Posts by codejunky

Re: The last sentence of the article has it.

@Cav

"You're a liar and you know it."

Thats an interesting response.

"Southern statues were erected as oppressive measures"

Yadda yadda, so I didnt lie. Public property brought down by lefty protesters.

""The left" no more attacked police stations"

Lefty riots did. Defund the police was also lefty as was the cities that banned or tried to ban police action during such riots.

"If you refer to the BLM riots then they were widely condemned by the left and were a small group in massive protests that were 99% peaceful."

Condemned by the left?

"Thugs didn't attack an armed citizen. HE illegally went across state lines looking for trouble. He should be in jail."

The courts and jury seem to disagree. Especially as he was legally going about his business and was actively attacked by armed thugs protesting looking for trouble.

"How do you think progress is made without protest?"

Protest/destruction bit different.

"Gluing yourself to something is a peaceful protest and being in a road does not give someone the right to hit you."

True but when the police dont enforce laws and keep the peace the people start taking the job into their own hands.

Re: Bow down before the market god

@VoiceOfTruth

"Which does not negate what I wrote."

Which would make it the explanation for what you wrote.

Re: critical race theory, sex education, and inclusive gender language

@Androgynous Cupboard

"I expect that being passed over for promotion because of your color, gender, or being addressed with a name or pronoun that causes you pain, etc, is going to make it a lot harder."

That is a great argument against the current quota garbage. Racism and sexism have no place when getting the job done.

Try and get that past the woke

Re: Bow down before the market god

@VoiceOfTruth

"Oh wow. A whole 18 months. Which means that for years they were not..."

As mentioned in other posts, we were in the EU so couldnt.

Re: Bow down before the market god

@45RPM

"I should clarify. Countries within the EU have control over VAT in the same way that motorists have control over the speed of their car."

I think that was the problem. As the government they should have control over the speed limit, not be subservient.

Re: The last sentence of the article has it.

@low_resolution_foxxes

"I'm thinking about the elephant in the room here. Are we just going to ignore the last five years and the hundreds of books banned by left wing academics?"

To add to the list is one endorsed by the British National Education Union until they realised the links of who wrote it. So not the content but links to a group they dont like-

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/22/teaching-union-pulls-glowing-review-book-two-genders-trans-activist/

Re: The last sentence of the article has it.

@LionelB

"The "left" version is along the lines of "You have the freedom to say what you like, but not necessarily on my platform. The world does not owe you a platform for your ideas"."

And so statues are brought down, private property smashed, universities aggressively protested for hosting people, police stations attacked and thugs attacking an armed citizen who had to defend himself yet judged guilty by the left before the verdict or even the facts.

Or in the UK idiots gluing themselves to everything including roads and crying when a pissed off mother nudges the nut job in the road.

Re: @John Sager

@LionelB

Most of your comment being worthless bull but figured I would respond to this bit-

"Lies. Scroll down to the heading "Wind and water provide most renewable electricity; solar is the fastest-growing energy source". "

Growing means growing. Different measurement. See- https://www.politico.eu/article/the-eu-climate-energy-crisis-renewable-energy-must-stop-burning-trees/

"(Besides which, I've already stated that I'm not a fan of biofuels; I am not beholden to your, or anyone else's conception of what "green" should mean.)"

Good for you. So the green madness is a bad idea. Amazing we find some common ground.

"Then again, if they'd been more serious about actually committing to renewables at scale, that would have mitigated the impact somewhat"

Germany. The absolute poster child for green goodness. The epitome of green utopia. If only they had gone more green??? Your nuts.

"In the longer term, it may well be that Putin has done a favour to the drive towards renewables."

So far a drive for fracking in the UK and Germany building LNG terminals and exposure that unreliables aint the solution.

"More important to actually put some funding behind it, rather than effectively subsidising the fossil-fuel industry"

The subsidy is given to green tech. Unless you mean Germany where they subsidised green tech but it doesnt work, so they subsidised fossil fuel to keep the lights on. But in your topsy turvy world you wont understand that. Probably not in your comic pages science journals.

