IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags agw , climate change , global warming , global warming denial

Reply
Old 12th February 2024, 04:10 AM   #1241
Ivor the Engineer
Philosopher
 
Ivor the Engineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,768
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
No, it still doesn't make sense.
All of the little improvements you mention- cleaning up your local environment, encouraging others to help- are how the process of saving the world gets underway. All those small, local improvements add up to a large, global improvement. The old slogan 'think globally, act locally' is based on this, and it's true.
If, OTOH, someone believes that their own contribution is so negligible that it will make no discernable difference, and that the only way things will improve is if everyone acts together, which is unlikely, seeing as you're saying that no one person's actions will have any real effect, then everyone will wait until everyone else does something, and nothing will ever happen.
I think it's more to do with the wish that technology is going to do all the heavy lifting and everyone can just carry on behaving pretty much the same as we've always done.

The problem is that the numbers don't add up. Renewable sources of energy are defuse, so we are going to have to find ways to use a lot less energy along with technological change.

In 2024, the big house building companies in the UK are still allowed to construct thousands of new homes with gas boilers for heating, no solar panels on the roof, no water tank for a thermal store and holes in window frames for ventilation. Supply of housing is limited and keeps prices inflated. Our government tells us the UK is a world leader in reducing our CO2 emissions. If that is the case then humanity is screwed because the UK is well off the path of what we need to be doing NOW.
Ivor the Engineer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2024, 11:14 AM   #1242
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 34,924
Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer View Post
Not sure if it's comparable, but I read an article the other day that said the average premium for a new driver in the UK is ~£1400, which is ~$2900 NZ.
That's for a new driver - the average premium is 1/3 of that.

https://www.moneyhelper.org.uk/en/bl...-car-insurance

I've made the comment a number of times that the thing which drives measures against climate change will be insurance premiums, but they will rise far too late to matter.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2024, 04:20 PM   #1243
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 86,977
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
No, it still doesn't make sense.
All of the little improvements you mention- cleaning up your local environment, encouraging others to help- are how the process of saving the world gets underway. All those small, local improvements add up to a large, global improvement. The old slogan 'think globally, act locally' is based on this, and it's true.
It makes a difference, yes, but it is not enough. If everybody did all the things that are being recommended, it still would not be enough. Not unless the energy, construction, agriculture and logistics industries also do their part.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
If, OTOH, someone believes that their own contribution is so negligible that it will make no discernable difference, and that the only way things will improve is if everyone acts together, which is unlikely, seeing as you're saying that no one person's actions will have any real effect, then everyone will wait until everyone else does something, and nothing will ever happen.
Which is why I have never, even once, said that individuals should not act. In fact, I have said - repeatedly - that they should.

Perhaps you're reading what someone else is saying. Because I have not been saying what you're saying I'm saying.
__________________
We are living in weird times
dominated by weird people
who talk about weird ****

- Seth Meyers
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2024, 09:09 PM   #1244
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,077
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
That's for a new driver - the average premium is 1/3 of that.

https://www.moneyhelper.org.uk/en/bl...-car-insurance

I've made the comment a number of times that the thing which drives measures against climate change will be insurance premiums, but they will rise far too late to matter.
Unfortunately with cars it's having the opposite effect. People are holding on to old polluting vehicles because new efficient vehicles are too expensive, and of course insurance rates for them are also expensive. The FUD purveyors jumped on this and spread the lie that only EVs attract high insurance rates, and now everyone believes it. As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us".
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2024, 04:36 AM   #1245
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 7,075
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
It makes a difference, yes, but it is not enough. If everybody did all the things that are being recommended, it still would not be enough. Not unless the energy, construction, agriculture and logistics industries also do their part.
Every single one of these industries is created and run by people. All of their output- products or services- are bought by people. These are not entities divorced from humanity: they are an extension of humanity. If the people who own and operate those industries act, then there will be a benefit. If their shareholders and consumers put pressure on them, they will act. If governments legislate in thast direction, they will act. The actions of all these entities are the result of the actions of individuals acting in concert. If everybody did these things, how could the world not change?

