Changes in Atlantic currents

[Narfi]

Then what do you call the guy who job is digging around in the poop tanks?

[jeanathon]

Originally Posted by Narfi

Then what do you call the guy who job is digging around in the poop tanks?

Poor bastard, or me sometimes....

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

[Zoom has] become a thing during this pandemic that you may, or may not, have heard of.

I have, they're Ok for teams or small groups, or for "broadcasts" (eg a presentation or course) where there's a small number of presenters and a mostly passive audience. Trying to run something of global scale like COP26, where the most meaningful exchanges may happen face to face in aisles and backrooms ... not productive.

I am extremely passionate about conservation because this is ground zero for the the real destruction being done to the Earth by the human race. Deforestation, overfished oceans, loss of habitat for urban development, just for starters. None of it is caused by climate change.

Let me stop you right there. Climate change is just another symptom of the root problem, not a cause. Deforestation, overfished oceans, loss of habitat for urban development, fertilizer runoff, plastic pollution- and climate change - are all caused by the same thing: human activity without sufficient regard for harms to the environment. Not only that... a fix for one is often also beneficial for the others. IF by some miracle we do start seeing reductions in fossil fuel use, you will also see reductions in air pollution, fewer spills, more restrictions on plastic packaging, etc.

Your jihad against climate change activism hurts, not helps these other issues get addressed. One planet, one thin liveable layer. If climate change isn't keeping you up at night, fine. Concentrate on what does. Bashing climate change activism is supporting the status quo.

You're confusing weather with climate. If British Columbia had never experienced severe bushfires or had never experienced extreme flooding you might have a case

A different climate brings different weather, and as predicted in this case, more extremes in weather.

The reality of climate change is that it's made a lot of rich people richer without achieving too much else.

Bull. Who's richer, and how do these "riches" compare with the riches being raked in by the fossil fuel sector? Or even compared to just the subsidies that the fossil fuel sector still receives?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I have, they're Ok for teams or small groups, or for "broadcasts" (eg a presentation or course) where there's a small number of presenters and a mostly passive audience. Trying to run something of global scale like COP26, where the most meaningful exchanges may happen face to face in aisles and backrooms ... not productive.

"Zoom" is a bit of a generic name for interactive audio video conferencing these days. Perhaps you need to think more along the lines of how, say, TedX works when it comes to audio video conferences to large groups.

Let me stop you right there. Climate change is just another symptom of the root problem, not a cause. Deforestation, overfished oceans, loss of habitat for urban development, fertilizer runoff, plastic pollution- and climate change - are all caused by the same thing: human activity without sufficient regard for harms to the environment. Not only that... a fix for one is often also beneficial for the others. IF by some miracle we do start seeing reductions in fossil fuel use, you will also see reductions in air pollution, fewer spills, more restrictions on plastic packaging, etc.

No, it's not a symptom. It's a distraction. Jackdale can argue across five pages on how Stephen Schneider segregated s[ck]eptics from deniers, yet I bet he (and you) would need to google how many square kilometres of deforestation occurred worldwide or even in your own country last year. That's assuming you care, of course. I suppose you can always offer the excuse that you're waiting for your precious governments to mandate a restriction on the use of palm oil whilst sitting back on your hands.

Your jihad against climate change activism hurts, not helps these other issues get addressed. One planet, one thin liveable layer. If climate change isn't keeping you up at night, fine. Concentrate on what does. Bashing climate change activism is supporting the status quo.

A different climate brings different weather, and as predicted in this case, more extremes in weather.

If you think a jihad is trying to initiate a technical discussion on the issues on some obscure forum then you better go look up the definition of jihad.


What caused fires and floods prior to climate change's "different" weather? And a quick question for you: Is the world now overall drier or wetter than a century ago?

Bull. Who's richer, and how do these "riches" compare with the riches being raked in by the fossil fuel sector? Or even compared to just the subsidies that the fossil fuel sector still receives?

All those that attended COP26 while the rest of world is locked down are no doubt richer for the experience. Al Gore probably isn't complaining either.

And here's the easy peasy solution to evil fossil fuel profits and subsidies. Stop using the product. If everyone did this, they'd likely be out of business within months. Pretty simple.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

"Zoom" is a bit of a generic name for interactive audio video conferencing these days. Perhaps you need to think more along the lines of how, say, TedX works when it comes to audio video conferences to large groups.

TedX is primarily a series of presentations, not a global meeting looking to produce results.

No, it's not a symptom. It's a distraction. Jackdale can argue across five pages on how Stephen Schneider segregated s[ck]eptics from deniers, yet I bet he (and you) would need to google how many square kilometres of deforestation occurred worldwide or even in your own country last year. That's assuming you care, of course. I suppose you can always offer the excuse that you're waiting for your precious governments to mandate a restriction on the use of palm oil whilst sitting back on your hands.

Ridiculous. The distraction is the coordinated attack on climate science.

And here comes some more ridiculous.

And here's the easy peasy solution to evil fossil fuel profits and subsidies. Stop using the product. If everyone did this, they'd likely be out of business within months. Pretty simple.

Right. Cos everyone could do that. Yeah.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

"Zoom" is a bit of a generic name for interactive audio video conferencing these days. Perhaps you need to think more along the lines of how, say, TedX works when it comes to audio video conferences to large groups.

No, it's not a symptom. It's a distraction. Jackdale can argue across five pages on how Stephen Schneider segregated s[ck]eptics from deniers, yet I bet he (and you) would need to google how many square kilometres of deforestation occurred worldwide or even in your own country last year. That's assuming you care, of course. I suppose you can always offer the excuse that you're waiting for your precious governments to mandate a restriction on the use of palm oil whilst sitting back on your hands.