Re: @John Sager

@LionelB

"The last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago. Current warming goes back less than a couple of centuries, in which time the global population has increased enormously, and human culture become far more globally interlinked and interdependent (e.g., in terms of agriculture and food supply)"

Almost like ice ages are bad for life and yet we know warmer climate is better for life. We know this as we know the climate has been warmer, with more Co2 etc. The interlinked and interdependent is one of the reasons we cope so well, because if one place suffers a problem the rest of the world still has supply.

"A "little warming" (and what does "a little" even mean to you?) in the current scenario, with the consequential effects of changing climate patterns, increased frequency of extreme weather events, rising sea levels, etc., seems highly unlikely to "improve life" on earth. Quite the opposite."

Again you claim it wont improve life without a clue/reason. You claim increased frequency of extreme weather events, which is disputable. You complain of rising sea levels when this is nothing historically. As for a little warming, they are talking about maybe the temperature rising 1-3C maybe assuming the models are right. Which goes back to the important question- if this is such a certain belief then why are we doing so much to do so much more harm in the name of green?

Burning wood chips from virgin wood transported around the world is apparently 'green'. Pushing unreliable energy sources that dont work as the solution causes countries to fall back on coal (brown coal even) and making people poorer for no measurable gain. Growing crops to turn into fuel during a food crisis. The green madness is putting Europe in for a cold winter. We have a measurable harm to life on earth as a direct consequence of green madness.

"and also gives us a good idea of the consequences of warming for the climate and geophysical phenomena such as polar ice shrinkage, permafrost thaw and sea level rise"

And yet is still in question, still very questionable predictions, and based on the idea of commanding the tide to go out. Unfortunately the major problem is MMCC is in the world of politics and religion instead of where it needed to remain in science.

"Yet I do not, and have not, spoken of "doom" - because, given the will, the current rate of warming can be curtailed."

Let me guess- more monuments to a sky god and maybe the sacrifice of the worlds poor?

Re: @Naich

@LionelB

"The point I was making, of course, is that your interpretation of "doesn't work" with regard to renewable energy technology (as compared with the everyday understanding of the phrase) is ludicrous, selective, disingenuous and inconsistent."

Then you might want to make that point. Instead you have shown yourself wrong consistently and claim things that work dont, while things that dont work do. But then you claim your world is the right way around. The fact that I have consistently shown you incorrect and unable to present a case for your 'beliefs' and you hold on to them suggests they are too much a part of you for reality to persuade you different.

"But I accept that you have painted yourself into that corner in order to maintain your belief system, so there is little point continuing with this conversation, which has become repetitive, circular, and increasingly dull."

Tail between legs and over the horizon you go. But again thanks for the amusement. Just in case you are not trolling you do realise the reason for the 'circular' aspect of the conversation is I ask you for an example to prove your point and you cant give one, instead trying to justify your examples proving my point.

Re: @Naich

@LionelB

"Um, yeah, snow is pretty normal in this (and many other) countries."

I am in the UK. I dont know where you live to have snow all the time as the norm. Or to have so much snow as normal not to be able to drive. You talk about the channel but sound like a guy I know living in Canada.

"(And, BTW, you might describe the wind not blowing in the Channel as pretty abnormal ;-))"

So the power output is reliable and doesnt need a gas backup then! Or no? Is it a variable output that requires the gas generation to make up the shortfall as normal operation?

"Don't know about you, but it is hardly uncommon to find oneself in a situation where your battery is going to run out even if you started out fully charged."

Never not once but I can believe it happens. Normal operation is to charge the battery if you expect the battery to work. Do you stand on the coast and blow to keep the turbines spinning?

"And it is pretty normal (in this and other countries) to find yourself in an area where there is simply no mobile (or mobile data) reception."

And when that happens what does it mean? (Read my previous comment but I will repeat) your phone doesnt work!!! People even say it when it happens!!!! How is this difficult to get?

"and you need expensive back-up options like mobile chargers and satellite phones."

