|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 30, 2023 16:07:35 GMT
No, but they do show where people are. Very many people are against the expansion of ULEZ and blocking off whole chunks of cities to cars. I'm with them on that, its too blunt, not finessed. What I pointed out was that ULEZ is part of a bid to reduce local pollution but has little effect on climate change. I think it might be better to separate the two for discussion. I'll start a thread on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jul 30, 2023 16:55:39 GMT
No, but they do show where people are. Very many people are against the expansion of ULEZ and blocking off whole chunks of cities to cars. I'm with them on that, its too blunt, not finessed. What I pointed out was that ULEZ is part of a bid to reduce local pollution but has little effect on climate change. I think it might be better to separate the two for discussion. I'll start a thread on it.
i know what you pointed out about ulez , and i repeat , both the scottish government and public health scotland etc link it with part of the wider fight against climate change. Im sorry if you cant accept that.
Scotland's Low Emission Zones
Protecting public health by improving air quality while helping to meet our climate change emission reduction targets
Further , in major cities such as glasgow or london , the air quality has been improving for decades. We dont need ULEZ to do that.
You cant keep saying i dont understand the argument regarding ULEZ , or that they6 arent liked to the climate fight when the very organisations and governments enforcing them are doing so. Further , you lose even more credibility trying to tar me as ignorant i nthe process.
Low emission zones are just the start of fight against climate crisis
Plans to reduce air pollution in Glasgow have caused an almighty backlash from businesses and motorists – but the low emission zones (LEZ) roll-out is just the beginning of behavioural change that will be expected in the fight against the climate crisis in the coming years.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 30, 2023 18:56:31 GMT
Thanks for the Info Thomas. I accept they are selling it as a climate change benefit, but my opinion is that this is a sales pitch. The drop in Co2 emissions from this will be nominal compared to those of generating electricity and hydrogen from wind and sun.
Yes, this is the real reason, see my new thread.
Fair do's I wont anymore. but in a conversation on climate change its small value. I would happily scrap ULEZ if you signed up to the real Net zero drivers.
Low emission zones are just the start of fight against climate crisis
Agreed. I had hold of the wrong end of your stick. I was not arguing that ULEZ was popular I was arguing that people could be in favour of net zero but still hate ULEZ as a very small part of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jul 30, 2023 18:58:44 GMT
Thanks for the Info Thomas. I accept they are selling it as a climate change benefit, but my opinion is that this is a sales pitch. The drop in Co2 emissions from this will be nominal compared to those of generating electricity and hydrogen from wind and sun.
Yes, this is the real reason, see my new thread.
Fair do's I wont anymore. but in a conversation on climate change its small value. I would happily scrap ULEZ if you signed up to the real Net zero drivers.
Low emission zones are just the start of fight against climate crisis
Agreed. I had hold of the wrong end of your stick. I was not arguing that ULEZ was popular I was arguing that people could be in favour of net zero but still hate ULEZ as a very small part of it.
ok no problem perhaps we had our wires crossed during the ebb and flow of debate. All i was saying is the ulez , according to gvernment sources is inextricably linked to climate change.
I will check out your new thread and contribute when i can.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 31, 2023 6:33:53 GMT
So a change of direction.
If climate change is going to happen whatever we do (Due to China or it being natural etc) How are we going to pay for the changes needed in the UK to cope with it.
Should we consider privatising the roads the pay for the new drainage systems needed and the increased surface damage caused by extreme weather?
Will we use tax payers money to help those stuck in homes that regularly flood due to flash flooding?
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jul 31, 2023 6:53:45 GMT
As i have said thorugh this thread , and others , i think the tide is slowly but massively turning against green policy. The tories seem to scent the winds of change , while the other parties are flailing about like headless chickens.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 31, 2023 6:58:51 GMT
Lets look carefully at what - steppenwolf - states in a previous post-------------------------------------------------------------------------------When you've understood what the question is, look again at the pointless statistics you posted:
- 100% of scientists agree that climate change is happening. Of course. No one has ever denied this.
- Not all scientists agree that it is caused by humans. Obviously, because it's not. Some is caused by humans and some by natural effects.
- There are a tiny minority who disagree on the cause. Nonsense. Almost all of them disagree on the cause. The "attribution" has NEVER been done - and all the scientists admit this.
