RogerS
Established Member
Off you go then.
Wild fires in BC Canada.
- Thread starter Lefley
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
Your example actually makes the point. Your wife overtook at a point where it was not possible for the van following to overtake. The van however attempted to overtake where it was dangerous forcing the situation. If the van had not been capable of breaking the speed limit to squeeze by’ then it most likely wouldn’t have attempted the overtake and put your wife in danger. The issue was caused by someone driving too fast and/or too aggressively. If idiots can’t be trusted to respect other people’s lives then they need to be prevented from speeding in the first place.
Frankly there is no situation where an increase in speed makes a situation safer, well unless you are being chased by a tornado.
Intelligent response. I suggest you stay where you are.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Sorry yes!The trouble with threads like this is you get so used to the gloomy frenzy of negativity emanating from the unwoke that a bit of irony easily gets overlooked!
Last edited:
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
The term "woke" has two interpretations - ignoring the past tense of wake.
The "unwoke" buy into the second bullet. Being "unwoke" labels them as pragmatic and thoughtful.
Thus - for either group to use "woke" or "unwoke" as a criticism of alternative opinion is pointless - the person to whom the insult is directed is either unconcerned or even takes pride in being labelled as such.
- aware of social and political issues, especially racism, an active awareness of systemic injustices and prejudices, especially those involving the treatment of ethnic, racial, or sexual minorities
- a criticism in that some are too easily upset about these issues, weaponized personal grievances masquerading as a genuine social concern, defined by its fraudulent nature, as being distinct from legitimate social grievances.
The "unwoke" buy into the second bullet. Being "unwoke" labels them as pragmatic and thoughtful.
Thus - for either group to use "woke" or "unwoke" as a criticism of alternative opinion is pointless - the person to whom the insult is directed is either unconcerned or even takes pride in being labelled as such.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
I interpret it as roughly equivalent to left versus right, but without all of the political connotations.
Only because "woke" is widely used as criticism and insult by the extreme right e.g. Suella Braverman
Maybe it is pragmatic to deny and ignore anything you don't understand or like - at least you might sleep easier, but definitely not "thoughtful". Quite the opposite in fact, almost by definition.
Feel free!
Last edited:
So, most estimates agree for the UK it will take about 3 times national GDP investment to build the infrastructure needed to go all electric. It will take 50 years to build.
Now, we have to tackle all the poorly insulated homes in the UK so they can actually use less energy / require lower BTU to heat. Nobody knows how much that would cost, which is probably more than updating the infrastructure. It will take a long time, simply not enough trades to carry out the work.
So in summary, to go green the UK cannot afford it, can’t do it in time and hasn’t the trades to complete it.
The view of me, one of the unwoke (my preferred pronouns are sensible, realistic and fact based) is that lots will be spoken about climate change and CO2 but the harsh reality is that we won’t do anything about it.
Now, we have to tackle all the poorly insulated homes in the UK so they can actually use less energy / require lower BTU to heat. Nobody knows how much that would cost, which is probably more than updating the infrastructure. It will take a long time, simply not enough trades to carry out the work.
So in summary, to go green the UK cannot afford it, can’t do it in time and hasn’t the trades to complete it.
The view of me, one of the unwoke (my preferred pronouns are sensible, realistic and fact based) is that lots will be spoken about climate change and CO2 but the harsh reality is that we won’t do anything about it.
Last edited:
Only because we lack the political will. If there was a genuine push to apply the funding, train and educate, it could be done. A defeatist attitude just plays into the hands of the people who are making money from fossil fuels.
This is a global problem, we need to stop thinking of it in nationalistic terms. Having said that, the nations that grasp and tackle the problem first are the nations that will profit the most.
artie
Sawdust manufacturer.
Nations as a whole are not going to profit in any way. at least not for generations. if even then.
The only sensible way to do it is through regs for new buildings or renovations. As the years roll by the number of old drafty houses will decline and fade out in a couple of generations. Anyone willing to pay can still live in one.
Never forget Co2 is essential for life, some sources say the planets plant life is flourishing better than in living memory.
I know people who add Co2 to their green house to promote growth.
We are being lead by the nose as usual, for someone's benefit, not ours.
If not for generations to come? How about we start thinking about those generations?
CO2 is essential for life, granted, but it is possible to have too much of a good thing.
Why, given your previous reasoning that plants are now flourishing better than ever? (Unless of course you count all the old growth forest that has disappeared in the last few hundred years.)
We are being led by the nose, I agree, but in totally the wrong direction - even the car manufacturers say Sunak's latest u-turn was stupid. Business needs certainty, not the promise to ban a sausage tax that never even existed in a hopefully vain attempt to buy the approval of short sighted and gullible voters.
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
They're not pronouns, but never mind.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
I don't think anybody is likely to forget!
Yes this is done.
But too much CO2 in the atmosphere causes a different "greenhouse" effect , whereby heat is retained, increasing far beyond the point of being any benefit and radically changing the climate and the weather.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
But things are being done about it.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...th-gives-hope-for-15c-says-global-energy-head
artie
Sawdust manufacturer.
Yes. But if you cut something down and use it co2 level doesn't really come into it.
Yes it does. If there's a level of CO2 in the atmosphere, a plant uses some of it and grows, then dies and decomposes, the net CO2 level remains the same over time. If CO2 is introduced artificially, the plant grows, dies and decomposes, giving up the CO2 into the atmosphere as it does so, leaving a net gain in CO2 in the atmosphere. Think it through...
artie
Sawdust manufacturer.
I've thought it through.
I was replying to your reply to my comment about plants flourishing presently compared to recent times.
Which was
"Why, given your previous reasoning that plants are now flourishing better than ever? (Unless of course you count all the old growth forest that has disappeared in the last few hundred years.)"
Those old growth forests didn't disappear because of anything to do with Co2
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Correct. In fact the other way around - the CO2 appeared because of the loss of the old growth forest. Not directly but eventually - when the wood taken finally ends up either burnt or decomposed.
Last edited:
Without human intervention the net CO2 declined. It has almost reached the stage here plants could not thrive. CO2 is used to produce many things in nature, and as things die a lot is interred into the ground never to be seen again. So, without burning fossil fuels we would eventually get to the stage where we died out due to plants not being able to grow.
Plants like circa 3% CO2 in the atmosphere not the 0.04 we have now.
As usual Jacob doesn’t check facts.
Plants like circa 3% CO2 in the atmosphere not the 0.04 we have now.
As usual Jacob doesn’t check facts.
Too little, without the world having the economic might, technology, or resources to do anything seriously about it in the timescales the dooms day merchants demand. So, the event horizon of CO2 levels they predict will come and pass and we shall see who is right. Mass extermination of man kind, or more likely, not much at all.
Richard_C
Established Member
Just a thought. There are 371 posts on this thread, maybe a few more by the time I have written this. Initially it was informative and useful but has
steadily declined into competing so called facts. They can't all be right.
Has anyone changed their opinion or changed their everyday behaviour because of what they have read here?
I would be interested in how things developed for the OP and their neighbours, if you remember this started as a post about a specific set of wildfires near where they live.
Aside from that, is there any point continuing what has become a pointless argument?
steadily declined into competing so called facts. They can't all be right.
Has anyone changed their opinion or changed their everyday behaviour because of what they have read here?
I would be interested in how things developed for the OP and their neighbours, if you remember this started as a post about a specific set of wildfires near where they live.
Aside from that, is there any point continuing what has become a pointless argument?
- Status
