Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2022 8:14:55 GMT
A lot of dead people say that. This is not actually a scientific debating forum; it is a discussion forum, I, unlike some, leave the evidence to those more qualified. The only 'evidence' I have seen from you is the 'view' of a minority of partially knowledgeable people and a few loonies. It would appear that my viewpoint needs evidence and proof whilst yours just needs denial.
I do however believe in the idea that "every action has an equal and opposite reaction". But I never claimed anything. It was you who suggested that man-made CO2 can drastically change normal climatic variations. A claim based on nothing but faith and 'common sense' apparently. You are claiming that the problem is not as serious as the majority of scientists are claiming.
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 17, 2022 8:16:19 GMT
But I never claimed anything. It was you who suggested that man-made CO2 can drastically change normal climatic variations. A claim based on nothing but faith and 'common sense' apparently. You are claiming that the problem is not as serious as the majority of scientists are claiming. LOL - I am not claiming anything. i asked what you were basing your claims on - and got your answer, 'faith' and 'common sense'........
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 17, 2022 10:47:18 GMT
The proof so far seems to be yes C02 is a greenhouse gas along with quite a few others and will contribute to the warming of the planet. The point at which very few seem to agree is to what level that operates and varies from insignificant to disaster area. We are being asked (told?) to accept the disaster area scenario and as such are being expected (demanded?) to limit our carbon emissions. The problem of course is that those making those demands emit far more in a week than the rest of us do in our lifetime and it seems that they will continue to do so as the rest of us adopt the sackcloth and donkey trap. It is not just unproven what is happening it is also an immensely useful tool to control the populace with the help of a few useful idiots who will act as the camp commandants and guards. We saw it with Covid and the Vaccines and how some were too willing for others to wear badges of uncleanliness and be ostracised from society in general. Scientists are producing far more CO2 than the rest of us?? 😹 The western world gained its wealth from using fossil fuels and cutting down the rainforests for over a century. Now, when other countries attempt to do the same, we try to stop them because of global warming. They are looking for an equitable arrangement that allows them to develop, as we have, but not contribute to global warming. The west should be forging ahead with green energies and helping poorer countries do the same. I do agree however that controlling populations is a necessity. The big problem with a global disaster is that by the time everyone agrees it is happening it is too late; we saw that on a smaller scale with covid. This is where the problem lies. It is not all scientists claiming that C02 is killing the planet it is some and that some is an indeterminate number who have control of the narrative and denigrate, exclude and ignore those who disagree. That should not be how science works. Those who support the narrative are those who have much to gain from controlling C02 in teh population and they are the ones who would use more in a week as individuals than most of us would in a lifetme. Klaus Schwab is all over the place with heads of government, has no democratic mandate from anyone and personally is emitting more C02 than is good for the planet according to you and it is limiting the ability of the 'common people' to live their lives that most are intent on doing. Once again you follow the line that any use of fossil fuels contributes to global warming. The questions remains to what degree as no one seems to know the answer and even most models do not predict with any degree of accuracy. The West is forging ahead with green energies and letting China emit the C02 needed to do that. The big problem with a global disaster is we have predicted quite a few of them in one way or another since the dawn of man on little or no evidence and this seems no different as the evidence that man made greenhouse gases willbe the end of us is just not there. If it is where is it? Please do not just regurgitate the IPCC as their predictions have been largely inaccurate and there is undoubtedly political machinations in all the pronouncements.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2022 12:25:34 GMT
But I never claimed anything. It was you who suggested that man-made CO2 can drastically change normal climatic variations. A claim based on nothing but faith and 'common sense' apparently. You are claiming that the problem is not as serious as the majority of scientists are claiming. Can you not read?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2022 12:30:07 GMT
You are claiming that the problem is not as serious as the majority of scientists are claiming. LOL - I am not claiming anything. i asked what you were basing your claims on - and got your answer, 'faith' and 'common sense'........ Why lie. I have always said that the evidence is widely available to everyone, you must also have read and seen it. My point, as you know, is that 'common sense' also says it is happening, but you appear devoid of common sense. You are attempting, very badly I might add, to ridicule my position for your own gratification. Not much of a debate, really.
