On How The Planet's Going To Shit: The Undeniability Of Climate Change

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,595

Rambo

Supporter of Possible Sexual Deviants
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
30,940
That's because the 1%'s are too busy flying around the world in their private jets telling the rest of us forego our package holiday flying, move into city high rises and eat some Quorn man made delicacy their cultivating in a Wuhan biolab.
you always nail these stories
 

Journeyman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
3,864
That's because the 1%'s are too busy flying around the world in their private jets telling the rest of us forego our package holiday flying,

You are the top 1%. In fact, I strongly suspect that most of us here are in the 1%.


According to the 2018 Global Wealth Report from Credit Suisse Research Institute, you need a net worth of US$871,320. Credit Suisse defines net worth, or “wealth,” as “the value of financial assets plus real assets (principally housing) owned by households, minus their debts.”

More than 19 million Americans are in the 1 percent worldwide, Credit Suisse reports, far more than from any other country, while “China is now clearly established in second place in the world wealth hierarchy,” with 4.2 million citizens among the world’s top 1 percent.
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,595
You are the top 1%. In fact, I strongly suspect that most of us here are in the 1%.


According to the 2018 Global Wealth Report from Credit Suisse Research Institute, you need a net worth of US$871,320. Credit Suisse defines net worth, or “wealth,” as “the value of financial assets plus real assets (principally housing) owned by households, minus their debts.”

More than 19 million Americans are in the 1 percent worldwide, Credit Suisse reports, far more than from any other country, while “China is now clearly established in second place in the world wealth hierarchy,” with 4.2 million citizens among the world’s top 1 percent.

There's globally and then by country...and income wise: I think in the USA the top 1% of earners you need a salary of over $500,000.

In the Netherlands I've just been on the Central Bureau of Statistics I can't find any definitive figures. A lot of serious rich people here and a lot of old money and big dynasties and investment bankers in Amsterdam and places like Waasenaar. I reckon no where near the top 1% here, but likely in the top 5% of earners considering wife's and my salary.
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,595
David Attenborough having contributed more than his fair share of carbon in his globe trotting adventures since the 1960s, tells it like it is, we're going to pull up the ladder on the capitalist system, you won't get to travel in the future, your standards of livings must drop:

“I think that the standard of living of the western cultures... civilised countries... is going to have to take pause,” Sir David Attenborough said on a BBC podcast last week. “The excesses that the capitalist system has brought us have got to be curbed somehow.”

I much preferred his brother, charming fellow.
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,595
The reason the rent controlled homes have run into a ''raft of problems'' is that poor people don't have a couple of hundred Euros a month spare to pay for their electricity bills:


You can't expect people with small disposable incomes to take a big hit on energy costs to go ''Green''.

This is the truth of the Green New Deal and the Paris Agreement: Western nations paying a premium for their people to live costly diminished lives.
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,595

Pimpernel Smith Pimpernel Smith wind energy cheaper than gas now

A lot of graphs there that don't bare up to scrutiny. Wind energy is cannot compete against natural gas on several fronts: reliability, storage, energy in vs out and also costs.
 

Rambo

Supporter of Possible Sexual Deviants
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
30,940
A lot of graphs there that don't bare up to scrutiny. Wind energy is cannot compete against natural gas on several fronts: reliability, storage, energy in vs out and also costs.
well it specifically cites cost, so i'm not sure how that's a qualifier. obviously reliability and storage are an issue but there are life threatening issues with gas. shouldn't those account for something? it can't all just be about money can it?
 

Fwiffo

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
10,318
well it specifically cites cost, so i'm not sure how that's a qualifier. obviously reliability and storage are an issue but there are life threatening issues with gas. shouldn't those account for something? it can't all just be about money can it?

I thought everything is about money. Do people make ethical and altruistic choices and pay more? The vast majority are about cold hard dollars and cents and what’s in it for me. Capitalism.
 

Rambo

Supporter of Possible Sexual Deviants
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
30,940
I thought everything is about money. Do people make ethical and altruistic choices and pay more? The vast majority are about cold hard dollars and cents and what’s in it for me. Capitalism.
Organic foods would like a word
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,595
I thought everything is about money. Do people make ethical and altruistic choices and pay more? The vast majority are about cold hard dollars and cents and what’s in it for me. Capitalism.