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Which is why I have never, even once, said that individuals should not act. In fact, I have said - repeatedly - that they should.
No. You've said they could, but it won't make any difference. That's equivalent to saying they shouldn't, because it's pointless.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Perhaps you're reading what someone else is saying. Because I have not been saying what you're saying I'm saying.
Nope. I've quoted your exact words back at you, and also given my reasons: the consequence of your words would be to discourage anyone from doing anything. I do not subscribe to the fatalistic, gloomy inaction you are advocating.
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt

Bring Back the Yak! P.J. Denyer
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2024, 04:39 AM   #1246
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 7,075
Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer View Post
I think it's more to do with the wish that technology is going to do all the heavy lifting and everyone can just carry on behaving pretty much the same as we've always done.
We need too be realistic. It is madness to argue that everyone should stop driving. My workplace is 40km from my house, out in the desert. Walking or cycling that distance, in 40-50C heat, would literally be life-threatening. Electric cars, OTOH, work, and do not involve digging up an entire university campus and transporting it closer to town.
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt

Bring Back the Yak! P.J. Denyer
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2024, 04:55 AM   #1247
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,784
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
We need too be realistic. It is madness to argue that everyone should stop driving. My workplace is 40km from my house, out in the desert. Walking or cycling that distance, in 40-50C heat, would literally be life-threatening. Electric cars, OTOH, work, and do not involve digging up an entire university campus and transporting it closer to town.
And this is why we're screwed.

I agree, it's madness for you to not drive to work.

It's also madness for you, and everyone else in the same situation, to not stop driving to work.

What we need is infrastructure and circumstances that would make you not driving to work not be a crazy suggestion.

But you can't get there from here...
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2024, 02:55 PM   #1248
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 86,977
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Every single one of these industries is created and run by people. All of their output- products or services- are bought by people. These are not entities divorced from humanity: they are an extension of humanity. If the people who own and operate those industries act, then there will be a benefit. If their shareholders and consumers put pressure on them, they will act. If governments legislate in thast direction, they will act. The actions of all these entities are the result of the actions of individuals acting in concert. If everybody did these things, how could the world not change?
Yeah? How's that been working out so far?

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
No. You've said they could, but it won't make any difference. That's equivalent to saying they shouldn't, because it's pointless.
I've said exactly the opposite of that. I've said that they should, because it's not pointless, and that it will make the world a better place. I have also said that it's not what will solve global warming. Only industry can do that.

Why are you still having trouble with this? I'm being as clear as I possibly can.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Nope. I've quoted your exact words back at you...
You've quoted my words and then said that I'm saying the opposite of what I'm actually saying. That's dishonest.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
...and also given my reasons: the consequence of your words would be to discourage anyone from doing anything. I do not subscribe to the fatalistic, gloomy inaction you are advocating.
Such fatalistic, gloomy inaction is only in your head. I've said that people should do their best to make their world better. I've said it consistently and repeatedly, and you have consistently and repeatedly reported that I'm saying the opposite of that. You should be better. I'm not angry, just disappointed.
__________________
We are living in weird times
dominated by weird people
who talk about weird ****

- Seth Meyers
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2024, 02:37 AM   #1249
Ivor the Engineer
Philosopher
 
Ivor the Engineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,768
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
<snip>

I've said exactly the opposite of that. I've said that they should, because it's not pointless, and that it will make the world a better place. I have also said that it's not what will solve global warming. Only industry can do that.

<snip>
Industry responds to demand. If people stopped "upgrading" tech items like phones and TVs as frequently the environmental damage of those industries would go down.

Where governments need to step in is to stop industry artificially creating demand through planned obsolescence and marketing.

Imagine a world where men didn't buy cars as status symbols, but merely as tools to perform a function. (Not suggesting you do this, BTW)

A world where people asked themselves "why do I want this thing?" before consuming would probably be a lot more sustainable.
Ivor the Engineer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2024, 03:43 AM   #1250
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 7,075
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Yeah? How's that been working out so far?
Better than you might think. Better than you do think, actually:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/...actices-secret
https://www.construction21.org/artic...g-greener.html
https://blog.marketresearch.com/5-in...om-going-green
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...63996922011267

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I've said exactly the opposite of that. I've said that they should, because it's not pointless, and that it will make the world a better place. I have also said that it's not what will solve global warming. Only industry can do that.
All you need to do, then, is quote where you said that. Because that's the first time I can remember you saying that.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Why are you still having trouble with this? I'm being as clear as I possibly can.
No, you're not. You haven't been saying what you claim you've been saying, and then complaining that I haven't understood what you are saying, because you didn't say it.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
You've quoted my words and then said that I'm saying the opposite of what I'm actually saying. That's dishonest.
Please show where what I've said is the opposite of what you've said. I have pointed out the consequences of following your advice: if you can't accept that, that's not me being dishonest, that's you being unwilling to accept the results of your comments.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Such fatalistic, gloomy inaction is only in your head. I've said that people should do their best to make their world better. I've said it consistently and repeatedly, and you have consistently and repeatedly reported that I'm saying the opposite of that. You should be better. I'm not angry, just disappointed.
Again, please repost where you said that. Because I must have missed these 'repeated' instances.
I'm quite happy to be corrected, but I need the evidence first.
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt

Bring Back the Yak! P.J. Denyer
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2024, 03:44 AM   #1251
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 7,075
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
And this is why we're screwed.

