 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
Sorry. OUR actions are a contributory threat to the atmosphere and many millions of people worldwide who will suffer an increase in flood, desert and famine risk from rising sea levels and all other impacts of global warming.
|
good to see i am doing my bit then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
Let's avoid labelling each other and work towards a consensus solution.
|
| Quote: |
Sometimes a bit of zealotry is needed to shake up status quos and vested interests. It's sometimes needed to counteract cons, hype, greenwash, fake posturing and so on.
|
Isn't "zealotry" just another form of "posturing"?
When you lable youself as "a bit of zealotry", you no longer want consensus. You just want people to agree with you.
A zealot doesn't consider any other opinions. So there's no "consensus" to reach. Only the opinion of the zealot for the rest to adopt.
You can't be both. Either you're a zealot and are entitle to your (but only your opinion), or you give up on your zealotry and work towards a consensus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Some people would say that zealotry could be a necessary force to confront massive vested interests (the oil industry springs to mind).
You may be aware that the US government is quite keen on the oil industry. Maybe the oil industry doesn't care about global warming. It could diversify into air-conditioning (see above), or the construction of arks, or the irrigation of deserts that will spread into fertile land. Or maybe big ice cube machines for polar bears and eskimos.
Yes, I'd like people to agree with me. So would the politicians, as the more people who agree with them the less they will mess around over this issue - the most important issue for the world. Read up on the science, follow the consensus scientific opinion (see IPCC) and fall in line with the growing political consensus that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere must be stabilised or reduced.
That's all I'm doing! It just seems to be too much for some members of the ski community to cope with - the idea that we should sacrifice a bit of freedom and consumption in the interests of future generations, and the planet generally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
Read up on the science, follow the consensus scientific opinion (see IPCC) and fall in line with the growing political consensus that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere must be stabilised or reduced.
|
Science is about facts, not consensus.
Politics is about power. "Consensus" is only the means (mutual interest) to an end (power).
You can get neither on the internet.
But you can certainly get people to appear to "agree" with you on the internet, as soon as people with opposing opinions got bored and move on to other threads or leave the board till October. Except that appearent agreement on the forum has no effect on the reality that skiers actually ski more and more each year, reaching the slopes via whatever means they see fit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| consensus scientific opinion |
That phrase is used so glibly. It's usually followed by some conjecture that's completely unscientific, in its lack of specificity. It's also generally used in the weak sense of "majority opinion" as opposed to "general agreement". Even then "consensus" is a dangerous word in science. Breakthroughs in science consist of the overturning of consensus. Einstein (and most other scientists, following the tradition of Newton) believed that "God does not play dice". Of course, the consensus was wrong and Heisenberg, the maverick, was right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
David Goldsmith,
| Quote: |
| That's all I'm doing! It just seems to be too much for some members of the ski community to cope with - the idea that we should sacrifice a bit of freedom and consumption in the interests of future generations, and the planet generally. |
David, I'm sorry, but this is dangly bits - you seem to be implying that members of the ski community are selfish individuals who don't care about the interests of future generations. What you're suggesting is akin to saying that football fans shouldn't go to football matches because their contribution to global warming will see the pitches become arid with no water to water them.
I care deeply about future generations and wonder what things are going to be like for my kids, grandchildren, great great great grandchildren and so on. And I, and I'm sure most others, do make sacrifices of freedom and consumption - I have the heating turned down lower than my parents generation would have done, we turn off lights, we use the car as little as possible, we shop local as much as possible, we have a garden with grass and trees instead of shitty block paving and decking, we make sure everything is properly turned off when not in use, we re-use containers, re-use cars (i.e. buy second hand) - these are just some of the things we do every single day of the year. So why should we feel guilty about, or feel the need to sacrifice, a ski holiday? We drive a total of about 5000 miles per year, so why should I feel bad if I decide to drive 1200 miles to the Alps and back? Sure, its about 25% extra on top of our annual mileage, which may seem a big chunk, but compared with some knob who does 30000 miles a year driving between Brighton and London when he could jump on the train - well I feel no need to feel bad. And so what if we have one return flight per year between Gatwick and Geneva? Nope, we do what we can all year round and won't be made to feel bad about the one or two trips away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| Some people would say that zealotry could be a necessary force.......... |
Maybe what we need is a snowheads Environmental Working Group so that we can reform the ski industry to produce wooden skiss from sustainable sources, and walk up hill in clothing form sustainable sources - leather boots and tweed would do.
Half on a minute, Environmental Working Group (Ewg) is very SCGB - perhaps we could have name reflecting this Very Very Serious work. Something like Committee Re-evaluating Air Pollution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
achilles, Committe Re-evaluating Air Pollution isn't very catchy though. A name with wider appeal for members here, and that would perhaps attract the younger snowsports enthusiasts might help.
