Be Excellent To Each Other

And, you know, party on. Dude.

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Reply to topic  [ 14340 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 287  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2014 20:27 
User avatar
Bad Girl

Joined: 20th Apr, 2008
Posts: 14353
That's just the fracking because those renewables don't make trillion pounds worth of money for multimillionaire investors.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2014 20:54 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Meh. I think the notion that a whole bunch of people haven't made a shedload of cash off the backs of so called renewable energy is sorely misguided. Those windmills, the land and sea floor they occupy cost a fortune, and don't even start on nuclear plants. Of course, the massive, gravy train subsidies they get paid (even to NOT generate power) amounts to a huge sum...

It's not just scientists who love the whole climate change agenda; plenty of investors think it's fabulous too, for good reason

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2014 22:38 
User avatar
Sleepyhead

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 27343
Location: Kidbrooke
Cavey wrote:
Meh. I think the notion that a whole bunch of people haven't made a shedload of cash off the backs of so called renewable energy is sorely misguided. Those windmills, the land and sea floor they occupy cost a fortune, and don't even start on nuclear plants. Of course, the massive, gravy train subsidies they get paid (even to NOT generate power) amounts to a huge sum...

It's not just scientists who love the whole climate change agenda; plenty of investors think it's fabulous too, for good reason


I don't think anyone loves it; the whole thing is a fucking catastrophe for humanity.

But the amount being made, whilst plenty for some people to make millions, is still just pennies compared to the money made by the 'other side'.

_________________
We are young despite the years
We are concern
We are hope, despite the times


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 7:15 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16552
No it's all a conspiracy by the scientific community to get grants. Who needs them anyway with their evidence and facts? We can model the climate using good old fashioned common sense. The planet has always changed temperature you see, blah de fucking blah etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 8:35 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Curiosity wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Meh. I think the notion that a whole bunch of people haven't made a shedload of cash off the backs of so called renewable energy is sorely misguided. Those windmills, the land and sea floor they occupy cost a fortune, and don't even start on nuclear plants. Of course, the massive, gravy train subsidies they get paid (even to NOT generate power) amounts to a huge sum...

It's not just scientists who love the whole climate change agenda; plenty of investors think it's fabulous too, for good reason


I don't think anyone loves it; the whole thing is a fucking catastrophe for humanity.

But the amount being made, whilst plenty for some people to make millions, is still just pennies compared to the money made by the 'other side'.


I didn't want to stray unduly into the area of man-made climate change; we've all done it to death already and this thread is supposed to be about politics, and specifically, political debate. However, I see that discussion has moved elsewhere ;) , so hey ho...

Briefly, where is this "fucking catastrophe for humanity" now, exactly? I'm not talking about stuff like China choking on fumes produced by its myriad of coal-burning power stations and suchlike. That is simply pollution, a very well understood principle (see 1950s London smog etc.), nor indeed climate change per se (which has always occurred since the Earth's climate is dynamic and complex without any intervention from us), but actual, irrefutable and catastrophic, man made climate change? Seems to me all we actually have is a bunch of models and predictions which inarguably have not, and do not, even remotely fit with actual, empirical data - the planet has not even warmed at all since 2001, yet I clearly remember being told I'd be up to my knees in polar ice meltwater by now.

Climate change per se is indeed occurring, to a degree. It has always occurred, it will continue to occur, and no-one - least of all me - has ever denied this basic fact of life. But it certainly is not occurring even remotely in accordance with predictions (so confidently and arrogantly asserted), does not (at the moment) constitute a "fucking catastrophe for humanity", and as for it definitely and absolutely being attributable to man-made greenhouse gas emissions? Any fair-minded, reasonable person would concede that, in the face of our complete and demonstrable failure to model/predict what is actually happening, this assertion is at the very least highly debatable/unknown at present. (Don't even get me started on the laughable, derisory record of the Met Office to predict even the next weather season, let alone 20, 30 or 50 years hence).

Seriously, do you think that if people like me were even remotely convinced by the efficacy of current predictions and modelling, we'd be arguing against this? Do you think I want to see the world of my kids destroyed, just so I don't have to pay so many green taxes, levies and fees? Did people argue against the cessation of CFC use (despite this being a nightmare 'commercially', with these things ubiquitous as refrigerants, propellants in aerosols etc.), when the scientific community produced clear, concise, demonstrable science showing the depletion of the ozone layer? No they did not; the use of these chemicals was stopped almost overnight, at great cost (entirely passed onto consumers), and yet everyone applauded.