In normal operation you carry a satphone? Definitely out of touch with reality. And how expensive is your phone charger? And do you keep buying new ones every time your gonna charge your phone? Wtf planet are you on?

"Hm, that's not what the instructions said. They said it would keep me warm, nothing about "extreme cold"."

You get instructions when you buy a jumper? I want you to know you have me laughing my arse off. This is funny.

"Okay. Not all technologies work all the time under "normal" (whatever that means) situations."

Try again. So far yet to give an example.

"PS. Were you not accusing me earlier of ad hominem abuse? Perhaps we can both tone down the language (sarcasm entirely acceptable, though)."

No that was John Sager. I called you a sandwich board nutter shouting about the end of the world. And Johns comment about your ad hominem abuse was in response to your insults to me so dont expect respect where you dont give it (although there is often a healthy amount of sarcasm in my comments).

Re: @John Sager

@LionelB

"You asked "What science?" - deeply disingenuous, since you obviously knew the answer. You then replied with... I don't know, a response to a different question?"

I ask what science because as you point out in this comment, your on about doom. You seem to have the media if not the greta version of climate change which is why I am not convinced you are talking from the science.

"Hmm, for various values of "doom"... let's agree It's not looking like increasing the total sum of human (or any other) well-being."

Why would I agree to that? The climate changes and historically we have been even less prepared for the changes yet managed to survive through it. Climate change back towards an ice period would be deadly, a little warming improved life on earth.

Re: @Naich

@LionelB

"Oops, my bad (to be honest, that was so verbose and incoherent I don't think I even realised you were actually attempting to answer my questions)."

I thought you were a scientist, surely you read? I could understand you asking for clarification if I wasnt clear about something or disagreeing with me, but that you would ask my view and then not even read it doesnt increase my opinion of random stranger on the internet claiming to know stuff.

"Of course there is backup from the fossil-fuel and nuclear grid when the windfarm is not generating sufficient power. But, of course, for the majority of the time it is functional, that means less gas to burn. How is that not a good thing?"

That is a good and valid question. So to run the wind farm it needs gas backup, which means not only having to construct the wind farms but also a gas power generator to produce enough power to cover the unreliable supply. By itself increasing costs with the only 'benefit' being a reduction in gas burning.

However instead of efficiently running a gas power plant which reduces costs further there is increased wear and tear on a gas power plant for ramping up and down. Yet based on the 'science' gas power gives off less co2 and so meeting targets could be achieved with more gas generation without the wind farm.

"So... around we go again: most of my power is supplied by renewables most of the time. How that is twisted into "doesn't work" is quite beyond me."

I say wind doesnt work (until the storage problem is solved) because (for example) if you had a working car you would expect it to take you from A to B under normal operation. If your car was intermittent it wouldnt be working. This is energy supply which isnt an intermittent requirement, its a requirement for our civilisation. It could be argued its less like a car and more like an ambulance.

Re: @Naich

@LionelB

"Oh, great. I need to be lectured to by an alt-right non-climate-scientist culture warrior misrepresenting climate science?"

Yeah ok I think I can see why you hold your beliefs as you do. Guessing you got stumped for a decent response or you also find him verbose and incoherent.

Re: @John Sager

@LionelB

"The question was risible. Shall I spell out the answer? The science is, as always, in the scientific journals* and reports. But of course you knew that."

Which does not spell out doom.

"But of course you knew that."

Yup

Re: @John Sager

@LionelB

"Seriously?!? Well, there go the remaining shreds of your credibility."

You say that without answering the line. Your credibility is with you standing quietly with your sandwich board on the street corner. The fact that you failed to answer the comment but again run away with insults again doesnt make me feel like I am losing anything.

Re: @Naich

@LionelB

"However, we actually do know rather a lot about climate science"

Yes. We know we dont know enough. The doom stories keep changing and falling away after enough time facing reality but the self inflicted damage is very visible and very real.

