COP26

[phart]

6 minutes ago, phart said:

I never asked you, I pointed out a logical inconsistency in your position, regarding how caring for people was weighted different depending on how it could be used as a rhetorical device and what your position on it was.

For instance don't want covid passports, therefore weight people high, don't like climate change weight people lower.

I wasn't aksing anything, I knew the answer I was pointing it out.

Now this makes the suffering of people just a prop in your "politics" which is the very charge you're levvying against the folk at COP. So there is much common ground.

It's almost like we're all human

[thplinth]

On 12/14/2021 at 11:20 AM, scotlad said:

I've a Fiesta ST at the moment, which is a 1.5 3cyl, and when I was using it for commuting it needed filling up about once a month if that.

That is another wee cracker apparently. I always regretted not getting one when it first came out as it was also cheap and then they upped the price a fair bit for the Mk II version. (Prior to that I quite like that RS Focus that they only made for a while. Do like a Ford. )

[scotlad]

4 hours ago, thplinth said:

That is another wee cracker apparently. I always regretted not getting one when it first came out as it was also cheap and then they upped the price a fair bit for the Mk II version. (Prior to that I quite like that RS Focus that they only made for a while. Do like a Ford. )

It's a great wee car. All mod cons and a hoot to drive. Drive it sensibly and it's a practical runabout, or drive it like a ned and it's a wee beast. It's capable of things I'm not sure how to make it do!  The ride is a bit firm but you expect that from a sporty model (fnar fnar).

[exile]

On 12/16/2021 at 12:40 PM, Morrisandmoo said:

Yes that is exactly the shape I would expect to see if COP26 were the seeding event (rising from December) - for the reasons I explain above.

As I also said it's irrelevant to me either way. But yes the shape fits well with people's intuition. 

Yes I get it, in your case that answers the first of my questions. But no one has answered the others.

[Lamia]

4 hours ago, exile said:

Yes I get it, in your case that answers the first of my questions. But no one has answered the others.

They don't want to admit that it was a mistake. They want people to believe it was safe just as they did with G7 which was also swept under the carpet.

[aaid]

49 minutes ago, Lamia said:

They don't want to admit that it was a mistake. They want people to believe it was safe just as they did with G7 which was also swept under the carpet.

Who are “they”?

[thplinth]

COPS was not just incredibly reckless for the people of Scotland. All those attendees then when back to their home countries and spread it back there too... Is it any surprise it is appearing everywhere now...

FFS suddenly because you have to cover Sturgeon's arse it is a complete reversal of common sense on this subject now. It is pathetic how partisan this is.

They should never have had that conference, it was absolutely nuts. 

[exile]

17 hours ago, Lamia said:

They don't want to admit that it was a mistake. They want people to believe it was safe just as they did with G7 which was also swept under the carpet.

Yes, I get that. But who is the 'them' that we don't believe?  And when did 'they' start faking the figures?

[phart]

It never showed up in the COP covid testing. There was a daily testing requirement.

Now of course it is not foolproof. There needs to be empirical data so we can check it against reality.

There is a separate issue if it should have gone ahead and who could have cancelled it.

There's no evidence that COP spread it. However it's almost impossible with the sequencing coverage to prove it came anywhere so it might certainly have

Omicron was first sequenced on 24th of november. First known sample found is from 9th of november.

If you're certain about it then you almost certainly don't understand the complexity of the situation.

[Morrisandmoo]

On 12/16/2021 at 1:10 PM, phart said:

Now this makes the suffering of people just a prop in your "politics" which is the very charge you're levvying against the folk at COP. So there is much common ground.

It's almost like we're all human

Probably a bit unfair in terms of folk being a prop. 

It's more that (1) you can't in practice care about everything equally. Otherwise I'd need to spend all my time on the internet talking shite. I appreciate this means that when viewed objectively then it results in contradictions. But I am happy to be a subjective human.  

When it comes to vaccine passports - I feel our government is doing an awful thing and the majority of people support them in doing so. Therefore, I might make a tiny tiny tiny difference by saying how awful it is. It's not really "politics". In fact, my general politics tilts towards "big government", if that's still a thing.

(2) I think that how we treat each other and the economic/social structures we live by will determine to a much larger degree the happiness and prosperity of people in the future vs our external environment. It's too simple to say: hotter climate, worse human outcomes; colder climate, better human outcomes.

And besides, I don't think I've much criticisied the status quo (e.g. slow down the pace of climate change). It's more that I've criticised the honesty/integrity of some of the leading individuals/organisations; their communication strategy generally;  their clarity of thought/purpose; and their social priorities. 

(3) I know a lot more about vaccine passports so feel more confident going all in. Not that i'm an expert - it's just that I am certain that I am in the right and the majority are in the wrong. If nothing else because it's very simple. Climate change is a lot harder. 

Edited December 21, 2021 by Morrisandmoo

[phart]

Chemical pollution has passed safe limit for humanity, say scientists

Study calls for cap on production and release as pollution threatens global ecosystems upon which life depends

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/18/chemical-pollution-has-passed-safe-limit-for-humanity-say-scientists

There’s evidence that things are pointing in the wrong direction every step of the way,” said Prof Bethanie Carney Almroth at the University of Gothenburg who was part of the team. “For example, the total mass of plastics now exceeds the total mass of all living mammals. That to me is a pretty clear indication that we’ve crossed a boundary. We’re in trouble, but there are things we can do to reverse some of this.”

Villarrubia-Gómez said: “Shifting to a circular economy is really important. That means changing materials and products so they can be reused, not wasted.”

[Orraloon]

3 minutes ago, phart said:

Chemical pollution has passed safe limit for humanity, say scientists

Study calls for cap on production and release as pollution threatens global ecosystems upon which life depends

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/18/chemical-pollution-has-passed-safe-limit-for-humanity-say-scientists

There’s evidence that things are pointing in the wrong direction every step of the way,” said Prof Bethanie Carney Almroth at the University of Gothenburg who was part of the team. “For example, the total mass of plastics now exceeds the total mass of all living mammals. That to me is a pretty clear indication that we’ve crossed a boundary. We’re in trouble, but there are things we can do to reverse some of this.”

Villarrubia-Gómez said: “Shifting to a circular economy is really important. That means changing materials and products so they can be reused, not wasted.”

That's not a very scientific thing for them to say. What boundary? Does the ratio of the mass of plastics to the mass of mammals mean anything? The mass of rocks or water to mammals is even higher but that is pretty meaningless as well. When "scientists" spout stuff like this it isn't very helpful to actually solving the problem.

[phart]

15 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

That's not a very scientific thing for them to say. What boundary? Does the ratio of the mass of plastics to the mass of mammals mean anything? The mass of rocks or water to mammals is even higher but that is pretty meaningless as well. When "scientists" spout stuff like this it isn't very helpful to actually solving the problem.

Planetary boundary. The boundary referenced is in the paragraph before the part you highlighted. Which of course you'd know if you had read the piece you're opining upon.

 

[phart]

 

[ParisInAKilt]

[phart]

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00312-2