In my profession, I have to produce detailed, 3D environmental models, as based on very expensive, proprietary modelling software that took many, many years to develop, but is ultimately based on a series of sound, absolute, irrefutable and demonstrable scientific laws. Let's suppose someone commissioned me to do this, the project was built - and the predictions of my model turned out to be not even remotely correct? Apart from being sued, do you think anyone would take me seriously? Could I thump my fist on the table and accuse my detractors as being "deniers"; that I had used the "best science", even in the face of a total failure on my part to even remotely predict the required parameters? Of course not. And yet, in my case, the total liability might even be a few million quid - but the liability in the case of man-made climate change would run into trillions. Ultimately, for me at least, this is about credibility, or demonstable lack thereof. As I said the other day to a bunch of baying science-types on another board, come back to me when you've actually validated your model(s), yeah?

One final point, I think you seriously underestimate the amount of money involved, one way or another, in the whole man-made climate change business, carbon credits, subsidies, expensively engineered cars and all the rest - all of which we, ordinary people and consumers (most visibly in spiraling, crippling energy costs) have to pay for.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 8:36 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
markg wrote:
No it's all a conspiracy by the scientific community to get grants. Who needs them anyway with their evidence and facts? We can model the climate using good old fashioned common sense. The planet has always changed temperature you see, blah de fucking blah etc.


Yeah, I think you'll find it's those "evidence and facts" that are sorely lacking matey.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 9:02 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16552
Cavey wrote:
Seriously, do you think that if people like me were even remotely convinced by the efficacy of current predictions and modelling, we'd be arguing against this? Do you think I want to see the world of my kids destroyed, just so I don't have to pay so many green taxes, levies and fees?

No, I think that cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 10:09 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
markg wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Seriously, do you think that if people like me were even remotely convinced by the efficacy of current predictions and modelling, we'd be arguing against this? Do you think I want to see the world of my kids destroyed, just so I don't have to pay so many green taxes, levies and fees?

No, I think that cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.


I must confess, I had to look that up. :D

According to Wiki:

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the excessive mental stress and discomfort[1] experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time.

This stress and discomfort may also arise within an individual who holds a belief and performs a contradictory action or reaction.[2] For example, an individual is likely to experience dissonance if they are addicted to smoking cigarettes and continue to smoke despite knowing how seriously it jeopardizes health.[3] Stress and discomfort increase in proportion to the importance of the beliefs, ideas or values that are contradicted.


It's true to the extent that whole issue of man-made climate change leaves me uncomfortable, for I neither entirely believe, nor disbelieve it - like many others, I am desperate for the 'hammer blow' evidence (even an empirically validated, demonstrably valid model), one way or another?

But it definitely isn't the case, say, as per the cigarettes example (an example only too close to my heart :( ), that I fully believe in the hypothesis, or not, and cause distress to myself by wilfully and/or perversely doing (or purporting to believe) the exact opposite. That would be absurd; almost cultish. I'm guilty of many things, but not that. How much do you think it bothers me personally to lose an argument or lose face? It happens all the time!

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 10:23 
User avatar
Sleepyhead

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 27343
Location: Kidbrooke
97.1% of scientists studying this agree on man made climate change. Over 98% if you count them a slightly more accurate way.

Cavey, no offence, but this genuinely isn't a debate. If you want a brief précis then see the John Oliver video on it.

There's evidence basically everywhere. If you want a more detailed version, ask the experts; they unanimously agree on it.

I don't mean to be rude, but your argument boils down to this:

"I am arguing from a position of ignorance compared to people who dedicate their lives to studying this, but I know more than every single one of these people, despite their thousands of doctorates and overwhelming scientific proof."

_________________
We are young despite the years
We are concern
We are hope, despite the times


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 10:41 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Curiosity wrote:
"I am arguing from a position of ignorance compared to people who dedicate their lives to studying this, but I know more than every single one of these people, despite their thousands of doctorates and overwhelming scientific proof."


Sorry mate, but it absolutely is not that.

You say "it isn't even a debate", yet it is inarguable that the as predicted man-made global warming models do not even remotely correlate with actuality? I don't need to be an expert; anyone can legitimately question the basic veracity of a hypothesis based on such a clear disconnect with empirical data. I don't pretend to know WHY, but I absolutely do not need to.

