Vintage Mustang Forums banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
383 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
In the UK we have had months of on and off climate protests and each time they are trying to cause as much aggravation for everyone as possible. Doing things like obstructing streets in major cities, causing problems at airports and other things. And this seems to be happening in many other countries as well.

I have watched quite a few interviews with these people and it all seems quite bizarre to me. They want people to stop flying, driving cars, etc as soon as possible. Not in several decades, but now. They want aeroplanes to stop flying, cargo container ships to stop sailing and so on. So basically anything that enables the modern world to work.

There seem to be several types of protesters. There are plenty of middle class people who would go back to their nice comfortable lifestyle once they are done protesting. There are people who look like they are already living like cavemen in the forest. And no doubt there are people who are just along for the ride.

And then there are the celebrities. An actress who flew first class back from the US to get involved with some protests here. An actor who flew back from China to do some protesting. And it was revealed he was in China making adverts for a car manufacturer. I feel the celebrities are just getting their faces in the news to promote themselves.

People have been using Super Glue ( cyanoacrylate ) to glue their hands to vehicles and other such stunts. I went out for a nice drive in my Mustang yesterday and I was half expecting someone to jump out of nowhere and obstruct me or glue themselves to my car.

Several of the main ring leaders of these groups have been interviewed on television. They were asked if they have stopped driving and flying or got rid of their televisions, computers and mobile phones. And the funny thing is they have not done any of this, so they are not doing what they are preaching.

And there have been pictures showing protesters queueing up in McDonalds, Starbucks, etc. So much for their hate of large corporations. Only when it suits them it seems.

What are peoples thoughts on this sort of thing? Sure, the world needs to clean up, but there have to be solutions to the problems. Not just going back to living like cavemen.

Jeremy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,454 Posts
Hmmm, how long before this thread violates either "no politics" or "no religion". It can teeter on either, like using a 2 x 12 on edge as a jack stand. ;)

If some idiot glues their hands to my car I interpret that as them saying "So, show me what this baby will do..."

Most of the climate zealots in the US reside on one of the coasts or a collage campus.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
383 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
After I posted this I was wondering if this would open a can of worms and maybe break some forum rules. But I was also thinking we would all be on the same page with this as we all share the same hobby.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,142 Posts
Oh....there are plenty of climate zealots around in the US...you can guarantee any younger person who watches whatever passes for television these days has whatever politically correct attitude toward a given attitude is prevalent. People don't think for themselves, here or anywhere else anymore(if they ever did) and they CERTAINLY don't remember the past....in the 70s it was global cooling...now its global warming, 40 years from now it will be global temperature stagnation. People don't even understand that the seasons we have are due to the intensity of the light hitting the earth's surface due to axial tilt that changes with the time of year and NOT the orbital distance(go ahead and ask these same climate protestors why the earth is colder in the winter...they will tell you its because the earth is further from the sun and wont even bring axial tilt into the conversation)...and yet in the same breath they discount the possibility of increased solar intensity in recent decades might have something to do with the slightly increased temperatures.

That being said, I am all for cutting emissions where you can and where it makes sense to do so...there is no reason to spew more pollution into the air than absolutely needed, no one wants to breathe that stuff...especially in places that smog tends to collect.

I find in hilarious...I can often predict a person's views on whatever given issue based on the television they watch...its like watching brainwashing in action....and it goes both ways on any issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,281 Posts
Too busy working. Unemployment is under 4%.

I literally don't watch the news. What's the point? I hear stuff 2nd hand and if it's important enough I'll look it up. I mean, they're faking war footage now? I see enough "news" through the net everyday to at least know the sky hasn't fallen... yet.

Climate change is real. It's always happening. Columbia, SC was beach front property during the dinosaur days. Are we speeding it along? Probably, but the United States has made significant advances in business and technology that have cleaned up our air immensely compared to the 60s/70s and now large developing countries like China and India are where we were back then. We've done our part, if people really want to help, the rest of the developing world needs to clean up their act.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,183 Posts
I dont see the issue as climate change, I see the issue as air, soil, water and near/outer space pollution.

That pollution results in a negative impact on the environment and the quality of life for all living organisms.

Without climate change we would still be in an ice age.

Politicians use climate change as a means to harvest votes from gullible people who arent smart enough to realize that they are being used.

Many third world countries are entering the industrial age and are energy hungry. The residents of those third world countries only want what the rest of us already have, so the rest of us cant blame them for that. The problem is that the cheapest energy is also the dirtiest energy and is the most harmful to the environment.