I agree, it's madness for you to not drive to work.

It's also madness for you, and everyone else in the same situation, to not stop driving to work.

What we need is infrastructure and circumstances that would make you not driving to work not be a crazy suggestion.

But you can't get there from here...
Two words: electric cars.
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt

Bring Back the Yak! P.J. Denyer
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2024, 06:23 AM   #1252
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,784
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Two words: electric cars.

See Ivor's post above.

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer View Post
The problem is that the numbers don't add up. Renewable sources of energy are defuse, so we are going to have to find ways to use a lot less energy along with technological change.

One of the easiest ways to reduce energy usage is to travel less. Every time someone drives somewhere, they're not just spending the energy to move 100Kg of person, they're also moving 1000Kg of car too.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2024, 09:30 AM   #1253
Stout
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,434
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Two words: electric cars.
This is where you want to start talking about 15 minute cities, active transportation and referring to roads as car sewers, if you really want to throw down your eco creds.

Anyways, from the BBC link in post #1231

Quote:
Urgent action to cut carbon emissions can still slow warming, scientists say.
Now that climate scientists have come out and said they want to write policy (at COP 28) maybe they could do us a favour and let us know what this policy they want to write might look like. We've all been patient with this endless Chicken Little routine and I'm sure these guys have spent countless hours hanging around the lab proposing how "we" can actually meet the conditions set out in the Paris Accords.

Urgent action, what does that actually mean in the context of pretty much everything tried to date has been an abysmal failure?
Stout is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2024, 04:43 PM   #1254
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 86,977
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
All you need to do, then, is quote where you said that. Because that's the first time I can remember you saying that.
Sure. Happy to help.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Sure, doing all these things will make everybody better off...
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Yes, personal austerity on an individual level is a good idea. It has benefits.
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Do your personal bit, absolutely.
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
It's not nothing, and it should be done.
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
There can be a point to doing something that will not save the world. It might make your personal life better. It might help to clean up your local environment. It might encourage others to help.

Just because it's not what will save the world doesn't mean that it isn't still worth doing.
__________________
We are living in weird times
dominated by weird people
who talk about weird ****

- Seth Meyers

Last edited by arthwollipot; 14th February 2024 at 04:45 PM.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2024, 04:44 PM   #1255
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 86,977
Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer View Post
Industry responds to demand. If people stopped "upgrading" tech items like phones and TVs as frequently the environmental damage of those industries would go down.
Not the industry I was referring to. As I explained previously...

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Unless the oil and gas industry can be shut down, unless we can find new ways of producing steel and concrete (which our civilisation absolutely depends upon) that don't dump billions of tons of CO2, unless we can develop new unpolluting ways of sustaining the global travel and distribution industries that we have become accustomed to, the problem will not go away.
Fortunately, there are those who are working on these problems.
__________________
We are living in weird times
dominated by weird people
who talk about weird ****

- Seth Meyers
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2024, 09:30 PM   #1256
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,077
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Not the industry I was referring to. As I explained previously...
Quote:
Unless the oil and gas industry can be shut down, unless we can find new ways of producing steel and concrete (which our civilisation absolutely depends upon) that don't dump billions of tons of CO2, unless we can develop new unpolluting ways of sustaining the global travel and distribution industries that we have become accustomed to, the problem will not go away.
Fortunately, there are those who are working on these problems.
The way to 'shut down' the oil and gas industry is very simple - stop consuming their products.

New ways of producing steel are already being applied.

'Low carbon' concrete is a thing now, reducing its carbon footprint by up to 80%. We can cut back on it too, and recycle. Concrete accounts for 4-8% of CO2 emissions. That's less some other sources, but everywhere we can reduce it helps.

Global travel? We know what to do there - don't fly!

Distribution industries benefit from cleaner transport too - except when transporting oil and gas.

All this stuff is being addressed as we speak. But it will be much easier if we do our bit by reducing demand.