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 17, 2022 12:50:02 GMT
LOL - I am not claiming anything. i asked what you were basing your claims on - and got your answer, 'faith' and 'common sense'........ Why lie. I have always said that the evidence is widely available to everyone, you must also have read and seen it. My point, as you know, is that 'common sense' also says it is happening, but you appear devoid of common sense. You are attempting, very badly I might add, to ridicule my position for your own gratification. Not much of a debate, really. I think we are all asking where and what is the evidence? So far little has been forthcoming.
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 17, 2022 13:09:09 GMT
Well sort of. You could say business as usual. The thing was Truss did make some logical mistakes which would cause the kind of chaos that ensued, like no hidden hand needed. What will they do about the Brics dedollarisation plan though? We have a lot invested in the US dollar. We are one of the world's top backers. People need to realise that chaos is only generated and engineered by Globalists like the Soros Posse … even if Truss had a sound economic plan and a top economist steering this Country out of debt and paying back all our creditors … that isn’t what Globalist Totalitarian Agenda players want … at the very top … they only make huge profits from chaos and panic, Sanctions and War. Soros drained the Bank of England of it’s gold reserves back @‘92 … Why do we invest in the currency of a Country that repeatedly shafts us … why don’t we have Bankers that invest in the Pound and building Briton’s fortunes… not boosting American and Israeli interests all the time. We need a Reset Programme … away from debt dependancy and WEF/IMF manipulation. … we called for that with the Brexit VOTE … we are still looking for leadership that will deliver. Time to move away from the Tory/Labour mindset that never delivers … we need a Farage Government with top advisors who know what they are doing. Iceland found indigenous leaders and advisors that steered them out of chronic debt and the clutches of IMF/WEF dependency … why can’t we create a political/leadership climate that attracts top people …?? …. Because we have a ROTTEN Media owned and run by foreign linked tribal factions who have always had designs to enslave us. … address that problem …and flush the System … and we might have a chance at significant change … environmentally too. Soros is a US asset. They used him to loot the soviet union of anything valuable with his series of foundations recruiting the talented scientists over there to cross over and work for Uncle Sam, similar to Operation Paperclip in WW2, the US needs talent.
My view is globalisation is inevitable, necessary and beneficial. If we do the opposite, which is protectionism, then we will end up failing. The dollar in the next ten years is going to crash and burn, possibly much faster - who can tell. We are at a point where the US and the UK look now to be on the losing side and many supporting countries in a marriage of convenience are moving over to China. As they do so the Chinese empire grows. It's a radically different philosophy in China but the big dividend is China is selling peace and financial stability. It is also going through a period similar to the English Enlightenment. We are going the other way and now we are like a pre-Enlightenment society. We lack capital as well. The country is virtually bankrupt, but there is a way out now if we act fast and change our ways. Also India was once a supporter of the Western financial system but India has recently crossed the line. As well as chatting to Chinese I tap into what is being said in India and it is interesting. The Indians are looking to go East and so too are the Africans. We can not afford to fight this empire, and besides it does not want to fight us either. What it is fighting is this violent Anglo-Saxon view that has caused wars for thousands of years. This new empire goes by the rule of sovereignty. What you do and how you run your own country is not their business. What is their business is business, which is the giant BRI and the sophisticated financial system it is creating where there is proper competition. It's a free market system that I have been advocating all along, and just coincidently it seems to me the Chinese think the same as I do for the same reasons. They are mathematically minded, so are on the post-Enlightenment side of the fence.
They will buy our industry up be because our industry is under exploiting capital resources due to idiotic British management. One way or another these firms will go bust and be bought up on the cheap by the Chinese. I recall a top English hifi manufacturer from the 70s in Cambridge called Quad. The Chinese bought it from the receivers, and I believe now it is bigger and better than it ever was. What we are going to have to do is learn from them because now they are the more technologically advanced so that makes them teacher and we mere pupils of commerce. If we carry on we will pick up the tricks and turn ourselves around in the process. Unfortunately the stupid government has decided to block sale of a Newport semiconductor manufacturer they purchased. The Chinese firm is very upset the Brits are using the strong arm of the government diktat to reverse a private agreement and it does not bode well. Anyway, it is upto the voter. There are some right bastards in the tory Party and right nasty warmngers, but I do not think Rishi is one of them. He's kind of got the right idea but is hampered by the collective nature of government and the other type, like the Duncan Smiths of this world. They are national embarrassments.
