 Poster: A snowHead
|
@Haggis_Trap, "Yes, as a sport skiing is clearly bad for environment on many levels."
That includes all sport from a pure resource point of view.
Take football for example, the huge toll in moving spectators in millions worldwide is so demanding polution wise. And likely outstrips all other sporting activity.
The current playing in empty stadium with electronic distribution of those activities would appear to make a major step in reduction of resource usage 
Plus all that concrete for stands wouldn't have to be updated as grounds wouldn't need the support infrastructure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
| That includes all sport from a pure resource point of view. |
^ almost everything we do as humans, for business or leisure, has environmental impact.
However that needs to be weighed off against the physical, mental and economic benefits.
FWIW : I would argue alpine skiing is one of the least eco-friendly sports?
Mainly because of the infrastructure and need for most participants to travel considerable distances.
However : no one is proposing we ban skiing.
Rather the suggestion is we strive to do it in incrementally more sustainable manner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
If the goverments of the world are prepared to remove fossil fuels from the economy with all the millions of jobs and incalculable billions of revenue it generates, then they will throw a 'toy' industry like skiing under the bus without a second thought!
The sum-total of my thinking is as follows:
Right now, as a I write this, there are at least 10 armed conflicts going on, with people - women, children - dying daily in horrific ways. That matters to me, as it's hurting innocent people right this moment. The carbon cycle is a slow process, already in motion, and whilst taking sensible steps to mitigate its effects when they become practical (i.e. electric cars became viable to me once they hit a ~300 mile range), that's all I'm prepared to do, as it's not killing people right here right now, and - with the application of human ingenuity, something I have great faith in - its effects (in terms of lives lost) might well be more or less neutralised.
Anyway, carbon is a natural product that is essential to human life - in my view if you're concerned about the environment right here and now you should be much more worried about plastics. Take for example your flourinated ski wax (which will be inside your body now, even if you breathed in the fumes years ago) leaking into the environment from snow melt and poisoning everything. It's a real problem, that is really killing the eco-system. And similar persistent plastics designed to be used briefly then disposed of and that are in almost everything we use daily. These are really bad news and the quicker that they can be eliminated the better.
So yeah, global warming is lower on my personal sh*t list than many other things.
Also what I've found when interacting with people who harp on about the most about climate change (and I'm not saying that you're one of these people) is that their concern is more about how they appear to others, and they don't actually make any personal sacrifices in support of them. Sure, they might now drive a Tesla, rather than a Merc, but that's no sacrifice. They always have the latest things (with all the waste that implies), they don't keep old things going, they holiday multiple times per year, they have air conditioning in their houses, second homes, etc. Maybe I just mix i the wrong circles!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| greengriff wrote: |
| If the goverments of the world are prepared to remove fossil fuels from the economy with all the millions of jobs and incalculable billions of revenue it generates |
^ SO : What is the longer-term economic (and human cost) of letting global warming carry on present rates ?
| greengriff wrote: |
| , then they will throw a 'toy' industry like skiing under the bus without a second thought! |
Uhhhm : If global warming continues at a rate of 2-4C there wont be much skiing left in Europe 
The rest of your post conflates lots of *different* issues like carbon emissions, plastic waste and civil wars - all problems which need to be solved.
However, it is clear you are not smart / imaginative enough to see that global warming as a risk, to not just the economy, but humanity itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
^ SO : What is the longer-term economic (and human cost) of letting global warming carry on present rates ?
|
I'm pretty sure that nobody, anywhere, knows the answer to that. They might have models, but given the amount of variables, and the relentless resourcefulness of humanity, who can know which one - if any - will turn out to be accurate?
The glaciers are, sadly, melting anyway. I'd be amazed if the process can be stopped by any carbon emission mitigation methods. Maybe it can. Maybe it's out of our hands and only another grand minimum can stop it. I don't know.
You have no idea how smart I am (or aren't!), but one thing's for sure; I'm smart enough to have observed the pattern that doom mongers (whether religious or scientific) have constantly predicted the end of humanuty for multifarious reasons. They've always been wrong. Maybe they will be right this time? I doubt it.
If you genuinely think global warming is a risk to humanity itself then surely that's enough of an incentive for you to quit participation in activities that cause it, like skiing? Or are you just another virtue-signalling hypocrite tool?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
It comes down to being sensible. No one is saying don't do anything that is bad for the environment ever again, or pretending that all of us don't have a carbon footprint of our own. For some of us flying for an afternoon skiing is not sensible in that the carbon footprint for what you are getting in return isn't worth it. Particularly when as you've said yourself it's just a bit of fun. There doesn't seem to be a reason why you can not just go for a week, or even long weekend, which would be infinitely more enjoyable and make the environmental impacts more acceptable to many.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed, so why not just make the point reasonably like you just did, rather than indulging in hyperbole (i.e. you might as well just have a mass tyre burning)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| greengriff wrote: |
| Indeed, so why not just make the point reasonably like you just did, rather than indulging in hyperbole (i.e. you might as well just have a mass tyre burning)? |
hyperbole like “wiping out 2 Bangladeshi villages”?