But will we? That's the real problem. Nobody wants to change their lifestyle no matter how much harm it might be doing. So we push it onto someone else, a convenient scapegoat we can blame for things not getting done.

"Oh no, it's not my fault that oil companies produce petrol for the engine that automakers put in my car! I mean, I would switch to an electric car - but they cost money and don't have the range I might someday need! And now the nasty government is forcing me to buy one!"

You can embrace change and be part of the solution, or resist it and be the problem. Fine. Be a freeloader who expects someone else to pick up the tab, just don't expect any sympathy from me when the **** hits the fan.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2024, 11:43 PM   #1257
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 86,977
I refer my esteemed colleague to my previous post #1254 in which I repeat yet again that people should be doing the little things, because they will make a genuine difference.

My point is that we can't just simply shut down these big industries. If we stopped burning all coal tomorrow, the world's electricity grid would be in big trouble. Our civilisation is literally built out of steel and concrete. Shutting these industries down tomorrow would cripple us. Stop flying? Well, I don't think people should be flying everywhere either so I'll give you that. But stop the global shipping industry and you will learn just how much stuff you can't get any more - and it's not just luxuries.

We are learning how to fix these problems, but it's a slow process. We can't just turn our civilisation around on the spot. Meanwhile, keep on practicing personal austerity. Recycle your bottles where that's an option, drive an electric car if you can afford one. Sail to visit your family rather than flying. Or just never travel more than a few miles from where you live, the way humans didn't for centuries.

You won't be saving the world, but you might be making your life and the lives of the people close to you better. And you'll feel good about it.
__________________
We are living in weird times
dominated by weird people
who talk about weird ****

- Seth Meyers
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2024, 01:57 AM   #1258
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 7,075
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Sure. Happy to help.
You know, I was about to apologise to you- until I checked the context of those posts you quoted.
All of them- every single one of them- is followed by a caveat saying there's no point, because it won't make any difference.
Which not only was my entire point- that you are discouraging people from taking individual action- it's also rather naughty of you to snip of that all-important context.
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt

Bring Back the Yak! P.J. Denyer
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2024, 02:15 PM   #1259
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 86,977
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
All of them- every single one of them- is followed by a caveat saying there's no point, because it won't make any difference.
That is an outright lie. You should be ashamed.

What I have said is "it's not what will save the world" which is very different from "there's no point because it won't make any difference".
__________________
We are living in weird times
dominated by weird people
who talk about weird ****

- Seth Meyers
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2024, 02:17 PM   #1260
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 86,977
It would be a little bit ridiculous if I said what you're saying I'm saying, which is "Yes you should do it because it's not pointless but also it's pointless". Don't you think?
__________________
We are living in weird times
dominated by weird people
who talk about weird ****

- Seth Meyers
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2024, 08:25 PM   #1261
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,077
Originally Posted by Stout View Post
Now that climate scientists have come out and said they want to write policy (at COP 28) maybe they could do us a favour and let us know what this policy they want to write might look like.
Scientists can't write policy. They can advise politicians on what policy to write, but they can't do it themselves. If politicians don't follow their advice it's because they don't think it's viable or they don't think their constituents will accept it (or they're in the pockets of Big Oil ). Not much scientists can do about that except reiterate the consequences of inaction.

Quote:
We've all been patient with this endless Chicken Little routine and I'm sure these guys have spent countless hours hanging around the lab proposing how "we" can actually meet the conditions set out in the Paris Accords.
Not all of us have just been sitting on our backsides waiting for someone else to come up with a plan (that we then reject for 'reasons').

Quote:
Urgent action, what does that actually mean in the context of pretty much everything tried to date has been an abysmal failure?
Not true. A lot of progress has been made. Unfortunately a lot of people are trying to put a spanner in the works - ordinary people who could accelerate progress but are stymieing it instead.

Turns out the most important 'action' needed was getting hearts and minds on the right track. That's the real 'failure' that needs addressing.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2024, 09:18 PM   #1262
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,077
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
My point is that we can't just simply shut down these big industries. If we stopped burning all coal tomorrow, the world's electricity grid would be in big trouble. Our civilisation is literally built out of steel and concrete. Shutting these industries down tomorrow would cripple us.

Denier talking point #96 - it's too hard.

Nobody's saying we have to do it by tomorrow. But the pace could be a lot faster than it is.

