Gotta love Extinction Rebellion

[Archied]

10 hours ago, Highgate said:

There is a hell of a lot going on in that sentence.  ?

Are the 99% of climate scientists the extremists or the moderate sensible ones?  

 

Nope , just as with covid there are a lot of scientist s who don’t believe we are in crisis or anywhere near it and also disagree with the line that climate change is driven by humans but are drowned out , called cranks , have funding issues if they disagree with the line , your 99% figure is not valid ,

tell me , are you also in the church that wants this vegan route forced on the world ?

Edited September 6, 2022 by Archied

[Gaspode]

11 hours ago, Highgate said:

There is a hell of a lot going on in that sentence.  ?

Are the 99% of climate scientists the extremists or the moderate sensible ones?  

 

If your job is ‘climate scientist’, you’d be pretty foolish not to be fully onboard the ‘man-made environmental catastrophe’ train so probably nearer 100%.

It’s been one of the underlying issues with the whole debate that as soon as it became clear there was money to be made, a whole industry developed to support the concept based on a little evidence and a whole heap of guesswork, supposition, and b*******. That industry (which very much includes the climate scientists) is never going to properly question the foundations they’ve built their fortunes on so they provide a nice little platform for the more extreme eco loons to dictate to the masses - and anyone questioning the strength of their evidence is cancelled as a climate denier…..

The really sad part is that the climate clearly is changing (as it has for eternity), yet due to the shouty voices overpowering everyone and drowning out a reasoned debate, the focus is still very much on cutting emissions rather than addressing the elephant in the room - that the human race needs to deal with the effects of climate change (man made or otherwise).
When the seas rise and many millions find their homes underwater, and others find their countries uninhabitable due to excessive temperatures and associated famines (and it will happen regardless of any changes we make at this late stage), the consequences will be a catastrophe of a scale never seen before - and the people impacted are unlikely to sit back and simply accept their fate - mass movement of people and the associated pushback from those in ‘better off’ locations will rewrite the boundaries we currently understand between nations and people - with disastrous consequences.

I’d argue that finding a way to deal with/minimise those issues is vastly more important than anything Extinction Rebellion are pushing for, but their noise distracts to the extent that we’re not even looking at the bigger picture….when drinking water becomes more expensive than oil (Mad Max anyone?), we might just wake up - but by then it’ll be way too late….

[Crewton]

7 hours ago, Gaspode said:

If your job is ‘climate scientist’, you’d be pretty foolish not to be fully onboard the ‘man-made environmental catastrophe’ train so probably nearer 100%.

It’s been one of the underlying issues with the whole debate that as soon as it became clear there was money to be made, a whole industry developed to support the concept based on a little evidence and a whole heap of guesswork, supposition, and b*******. That industry (which very much includes the climate scientists) is never going to properly question the foundations they’ve built their fortunes on so they provide a nice little platform for the more extreme eco loons to dictate to the masses - and anyone questioning the strength of their evidence is cancelled as a climate denier…..

The really sad part is that the climate clearly is changing (as it has for eternity), yet due to the shouty voices overpowering everyone and drowning out a reasoned debate, the focus is still very much on cutting emissions rather than addressing the elephant in the room - that the human race needs to deal with the effects of climate change (man made or otherwise).
When the seas rise and many millions find their homes underwater, and others find their countries uninhabitable due to excessive temperatures and associated famines (and it will happen regardless of any changes we make at this late stage), the consequences will be a catastrophe of a scale never seen before - and the people impacted are unlikely to sit back and simply accept their fate - mass movement of people and the associated pushback from those in ‘better off’ locations will rewrite the boundaries we currently understand between nations and people - with disastrous consequences.

I’d argue that finding a way to deal with/minimise those issues is vastly more important than anything Extinction Rebellion are pushing for, but their noise distracts to the extent that we’re not even looking at the bigger picture….when drinking water becomes more expensive than oil (Mad Max anyone?), we might just wake up - but by then it’ll be way too late….

