What's new
PNE-Online
Welcome to PNE-Online. Why not register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! You can also join up as a forum Patron to help support in the running costs of the forum.

Deflection

Portishead

Forum Patron
Patron
I don't subscribe to the climate change "catastrophe" as it is based on extreme case modelling (think Neil Ferguson's Covid models, but worse) which, based on information to date, are not being borne out in practice. That said, I accept climates will change, that we need to act sustainably where it makes sense to do so and also bear in mind climate change isn't "hedge-able" (ie there is no safeguarding downsides if the "catastrophe" happens). Unfortunately, until the USA, China, India and Russia take action what we do in the UK is largely irrelevant. Ironically, 3 of these 4 nations are the current "war-mongers" so might it be that their aggressions are to deflect from the fact they are doing, and will do, sod all about climate change? I think not.

Charlie Munger, a business partner of Warren Buffet, is famous for the quote "Show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome." So what is the incentive for these Politicians and corporates? I'd say they are all driven by short-term self-interest - retention of power, re-election (politicians) and profit (corporates). Imo, the politicians are panicking (as they did during pandemic) because their approval ratings are plummeting amidst the cost of living crisis which they created. With their power slipping away, they thus decide they need to "do something" and it appears deflection via war-mongering is what some have chosen. Lunatic stuff imo.

In addition, corporates keep doing what they are incentivised to do - using any and every opportunity presented to them to maximise short-term profits and the WEF, well that is one that puzzles and concerns me most as I am not sure what their incentive is (they are not elected and are not a corporate). Sepp's point about the land grab (mainly agricultural, but note lots of housing being bought up by banks too) is a worry. I don't see that playing out well in longer term - and can see what happened in South Africa (farms being removed from owners by angry mobs) repeating itself, albeit on a global scale and minus the racial tension.
No it isnt.
 

Portishead

Forum Patron
Patron
That is your view as a cyclist, my experiences are different regarding 'Good People' of society.

Nowadays physically I am knackered although only in my early 70s, disabled, you could say, although I am in denial somewhat, I haven't quite come to terms with it. Last week I had to go for an appointment at a hospital and had to use a bus, all the seats were taken, and at the front of the bus where the disabled seats are situated, a group of 2 families occupied eight seats, young parents with kids, not one offered to give up a seat, I found that very strange, mind you this is London a place where courtesy and manners are seldom seen.

Other things that piss me off in today's society, not sure if it is the same in Preston, but if you are waiting for something, queues are ignored, people ignore the queuing system and just queue-jump without a thought. Sometimes I feel I am odd, when I hold a door open for someone and say 'after you'. It isn't just motorists that show no understanding, it is prevalent in all encounters with people in day to day life.

The way to behave taught to me by my parents and mentors whilst growing up, the way to behave and have consideration for others seem to be disappearing, it's sad really because if consideration of other people was adhered to, it would make day to day existence a bit more pleasant for all.

Yes. I wasnt trying trying to stoke a cyclists vs motorist debate. The daily bile does that as a routine. Merely that the rising anger and discourtesy is most noticeable on the roads. Seems to me its invariably those with the most or that are consuming the most that are in a permanent state of rage, whether that be with taxes, woke or people just generally getting in their way from doing whatever they want
 

Sepp Blatter

Liz Truss Fanboy
Patron
The farming land is often converted to single crop industrial farming, causing havoc to the soil and insect life, the US has to import bees to pollinate the crops, and destroys millions of bees in the process, parasites destroy the bees along with the insecticides. The Almond and Soya Bean industrial production isn't good for nature, might be good for profit.

Too much imbalance, and it isn't good for the Ecosystems.
Yup - once large corporations get hold of land, the quest for short term profit could cause a lot of damage through industrial farming. Plus, through lobbying, how much could be 'reassigned' for building and development?

Plus, and the main reason I suspect that people like Gates and Bezos are buying land is as an investment - that is going to see prices rise sharply and more small producers encouraged to sell and others unable to buy land to expand. Financial speculation on the land we need to grow food - what could possibly go wrong with that?

You might be interested in the Ukrainian situation - The Oakland Institute has been digging into this:



The World Bank, IMF, and EU are in this up to their eyeballs.
 

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron
Yup - once large corporations get hold of land, the quest for short term profit could cause a lot of damage through industrial farming..

We need sustainable farming for sure - and with rising population, it may take some decades to wean us off 20th century industrial farming methods.

We could do with some sort of collaboration of countries where they can agree on a path forward. Perhaps involving mutually agreed incentives for farmers to set aside land for nature, or to have some of their production done in a more sustainable way. 😉
 

Sepp Blatter

Liz Truss Fanboy
Patron
We need sustainable farming for sure - and with rising population, it may take some decades to wean us off 20th century industrial farming methods.

We could do with some sort of collaboration of countries where they can agree on a path forward. Perhaps involving mutually agreed incentives for farmers to set aside land for nature, or to have some of their production done in a more sustainable way. 😉
That would be the way forward, but it happens too rarely - looks good on paper and with PR spin, but does not translate into reality, sadly, especially when you can 'outsource' your environmental damage. Too many corporate interests and lobbyists involved in agriculture, shaping policies for their own ends.
 

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron
^^ I will not argue with that - but still more chance of a less bad outcome when countries are collaborative, within organisations that bind them together.
 

Sepp Blatter

Liz Truss Fanboy
Patron
^^ I will not argue with that - but still more chance of a less bad outcome when countries are collaborative, within organisations that bind them together.
If you are trying to start another Brexit debate, Reg, I have covered the Common Agricultural Policy on there many times, discussing its many shortcomings - @nigelscamelcoat has also included some good links to George Monbiot's criticisms there and on the XR thread (I think). Not really interested in that rabbit hole when we are having an interesting wider discussion about global agriculture.
 