Quote:
stop the global shipping industry and you will learn just how much stuff you can't get any more - and it's not just luxuries.
I grew up in a time when products took 3 months to get from the UK to New Zealand. It wasn't the end of the World. I wish we could go back to those times, when the pace of life wasn't so hectic and people didn't need instant gratification.

Clipper route
Quote:
The clipper route was the traditional route derived from the Brouwer Route and sailed by clipper ships between Europe and the Far East, Australia and New Zealand. The route ran from west to east through the Southern Ocean, to make use of the strong westerly winds of the Roaring Forties...

The clipper ships bound for Australia and New Zealand would call at a variety of ports. A ship sailing from Plymouth to Sydney, for example, would cover around 13,750 miles (22,130 km); a fast time for this passage would be around 100 days. Cutty Sark made the fastest passage on this route by a clipper, in 72 days. Thermopylae made the slightly shorter passage from London to Melbourne, 13,150 miles (21,160 km), in just 61 days in 1868–1869.
If they could do it in just 2 months back in 1869, imagine what a modern sailing ship could do!

Quote:
We are learning how to fix these problems, but it's a slow process.
It's only slow because nobody wants to rock the boat. Our precious economy cannae take it, Captain!

Quote:
We can't just turn our civilisation around on the spot. Meanwhile, keep on practicing personal austerity. Recycle your bottles where that's an option, drive an electric car if you can afford one. Sail to visit your family rather than flying. Or just never travel more than a few miles from where you live, the way humans didn't for centuries.
That's what I'm doing. BTW my 12 year old second-hand electric car didn't cost any more than a similar gas car.

Now that we have the internet it's a lot easier to stay in touch without having to make long trips. Back in the 1960s our relatives would visit us once a year. The trip was a pretty big deal. Occasionally we would ring them and have to shout into the phone due to the losses over that distance (360km). These days people won't buy a car if it can't do it at 120km/h all the way without stopping (reason #2 why they will never buy an EV).

Quote:
You won't be saving the world, but you might be making your life and the lives of the people close to you better. And you'll feel good about it.
Not by myself no, but if many others followed my example we would.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

Last edited by Roger Ramjets; 15th February 2024 at 09:20 PM.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2024, 11:20 PM   #1263
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 86,977
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Not by myself no, but if many others followed my example we would.
My point is, unless capitalistic industry joins in, no you wouldn't.
__________________
We are living in weird times
dominated by weird people
who talk about weird ****

- Seth Meyers
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2024, 12:11 AM   #1264
Ivor the Engineer
Philosopher
 
Ivor the Engineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,768
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
My point is, unless capitalistic industry joins in, no you wouldn't.
Is your argument that consumers are slaves to industry? I have some sympathy with that line of reasoning;. The choices consumers have are somewhat limited by what the market has on offer.
Ivor the Engineer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2024, 12:27 AM   #1265
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,618
Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer View Post
Is your argument that consumers are slaves to industry? I have some sympathy with that line of reasoning;. The choices consumers have are somewhat limited by what the market has on offer.
One could also point out how capitalistic marketing is pretty explicitly about increasing consumption and immense amounts of capital and effort are invested into making that happen. The consumers are not blameless when it comes to that angle, of course, but it's not particularly reasonable to blame the consumers while also selectively ignoring major underlying drivers for that consumption.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 16th February 2024 at 12:29 AM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2024, 01:16 AM   #1266
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 7,075
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
It would be a little bit ridiculous if I said what you're saying I'm saying, which is "Yes you should do it because it's not pointless but also it's pointless". Don't you think?
OK. Look. I have little interest in going over the same posts again and again, while we argue about whether you said what you said, or not.
How about this? From your later clarifications, it would seem that this is what you actually are trying to say:
One person acting alone to select choices that are more sustainable and better for the environment will not have a big effect. That will only happen if enough people make those choices. The only way to get from not enough people to enough people is if individuals start to make those changes themselves. The cumulative effect will be to effect useful, measurable changes on a global scale.
How does that sound? Can we agree on this?
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt

Bring Back the Yak! P.J. Denyer
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2024, 03:41 AM   #1267
Ivor the Engineer
Philosopher
 
Ivor the Engineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,768
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
One could also point out how capitalistic marketing is pretty explicitly about increasing consumption and immense amounts of capital and effort are invested into making that happen. The consumers are not blameless when it comes to that angle, of course, but it's not particularly reasonable to blame the consumers while also selectively ignoring major underlying drivers for that consumption.
I often wonder who are worse: the people who make harmful products, or the ones ("creatives") who try to convince people to buy the products by making them appear healthy, fun, stylish, sophisticated and/or environmentally friendly.