Don't copy them. That was banking fraud. They ripped us and many others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2022 15:17:32 GMT
Why lie. I have always said that the evidence is widely available to everyone, you must also have read and seen it. My point, as you know, is that 'common sense' also says it is happening, but you appear devoid of common sense. You are attempting, very badly I might add, to ridicule my position for your own gratification. Not much of a debate, really. I think we are all asking where and what is the evidence? So far little has been forthcoming. Forthcoming or a lack of interest in finding it. This is a debate forum not a scientific proof forum. link
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 17, 2022 16:38:15 GMT
I think we are all asking where and what is the evidence? So far little has been forthcoming. Forthcoming or a lack of interest in finding it. This is a debate forum not a scientific proof forum. linkI can find it I think everyone is interested in what you use to base your belief in a climate crisis on and why you believe that is uncontested fact which it is not. Just consider the NOAA quoted as the reference group for proving that surface temperatures have been increasing at the rate stated . Their results have been queried regularly as containing too much Urban Heat Island data which is forcing the temperatures artificially higher. So on information point one the whole edifice has some significant questions as regards its accuracy yet these are the values used to create the concept of the crisis. There is a link and I suggest you look at the photgraph even if you do not wish to read the article as that is a weather station that is used in the global warming data. wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/03/big-news-verified-by-noaa-poor-weather-station-siting-leads-to-artificial-long-term-warming/To be clear again I am not saying that man made global warming does not exist I am asking for some form of accurate data upon which to base our emergencies on. As an aside it seems pertinent that the UK's highest temperature records are frequently set at airports of some sort where obviously vast areas of concrete and large engine heat emissions will have no effect.
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Nov 17, 2022 17:01:19 GMT
As an aside it seems pertinent that the UK's highest temperature records are frequently set at airports of some sort where obviously vast areas of concrete and large engine heat emissions will have no effect. The following is from: www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/how-forecasts-are-made/observations/weather-stationsOf course the Met Offiice personnel may be lazy, lying, or just mistaken, but it seems the chance that the local environment affects meteorological readings has been accounted for… Weather station sites are selected to ensure that the observations are representative of the wider area around the station and not unduly influenced by local effects. Ideal site Level ground. No trees; buildings, or steep ground nearby that might influence the measurements. Undesirable site Warming effect of buildings on the measurement of temperature Sheltering or shading effects of trees on the measurement of sunshine and wind. Frost hollow where overnight temperatures on still clear nights may be far lower than at neighbouring locations. Top of a hill or steep escarpment where winds will be unrepresentative of the wider area.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2022 17:05:44 GMT
Forthcoming or a lack of interest in finding it. This is a debate forum not a scientific proof forum. linkI can find it I think everyone is interested in what you use to base your belief in a climate crisis on and why you believe that is uncontested fact which it is not. Just consider the NOAA quoted as the reference group for proving that surface temperatures have been increasing at the rate stated . Their results have been queried regularly as containing too much Urban Heat Island data which is forcing the temperatures artificially higher. So on information point one the whole edifice has some significant questions as regards its accuracy yet these are the values used to create the concept of the crisis. There is a link and I suggest you look at the photgraph even if you do not wish to read the article as that is a weather station that is used in the global warming data. wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/03/big-news-verified-by-noaa-poor-weather-station-siting-leads-to-artificial-long-term-warming/To be clear again I am not saying that man made global warming does not exist I am asking for some form of accurate data upon which to base our emergencies on. As an aside it seems pertinent that the UK's highest temperature records are frequently set at airports of some sort where obviously vast areas of concrete and large engine heat emissions will have no effect. Watts is a blogger and a climate change denier.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2022 17:07:50 GMT
As an aside it seems pertinent that the UK's highest temperature records are frequently set at airports of some sort where obviously vast areas of concrete and large engine heat emissions will have no effect. The following is from: www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/how-forecasts-are-made/observations/weather-stationsOf course the Met Offiice personnel may be lazy, lying, or just mistaken, but it seems the chance that the local environment affects meteorological readings has been accounted for… Weather station sites are selected to ensure that the observations are representative of the wider area around the station and not unduly influenced by local effects. Ideal site Level ground. No trees; buildings, or steep ground nearby that might influence the measurements. Undesirable site Warming effect of buildings on the measurement of temperature Sheltering or shading effects of trees on the measurement of sunshine and wind. Frost hollow where overnight temperatures on still clear nights may be far lower than at neighbouring locations. Top of a hill or steep escarpment where winds will be unrepresentative of the wider area. Lots of things affect local temperature changes but not on a global scale.
