Around the world News

[Nineteenx]

The teflon labour party/leader imo is merely a great way to miss the landscape looking for a cause. Guess we'll see come 2024.

Jess Phillips I hear rumoured as the next labour party leader, she's not seen as being responsible for the election fails apparently, the Tories have had 2 female primeministers and so labour need one its claimed ��

Jess Phillips thankfully won't get anywhere near the Labour Party leadership, she is loathed among the membership, Rebecca Long-Bailey should be next leader, The media are trying to push for Phillips because they view here as another Blair, someone who will step in and stop a socialist Labour Governement that will end rip off britain coming to power and maintain the status quo without reversing any of the damage done during a period when the Tories are absolutely fucked, it's vital we stop that happening at all costs

[CCTV]

I haven't read their demands CC - as I stated, I'm not a huge fan of these protests and I'd probably be inclined to agree elderly and young are easy prey and more easily manipulated; I'm sure you'd agree that middle aged people are too stuck in their ways trying to make their way through life to notice anything farther than their own noses. As I said earlier, the truth is probably somewhere in between. For example, AOC's idea to ban flying by 2025 is utter lunacy. But is probably a good idea to take the train more often than we currently do.

Haven't look at the papers to which you're referring here:



Is this he paper you mean? https://globalwarmingsolved.com/data_files/SCC2015_preprint.pdf

Might take a look at that first one. Sounds extremely fishy if I'm being honest. Also even if it is true, CO2 is hardly the only pollutant we're throwing up in the air. What's more the more the temperature increases, the more water the atmosphere holds and the more it heats itself. Could be that the study controlled for that, will have to take a look.

I honestly don't know about the cases you're citing. Tjough they do sound very interesting.



I'm not looking to blame people - we're all in this together. I just don't like people waving away issues we all face by saying "well screw you guys, you're just as bad as us so there". It's also extremely dishonest to compare our CO2 footprint per year of life. You don't get to make too many decisions for yourself until you come of age at 18. CO2 per year of adult life would be a more accurate assessment imo. I think I'd do reasonably well there.

And even that doesn't really work all that well, since I'll still have to ride the bus. Which isn't electric, since noone voted for it before I came of age. Change in a society takes time.

Of course we're all in this together and we're all to blame to some extent. But it's laughable to suggest that my generation, which has only had the opportunity to impact policy for a decade or so is at fault for the current situation, simply because we've not had the time to make our impact on the world. I'd wager that in 50 years, we'd all have had a lower CO2 footprint than yours and noodle's generation. And hopefully the following ones will be lower still.

Edit: How did you form your opinion on the paper you referenced? Did you read the paper and follow all the references? If so, I'll probably just take you at your word that CO2 only contributes to 15% of global warming, unless I feel like reading more, as you seem like a reasonably critically thinking dude.

I'm not an expert Bali, just find interest in looking at these types of things more than say tv/movies. I have shortened my post this time

I havent really got any major opinion on the paper or talks they've given, hence I asked you for your thoughts. I can understand some of their basic valid critiques of the temperature record, but cant really comment at all on the 50 equations in one of their papers or einstein's 10 equations in a quantum theory of radiation cited in a talk, they also have simple hypothesis around ozone molecule formation iirc as part of their work/suggestions. I haven't read the 200 or so papers, but I have outsourced the work to random internet persons , a friend or two who failed astrophysics courses and over the christmas holiers I'll give it to another person I know with a higher achievement level than them who i suspect would be more capable of following the subject matter. I've only done physics, chemistry and biology to secondary honours level, so not well equipped.

It's a pity (I assume) you haven't read the XR demands page, I'd copied and pasted into the original reply but since then they've redesigned that section and omitted a lot of detail, hiding it behind more general and vague script.