Forget Oppenheimer, the true destroyers of worlds are the people who work for ad agencies.
Ivor the Engineer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2024, 08:40 AM   #1268
Ivor the Engineer
Philosopher
 
Ivor the Engineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,768
Here's some information arthwollipot may find interesting:

Quote:
Technology can provide energy efficiency measures that help combat climate change, but “consumption (and to a lesser extent population) growth have mostly outrun any beneficial effects of changes in technology over the past few decades,” according to a June paper. The research concluded that it is not enough simply to “green” consumption by buying more sustainably produced goods—it is essential to reduce consumption. This is because 45 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions comes solely from the production of the things we use and buy every day.
That's the elephant in the room that NO politician is going to talk about.

I wonder how many perfectly functional PCs are going to end up being dumped because they're "not ready" for Windows 11? Will this be counted in Microsoft's environmental footprint? To be fair the whole technology industry is as bad.

Many years ago I read an article in an electronics magazine with a title something like "The Logarithmic Law of Usefulness". The premise of the article was that linear improvements in usability of items are correlated with an exponential increase in the complexity of the underlying technology.

A great example of the correlation between linear usability improvement and exponential increase in complexity is a manual switch compared to a smart switch to control a bulb (or other appliance).

A manual switch needs some plastic and metal, will last decades and function 100% reliably. Alas, with a manual switch you can't turn your hall light on and off from the other side of the planet without phoning your butler.

A smart switch is typically implemented in a way that needs several processors running (tens of?) thousands of lines of code and often a (cloud-based) server. It will turn the appliance on and off with a reliability somewhere between 50-95%, but require you to upgrade your phone eventually because an update to the 200 megabyte-sized lightswitch app will only work with Android version 100 and newer. After a few years the company may discontinue the cloud part of the service making the product either useless or severely limiting its functionality. There are ways around this last problem (Z-Wave / Zigbee sticks, Home Assistant running on a local machine, etc.), but most are beyond the technical capabilities, interest and spare time of most of the population who just want to turn some lights on and off. They will either go back to a manual switch or be suckered into buying the next greatest smart product that still doesn't work reliably because even the people who created it don't understand how all its parts work.

Last edited by Ivor the Engineer; 16th February 2024 at 08:42 AM.
Ivor the Engineer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2024, 10:23 AM   #1269
Stout
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,434
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Scientists can't write policy. They can advise politicians on what policy to write, but they can't do it themselves. If politicians don't follow their advice it's because they don't think it's viable or they don't think their constituents will accept it (or they're in the pockets of Big Oil ). Not much scientists can do about that except reiterate the consequences of inaction.
Scientists want to write policy though. See here. It sure would be nice to see what that policy would look like given their constant warnings about needing urgent action.

Quote:
Five lead authors of IPCC reports told the Guardian that scientists should be given the right to make policy prescriptions and, potentially, to oversee their implementation by the 195 states signed up to the UN framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC).
No doubt you're right about the politicians and their constituents not wanting to accept it, after all, their political careers are on the line so all they need do is talk the talk. I want to see what walking the talk would look like and climate scientests have nothing to lose here. I've seen it said (paraphrased) When climate scientists start living like there's a climate conference, then maybe we'll start listening to them.

I'd be interested to see Michael Mann's carbon footprint.

Quote:
Turns out the most important 'action' needed was getting hearts and minds on the right track. That's the real 'failure' that needs addressing.
Yes, this is what I've been saying all along and it's a direct result of, to put it charitably clumsy climate activism. Locally, we spent millions of dollars closing streets and making elevated, protected bike lanes (all ages and abilities) complete with those cute little bicycle traffic lights and here we are, a few later asking ourselves...Whare are all the bicycles? By the way the public got behind this idea at the proposal stage this place should look like Amsterdam now hoverer I'm still seeing 200 cars for every bicycle.
Stout is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2024, 10:37 AM   #1270
Stout
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,434
Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer View Post

I wonder how many perfectly functional PCs are going to end up being dumped because they're "not ready" for Windows 11? Will this be counted in Microsoft's environmental footprint? To be fair the whole technology industry is as bad.
I just did this a few months ago. Not due to not giving a rip about Windows 11, the machines were running on Windows 7 just fine, but because they were slow. New Lenovos with 8th generation chips were on sale so off to the recycling depot with the old ones, which were 10+ year old all-in-ones and hello new everything. That's on me, I probably could have squeezed even more years out of them but they're with God now.