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron
If you are trying to start another Brexit debate, Reg, I have covered the Common Agricultural Policy on there many times, discussing its many shortcomings - @nigelscamelcoat has also included some good links to George Monbiot's criticisms there and on the XR thread (I think). Not really interested in that rabbit hole when we are having an interesting wider discussion about global agriculture.
I wasn’t.
 

zorro

Manager
No it isnt.
Ok - I will rephrase. A lot of the narrative about the climate change "catastrophe" is based on IPCC modelling of future climate change impact, with worst case scenario modelling often chosen to emphasise the potential disaster (without saying what the likelihood of that scenario is). This modelling is being presented as fact (when it is just a projection) and also as accepted (which it isn't as many scientists dispute it). I am not a climate change denier and I am not burying my head in the sand (a comment I found particularly insulting). I just think there needs to be a much more balanced debate about climate change, and the IPCC models that are driving a lot of the hyperbole. Surely one thing we've learnt in the last 2 or so years is not to rely so heavily on one set of statistical models.
 

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron
Ok - I will rephrase. A lot of the narrative about the climate change "catastrophe" is based on IPCC modelling of future climate change impact, with worst case scenario modelling often chosen to emphasise the potential disaster (without saying what the likelihood of that scenario is). This modelling is being presented as fact (when it is just a projection) and also as accepted (which it isn't as many scientists dispute it). I am not a climate change denier and I am not burying my head in the sand (a comment I found particularly insulting). I just think there needs to be a much more balanced debate about climate change, and the IPCC models that are driving a lot of the hyperbole. Surely one thing we've learnt in the last 2 or so years is not to rely so heavily on one set of statistical models.

I didn't mean to insult, Zorro. Clear why my words "Sounds like burying head in sand to me" might be read that way... but it was not intended to be particularly directed at you... I meant that your argument has a ring of (sound of) those arguments used by climate change deniers. Nuanced difference that it clear in my head, but not necessarily reflected in how it reads!

Nevertheless, I still disagree. I think that in fact it is regularly, almost routinely, made quite clear that the models show a range of possible outcomes. And I disagree that the the worst case scenarios are emphasised unduly. - not on the BBC anyway... which is very balanced. I don't agree that the modelling is presented as fact... except that the principle of man-made climate change is portrayed as very widely agreed by scientists... which it is.

On balance, I just don't see the undue hyperbole that you seem to see.
 
OP
Liberation

Liberation

Forum Patron
Patron
Ok - I will rephrase. A lot of the narrative about the climate change "catastrophe" is based on IPCC modelling of future climate change impact, with worst case scenario modelling often chosen to emphasise the potential disaster (without saying what the likelihood of that scenario is). This modelling is being presented as fact (when it is just a projection) and also as accepted (which it isn't as many scientists dispute it). I am not a climate change denier and I am not burying my head in the sand (a comment I found particularly insulting). I just think there needs to be a much more balanced debate about climate change, and the IPCC models that are driving a lot of the hyperbole. Surely one thing we've learnt in the last 2 or so years is not to rely so heavily on one set of statistical models.


We certainly have
 
OP
Liberation

Liberation

Forum Patron
Patron
I didn't mean to insult, Zorro. Clear why my words "Sounds like burying head in sand to me" might be read that way... but it was not intended to be particularly directed at you... I meant that your argument has a ring of (sound of) those arguments used by climate change deniers. Nuanced difference that it clear in my head, but not necessarily reflected in how it reads!

Nevertheless, I still disagree. I think that in fact it is regularly, almost routinely, made quite clear that the models show a range of possible outcomes. And I disagree that the the worst case scenarios are emphasised unduly. - not on the BBC anyway... which is very balanced. I don't agree that the modelling is presented as fact... except that the principle of man-made climate change is portrayed as very widely agreed by scientists... which it is.

On balance, I just don't see the undue hyperbole that you seem to see.

He sounds like he knows far more about it than you Reg..... And there you go again, defending the BBC... Frightening. :)
 

pne_monster

Forum Patron
Patron
To be fair there is a lot of discourteous cyclists around.. when cyclists make a real effort to share the road I slow down and give them the thumbs-up. Arseholes on both sides it's just that there's a lot more cars on the road than bikes so we see more motorist arseholes
Curious how you think cyclists should "share the road"
 

Kathryn

Advisor to the Owner
I think he means riding as near to the kerb as is reasonable rather than wobbling and swerving all over the place.... And don't get me started on those that ride two abreast.. :)
Two or three times this week I’ve turned a corner in my car and encountered several youths in the middle of the road doing wheelies on their bikes.
 

Portishead

Forum Patron
Patron
Ok - I will rephrase. A lot of the narrative about the climate change "catastrophe" is based on IPCC modelling of future climate change impact, with worst case scenario modelling often chosen to emphasise the potential disaster (without saying what the likelihood of that scenario is). This modelling is being presented as fact (when it is just a projection) and also as accepted (which it isn't as many scientists dispute it). I am not a climate change denier and I am not burying my head in the sand (a comment I found particularly insulting). I just think there needs to be a much more balanced debate about climate change, and the IPCC models that are driving a lot of the hyperbole. Surely one thing we've learnt in the last 2 or so years is not to rely so heavily on one set of statistical models.
I think theres far more evidence out there that we are heading for trouble well beyond depenedence on statistical climatemodels. And its not just climate. Its centuries of humans trashing the planet, its resources and eco systems. Its the eco system imbalances we have created that is the totality of the problem. Im afraid what we have learnt over the last few years is that we cant rely on sitting on our hands and expecting the world to remain the same. We did that with Brexit and Covid to a lesser extent and on this its the ultimate untruth that if we just do nothing but continue with our economic growth model, the world will magically readjust in humans favour.
 
Top