There's a whole industry around Client-Change denial/scepticism too. So what are the theories around the causes of climate change from that side of the industry and what solutions are they proposing other than 'do nothing, it'll blow over'?

[Archied]

10 minutes ago, Crewton said:

There's a whole industry around Client-Change denial/scepticism too. So what are the theories around the causes of climate change from that side of the industry and what solutions are they proposing other than 'do nothing, it'll blow over'?

You forgot refusenicks, let’s have a levy on everyone s fuel bills , mass taxes and the like raised and funnel ed into the other sides coffers and see what they come up with ,,, oops I’m not a climate scientist so my thoughts are worthless , where’s a Swedish accent and a school uniform when you need one 

[Highgate]

8 hours ago, Archied said:

Nope , just as with covid there are a lot of scientist s who don’t believe we are in crisis or anywhere near it and also disagree with the line that climate change is driven by humans but are drowned out , called cranks , have funding issues if they disagree with the line , your 99% figure is not valid ,

tell me , are you also in the church that wants this vegan route forced on the world ?

It appears to be valid, certainly according to all the latest analysis.  

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467619886266?journalCode=bsta

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774/meta

No, I certainly wouldn't agree with forcing anyone to become vegan.  I'd be a hypocrite if I did as  I'm not vegan myself.  However, I am very much in favour of replacing the farming of live animals with 'lab' grown meat as soon as that becomes economically feasible. 

7 hours ago, Gaspode said:

If your job is ‘climate scientist’, you’d be pretty foolish not to be fully onboard the ‘man-made environmental catastrophe’ train so probably nearer 100%.

It’s been one of the underlying issues with the whole debate that as soon as it became clear there was money to be made, a whole industry developed to support the concept based on a little evidence and a whole heap of guesswork, supposition, and b*******. That industry (which very much includes the climate scientists) is never going to properly question the foundations they’ve built their fortunes on so they provide a nice little platform for the more extreme eco loons to dictate to the masses - and anyone questioning the strength of their evidence is cancelled as a climate denier…..

The really sad part is that the climate clearly is changing (as it has for eternity), yet due to the shouty voices overpowering everyone and drowning out a reasoned debate, the focus is still very much on cutting emissions rather than addressing the elephant in the room - that the human race needs to deal with the effects of climate change (man made or otherwise).
When the seas rise and many millions find their homes underwater, and others find their countries uninhabitable due to excessive temperatures and associated famines (and it will happen regardless of any changes we make at this late stage), the consequences will be a catastrophe of a scale never seen before - and the people impacted are unlikely to sit back and simply accept their fate - mass movement of people and the associated pushback from those in ‘better off’ locations will rewrite the boundaries we currently understand between nations and people - with disastrous consequences.

I’d argue that finding a way to deal with/minimise those issues is vastly more important than anything Extinction Rebellion are pushing for, but their noise distracts to the extent that we’re not even looking at the bigger picture….when drinking water becomes more expensive than oil (Mad Max anyone?), we might just wake up - but by then it’ll be way too late….

One of the saddest aspects of the whole climate change debate, and indeed modern society in general, is the complete lack of trust the general public have in expert scientific opinion.  The views of qualified scientists are never guaranteed to be correct of course, and new evidence can always come to light to alter them, but theirs is certainly the best we have on scientific matters.  And that goes for climate scientists.  The notion that the vast majority of climate scientists are predominantly immoral money grabbing opportunists, maliciously lying to humanity and allowing us to believe that we are endangering ourselves and the entire global ecosystem  so they can have a paper published in a scientific journal is frankly absurd. And it fundamentally misunderstands how science works. To make a name for themselves scientists want to disprove the consensus and shatter the status quo if they can, they don't want to publish the 17,000th paper that agrees what everyone else has already said.  If a climate scientist could gather plausible data that contradicts the idea that humans are causing climate change they would be only too eager to do so, and scientific journals would publish it.  This conspiracy narrative also overlooks the fact that plenty climate change research has been funded by the fossil fuel industry itself, rather disproving the whole financially motivated climate scientist argument. 