How about "snow Heads Into The Environment" or sHITE - the small "s" followed by capital letters is pretty funky.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
petemillis, I think we are getting somewhere. Do I detect a 'movement'?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| petemillis wrote: |
David Goldsmith,
| Quote: |
| That's all I'm doing! It just seems to be too much for some members of the ski community to cope with - the idea that we should sacrifice a bit of freedom and consumption in the interests of future generations, and the planet generally. |
David, I'm sorry, but this is dangley bits - you seem to be implying that members of the ski community are selfish individuals who don't care about the interests of future generations. |
The word "some" is important in the first quote. Insert that word between "that" and "members" in your response and then we're in harmony on what's implied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| achilles wrote: |
| petemillis, I think we are getting somewhere. Do I detect a 'movement'? |
Yes, perhaps we can get this whole movement steaming ahead for the good of all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
David Goldsmith, ok, we agree then that "some" members of the ski community are selfish individuals who don't care about what we leave (or don't leave) for future generations. But now we need to know how big a proportion this "some" really is in relation to the entire ski community. And how could these be persuaded to look at how they can help improve things in their day to day life? And further, why should the majority make additional sacrifices to compensate for the "some" who will make none? Should the entire ski community be punished because "some" members don't give a jot about the environment?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
David Goldsmith, I have to admit that I reckon skiing vs not skiing will have a negligible impact on global warming. As will reducing the number of Chelsea tractors in Chiswick.
There are much bigger things to worry about. Governments should be looking at the big problems rather than the tiny ones...(and no, I am afraid the "count the pennies" argument doesn't apply, IMHO).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| Yes, I'd like people to agree with me. So would the politicians |
Why would the politicians like people to agree with you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Pureman do you see them? On the snowy Mound?
How the wicked snowheads, ski, and ski around?
Too much use of chairlifts? Too much Funival?
Purify their soles, Dave, with Das Kapital.
Pureman do you see them? How they work within?
Sin’fly loving skiing? What a curse-ed sin?
With nasty drives to mountains, and nasty 4 x 4s
To them the hope of sliding must be clos-ed doors.
I make no charge for the above poem, and freely offer the copyright for it to snowheads. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
That's very generous of you, achiller.
There appears to be a subtle message in your poetry, a deeply hidden meaning, such as a knife to the jugular.
Yes, the resolution of how we restore the ecosystem of Planet Earth to something resembling sustainability will involve political struggle ... but there's no reason why it should involve communism. Dave Cameron, the cycling leader of the Conservative Party, whose shoes are lovingly transported by chauffeur, seems to have half-got the argument. How will Dave modify capitalism to deliver a clean atmosphere, clean rivers and clean oceans? And the future of skiing.
Sadly the Victorians are no longer alive. They would probably have led us in the right direction. Highly intelligent people the Victorians. Subsequent generations have evolved towards lifeforms which will spectate the destruction of the planet ... on a 50-inch plasma TV.
David 'Dave' Attenborough is another person who's certainly twigged. He was previously a sceptic. How long before we all twig? Then the politicians will be fully empowered to do the necessary, and stop drenching the planet in greenwash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Maybe you have to be called Dave to get it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Well, it seems the title of this thread may not be qute correct after all:
Step It Up.
According to a report on this on the SCGB site: "Park City in Utah, Copper Mountain in Colorado and Smugglers' Notch in Vermont are some of the resorts that have put in place plans to be part of this".
You can search for individual rallies on the Step It Up site. (eg Smugglers' Notch rally)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I took a look at that campaign yesterday. On the surface it looks great. The key demand is an 80% reduction in CO2 by 2050. Excellent.
Into the site we find, under the heading "How can we cut carbon 80% by 2050?" the following:
| Quote: |
Right now, we're staying focused on our simple demand--that Congress pass strong, ambitious legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% from current levels by mid-century.
Though we're not advocating any particular set of solutions for cutting carbon 80% by 2050, there are many options for getting from here to there. Below is a list of links (which is by no means exhaustive) for blueprints and solutions aimed at achieving our goal. We now just need to exert our collective will and make them happen!
Sustainable Energy Blueprint
http://www.nirs.org/alternatives/sustainableenergyblueprint.pdf
This is an excellent, five page summary of time-phased emissions goals and the policy changes that will get us there. It was developed and posted by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. |
Since when is nuclear energy "sustainable"? I hope this 'Step it Up' campaign isn't a front for the nuclear power industry, which isn't sustainable at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| ......Yes, the resolution of how we restore the ecosystem of Planet Earth to something resembling sustainability will involve political struggle ... but there's no reason why it should involve communism.......... |
Hmm?
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| ................. the choice is between the accepted role of capitalism (which is based on profit maximisation and therefore maximisation of exploitation of natural resources to generate profit) or a more enlightened and holistic view about life on the planet.............. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, it's simply that capitalism - which has an inbuilt tendency to ruin the planet and behave recklessly - will have to operate in a very controlled way in future.
Unrestricted capitalism results in things like Bhopal, the Torrey Canyon, the Three Mile Island nuclear scandal, Thalidomide (and that awful drug testing affair in a British hospital recently), chemically polluted rivers and seas etc. etc.
Fundamentally, any significant industrial/transport input of CO2 into the atmosphere will have to be matched by a tax that will fund equipment that can suck it back out of the atmosphere, liquify it, and bury it. It'll be very expensive.
