On Sun, 30 May 2021 17:00:31 -0700 (PDT), David P
wrote:

A Big Climate Problem With Few Easy Solutions: Planes
By Chokshi & Krauss, 5/28/21, New York Times

The worst of the pandemic may be over for airlines, but
the industry faces another looming crisis: an accounting
over its contribution to climate change.

The world is already experiencing another and bigger crisis:

"The 2006 report Livestock's Long Shadow, released by the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, states that "the
livestock sector is a major stressor on many ecosystems and on the
planet as a whole. Globally it is one of the largest sources of
greenhouse gases (GHG) and one of the leading causal factors in the
loss of biodiversity, and in developed and emerging countries it is
perhaps the leading source of water pollution.

Meat production is a major driver of climate change. A 2017 study
published in the journal Carbon Balance and Management found animal
agriculture's global methane emissions are 11% higher than previous
estimates based on data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enviro...eat_production

Cheers, T i m

On 31/05/2021 07:13, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2021 17:00:31 -0700 (PDT), David P
wrote:

A Big Climate Problem With Few Easy Solutions: Planes
By Chokshi & Krauss, 5/28/21, New York Times

The worst of the pandemic may be over for airlines, but
the industry faces another looming crisis: an accounting
over its contribution to climate change.

The world is already experiencing another and bigger crisis:

TOO MANY FECKING PEOPLE ****ING PEOPLE.

On 31/05/2021 06:13, T i m wrote:
David P wrote:

A Big Climate Problem With Few Easy Solutions: Planes
By Chokshi & Krauss, 5/28/21, New York Times

The worst of the pandemic may be over for airlines, but
the industry faces another looming crisis: an accounting
over its contribution to climate change.

The world is already experiencing another and bigger crisis:

"The 2006 report Livestock's Long Shadow, released by the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations,

....largest sources of greenhouse gases (GHG)....

....animal agriculture's global methane emissions are 11% higher.....

....Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change....

Who are, of course, a bunch of crooks...

"We (the UN/IPCC) redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate
policy..."

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate
policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with
environmental policy any more..."

(written by an IPCC panel member, around 2010)

--
Spike

On 31/05/2021 09:10, Spike wrote:
On 31/05/2021 06:13, T i m wrote:
David P wrote:

A Big Climate Problem With Few Easy Solutions: Planes
By Chokshi & Krauss, 5/28/21, New York Times

The worst of the pandemic may be over for airlines, but
the industry faces another looming crisis: an accounting
over its contribution to climate change.

The world is already experiencing another and bigger crisis:

"The 2006 report Livestock's Long Shadow, released by the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations,

....largest sources of greenhouse gases (GHG)....

....animal agriculture's global methane emissions are 11% higher.....

....Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change....

Who are, of course, a bunch of crooks...

"We (the UN/IPCC) redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate
policy..."

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate
policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with
environmental policy any more..."

(written by an IPCC panel member, around 2010)

The IPCC's terms of reference are - as well as almost impossible to find
online - to examine and chart the likely effects of man made climate
change and provide political guidance..

Examining whether or not man made climate change actually exists in any
significant way is completely outside their remit.


--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

On Mon, 31 May 2021 07:18:00 +0100, Richard
wrote:

snip

The world is already experiencing another and bigger crisis:

TOO MANY FECKING PEOPLE ****ING PEOPLE.

Of course, but what do *you* think we should do about that now?

We had already consciously decided we didn't want to be part of the
problem by only having two children (and have already lost one).

Our remaining child (30) consciously doesn't want to bring a child
into this world, *because* of the mess we have already got it into.

At what point do people start thinking of anything other than
themselves, like many of those living more in harmony with the earth
were doing all those years ago?

'We' can easily help out without having to protest, lobby governments
or glue ourselves to the ground by just considering the impact of our
actions and adjusting our lifestyles accordingly. Like recycling more,
, traveling less (by plane / IC car), not wasting so much food or not
eating as much meat or consuming animal based products.

Cheers, T i m

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 May 2021 07:18:00 +0100, Richard
wrote:

snip

The world is already experiencing another and bigger crisis:

TOO MANY FECKING PEOPLE ****ING PEOPLE.

Of course, but what do *you* think we should do about that now?