What part of the mechanics of the greenhouse effect do you have a problem with?  If you disagree with human induced climate change then you must surely doubt the greenhouse effect itself.  

[Archied]

2 minutes ago, Highgate said:

It appears to be valid, certainly according to all the latest analysis.  

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467619886266?journalCode=bsta

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774/meta

No, I certainly wouldn't agree with forcing anyone to become vegan.  I'd be a hypocrite if I did as  I'm not vegan myself.  However, I am very much in favour of replacing the farming of live animals with 'lab' grown meat as soon as that becomes economically feasible. 

One of the saddest aspects of the whole climate change debate, and indeed modern society in general, is the complete lack of trust the general public have in expert scientific opinion.  The views of qualified scientists are never guaranteed to be correct of course, and new evidence can always come to light to alter them, but theirs is certainly the best we have on scientific matters.  And that goes for climate scientists.  The notion that the vast majority of climate scientists are predominantly immoral money grabbing opportunists, maliciously lying to humanity and allowing us to believe that we are endangering ourselves and the entire global ecosystem  so they can have a paper published in a scientific journal is frankly absurd. And it fundamentally misunderstands how science works. To make a name for themselves scientists want to disprove the consensus and shatter the status quo if they can, they don't want to publish the 17,000th paper that agrees what everyone else has already said.  If a climate scientist could gather plausible data that contradicts the idea that humans are causing climate change they would be only too eager to do so, and scientific journals would publish it.  This conspiracy narrative also overlooks the fact that plenty climate change research has been funded by the fossil fuel industry itself, rather disproving the whole financially motivated climate scientist argument. 

What part of the mechanics of the greenhouse effect do you have a problem with?  If you disagree with human induced climate change then you must surely doubt the greenhouse effect itself.  

I’m not a climate scientist but I am a 61 year old man with the life experience of watching and experiencing how governments, established money and big corporations operate and it is the same garbage over and over again , my wife used to religiously watch the soaps then one day out of the blue she just stopped, reason was it was the same script , drama on loop , perhaps the Great Barrier Reef is Phil Mitchell, gone , dead , no more ,,,, surprise surprise he’s back and in full health ,

the climate has changed and changed again long long before humans were around and around in enough numbers for they’re actions to impact on the planet 

I’m not interested in going back to the dark ages , making the poor poorer and the life of the rich richer or driving headlong into stuff that’s a great money spinner but every bit as bad as fossil fuels in the long run ,

as for lab grown meat I can’t see that turning out to have problems along the lines of fertilisers and the like ?

[Archied]

19 minutes ago, Highgate said:

It appears to be valid, certainly according to all the latest analysis.  

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467619886266?journalCode=bsta

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774/meta

No, I certainly wouldn't agree with forcing anyone to become vegan.  I'd be a hypocrite if I did as  I'm not vegan myself.  However, I am very much in favour of replacing the farming of live animals with 'lab' grown meat as soon as that becomes economically feasible. 

One of the saddest aspects of the whole climate change debate, and indeed modern society in general, is the complete lack of trust the general public have in expert scientific opinion.  The views of qualified scientists are never guaranteed to be correct of course, and new evidence can always come to light to alter them, but theirs is certainly the best we have on scientific matters.  And that goes for climate scientists.  The notion that the vast majority of climate scientists are predominantly immoral money grabbing opportunists, maliciously lying to humanity and allowing us to believe that we are endangering ourselves and the entire global ecosystem  so they can have a paper published in a scientific journal is frankly absurd. And it fundamentally misunderstands how science works. To make a name for themselves scientists want to disprove the consensus and shatter the status quo if they can, they don't want to publish the 17,000th paper that agrees what everyone else has already said.  If a climate scientist could gather plausible data that contradicts the idea that humans are causing climate change they would be only too eager to do so, and scientific journals would publish it.  This conspiracy narrative also overlooks the fact that plenty climate change research has been funded by the fossil fuel industry itself, rather disproving the whole financially motivated climate scientist argument. 

