|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 5, 2024 15:16:38 GMT
So, until we can prove beyond doubt that global warming will change our weather we do nothing. Naah, I don't think that's gonna work. And I assume you know a 100 year event is an estimate of how often we are likely to see such a thing. Just the same for a three year event. What we would have likely seen once every 100 years, we are now likely to see every 3 years. 21 named storms in 2023. In the UK a storm will be named when it has the potential to cause disruption or damage which could result in an amber or red warning. This is based on our National Severe Weather Warnings service, The fucking chinese are so worried they are cutting down all their forests to make chopsticks FFS, No they are not. Over recent decades most countries around the world have been cutting down their trees at alarming rates. Since the 1990s, however, China has bucked this trend, achieving the most extensive reforestation of any country in the world. In 2015, forest cover reached 22.2% of China’s vast territory, up from 16.74% of the country in 1990. This means that forests were rehabilitated over 5.5% of China’s enormous landmass – 511,807 square kilometres. You just can't stop making a dick of yourself can you. You only had to spend 30 seconds on google to know this was wrong and save yourself looking stupid AGAIN. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jan 5, 2024 15:22:28 GMT
So, until we can prove beyond doubt that global warming will change our weather we do nothing. Naah, I don't think that's gonna work. And I assume you know a 100 year event is an estimate of how often we are likely to see such a thing. Just the same for a three year event. What we would have likely seen once every 100 years, we are now likely to see every 3 years. 21 named storms in 2023. In the UK a storm will be named when it has the potential to cause disruption or damage which could result in an amber or red warning. This is based on our National Severe Weather Warnings service, The fucking chinese are so worried they are cutting down all their forests to make chopsticks FFS, Exactly, Mr Green flip flop Starmer who's trying to get the green votes, has pledge to build build build on 'Greenbelt land'.
How the fuck can you profess to be on the side of the Environmentalists when on the next breath you are telling the other side you are going to chop down trees, chop up greenbelt land to make way for concrete jungles.
Double standard hypocrite, I'm all things to all people Starmer.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 5, 2024 15:25:12 GMT
So, until we can prove beyond doubt that global warming will change our weather we do nothing. Naah, I don't think that's gonna work. And I assume you know a 100 year event is an estimate of how often we are likely to see such a thing. Just the same for a three year event. What we would have likely seen once every 100 years, we are now likely to see every 3 years. 21 named storms in 2023. In the UK a storm will be named when it has the potential to cause disruption or damage which could result in an amber or red warning. This is based on our National Severe Weather Warnings service, There were no named storms in the UK prior to 2015, yet one of the most powerful on 15th October 1987 was far stronger than any of these paltry named Atlantic depressions. So they started naming storms after 2015? There were 5 named storms in 2015 There were named 20 storms in 2023. And its not the sheer strength its the frequency Rainfall falling on already saturated land. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jan 5, 2024 15:27:42 GMT
A strawman is when you invent someone who makes a stupid argument you can easily beat. The strawman says whatever you want him to... No. A strawman is a false argument where you claim that someone said something that they didn't and then proceed to argue with it. Eg. I never claimed that any of these things were government approved or generated. However, just like current climate "Science" they were widely accepted as fact at the time. Adding government is not a strawman argument... It is when I never said it. Almost every government and scientific body around the globe agrees that global warming is happening and is man made. Just as they did with all of those other things back in the day. The dumbass poster you showed does not compare to this in any way. See above. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 5, 2024 15:29:06 GMT
The fucking chinese are so worried they are cutting down all their forests to make chopsticks FFS, Exactly, Mr Green flip flop Starmer who's trying to get the green votes, has pledge to build build build on 'Greenbelt land'.
How the fuck can you profess to be on the side of the Environmentalists when on the next breath you are telling the other side you are going to chop down trees, chop up greenbelt land to make way for concrete jungles.
Double standard hypocrite, I'm all things to all people Starmer.
Whose chopping down trees? The greenbelt is fields of turnips and sugar beet not rolling forests. We have currently built on about 7% of the whole country. Starmer's plans involve another 1% Get a grip. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2024 15:31:21 GMT
You speak with so much authority, but you still have not given us an answer to the question. Merely doing an action, then measuring that action to measure success is fine if you just want to profit or punish, but what difference does it actually make in the grand scheme of things? I did. I answered YES to the premise. Surely you did not expect me to answer the enormous wide sweeping of the second question. How would I begin to say the exact effect of our cutting of Co2 on the climate of the UK when the co2 we produce spreads around the world. Sufficient to say we know Co2 have a known effect on the earths temperature and that in turn effects our weather patterns. Considering you've spent months hammering the forum with the confirmation bias you find on whatever search engine you use I thought you'd have at least something to offer the people. If you have no scientific evidence that it makes any difference in the grand scheme of things then I guess that's the best answer anyone can hope to expect.
Are you satisfied with where it is now, or do we have to make more sacrifices?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2024 15:31:30 GMT
There were no named storms in the UK prior to 2015, yet one of the most powerful on 15th October 1987 was far stronger than any of these paltry named Atlantic depressions. So they started naming storms after 2015? There were 5 named storms in 2015 There were named 20 storms in 2023. And its not the sheer strength its the frequency Rainfall falling on already saturated land. And the 2007 Gloucester floods were much worse than this. The Met Office have turned into the nanny office naming storms that are hardly a threat to anything but a wheelie bin. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 5, 2024 15:32:33 GMT
A strawman is when you invent someone who makes a stupid argument you can easily beat. The strawman says whatever you want him to... Same thing. Zany thinks blah blah. And I never said you did, but you were implying they were like for like with the consensus on global warming. I pointed out that just because you might find one person who actually claimed twaddle, that does not compare to world governments saying it. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jan 5, 2024 15:32:56 GMT
Exactly, Mr Green flip flop Starmer who's trying to get the green votes, has pledge to build build build on 'Greenbelt land'.
