|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 12, 2023 15:01:28 GMT
No they don't. You were given the links but decided they were untrue based on some guff from Whatsupwiththat. I checked that guff and found many of the dissenter claims were on stupid minute points. Such as that vegetation does take up excess Co2, while the "dissenter" openly agreed that it didn't stop climate change being an issue nor go anywhere near solving or mitigating it. You are guilty of observation bias to a degree that makes your claims against me laughable. I think your memory is a bit askew as I have no idea what you are referring to as I have not referred to vegetation as a mitigating influence on CO2 levels, however why not try from whence you derive the 95%. It is oft repeated and Dappy refers to overwhelming majority yet never seems able to supply any data.I know many sites say it but where does that information come from and on what research? That is not observation bias that is a simple question as regards an oft quoted figure. If alarmists are the purveyors of truth in those sunny uplands of integrity then the details should be easily obtained and linked to. They asked. Governments across the globe have accepted the evidence from the major scientific communities. Including the China from its own CMA. You are in a shrinking minority of naysayers. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 12, 2023 21:03:18 GMT
I think your memory is a bit askew as I have no idea what you are referring to as I have not referred to vegetation as a mitigating influence on CO2 levels, however why not try from whence you derive the 95%. It is oft repeated and Dappy refers to overwhelming majority yet never seems able to supply any data.I know many sites say it but where does that information come from and on what research? That is not observation bias that is a simple question as regards an oft quoted figure. If alarmists are the purveyors of truth in those sunny uplands of integrity then the details should be easily obtained and linked to. They asked. Governments across the globe have accepted the evidence from the major scientific communities. Including the China from its own CMA. You are in a shrinking minority of naysayers. Seems like you do not want to. Governments across the globe have taken on board the IPCC assessment report and the WEF position. When the elites of the world join in unison on any policy then it is time to ask searching questions. A simple one would be where is the data that shows that 95% of climate scientists agree with the MMGW scenario. In terms of basics that cannot be any more basic yet no one can answer the question but still repeat the value. That makes a strange way to run any policy and intrinsically a worrying one. Not helped by the cult like blindness of those who profess to have open minds. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 12, 2023 21:26:43 GMT
Published in Scientific American www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-extreme-heat-is-so-deadly/“These heat waves pose a major risk to public health. “In an average year in the U.S., heat kills more people than any other type of extreme weather,” says Kristina Dahl, a senior climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists.” All the published evidence from a multitude of reputable sources shows that Cold is by far a greater danger to human life and health than heat. It is the throwaway style of telling a straightforward lie that captures the unwary and reinforces the beliefs of those who are true converts. This form of real lie would never be accepted in most walks of life yet somehow the net zero lobby lap up the garbage. It is very worrying. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 13, 2023 6:44:34 GMT
They asked. Governments across the globe have accepted the evidence from the major scientific communities. Including the China from its own CMA. You are in a shrinking minority of naysayers. Seems like you do not want to. Governments across the globe have taken on board the IPCC assessment report and the WEF position. When the elites of the world join in unison on any policy then it is time to ask searching questions. A simple one would be where is the data that shows that 95% of climate scientists agree with the MMGW scenario. In terms of basics that cannot be any more basic yet no one can answer the question but still repeat the value. That makes a strange way to run any policy and intrinsically a worrying one. Not helped by the cult like blindness of those who profess to have open minds. Simple to answer? So how would one answer it beyond stating that the poll was taken and the answer given. climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20the%20vast%20majority%20of,global%20warming%20and%20climate%20change. They also provide a helpful list of institutes and academies that have issued statements. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 13, 2023 6:58:51 GMT
Published in Scientific American www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-extreme-heat-is-so-deadly/“These heat waves pose a major risk to public health. “In an average year in the U.S., heat kills more people than any other type of extreme weather,” says Kristina Dahl, a senior climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists.” All the published evidence from a multitude of reputable sources shows that Cold is by far a greater danger to human life and health than heat. It is the throwaway style of telling a straightforward lie that captures the unwary and reinforces the beliefs of those who are true converts. This form of real lie would never be accepted in most walks of life yet somehow the net zero lobby lap up the garbage. It is very worrying. Keeping people warm is an economic problem easily solved. Keeping people cool is much harder. Further you have to look at why cold kills so many people in the U.S and the numbers as a percentage of total deaths to see if this is a good reason to encourage climate change. But I don't think most climatologists are concerned about people dying of heat in a literal sense. Drought, crop failure, fire. Despite the increased growth caused by increased atmospheric Co2. Crop yields across the globe have reduced. Maize, Rice, Wheat especially hit. This is because the other effects of climate change such as erratic weather have a greater effect than the increased Co2. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Sept 13, 2023 7:09:41 GMT
