Ramseyboi Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 I am quite happy to be on record saying that if we see anything even close to this 9 years from now I am will eat my, and everyone else’s, hat. These predictions they are scaring people with are all complete crap, as are the ones DOI are using to try and push stupid and over the top flood defences on everyone. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Blonde Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 19 minutes ago, Ramseyboi said: I am quite happy to be on record saying that if we see anything even close to this 9 years from now I am will eat my, and everyone else’s, hat. These predictions they are scaring people with are all complete crap, as are the ones DOI are using to try and push stupid and over the top flood defences on everyone. That map has Port Jack Chippy underwater in 10 years... it's about 100ft above sea level lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 22 minutes ago, Ramseyboi said: I am quite happy to be on record saying that if we see anything even close to this 9 years from now I am will eat my, and everyone else’s, hat. These predictions they are scaring people with are all complete crap, as are the ones DOI are using to try and push stupid and over the top flood defences on everyone. The Ramsey one might not be that unlikely, you can ride the tide quite a long way up the river in a kayak in the right conditions. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 Since when has Maughold been West of Ramsey with Andreas adjacent to it? Somebody's geography is as erroneous as their climate predictions, Promenade and road-marking ideas. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 World's largest car makers refuse to sign up to zero emissions deal... https://news.sky.com/story/worlds-largest-car-manufacturers-swerve-climate-commitment-12464857?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter Like most things climate related, we are relying on technology which hasn't been sufficiently developed or doesn't even exist yet in our rush to net zero. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Blonde Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 1 hour ago, Non-Believer said: Since when has Maughold been West of Ramsey with Andreas adjacent to it? Somebody's geography is as erroneous as their climate predictions, Promenade and road-marking ideas. It has St. Johns as somewhere around Braddan too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 (edited) However, it's good to know that with the international community now focused on global warming, glaciers melting, flooding and rising water levels impacting on areas of human habitation...somebody is worried about the Curraghs drying out.... Edited November 10, 2021 by Non-Believer ETA Tidied screenshot up 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
code99 Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 (edited) "Within 50 years we'll all be net zero anyway - not because of Greta but because the technology is constantly improving" Stu Peters@Stu Peters There is a very clear correlation between increasing economic growth, increasing fossil fuel consumption and the destruction of the world’s ecosystems. From the mid-1800s, as a result of the Industrial Revolution, humans have perennially pursued ever greater economic growth i.e. for the last few hundred years human beings have increasingly been disrupting (and destroying) our planet’s natural ‘circle of life’, and the planet's weather systems are starting to go haywire. There are numerous problems with the idea that ‘green’ technology is constantly improving, i.e., this has not happened in the past – more technology, more destruction, never the other way around. All technological things have one vital input – energy that comes from consuming, burning and destroying resources. Apart from these basics, even if new ‘novel’ technologies came along that could be used to ‘help save the planet’, initially they would simply be too small to have any material impact on the accelerating environmental catastrophe. They would arrive too late. The idea that every petrol head in the western world would be able to switch to an electrical vehicle is also delusional. There is simply not enough lithium, cobalt, copper and other raw materials available, which would be needed to build this number of vehicles (and batteries needed). In many countries the existing electricity grid would need to be massively expanded to cope with the additional demand. Just building the hundreds of thousands of wind turbines would run into similar raw material constraints. On top of that, the world would need to accept that going green is toxic business - the mining of these resources often produces extremely hazardous waste, and can also involve the barbaric exploitation of workers in the world’s poorest countries. Many Pacific Island nations are already being submerged by rising and increasingly acidic seas. In many cases, it is already too late for these ‘hypothetical future technologies’ to save them. How can coral reefs be ‘restored’? How can old-growth forests be regrown? How can melted glaciers be saved by future technological advances, when they have already melted? Believing in non-existent/un-proven future technologies that will save us from our destructive ways is akin to believing in fairies. It’s nothing but greenwash, a cute idea that excuses people from doing anything that would actually help, but would involve personal sacrifices. What the world needs is for humanity to drastically reduce the consumption