"The evidence for anthropogenic warming and its consequences has been steadily accumulating for decades"

And the failed predictions again and again and again. The same old same old crackpots shouting doom and still only causing problems with no results.

"And I most certainly do not treat climate science as a religion"

Congrats. So the 'science' has been caught pants down false, failed and abused. Its paraded around with a meat shield little girl as if its a challenge to reality. That is the reality of the so called 'science'. Any actual science is lost behind all that garbage and the pushed solutions dont work. Why would I take that seriously? How can you?

"It seems very much to me that the climate-change denialist lobby has spun its very own anti-climate science mythology"

Or just observed the claims, how crazy they are and them failing to come true. The rebranding exercises to cope with the failures while continuing with the same stupidity. Note how you call not believing in this bull 'mythology' when this garbage is tall tails on half truths.

"There you go. A religious belief, against all real-world evidence, that renewable energy technologies "don't work" - as I sit here writing this on a machine powered by my local offshore wind farm."

So your computer falls off when the turbines dont provide enough power? Its a statement of fact that the technology doesnt work, it cant work until energy storage is solved. I quote you elsewhere in this comment section- "Plus there are some promising energy storage options on the not-too-distant horizon.".

You believe that something that may or may not turn out to work will make the unreliable and currently doesnt work technology work. Is this science or belief? For how many years have we deployed technology that doesnt work? How long until this new technology works and is scalable?

Here is a good one for you. Schools were considering opening for only 3 days because of energy costs. 25% of our energy bills was green madness and the gov put even more into it behind the scenes. Vast investment in green energy and less energy, more expensive, energy poverty, etc. These are the observable reality. Is this worth your mythological fear?

Next problem is the solutions deployed dont fix the problem. Wind and solar need gas backup because it doesnt work (see your power supply). The majority of green energy in the EU is burning wood! Something considered more polluting in Co2 terms. Obama and co believe so badly they bought property next to the water they claim will go under with sea rise.

I suggest you sit back, relax and enjoy this amusing clip- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBf2PU_Bvog

Re: @Naich

@LionelB

"So to what extent should we "believe" science?"

Everything you said above this point seems to demonstrate why we should be critical of the climate bull spouted so far. You talk about stuff that works, which is very different to the climate stuff we are talking about.

"Ultimately, current science -- pretty much by definition -- represents our best state of knowledge about a given field given the available evidence to date."

I agree. Very good. And if we dont know enough then that is the current state of the science.

"But ask yourself: can you, even in principle, do better than current knowledge based on up-to-date evidence?"

Thats fine, if the answer is we dont know enough then we dont burn ourselves assuming an answer.

"So if you choose "not to believe" current science, where does that leave you? Well, I suppose you can just throw up your hands and say "the science is rubbish - we know nothing about such-and-such". But that would simply be wrong, because in reality we (probably) do know quite a lot."

Agreed. We await facts instead of abusing what little we know and then spinning it into a religion with its own messiah. This has moved away from being science. We have politicians telling us we have x days to save the earth (blown past these a few times) and even had adverts of drowning cartoon dogs if we didnt turn out the lights. We are throwing out energy generation and replacing it with technology that doesnt work.

Re: @John Sager

@LionelB

"<sigh>Dammit, first it was the flat-earthers, then the creationists, then the 5Gers and anti-vaxxers... I know there's no point trying to reason with science-denialism, yet I fall for it every time. Just can't resist a tin-hat challenge, I guess.</sigh>"

Sorry to hold up a mirror but your standing on a street corner with a sandwich board shouting 'the end is nigh'. Kinda like a lady I used to pass in town with a loud speaker shouting about how Christ is coming back soon.

Re: @Naich

@LionelB

"Well, I stand corrected on "undoing" CO2 levels in the atmosphere - seems we're basically stuck with what we've got for millennia."

If it makes you feel any better these are the model predictions which might again change tomorrow when they account for the next natural process they didnt realise.

"Seems like a damn good reason to cut back on emissions with great urgency."

If you want to go ahead. You are going to emit something and you are going to affect the world around you by merely existing.