What part of the mechanics of the greenhouse effect do you have a problem with?  If you disagree with human induced climate change then you must surely doubt the greenhouse effect itself.  

As a matter of interest are you saying there are not scientist s and eminent people who disagree with the hysterical crises line?

[Stive Pesley]

2 hours ago, Archied said:

You forgot refusenicks, let’s have a levy on everyone s fuel bills , mass taxes and the like raised and funnel ed into the other sides coffers and see what they come up with ,,, oops I’m not a climate scientist so my thoughts are worthless , where’s a Swedish accent and a school uniform when you need one 

You see - I don't disagree with some of what you say, but the problem is that the man-made climate change is demonstrably real and acting to try and reverse it is an eminently sensible idea (if we want the human race to continue to inhabit the planet).

The fact that the super-rich have hijacked the process to line their own pockets is indeed a sickening thing.

Unfortunately it's also sickening that the same elite powers have also used their malign influence on the  media to create the distraction of climate change scepticism and managed to make a lot of people believe that the problem is somehow a young Swedish girl. Hence they spend their life arguing about that and doing nothing to demand the fair and real changes that we need

 

[Crewton]

3 hours ago, Archied said:

You forgot refusenicks, let’s have a levy on everyone s fuel bills , mass taxes and the like raised and funnel ed into the other sides coffers and see what they come up with ,,, oops I’m not a climate scientist so my thoughts are worthless , where’s a Swedish accent and a school uniform when you need one 

You think the "other side" isn't generously funded too? ?

BTW, Greta Thunberg probably speaks better English than you do, and less accented. What she has that grabs attention is passion and, yes, a driving obsession about climate change. She's made people listen.

If it's that easy, why haven't the refuseniks etc been able to come up with an equally inspiring figurehead? Couldn't they stick Nigel Farage in his old Public School uniform? I'm sure he could manage a slight German accent too, since he was married for many years to a German woman.

[Archied]

1 hour ago, Stive Pesley said:

You see - I don't disagree with some of what you say, but the problem is that the man-made climate change is demonstrably real and acting to try and reverse it is an eminently sensible idea (if we want the human race to continue to inhabit the planet).

The fact that the super-rich have hijacked the process to line their own pockets is indeed a sickening thing.

Unfortunately it's also sickening that the same elite powers have also used their malign influence on the  media to create the distraction of climate change scepticism and managed to make a lot of people believe that the problem is somehow a young Swedish girl. Hence they spend their life arguing about that and doing nothing to demand the fair and real changes that we need

 

Yep it’s rather strange because a lot of times I read your views and they are so so at odds with mine but then there are times I read stuff and think that there’s a lot of common ground and in a sat down conversation we would have pretty similar core beliefs but perhaps a differing view of how to achieve them ,,

the thing is I really struggle with the extreme crisis behaviour and language that seems to pervade every issue these days and often the use of these things to push peoples own personal ideas of how everybody else should live they’re lives , we are seeing it with the now emerging attack on the food chain ,

of course we all want a better world and to look after it better ( myself included ) but theres just never any balance with any of this stuff,

take covid and things like people forced to leave they’re loved ones to die alone or rot and suffer in care homes under the guise of saving lives ,,, what point life if we take away humanity and the core of what we are ,,, my boring refrain is balance , never any balance

[Archied]

57 minutes ago, Crewton said:

You think the "other side" isn't generously funded too? ?

BTW, Greta Thunberg probably speaks better English than you do, and less accented. What she has that grabs attention is passion and, yes, a driving obsession about climate change. She's made people listen.

If it's that easy, why haven't the refuseniks etc been able to come up with an equally inspiring figurehead? Couldn't they stick Nigel Farage in his old Public School uniform? I'm sure he could manage a slight German accent too, since he was married for many years to a German woman.