We had already consciously decided we didn't want to be part of the
problem by only having two children (and have already lost one).

Our remaining child (30) consciously doesn't want to bring a child
into this world, *because* of the mess we have already got it into.

At what point do people start thinking of anything other
than themselves, like many of those living more in harmony
with the earth were doing all those years ago?

No harmony involved in watching your kids die in drought and famine.

And they had a hell of a lot more kids in those days, essentially
because a hell of a lot more of them died before they became
adults and didn't live very long when adults either.

On 31/05/2021 10:47, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2021 07:18:00 +0100, Richard
wrote:

snip

The world is already experiencing another and bigger crisis:

TOO MANY FECKING PEOPLE ****ING PEOPLE.

Of course, but what do *you* think we should do about that now?

*I* think that we should stop curing those who will not stop breeding at
unsustainable.
We should stop feeding those that cannot feed themselves.

That is what *will* happen in the long term whether *we* like it or not.

On Mon, 31 May 2021 09:48:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 31/05/2021 09:10, Spike wrote:
On 31/05/2021 06:13, T i m wrote:
David P wrote:

A Big Climate Problem With Few Easy Solutions: Planes By Chokshi &
Krauss, 5/28/21, New York Times

The worst of the pandemic may be over for airlines, but the industry
faces another looming crisis: an accounting over its contribution to
climate change.

The world is already experiencing another and bigger crisis:

"The 2006 report Livestock's Long Shadow, released by the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations,

....largest sources of greenhouse gases (GHG)....

....animal agriculture's global methane emissions are 11% higher.....

....Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change....

Who are, of course, a bunch of crooks...

"We (the UN/IPCC) redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate
policy..."

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate
policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with
environmental policy any more..."

(written by an IPCC panel member, around 2010)

The IPCC's terms of reference are - as well as almost impossible to find
online - to examine and chart the likely effects of man made climate
change and provide political guidance..

Examining whether or not man made climate change actually exists in any
significant way is completely outside their remit.

It's a bit like god, up in the air.

On 31/05/2021 07:13, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2021 17:00:31 -0700 (PDT), David P
wrote:

A Big Climate Problem With Few Easy Solutions: Planes
By Chokshi & Krauss, 5/28/21, New York Times

The worst of the pandemic may be over for airlines, but
the industry faces another looming crisis: an accounting
over its contribution to climate change.

The world is already experiencing another and bigger crisis:

"The 2006 report Livestock's Long Shadow, released by the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, states that "the
livestock sector is a major stressor on many ecosystems and on the
planet as a whole. Globally it is one of the largest sources of
greenhouse gases (GHG) and one of the leading causal factors in the
loss of biodiversity, and in developed and emerging countries it is
perhaps the leading source of water pollution.

Is there any reason why you don't promote methods of reducing a
ruminant's methane production?

Perhaps recommend a switch from beef to pork or chicken that doesn't
have the same impact on the environment, or even the same food uptake
for a 1kg of meat.

Meat production is a major driver of climate change. A 2017 study
published in the journal Carbon Balance and Management found animal
agriculture's global methane emissions are 11% higher than previous
estimates based on data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enviro...eat_production

That doesn't mean the 2017 numbers are any more correct. Your article
contradicts your claim by saying, "In the US, methane emissions
associated with ruminant livestock are estimated to have declined by
about 17 percent from 1980 through 2012"

On Mon, 31 May 2021 20:05:24 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Bill Wright to Rodent Speed:
"That confirms my opinion that you are a despicable little ****."
MID:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Our remaining child (30) consciously doesn't want to bring a child
into this world, *because* of the mess we have already got it into.

Sounds like you've brainwashed him.

--
*Great groups from little icons grow *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 31/05/2021 12:35, jon wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2021 09:48:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 31/05/2021 09:10, Spike wrote:
On 31/05/2021 06:13, T i m wrote:
David P wrote:

A Big Climate Problem With Few Easy Solutions: Planes By Chokshi &
Krauss, 5/28/21, New York Times

The worst of the pandemic may be over for airlines, but the industry
faces another looming crisis: an accounting over its contribution to
climate change.

The world is already experiencing another and bigger crisis:

"The 2006 report Livestock's Long Shadow, released by the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations,

....largest sources of greenhouse gases (GHG)....