"That said, I am not going to even attempt to argue your science-denialism"

Thats fine, that denialism has already brought you to realise a science mistake you acknowledge at the start of your comment, and you have so much faith in your belief you call science that it cannot be challenged (the antithesis of science) I dont feel any loss.

"but I admit to being somewhat morbidly intrigued in what exactly it is that you do believe"

>The climate changes naturally. It does, has done and continues to do so.

>It is possible (even potentially probable) we have an affect of some sort but we are still trying to understand what.

>MMCC theory has left the world of science and is now politics and religion which is why there is so much propaganda and constant stream of bull that any actual science is lost in the noise.

>People are so eager to believe whatever fast lie leaves the gate that the 'science' looks stupid by the constant rebuttals by truth and science.

>The entire 'propaganda' is so fragile they allowed a child to be scared by fiction (she can see Co2 in the air!) and put up as a meat shield who cant be criticized due to her age and disability no matter how much garbage she spouts.

>If the pushers of the fiction believed in it they would not be acting counter to the 'science'. How green is burning wood chips from new trees shipped from around the world? Why buy beach front property where it will be washed away in the great floods? The 'science' says we need economic growth yet so much effort to hamper it. A heavy push back against gas and nukes even though they are ways we can hit Co2 targets in favour of technology that doesnt work.

>Wind and solar were deployed without being able to do the job. Bills went up to support the deployment of monuments to a sky god in hope he farts. Solar works in parts of the world where it works. Spain built a concentrated solar plant to make plenty cheap energy only to find it will never pay for itself. But we tax and bill payers support inflated prices fed in from a solar panel on top of some rich/upper middle class roof in the UK.

The unreliables of course rely on gas as a backup, so we need to inefficiently run a gas power station to provide the power we dont get from them and here we are reliant on foreign gas but unwilling to look below our own feet. That wouldnt be green.

"so do you believe (against all evidence) that global temperatures are not rising?"

This is a question you should look at seriously for a while (seriously). Think about it. You would think that was a climate change denier, I know I would. Instead a climate change denier is someone who doesnt believe in the current half baked theory of MMCC. Look at how incorrect that is, how stupid, how wrong.

"Or, if you at least accept that, do you believe (against all evidence) that a few degrees of warming will not have serious consequences?"

As with everything there will be trade offs. One serious consequence is being better for life on earth. I am not stupid enough to command the tide out.

"Are you content that we go about business-as-usual with fossil fuels?"

Yes and no. Increasing efficiency, less tolerant of actual pollution and modern civilisation which requires cheap and plentiful energy. The part I say no to is the vilification of energy production while demanding energy that we need,

"Are you unconcerned about the social, economic and political consequences of flooding, drought, fires, storm devastation, sea-level rise, crop failure, etc."

Very shaky beliefs there sorry. Plenty of fire, flood and drought has been through political mismanagement (here in the UK, over in the US etc). Trying to claim crop failure on MMCC is funny but neglects being better conditions for growing crops. You say storms but previous claims of increased activity got shot down by a lack of increase. I like how you put sea level in there when I keep mocking about commanding the tide back, it wont listen to you!

However mitigation is an option. And increasing the prosperity of people on the globe makes it easier for mitigation technologies to be applied where needed. Instead of praying your monument to the sky gods will stop the climate from changing (that seems close to climate change denial).

Re: @Naich

@imanidiot

""Ice age" got a lot of media attention but was never really broadly supported by climate scientists (warming trends were already predicted and known in the 80s!)"

Kinda like x number of days to save the earth I expect. Or various others- https://extinctionclock.org/

I would hazard a guess that the new messiah (Gretta) says plenty the scientists dont back too. Nor back the media rush to blame weather events on MMCC. Nor adverts of a drowning cartoon dog if you dont turn your lights out.

"Global warming isn't abandoned as such but was (again) a media phrase and inaccurate."

And yet you had to be a heretic to disagree with it! Yup outside the world of science. Just as a lot of this garbage is outside the world of science.