Over here, a lot of people bought Tesla's because of the tax rebates. Also hybrids for business. The tax rebates are gone now for the Tesla's and according to my accountant you won't see a new one as no one is buying now. He has plug-in hybrid and he doesn't use the electrical. As it's double expensive to charge and the range is depleted in cold weather and opposite to petrol cars, whilst cruising on motorways at a constant speed the range rapidly decreases. All things being equal, these electrical cars are not going to compete as they will hurt your wallet.

Same with the electrical boilers that were going to replace all the gas ones and the government were going to bring in bans on new gas boilers. Turns out the electrical ones are double expensive for the average punter, they can't afford the massive hike in energy costs. All the social housing they started to refit to electric boilers has been stopped now because of the costs.

As I keep on saying, you can't have an energy revolution less efficient than the one it replaces.

Organic foods would like a word

Organic food in lots of cases e.g. lemons and tomatoes, taste much better and there is genuine improvement based on taste and health benefits being not exposed to pesticides. So a clear quality improvement on several fronts. Although not in terms of yields.
 

Rambo

Supporter of Possible Sexual Deviants
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
30,940
Organic food in lots of cases e.g. lemons and tomatoes, taste much better and there is genuine improvement based on taste and health benefits being not exposed to pesticides. So a clear quality improvement on several fronts. Although not in terms of yields.
curious how you see taste as something worthy but lack of pollution isn't. why do you think that is?
 

güero

Well-Known Member
Messages
802
picdump698_119.jpg
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,595
curious how you see taste as something worthy but lack of pollution isn't. why do you think that is?

I am 100% against toxic pollution such as NOx, soot and particles. That's what needs managing, but instead they focus on CO2 will is a BS ruse to create a green revolution asset bubble.

Windfarms in the Netherlands:

 

formby002

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,099
David Attenborough having contributed more than his fair share of carbon in his globe trotting adventures since the 1960s, tells it like it is, we're going to pull up the ladder on the capitalist system, you won't get to travel in the future, your standards of livings must drop:

“I think that the standard of living of the western cultures... civilised countries... is going to have to take pause,” Sir David Attenborough said on a BBC podcast last week. “The excesses that the capitalist system has brought us have got to be curbed somehow.”

I much preferred his brother, charming fellow.

Does he mean those 'excesses of capitalism' that have brought him, and his ilk a very comfortable lifestyle?
 

Journeyman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
3,864
Does he mean those 'excesses of capitalism' that have brought him, and his ilk a very comfortable lifestyle?

I understand your point, but it doesn't invalidate the arguments being made by people such as Attenborough in any way, shape or form. Even if he is a hypocrite, doesn't mean that he's incorrect.

Furthermore, in order to criticise something, must we be outside that thing, removed from that thing? If we criticise capitalism, must we be beggars dressed in rags? If we criticise a particular country, must we be outside that country? If so, that brings up echoes of fatuous old expression "If you don't love it, leave".
 

Rambo

Supporter of Possible Sexual Deviants
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
30,940
I am 100% against toxic pollution such as NOx, soot and particles. That's what needs managing, but instead they focus on CO2 will is a BS ruse to create a green revolution asset bubble.

Windfarms in the Netherlands:

ok, that's a reasonable angle. but can't we do both at the same time? the elimination of CO2 will, by its very existence of source pollution, drive out things like NOx, soot, and particles. i'm struggling to see how cherry picking here is furthering your overall goal of eliminating those particular types of pollution. one causes the other in many and or most cases.
 

formby002

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,099
I understand your point, but it doesn't invalidate the arguments being made by people such as Attenborough in any way, shape or form. Even if he is a hypocrite, doesn't mean that he's incorrect.

Furthermore, in order to criticise something, must we be outside that thing, removed from that thing? If we criticise capitalism, must we be beggars dressed in rags? If we criticise a particular country, must we be outside that country? If so, that brings up echoes of fatuous old expression "If you don't love it, leave".

No, it doesn't.

Look, I don't mind being finger-wagged at by a young kid, but there's something irksome about the likes of Attenborough lecturing people. Remember the ridiculous scenes with the actress Emma Thompson jetting over from the US to London First Class so that she could appear in a Extinction Rebellion parade then jetting back and her glib response when her behaviour was pointed out to her?

I'm not convinced that capitalism is completely to blame either. The old Soviet Union wasn't known for its environmental concerns, nor the old Communist China (I'm not sure politically what modern China is. Whatever, its a massive polluter) In fact the record of socialist countries is pretty poor in that regard, but you wont hear that said from the Left nor much criticism of China either.

If you think about it environmentalism is more a conservative position than a progressive one. But I'm not sure there are many true conservatives left.