Going back to my earlier 3D acoustics model example, if I was sat round a table with my clients, who wanted to know why it was completely wrong in all key respects (i.e. its predictions were totally at odds with actual measured data, after the fact), how much ice would it cut if I were to say "...this isn't a debate! I don't care that none of my predictions have proved correct [thus far], wtf do any of you's know about acoustics? I'm TEH EXPERT, you plebs!"....?

In that example, apart from anything else, my clients would be picking up the tab and would be totally justified in questioning my true knowledge and capabilities, with or without specialist knowledge of their own. In the final analysis, either something works, or it doesn't; a theory is proved, or it is not? Empirical proof is everything, especially to engineers. It's our job, sorry. If something is not proved, have the humility and conscience to swallow your professional pride and go back to the drawing board guys; don't try to browbeat those few who are prepared to at least question why predictions clearly don't match with reality.

I should point out of course that the immense "tab" arising from the man-made climate change theory - not simply the cost of research, but of (patchy) policy implementation - IS being picked up by all of us, disproportionately so in Europe. Very much so, often by people who can least afford it.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 10:45 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16552
Cavey wrote:
But it definitely isn't the case, say, as per the cigarettes example (an example only too close to my heart :( ), that I fully believe in the hypothesis, or not, and cause distress to myself by wilfully and/or perversely doing (or purporting to believe) the exact opposite. That would be absurd; almost cultish. I'm guilty of many things, but not that. How much do you think it bothers me personally to lose an argument or lose face? It happens all the time!

People did just that for a long time though, they would resolve it by clinging to any shred of contradictory evidence, it sounds like a cliche now but it genuinely wasn't uncommon to hear things like "my grandad smoked 20 a day and lived till he was 85".

I think the point is that sometimes this cognitive dissonance can cause us to give undue credence to any evidence which doesn't cause us to have to alter our views. It also strikes me that some of the wider implications of what is going to be required to have any meaningful impact on climate change do not sit well with traditional conservative values which may compound this effect for those with right wing views.

I've also read things which indicate that it isn't related to scientific literacy or anything like that and indeed those faculties can simply enable people to better construct an alternative viewpoint which they find believable. You see scientists who probably consider themselves rational do this sometimes. Becoming a lone voice clinging to their theory for what observers might consider a quite unreasonable length of time after the contradictory evidence has emerged, desperately criticising the methodology and credibility of their opponents.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 10:47 
User avatar
Sleepyhead

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 27343
Location: Kidbrooke
Again, 97%-98% of scientific papers all agree on man mad climate change.

This isn't just models. This is measuring results from the past and present and seeing actual, real, live correlations. They are seeing exactly what models predict in many ways.

I'm on holiday and about to go out, but list the exact ways you disagree with the published papers (I assume you've read them if you disagree with all the research) and I'll try to refute you :)

_________________
We are young despite the years
We are concern
We are hope, despite the times


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 10:50 
User avatar
Sleepyhead

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 27343
Location: Kidbrooke
I'm also not sure where the 'all the models are always wrong' nonsense is coming from, as they aren't.

_________________
We are young despite the years
We are concern
We are hope, despite the times


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 10:53 
User avatar
Sitting balls-back folder

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 10065
Oi, holiday.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 11:02 
User avatar
MR EXCELLENT FACE

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 2568
markg wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Seriously, do you think that if people like me were even remotely convinced by the efficacy of current predictions and modelling, we'd be arguing against this? Do you think I want to see the world of my kids destroyed, just so I don't have to pay so many green taxes, levies and fees?

No, I think that cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.


I posted this in the bits and bobs thread the other day:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/m ... n=20140519

Choice quote:
Quote:
If information doesn’t square with someone’s prior beliefs, he discards the beliefs if they’re weak and discards the information if the beliefs are strong.


and a bunch of other stuff to do with the identity of self. Well, if someone strongly identifies themselves with a particular political group, and that political group says "climate change is wrong", you're basically never going to get that person to change their opinion unless you "can appeal to their sense of self" (whatever that means) and do so without them feeling threatened, or something. Which unfortunately means that if a person has a giant persecution complex, they'll never change.