"Which some people (possibly like you) were using to dismiss the whole thing outright"

Nope. But I dont believe in religious political bull. Or as you called it inaccurate media phrases.

"Run away climate change isn't really abandoned"

They couldnt figure out how to cause their nightmare scenario in the real world because they kept missing bits of how the world works. The model would claim doom and the world would not do so.

"Which is immediately linked to the "we're all gonna fry" mantra. Which we might well still do."

Even by its own 'science' the answer to that is no unless we time travel back and then burn everything. Not realistic, just a framing device in a chart. Kinda like the extreme one at the other end where the temperature magically cools because we magically suck all the GHG out. Framing device.

"particular point about this graph"

That starts at an ice age and shows warming? Using what we know of (very little) historical global temperatures going back to... the ice age. Knowing bugger all for the variations that naturally occur but knowing that warmer temperatures are better for life than colder ones. So based on bugger all knowledge we should assume this is weird?

"yes there will have been some short term swinging around but upsweeps as seen in the last 50 years are VERY unlikely to have happened without being detectable by the methods used to get this data in the first place."

So you know there will have been short term swinging, but you think this one is odd based on extremely limited data over an almost nothing timespan for the event? I struggle to buy it.

Re: @John Sager

@Yet Another Anonymous coward

"And gas is only cheaper"

We have gas. We choose not to dig it up but we have gas. Think Germany does too and a few others.

Re: @John Sager

@LionelB

"Sorry, not religious, don't deal in beliefs. As a scientist, I'm much more comfortable with evidence."

Excellent so you can clearly call your previous statement hyperbole or plain bull- "Well, yes; we are being forced to go there by the far more calamitous downsides of where we have been going"

Assuming I understand your comment as hyping up the doom of MMCC co2 theory *all bow now*.

"And as a human, I am genuinely concerned for the future of human and other species."

Cool. I am human too and also have those concerns.

"If anyone's to be "lashed" for "beliefs", that lashing will be climate-induced, and those "beliefs" will be anthropogenic climate-change denialism"

Oh damn there you go with a belief in a myth. ACC has gone when they found their models missed out how things work in the real world and they couldnt find how to cause a tipping point into runaway climate change (previously run away global warming, previously global warming, previously global cooling). The modern one is climate change where we fear between 1-3C and not any time soon.

"Wind, solar, and other renewable/sustainable energy sources are extremely effective"

Back to beliefs. Sorry but nope. Solar works in places where it has enough sun to work and is applicable during daytime hours. Wind is very intermittent, goes dead over vast distances and fails to provide power when it is needed. That is why the 'saving grace' is energy storage if they can ever figure out a way to make it work and then make it cost effective.

"and already cheaper than fossil fuel generation"

Eh? In what world? It is currently cheaper than gas, and thats because we choose not to extract gas. Instead we claim to be green, beg Russia and others to dig theirs up and then condemn them for not being green. The hope in the UK was to frack thereby concealing the cost of green energy until greenies didnt like that either. That is why energy bills had been rising and 25% of our bills was green crap even though we were spending stupid amounts on monuments to a sky god.

"Nor do I discount nuclear, since you didn't ask."

Thats good. I dont bother asking because one green and the next cant agree if its good or bad. In fact we would have more nukes if the green nuts didnt stop them being built all the way back to when labour was in charge (and probably before too). Clegg's fighting against building them because it would only come online by 2022 should bring serious criticism considering the situation today.

Re: @Naich

@Tom 7

"I live in an area with lots of turbines and lots of birds. The turbines dont seem to bring down many birds"

Cool. Glad to hear it. The Germans seem to think they do kill birds according to the article hence the point of the article.

"One thing that baffles me is if they make all this noise people complain about why the bird dont avoid that. I wonder if little whistles on the blade tips might help."

No idea, and maybe if they did make more noise it could help birds avoid them. The question worth starting with however is if we should be mass deploying these things anyway and thats not a positive answer. And if we shouldnt be mass deploying monuments to a sky god then this entire issue goes away pretty quickly.

