Question about Brexit

xbacksideslider said:
Well, that’s a non-anxwer if ever I heard one. You know what I meant AND you proved my point!
Click to expand...

Um, ok...
You asked for a definition, you got two.

Your own skepticism has invented this "rhetorical trick" and "abandonment" to justify your misunderstanding of both terms. They are not mutually exclusive.

I'm not going to waste my time explaining the facts behind the science to you. You can research that easily enough on your own time.

Just because no one on a motorcycle forum is going to answer all your questions doesn't make you right.
 
Last edited:
By definition, don’t all of us on this site have at least one foot in the skeptic camp?

We all buy, restore, maintain and ride dirty old fossil fuel consuming motorcycles. Not many of us use them for anything constructive either, we just create carbon footprints for the sake of our own selfish pleasure.

Surely any serious environmentalist would never do such things?
 
Last edited:
Most intelligent people are skeptical.
Most ignorant people are skeptical.

Intelligent people look for answers in books, scientific journals, libraries.

Ignorant people look for answers on motorcycle forums.

;)
 
NPeteN said:
Most intelligent people are skeptical.
Most ignorant people are skeptical.

Intelligent people look for answers in books, scientific journals, libraries.

Ignorant people look for answers on motorcycle forums.

;)
Click to expand...
That made me laugh out loud!
 
All those who are so concerned about climate change ( governments, environmentalists ... ) are even more concerned about their own reputation.
At climate conferences they set ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gasses, but they could equally well set other goals like:
reduce world population with 5% by 2050, but they are deliberately blind to the elephant in the room:
80 million people extra every year, who will all need space, food, energy...
They would rather see the world go up in flames than risk being called racist, islamophobic, antireligious...
by pointing the finger to communities or nations that for cultural or religious reasons oppose every form of birth control,
or even actively promote population growth.
That is why the fight against global warming is a lost cause.

https://populationmatters.org/the-f...MI2vrAlLjE5gIVR7TtCh3rSgr-EAAYASAAEgKdlPD_Bw

Question about Brexit
 
Last edited:
Warm planet ! More cloud, hasn't stopped raining here today. Sorry Oz but at the moment I dream of seeing the sun and digging out the old 650 for a ride out ! Global wetting seems to be our change. Then it will be too hot for us whinging poms.
 
NPeteN said:
Most intelligent people are skeptical.
Most ignorant people are skeptical.

Intelligent people look for answers in books, scientific journals, libraries.

Ignorant people look for answers on motorcycle forums.

;)
Click to expand...

Well, my point was that ALL of us who actively contribute to our personal carbon footprints by engaging in this hobby have to be skeptical / ignorant / hypocritical to some degree or another...

And that’s without a winky face emoji...
 
So ,the lobster that used to be caught in Maine are now being caught off Nova Scotia .... our NS fishermen are being warned to enjoy the bounty while they can as lobsters are heading northward in search of cooler water ... the oceans are warming that a fact , the lobsters need cool water so they head north , any idea how fast a lobster moves , they been on the move for a while and have no plans staying where they are now ... first migration north in recorded history , must be all the Nortons back on our roads,eh ..... really it called climate crisis , just ask a Maine lobster man ....
 
Fast Eddie said:
Well, my point was that ALL of us who actively contribute to our personal carbon footprints by engaging in this hobby have to be skeptical / ignorant / hypocritical to some degree or another...

And that’s without a winky face emoji...
Click to expand...

I was poking fun at all of us, myself included.
 
ludwig said:
All those who are so concerned about climate change ( governments, environmentalists ... ) are even more concerned about their reputation.
At climate conferences they set lofty goals to reduce greenhouse gasses, but they could equally well set other goals like:
reduce world population with 5% by 2050, but they refuse to name the elephant in the room:
80 million people extra every year, who will all need space, food, energy...
They would rather see the world go up in flames than risk being called racist, islamophobic, antireligious...
by pointing the finger to groups or nations that for cultural or religious reasons oppose every form of birth control,
or even actively promote population growth.
That is why the fight against global warming is a lost cause.

https://populationmatters.org/the-f...MI2vrAlLjE5gIVR7TtCh3rSgr-EAAYASAAEgKdlPD_BwE
Click to expand...
Balls up my reply on the wrong thread, Pandemic is the only answer, or lots of oud jenever. It sure stopped me wanting to procreate. Couldn't feel a thing. !
 