of everything; from kids’ toys to boomer cruses. But who is going to make the necessary sacrifices? Nobody, it seems (not even the world leaders because it dosen’t fit with their home agendas of promising their voters ever higher standards of living). Hence, hypocrisy reigns supreme. Meanwhile, the ‘haves nots’ the world’s poorest people, and those who live in climate vulnerable locations, are already bearing the brunt of the climate-change tragedy. Edited November 10, 2021 by code99 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyWolf Posted November 11, 2021 Share Posted November 11, 2021 Dath rules out nuclear power, a complete none story as if the good old Iom could ever afford that even if wanted it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Blonde Posted November 11, 2021 Share Posted November 11, 2021 6 minutes ago, GreyWolf said: Dath rules out nuclear power, a complete none story as if the good old Iom could ever afford that even if wanted it. The UK could pay us to house it up and Jurby/Ayres - there's nothing up there anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hissingsid Posted November 11, 2021 Share Posted November 11, 2021 The prison and wildlife 🤨 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2112 Posted November 11, 2021 Author Share Posted November 11, 2021 (edited) 4 hours ago, GreyWolf said: Dath rules out nuclear power, a complete none story as if the good old Iom could ever afford that even if wanted it. It is a non story in realty but what is does indicate the amount of power and decision making that she is making. Between her and the civil servants, they are wielding more control over day to day living. If she makes decisions which turn out to be bad, and ineffective to the island, will she accept responsibility and do the honourable thing, and are there checks and balances in place? If Daffy says no, then no it is. Or can Alf overrule her? Edited November 11, 2021 by 2112 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finlo Posted November 11, 2021 Share Posted November 11, 2021 9 minutes ago, 2112 said: It is a non story in realty but what is does indicate the amount of power and decision making that she is making. Between her and the civil servants, they are wielding more control over day to day living. If she makes decisions which turn out to be bad, and ineffective to the island, will she accept responsibility and do the honourable thing, and are there checks and balances in place? If Daffy says no, then no it is. Or can Alf overrule her? If it comes over the interconnector we'll get what we're given! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramseyboi Posted November 11, 2021 Share Posted November 11, 2021 I did some “Active travel” Isle of Man style today. 10 minute walk to save taking the car. Had a meeting then 10 minute walk back to my original location before heading to a couple more meetings. No idea how many carbons I saved, but I will need a burger to replace the lost calories. In addition I had to get changed which meant a 20 minute drive home and an extra load of washing. I also only have one branded work jacket so that had to go in the tumble drier for half an hour. The forecast wasn’t for rain at the time I was out but it shows how unpredictable our weather is and how non suited we are to active travel. As well as being soaked and uncomfortable, the overall impact o the environment was bigger than if I had just taken the car. I had similar recently when the person who checks on the dog at lunchtime phoned to say she couldn’t get there. I had walked to work, so had to book a taxi who had to do the trip both ways plus driving to me. It doesn’t work. Just make the roads bigger and wider and make more parking available. The reduction in the time people are either stuck in traffic or driving round looking for a space will see a bigger reduction in carbon output than a small number of people leaving the cars at home. They are trying to make it difficult to use a car. Make it wicker and easier and the impact will be greater 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finlo Posted November 11, 2021 Share Posted November 11, 2021 19 minutes ago, Ramseyboi said: I did some “Active travel” Isle of Man style today. 10 minute walk to save taking the car. Had a meeting then 10 minute walk back to my original location before heading to a couple more meetings. No idea how many carbons I saved, but I will need a burger to replace the lost calories. In addition I had to get changed which meant a 20 minute drive home and an extra load of washing. I also only have one branded work jacket so that had to go in the tumble drier for half an hour. The forecast wasn’t for rain at the time I was out but it shows how unpredictable our weather is and how non suited we are to active travel. As well as being soaked and uncomfortable, the overall impact o the environment was bigger than if I had just taken the car. I had similar recently when the person who checks on the dog at lunchtime phoned to say she couldn’t get there. I had walked to work, so had to book a taxi who had to do the trip both ways plus driving to me. It doesn’t work. Just make the roads bigger and wider and make more parking available. The reduction in the time people are either stuck in traffic or driving round looking for a space will see a bigger reduction in carbon output than a small number of people leaving the cars at home. They are trying to make it difficult to use a car. Make it wicker and easier and the impact will be greater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.