Re: @Naich

@Tom 7

"I dont know if you heard of the Severn Barrage plan"..."wont be migrating through there in 30 years because of sea level rise."

I did not. But not migrating through there and the birds being killed are two extremely different things.

Re: @Naich

@LionelB

"As a statistician and scientist myself, yes, I am reasonably sure - certainly sure enough to be very, very worried."

Worried about what? Which bit? The ice age was abandoned. The global warming was abandoned. Run away climate change was abandoned. The apocalypse we all gonna fry still occasionally gets mentioned but isnt realistic. So now we dont want the world to warm a couple of degrees so we must embrace communism and mud hut lifestyle depending on the version of nutter proposing the 'solution'.

Also as a statistician and scientist you must surely be aware of the severe uncertainty and large gaps in knowledge for the claim. You must also be vastly aware that the topic left science and is now politics?

"The evidence to date most certainly does not support that conclusion - quite the opposite!"

Eh? Evidence to date is that the economic impact has been ignored and that mitigation needs to be looked at because it is likely more cost effective and realistic. Evidence to date is that monuments to a sky god dont work and we aint generating enough electricity, never mind dreamily moving towards electric vehicles.

"In time (measured in human years), yes - that would reverse the evident (i.e., measured) change."..."Failed to parse [some weird stuff no-one is suggesting]."

You failed to parse? Really? So nobody is suggesting going veg to save the planet? How do you think we support the population without enough energy being generated (the problem of these monuments instead of power generation)? Remember this is about your fanciful comment about reversing the climate change. Something as fanciful as the 'all gonna fry' scenario.

We dont have the technology to undo what was put out, we dont have the technology to generate the so called 'green' energy which has to be revised to include burning wood chips from half way around the world and nuclear.

Instead of the question being how do we get birds to avoid the bird choppas, we should start asking if we should be putting up the bird choppas in the first place. It quickly resolves both questions with one answer.

Re: @John Sager

@LionelB

"Well, yes; we are being forced to go there by the far more calamitous downsides of where we have been going."

Aka you feel guilty for whatever religious sins you hold in your head and not only wanna lash your own back in repentance but want everyone else lashed for your 'beliefs'.

"and indeed have chipped in with interesting and plausible suggestions."

To not munch up birds, but why are the birds being munched? For monuments to a sky god to make you feel better while the gas generators are fired up to provide the energy to keep lights on. The monuments are a problem because they are applied as a solution but they dont work in the first place.

Re: @Naich

@LionelB

"Yes, yes it has... over timescales measured in 10s - 100s of thousands of years, rather than the decades we are seeing now (see icon)."

Are you sure? Remember you are working on very few decades of what we consider accurate data and a lot of much more fuzzy data which leads to the conclusion that within huge error bars we dont have much to worry about.

"Yup, we can reverse the change"

I command you tide!!! Back I tell you!!!

"by ceasing to pump gazillions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere."

And that would reverse the theoretical change already made? Is this will a mass extermination of life on earth? I say life not just humans as cows and sheep are attacked for their 'gasses' so should we cull most of the life on the planet? Or should we not be so stupid?

@Naich

"If you are worried about birds being killed by wind turbines, you will shit yourself when you realise how many birds are going to be killed by climate change."

Guessing that would be around the bugger all number of the migratory variety, But then the climate has always changed yet I assume you believe you can stop it? Command the tide back!!

@John Sager

"We could, of course, can this shit and remove the wind turbines"

And admit this stuff doesnt work, ha! The green madness continues, energy prices rise and the return to dirtier forms of fossil fuel generation is the chosen way. But gives em the feel goodz

Re: Good

@MrMerrymaker

"Shame some folks want the insane tangerine man back"

To be fair to those people the orange man is between Biden and Obama's presidencies which makes him look good.

Re: Diversity should be a consequence, not a goal.

@msknight

"I had a woman from one supplier actually break down on my shoulder because one man at her office was very vocal about how women shouldn't be in I.T. and he made her life a misery; and he did this in full view of every one else in their office. No one stood up for her."