....animal agriculture's global methane emissions are 11% higher.....

....Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change....

Who are, of course, a bunch of crooks...

"We (the UN/IPCC) redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate
policy..."

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate
policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with
environmental policy any more..."

(written by an IPCC panel member, around 2010)

The IPCC's terms of reference are - as well as almost impossible to find
online - to examine and chart the likely effects of man made climate
change and provide political guidance..

Examining whether or not man made climate change actually exists in any
significant way is completely outside their remit.

It's a bit like god, up in the air.

No, it isn't. Its more like ****. Known to exist by the smell

Every single scrap of unbiased unadjusted evidence proves beyond
reasonable doubt that carbon dioxide has very little effect on the
worlds climate and indeed tends to follow temperature, not lead it.

Furthermore the effects of a couple of degrees rise and extra CO2 would
be nothing but beneficial to the world



--
Theres a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons
that sound good.

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)

On 31/05/2021 12:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
T i m wrote:

Our remaining child (30) consciously doesn't want to bring a child
into this world, *because* of the mess we have already got it into.

Sounds like you've brainwashed him.

T i m ' s beliefs support brainwashing/conditioning providing it aligns
with his anti-meat-eating crusade that he cloaks with his brow-beaten
acceptance of veganism.

--
Spike

On Mon, 31 May 2021 13:32:41 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Our remaining child (30) consciously doesn't want to bring a child
into this world, *because* of the mess we have already got it into.

Sounds like you've brainwashed him.

Ironically it's though *her* that we have better aligned our actions
with our morals (faster, we were doing more and more of that anyway)
and in doing so make the world a better place for *ALL* animals (live
stock that don't have to suffer and die, the wildlife that are
suffering because of habitat destruction to grow food for the live
stock and humans because of the reduced resource consumption and
pollution from not having to feed all the livestock).

I really don't see how you think this world (the environment) is
better than is was before we started ****ing it up, polluting the seas
with animal waste and plastics, the air with fossil fuel pollution and
habitat destruction and species extinction?

If there were any brainwashing going on it might be by those who fall
for all the marketing BS and how that leads to wanton consumption,
waste and obesity?

Cheers, T i m

On 31/05/2021 17:43, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2021 13:32:41 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Our remaining child (30) consciously doesn't want to bring a child
into this world, *because* of the mess we have already got it into.

Sounds like you've brainwashed him.

Ironically it's though *her* that we have better aligned our actions

Oh dear. Are we absolutely certain that there is binary gender stuff
going on here?

On Mon, 31 May 2021 18:28:14 +0100, Richard
wrote:

On 31/05/2021 17:43, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2021 13:32:41 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Our remaining child (30) consciously doesn't want to bring a child
into this world, *because* of the mess we have already got it into.

Sounds like you've brainwashed him.

Ironically it's though *her* that we have better aligned our actions

Oh dear. Are we absolutely certain that there is binary gender stuff
going on here?

Only if you want to see that rather than the spirit of the point (in
good trolling fashion). ;-(

Cheers, T i m

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
T i m wrote

Our remaining child (30) consciously doesn't want to bring a child
into this world, *because* of the mess we have already got it into.

Sounds like you've brainwashed him.

Or the problem is in the genes and it’s a her.

And it appears she has brainwashed/convinced him to be a vegan.

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 May 2021 13:32:41 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Our remaining child (30) consciously doesn't want to bring a child
into this world, *because* of the mess we have already got it into.

Sounds like you've brainwashed him.

Ironically it's though *her* that we have better aligned our actions
with our morals (faster, we were doing more and more of that anyway)
and in doing so make the world a better place for *ALL* animals (live
stock that don't have to suffer and die, the wildlife that are
suffering because of habitat destruction to grow food for the live
stock and humans because of the reduced resource consumption and
pollution from not having to feed all the livestock).

I really don't see how you think this world (the environment) is
better than is was before we started ****ing it up, polluting the seas
with animal waste and plastics, the air with fossil fuel pollution and
habitat destruction and species extinction?

Trouble with that line is that its even more true of clearing
natural forests to grow plants and grain to eat.

In fact we let cattle roam free in natural vegetation and
eat the cattle and that ****s the environment far less.

