onevalefan.co.uk Present Past Specials About Forum
Jump to content
onevalefan.co.uk forum

Advert


Advert


Extinction Rebellion versus brexit


Valiant62

Recommended Posts

Let's start from the assumption that we are not the almighty powerful and everything that happens is because of us and what we do.

 

I'm not saying we haven't contributed..... obviously we have.

 

Let's also realise what we are asking for and what impact it will have on life as we know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Advert

Environmental think-tank Autonomy has published research saying we should reduce work hours to just 9 hours a week to help solve climate change.

They claim it is the only way for the UK to meet the greenhouse gas emission targets set by the UN?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Environmental think-tank Autonomy has published research saying we should reduce work hours to just 9 hours a week to help solve climate change.

They claim it is the only way for the UK to meet the greenhouse gas emission targets set by the UN?

 

40 hours pay for 9 hours work...... that sounds expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The chancellor, Philip Hammond, has warned Theresa May that reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 could cost the country £1tn and lead to industries becoming “economically uncompetitive” without government subsidies.

 

Hammond said the proposed 2050 net zero target – one of the most far-reaching proposed in the world – would mean less money for schools, the NHS and police forces, the Financial Times reported. The target has the backing of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), the government’s advisory panel.

 

That's a lotta dosh and huge consequences for climate that's always changed and always will.

 

Does anyone really think that maintaining current CO2 levels at around 400ppm will result in no climate change.

 

Does anyone believe that only greenhouse gases have an effect on the earth's climate.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/06/cutting-uk-emissions-net-zero-cost-1tn-philip-hammond

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Environmental think-tank Autonomy has published research saying we should reduce work hours to just 9 hours a week to help solve climate change.

They claim it is the only way for the UK to meet the greenhouse gas emission targets set by the UN?

 

9 hours a week? Bloody hell when can we fit in tea-breaks?!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Extinction rebellion 100% agree with their cause but 100% disagree with their tactics. Spreadsheet Phil and his predictions have no basis in fact, no record of accurate forecasting, no relevance to the modern world. Making changes to current practice will cost us money. Not making changes will cost our descendants their life. Our generation has the opportunity to protect our world, we must recognise now is the time to act. Money cannot be a consideration. We will remember the value of our action longer after we have forgotten the cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Extinction rebellion 100% agree with their cause but 100% disagree with their tactics.

 

Aren't the two synonymous, the type of people not interested in facts or the science or change by debate but defer to anything from threats of violence to outright stupidity to get their way and to hell with anyone who has a different view.

 

Making changes to current practice will cost us money.

 

It will cost money but to reach zero carbon emissions by 2050 it will cost mega amounts of money, estimated UK cost alone is 1 trillion GBP. The proposals are totally unrealistic eg petrol and diesel engine cars banned from sale by 2030...bonkers. Better to spend money on improving/discovering new energy producing technologies to conserve fossil fuels than to pander to idiots like Extinction Rebellion.

 

Not making changes will cost our descendants their life.

 

Sadly people have always lost their lives during extreme weather events but there is no rational scientific or other basis for your statement, it even supersedes Al Gore's ludicrous projections. The doom and gloom of the Global Warming merchants is harbored in the algorithms of computer models and not in any measured scientific data.

 

Our generation has the opportunity to protect our world, we must recognise now is the time to act. Money cannot be a consideration. We will remember the value of our action longer after we have forgotten the cost.

 

Our generation has the opportunity to set the right course not to waste incredible amounts of money on climate change that has always happened and always will, man can hardly predict the weather from day to day never mind the climate in 10-50 years time.

 

There are much more pressing needs for the trillions of pounds to help people around the world than to get alarmed by rubbish date spat out by computer based climate models. If predicted data doesn't match observed data then scientists should change the models, not manipulate the data.

 

Climate change involves much more than CO2. Cutting CO2 emissions to zero by 2050 will most likely have no to a tiny effect on climate change, it will always change, remember King Canute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Banning all fosse fuels may well save the planet..... but what exactly would we save?

If you ban all fossel fuels then you supposedly ban all goods transported by fossel fuel use..... it would be hypocritical if you didn't, wouldn't it.... which would mean you export nothing and import nothing.

Wow..... no i phones, new technology etc etc.... that won't go down well. No imported avocado may hit a few.... the list of unavailable products would be huge.

At least everyone would get an allotment to be self sufficient... wouldn't they?... even if there is a giant windmill in the middle of it.... there wouldn't be many jobs around so we would all have to scratch a survival out of the dirt.

The loss of products to buy wouldn't matter much because there wouldn't be any money to buy them with...... the other side of the coin.... the government wouldn't have any money to spend either... so there goes the NHS, social care, benefits, housing.... although it would save on infrastructure spending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't the two synonymous, the type of people not interested in facts or the science or change by debate but defer to anything from threats of violence to outright stupidity to get their way and to hell with anyone who has a different view.

 

 

 

It will cost money but to reach zero carbon emissions by 2050 it will cost mega amounts of money, estimated UK cost alone is 1 trillion GBP. The proposals are totally unrealistic eg petrol and diesel engine cars banned from sale by 2030...bonkers. Better to spend money on improving/discovering new energy producing technologies to conserve fossil fuels than to pander to idiots like Extinction Rebellion.

 

 

 

Sadly people have always lost their lives during extreme weather events but there is no rational scientific or other basis for your statement, it even supersedes Al Gore's ludicrous projections. The doom and gloom of the Global Warming merchants is harbored in the algorithms of computer models and not in any measured scientific data.

 

 

 

Our generation has the opportunity to set the right course not to waste incredible amounts of money on climate change that has always happened and always will, man can hardly predict the weather from day to day never mind the climate in 10-50 years time.