M
NPeteN said:
Um, ok...
You asked for a definition, you got two.

Your own skepticism has invented this "rhetorical trick" and "abandonment" to justify your misunderstanding of both terms. They are not mutually exclusive.

I'm not going to waste my time explaining the facts behind the science to you. You can research that easily enough on your own time.

Just because no one on a motorcycle forum is going to answer all your questions doesn't make you right.
Click to expand...


NPeteN, another non sequitur.
Ya still got nuthin. Still no definitions.

Of course climate changes, always has. It’s your side’s burden to rebut that fact. Nuthin but evasion.

It takes titanic human arrogance to assume that climate change is primarily anthropogenic, or that it is capable of human management.

And, what about Ludwig’s point about global population growth?

To that point I’d add that it takes even more titanic arrogance, or even racism, for Western Europeans to tell India, China, Africa, and the rest of the Third World that they can’t have the higher standards of living afforded by fossil fuel based transport or electricity.

Only watermelons - green on the outside but red on the inside - are capable of such inhumanity.
 
xbacksideslider said:
M



NPeteN, another non sequitur.
Ya still got nuthin. Still no definitions.

Of course climate changes, always has. It’s your side’s burden to rebut that fact. Nuthin but evasion.

It takes titanic human arrogance to assume that climate change is primarily anthropogenic, or that it is capable of human management.

And, what about Ludwig’s point about global population growth?

To that point I’d add that it takes even more titanic arrogance, or even racism, for Western Europeans to tell India, China, Africa, and the rest of the Third World that they can’t have the higher standards of living afforded by fossil fuel based transport or electricity.

Only watermelons - green on the outside but red on the inside - are capable of such inhumanity.
Click to expand...

Yes, climate changes depending on the dominant forces at play, guess what the dominant force is currently?

Again, please go find a more reputable source other than myself to argue my "sides" fact/science based conclusions.

It's funny, Ludwig's point about global population growth is literally making the case AGAIN that HUMAN activity is the problem.

I do agree with your second point and offer this solution. Mars.
 
I like it here! , too bad the world powers can’t put profits aside for a bit and try and work together and get this threat under control , no doubt whoever is involved can make a buck or two just in a different way , if things keep going in direction they headed all the money in the world can’t save the planet .... besides where would you spend it ....
 
I have a lady friend who used to road race in the 70s. When I was racing she burned the backsides of most of us. She gave up racing because of her strong environmental bent. Even though she is active in environmentalism in Queensland, she has recently returned to road racing. When she was young, she had an accident which damaged her spine, and recently had operations to cure that and another complaint. What this says to me, is that at some point in your life, you must ask yourself about what is really important. The carbon footprint from motorcycle road racing is almost zero. LIfe is about having fun. If you don't have that, there is no point in living.
 
You could argue that the Goodwood Revival is bad for the environment, but look at the fun it provides. If we are all stuffed, we might as well be happy. We are all gunna die sometime. - 'Lie back and think of England'.

 
Last edited:
Not to mention life expectancies have spiraled out of control, but you won't here that around here! Haha
 
And medical advances are keeping people here who previously would not have survived. In first world countries people are generally having fewer children and 3rd world countries have increasing populations which first world medics are ensuring survive to adulthood.
 
What I worry about is that the science isnt, that the books are cooked. Science, education etc all run on money and when you get money you will tend to reach the conclusion that somebody is paying for. Climate change is a very long term thing. It has happened before and often long ago when mankind was not yet tootling around on Nortons. We seem to be locked into believing that change isnt normal or desirable. It is all rather Romantic Era stuff.
 
Great point, Onder.

Humans ARE part of the environment AND, like all other organisms, we affect it. Naturally. Not bad or good. Just nature. And natural change includes human induced change.

How many extinctions were caused by cats? Or, spiders? Or sharks? Or mosquitos? Or germs? Are we so different?

Some eco-anthropologists say that the Great Plains of North America were created by prehistoric people who deliberately set fire to the woodlands in order to create both grazing habitat for game AND to create a superior hunting ground, with less cover for prey.

Similarly, the Cave Bear and the Saber Tooth Tiger, along with the Neanderthal, may have been exterminated by our forbears.

Was that wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top