So one man in an entire office upsets a woman because he is a dick? I can believe that. I am a guy and I have worked with some dicks too. And others around dont tend to stand in the way either.

"I left my last job because my new colleague (at the same level as me) with only five years basic experience in I.T. wouldn't listen to anything I told him"

Lucky you. You got someone with some experience and no listening skills. And they wernt the same level they got put ahead of me. So I left.

"Why he hated me so much, I don't know."

Some people are just that way. Not worth the effort trying to understand what is wrong with them. Not even necessarily hatred, some people are just wired wrong.

"You want to see more women in male dominated fields? Then stop driving them out. You can't drive women out of these jobs and then turn around and ask, "Where are they?""

In my opinion for the first question I dont care. Just as I dont care about males entering female dominated fields. I dont drive anyone out, nor push anyone in.

Re: Diversity should be a consequence, not a goal.

@Freddie

"However, I could see (as with male nurses in (hopefully) times gone past) that women would feel uncomfortable to enter the tech sector. They would they become part of a tiny minority. Of course, they *could* enter it anyway but a good number would be put off."

Except they wernt. Coding was womans work, it was predominantly women. Then it transitioned to being male dominated.

Re: huge loan that further benefits the energy companies

@Dan 55

Just to continue the problem with defining 'green'-

Few realize that the majority of renewable energy the EU counts toward its legislated targets is from burning wood, which, per unit energy, emits more carbon pollution at the smokestack than burning coal.

https://www.politico.eu/article/the-eu-climate-energy-crisis-renewable-energy-must-stop-burning-trees/

Re: huge loan that further benefits the energy companies

@Dan 55

"Insulation already works, green already works, nuclear already works, fossil fuels and gas generally do not come from stable countries and have no long-term future."

Insulation works to a point. We are pretty much at that point. Due to how buildings have been made historically we are limited in how far this can go without creating mushroom farms or tear down vast quantities of housing and rebuild.

Green works is an odd statement as its an umbrella of technology from burning wood chips imported from the US (and Russia so I hear), wind and solar (which dont work) and arguments if nuclear is green. There is obviously a lot more such as hydro and so on so not all green works and has various problems for implementation and definition.

Nuclear works but takes a decade plus to deploy (hence Clegg rejecting nukes 10 years ago as it would only be online this year being notable but labour refused to get on with it before then). There are discussions about types of nukes and waste which are again political problems which can be dealt with fairly easily providing even more power.

Fossil fuels and gas coming from unstable countries is by choice. We have gas, we have coal, we have oil. Also it is worth noting the lack of Russian gas is because the west chose to reject it (sanctions) which has the unfortunate consequence of China and India buying it then reselling to us at mark up prices.

"Labour signed off on eight reactors before leaving office in 2010."

In their entire 13 years in office not a single nuclear power station had started construction. Not one. Add that to 12 years of Tories where no new plants have been completed and we have a problem.

"The last four governments were all Tory in the past 12 years."

And before that 13 years of labour, and not one of those a coalition. This isnt one or the other, both failed. The failure wasnt over the last decade, we have mismanagement for 2 decades at least. Money for power generation has been put into monuments to a sky god that increased our dependence on gas while reliable power generation was allowed to fall. We have targets to reduce Co2 and use more electricity (cars) but without the technology nor supply nor infrastructure to support it.

"The preferred solution of the Tories, after lobbying and donations, is more of the same - continue with fossil fuels and gas which are at end of life and give billions in taxpayers' money to legacy energy providers who already have record profits. If that is not open corruption then I don't know what is."

Again you say tories, I point out governments for over 20 years. Look at what happened in Germany, push to green and ended up subsidising fossil fuels just to keep the lights on. Ridiculous amounts of money given to the green madness and we are now wondering where that money is. We will reject fossil fuels but are so dependent on them for electricity because it actually works (especially gas right now). We even have governments trying to close coal power plants while showing an absolute need to keep them running (winter).