 

There are much more pressing needs for the trillions of pounds to help people around the world than to get alarmed by rubbish date spat out by computer based climate models. If predicted data doesn't match observed data then scientists should change the models, not manipulate the data.

 

Climate change involves much more than CO2. Cutting CO2 emissions to zero by 2050 will most likely have no to a tiny effect on climate change, it will always change, remember King Canute.

 

For someone who is always pontificating about the facts why do you continue to quote figures produced by the Chancellor as some far reaching certainty? Your continued assertion that you are the sole arbiter of facts and the custodian of scientific integrity is becoming rather tiresome. Your habit of producing obscure reports from unknown journalists and presenting them in the manner of Neville Chamberlain (the politician not the footballer) as though they are an edict from on high is anything but scientific. Weren't you the same poster who said our former player Ken Todd was married to a film star and living the life with his "gazillions"? Take a chill pill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If bovine flatulence is part of the problem why not eliminate the problem completely.

Don't all herbivores create the same problem?...... horses.... sheep.... elephants..... giraffes...... vegetarians..... should we eliminate all those too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For someone who is always pontificating about the facts why do you continue to quote figures produced by the Chancellor as some far reaching certainty?

 

What a pathetic post, again totally without fact or merit just attacking the poster. I posted Hammond's article once and quoted it once, hard;y a continuation.

 

Your continued assertion that you are the sole arbiter of facts and the custodian of scientific integrity is becoming rather tiresome.

 

I am not the sole arbiter of facts and never have I made any such claim but I am an absolute supporter of scientific integrity and you would be best served if you were to.

 

Your habit of producing obscure reports from unknown journalists and presenting them in the manner of Neville Chamberlain (the politician not the footballer) as though they are an edict from on high is anything but scientific.

 

My sources are from Professors at Ivy League and other Universities well known and respected in their field plus my own scientific knowledge as a Molecular Scientist which enables an informed scientific opinion.

 

Weren't you the same poster who said our former player Ken Todd was married to a film star and living the life with his "gazillions"? Take a chill pill

 

Now that's dredging the barrel, by the way she isn't a film star so even the great and the good like yourself can also get information wrong. I was impressed you knew so much about a Women's tv chat show host, pity your knowledge of Climate Change is not so extensive.

 

You appear to be the self appointed "Watchdog" on OVF, you criticize the Brexit and other threads for being non football related and then you post on said threads, bit of a hypocrite then, who the hell do you think you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a pathetic post, again totally without fact or merit just attacking the poster. I posted Hammond's article once and quoted it once, hard;y a continuation.

 

 

 

I am not the sole arbiter of facts and never have I made any such claim but I am an absolute supporter of scientific integrity and you would be best served if you were to.

 

 

 

My sources are from Professors at Ivy League and other Universities well known and respected in their field plus my own scientific knowledge as a Molecular Scientist which enables an informed scientific opinion.

 

 

 

Now that's dredging the barrel, by the way she isn't a film star so even the great and the good like yourself can also get information wrong. I was impressed you knew so much about a Women's tv chat show host, pity your knowledge of Climate Change is not so extensive.

 

You appear to be the self appointed "Watchdog" on OVF, you criticize the Brexit and other threads for being non football related and then you post on said threads, bit of a hypocrite then, who the hell do you think you are.

 

Zzzzzxxx I really think is time to move on. I was not aware that molecular science made anyone an expert on economics, Port Vale trivia, Politics and History. It is hardly dredging the barrell to point out a recent post you made was inaccurate, unscientific because it was based on zero research, and coated with an attempt at producing irony. I gave but one example of you producing a post that was inaccurate in every detail. I gave this became it casts doubt on your continued assertion that you only deal in facts. Clearly you do not. You fail to understand that economic projections are not facts. You have ignored my many posts that refer to the fact that no long term economic predictions have ever come true. I think the readers deserve not to have to suffer any more of this so I will not respond to any more peevish, uninformed rants that you put forward to seek to justify your unbalanced and skewed perception of your scientific superiority zzzzzzzzzzz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

At least Trump takes his advice and information from leading Profs/experts in the USA unlike the followers of the global warming religion who are swayed by politicians, the left wing media, a Swedish teenager and a sad looking polar bear floating on an ice cube.

 

 

Impressive how you think trump (someone who wont read single page briefings)takes in the advice from a spectrum of top scientists and then comes to a well thought out decision. And not just doing what his minders, lobbyists who are donating and fox news tell him to.

This is trump (who believes he has a 'natural instinct' for science) talking about 'nuclear':

“Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible.”

Losing all credibility using trump as an ally on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Reporting Posts and other information

    Rules - This forum is moderated but the admin team don't read everything. Don't assume we'll spot rule breaking and alert us by reporting content. Logged in users can hover over the post and click the orange button. Guests can contact us here. If you don't get on with another user you can "ignore" them. Click this link, type in their username and click save. Please check with the admin team if you wish to sell/auction any items. We're happy to support good causes but check first.

    Use - This forum may not be suitable for all as it may contain words or phrases not considered appropriate for some. You are personally responsible and potentially liable for the contents of your posting and could face legal action should it contain content of a defamatory or other illegal nature. Every message posted leaves a traceable IP number. Please do not reveal any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example: phone number, address or email address). This forum is not in any way affiliated with Port Vale FC. OVF reserve the right to edit, delete, move or close any thread for any reason. If you spot an offensive post please report it to the admin team (instructions are above).

    Adverts - This site occasionally a) has adverts and sponsored features about gambling b) accepts sponsored posts from third parties. If you require help and advice on gambling read these links: Information on protecting young people | Addiction help from gambleaware.co.uk
  • Friends of OVF


Advert



×
×
  • Create New...