John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
I read that yesterday.
Not sure that "debunking" is the right word...
Heatwave
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Not sure that "debunking" is the right word...
selectortone
Still waking up not dead in the morning
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
"Debunking" implies that CC theory is bunk in the first place.
How about "attempting to discredit"?
Molynoox
Established Member
if that is based on real data then it's utterly brilliant.
when they showed that 3D version at the end it really levelled-up!
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
Evidence exists from mid 20th century of the damage done to the planet from uncontrolled use of fossil fuels. This is now the consensus view, alternative theories are largely marginalised.
The US is "litigation central", and largely motivated by greed. Righting wrongs, attributing blame and punishment is secondary. Climate change action against the oil companies is about extracting wealth - preferably from the oil companies, their insurers, and finally the government.
Simply because something is bad and/or damaging does not change behaviours. Other examples - smoking, alcohol, betting - have been only partially regulated. Greed, envy, gluttony and the rest of the sin list is as evident today as in biblical times. They are an underlying behavioural constant.
A dictatorship can mandate without protest - although dictators often find it counter-productive. In a democracy protest manifests itself as an election lost rendering legislation ineffectual.
Shouting louder hoping the pubic will respond is futile. It evidently does not work - eg: few can be unaware of the dangers of smoking or excess alcohol, but they continue to consume. Dogmatic arguments risk outright rejection.
A week of higher temperatures and a few house fires will have changed some minds. But today the airports are overloaded, delays in Dover, demand for flights exceeds capacity, etc etc. Evidently vast swathes of the UK population are not persuaded to change their personal behaviours.
Were the general public surveyed with a question like "if you suddenly received £2000 would you (a) take a holiday abroad, (b) change the car, (c) buy some new clothes/TV or (d) improve the insulation in your house" I suspect those honestly opting for (d) would be below 10%.
Sadly things will have to get very bad before behaviours and actions follow - and by then it may be too late.
The US is "litigation central", and largely motivated by greed. Righting wrongs, attributing blame and punishment is secondary. Climate change action against the oil companies is about extracting wealth - preferably from the oil companies, their insurers, and finally the government.
Simply because something is bad and/or damaging does not change behaviours. Other examples - smoking, alcohol, betting - have been only partially regulated. Greed, envy, gluttony and the rest of the sin list is as evident today as in biblical times. They are an underlying behavioural constant.
A dictatorship can mandate without protest - although dictators often find it counter-productive. In a democracy protest manifests itself as an election lost rendering legislation ineffectual.
Shouting louder hoping the pubic will respond is futile. It evidently does not work - eg: few can be unaware of the dangers of smoking or excess alcohol, but they continue to consume. Dogmatic arguments risk outright rejection.
A week of higher temperatures and a few house fires will have changed some minds. But today the airports are overloaded, delays in Dover, demand for flights exceeds capacity, etc etc. Evidently vast swathes of the UK population are not persuaded to change their personal behaviours.
Were the general public surveyed with a question like "if you suddenly received £2000 would you (a) take a holiday abroad, (b) change the car, (c) buy some new clothes/TV or (d) improve the insulation in your house" I suspect those honestly opting for (d) would be below 10%.
Sadly things will have to get very bad before behaviours and actions follow - and by then it may be too late.
selectortone
Still waking up not dead in the morning
Ah, OK. 'Attempting to discredit' it is. I certainly wasn't implying that CC is bunk. Quite the opposite.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
No it is not. It's about taking measures to avoid climate change which means curtailing oil companies activities top of the list.
All these are trivial compared to CC and however lethal don't threaten the whole planet. But Smoking has been severely regulated with a lot of attention to the science, with rules and regulations about advertising, other legal limitations, massive taxation, etc etc and has been highly successful. Betting and alcohol similarly.
see above - it does work
Nothing dogmatic about CC science - it's intensively research based
It needs top down government action. But many individuals are taking action anyway
Actually £2000 wouldn't be enough in even a small house, just insulation alone would be more
Sadly things HAVE got very bad - haven't you not been following the news? And yes it may be too late
Droogs
Not the Sharpest Moderator in the box
Confiscate the cost for dealing with CC on a £ for £ basis by taking the money to pay for it from the wealth of every person who has received a paycheck or profits bonus from the industries that caused the crap being pumped into the eco-system in the first place. If they are retired take their house and cars etc & put them in a council house and let them live on a basic state pension until they die. The actions of these industries is diabolical as they have known at least since the end of the 50's what they were doing to us, just like the tobacco companies. They cared not a jot for the well-being of others, only about sort term profit and the hope of making so much that they could pay their way out of harms way while the rest of us suffer the consequences of their lies and actions.
