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

You don’t need to “tackle” me at all, I don’t know what a cycling radicalist is but I do understand transport choices and the legalities and behaviour of different road users. So I’m willing to have a thoughtful discussion about it if you want to.
You feel too strongly about it for me to wrestle with you.
I think cyclists should share the road but sensibly (enough room from kerb to car)
We can all get on then and be wheeled comrades smiling at each other and saying 'you first my wheeled mate'
 

pne_monster

Forum Patron
Patron
You feel too strongly about it for me to wrestle with you.
I think cyclists should share the road but sensibly (enough room from kerb to car)
We can all get on then and be wheeled comrades smiling at each other and saying 'you first my wheeled mate'
You’re absolutely right. Cyclists should cycle 0.75m from the kerb to avoid painted lines, debris and drains, and then motorists should give cyclists 1.5m space as per the Highway Code. That’s a perfectly reasonable way to be courteous.
 
You’re absolutely right. Cyclists should cycle 0.75m from the kerb to avoid painted lines, debris and drains, and then motorists should give cyclists 1.5m space as per the Highway Code. That’s a perfectly reasonable way to be courteous.
That's cycling extremism.. there will be no converting you to my superior way's of thinking.. proper die hard cyclist you, I need Jeremy Clarkson as backup. 😶
 

pne_monster

Forum Patron
Patron
That's cycling extremism.. there will be no converting you to my superior way's of thinking.. proper die hard cyclist you, I need Jeremy Clarkson as backup. 😶
That’s not extremism at all, that’s just recommended safe distances for cycling. I’ve tried to be reasonable but if you use words like “superior” then it’s clear that you don’t want a discussion. All the best.
 
That’s not extremism at all, that’s just recommended safe distances for cycling. I’ve tried to be reasonable but if you use words like “superior” then it’s clear that you don’t want a discussion. All the best.
I'm only messing montster bud. I guess we are both bias so we won't agree anyway.
 

Portishead

Forum Patron
Patron
It is…THE END

Its lately become de rigueur to trash mainstream science. So we now have a govt that routinely claims that if you plan nothing and do nothing, you dont need to worry since things generally turn out OK. This absolutely suits those that just want to carry on trashing the place or their neighbours. And they get a barrow load of votes out of it. Sadly we've seen what happens with Brexit if you do nothing when you exit your biggest market. With Covid, the gibbon wanted to do nothing but was forced into light lockdowns because of he couldnt quite ignore all the science. And after the event, we seem to have people rewriting what happened and almost suggesting we should have done nothing. And now the biggest bollock of all is to claim that we're not risking human extinction because of proven exhaustion of resources, soil and species. Seemingly because a person has produced a model and result which is dodgy. Its simply not true that a scientific conclusion that we are heading to hell in a handcart is based on one climate model. Mainly because the Earth ecovsystems are so complex and interrelated, its impossible to model how fast degradation might happen. Its based on decades of evidence of what has happened to the ecosystems, how they are becoming less robust through vastly reduced diversity from our interventions and the rate at which they have changed to date. Despite a mile high pile of evidence that we are responsible for significant elements of the degradation, the latest brilliant piece of avoidance is to suggest it might not be us that is responsible, so maybe we might not need to do anything much differently. It reminds me of all those years the govts defended cigarette smoking because at the time you couldnt prove conclusively it was the cause of lung cancer. Pretty sad that weve learnt bugger all and just stick our heads in the sand.
 

Funky Monk

Forum Patron
Patron
Its lately become de rigueur to trash mainstream science. So we now have a govt that routinely claims that if you plan nothing and do nothing, you dont need to worry since things generally turn out OK. This absolutely suits those that just want to carry on trashing the place or their neighbours. And they get a barrow load of votes out of it. Sadly we've seen what happens with Brexit if you do nothing when you exit your biggest market. With Covid, the gibbon wanted to do nothing but was forced into light lockdowns because of he couldnt quite ignore all the science. And after the event, we seem to have people rewriting what happened and almost suggesting we should have done nothing. And now the biggest bollock of all is to claim that we're not risking human extinction because of proven exhaustion of resources, soil and species. Seemingly because a person has produced a model and result which is dodgy. Its simply not true that a scientific conclusion that we are heading to hell in a handcart is based on one climate model. Mainly because the Earth ecovsystems are so complex and interrelated, its impossible to model how fast degradation might happen. Its based on decades of evidence of what has happened to the ecosystems, how they are becoming less robust through vastly reduced diversity from our interventions and the rate at which they have changed to date. Despite a mile high pile of evidence that we are responsible for significant elements of the degradation, the latest brilliant piece of avoidance is to suggest it might not be us that is responsible, so maybe we might not need to do anything much differently. It reminds me of all those years the govts defended cigarette smoking because at the time you couldnt prove conclusively it was the cause of lung cancer. Pretty sad that weve learnt bugger all and just stick our heads in the sand.
You’re right. Climate change projections are based on large ensembles of (mechanistic/physics-based, not statistical) computational models which are incredibly complex, employ a whole range of emissions scenarios and are continually calibrated with real-world historical observations (regional and global data measuring rainfall, temperature, land-use, soil health, etc.).

Obviously uncertainty grows the further you look (see weather predictions) but long term properties can emerge and consensus between different models is seen. Yes, they are ‘extreme’ scenarios whereby emissions increase (is that so extreme??), some where we continue as we are (I’d say less likely than the ‘extreme’ version) and some where interventions are implemented …. but if one (not saying you Portis) wants to dismiss model predictions that haven’t considered likelihood, perhaps this latter scenario, which seems less and less likely to be taken seriously anytime soon, should also be ignored (and there you have a self fulfilling prophecy 😞).
 

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron
It is
1988…
‘Maldives gone by 2018

2022…
They’re still there.


Not denying the warming but the modelling was worst case scenario and often still is.

Please link to where such a prediction had ANY sort of mainstream credence. In fact any sort of link would be a start.
 
Top