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 06:48:03 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Bod addressing senile Rot:
"Rod, you have a sick twisted mind. I suggest you stop your mindless
and totally irresponsible talk. Your mouth could get you into a lot of
trouble."
Message-ID:

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 06:32:27 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old senile Australian
cretin's pathological trolling:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 06:48:03 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

snip

I really don't see how you think this world (the environment) is
better than is was before we started ****ing it up, polluting the seas
with animal waste and plastics, the air with fossil fuel pollution and
habitat destruction and species extinction?

Trouble with that line is that its even more true of clearing
natural forests to grow plants and grain to eat.

But we don't generally do that (any more) to grow food for us but live
stock.

In fact we let cattle roam free in natural vegetation and
eat the cattle and that ****s the environment far less.

Sure, except that doesn't account for the 98% of cattle that are
reared in feed lots and are never allowed to roam anywhere. ;-(

There are several large areas set aside in parks and the likes over
here where they allow farmers to 'finish' their herd on grass so they
can sell it as 'grass fed'. Given the size of the area (and we are
talking about green and rainy England here), they only seem to put a
few (maybe 10) cows there and it's obvious that fairly quickly it's
all trimmed flat.

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 06:32:27 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
T i m wrote

Our remaining child (30) consciously doesn't want to bring a child
into this world, *because* of the mess we have already got it into.

Sounds like you've brainwashed him.

Or the problem is in the genes and it’s a her.

You got that right at least. ;-)

And it appears she has brainwashed/convinced him to be a vegan.

Please don't lower yourself to the level of *those* two trolls.

Why couldn't it be perfectly reasonable that someone could just need
the 'leg up' to a change in lifestyle that means their actions match
their morals (something we had been doing slowly in any case, us not
drinking cows milk for some 5 years previous, not eating much meat and
preferring the likes of Quorn mince to the stuff full of blended
eyeballs and aresoles)?

The actual fact is that our daughter just gave us the opportunity to
see the truth better for ourselves and *WE* decided to carry on with
it from then on. And it was far from a hard sell, it was that she
announced that she was going to *try* going vegan (from a vegi for a
few years, thinking that was enough before realising the egg and dairy
industry were as bad or worse) for one month (veganuary) and we
*offered* to join her.

It's no different to someone here putting someone else onto the
benefits of a better diet or off some harmful prescription drug mix
when it's better for them and others.

That fact that anyone can't accept that as the truth says more about
them than they realise.

https://ibb.co/9Z1c6tZ

Cheers, T i m

T i m wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I really don't see how you think this world (the environment)
is better than is was before we started ****ing it up, polluting
the seas with animal waste and plastics, the air with fossil fuel
pollution and habitat destruction and species extinction?

Trouble with that line is that its even more true of clearing
natural forests to grow plants and grain to eat.

But we don't generally do that (any more)
to grow food for us but live stock.

Not true of Brazil particularly.

In fact we let cattle roam free in natural vegetation and
eat the cattle and that ****s the environment far less.

Sure, except that doesn't account for the 98% of cattle that are
reared in feed lots and are never allowed to roam anywhere. ;-(

That 98% number is a lie. In spades with sheep.

There are several large areas set aside in parks and the likes
over here where they allow farmers to 'finish' their herd on
grass so they can sell it as 'grass fed'. Given the size of the
area (and we are talking about green and rainy England here),
they only seem to put a few (maybe 10) cows there and it's
obvious that fairly quickly it's all trimmed flat.

Nothing like that happens here on the all trimmed
flat and we don't do that with feedlot cattle either.

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 08:21:33 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread


--
Sqwertz to Rodent Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On 31/05/2021 07:13, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2021 17:00:31 -0700 (PDT), David P
wrote:

A Big Climate Problem With Few Easy Solutions: Planes
By Chokshi & Krauss, 5/28/21, New York Times

The worst of the pandemic may be over for airlines, but
the industry faces another looming crisis: an accounting
over its contribution to climate change.

The world is already experiencing another and bigger crisis:

I thought you were going to put OT in front of any of sermons from the
keyboard?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 31/05/2021 23:14, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 06:32:27 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
T i m wrote

Our remaining child (30) consciously doesn't want to bring a child
into this world, *because* of the mess we have already got it into.