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 17, 2022 17:16:29 GMT
LOL - I am not claiming anything. i asked what you were basing your claims on - and got your answer, 'faith' and 'common sense'........ Why lie. I have always said that the evidence is widely available to everyone, you must also have read and seen it. My point, as you know, is that 'common sense' also says it is happening, but you appear devoid of common sense. You are attempting, very badly I might add, to ridicule my position for your own gratification. Not much of a debate, really. What point are you trying to make with that word salad. All I did was ask you how you were measuring your claim and your response was 'faith' OK - if it's good enough for you...
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 17, 2022 21:50:18 GMT
As an aside it seems pertinent that the UK's highest temperature records are frequently set at airports of some sort where obviously vast areas of concrete and large engine heat emissions will have no effect. The following is from: www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/how-forecasts-are-made/observations/weather-stationsOf course the Met Offiice personnel may be lazy, lying, or just mistaken, but it seems the chance that the local environment affects meteorological readings has been accounted for… Weather station sites are selected to ensure that the observations are representative of the wider area around the station and not unduly influenced by local effects. Ideal site Level ground. No trees; buildings, or steep ground nearby that might influence the measurements. Undesirable site Warming effect of buildings on the measurement of temperature Sheltering or shading effects of trees on the measurement of sunshine and wind. Frost hollow where overnight temperatures on still clear nights may be far lower than at neighbouring locations. Top of a hill or steep escarpment where winds will be unrepresentative of the wider area. There are two aspects to that. One is that the Met office assess the quality of the readings in terms of their consistency of taking and the reading methods fit in with all the outlined procedures and the placing is consistent with the requirements as outlined above. The other aspect is how much control can one place on a local area and how close to large areas of tarmac/concrete has the site been placed. It is worth looking at the Botanic gardens in Cambridge that was the previous record holder and how enclosed the space is and how it is placed almost on top of a hardened area. The building in the background appear fairly new and have changed the configuration of the area. s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/assets.botanic.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/image00003-1024x768.jpgIt is not so much what is there in the first place it is how any measuring location has changed with time the other aspect being as well nighttime hear retention will change as the nature of the surroundings change. Having sited weather stations it is far from easy and my observations were only for a rough guide in a construction record not as a guide to herald a planetary crisis.
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 17, 2022 21:54:10 GMT
The following is from: www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/how-forecasts-are-made/observations/weather-stationsOf course the Met Offiice personnel may be lazy, lying, or just mistaken, but it seems the chance that the local environment affects meteorological readings has been accounted for… Weather station sites are selected to ensure that the observations are representative of the wider area around the station and not unduly influenced by local effects. Ideal site Level ground. No trees; buildings, or steep ground nearby that might influence the measurements. Undesirable site Warming effect of buildings on the measurement of temperature Sheltering or shading effects of trees on the measurement of sunshine and wind. Frost hollow where overnight temperatures on still clear nights may be far lower than at neighbouring locations. Top of a hill or steep escarpment where winds will be unrepresentative of the wider area. Lots of things affect local temperature changes but not on a global scale. However you have presented your evidence as planetary warming based on a multitude of local weather stations as sanctioned by the NOAA. If some local weather changes are being recorded as global warming when they are in fact local warming then that changes the global figure and many have been found to be locally warmer as opposed to area warmer.
|
|