Recky33
Established Member
Wikipedia is a bit of a one horse race, he who controls Wikipedia gets to have an opinion
A lot of serious businesses are simply jumping on the band wagon along with the LGBGT brigade
Prey tell what you thought the end of an 11000 year long "holocene" should be ? Unicorns roaming freely on the M6, "Blue sky's through the trees" like the end of Rocky horror picture show, Yes I know there's no answer to it yet as it's not been discovered and written up in Wikipedia but it can't be long, can it
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
What, climate change is an LGBGT conspiracy? Go back to sleep!We need serious businesses to "jump on the band wagon" - but not in the form of "green washing" whereby they just go through the motions
It can't be long, in fact arguably it is all ready over and we are currently into the "anthropocene".
Look it up in Wikipedia. Oh praps not it's probably an LGBGT conspiracy.
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
With respect - completely bonkers IMHO. One may equally well apply the same penalties to all who in the last 30 years have (a) taken a flight, (b) owned a car, (c) fired up a gas CH boiler, (d) eaten airfreighted veg, (e) had a BBQ. Not a soul would be left unpunished.
The objective is to change future behaviours, not penalise past actions which are irretrievable.
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
Ok, there's a small difference between owing a car, and pushing fossil fuels when you know the downsides.
Blackswanwood
Still Learning
Who are the LGBGT brigade?
Recky33
Established Member
A lot of serious businesses are simply jumping on the band wagon. just the same as a lot of serious businesses are simply jumping on the LGBGT band wagon, there you go simple English
This planet has burned and frozen millions of times over it's existence, there is nothing you or anyone else can do to stop it doing it again when ever it wants to no matter how many "big " businesses get involved,
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Not sure. Is it anything to do with The Boy's Brigade?Home - The Boys Brigade
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
Guy on woodwork forum only person who truly understands the problem!
Give me strength...
Tris
What am I doing here?
As far as I understand it there are moves afoot to classify big businesses as legal entities with the same rights and responsibilities as any individual, legal personhood if you will. The upshot of this will be to enable the prosecution of these entities for activities that negatively impact others, eg Shell in the Niger Delta.
Until this takes effect the only legal responsibility for global businesses and their directors is to make money, only if 'green credentials' are seen to be beneficial to the bottom line will any company pay them heed, otherwise it is business as usual.
If you want to know more look up the late Polly Higgins and her work on ecocide
Until this takes effect the only legal responsibility for global businesses and their directors is to make money, only if 'green credentials' are seen to be beneficial to the bottom line will any company pay them heed, otherwise it is business as usual.
If you want to know more look up the late Polly Higgins and her work on ecocide
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
Corporations have a distinct legal identity and carry obligations similar to individuals.
Dieselgate apparently cost VW the thick end of $40bn. May cost Mercedes $2bn and upwards.
Big business can be, and is, and is, liable for its actions. There are two issues - big business can afford big lawyers, and the law only works in relatively incorruptible jurisdictions. They will often only pay up if the not doing so is more costly.
Shell and Niger Delta - who has the capacity to bring a case, where would the case be held, and under what jurisdiction. Possibly unfairly, I would classify Nigeria as corrupt and disorganised. It may take decades to get to a US court - if ever.
In a perfect world the UN or other international court may have capacity to judge and compel the offender to pay compensation if proven guilty. But the real world is not perfect.
Dieselgate apparently cost VW the thick end of $40bn. May cost Mercedes $2bn and upwards.
Big business can be, and is, and is, liable for its actions. There are two issues - big business can afford big lawyers, and the law only works in relatively incorruptible jurisdictions. They will often only pay up if the not doing so is more costly.
Shell and Niger Delta - who has the capacity to bring a case, where would the case be held, and under what jurisdiction. Possibly unfairly, I would classify Nigeria as corrupt and disorganised. It may take decades to get to a US court - if ever.
In a perfect world the UN or other international court may have capacity to judge and compel the offender to pay compensation if proven guilty. But the real world is not perfect.
They only act when they know thats where the money is.
A bit like Shell.
Apparently they've really gone big for green renewable energy, and have I believe received contracts for supplying the UK with it. The figure i've heard was 20 billion.
Personally I think Shell and the other oil/gas/energy companies should be made to pay ten times that and i'm sure they would do, though grudgingly.
The reason is Shell and the others see their business model and product diminishing, so now, only when forced to do so because of the worlds new reluctance to use oil/gas are they willing to diversify,but if they dont, they may as well shut up shop entirely.
This is why I think we can force them to pay considerably more and invest a greater amount, because if they dont, again the outlook for them means they're out of business and the money carousel stops turning.
Similar threads