I’m Scot’s so not too worried by the silly jibe and find throwing insults childish and desperate 

she is a child , she is not a climate scientist, she has no life experience and yet the same people who shout down anybody who disagrees with they’re hysterical crisis state of mind if they are not a climate scientist hang on her every word and don’t have the slightest awareness of just how stupid that is not to mention double standard’s ,

nigel farage ? Lost me there as I don’t really have much feelings regards him either way he seems a bit of a piers Morgan to me but I may be wrong 

Greta ? If I’m honest I actually feel a bit sorry for her , I certainly would never allow a child of mine to be put where she is but hey ho 

you right she is a figurehead and a very cleverly  but callously used figurehead as she was a child hmmmmm tactics

Edited September 6, 2022 by Archied

[Archied]

1 hour ago, Crewton said:

You think the "other side" isn't generously funded too? ?

BTW, Greta Thunberg probably speaks better English than you do, and less accented. What she has that grabs attention is passion and, yes, a driving obsession about climate change. She's made people listen.

If it's that easy, why haven't the refuseniks etc been able to come up with an equally inspiring figurehead? Couldn't they stick Nigel Farage in his old Public School uniform? I'm sure he could manage a slight German accent too, since he was married for many years to a German woman.

Am I picking up a bit of a hyacinth bucket vibe ?

[Highgate]

6 hours ago, Archied said:

As a matter of interest are you saying there are not scientist s and eminent people who disagree with the hysterical crises line?

It doesn't really matter what 'eminent' people think about climate change if their eminence isn't in climate science or a related field, their opinion is no more valid than yours or mine.  You'd expect any scientist to be somewhat more knowledgeable about the scientific method and at least have some respect for a scientific consensus but again if their expertise is in a different field then their opinions don't carry much more weight than anyone else. 

There must be some actual climate scientists that remain skeptical of human induced climate change and about the extent of the problem (which is still debated).  But I'd say the proportion is incredibly small and has been decreasing steadily during the past decade or so as the mountains of evidence stack up.  Consider the fact that if any climate scientist were able to present evidence against human induced climate change and were proven correct, their reputation as a scientist would be set for life.  To disprove a widely held consensus is like the Holy Grail for any scientist. 

3 hours ago, Archied said:

the thing is I really struggle with the extreme crisis behaviour and language that seems to pervade every issue these days and often the use of these things to push peoples own personal ideas of how everybody else should live they’re lives , we are seeing it with the now emerging attack on the food chain ,

I think I have to point out that the food chain is already messed up beyond all recognition.  The vast majority of large land animals are now either human, human food, or human pets.  We have systematically wiped out the vast majority of apex predators that threaten our farm animals, and converted more than half of all habitable land to agriculture, drastically reducing the land available for wild animals.  What we have currently on Earth is definitely not an example of a 'natural' food chain.  If we were to use lab meat instead of farmed meat we could turn a lot of land back to nature and give the rest of the ecosystem a chance to bounce back for once.  

[Archied]

7 hours ago, Highgate said:

It doesn't really matter what 'eminent' people think about climate change if their eminence isn't in climate science or a related field, their opinion is no more valid than yours or mine.  You'd expect any scientist to be somewhat more knowledgeable about the scientific method and at least have some respect for a scientific consensus but again if their expertise is in a different field then their opinions don't carry much more weight than anyone else. 

There must be some actual climate scientists that remain skeptical of human induced climate change and about the extent of the problem (which is still debated).  But I'd say the proportion is incredibly small and has been decreasing steadily during the past decade or so as the mountains of evidence stack up.  Consider the fact that if any climate scientist were able to present evidence against human induced climate change and were proven correct, their reputation as a scientist would be set for life.  To disprove a widely held consensus is like the Holy Grail for any scientist. 

I think I have to point out that the food chain is already messed up beyond all recognition.  The vast majority of large land animals are now either human, human food, or human pets.  We have systematically wiped out the vast majority of apex predators that threaten our farm animals, and converted more than half of all habitable land to agriculture, drastically reducing the land available for wild animals.  What we have currently on Earth is definitely not an example of a 'natural' food chain.  If we were to use lab meat instead of farmed meat we could turn a lot of land back to nature and give the rest of the ecosystem a chance to bounce back for once.  