I have smart thermostats. I didn't buy them they came with the place and after spending an hour researching how to use them I came to the conclusion I really didn't care. I just use them like manual thermostats and if they cease to function then I'll just replace them with manual ones.

I've been seeing these smart lightbulbs in Home Depot and rather than buying one and having to keep my phone on me at all times I'll just stay with my tried and true, Clapper.

Oh Christ, now I have clap on, clap off running through my head.
Stout is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2024, 03:37 PM   #1271
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 86,977
Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer View Post
Is your argument that consumers are slaves to industry? I have some sympathy with that line of reasoning;. The choices consumers have are somewhat limited by what the market has on offer.
I would not have put it in those terms. Our civilisation absolutely depends on carbon intensive capitalistic industry to function. Not only is there little incentive for that to change, because, well, capitalism, but the possibility of change is limited due to society's dependence on those industries for energy, food, transport and infrastructure.

Yes, society is slowly developing less carbon intensive ways to provide these services. It's slow, but this is what will save the world, if anything will.
__________________
We are living in weird times
dominated by weird people
who talk about weird ****

- Seth Meyers
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2024, 03:40 PM   #1272
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 86,977
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
OK. Look. I have little interest in going over the same posts again and again, while we argue about whether you said what you said, or not.
How about this? From your later clarifications, it would seem that this is what you actually are trying to say:
One person acting alone to select choices that are more sustainable and better for the environment will not have a big effect. That will only happen if enough people make those choices. The only way to get from not enough people to enough people is if individuals start to make those changes themselves. The cumulative effect will be to effect useful, measurable changes on a global scale.
How does that sound? Can we agree on this?
No, we can't, because you're still ignoring humans' dependence on industry. Without decarbonising industry, gains will be in no way fast or consistent enough to ultimately save the world. What it will do is slow down disaster, perhaps for long enough to give society time to solve the bigger problems.
__________________
We are living in weird times
dominated by weird people
who talk about weird ****

- Seth Meyers

Last edited by arthwollipot; 16th February 2024 at 03:41 PM.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2024, 03:41 PM   #1273
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 86,977
Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer View Post
Here's some information arthwollipot may find interesting:
Indeed I do, and 45% is a bigger proportion than I have seen estimated previously (estimates vary according to the source). But even 45% is still not enough.
__________________
We are living in weird times
dominated by weird people
who talk about weird ****

- Seth Meyers
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2024, 05:29 PM   #1274
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
 
novaphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sunny South Australia
Posts: 6,627
Originally Posted by Stout View Post
Scientists want to write policy though. See here. It sure would be nice to see what that policy would look like given their constant warnings about needing urgent action.



No doubt you're right about the politicians and their constituents not wanting to accept it, after all, their political careers are on the line so all they need do is talk the talk. I want to see what walking the talk would look like and climate scientests have nothing to lose here. I've seen it said (paraphrased) When climate scientists start living like there's a climate conference, then maybe we'll start listening to them.

I'd be interested to see Michael Mann's carbon footprint.



Yes, this is what I've been saying all along and it's a direct result of, to put it charitably clumsy climate activism. Locally, we spent millions of dollars closing streets and making elevated, protected bike lanes (all ages and abilities) complete with those cute little bicycle traffic lights and here we are, a few later asking ourselves...Whare are all the bicycles? By the way the public got behind this idea at the proposal stage this place should look like Amsterdam now hoverer I'm still seeing 200 cars for every bicycle.
You will probably see more if you ride yourself.

Car drivers frequently say that they can't see/didn't see the cyclist.
__________________
We would be better, and braver, to engage in enquiry, rather than indulge in the idle fancy, that we already know -- Plato.
novaphile is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2024, 07:09 PM   #1275
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,077
Originally Posted by Stout View Post
Scientists want to write policy though. See here.
Some scientists. And who can blame them? But they can want all they like, they won't get it.

Quote:
An IPCC spokesperson said: “It is important to note that the IPCC assessments are policy relevant but not policy prescriptive: they may present projections of future climate change based on different scenarios and the risks that climate change poses and discuss the implications of response options, but they do not tell policymakers what actions to take.”

Originally Posted by Stout
It sure would be nice to see what that policy would look like given their constant warnings about needing urgent action.
That could be interesting - but outside their field of expertise so I'm not sure how useful it would be.

Quote:
No doubt you're right about the politicians and their constituents not wanting to accept it, after all, their political careers are on the line so all they need do is talk the talk.
Democracy, the worst form of government - apart from all the rest.