Sounds like you've brainwashed him.

Or the problem is in the genes and its a her.

You got that right at least. ;-)

And it appears she has brainwashed/convinced him to be a vegan.

Please don't lower yourself to the level of *those* two trolls.

You are the lowest of the low. You are the very definition of a troll.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
"a troll is a person who starts flame wars or intentionally upsets
people on the Internet".

Now if you stopped posting OT topics regarding your fanatical subject in
a DIY group, you would no longer be the uk.d-i-y number one troll.

On 31/05/2021 21:22, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2021 18:28:14 +0100, Richard
wrote:

On 31/05/2021 17:43, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2021 13:32:41 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Our remaining child (30) consciously doesn't want to bring a child
into this world, *because* of the mess we have already got it into.

Sounds like you've brainwashed him.

Ironically it's though *her* that we have better aligned our actions

Oh dear. Are we absolutely certain that there is binary gender stuff
going on here?

Only if you want to see that rather than the spirit of the point (in
good trolling fashion). ;-(

Sincere apologies. Is he animal or vegetable?

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 03:05:05 +0100, Fredxx, the notorious, troll-feeding,
senile smartass, blathered again:


You are the lowest of the low. You are the very definition of a troll.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
"a troll is a person who starts flame wars or intentionally upsets
people on the Internet".

Now if you stopped posting OT topics regarding your fanatical subject in
a DIY group, you would no longer be the uk.d-i-y number one troll.

This coming from the hypocritical senile smartass who consistently keeps
feeding the trolls and threads that are entirely off topic. The mind boggles
at so much self-delusion.

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 01:40:14 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 31/05/2021 07:13, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2021 17:00:31 -0700 (PDT), David P
wrote:

A Big Climate Problem With Few Easy Solutions: Planes
By Chokshi & Krauss, 5/28/21, New York Times

The worst of the pandemic may be over for airlines, but
the industry faces another looming crisis: an accounting
over its contribution to climate change.

The world is already experiencing another and bigger crisis:

I thought you were going to put OT in front of any of sermons from the
keyboard?

*I* do, but I'm guessing you are mistaking me for the OP of the thread
(and there was me thinking you were a technical type).

Aww, and 'sermon' .... bless. ;-)

So, the words 'zoonotic pandemic', 'habitat destruction', 'wildlife
species extinction', 'animal exploitation' and 'antibiotic resistance'
and not worthy of consideration / discussion then (and with a very
simple solution to most of them), over and above ALL the other
unmarked and blatantly OT posts here (or just the ones you don't like
to read at least)?

If someone posts something re the potential damage to the ozone from
aeroplanes, why wouldn't mentioning something that is suggested to
cause even more damage to the same to put it into proportion.

We can't easily halt air traffic but we can easily reduce the
quantities of 'man made' methane production (that is 10x worse as a
GWGG than CO2)[1].

Cheers, T i m

[1] And whilst it's impact reduces relatively quickly compared with
CO2, it still remains active in the atmosphere at lower concentrations
for over 500 years and has a GWP of 28–36 over 100 years.

On 31/05/2021 22:14, T i m wrote:

The actual fact is that our daughter just gave us the opportunity to
see the truth better for ourselves and *WE* decided to carry on with
it from then on. And it was far from a hard sell, it was that she
announced that she was going to *try* going vegan (from a vegi for a
few years, thinking that was enough before realising the egg and dairy
industry were as bad or worse) for one month (veganuary) and we
*offered* to join her.

You should have done what I did, which was to give up eating beef and
lamb some four decades ago. Just think of all the animals that were
killed for you while you were having fun and enjoying the sort of life
that you now don't want others to have - known, appropriately, as the
'dog in a manger' attitude. You'll need to live to over a 100 to catch
up with me, and given your stress levels caused by your trolling I think
that might be a bridge too far.

--
Spike

On 01/06/2021 08:47, T i m wrote:

We can't easily halt air traffic but we can easily reduce the
quantities of 'man made' methane production (that is 10x worse as a
GWGG than CO2)[1].

Only if you believe in the the Dangerous Unprecedented Catastrophic
Anthropogenic Climate Change Global Heating Emergency Alarm Justice system.