_________________
This man is bound by law to clear the snow away


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 11:09 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
Cavey wrote:
You say "it isn't even a debate", yet it is inarguable that the as predicted man-made global warming models do not even remotely correlate with actuality?
The models built in the '80s by a relatively small group of scientists turned out to be alarmist. The models built in the '00s by almost every human being working in environmental science today have all so far been accurate. You are using the results of the first to dispute the second but these are not the same things.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 12:44 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Pod wrote:
markg wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Seriously, do you think that if people like me were even remotely convinced by the efficacy of current predictions and modelling, we'd be arguing against this? Do you think I want to see the world of my kids destroyed, just so I don't have to pay so many green taxes, levies and fees?

No, I think that cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.


I posted this in the bits and bobs thread the other day:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/m ... n=20140519

Choice quote:
Quote:
If information doesn’t square with someone’s prior beliefs, he discards the beliefs if they’re weak and discards the information if the beliefs are strong.


and a bunch of other stuff to do with the identity of self. Well, if someone strongly identifies themselves with a particular political group, and that political group says "climate change is wrong", you're basically never going to get that person to change their opinion unless you "can appeal to their sense of self" (whatever that means) and do so without them feeling threatened, or something. Which unfortunately means that if a person has a giant persecution complex, they'll never change.


And yet amusingly enough though Pod, it's actually you, not I, who clearly has an axe to grind (and for that matter, as far as I can make out, totally intransigent political beliefs in the face of all the empirical evidence to the contrary).

At the end of the day, patronising ad hominem isn't an argument for anything and, for the record, I couldn't give two hoots if you think my political (or any other) beliefs are so entrenched/embedded that I can't even bring myself to consider any alternative world-view, have a "giant persecution complex", or whatever. To someone like me who is actually always perfectly willing to consider, and empathise with the other side of an argument (indeed, why else would I be here), and freely admit when I'm wrong (which is often), it all just comes across as ridiculous, needlessly personal and ultimately, a bit pathetic I'm afraid.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 12:46 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Cavey wrote:
You say "it isn't even a debate", yet it is inarguable that the as predicted man-made global warming models do not even remotely correlate with actuality?
The models built in the '80s by a relatively small group of scientists turned out to be alarmist. The models built in the '00s by almost every human being working in environmental science today have all so far been accurate. You are using the results of the first to dispute the second but these are not the same things.


Genuine question: Have you got any 'Idiots Guide' links to stuff specifically about the latest model efficacies please Doc? :)

Cavey

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 13:11 
Excellent Member

Joined: 5th Dec, 2010
Posts: 3353
We all know its the implementation of gay marriage in the UK that caused floods, not global warming


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 13:39 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
Cavey wrote:
Genuine question: Have you got any 'Idiots Guide' links to stuff specifically about the latest model efficacies please Doc? :)
Here's a place to start.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 14:07 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Genuine question: Have you got any 'Idiots Guide' links to stuff specifically about the latest model efficacies please Doc? :)
Here's a place to start.


Nice one, thanks Doc. :)

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 14:08 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
I'll just quote the last graf of that page:

Quote:
Models don't need to be exact in every respect to give us an accurate overall trend and its major effects - and we have that now. If you knew there were a 90% chance you'd be in a car crash, you wouldn't get in the car (or at the very least, you'd wear a seatbelt). The IPCC concludes, with a greater than 90% probability, that humans are causing global warming. To wait for 100% certainty before acting is recklessly irresponsible.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 14:12 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
... Upon which, I would entirely agree of course, as would any reasonable person.
The question for me, though, is do we really have 90% plus certainty? I haven't read this piece yet, but will do so, along with this likely opposing view published by Nature in September 2013, which I have only skimmed through.

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20 ... timate.pdf

Quote:
The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade (Fig. 1b).

It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from zero — suggests a temporary ‘hiatus’ in global warming2–4. The divergence between observed and CMIP5-simulated global warming begins in the early 1990s, as can be seen when comparing observed and simulated running trends from 1970–2012 (Fig. 2a and 2b for 20-year and 15-year running trends, respectively).

The evidence, therefore, indicates that the current generation of climate models (when run as a group, with the CMIP5 prescribed forcings) do not reproduce the observed global warming over the past 20 years, or the slowdown in global warming over the past fifteen years.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 14:18 
Excellent Member

Joined: 5th Dec, 2010
Posts: 3353
Its something the human race should act on as if its going to be 50% as bad as they say

People will drown in floods or starve as crop fields etc will be under water.

