News0 min ago
More Clueless Bratts?
64 Answers
https:/
If you were educated you'd know that you are trying you are disrupting one of the better countries. Try China/US/India instead of pretending so you can skive off school.
"why should we go to school if you wont listen to the educated" - get educated, derr!
If you were educated you'd know that you are trying you are disrupting one of the better countries. Try China/US/India instead of pretending so you can skive off school.
"why should we go to school if you wont listen to the educated" - get educated, derr!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yes, but then that brings us back to the point the students were making, and I was reiterating: is there not some truth in that? It is unambiguous that recent human activity has had a major part to play in recent climate trends. By having reservations about this -- based on not exactly much, either -- you're more or less proving my point.
Still, it's good that you're in favour of the general trends towards cleaner air, etc. The problem is that by most estimates it's nowhere near fast enough, either in the UK or anywhere else. Granted, the UK could become CO2 negative tomorrow and it would make not a ha'pennorth of difference to the global picture, and as long as the US and China continue their current trends then we'd still be beggared. But the UK has to keep pressing forward all the same, and hopefully find a way to do so that encourages other countries to follow.
jim: "Granted, the UK could become CO2 negative tomorrow and it would make not a ha'pennorth of difference to the global picture, and as long as the US and China continue their current trends then we'd still be beggared. But the UK has to keep pressing forward all the same, and hopefully find a way to do so that encourages other countries to follow. " - so in turn you reinforce my point that disrupting us has no value, so all these demonstrators et all of late should get out there and be a thorn in the side of the big polluters.
Calling pupils brats isn't good really.
The good teachers I have known have encouraged pupils to explore wider education....not just the chosen subject of the teacher. A good teacher needs to be more than the teacher of a subject. That's how to educate our young.
Whatever you think of climate change and whether or not we have an impact on it being so dismissive of our young people is not the way to help educate them, Jackdaw.
The good teachers I have known have encouraged pupils to explore wider education....not just the chosen subject of the teacher. A good teacher needs to be more than the teacher of a subject. That's how to educate our young.
Whatever you think of climate change and whether or not we have an impact on it being so dismissive of our young people is not the way to help educate them, Jackdaw.
Let us assume, as climate experts like Jim360 and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tell us, that a world capable of sustaining human life will end in twelve years unless humans immediately[i stop destroying their own (and only) home by replacing poisonous contaminates, i.e. fossil fuels, with environmentally friendly alternatives.
And, on that assumption, consider possible scenarios, one being possibly more likely than the other.
One is that the whole world agrees on the Kyoto (or whatever it was called) Accord [i]and] acts on it.
Can you see any possible down-sides to this? If you aren't smart or imaginative enough, does AOC or Jim see any such?
Second scenario: the UK singularly and by way of moral example - always a good thing, don't you agree? -enacts the green policies which save the planet.
How in this second example do you, AOC, or Jim rate the chances of the planet's survival as a biosphere? And what, if any, down-sides do you, AOC, or Jim, see for the moral standard-bearer?
And, on that assumption, consider possible scenarios, one being possibly more likely than the other.
One is that the whole world agrees on the Kyoto (or whatever it was called) Accord [i]and] acts on it.
Can you see any possible down-sides to this? If you aren't smart or imaginative enough, does AOC or Jim see any such?
Second scenario: the UK singularly and by way of moral example - always a good thing, don't you agree? -enacts the green policies which save the planet.
How in this second example do you, AOC, or Jim rate the chances of the planet's survival as a biosphere? And what, if any, down-sides do you, AOC, or Jim, see for the moral standard-bearer?
As far as I can see, even AOC hasn't said that -- but in any case, why would it matter what she's said one way or the other? Last time I checked, she is a politician -- albeit a climate-conscious one -- rather than a scientist. Also, you have to allow for hyperbole once or twice in political discourse.
What *is* true is that 2030 is regarded as more or less the point of no return: if we haven't started to turn around the human contribution to CO2 etc, by then, then we will fail to meet the target of less than 2 degrees Celsius warming by 2100. That is so utterly removed from "Earth will be uninhabitable by 2030" that I don't even know where to start.
What *is* true is that 2030 is regarded as more or less the point of no return: if we haven't started to turn around the human contribution to CO2 etc, by then, then we will fail to meet the target of less than 2 degrees Celsius warming by 2100. That is so utterly removed from "Earth will be uninhabitable by 2030" that I don't even know where to start.
It's worth noting that AOC's own website (from the 2018 campaign) talks of transitioning the US to a "... carbon-free, 100% renewable energy system and a fully modernized electrical grid by 2035." (my italics) I think even she wouldn't see the point in achieving anything five years after life on Earth ends.
(https://ocasio2018.com/issues)
ve, I get that we don't agree on this but at least try finding out what I think -- or, for that matter, what Ocasio-Cortez thinks -- before straw-manning the crap out of this topic. It's too important an issue to be treated so pathetically.
(https://ocasio2018.com/issues)
ve, I get that we don't agree on this but at least try finding out what I think -- or, for that matter, what Ocasio-Cortez thinks -- before straw-manning the crap out of this topic. It's too important an issue to be treated so pathetically.
//Also, you have to allow for hyperbole once or twice in political discourse//
Only if you're on the side of the caricaturist, Jim. Otherwise in your Eurasian society you get prosecuted. Innit?
That apart I'm asking a serious question: what effects will practical policies to save the planet have on our lives?
I'm thinking of heating costs, not being allowed to fly to Ibiza, that kind of stuff.
Only if you're on the side of the caricaturist, Jim. Otherwise in your Eurasian society you get prosecuted. Innit?
That apart I'm asking a serious question: what effects will practical policies to save the planet have on our lives?
I'm thinking of heating costs, not being allowed to fly to Ibiza, that kind of stuff.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.