For anyone else, the fact that the planet warms due to external forces,
as shown by the last five ice ages and their interglacial warm periods,
it's all fairly normal for the current part of the cycle.

--
Spike

On 01/06/2021 09:47, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 01:40:14 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 31/05/2021 07:13, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2021 17:00:31 -0700 (PDT), David P
wrote:

A Big Climate Problem With Few Easy Solutions: Planes
By Chokshi & Krauss, 5/28/21, New York Times

The worst of the pandemic may be over for airlines, but
the industry faces another looming crisis: an accounting
over its contribution to climate change.

The world is already experiencing another and bigger crisis:

I thought you were going to put OT in front of any of sermons from the
keyboard?

*I* do, but I'm guessing you are mistaking me for the OP of the thread
(and there was me thinking you were a technical type).

You can change the message title.

(most usenet software will thread on the ID not the title)



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 12:10:02 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 01/06/2021 09:47, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 01:40:14 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 31/05/2021 07:13, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2021 17:00:31 -0700 (PDT), David P
wrote:

A Big Climate Problem With Few Easy Solutions: Planes
By Chokshi & Krauss, 5/28/21, New York Times

The worst of the pandemic may be over for airlines, but
the industry faces another looming crisis: an accounting
over its contribution to climate change.

The world is already experiencing another and bigger crisis:

I thought you were going to put OT in front of any of sermons from the
keyboard?

*I* do, but I'm guessing you are mistaking me for the OP of the thread
(and there was me thinking you were a technical type).

You can change the message title.

(most usenet software will thread on the ID not the title)

But why should I, why can't you simply not read (and especially reply
to) it?

Why don't you feel the need to comment of *any* of the other OT posts
here?

What is it about the idea of asking people to consider the
consequences of their actions 'that way' (reduction in greenhouse
gasses from live stock) that you find so objectionable? Is it you
don't use air flight but do eat meat or some such?

The subject was to do with 'Climate change' and 'a' solution being to
do with the reduction in air travel. If we could also reduce the
production of GWGG (even if you don't consider such an issue, many
people (scientists) seem to) to the same or greater extent by doing
'something else', why wouldn't it be valid or why wouldn't people also
consider it?

A reduction of our consumption of animal flesh would be such a
solution PLUS a benefit in many many other ways, including the risk of
more zoonotic pandemics, heart / bowel disease, obesity, diabetes,
global pollution, environmental / habitat destruction and
sustainability. That's ignoring (as many choose to do) all the
unnecessary animal suffering, death and exploitation.

So, if you feel bad for being part of any of that and don't want to be
reminded of it in a genuine discussion on the subject topic, feel free
to skip over it. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 01/06/2021 12:46, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 12:10:02 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 01/06/2021 09:47, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 01:40:14 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 31/05/2021 07:13, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2021 17:00:31 -0700 (PDT), David P
wrote:

A Big Climate Problem With Few Easy Solutions: Planes
By Chokshi & Krauss, 5/28/21, New York Times

The worst of the pandemic may be over for airlines, but
the industry faces another looming crisis: an accounting
over its contribution to climate change.

The world is already experiencing another and bigger crisis:

I thought you were going to put OT in front of any of sermons from the
keyboard?

*I* do, but I'm guessing you are mistaking me for the OP of the thread
(and there was me thinking you were a technical type).

You can change the message title.

(most usenet software will thread on the ID not the title)

But why should I, why can't you simply not read (and especially reply
to) it?

Firstly, because you said you would, secondly because I would rather
just filter your OT posts, rather than all your posts.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 01/06/2021 14:39, John Rumm wrote:
On 01/06/2021 12:46, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 12:10:02 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 01/06/2021 09:47, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 01:40:14 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 31/05/2021 07:13, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2021 17:00:31 -0700 (PDT), David P
wrote:

A Big Climate Problem With Few Easy Solutions: Planes
By Chokshi & Krauss, 5/28/21, New York Times

The worst of the pandemic may be over for airlines, but
the industry faces another looming crisis: an accounting
over its contribution to climate change.

The world is already experiencing another and bigger crisis:

I thought you were going to put OT in front of any of sermons from the
keyboard?

*I* do, but I'm guessing you are mistaking me for the OP of the thread
(and there was me thinking you were a technical type).

You can change the message title.