Ahh , I see your into re wilding , are you by any chance also supportive of bringing in refugees to the country without the land, housing , infrastructure to cater for them , I only ask because I see so so many like that who want to rewild the land but also fill the land with people with nowhere to live , taken to its conclusion your view must be to cull or limit population ? If so give me your view on how you see that being implemented 

Edited September 7, 2022 by Archied

[I am Ram]

We had better hurry up with this global warming, we are due an ice age in the next 80,000-100,000 years. We have had five ice ages in 4.5 billion years, non man-made. I wonder who was to blame for warming us up from the last one, dinosaur farts maybe.

[Archied]

8 hours ago, Highgate said:

It doesn't really matter what 'eminent' people think about climate change if their eminence isn't in climate science or a related field, their opinion is no more valid than yours or mine.  You'd expect any scientist to be somewhat more knowledgeable about the scientific method and at least have some respect for a scientific consensus but again if their expertise is in a different field then their opinions don't carry much more weight than anyone else. 

There must be some actual climate scientists that remain skeptical of human induced climate change and about the extent of the problem (which is still debated).  But I'd say the proportion is incredibly small and has been decreasing steadily during the past decade or so as the mountains of evidence stack up.  Consider the fact that if any climate scientist were able to present evidence against human induced climate change and were proven correct, their reputation as a scientist would be set for life.  To disprove a widely held consensus is like the Holy Grail for any scientist. 

I think I have to point out that the food chain is already messed up beyond all recognition.  The vast majority of large land animals are now either human, human food, or human pets.  We have systematically wiped out the vast majority of apex predators that threaten our farm animals, and converted more than half of all habitable land to agriculture, drastically reducing the land available for wild animals.  What we have currently on Earth is definitely not an example of a 'natural' food chain.  If we were to use lab meat instead of farmed meat we could turn a lot of land back to nature and give the rest of the ecosystem a chance to bounce back for once.  

I would have more respect for your views if they started from the point that the problem with the food chain is greed , money money money, we can and do produce enough food to feed the world but yet many many starve , we would rather have waste and or lands not used so as to keep prices high,

climate change is not the main threat to us ,, greed is and always has been and it’s accelerating as the greedy are getting far more rich and powerful,

you know what ,,, let’s sort that crap out and then take a look where we are but oh no climate change is yet another cover for the rich and privileged getting more rich and privileged and the middle classes lap it up in the same way the sun readers lap up immigration as the route of all our problems

[Stive Pesley]

2 hours ago, Archied said:

climate change is not the main threat to us ,, greed is

It's hard to separate the two, as the threat of climate change grows every day BECAUSE of the greed that doesn't want to acknowledge it has to stop in order to stop the planet eventually becoming uninhabitable. But yes - fundamentally you are correct. If we fixed the problems with greed and unfettered accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few, climate change would not be considered a threat. It would just be something that we act sensibly to control the factors that are within our means

3 hours ago, Archied said:

taken to its conclusion your view must be to cull or limit population ? If so give me your view on how you see that being implemented 

It doesn't have to be "implemented" - population growth is slowing down in the UK, China, most of Europe, Russia, Japan, and the US. We all also have aging populations - which brings its own problems. We actually need immigration as controlled way to balance our society's needs. Which is an awkward fact of life for the politicians who know that immigrants make an easy target for distracting the proles from reality

[Archied]

2 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

It's hard to separate the two, as the threat of climate change grows every day BECAUSE of the greed that doesn't want to acknowledge it has to stop in order to stop the planet eventually becoming uninhabitable. But yes - fundamentally you are correct. If we fixed the problems with greed and unfettered accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few, climate change would not be considered a threat. It would just be something that we act sensibly to control the factors that are within our means

It doesn't have to be "implemented" - population growth is slowing down in the UK, China, most of Europe, Russia, Japan, and the US. We all also have aging populations - which brings its own problems. We actually need immigration as controlled way to balance our society's needs. Which is an awkward fact of life for the politicians who know that immigrants make an easy target for distracting the proles from reality