The uk to be carbon neutral by 2025. By 2030 a complete eradication of nuclear, fossil fuel, biofuel, carbon capture storage, bio energy carbon capture storage and mass hydro (a potentially good storage mechanism for wind and solar energy, where impacts on the biosphere seemingly can be more easily reduced, nuclear, biofuel and css also puzzling imo). Maybe I'm forgetting 1 or 2 other means of producing energy.
But essentially it would require the entire uk energy sector to be reliant on wind, solar and geothermal only. Which eliminates the combustion engine.
Given the lower estimate for transforming the uk car(maybe hauliers too) sector from internal combustion to electric is given at a demand for 9 new nuclear power stations, with highest estimates 18-20 nuclear, it seems a rather ambitious if not fanciful demand on those 3 energy sources. That's ignoring shipping, flights if permitted/possible, non car machines, industry commercial and domestic energy supply, replacing gas for cooking and all forms of home heating with entirely electric also.

Overall the xr manifesto had a lot of antifa type buzz words and seems, like the green new deal, to be as much about delivering the overthrow of the patriarchy and capitalism for the utopian socialist paradise - below the pavement the streets are lined with gold... so rip up the stones and smash the oppressors. Whilst having some long phrase for gender equality solutions etc that would bring into question the possibility of even beginning such a drastic technological change since many of the minerals like cobalt etc are mined by children in places like the drc currently. Chinese contractors iirc but it's obviously being used in western states in mobile phones etc. There does seem to be an unaccounted for limit of meeting demand in addition.
You, I and noods are to held accountable for the industrial revolution as white Europeans or white European nation residents/citizens. (White European countries including usa, Canada, oz, nz, maybe Japan).
No rebates are to be given for the industrial revolution and as such wealth transfers are to be completed.
I'm not sure how much white privilige and colonial debt/shame Ireland is on the hook for tbh. Given us and the poles were deemed to be as thick as the Africans up until the 1930/40s with no Irish colonies.
Elsewhere saying whites created the modern world is racist, but not here. I'm guessing it a bit like Farage/Merkel. Not what you say, but who says what.

My skepticism:
Looking at the co2 and increased temperature in degrees Celsius records as they are given on say NASA.

First 180ppm range 24-30 - say 27 degrees
Next 105ppm range 4-7 - say 5 degrees most commonly
Next 120 roughly say 1 degree (0.9)

If I use the projected co2 level for 2040 450ppm and extend out to the end of the century 2100, I'd expect us to see a near doubling of atmospheric co2 from the 1880 level of say 280/285. Looking at the records from 1880 to now roughly and increments in between I'd expect roughly the planet to be 0.5 to 0.6 degrees warmer by 2100 (assuming the next 20-21 years pattern is held going forward and tech/innovation doesnt reduce the problem - imo I'd wager on tech solutions it's big business).
So that would leave the doubling of co2 along the logarithmic/doubling theory producing about 1.5 degrees of warming. Which has and iirc been the least predicted range by IPCC. 3 most common, 3-4, and 5-6 degrees warming next most likely. With 1-2 least likely.
If correct that would mean that the next 560 ppm of co2 would produce a 1.5 degree C of warming. Compared with the say 33.5 degrees warming of the then hitherto 560 ppm of co2.

So rather than having a concrete opinion on whether or not the atmosphere is in thermodynamic equilibrium as postulated or not, my skepticism is based on the historic record/theory and using it as a basis for future expectations. Then theres the political influence on the 'settled science', bad actors etc and notable opposition to the IPCC claims. With the near refusal to acknowledge the positive impacts of global warming/co2 also.




I'd argue increased carbon tax benefits producers profit capacity & tax takes massively.



I don't think you will have a lower carbon footprint than my grandad 92 tbh, he lived in an era without electricity till the 60s iirc, produced all his own fruits/jams, vegetables/ketchups/relishes, got meat from local farmers and really didn't have much purchases other than clothes, oats, flour, soda, sugar etc to purchase. He remembers seeing his first orange in the 40s and really they didnt have anywhere near the carbon footprint of cars, travel, haulage, manufacturing of phones and other electronics. They were and are different people to the modern consumer society. They'd stitch a dish cloth and saw waste as a sin, so even with the introduction of tv and cars they didnt use them as they are today.
Obviously population has changed but I think the age of computers, materialism and consumerism tie in nicely with the co2 record increasing and as we know co2 footprint is highly differential between the 1st 2nd and 3rd world.
Again I am not all that much older than your cheeky scamp self, i think we are within a generation 10-15 years.