If you think a jihad is trying to initiate a technical discussion on the issues on some obscure forum then you better go look up the definition of jihad.


What caused fires and floods prior to climate change's "different" weather? And a quick question for you: Is the world now overall drier or wetter than a century ago?


All those that attended COP26 while the rest of world is locked down are no doubt richer for the experience. Al Gore probably isn't complaining either.

And here's the easy peasy solution to evil fossil fuel profits and subsidies. Stop using the product. If everyone did this, they'd likely be out of business within months. Pretty simple.

Hammer meets nail...

[jeanathon]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

TedX is primarily a series of presentations, not a global meeting looking to produce results.


Ridiculous. The distraction is the coordinated attack on climate science.

And here comes some more ridiculous.

Right. Cos everyone could do that. Yeah.

The distraction is away from our corrupt politicians.
Who made money off the pandemic? It wasn't the little mom and pop shops that were forced to close because they were not "essential", but the "essential" multibillion dollar corps such as walmart and amazon. Now that shopping habits have been further skewed towards them who else made money. Well the pharmaceuticals have been making money hand over fist due to vaccine mandates and now antiviral drugs at $590 a pop. Now let's see who were the biggest contributors to our crooks I mean politicians...? Oh yes the ones that were by law made to make more money than ever.

Open your eyes, listen instead of talking and think instead of watching t.v. It all becomes quite plain to see if you are not watching the distraction.

And yes it is a daily choice to use fossil fuels or not. Granted if you go for the interdependent "it takes a village to raise an idiot" philosophy then you must have fossil fuels so your neighbor can help you wipe your ass, but if you are more of the independent shoot a moose, skin it, eat it, wear the pelt kind of person then using fossil fuels is a daily choice.
That's all I have to say about that.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

TedX is primarily a series of presentations, not a global meeting looking to produce results.

Tedx is but a small step from a series of remotely connected auditoriums.

Ridiculous. The distraction is the coordinated attack on climate science.

Your ideology () is showing.

And here comes some more ridiculous.

Right. Cos everyone could do that. Yeah.

So let me get this straight. You are constantly bemoaning the subsidies provided to one of the most essential products required by society on the planet? And believe windmill and solar panel and lithium battery makers, whom we could very well survive without, should get more?



Is that it?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

So let me get this straight. You are constantly bemoaning the subsidies provided to one of the most essential products required by society on the planet?

You and others have said "follow the money", and "it's made a lot of rich people richer"... it appears you might just have figured out where the money actually lands. Congrats.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You and others have said "follow the money", and "it's made a lot of rich people richer"... it appears you might just have figured out where the money actually lands. Congrats.

I doubt subsidies are provided to make rich people richer. They're provided to allow companies to invest in regions significant to whoever is paying the subsidy. Usually for the purpose of creating infrastructure and employment (quite often in rural communities that lack both). These subsidies are ultimately returned as income taxes, royalties and license fees. Companies operating with subsidies usually have strict operating rules and conditions attached which includes being held both accountable and responsible for the local ecology and the environment for the lands upon which they operate.

Also, if the climate change propaganda machine works as I suspect, many subsidies attributed as fossil fuel subsidies are more than likely in the form of energy rebates paid to people and organisations such as primary producers and have nothing to do with the fossil fuel companies themselves.

Let's face it, governments aren't known for handing out free money.

[RaymondR]

Good god mate, are you living in the same Australia as the rest of us. They cannot wait to get into power and start flinging taxpayer money at their mates.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Good god mate, are you living in the same Australia as the rest of us. They cannot wait to get into power and start flinging taxpayer money at their mates.

Regardless, they still won't be doing it out of the goodness of their hearts for a warm fuzzy feeling. Ever wondered why so many ex lawyers fill the ranks of elected officials?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I doubt subsidies are provided to make rich people richer. They're provided to allow companies to invest in regions significant to whoever is paying the subsidy. Usually for the purpose of creating infrastructure and employment (quite often in rural communities that lack both). These subsidies are ultimately returned as income taxes, royalties and license fees. Companies operating with subsidies usually have strict operating rules and conditions attached which includes being held both accountable and responsible for the local ecology and the environment for the lands upon which they operate.

Also, if the climate change propaganda machine works as I suspect, many subsidies attributed as fossil fuel subsidies are more than likely in the form of energy rebates paid to people and organisations such as primary producers and have nothing to do with the fossil fuel companies themselves.

Let's face it, governments aren't known for handing out free money.

What a stream of unicorn f4rts. God bless our noble, selfless fossil fuel industries and the wise and far-sighted governments that nurture them.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

What a stream of unicorn f4rts. God bless our noble, selfless fossil fuel industries and the wise and far-sighted governments that nurture them.

Yes, it's obviously the more legit explanation that the governments of the world are passing cash in brown paper bags to fossil fuel magnates for .... reasons.

[RaymondR]

A lot of what the proponents of more taxes claim are "subsidies" are no such thing.

In Australia fuel taxes were originally levied to pay for road construction. This was considered the fairest way of paying for the roads as the biggest consumers of fuel would be the biggest users of the roads. However a lot of people use fuel for other purposes than driving on the roads. For example farmers plowing fields in pursuit of agriculture, fishermen whilst catching fish, miners whilst extracting minerals and many others.

Since this fuel is not being used on the roads the users are able to claim a rebate on the tax component levied for road building. The proponents of the so called "renewables", as part of their propaganda drive the ultimate aim of which is actually subsidies without which they cannot compete on the open market, like to claim that the rebates for non road transport use are "subsidies to the fossil fuel industries.".

When these so called "subsidies" to the fossil fuel industries are analysed they actually prove to be similar to the non road use tax rebates.