The planet won't really be affected, just us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 14:33 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
I don't have a problem with the need to act and do something. I do have issue with some of the policies that have been enacted and the private companies that jump on the bandwagon to charge more for stuff on the back of it being to "save the planet"

For example, the scrapage scheme for cars. It was sold as an environmental thing, but it was actually better for the environment to run the old cars that had already been built, rather than scrap them and build new cars for people to buy. Regardless of how efficient newer cars are. Letting the old ones die out naturally was a much better option.
It was an economy and business matter pure and simple, nothing to do with the environment.

Don't get me started on the bag-for-life scam :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 14:34 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
How is that a scam?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 14:37 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Trooper wrote:
I don't have a problem with the need to act and do something. I do have issue with some of the policies that have been enacted and the private companies that jump on the bandwagon to charge more for stuff on the back of it being to "save the planet"


Indeed mate, this is what I was referring to from the outset, and there are loads of examples, to my mind the most notable being the prohibitive cost per kWh renewable source generation is statutorily permitted to "sell" back to the grid, and the rest of us pay handsomely for, including consumers who can ill afford it. A lot of people and businesses have done, and will very much continue to do very, very well out of this. That's a fact.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 14:47 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
Normal plastic bags have a carbon footprint of 12g, the plastic bags for life have a footprint of 250g, the thicker woven bags for life have a footprint of 2500g.

You need to use a bag for life over 20 times for it to be better, over 200 times for a woven bag. I'm sure there are few people who can do that, but the majority can't make them last that long. They break, they get lost, you forget them etc...
Every time you forget to bring a bag and buy just one more bag-for-life, then that is another 20 trips you need to make, on top of the original trips, to just about break even.

Then, on top of that, the total footprint of the consumption of plastic bags in the UK for a year, is equivalent to the footprint of 2 hours of running Heathrow...
A single 10 mile trip in your car, is the equivalent of a single families carrier bag footprint over the course of a whole year.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 14:55 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16552
Yeah, I've always thought that plastic bags were a ridiculous thing to get so much attention. But it lets those businesses appear responsible and is paid for by the consumer. Compared to the amount of other crap and pointless packaging which people throw away they are completely insignificant.

Anything meaningful like telling people not to drive their cars much and definitely not go jetting off on foreign holidays won't be much of a money-spinner for anyone.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 15:00 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
You appear to have omitted landfill and litter from your calculations.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 15:02 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
markg wrote:
Yeah, I've always thought that plastic bags were a ridiculous thing to get so much attention. Compared to the amount of other crap and pointless packaging which people throw away they are completely insignificant. But then telling people not to drive their cars as much and definitely not go jetting off on foreign holidays is not much of a money-spinner.


Indeed :) Add to that the bigger size of the bag-for-life, and the storing and transporting of those, then it gets even worse!

The best thing is those tree-hugging jute bags that are so good for the environment. Each one of those bags has a whole of life carbon footprint of 51kg! You'd need to use one 4000 times to come out ahead :D

Like everything political parties do, it's all just posturing and all about vote-winning and being seen to be doing the right thing, rather than actually doing the right thing. Ban the carrier bags, because everyone knows them and sees them and uses them, we can spin it that is is a good thing and that'll win us some votes...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 15:03 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
You appear to have omitted landfill and litter from your calculations.


Good point. The bags for life are much larger and heavier, so take up a lot more physical space in landfills.
I'll give you the litter argument though :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 15:17 
User avatar
Soopah red DS

Joined: 2nd Jun, 2008
Posts: 3209
Plus it isn't entirely about the carbon footprint - all consumption causes some, after all, and the idea is to reduce it as far as possible; far better to do that by changing attitudes, so instead of a standard 'here's your stuff, here's a crappy bag', more and more people always have a bag tucked away in a pocket somewhere, more people just carry their few items to car or home and so on.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 15:18 
User avatar
Gogmagog

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 48607
Location: Cheshire
Did anyone else think "She did OK, there" after May bitchslapped the police federatin and told them to sort their stuff out?

_________________
Mr Chris wrote:
MaliA isn't just the best thing on the internet - he's the best thing ever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 15:25 
User avatar
MR EXCELLENT FACE

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 2568
Cavey wrote:
And yet amusingly enough though Pod, it's actually you, not I, who clearly has an axe to grind (and for that matter, as far as I can make out, totally intransigent political beliefs in the face of all the empirical evidence to the contrary).


1. The post wasn't about you, it was about cognitive dissonance and forms of persuasion.
2. Please highlight, in bold etc, what I directly wrote, or even some text you think vaguely implies, that you, or anyone else, had an axe to grind?
3. What are my "political beliefs" that I refuse to change "in the face of all the empirical evidence to the contrary"?
4. Given how you've gone off on one, maybe you do have a persecution complex?




re: Bag for life. Is it about the energy?