Despite the incessant wishes to reduce voter age/adulthood brain studies show that maturity is reached ever later than once thought. Wisdom does come with age, but as part of the ageing process people do become more easily manipulated as they reach their older years on account of feeling like a burden as they approach their end. So I think the science is not as supportive as you might think, just immature and phasing out as such, #stillrespectyourelders and #u2willbebonofidewisewithage
Whilst reducing the age of adulthood would fall into this oversexualistion of children area and this has risen drastically in its overall effect in the last several decades at least since the 70s onwards with the associated decline in children/teen health stats.

On clouds from what I've read it would seem to be an unresolved or poorly understood area. Overall my impression is that increased lower level clouds would be deemed to be net coolers overall. Higher level clouds less certain again, speculated net coolers and where warming is associated with increases in these clouds the effect is more properly described as making the days cooler and the night warmer. If that produces a net warming I cannot see how these clouds producing cooling during the day and warming night temperatures would impact viability.

[Balinkay]

Cheers for the reply CC, I might go into more detail in time.

Overall I don't think we particularly differ on our opinions of buzz words like "green new deal" - it's a load of bollocks. "Uk carbon neutral by 2030" - sure, maybe when pigs fly. The whole "you're white, therefore you're at fault" is just… wow. It fucks like that giving us young people a bad name.

I do agree about your point on wisdom being accumulated with age and that people are maturing later. I think that's been the overall trend for a good while now. My point wasn't that kids should be allowed to vote - just that their efforts to change something can only be judged at least a decade after they've had multiple elections they could significantly impact.

On your CO2 predictions - I'll take your word for it. Iirc one of the issues is a snowballing of global temperature increases. For example the Siberian permafrost melting and releasing hundreds of billions of tonnes of methane (?) into the atmosphere, which is an order or two of magnitude more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Maybe other scary sounding things like that play a role in the "+3 deg" predictions?

I think one thing is for certain - the world is getting hotter at a very rapid pace. We'd all like to go green and have zero emissions, but the way to go about bringing that change is not chanting NAZI NAZI in front of BoJo's office. We're in this together. It's not us vs them, it's us vs the problem.

[Nineteenx]

I do agree about your point on wisdom being accumulated with age and that people are maturing later.

Wisdom is accumulated by broad and diverse experience, an 18-24 year old who looks at a broad range of news and does their own investigation to find facts of which are giving them accurate news is infinitely more qualified to make a decision on politics when voting than a 55 year old who relies on a single narrative media for his news from one of the right wing rags and BBC or ITV broadcast news

There was a guy, 56, from Grimsby, worked his entire life, who said "I'm voting for change, looks at this, all the shops closed down, everything falling down, I'm voting for the conservatives" Just simply outrageously under qualified to vote, his comments indicate he either thought it was Labour who were in Government or had no idea whatsoever that Tory policies had caused the death of his town, and there are absolutely millions of people like him, 45-75 years old who say young people don't have enough experience to vote.

Most people in the UK are totally obvious to the fact that the Tories have bankrupted the UK by stealth, the UK public purse loses in excess of 300 billion a year every single year to: Privatisation, cirporation tax cuts and tax evasion, this means continuing as we are, without changing this broken US social and economic model, any Gov is in a 1.5 trillion hole before any policy spending

Have the Tories bankrupted the UK by stealth? In 9 years in Government they tripled the UK national debt, despite an average of 40% in cuts to all UK public services, this means that even to support our public services at hugely underfunded levels that is seeing them collapse they were having to borrow, because of the £300 billion their system costs the UK public purse every year, so yes, they have absolutely bankrupted the UK and in the next 5 years it's going to get a lot worse.