In the industrialized world we should be using technology that is driven by free enterprise and lower cost to reduce pollution, not government regulation.

Government regulation only results in higher cost.

Having stated that I want less regulation, there are areas where regulation makes sense.

Example: I think restaurants should have mandatory plastic recycling, restaurants generate a huge amount of plastic waste.. This isnt because Im worried about a plastic straw ending up in the ocean, its because we are filling our local landfill up rapidly. It cost us taxpayers millions to close and then open a new landfill. From an economic sense, we should extend the life of our current landfill as far into the future as possible, thus, reducing the annual cost of the landfill.

The added benefit, is that straw doesnt end up in the belly of a some small animal, the people who make straws get to keep their jobs and if the restaurants dont want to pay for plastic recycling, they will figure out a way to reduce/eliminate plastic waste. Win-Win
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,068 Posts
It's just the latest the media told them to be upset about. Nearly every environmental rally they've had in the states was a disaster area afterwards. They have no issue throwing their trash and signs on the ground afterwards. There was a months long Protest trying to block the Dakota pipeline. When they finally got ran off the land they left 48 MILLION pounds of garbage for the state to clean up. If not for hypocrisy they wouldn't have much.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,068 Posts
I dont see the issue as climate change, I see the issue as air, soil, water and near/outer space pollution.

That pollution results in a negative impact on the environment and the quality of life for all living organisms.

Without climate change we would still be in an ice age.

Politicians use climate change as a means to harvest votes from gullible people who arent smart enough to realize that they are being used.

Many third world countries are entering the industrial age and are energy hungry. The residents of those third world countries only want what the rest of us already have, so the rest of us cant blame them for that. The problem is that the cheapest energy is also the dirtiest energy and is the most harmful to the environment.

In the industrialized world we should be using technology that is driven by free enterprise and lower cost to reduce pollution, not government regulation.

Government regulation only results in higher cost.

Having stated that I want less regulation, there are areas where regulation makes sense.

Example: I think restaurants should have mandatory plastic recycling, restaurants generate a huge amount of plastic waste.. This isnt because Im worried about a plastic straw ending up in the ocean, its because we are filling our local landfill up rapidly. It cost us taxpayers millions to close and then open a new landfill. From an economic sense, we should extend the life of our current landfill as far into the future as possible, thus, reducing the annual cost of the landfill.

The added benefit, is that straw doesnt end up in the belly of a some small animal, the people who make straws get to keep their jobs and if the restaurants dont want to pay for plastic recycling, they will figure out a way to reduce/eliminate plastic waste. Win-Win
So you only want regulations you agree with?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,813 Posts
It's just the latest the media told them to be upset about. Nearly every environmental rally they've had in the states was a disaster area afterwards. They have no issue throwing their trash and signs on the ground afterwards. There was a months long Protest trying to block the Dakota pipeline. When they finally got ran off the land they left 48 MILLION pounds of garbage for the state to clean up. If not for hypocrisy they wouldn't have much.
well, the media and NASA, and an entire globe of climatologists. But what would NASA and other scientists know about it?

The 48 million pounds figure was actually 4.8 million pounds. NDResponse omitted the decimal when they originally published the information. The final estimate was 21 million pounds, not that that is anything insignificant. If you leave 200 pounds of garbage behind you're doing something really wrong, and I don't care who you are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,454 Posts
well, the media and NASA, and an entire globe of climatologists. But what would NASA and other scientists know about it?
Clearly not how to model it. 97% of climatologists say humans are impacting climate change. Similarly, 97% of climate models have significantly overstated the anticipated change in temps.

Is the climate changing? Yep. Are humans contributing? Likely. Now the question is what can be done to affect it and at what cost. If NASA and 97% of the entire globe of climatologists cannot accurately predict the rise in temps based on CO2 concentration, how can they predict what effect cutting 5%, 50% or 100% of CO2 will have?

