|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 11, 2023 17:27:11 GMT
What are you on about? We tried to stopped the spread while we developed a vaccine. Can't be bothered to address this more its so ridiculous. Your problem is that you never learn Zany - even when history gives you a good lesson you just either ignore it or rewrite history. What happened was that the lockdowns were imposed because of the massively exaggerated predictions of the govt models (done by the serial charlatan Neil Ferguson). He predicted that the NHS would be overwhelmed by over 250,000 seriously ill patients, but the predictions were completely wrong - as can be seen in countries where there weren't lockdowns. What the lockdowns actually did was to save the lives of a few (mainly elderly) people at the expense of partially shutting down the NHS which has left a legacy of many patients who never got the treatment they needed for non-Covid illnesses. And it came at a huge cost also because of furlough so it has broken the economy - which will lead to more deaths in future because of poverty. You just can't think for yourself Zany. Sure, that's why Trump said no lock down until death rates soared and he was forced to, why they had no lock down in Brazil and their death numbers were colossal. And why 7,000,000 died of it. I am more staggered every day by the mix is ignorance and arrogance. Vaccinations do not and never have stopped people catching diseases. They teach your immune system to recognise a virus and react faster to it thus preventing serious illness. Jeez and you tell me I can't learn. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 11, 2023 17:30:26 GMT
We've discussed this endlessly. It will never be known until its too late to stop. This is your way of setting the dial at infinity You just walked out of the arena of a decision that can be made rationally. To make a rational decision, you have to balance one thing against another...(ie you must know something about relative costs) I'm reminded of those Jehovah witnesses who ended up selling their family home and giving all the money to charity. I leave your arena because its based on fantasy. The idea that unless you know exactly how bad climate change will be you should do nothing about it. Its laughable. Luckily I am with the vast majority of irrational people. 🙄 |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 11, 2023 17:32:02 GMT
You would have to be pretty foolish to believe we are not doing harm with our emissions. If you're talking about CO2 then I would question that. The only known effect of CO2 on the planet is to encourage plant growth, which is beneficial because most living creatures depend on plants to live. There is also the known greenhouse effect where CO2 causes retention of heat but there's no definite empirical evidence that it causes overall heating because it also causes cooling by promoting photosynthesis. And even if it does cause overall warming there's a lot of evidence that more people die of excess cold than excess heat. Only that and its ability to stop heat leaving the planet.🙄 |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 11, 2023 17:45:30 GMT
This is your way of setting the dial at infinity You just walked out of the arena of a decision that can be made rationally. To make a rational decision, you have to balance one thing against another...(ie you must know something about relative costs) I'm reminded of those Jehovah witnesses who ended up selling their family home and giving all the money to charity. I leave your arena because its based on fantasy. The idea that unless you know exactly how bad climate change will be you should do nothing about it. Its laughable. Luckily I am with the vast majority of irrational people. 🙄 You have to know something about a risk to decide whether it is worth a cost to mitigate. You can't just hold up your hands and say "it might well be big, therefore lets flush civilisation down the toilet to fend it off" |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 11, 2023 17:49:12 GMT
I leave your arena because its based on fantasy. The idea that unless you know exactly how bad climate change will be you should do nothing about it. Its laughable. Luckily I am with the vast majority of irrational people. 🙄 You have to know something about a risk to decide whether it is worth a cost to mitigate. You can't just hold up your hands and say "it might well be big, therefore lets flush civilisation down the toilet to fend it off" We know huge amounts at the risk. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 11, 2023 18:06:27 GMT
You have to know something about a risk to decide whether it is worth a cost to mitigate. You can't just hold up your hands and say "it might well be big, therefore lets flush civilisation down the toilet to fend it off" We know huge amounts at the risk. don't be daft. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 11, 2023 19:22:57 GMT
You have to know something about a risk to decide whether it is worth a cost to mitigate. You can't just hold up your hands and say "it might well be big, therefore lets flush civilisation down the toilet to fend it off" We know huge amounts at the risk. You assume huge amounts of the risk but risk is based on observation and certainly in teh US observation tells a different tale even if teh media try to say differently. "Media Chases ‘Climate Enhanced’ Heat Waves, Misses Data Showing They are Less Frequent. A number of media outlets are claiming that U.S. heatwaves are getting worse this week due to climate change. This is false. Actual data from temperature measurements show that heatwaves in the U.S. are on the decline even as climate change has occurred over the last 75 years." climaterealism.com/2023/07/media-chases-climate-enhanced-heat-waves-misses-data-showing-they-are-less-frequent/Anthony Watts Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 11, 2023 19:37:54 GMT
And the lie continues The Hill Should Check Their Data, Weather is Not Getting Worse The Hill recently posted an article about climate change, “There is no ‘new normal’: absent drastic action, the climate will only get worse,” claiming that without “drastic action,” weather extremes will continue to escalate because of the use of fossil fuels. This is false. Many of the examples the author, Andrew Pershing, uses in the post are erroneous at best. Weather is not getting more extreme, not even in the form of flooding or heat waves. climaterealism.com/2023/07/the-hill-should-check-their-data-weather-is-not-getting-worse/Linnea Lueken www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/linnea-luekenLinnea Lueken is a Research Fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy. While she was an intern with The Heartland Institute in 2018, she co-authored a Heartland Institute Policy Brief "Debunking Four Persistent Myths About Hydraulic Fracturing." |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 11, 2023 19:49:35 GMT