And then look at the nonsense statistics that you posted. Are you aware of how these figures were arrived at? The authors (who were NOT scientists) did google searches on a large number of peer reviewed papers and skimmed through them to decide whether they supported "man-made climate change" or not - whatever that means. Unfortunately the fact is that most of these peer-reviewed papers were not even about the causes of climate change - they were about the consequences of climate change. This is a fairly fundamental misunderstanding. So they are completely irrelevant to the current debate. FYI there are NO peer-reviewed papers on the causes of climate change - for the simple reason that no one CAN peer-review this stuff without access to all the computers and computer staff that were involved in writing them. I could tell you more but I'm afraid that your knowledge level ahs already been exceeded.
Most scientists say they don't know ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------View AttachmentScientific consensus on causation: Academic studies of scientific agreement on human-caused global warming among climate experts (2010–2015) reflect that the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. A 2019 study found scientific consensus to be at 100%, and a 2021 study concluded that consensus exceeded 99%. Another 2021 study found that 98.7% of climate experts indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity.Powell (2013) - James L. Powell analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 (<0.2%) rejected anthropogenic global warming. Powell (2019) - In 2019, James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board, analysed titles of peer-reviewed studies published in the first seven months of 2019 and found not a single study disagreed with the consensus view. Myers (2021) - Krista Myers led a paper which surveyed 2780 Earth scientists. Depending on expertise, between 91% (all scientists) to 100% (climate scientists with high levels of expertise, 20+ papers published) agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among the total group of climate scientists, 98.7% agreed. Lynas (2021) - In 2021, Mark Lynas et al assessed studies published between 2012 and 2020. They found over 80,000 studies. They analysed a random subset of 3000. Four of these were skeptical of the human cause of climate change, 845 were endorsing the human cause perspective at different levels, and 1869 were indifferent to the question. The authors estimated the proportion of papers not skeptical of the human cause as 99.85% (95% confidence limit 99.62%–99.96%). Excluding papers which took no position on the human cause led to an estimate of the proportion of consensus papers as 99.53% (95% confidence limit 98.80%–99.87%). They confirmed their numbers by explicitly looking for alternative hypotheses in the entire dataset, which resulted in 28 papers. 1. Where steppenwolf states that "most scientists dont know" that is absolutely not true 2. Where s teppenwolf claims that "the authors were not scientists" he is incorrect 3. Where steppenwolf claims that these in depth researches by eminent scientists were conducted via "google searches" - this is not true. 1. So give me the "attribution" of the so-called warming, Sid. If you're trying to say that man-made CO2 is the primary driver of warming - when there are many other causes of climate change - you need to be able to tell me how much warming the CO2 is causing AND you need to provide - at minimum - a correlation between CO2 and temperature. NEITHER has ever been done. This is basic scientific method. 2. The authors of those reports were basically "climate change activists" - i.e. people who have an axe to grind about global warming. Moreover they don't mention CO2 - they refer to "human activity". I'm certainly not going to argue with that - it's the CO2 theory that hasn't been supported by evidence. And where do all these scientific papers on the causes of global warming come from? There are thousands of papers on the consequences of global warming BUT there are very few on the causes - for the simple reason that it's a subject that requires a vast team of scientists and supercomputers. So it's mainly done by large bodies - and is never peer-reviewed. Also, when the analysis of these searches was done, as I said, the finding was that nearly all these papers were on the consequences of warming - not the causes. 3. The peer-review that was discussed in the Times (some years ago) said that the searches were done by google - on various key words like "climate change". If you're saying that's wrong tell me what you think they did. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2023 7:16:08 GMT
Should we consider privatising the roads the pay for the new drainage systems needed and the increased surface damage caused by extreme weather? I wouldn't worry, the roads would have worn away through neglect long before the end of times. Nobody will even be able to afford to run a car and will be struggling to feed themselves just from Net Zero. Perhaps building a few flood walls would suffice. They could even have multiple uses.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 31, 2023 7:20:24 GMT
zanygame said: "I don't publish my own opinion on climate change, I simply re-publish the opinion of the vast majority of climate experts.
I do this to counteract the climate denier bloggers you reference."
No, you disseminate disinformation, zany. Nearly everything you say is factually wrong. You make ridiculous statements like increases in CO2 doesn't promote plant growth. And you've just said that republish the "opinions of the vast majority of climate experts" but you've yet to name a single "climate scientist". Absolutely NO scientist would ever say the stuff you come out with. And I have never quoted a "climate denier blogger". I've simply stated the obvious fact that the CO2 theory models don't work and that the whole of the "warming" can be accounted for by other theories - and SP has given you several links - which you never read.
zanygame said: "Indeed, I try to use peer reviewed information or that from bodies such as the IPCC".