I think your memory is a bit askew as I have no idea what you are referring to as I have not referred to vegetation as a mitigating influence on CO2 levels, however why not try from whence you derive the 95%. It is oft repeated and Dappy refers to overwhelming majority yet never seems able to supply any data.I know many sites say it but where does that information come from and on what research? That is not observation bias that is a simple question as regards an oft quoted figure. If alarmists are the purveyors of truth in those sunny uplands of integrity then the details should be easily obtained and linked to. They asked. Governments across the globe have accepted the evidence from the major scientific communities. Including the China from its own CMA. You are in a shrinking minority of naysayers. So why have China not agreed to any of the deadlines for net zero and the like - and why do they carry on building coal fired power stations. I think you're very gullible, Zany. I don't think that any of the "governments across the globe" have accepted the evidence. On the contrary I think that they're all extremely sceptical about this nonsense but they know that they can't say that because they'd be attacked as "deniers" by loonies like you, and they prefer to do as little as possible and kick the can down the road. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 13, 2023 7:27:39 GMT
They asked. Governments across the globe have accepted the evidence from the major scientific communities. Including the China from its own CMA. You are in a shrinking minority of naysayers. So why have China not agreed to any of the deadlines for net zero and the like - and why do they carry on building coal fired power stations. I think you're very gullible, Zany. I don't think that any of the "governments across the globe" have accepted the evidence. On the contrary I think that they're all extremely sceptical about this nonsense but they know that they can't say that because they'd be attacked as "deniers" by loonies like you, and they prefer to do as little as possible and kick the can down the road. China has built huge amounts of renewables they are also building large numbers of nuclear power stations. The coal fired ones are a stop gap. If China didn't believe in AGW they would say so, they are no ones puppet. And they certainly would not have spent $546bn on renewables. China manufactures about 30% of the worlds goods, so yes they struggle to meet our targets. And loonies like me do not accuse you of being a denier because China is burning coal. We accuse you of being a denier because you deny AGW is happening. We think you're loonies because you have this totally unproven conspiracy theory that every scientist in the world has sold his soul for next years budget. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 13, 2023 7:34:48 GMT
Notice that when we discuss the US or the UK, the important thing is the negatives. However, when the discussion moves to China, the important thing suddenly becomes the positives.
The objective here is to make sure our punishment beatings continue no matter what the reality is. It seems to be vital that the western world be hobbled and weakened as much as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Sept 13, 2023 7:35:36 GMT
Is China really ‘green’?
According to the World Economic Forum, China is a global leader in investment in “energy transition investment”:
This claim echos many western approvals of China’s apparently booming green sector. But how true is it?
China’s energy demand has skyrocketed in recent decades, and most of this has been met by coal.
How does this compare to the UK?
The UK has virtually eliminated coal use.
The UK’s energy demand has been falling because it is deindustrialising. Meanwhile, energy demand has been growing in China because its government has focused policy on industrialisation. Labour and energy (mostly coal) is much cheaper in China, and so manufacturers have been leaving the UK and Europe and setting up in China. Meanwhile UK and European green policies, which increase the costs of industry and manufacturing, merely create a market for Chinese manufacturers
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 13, 2023 7:44:47 GMT
The de-industrialisation thing is interesting.
If we have factories in the UK, those emissions are considered by Zany to be 'ours' - ie carbon dioxide we emitted. "UK, you are a bad boy"
However, if we make our population functionally unemployed and dependent and the production moves to China, the emissions caused by that production are also considered to be ours because we buy goods from China.
There seems to be a single pivot point in Zany's analysis
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 13, 2023 8:30:43 GMT
Notice that when we discuss the US or the UK, the important thing is the negatives. However, when the discussion moves to China, the important thing suddenly becomes the positives. The objective here is to make sure our punishment beatings continue no matter what the reality is. It seems to be vital that the western world be hobbled and weakened as much as possible. Notice how Zany addresses the questions raised. You should try it. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 13, 2023 8:34:11 GMT
Is China really ‘green’?
