and understanding of such things than you or I all agree that climate is changing and that man's actions are a factor in this change and that the global consequences will become increasingly severe if we just ignore this, increasingly and negatively affecting 100's of millions

The same ones that said global warming was irreversible or a different majority of those asked?
I think we can all safely say that the climate in 100 years is probably going to be different than today, let's be honest it's vague enough to be true and if it isn't they'll only re-label the problem. I can safely say a horse is going to win The Grand National will you pay me out if one does?

Re the experts, do they know how much man's actions have affected it? Nope.
Do they know that even if we totally change our way of life it will make any real difference? Nope.

So they aren't quite sure what is going to happen and every time they make a prediction it is wrong but we have to keep sending the cheques because to question them would make us a denier?

If that offends then I apologise.

I also apologise for wanting to priortise a problem that is going to effect the lives of people today over something that might effect us in 2000 years.

A 2 degree temperature rise over the next 80 years isn’t going to end life on Earth.
To put that into perspective man went from flying 120 feet to landing on the moon in 66 years.
Fifty years on how many thousand times more powerful is the smartphone in your pocket to the massive computers that landed man on the moon?
So for my money and it will be my money as well as everyone else’s money how about we don’t believe the headline grabbing alarmist warnings that we will all be barbecued or drowned in ten years time and let technology come up with a solution, if needed and if possible when it is capable of doing so?

I know it is not a view that allows me to virtue signal as much as the global warming/climate change/to be announced does but it seems pretty sensible to me.

[MartinM]

Sincere apologies for interrupting a great debate but the point, I believe , is that single use plastic items are dangerous to human health and wildlife if not disposed of properly. Using less plastic is simply a good idea.

[erol]

Still wondering if you consider Paul Crutzen a 'climate change activist' or not ?

I thought if you move away from these dirty fuels you were going to save money?

If I make a personal choice to reduce my consumption (of energy or cigarettes or alcohol or chocolate or or or) then I will save money vs not making such personal choices. That is not rocket (or climate for that matter) science from where I am sitting ?

Or your plan is to live by candlelight?

Come back to me on that once once you have lived here for over 15 years like I have maybe

Offer still open to run that experiment? I'll be very fair we'll duplicate wind turbines so you'll get around ten percent of the power but unlike wind turbines I'll let you choose what couple of hours a day.

I still remain bemused as to where this notion of yours that I am advocating 'wind farms' as the singular 'solution' to reducing emissions comes from, other than your own imagination ? Or for that matter that I am inherently against nuclear in and off itself.

So let's not rush into anything?

With regards to climate change or knife crime ?

But me saying we should look at say wind turbines in terms of gauging their effectiveness in achieving the aim of reducing CO2 in terms of how much it will cost the worlds economies and inconvenience people makes me a denier? No double standards there.

Yet me saying we should look at how effective simply massively increasing police stop and searches is at achieving the aim of reducing knife crime in terms of how much it would cost (of my money that could be spent on other measures that are more effective at reducing knife crime) and inconvenience people makes me someone who does not care about knife crime or those who suffer from it or the fear of it ?

I agree with you that we should evaluate how effective things like wind farms are in the terms that you state. Where I (and Paul Crutzen and the majority of the worlds scientific community) disagree with you is in your certainty that climate change has not yet negatively affected people and their lives, will not do so any time soon is not related in any way to our own actions and can not be affected by us choosing to change our action in any case. I also disagree with you that the vast majority of the scientific community that do not share your view only take such a position overwhelming because of their vested self in getting grants and because of a covert desire to want to control and micro manage other peoples lives.

Talking of double standards, any news on where the children of Rees Mogg go to school etc or Trumps carbon footprint? I'm happy to go first with say Dianne Abbott, Harriet Harperson or Al Gore if you like?

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24926 ... rset/votes

I think we can all safely say that the climate in 100 years is probably going to be different than today, let's be honest it's vague enough to be true and if it isn't they'll only re-label the problem.

Can we safely say that levels of knife crime will vary and change over the next 100 years ? Could we re label the problem as 'youth crime' or inner city crime if the rates tend to fluctuate in the same range over next hundred years regardless of how much stop and searching we do ?

Re the experts, do they know how much man's actions have affected it? Nope.

Do we know how much increasing stop and searching by 2 times or 5 or 10 times would reduce knife crime levels ?

So they aren't quite sure what is going to happen and every time they make a prediction it is wrong but we have to keep sending the cheques because to question them would make us a denier?

What we should imo do is try and assess what the issues are what solutions most effectively address these issues on a continuous ongoing basis as free from dogma and personal biases as much as is possible.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Other measures that are more effective at reducing knife crime

Let's hear them, always interested in solutions to problems. Can they be implemented in the next 50 years? I know it's not a priority like the oceans rising 1 millimetre in the next 1000 years but......

a covert desire to want to control and micro manage other peoples lives.

The climate change lobby is purely scientific then, completely apolitical?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylo ... 72304927ba
That seems to illustrate that there are a nice few emails illustrating that a few of the more vocal scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry. By all means point out that the author strangles kittens with his bare hands but be better if you illustrate he is lying and when the scientists libel case is hitting the courts.

Can we safely say that levels of knife crime will vary and change over the next 100 years ?

I'm happy to have any bet you like that if nothing is done that knife crime will significantly increase over the next five years. Not change, increase. I'll even take the gamble that despite them fiddling the figures they’ll still be unable to hide the increase. I'm happy to give you odds. Come on it will be easy money surely?

I doubt you'll fancy a bet on estimating how much ice there is in the Artic in five years. I’m afraid I can’t let you have that it will be different.


As for the stuff on Rees Mogg again you are spinning and deliberately missing the point.
My point is the likes of Blair, Abbott and Harperson will happily chorus against selective education for the masses. Fair enough whether you agree with it or not they are entitled to their view. But don’t you find it a tiny bit hypocritical when they take advantage of selective education for their own children.
OK Rees Mogg voted against stuff like same sex marriages and allowing terminally ill people to be given assistance to end their life. Again you agree or disagree with his view but he would only be a hypocrite if he had a church wedding to a man and had arranged for his own elderly relatives to be helped on their way.
If you can’t see the distinction there is no hope.