No you don't. I've already told you that the information from the IPCC is NOT peer-reviewed and that very little of the data used by the climate change lobby is peer reviewed. In fact the IPCC reject any research that doesn't fit their own CO2 theory. And THAT's NOT science.
zanygame said: "My objection is to the idea that everyone's opinion is worth the same regardless of their education on the subject. The peculiar idea that this is somehow democratic".
It depends on what you think "the subject" is. Any person who has an understanding of scientific method can look at the data that is put up in support of the CO2 theory and point out that it doesn't actually support the theory - not only because all the predictions are wrong but because the data itself has been manipulated to try to make historic data fit the theory. And THAT's NOT science.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 31, 2023 7:34:41 GMT
SRB7677 said: "You appeared not even to understand that the extraction of oil is not the problem, the burning of it is. At least Zany is following what those who are expert in the field are saying, which is the sensible thing for those less qualified than them to do. Whats your excuse? Preferring to listen to one or two random muppets on the internet because believing what you want to believe matters more to you than following the evidence? Clearly you know nothing about the scientific process".
Both the creation of oil and the burning of oil (in a modern petrol engine) is entirely green. The burning of oil simply returns the CO2 and water, that the plants used to create it, back to the atmosphere - and releases the Sun's energy that was used to create it in the first place. It simply cannot get any greener than that. I didn't say it was "sustainable" - but nothing is if we continue overpopulating the planet. It's YOU who doesn't understand science.
And as I've already said zany spouts mainly disinformation that comes from the green lobby. He says some of it comes from the IPCC but the IPCC is NOT a scientific body. It is a body that was set up to spread the theory that CO2 is the primary cause of warming - and any data that doesn't support that theory is either ignored or manipulated.
These are FACTS.
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 31, 2023 9:25:10 GMT
Should we consider privatising the roads the pay for the new drainage systems needed and the increased surface damage caused by extreme weather? I wouldn't worry, the roads would have worn away through neglect long before the end of times. Nobody will even be able to afford to run a car and will be struggling to feed themselves just from Net Zero. Perhaps building a few flood walls would suffice. They could even have multiple uses.
Putting AGW deniers up against them? I think you've gone too far there. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 31, 2023 12:35:23 GMT
So a change of direction. If climate change is going to happen whatever we do (Due to China or it being natural etc) How are we going to pay for the changes needed in the UK to cope with it. Should we consider privatising the roads the pay for the new drainage systems needed and the increased surface damage caused by extreme weather? Will we use tax payers money to help those stuck in homes that regularly flood due to flash flooding? The reasons for flooding are well known. It's mainly caused by building in the wrong place - like on flood plains. Other reasons are related to EU policies of preventing dredging of rivers (which has affected Somerset badly) because they don't allow putting the "dredgings" on the banks (thus raising the banks' height) and govt policies of limiting the use of barriers to only protect highly populated areas - which just resulted in more flooding happening a bit further down the river. The other reason is related to the Jet Stream getting stuck - and rain storms staying over the same area for days. The Climate lobby have blamed this on "Climate Change", but one of the leading climate modellers in the country (Prof Mat Collins) has said that according to the models warming has no affect on this. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 31, 2023 20:16:09 GMT
As i have said thorugh this thread , and others , i think the tide is slowly but massively turning against green policy. The tories seem to scent the winds of change , while the other parties are flailing about like headless chickens.
But you don't doubt climate change is happening. So how do we deal with it if we decide we can't stop it. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 31, 2023 20:23:39 GMT
 The great truth. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 31, 2023 20:29:10 GMT
So a change of direction. If climate change is going to happen whatever we do (Due to China or it being natural etc) How are we going to pay for the changes needed in the UK to cope with it. Should we consider privatising the roads the pay for the new drainage systems needed and the increased surface damage caused by extreme weather? Will we use tax payers money to help those stuck in homes that regularly flood due to flash flooding? No I'm sorry you don't get away with that. Flash flooding is a current and new phenomena. Flash flooding. I'm not going to go through the lies about the EU again. Its off topic. Yes the jet stream getting stuck . Now how could that happen. Regardless. how are we going to pay for it. |
|