Quote:
I'd be interested to see Michael Mann's carbon footprint.
I don't care what Michael Mann's carbon footprint is. I do care about motivating the population as a whole into reducing our carbon footprint. At least he has managed to achieve some small progress there.

Climate scientist Michael Mann wins defamation case against conservative writers
Quote:
After a day of deliberations, the jury ruled that Simberg and Steyn defamed Mann through some of their statements. The compensatory damages were just $1 for each writer. But the punitive damages were larger. The jury ordered Simberg to pay Mann $1,000 in punitive damages; it ordered Steyn to pay $1 million in punitive damages.

"I don't think there's been anything like it. There's never been a case like this," says Kert Davies, director of special investigations at the Center for Climate Integrity, a climate accountability nonprofit. "No one has ever taken the climate deniers to court like this."

Davies says while this ruling may not impact anonymous attackers online, the liability verdict and the dollar figure of this judgment may deter more public figures from attacks on climate scientists. "It may keep them in check"
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2024, 07:29 PM   #1276
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 34,924
Nothing to see here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68228943
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2024, 07:34 PM   #1277
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,077
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Indeed I do, and 45% is a bigger proportion than I have seen estimated previously (estimates vary according to the source). But even 45% is still not enough.
Wrong stat. This the one you want:-

Quote:
While large oil companies like ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and Chevron are the biggest emitters of greenhouse gas emissions, we consumers are complicit. We demand the products and energy made from the fossil fuels they provide. One scientist found that 90 percent of fossil fuel companies’ emissions are a result of the products made from fossil fuels.
Think about it. Why are our highways clogged with vehicles? People aren't just driving from A to B for kicks. They are traveling to and from work, or transporting goods. And what do they do at work? Make products, or buy and sell them, or service the facilities that do it. If we weren't making and consuming all those products, none of that activity would be necessary.

During Covid lockdowns people worked from home or just did nothing. The result was empty roads and skies, and a dramatic drop in energy consumption. Yet strangely nobody starved. We still got what we needed to live on with a minimum of essential workers. This proves that we could do it if we set our minds to it. Unfortunately the virus wasn't fatal enough...
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2024, 07:52 PM   #1278
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,077
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Exactly. This is nothing new - these fires have always occurred.

Quote:
These fires are not unusual. In the past 10 years, British Columbia has, on average, seen five or six that continue to burn during the cold months, experts say.

But in January, the province saw an unprecedented peak of 106 active zombie fires
Only 20 times more fires than usual!

Canada is too cold anyway. A few fires will help warm the place up a bit. And CO2, did you know it makes plants grow? With all these wildfires burning trees, we need more growth!
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2024, 11:00 PM   #1279
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 86,977
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Think about it. Why are our highways clogged with vehicles? People aren't just driving from A to B for kicks. They are traveling to and from work, or transporting goods. And what do they do at work? Make products, or buy and sell them, or service the facilities that do it. If we weren't making and consuming all those products, none of that activity would be necessary.
Plastics, mostly. And do you think that our civilisation can end its absolute dependence on plastics any time soon? Let alone soon enough to halt and reverse warming? Do you think that individuals, working independently of each other, can do that?

Oh ****, I've just turned this into yet another individualism vs. collectivism debate.
__________________
We are living in weird times
dominated by weird people
who talk about weird ****

- Seth Meyers
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2024, 01:37 AM   #1280
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 7,075
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
No, we can't, because you're still ignoring humans' dependence on industry. Without decarbonising industry, gains will be in no way fast or consistent enough to ultimately save the world. What it will do is slow down disaster, perhaps for long enough to give society time to solve the bigger problems.
Well, that's a shame. I thought maybe we could come to some sort of amicable agreement. However, as you wish...
Firstly, then, you are ignoring my point that industry is not some separate entity in itself: it is made of people. It involves stakeholders. It is subject to government regulations. It is subject to market forces. Each one of these influences is composed of groups of people. Each group is composed of individuals. If those individuals exert enough pressure, from consumers to shareholders to company directors to governments, then industry will change.
I am also a little puzzled by your flip-flopping on whether or not industry is changing. You doubted it: I posted links showing this was happening, and you later acknowledged it yourself. Now you appear to be going back to saying it isn't changing. Do you mean 'not changing at all', or 'not changing enough', or what? I am genuinely confused.
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt

Bring Back the Yak! P.J. Denyer
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:54 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.