I wasn’t actually suggesting you burn tyres instead. It was tongue in cheek. Basically, what I’m saying is, take a joke snowflake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| greengriff wrote: |
I'm pretty sure that nobody, anywhere, knows the answer to that. |
Actually there is general consensus among scientists we need to be carbon neutral by 2050 to avoid catastrophe for humanity.
Your reaction seems to be sticking head in sand (dismissing science as doom-mongering) rather than accept change is required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Timmycb5 wrote: |
| greengriff wrote: |
| Indeed, so why not just make the point reasonably like you just did, rather than indulging in hyperbole (i.e. you might as well just have a mass tyre burning)? |
hyperbole like “wiping out 2 Bangladeshi villages”?
I wasn’t actually suggesting you burn tyres instead. It was tongue in cheek. Basically, what I’m saying is, take a joke snowflake. |
My 'villages in Bangladesh' remark was parodying YOU, you utter fool  Also there's nothing in the context to suggest that your original remark was meant in jest. Not to say that it wasn't, just that text is not a great medium for conveying the nuances of humour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| greengriff wrote: |
| Timmycb5 wrote: |
| greengriff wrote: |
| Indeed, so why not just make the point reasonably like you just did, rather than indulging in hyperbole (i.e. you might as well just have a mass tyre burning)? |
hyperbole like “wiping out 2 Bangladeshi villages”?
I wasn’t actually suggesting you burn tyres instead. It was tongue in cheek. Basically, what I’m saying is, take a joke snowflake. |
My 'villages in Bangladesh' remark was parodying YOU, you utter fool Also there's nothing in the context to suggest that your original remark was meant in jest. Not to say that it wasn't, just that text is not a great medium for conveying the nuances of humour. |
You said above that you thought it was hyperbole, and therefore not to be taken literally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
| greengriff wrote: |
I'm pretty sure that nobody, anywhere, knows the answer to that. |
Actually there is general consensus among scientists we need to be carbon neutral by 2050 to avoid catastrophe for humanity.
Your reaction seems to be sticking head in sand (dismissing science as doom-mongering) rather than accept change is required. |
Where can I find that information please?
It's unfortunately true that the scientific method leads to incorrect conclusions a lot. In fact more than it leads to correct ones! Anyone who thinks something is a done deal just because some scientists said it should be prepared for a severe case of cognitive dissonance when some different scientists come to to polar opposite conclusions years later. Also science is nothing whatsoever to do with consensus. Nothing at all. Anyway, however inaccurate as the scientific method is, it's still way, way better than any of the alternatives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Timmycb5 wrote: |
You said above that you thought it was hyperbole, and therefore not to be taken literally. |
Sure, but it's bloody rude, meant to put down my interest in doing my 1 day ski trip.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| greengriff wrote: |
| Timmycb5 wrote: |
You said above that you thought it was hyperbole, and therefore not to be taken literally. |
Sure, but it's bloody rude, meant to put down my interest in doing my 1 day ski trip. |
Diddums. Welcome to the internet pal. May I suggest you grow a thicker skin if you get offended when someone calls your *checks notes* quite clearly environmental immoral interest as grotesque from a carbon footprint point of view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
I wasn't offended. I've just been amusing myself poking fun at hypocrites. Something that never gets old.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
I don't know about 'feel better', but it gives me some gentle amusement. Happy Easter!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| greengriff wrote: |
| I wasn't offended. I've just been amusing myself poking fun at hypocrites. Something that never gets old. |
Hypocrites?
You are a climate change denier who doesn't understand scientific consensus. Your entire argument is that anyone who is concerned about carbon emissions should live in a mud hut - otherwise they are "virtue signalling".
Back in real world the practical solution is far more nuanced than that. Unfortunately you only seem able to see world in black or white (... so I can't help your blinkered idiocy).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Come on, now you're just making stuff up, and throwing insults. These things are the last refuge of the comprehensively out-argued.
I'll repeat this bit because it's important: If you think science is about consensus you are wrong.
That says nothing about whether prevailing scientific opinion is right or wrong on the climate change issue - they have the best information so far, so we should follow it until better information appears, then we should follow that etc.
My argument is not that people who are concerned about carbon emissions should live in mud huts, it's that people who crow about climate change whilst taking part in frivolous, non-essential activities that contribue to it, are hypocrites. I.e. like you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| greengriff wrote: |
Come on, now you're just making stuff up, and throwing insults. These things are the last refuge of the comprehensively out-argued.
I'll repeat this bit because it's important: If you think science is about consensus you are wrong.
That says nothing about whether prevailing scientific opinion is right or wrong on the climate change issue - they have the best information so far, so we should follow it until better information appears, then we should follow that etc.
My argument is not that people who are concerned about carbon emissions should live in mud huts, it's that people who crow about climate change whilst taking part in frivolous, non-essential activities that contribue to it, are hypocrites. I.e. like you. |
You’re going to go NUTS when you find out who wrote the below on this thread!