We know huge amounts at the risk. don't be daft. I'm not. Those of us not blinkered by our own conspiracies are able to see it. I could point you to the science, but I know you prefer the conspiracists. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 11, 2023 19:52:20 GMT
We know huge amounts at the risk. You assume huge amounts of the risk but risk is based on observation and certainly in teh US observation tells a different tale even if teh media try to say differently. "Media Chases ‘Climate Enhanced’ Heat Waves, Misses Data Showing They are Less Frequent. A number of media outlets are claiming that U.S. heatwaves are getting worse this week due to climate change. This is false. Actual data from temperature measurements show that heatwaves in the U.S. are on the decline even as climate change has occurred over the last 75 years." climaterealism.com/2023/07/media-chases-climate-enhanced-heat-waves-misses-data-showing-they-are-less-frequent/Anthony Watts Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com. I'm no longer interested in your conspiracy theories. There's loads of evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 11, 2023 20:04:57 GMT
You assume huge amounts of the risk but risk is based on observation and certainly in teh US observation tells a different tale even if teh media try to say differently. "Media Chases ‘Climate Enhanced’ Heat Waves, Misses Data Showing They are Less Frequent. A number of media outlets are claiming that U.S. heatwaves are getting worse this week due to climate change. This is false. Actual data from temperature measurements show that heatwaves in the U.S. are on the decline even as climate change has occurred over the last 75 years." climaterealism.com/2023/07/media-chases-climate-enhanced-heat-waves-misses-data-showing-they-are-less-frequent/Anthony Watts Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com. I'm no longer interested in your conspiracy theories. There's loads of evidence. Well present the evidence. Mr Watts above uses the US Environmental Protection Agency data which I understand is obtained from the NOAA. Both government agencies issuing official data for use by the likes of the IPCC. If you will not believe that what will you believe? It seems if I present detailed, carefully collated evidence that does not tie in with your belief it is a conspiracy. This is the mind zone where discussion is supposed to be on the facts. By all means dispute my facts, as they are based on official facts, but at least present an argument to support your cause. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2023 20:28:53 GMT
You assume huge amounts of the risk but risk is based on observation and certainly in teh US observation tells a different tale even if teh media try to say differently. "Media Chases ‘Climate Enhanced’ Heat Waves, Misses Data Showing They are Less Frequent. A number of media outlets are claiming that U.S. heatwaves are getting worse this week due to climate change. This is false. Actual data from temperature measurements show that heatwaves in the U.S. are on the decline even as climate change has occurred over the last 75 years." climaterealism.com/2023/07/media-chases-climate-enhanced-heat-waves-misses-data-showing-they-are-less-frequent/Anthony Watts Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com. I'm no longer interested in your conspiracy theories. There's loads of evidence. Some people are still not convinced, Zany. Can I suggest that the extra costs of pursuing net zero are put on a voluntary basis? Those who are convinced can pay the extra. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 11, 2023 20:38:52 GMT
I'm no longer interested in your conspiracy theories. There's loads of evidence. Well present the evidence. Mr Watts above uses the US Environmental Protection Agency data which I understand is obtained from the NOAA. Both government agencies issuing official data for use by the likes of the IPCC. If you will not believe that what will you believe? It seems if I present detailed, carefully collated evidence that does not tie in with your belief it is a conspiracy. This is the mind zone where discussion is supposed to be on the facts. By all means dispute my facts, as they are based on official facts, but at least present an argument to support your cause. Why? Don't you know it then? The evidence is huge and widespread and I'm certainly not going to waste my time representing it to you again, just so you can drag up a blogger who disagrees with 95% of climatologists. Still luckily for me others have done it for me. www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what-evidence-exists-earth-warming-and-humans-are-main-cause#:~:text=Mountain%20glaciers%20are%20melting%20worldwide,is%20rising%20(learn%20more). |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 11, 2023 20:45:00 GMT
I'm no longer interested in your conspiracy theories. There's loads of evidence. Some people are still not convinced, Zany. Can I suggest that the extra costs of pursuing net zero are put on a voluntary basis? Those who are convinced can pay the extra. There's so many things we could put on a voluntary basis. How about fly tipping, that doesn't effect me. Or trains, I don't use them. Now about mental health? How about... The triple lock, can that be voluntary? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 11, 2023 20:54:14 GMT
Well present the evidence. Mr Watts above uses the US Environmental Protection Agency data which I understand is obtained from the NOAA. Both government agencies issuing official data for use by the likes of the IPCC. If you will not believe that what will you believe? It seems if I present detailed, carefully collated evidence that does not tie in with your belief it is a conspiracy. This is the mind zone where discussion is supposed to be on the facts. By all means dispute my facts, as they are based on official facts, but at least present an argument to support your cause. Why? Don't you know it then? The evidence is huge and widespread and I'm certainly not going to waste my time representing it to you again, just so you can drag up a blogger who disagrees with 95% of climatologists. Still luckily for me others have done it for me. www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what-evidence-exists-earth-warming-and-humans-are-main-cause#:~:text=Mountain%20glaciers%20are%20melting%20worldwide,is%20rising%20(learn%20more). See this is what makes the whole thing circular, your link says the planet is warming; no dispute on that but by how much and how accurate that is is another matter; and once again you raise the 95% of climatologists, could you explain where that 'fact' comes from and from what specific evidence it was derived. The only link to CO2 is that the planet is warming and CO2 is rising we know the properties of CO2 therefore it must be CO2. A very understandable hypothesis but the models based on that hypothesis have so far consistently failed to work. So perhaps there are other factors at work undreamt of in anyone's philosophy. |
|