I'm also pretty sure that the technological solutions that will be need to protect the environment will likely come from the wicked capitalist states rather than the socialist leaning ones who have a pretty poor record on the innovation front.
 

formby002

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,099
ok, that's a reasonable angle. but can't we do both at the same time? the elimination of CO2 will, by its very existence of source pollution, drive out things like NOx, soot, and particles. i'm struggling to see how cherry picking here is furthering your overall goal of eliminating those particular types of pollution. one causes the other in many and or most cases.

If you eliminated CO2 the trees would die. You mean 'reduction of'.
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,595
Even if he is a hypocrite, doesn't mean that he's incorrect.

He's completely wrong as his position is that the quality of life in Western countries must take a hit...Carter tried that schmuck and lost to Reagan.

This let's have the masses live diminished lives on our behalf, or let them take the hit, whilst we dash off to Davos in our private jets to discuss the great reset is all rather fetching, but will not work long term.

ok, that's a reasonable angle. but can't we do both at the same time? the elimination of CO2 will, by its very existence of source pollution, drive out things like NOx, soot, and particles. i'm struggling to see how cherry picking here is furthering your overall goal of eliminating those particular types of pollution. one causes the other in many and or most cases.

It's a carbon trading scam and alleviates the need for action elsewhere where it can be delivered quickly and effectively in real measurable terms.

you know what i meant for fucks sake. elimination of excess. happy now?

But historically, we are in a low CO2 ice age phase...

I'm not convinced, as you know, St Greta can see CO2 i.e. plant food, as an evil entity that must be eliminated. The elimination of which means the end of all life on earth.

There is something deeply twisted that has entered the game at many levels. This is no accident. The elimination of all carbon life forms seems to be a possible element.
 

Journeyman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
3,864
He's completely wrong as his position is that the quality of life in Western countries must take a hit...Carter tried that schmuck and lost to Reagan.

Simply because someone is saying something that is politically unpalatable does not necessarily mean that it is wrong. Also, as I said previously, simply because someone is a hypocrite does not mean that they are wrong. It just means that they are a hypocrite.

Perhaps you can explain how our conventional economic model of expanding population and increasing consumption can cope with dwindling oil reserves and increasing cost of recovery of mineral reserves?

I don't like the idea, but it seems very likely that, unless we make some fundamental changes to the way we live, we are going to face severe problems in the next 50-100 years.


There is something deeply twisted that has entered the game at many levels. This is no accident. The elimination of all carbon life forms seems to be a possible element.

If you really believe that, then your thinking is as twisted as you consider the thinking of others to be.

I assume that you are being hyperbolic and exaggerating for effect.
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,595
Simply because someone is saying something that is politically unpalatable does not necessarily mean that it is wrong. Also, as I said previously, simply because someone is a hypocrite does not mean that they are wrong. It just means that they are a hypocrite.

It's not politically unpalatable, it's totally right on message. And there in lies the problem.

I find his dabbling in Woke culture sad. He should be above that.

Perhaps you can explain how our conventional economic model of expanding population and increasing consumption can cope with dwindling oil reserves and increasing cost of recovery of mineral reserves?

I don't like the idea, but it seems very likely that, unless we make some fundamental changes to the way we live, we are going to face severe problems in the next 50-100 years.

When you state ''fundamental changes to the way we live...'' are you happy for your children to live diminished lives compared to your own?

The thing with oil reserves is that the easy stuff has gone, but of the harder stuff, there's hundreds of years left and it still makes more economic sense than so called renewables.

A barrel of oil is not just fuel, it's everything else...

The oil majors are well capable of capturing all the pollution at the refinery level. There are issues at the extraction level in places like Kazakhstan. Ultimately it can all be resolved at the CO2 level.

If you really believe that, then your thinking is as twisted as you consider the thinking of others to be.

I assume that you are being hyperbolic and exaggerating for effect.

I am referring to the psychic topography. There is something deeply troubling when we elevate to Sainthood someone clearly disturbed and deranged who can literally see plant food which is invisible as an evil toxic entity. And they all buy into this.

The focus on carbon is twisted and at the psychic topography/archetype level it is indeed the Devil's work.
 

Rambo

Supporter of Possible Sexual Deviants
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
30,940
Carter tried that schmuck
not to pick on you but i've seen you use schmuck twice now in this way and it doesn't make any sense. admittedly, i don't know if this is a lost in translation sort of thing. a person is a schmuck. things are not schmuck. words are not schmuck. carter is a schmuck, his speech or tactics aren't schumcks.
 