Landfills are full of plastic bags, because of how many we use, how we dispose off them and that most bags weren't recycleable. Once in the landfill they simply don't go away, because of their lack of biodegradability. Plastic bags will continue to be taken to the tip until plastic becomes a premium item to make and it's more economically viable to recycle/reuse the old bags.

So by using a bag for life, especially a hippie-tastic one made from hemp, you're reducing the number of bags sent to a landfill. And finding a new landfill sites that doesn't annoy people is a hard thing.

I use one as the thin plastic ones are shit and rip.

edit: Hmm JBR said the same thing.

_________________
This man is bound by law to clear the snow away


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 15:27 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16552
JBR wrote:
Plus it isn't entirely about the carbon footprint - all consumption causes some, after all, and the idea is to reduce it as far as possible; far better to do that by changing attitudes, so instead of a standard 'here's your stuff, here's a crappy bag', more and more people always have a bag tucked away in a pocket somewhere, more people just carry their few items to car or home and so on.

I just think it's something that lets governments, businesses and individuals feel as though they are "doing their bit" when it costs them nothing and makes no meaningful contribution to anything. Not using disposable plastic bags doesn't prepare people for the fact that if they actually gave a toss then they wouldn't be jetting off on foreign holidays etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 15:28 
User avatar
Soopah red DS

Joined: 2nd Jun, 2008
Posts: 3209
markg wrote:
JBR wrote:
Plus it isn't entirely about the carbon footprint - all consumption causes some, after all, and the idea is to reduce it as far as possible; far better to do that by changing attitudes, so instead of a standard 'here's your stuff, here's a crappy bag', more and more people always have a bag tucked away in a pocket somewhere, more people just carry their few items to car or home and so on.

I just think it's something that lets governments, businesses and individuals feel as though they are "doing their bit" when it costs them nothing and makes no meaningful contribution to anything. Not using disposable plastic bags doesn't prepare people for the fact that if they actually gave a toss then they wouldn't be jetting off on foreign holidays etc.

Oh yeah, absolutely - it starts as an entirely understandable reaction to something so little and yet so wasteful, then turns into a campaign and that draws attention away from the whole point.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 15:29 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Pod wrote:

1. The post wasn't about you, it was about cognitive dissonance and forms of persuasion.
2. Please highlight, in bold etc, what I directly wrote, or even some text you think vaguely implies, that you, or anyone else, had an axe to grind?
3. What are my "political beliefs" that I refuse to change "in the face of all the empirical evidence to the contrary"?
4. Given how you've gone off on one, maybe you do have a persecution complex?


Sorry, this is an interesting discussion. Could you please leave this crap out of this thread? I am just not interested. Thanks.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 15:30 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
MaliA wrote:
Did anyone else think "She did OK, there" after May bitchslapped the police federatin and told them to sort their stuff out?


Yes I flipping well did, actually. Fair play to her; long overdue as far as I'm concerned.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 15:36 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
That's the whole point, the move to reusable bags is quantifiably worse for the environment when you take a look across the whole lifecycle and how they are actually used by people. We are in a worse situation than before when it comes to environmental impact. That includes the landfill costs and impact, etc...
People have this idea that they are better, but they really aren't, it just seems like they should be.

Changing peoples attitudes to using bags was the right thing to do, we should have kept the old bags though and had a campaign of re-use and recycle of those, as that would have actually put us in a better position.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 15:39 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Trooper wrote:
People have this idea that they are better, but they really aren't, it just seems like they should be.


Ah yes... so many things in life - most especially in matters of politics - seem like they "should" be better (or "should" achieve the desired, no doubt entirely well-intentioned result), but very often (sadly) do not do anything of the sort...

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 15:53 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 69502
Location: Your Mum
They should just charge for the bags, like M&S and Aldi do.

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 15:55 
User avatar
Excellent Member

Joined: 25th Jul, 2010
Posts: 11128
Cavey wrote:
Pod wrote:

1. The post wasn't about you, it was about cognitive dissonance and forms of persuasion.
2. Please highlight, in bold etc, what I directly wrote, or even some text you think vaguely implies, that you, or anyone else, had an axe to grind?
3. What are my "political beliefs" that I refuse to change "in the face of all the empirical evidence to the contrary"?
4. Given how you've gone off on one, maybe you do have a persecution complex?