Yes we should all be respectful of our environment. However, I need better data before I buy into some of the culture shifting initiatives being put forth by some.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,355 Posts
Nope not much, to many more pressing problems and life.
I do not believe that nicotine is addictive.
In the UK we have had months of on and off climate protests and each time they are trying to cause as much aggravation for everyone as possible.
maybe they are rejecting the notion of just hanging on in quiet desperation as the English way.
And there have been pictures showing protesters queueing up in McDonalds, Starbucks, etc. So much for their hate of large corporations. Only when it suits them it seems
.
Conflagration of issues, irrelevant.
... solutions to the problems. Not just going back to living like cavemen.
The solutions are called progress. Its never all or nothing, the problem is a denial of the situation and its implication

If some idiot glues their hands to my car I interpret that as them saying "So, show me what this baby will do..."
Actually by definition you would be the idiot, and wholy very un-Christian, one that cares more about themselves than society or others well being.
Most of the climate zealots in the US reside on one of the coasts or a collage campus.
Quasi moronic since most Americans reside close to a coast but rightfully founded in that they will be the most directly impacted.

But I was also thinking we would all be on the same page with this as we all share the same hobby.
Nope, a poor assumption

.in the 70s it was global cooling..
Another lie that proves your point about where people get their info.


It's tough going against the flow when most of the flow is provable garbage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,454 Posts
... Regulations don't get signed if the executive branch doesn't agree with it.
Partly true. Regulations are not laws but rather intended to enforce a law. Any number of agencies can, and do, regulate. While agencies are overseen by the executive branch, it is difficult, if not impossible to micromanage agencies down through the career bureaucrat level. Some regulations rise to level of political consciousness and get publicly scrutinized and other just get enacted by non-elected bureaucrats.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,454 Posts
Nope not much, to many more pressing problems and life.
I do not believe that nicotine is addictive.

maybe they are rejecting the notion of just hanging on in quiet desperation as the English way.
.
Conflagration of issues, irrelevant.

The solutions are called progress. Its never all or nothing, the problem is a denial of the situation and its implication


Actually by definition you would be the idiot, and wholy very un-Christian, one that cares more about themselves than society or others well being.

Quasi moronic since most Americans reside close to a coast but rightfully founded in that they will be the most directly impacted.

Nope, a poor assumption


Another lie that proves your point about where people get their info.


It's tough going against the flow when most of the flow is provable garbage.
Nice attacks.

A couple points of clarification:

1.) Idiot apparently does not mean what you think it does
2.) The majority of people in the US do not live in coastal counties and an even smaller amount live in areas subject to 100 year floods, but don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.

Have a nice day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,142 Posts
Another lie that proves your point about where people get their info.


It's tough going against the flow when most of the flow is provable garbage.
Are you referring to the controversial Time magazine cover? Or what the ACTUAL articles at the time were saying? Let me approach this a different way... Answer this one question: What was the average global temperature in the 1600s? Just one simple question. I will even help you out with a handy link:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png/1280px-2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


This is a pretty accepted graph right? You know what? Its complete and utter GARBAGE DATA. How do I know this? Quite simple...the thermometer was NOT INVENTED until 1714...making the infamous flat part of the line of this graph mean absolutely nothing. There are only 2 temperatures you can accurately chart without a thermometer...the freezing point of water, and the boiling point of water....you cant measure any other temperature without one...not only was the thermometer only invented in 1714...it wasn't in common use until the late 1800s...meaning ANY data prior to the industrial revolution is suspect.

Am I wrong in this? so if the only data you have over a 120 year period is a trend toward warmer temps...how can you even compare that to historical data that doesn't even exist. The temps we are talking about here are within only a few degrees in any case...no one can make an accurate argument they know what temperatures prior to 1714. Period.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,355 Posts
More Americans live within 100 miles of a coast.
I see I left out "classical" referring to idiot. Funny how the Americanization of things becomes the simplest or appealing to the lowest common denominator but: In Athenian democracy (thanks to Wikipedia for this detail) an idiot was someone concerned only with private, as opposed to public, affairs. This was the opposite of a citizen. They believed idiots were born and citizens were made, through education. Refusing to be a citizen, avoiding politics and debate was seen as dishonourable and selfish. I am inclined to agree.

Are you referring to the controversial Time magazine cover?
Was it Time or Newsweek? Either way i'm not referring to either, you are! That's all there ever was a couple of suppositions. There was no peer reviewed scientific article to come close to publication with any sort of a claim. You want to use that argument as a contrafactual then find one article so it won't just be another lie.
And to quote Wikipedia, talk about the dumbing down of society, please!
The rest of what you wrote is just ... beyond the pale. how about you Wiki the scientific method and it will illuminate how things can be known without direct observation and how temps can be measured without a thermometer.
No wonder a 16 year old girl can make some of y'all so upset. She doesn't need to use facts, only a passionate belief which is all that she is fighting against.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,311 Posts
Argumentative, name calling, political? Close enough. A disrupting influence on the forum.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top