Journeyman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
3,864
When you state ''fundamental changes to the way we live...'' are you happy for your children to live diminished lives compared to your own?

Is that a rhetorical question?

Of course not. I want them to live better lives. What I am concerned about is that it may not be a matter of choice - and I'm talking about external factors such as oil supply and price and the flow-on effects, not government policies.


The thing with oil reserves is that the easy stuff has gone, but of the harder stuff, there's hundreds of years left and it still makes more economic sense than so called renewables.

A barrel of oil is not just fuel, it's everything else...

It's estimated that we've already hit peak oil, or will in the next decade or so. Basically, it's slowly downhill from there - oil supply will stabilise or decrease, with flow-on effects. As you note, oil isn't just used for transportation (although that is the primary use) - it's also used for energy generation, plastics, fabrics, and fertilisers. Modern society depends upon a cheap, plentiful supply of all of those things.

That doesn't mean that life as we know it will come to a crunching halt. However, there it's very likely that there will be changes within the next few decades, and it's very unlikely that they will be for the better.

If you have some time, here's a 500-page study by the Geological Survey of Finland (GSK) on the current and predicted oil situation, and resulting changes. The lead author is an old friend of mine.


Here's a brief synopsis of the report:

 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,595
Is that a rhetorical question?

Of course not. I want them to live better lives. What I am concerned about is that it may not be a matter of choice - and I'm talking about external factors such as oil supply and price and the flow-on effects, not government policies.


It's estimated that we've already hit peak oil, or will in the next decade or so. Basically, it's slowly downhill from there - oil supply will stabilise or decrease, with flow-on effects. As you note, oil isn't just used for transportation (although that is the primary use) - it's also used for energy generation, plastics, fabrics, and fertilisers. Modern society depends upon a cheap, plentiful supply of all of those things.

That doesn't mean that life as we know it will come to a crunching halt. However, there it's very likely that there will be changes within the next few decades, and it's very unlikely that they will be for the better.

If you have some time, here's a 500-page study by the Geological Survey of Finland (GSK) on the current and predicted oil situation, and resulting changes. The lead author is an old friend of mine.


Here's a brief synopsis of the report:


There's some flawed conclusions there, whilst some of the data is correct i.e. ''Today, approximately 90% of the supply chain of all industrially manufactured products depend on the availability of oil derived products or services...'' Oil isn't just petrol. What will replace this?

Essentially, the very easy to get oil is already exploited. This is fact. But new technologies with horizontal drilling, etc, make once unrecoverable oil now viable. Also oil companies only explore and exploit new fields when there is a need. At this stage, we are long way from running out of oil. Natural gas is estimated at 300 years, coal won't come near being exhausted we will have moved away long before running out.

Also the we need to move away from ''endless growth''. How will this be managed? What economic system will deliver an acceptable life for billions of people if not one underpinned by cheap and efficient energy?

DNV produce an annual energy transition report which is very pro-renewables and sensible in its forecasts, in the most part. Even they have the world's transport shipping fleets and trucking fleets still relying on fossil fuels in 2045.

At this stage, there is no viable alternative to fossil fuels and the oil that can support the current world population in the style we've come accustomed to. Wind, solar and tide power is not an effective alternative.
 

Journeyman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
3,864
At this stage, there is no viable alternative to fossil fuels and the oil that can support the current world population in the style we've come accustomed to.

Exactly - which is precisely why people are worried.


Wind, solar and tide power is not an effective alternative.

Not yet, at least.

I find it interesting that you fully believe that new technologies will be invented that will allow once unrecoverable oil to be viable, but you apparently don't consider that new technologies will be invented that will increase the efficiency and utility of wind, solar and tidal power.
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,595
I find it interesting that you fully believe that new technologies will be invented that will allow once unrecoverable oil to be viable, but you apparently don't consider that new technologies will be invented that will increase the efficiency and utility of wind, solar and tidal power.

Wind, solar and particularly are no replacement for fossil fuels and by-products.

 
Last edited:

formby002

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,099
Exactly - which is precisely why people are worried.




Not yet, at least.

I find it interesting that you fully believe that new technologies will be invented that will allow once unrecoverable oil to be viable, but you apparently don't consider that new technologies will be invented that will increase the efficiency and utility of wind, solar and tidal power.

With regards to wind power. You can make the technology as efficient as you want, it won't matter, if the wind isn't blowing.

 
Top Bottom