Sorry, this is an interesting discussion. Could you please leave this crap out of this thread? I am just not interested. Thanks.


You're the one that had a go at him over nothing you tit! He was just expanding on the concept of cognitive dissonance and you needlessly decided it was an attack on you and threw a load of genuinely bizarre accusations at him. You do a good job at pretending to be reasonable, and often times actually manage it, but this tendency to fly off the handle in a paranoid heart beat is really unpleasant.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 15:57 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16552
Trooper wrote:
The best thing is those tree-hugging jute bags that are so good for the environment. Each one of those bags has a whole of life carbon footprint of 51kg! You'd need to use one 4000 times to come out ahead :D

Have you got a source for this? Everything I can find says it is more like 170 times and the normal reusable bags need to be used 10 or 11 times, which is some discrepancy and makes me wonder about your other figures.

But either way all this talk of plastic bags still makes me think of deckchairs on the Titanic. An utterly irrelevant distraction.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 16:05 
User avatar
Gogmagog

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 48607
Location: Cheshire
I use the bigger bags I've bought for storing firewood after they get used for transporting beer up the big hill.

_________________
Mr Chris wrote:
MaliA isn't just the best thing on the internet - he's the best thing ever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 16:07 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Bamba wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Pod wrote:

1. The post wasn't about you, it was about cognitive dissonance and forms of persuasion.
2. Please highlight, in bold etc, what I directly wrote, or even some text you think vaguely implies, that you, or anyone else, had an axe to grind?
3. What are my "political beliefs" that I refuse to change "in the face of all the empirical evidence to the contrary"?
4. Given how you've gone off on one, maybe you do have a persecution complex?


Sorry, this is an interesting discussion. Could you please leave this crap out of this thread? I am just not interested. Thanks.


You're the one that had a go at him over nothing you tit! He was just expanding on the concept of cognitive dissonance and you needlessly decided it was an attack on you and threw a load of genuinely bizarre accusations at him. You do a good job at pretending to be reasonable, and often times actually manage it, but this tendency to fly off the handle in a paranoid heart beat is really unpleasant.


Oh FFS.
I was QUOTED in that post, so pardon me for thinking it had anything to do with me, along with all the other tiresome crap he's thrown at me previously.

So yeah, how "bizarre" eh. :insincere:

What the fuck has this got to do with you anyway? Are you Pod's GF? ;)

I am NOT interested in this. You think I'm a "tit", fine by me, but could you leave those who actually do want to discuss with me alone in this one thread without derailing it? Last word from me on this petty crap.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 16:13 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
markg wrote:
Trooper wrote:
The best thing is those tree-hugging jute bags that are so good for the environment. Each one of those bags has a whole of life carbon footprint of 51kg! You'd need to use one 4000 times to come out ahead :D

Have you got a source for this? Everything I can find says it is more like 170 times and the normal reusable bags need to be used 10 or 11 times, which is some discrepancy and makes me wonder about your other figures.


UK Environment Agency Report SC030148/2011
http://www.incpen.org/docs/Life%20cycle ... report.pdf

Admittedly, I'm just quoting the carbon footprint numbers for hyperbole sake, rather than the full GWP number ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 16:14 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
Grim... wrote:
They should just charge for the bags, like M&S and Aldi do.


It's coming, October 2015 all single use plastic bags will cost a mandatory 5p across England.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 16:17 
User avatar

Joined: 12th Apr, 2008
Posts: 17757
Location: Oxford
Cavey wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Did anyone else think "She did OK, there" after May bitchslapped the police federatin and told them to sort their stuff out?


Yes I flipping well did, actually. Fair play to her; long overdue as far as I'm concerned.


This. Very impressed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 16:18 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Kern wrote:
Cavey wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Did anyone else think "She did OK, there" after May bitchslapped the police federatin and told them to sort their stuff out?


Yes I flipping well did, actually. Fair play to her; long overdue as far as I'm concerned.


This. Very impressed.


Yes, I thought that was true political bravery, a rare thing imo.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 14340 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 287  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kern, The Greys and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search within this thread:
You are using the 'Ted' forum. Bill doesn't really exist any more. Bogus!
Want to help out with the hosting / advertising costs? That's very nice of you.
Are you on a mobile phone? Try http://beex.co.uk/m/
RIP, Owen. RIP, MrC.

Powered by a very Grim... version of phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.