How the fuck can you profess to be on the side of the Environmentalists when on the next breath you are telling the other side you are going to chop down trees, chop up greenbelt land to make way for concrete jungles.
Double standard hypocrite, I'm all things to all people Starmer.
Whose chopping down trees? The greenbelt is fields of turnips and sugar beet not rolling forests. We have currently built on about 7% of the whole country. Starmer's plans involve another 1% Get a grip. Double standard Sir Keir ..Labour sets target of 1.5m new homes over five years
Labour sets target of 1.5m new homes over five years
Keir Starmer has said the UK must “get real about where we’re going to build” to solve the housing crisis, as Labour pledged to review rules about building on the green belt.
Speaking to BBC One’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg at the start of Labour’s annual conference in Liverpool, Starmer said his party would set a target of 1.5m new homes over five years, and would strengthen guidance to ensure developers included sufficient affordable housing.
Starmer is two face cnut.
|
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jan 5, 2024 15:35:21 GMT
The fucking chinese are so worried they are cutting down all their forests to make chopsticks FFS, No they are not. Over recent decades most countries around the world have been cutting down their trees at alarming rates. Since the 1990s, however, China has bucked this trend, achieving the most extensive reforestation of any country in the world. In 2015, forest cover reached 22.2% of China’s vast territory, up from 16.74% of the country in 1990. This means that forests were rehabilitated over 5.5% of China’s enormous landmass – 511,807 square kilometres. You just can't stop making a dick of yourself can you. You only had to spend 30 seconds on google to know this was wrong and save yourself looking stupid AGAIN. Why didn't you give the source of your plagiarism? An organisation with 100 members rapidtransition.org/news-and-campaigns/rapidtransition.org/stories/how-china-brought-its-forests-back-to-life-in-a-decade/#:~:text=Since%20the%201990s%2C%20however%2C%20China,of%20the%20country%20in%201990. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 5, 2024 15:38:53 GMT
I did. I answered YES to the premise. Surely you did not expect me to answer the enormous wide sweeping of the second question. How would I begin to say the exact effect of our cutting of Co2 on the climate of the UK when the co2 we produce spreads around the world. Sufficient to say we know Co2 have a known effect on the earths temperature and that in turn effects our weather patterns. Considering you've spent months hammering the forum with the confirmation bias you find on whatever search engine you use I thought you'd have at least something to offer the people. If you have no scientific evidence that it makes any difference in the grand scheme of things then I guess that's the best answer anyone can hope to expect.
Are you satisfied with where it is now, or do we have to make more sacrifices?
Why do you keep expecting me to offer 'Us' 'We' 'The people' some sort of justification? You do not represent 'Us' 'We' 'The people' nor do I have any desire to convince you. I merely give my opinions on a forum. So my opinion on "Are you satisfied with where it is now, or do we have to make more sacrifices?" Can you clarify what you mean by it? Do you mean climate change at this time or Britain's current Co2 output? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2024 15:57:24 GMT
Considering you've spent months hammering the forum with the confirmation bias you find on whatever search engine you use I thought you'd have at least something to offer the people. If you have no scientific evidence that it makes any difference in the grand scheme of things then I guess that's the best answer anyone can hope to expect.
Are you satisfied with where it is now, or do we have to make more sacrifices?
Why do you keep expecting me to offer 'Us' 'We' 'The people' some sort of justification? You do not represent 'Us' 'We' 'The people' nor do I have any desire to convince you. I merely give my opinions on a forum. So my opinion on "Are you satisfied with where it is now, or do we have to make more sacrifices?" Can you clarify what you mean by it? Do you mean climate change at this time or Britain's current Co2 output? When somebody wants to make radical changes and insists that the people make sacrifices there's usually an attempt to justify it. It being the process that makes life harder for our fellow country folk whilst making no difference in the grand scheme of things. My guess it's just a bandwagon.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 5, 2024 16:02:57 GMT
Why do you keep expecting me to offer 'Us' 'We' 'The people' some sort of justification? You do not represent 'Us' 'We' 'The people' nor do I have any desire to convince you. I merely give my opinions on a forum. So my opinion on "Are you satisfied with where it is now, or do we have to make more sacrifices?" Can you clarify what you mean by it? Do you mean climate change at this time or Britain's current Co2 output? When somebody wants to make radical changes and insists that the people make sacrifices there's usually an attempt to justify it. It being the process that makes life harder for our fellow country folk whilst making no difference in the grand scheme of things. My guess it's just a bandwagon.
The justification is saving our future generations from the effects of global warming, everyone knows that. I do think that our efforts count in the grand scheme of things, I think every country taking part in reducing Co2 is helping and the more countries that do the better the effect. Why do you think we should be exempt? |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jan 5, 2024 16:17:06 GMT
Same thing. Zany thinks blah blah... Nope, I never said that either. (In fact, it's doubtful that you ever think). ...but you were implying they were like for like with the consensus on global warming... They were in their day. Absolutely. I'm fair bit younger than you and I can remember it. If you can't, well maybe you have memory issues. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jan 5, 2024 16:20:01 GMT
When somebody wants to make radical changes and insists that the people make sacrifices there's usually an attempt to justify it. It being the process that makes life harder for our fellow country folk whilst making no difference in the grand scheme of things. My guess it's just a bandwagon. [/div][/quote] Of course it is, just like those other things before it. Except that this time around it's being used as a means of control "For our own good, of course" or so the narrative runs, as if anyone with any critical thinking skills believes that. |
|