According to the World Economic Forum, China is a global leader in investment in “energy transition investment”:
This claim echos many western approvals of China’s apparently booming green sector. But how true is it?
China’s energy demand has skyrocketed in recent decades, and most of this has been met by coal.
How does this compare to the UK?
The UK has virtually eliminated coal use.
The UK’s energy demand has been falling because it is deindustrialising. Meanwhile, energy demand has been growing in China because its government has focused policy on industrialisation. Labour and energy (mostly coal) is much cheaper in China, and so manufacturers have been leaving the UK and Europe and setting up in China. Meanwhile UK and European green policies, which increase the costs of industry and manufacturing, merely create a market for Chinese manufacturers
Chinese imports are subject to carbon tax. So that's not the reason China is stealing all the manufacturing. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 13, 2023 10:06:13 GMT
Is China really ‘green’?
According to the World Economic Forum, China is a global leader in investment in “energy transition investment”:
This claim echos many western approvals of China’s apparently booming green sector. But how true is it?
China’s energy demand has skyrocketed in recent decades, and most of this has been met by coal.
How does this compare to the UK?
The UK has virtually eliminated coal use.
The UK’s energy demand has been falling because it is deindustrialising. Meanwhile, energy demand has been growing in China because its government has focused policy on industrialisation. Labour and energy (mostly coal) is much cheaper in China, and so manufacturers have been leaving the UK and Europe and setting up in China. Meanwhile UK and European green policies, which increase the costs of industry and manufacturing, merely create a market for Chinese manufacturers
Chinese imports are subject to carbon tax. So that's not the reason China is stealing all the manufacturing. The population of China is roughly the equivalent of 20 countries with a population of 70.5 million people. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 13, 2023 10:54:39 GMT
Chinese imports are subject to carbon tax. So that's not the reason China is stealing all the manufacturing. The population of China is roughly the equivalent of 20 countries with a population of 70.5 million people. Most of these people live a very basic lifestyle and emit very little carbon. The portion of the Chinese population competing with the west, emits a great deal (as you can see) |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Sept 13, 2023 13:06:35 GMT
So why have China not agreed to any of the deadlines for net zero and the like - and why do they carry on building coal fired power stations. I think you're very gullible, Zany. I don't think that any of the "governments across the globe" have accepted the evidence. On the contrary I think that they're all extremely sceptical about this nonsense but they know that they can't say that because they'd be attacked as "deniers" by loonies like you, and they prefer to do as little as possible and kick the can down the road. China has built huge amounts of renewables they are also building large numbers of nuclear power stations. The coal fired ones are a stop gap. If China didn't believe in AGW they would say so, they are no ones puppet. And they certainly would not have spent $546bn on renewables. China manufactures about 30% of the worlds goods, so yes they struggle to meet our targets. And loonies like me do not accuse you of being a denier because China is burning coal. We accuse you of being a denier because you deny AGW is happening. We think you're loonies because you have this totally unproven conspiracy theory that every scientist in the world has sold his soul for next years budget. Like I said you are extremely gullible Zany. China are playing a clever game - whatever other stupid countries (like us) pledge they say they'll meet the targets 10 years later. And they never commit to anything. Per capita China emit vastly more CO2 than the UK does - and that's if you even believe what the Chinese claim. Frankly if you believe a word that comes out of China you're even more gullible than I thought. And you accuse me of being a denier because you're an idiot. You've never even begun to understand what this whole argument is about. My argument is completely consistent in that I don't believe that CO2 is the primary driver of such warming as there is - and there's absolutely no scientific evidence for these claims. You've had plenty of opportunities to show the evidence but you've never managed to find it - because there isn't any. CO2 causes minimal warming in the Earth's system. If we eliminated CO2 emissions across the world tomorrow it would have absolutely no effect. Any warming that has occurred (i.e. 1.5C since 1850) is caused by the fact that our population has increased nearly 8 fold in that time and we've repurposed 75% of the land area of the planet to support the vastly increased population - and ALL the changes that we've made cause warming. |
|