Nothing I disagree with there ,, 

We seem pretty much on the same page though others on here can’t seem to grasp or don’t want to grasp that as an ordinary hard working bloke im not prepared to engage with or buy into all this climate crisis stuff that’s project fear yet again waged and swallowed with answers that are built on take make throw away , uncosted mad schemes / drives that throw away everything we have invented , refined and have now for more stuff we have to take out of the ground ( at what future cost pollution wise ?) and then still produce the energy to power them , jeez I could go on but what’s the point it’s just battling the old tactic of HEY LOOK OVER THERE,

anybody remember when we actually had started to look at and get support for a world where we changed the amount we produced and threw away , the amount of land fills and plastics in the oceans and our water, the constant growth mantra on a planet that stayed the same size? The money quickly dries up with that model of saving the plant , far better the headlong rush to force batteries , electric cars and the like ,there’s money in that FOR SOME 

 

[Stive Pesley]

38 minutes ago, Archied said:

The money quickly dries up

and by dries up - you mean ends up in offshore tax havens

I think the penny is finally starting to drop with people. All the public money that has been printed via quantitative easing and bailouts. It's exited the system and resides in the tax havens of the super rich. The model only works if that money gets circulated into the local economy and stays there

The current proposed energy prize freeze is just a bailout of the energy companies, because the govt know that the whole system will collapse when millions simply can't afford to pay their bills. So rather than recirculate money back from the profiteers into our pockets (via a windfall tax) they are printing new money to give to the profiteers, that we have to somehow pay back over the next 20 years. It's madness

[Highgate]

7 hours ago, Archied said:

Ahh , I see your into re wilding , are you by any chance also supportive of bringing in refugees to the country without the land, housing , infrastructure to cater for them , I only ask because I see so so many like that who want to rewild the land but also fill the land with people with nowhere to live , taken to its conclusion your view must be to cull or limit population ? If so give me your view on how you see that being implemented 

Where possible yes, although notice I was talking about re-wilding after agriculture was restructured with the introduction of lab meat (sounds delicious doesn't it? ?).  When you say bring refugees into the country, which country are you talking about?  Each country's situation is different. I'd certainly be in favour of bringing in as many refugees as possible from active war zones at least until it's safe to go back to their own country and rebuild. But your point about the constraints of housing and infrastructure are important too..

Culling population is obviously something I'd never advocate in any circumstances.  Hypothetically, trying to limit the global population may be something that would have to be attempted if the global population were to exceed our planet's capacity to produce food and water.  But that's not the position we find ourselves in.  Demographic models are predicting that the population will peak at less than 11 billion before the end of the century and then start falling.  I think with clean energies and better resource distribution, even the peak of 11 billion is manageable.  

 

6 hours ago, Archied said:

I would have more respect for your views if they started from the point that the problem with the food chain is greed , money money money, we can and do produce enough food to feed the world but yet many many starve , we would rather have waste and or lands not used so as to keep prices high,

climate change is not the main threat to us ,, greed is and always has been and it’s accelerating as the greedy are getting far more rich and powerful,

you know what ,,, let’s sort that crap out and then take a look where we are but oh no climate change is yet another cover for the rich and privileged getting more rich and privileged and the middle classes lap it up in the same way the sun readers lap up immigration as the route of all our problems

I don't disagree with you about human greed being central to all our problems.  I'm saying we messed up the food chain and have taken most of the land for ourselves leaving little or nothing for other species, I mean what is that, if not a perfect demonstration of human greed?

I'd say we have another related problem though, namely short-termism. Thinking only of what's happen now and to hell with the future generations.  When you think about that's also a form of greed, wanting to use all the resources now as we please and not caring at all if we ruin the environment for those coming after us.  

As @Stive Pesley has already pointed out climate change and greed are also difficult to disentangle, but if we were to follow your advice and sort out all the self interest and corruption in our governments, financial sector and industry before then tackling climate change, it will be far, far too late to do anything about the climate.  Do you actually think we will be able to sort those issues out anytime soon?  They are not exactly new problems.