"Jack Harry Teesdale" wrote in message
...
On 20/05/2021 18:12, Tim Streater wrote:
On 20 May 2021 at 00:30:07 BST, Fredxx wrote:

On 20/05/2021 00:08, Steve Walker wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:57, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:

If the alternative is climate catastrophe, then I'm prepared to
stop
occasionally.

How d'ye know that's the alternative?

Let's do a risk analysis:

Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
wrong, then you'll be suffering a little inconvenience
unnecessarily.
That's not the end of the world.


Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
right, but we refuse to suffer a little inconvenience. That is the
end
of the world.
It's not a "little inconvenience" when you are literally unable to
get
to a family funeral in time without a petrol or diesel car!

The same way we coped before the motor car, with careful planning.

Actually, or course, we didn't cope, especially before phones. You might
get a
letter a week later saying your 8th cousin had pegged it a week
previously in
the west of Ireland.

But then, people took that for granted. It was how it was. Today, you
tell
people they will have to cope, and their response will be short, pithy,
and
Anglo-Saxon.

Telegrams were a common method of fast communication before telephones
were widespread in homes.

But no way to get there quick enough.