“Why don't you go and try and suck up the fun somewhere else?”
“I'll forgive you if English isn't your first language.”
“You sad pricks won't give up will you?”
“I can imagine the internal sighing of the the poor sods who know them in real life and realise they've just been spotted by them in Waitrose, in spite of their best effort to avoid them, and so are now going to be stuck with them sucking the joy out of their lives for however long it takes for them to come up with a reasonable sounding excuse to edge them off....
'Ah sh*t, there's Timmy. Marjorie, stand in front of me and look at the soy products, maybe he won't see me. Oh dangly bits, he has...'
And so on.”
“The guy is a bellend. You know the type. Holier-than-thou.”
“you are just revealing yourself as a virtue-signalling hypocrite, worthy only of mockery”
“Or are you just another virtue-signalling hypocrite tool?”
“you utter fool”
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| greengriff wrote: |
| ... it's that people who crow about climate change whilst taking part in frivolous, non-essential activities that contribue to it, are hypocrites. I.e. like you. |
Bull sh-t.
As individuals we can't stop climate change... Society must buy into the need for change. For example : industry needs to invent an affordable electric car before the masses can purchase it.
You seem to use this inconvenience as excuse for carrying on as normal with head in sand. The transformation to carbon neutral won't happen overnight but will be incremental as society adapts over a generation or more (though on individual basis you can still make changes now)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Timmycb5 wrote: |
| greengriff wrote: |
Come on, now you're just making stuff up, and throwing insults. These things are the last refuge of the comprehensively out-argued.
I'll repeat this bit because it's important: If you think science is about consensus you are wrong.
That says nothing about whether prevailing scientific opinion is right or wrong on the climate change issue - they have the best information so far, so we should follow it until better information appears, then we should follow that etc.
My argument is not that people who are concerned about carbon emissions should live in mud huts, it's that people who crow about climate change whilst taking part in frivolous, non-essential activities that contribue to it, are hypocrites. I.e. like you. |
You’re going to go NUTS when you find out who wrote the below on this thread!
“Why don't you go and try and suck up the fun somewhere else?”
“I'll forgive you if English isn't your first language.”
“You sad pricks won't give up will you?”
“I can imagine the internal sighing of the the poor sods who know them in real life and realise they've just been spotted by them in Waitrose, in spite of their best effort to avoid them, and so are now going to be stuck with them sucking the joy out of their lives for however long it takes for them to come up with a reasonable sounding excuse to edge them off....
'Ah sh*t, there's Timmy. Marjorie, stand in front of me and look at the soy products, maybe he won't see me. Oh dangly bits, he has...'
And so on.”
“The guy is a bellend. You know the type. Holier-than-thou.”
“you are just revealing yourself as a virtue-signalling hypocrite, worthy only of mockery”
“Or are you just another virtue-signalling hypocrite tool?”
“you utter fool” |
Yeah, very funny I thought. Thanks for compiling them in one spot. You have to admit though, despite my lapses into childish insult, I've still ripped you through this thread, and without even breaking a sweat! The curious can read through and see which one of us dodged the points the other one made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
| greengriff wrote: |
| ... it's that people who crow about climate change whilst taking part in frivolous, non-essential activities that contribue to it, are hypocrites. I.e. like you. |
As individuals we can't stop climate change... Society must buy into the need for change. For example : industry needs to invent an affordable electric car before the masses can purchase it.
|
I agree about the electric car.
If individuals are sufficiently concerned then they can set examples through their own actions, influence their family, friends and neighbours. That's how societal change starts. A person saying 'x activity is bad, it's hurting humanity', whilst still doing x activity is not going to achieve that. It - rightly - leads people to believe the person is insincere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Good god, you actually believe that. The fact you can’t even follow basic instructions to find the information you requested says pretty much all anyone needs to know about you.
Ps. Your “lapses into childish” insult happened BEFORE any other insults. Refer back to your earlier point regarding being out argued.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As you know (or maybe you forgot?) the 'information' you linked to didn't even say anything about the claim you made. Unfortunately stupid people are often too stupid to realise they are stupid, leading to endless circles. People can make up their own minds if they are interested enough go read through 4 pages of thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| greengriff wrote: |
If individuals are sufficiently concerned then they can set examples through their own actions, influence their family, friends and neighbours. |
Correct
Finally the penny is dropping!
We would all love to be individually carbon neutral. But until society / industry enables that technology we can only make incremental changes (such as choosing not to fly to Alps for a day trip)
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
It looks like the Travel Rules and Requirements wont be thinning out any time soon to go abroad to Ski/Board this coming Winter.
It will only cost me £38 to renew my 'Weardale Ski Club' Season Membership Card again in September 2021. 
https://www.skiweardale.com/
MY DAY TRIP SKIING IN ENGLAND
Set off at 06:00 Hours
4 hour drive from Loughborough to WSC Car Park.
Ski from 10:00 Hours until 16:00 Hours
4 hour return drive
Home again by 20:00 Hours
(Round Trip Diesel Cost about £50)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