(most usenet software will thread on the ID not the title)

But why should I, why can't you simply not read (and especially reply
to) it?

Firstly, because you said you would, secondly because I would rather
just filter your OT posts, rather than all your posts.

and you probably have the OP filtered?

On 31/05/2021 22:57, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 06:48:03 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

snip

I really don't see how you think this world (the environment) is
better than is was before we started ****ing it up, polluting the seas
with animal waste and plastics, the air with fossil fuel pollution and
habitat destruction and species extinction?

Trouble with that line is that its even more true of clearing
natural forests to grow plants and grain to eat.

But we don't generally do that (any more) to grow food for us but live
stock.

In fact we let cattle roam free in natural vegetation and
eat the cattle and that ****s the environment far less.

Sure, except that doesn't account for the 98% of cattle that are
reared in feed lots and are never allowed to roam anywhere. ;-(


But they emit far less methane as a result because of their diet

On 01/06/2021 19:25, Richard wrote:
On 01/06/2021 14:39, John Rumm wrote:
On 01/06/2021 12:46, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 12:10:02 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 01/06/2021 09:47, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 01:40:14 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 31/05/2021 07:13, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2021 17:00:31 -0700 (PDT), David P
wrote:

A Big Climate Problem With Few Easy Solutions: Planes
By Chokshi & Krauss, 5/28/21, New York Times

The worst of the pandemic may be over for airlines, but
the industry faces another looming crisis: an accounting
over its contribution to climate change.

The world is already experiencing another and bigger crisis:

I thought you were going to put OT in front of any of sermons from
the
keyboard?

*I* do, but I'm guessing you are mistaking me for the OP of the thread
(and there was me thinking you were a technical type).

You can change the message title.

(most usenet software will thread on the ID not the title)

But why should I, why can't you simply not read (and especially reply
to) it?

Firstly, because you said you would, secondly because I would rather
just filter your OT posts, rather than all your posts.

and you probably have the OP filtered?

Filtered as in "marked as read" rather than the more aggressive filtered
into non existence that I reserve for some others. That way I can easily
skip past the messages, but still see followups if I want.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 19:39:03 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

snip

Sure, except that doesn't account for the 98% of cattle that are
reared in feed lots and are never allowed to roam anywhere. ;-(


But they emit far less methane as a result because of their diet

Possibly, but because of the density of them their waste is also more
likely to become a pollutant and washed into the rivers, estuaries and
seas.

It also doesn't address the unnecessary unnatural breeding, keeping
and killing of a sentient creature and the habitat destruction
'elsewhere' to grow those foodstuffs.

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 14:39:38 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip
I thought you were going to put OT in front of any of sermons from the
keyboard?

*I* do, but I'm guessing you are mistaking me for the OP of the thread
(and there was me thinking you were a technical type).

You can change the message title.

(most usenet software will thread on the ID not the title)

But why should I, why can't you simply not read (and especially reply
to) it?

Firstly, because you said you would,

I'm pretty sure I didn't because I wasn't aware I could. Are you sure
you aren't getting confused with an new OT topics I post that are
always marked correctly?

When you are netcopping (what you consider, this wasn't, it was
addressing the thread subject of MM climate change that I wouldn't
have thought you would have been interested in) thread drift, do you
do it on all subjects for all posters OOI?

secondly because I would rather
just filter your OT posts, rather than all your posts.

I would rather you didn't kill animals to eat when you don't need to
but here we are?

Which of those preferences just impacts us personally or also impacts
(innocent) 'others'? (I appreciate to answer that you would have to
have a belief that we can do what we like to all animals or that we
can't).

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 08:54:23 +0000, Spike
wrote:

snip

You should have done what I did, which was to give up eating beef and
lamb some four decades ago. Just think of all the animals that were
killed for you while you were having fun and enjoying the sort of life
that you now don't want others to have - known, appropriately, as the
'dog in a manger' attitude.

So, if you are 'bothered' about how much better you are for deciding
to not eat cows and sheep that long ago, how much advocacy and
education have you done over the same period that could have educated
me and others to do the same (and more) earlier?

If you did none, then you are simply experiencing with me the result
of your inaction and not something I would personally be proud of or
boast about.

"First they came for the pigs, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a vegan ..."

Cheers, T i m