This can all be organised within a capitalist economy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| Yes, it's simply that capitalism - which has an inbuilt tendency to ruin the planet and behave recklessly - will have to operate in a very controlled way in future............... |
Perhaps you could be snowheads' own Big Brother. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It already has one. Believe me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| Unrestricted capitalism results in things like Bhopal, the Torrey Canyon, the Three Mile Island nuclear scandal, Thalidomide (and that awful drug testing affair in a British hospital recently), chemically polluted rivers and seas etc. etc. |
All of those terrible events took place within regulated operating environments, so I don't think you can say "unrestricted". Inappropriately regulated perhaps or ineffectively regulated, but not unrestricted. I think you'll find that capitalism has one or two benefits as well. For example, my introduction to skiing happened because a company was established to, shock, horror, make a profit from running ski trips for schools. As a working class boy from the South Wales valleys I think it's a good thing that the company which took me skiing that first time wasn't restricted out of business 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| Unrestricted capitalism results in things like Bhopal, the Torrey Canyon, the Three Mile Island nuclear scandal, Thalidomide (and that awful drug testing affair in a British hospital recently), chemically polluted rivers and seas etc. etc. |
Of course, accidents and pollution never happen under any other system. 
You'll have heard of Chernobyl. Do some research into the wastelands left behind by 35 years of state-planned development in East Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia in the post-war period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't need to. You're absolutely right. I'm certainly not promoting communism as a way out of this mess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
laundryman, You fear too much. Once the snowheads peoples collective has wisely unanimously elected a Beloved Environmental Leader (obviously choice would be provided in a very controlled way) operating within acclaimed terms and conditions, we could simply follow the wise diktat, knowing that it was based on properly selected peer-to-peer science.
I see no problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
David Goldsmith, you won't look at the only realistic alternative to replacing a portion of the fossil fuel burn that is available now - nuclear. Therefore, you're looking at a massive reduction in energy use; and therefore a massive reduction in economic output. In effect, a return to the economic conditions of the 1930s, in order to return to the climatic conditions of the 1930s.
If it's a choice between my children being unemployed, my (future) grandchildren going shoeless, famines throughout Asia and Africa - or growing olives in my garden, a few more tropical storms ... and no skiing ... I'll take the latter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Jonpim, and how will all these Americans get to the places where they intend to kayak, hike, bike, climb, swim, or whatever? There'll be a massive movement of people in big cars and SUVs all going to places, on the same day, where they can demonstrate their concern for the planet! Then they can carry on their day to day lives of high consumption smug in the knowledge that they've done their bit. Maybe it's a bit deeper than that, maybe not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| achilles wrote: |
laundryman, You fear too much. Once the snowheads peoples collective has wisely unanimously elected a Beloved Environmental Leader (obviously choice would be provided in a very controlled way) operating within acclaimed terms and conditions, we could simply follow the wise diktat, knowing that it was based on properly selected peer-to-peer science.
I see no problem. |
Please could you all elect me - Peter Millis B.Sc (Hons) Env Sci and Management and (hopefully, although not sure at this rate!) soon to be Dr. (in the academic sense, not medical). My fees would be well worth paying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
petemillis, well, the problem is your qualities, relatively speaking.
Of the three words: "Beloved", "Environmental" and "Leader", your claim is really only on the Environmental word (and even then, you write it as "Env", so it can't be that improtant to you!
Surely the person who should be elected would one who is beloved by thousands on here, and is a leader, if only by having the most posts. As for environmental credentials, I think they are self-evident.
Vote Fox Hat.
...Because I'm worth it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Wear The Fox Hat, I'll bend over so I can be loved if it increases my chances of a decent career as a leader! And I'm sure I can get my post count up to dedicated snowHead standard in a very short time.
Yours lovingly
Peter Millis B.Sc (Hons) Environmental Science and Management
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Wear The Fox Hat,
You will have to change name.
Animal cruelty - need to kill a fox to make a hat
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saikee, it was hit by a speeding motorcyclist. If it had been wearing a helmet, it might still have been alive. Instead, I put its dead body to good use! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wear The Fox Hat, Excellent re-cycling. Must make you a very, very serious contender for BEL.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| laundryman wrote: |
David Goldsmith, you won't look at the only realistic alternative to replacing a portion of the fossil fuel burn that is available now - nuclear. Therefore, you're looking at a massive reduction in energy use; and therefore a massive reduction in economic output. In effect, a return to the economic conditions of the 1930s, in order to return to the climatic conditions of the 1930s.
If it's a choice between my children being unemployed, my (future) grandchildren going shoeless, famines throughout Asia and Africa - or growing olives in my garden, a few more tropical storms ... and no skiing ... I'll take the latter. |
If you'll take the latter then you're seemingly advocating no action, no skiing and unquantifiable risks from global warming to the planet and humanity. But you're also suggesting that you want nuclear power.
No, I'm opposed to it. Would you like a nuclear power station somewhere local in Surrey, with an adjacent waste dump (one wouldn't want to transport this hazardous waste around the place)? Or which part(s) of the country should this plant be imposed on?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd have thought the siting of a nuclear power stations and waste facilities would be up to experts (such as the UKAEA) to advise, rather than residents of North London - or Surrey.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
or should that be 