Here's just one example, in that time they have increased the admin cost of the NHS from 5% to 20% of it's total budget Everyone who works in the service says the extra admin is incredibly unhelpful and unnecessary, it costs the UK public purse £25 billion a year, that goes to private companies and to share holders profits and it's completely unnecessary. £25 billion in admin alone in such a vast organisation, think about how much it costs across the service as a whole and across every other public service combined.

Yet you have people of 'experience' believing that tackling health tourism which accounts for 1.2% of the NHS budget, around 1.5 billion is a bigger issue, when the cost of administering it will be more than the cost to the service, with more private companies employed to do it.

A government who wants to remove privatisation from public services, raise corporation tax and high earners tax to just below the EU average and put an end to tax evasion will benefit from a minimum of £300 billion a year windfall, it wouldn't be immediate, as to avoid any cost to removing privatisation it would have to let contracts expire, so it could take 1 or 2 terms or 5-10 years, but that money would provide a huge impetus to making Britain great again

[Balinkay]

I agree that a well informed 20-year old is more qualified than an ill-informed geezer, but the flipside is how many of the youngsters really are well informed?

I'd wager a higher percentage than their middle aged counterparts, but not by that much. And as we've discussed with CC, us young people are generally quite easily led astray.

[vin]

We're in this together. It's not us vs them, it's us vs the problem.

Bojo sees you as a "them" - there isn't an "us"

[Balinkay]

Bojo sees you as a "them" - there isn't an "us"

Could be, though I sincerely doubt that's reflective of the man's actual views. He's a clever politician and a great actor. In any case, if he chooses not to import what little highly qualified professionals countries like mine can still give the world, it's his loss and Germany's gain.

I feel like one of the core issues for Brexit was exactly immigration, but I'm not certain that leaving the EU will fix whatever grievances people have with it.

[vin]

Could be, though I sincerely doubt that's reflective of the man's actual views. He's a clever politician and a great actor. In any case, if he chooses not to import what little highly qualified professionals countries like mine can still give the world, it's his loss and Germany's gain.

I feel like one of the core issues for Brexit was exactly immigration, but I'm not certain that leaving the EU will fix whatever grievances people have with it.

Self-interest for him and his 1% cronies. The "everyday" people who voted for him will be the first that will be driven into the dirt. He's a cunt.

[Nineteenx]

Self-interest for him and his 1% cronies. The "everyday" people who voted for him will be the first that will be driven into the dirt. He's a cunt.

Spot on Vin, Tories are and always have been an absolute shower of cunts, all the knobs who voted for them because Johnson and Farage managed to convince a load of them that all their problems were caused by the EU rather than 40 years of the social and economic model the Tories put in place in the early 80's are in for a huge fucking shock. And what's more, with that majority, they've given the cunt carte blanche the morons, he can do what the fuck he likes for 5 years now

Edit: Just read that back and remembered another point, millions of 'the idiots' don't even know or realise Parliament works on majorities, I kid you not, I spoke to and encountered loads of people who wouldn't vote to save the NHS because "if Tories tried to privatise it other parties could just stop them like with Brexit" I shit you not

Had another few examples I came across in twitter about how politically thick some people in the UK are, loads of them voted for change because of what had happened to their town because it had a Labour MP for 25 years, they don't even understand how Parliament and funding fucking works for fucks sake, fucking unbelievable! I held back on calling people thick for a long time, but if we have millions of thick cunts voting who don't even realise it's the government in power that determines the UK's policies and funding that affect their town, no wonder we're in the shit

[stevie harkness]

A mere 800,000 views tells it's own story:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjUWX6S8iYU&fbclid=IwAR0oRlfAW4FjUnpdtB2rC PkwUU1XGZDm66G-dgOnwM3b-aYWbTXa6rqSb8U