|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 27, 2022 22:46:08 GMT
How many people should we kill? Climate change has killed nobody. The weather sometimes does, as in Italy, yesterday. We are being gaslighted into poverty and death by freezing. I'm all for ecology, but this is a step too far. More people die from cold weather than from hot - so if we had a bit of global warming it would save lives. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Nov 27, 2022 22:49:25 GMT
If I was convinced that CO2 is responsible for the planet warming and that mankind could do anything about it, ye, I would support efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. However, there is no such evidence. How many people should we kill? Climate change has killed nobody. The weather sometimes does, as in Italy, yesterday. We are being gaslighted into poverty and death by freezing. I'm all for ecology, but this is a step too far. What qualifications do you have on climate change? They must be good for you to think you know better than the vast majority of climate scientists. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 28, 2022 8:44:18 GMT
If I was convinced that CO2 is responsible for the planet warming and that mankind could do anything about it, ye, I would support efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. However, there is no such evidence. How many people should we kill? Climate change has killed nobody. The weather sometimes does, as in Italy, yesterday. We are being gaslighted into poverty and death by freezing. I'm all for ecology, but this is a step too far. What qualifications do you have on climate change? They must be good for you to think you know better than the vast majority of climate scientists. You don't have to have ANY qualifications in "climate change" to judge the case for CO2 warming. The scientists have created their models for the effects of CO2 on climate (it's actually weather, not climate, since climate plays out over hundreds of years) and they don't work. Therefore the theory is wrong. In fact they can't even "model" the effect of CO2 because they haven't got the data. CO2 has a warming effect (greenhouse effect) and a cooling effect (photosynthesis of plants). Neither can be modelled. So what they've done is made a hypothesis that CO2 causes warming and invented a coefficient that a rise of x ppm of CO2 causes a temperature rise of y degrees C. And so far all they do is gradually lower it as their predictions turn out to be wrong.  What the scientists can agree on though is that cooling of the planet causes far more deaths than warming does. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Nov 28, 2022 8:53:22 GMT
Whatever.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
|
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 28, 2022 10:08:02 GMT
I just listened to a discussion about net-zero on Talk TV, and it seems people are becoming disillusioned with the policy because they feel the true costs are being hidden, which I think is a very fair comment. According to YouGov 44% of people want a referendum on net-zero, so where do you stand? Maybe. Yes. Since information that UK Scientists sat on information about the possibilities of a Wuhan lab leak and published a letter in the Lancet that this theory was for the birds. They put the most 'expensive accident in human history' down to natural origin. One has to wonder how objective and truthful Scientists these days are, and how much trust the public can place in them |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 28, 2022 10:25:24 GMT
Since information that UK Scientists sat on information about the possibilities of a Wuhan lab leak and published a letter in the Lancet that this theory was for the birds. They put the most 'expensive accident in human history' down to natural origin. One has to wonder how objective and truthful Scientists these days are, and how much trust the public can place in them Science has always partially relied on an open social atmosphere - that science itself be conducted in the open as part of the public discussion. However, if agencies with interests related to scientific issues get the power to trim the public discussion to their liking and threaten scientists with excommunication / de-credentialing for 'arguing on the wrong side', then science can be crippled. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2022 10:36:45 GMT
If I was convinced that CO2 is responsible for the planet warming and that mankind could do anything about it, ye, I would support efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. However, there is no such evidence. How many people should we kill? Climate change has killed nobody. The weather sometimes does, as in Italy, yesterday. We are being gaslighted into poverty and death by freezing. I'm all for ecology, but this is a step too far. What qualifications do you have on climate change? They must be good for you to think you know better than the vast majority of climate scientists. What qualifications do you have on climate change? The same as Greta Thunderbird and Bill Gates. Do you think that the scientists in the majority are right? I think the scientists in the minority are right. Man made global warming is a fallacy. The earth has not even warmed since 2000. Clear your mind and take another look. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 28, 2022 10:42:48 GMT
I just listened to a discussion about net-zero on Talk TV, and it seems people are becoming disillusioned with the policy because they feel the true costs are being hidden, which I think is a very fair comment. According to YouGov 44% of people want a referendum on net-zero, so where do you stand? I dont think referendums are a bad thing. How can more democracy and increasing participation in politics for the average joe be bad?
As for net zero , what exactly is the long game being played by western politicians here?
Are they genuine about saving the planet from mans ravages , or is ther something more sinister at play here.
How can governments be genuine about saving the health of this earth by on the one hand stopping sharon from using the 4 by 4 to drop the weans off at school , but on the other hand cheering on the elephant in the room , which is the growing overpopualtion of the human race on this planet?
There needs to be much more discussion , less "we know best " attitude from governments , referendums and more engagement with the populace .
Im open minded about climate change , support solar and wind power , but i too am becoming more and more disillusioned about net zero and government policy . Precisely Thomas, global population growth is indeed the elephant that governments dare not acknowledge. Every year births over deaths 83 million people are added to the global population and they all need water, food, energy, resources. China and India among many countries are not interested in ruining their economies with net-zero, yet politicians in this tiny country which accounts for just 0.8% of the global population seem to think forcing us into fuel poverty will somehow save the planet, it's absolute nonsense, it's too stupid for words. Other than making the UK poorer net-zero will make not a jot of difference on a global level. This may not always be the case, technology will obviously improve, but right now, wind and solar energy receive huge subsidies because they are very expensive and cannot be relied on to supply constant energy 24/7, and without constant reliable energy industry and the economy will collapse. Which will be great news for China. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 28, 2022 10:46:32 GMT
What qualifications do you have on climate change? They must be good for you to think you know better than the vast majority of climate scientists. What qualifications do you have on climate change? The same as Greta Thunderbird and Bill Gates. Do you think that the scientists in the majority are right? I think the scientists in the minority are right. Man made global warming is a fallacy. The earth has not even warmed since 2000. Clear your mind and take another look. Quite, the temp was higher 2000 years ago than it is today. Eco mentalists probably think the Romans built too many coal fired power stations. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Nov 28, 2022 11:11:49 GMT
What qualifications do you have on climate change? They must be good for you to think you know better than the vast majority of climate scientists. What qualifications do you have on climate change? The same as Greta Thunderbird and Bill Gates. Do you think that the scientists in the majority are right? I think the scientists in the minority are right. Man made global warming is a fallacy. The earth has not even warmed since 2000. Clear your mind and take another look. You're right, I have none. That's why I rely on those that do rather than hunt around the web looking for articles to satisfy a confirmation bias. I think the time to be arguing about whether it is happening is long behind us, now is the time to decide what to do about it and take meaningful action. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 28, 2022 11:20:32 GMT
What qualifications do you have on climate change? The same as Greta Thunderbird and Bill Gates. Do you think that the scientists in the majority are right? I think the scientists in the minority are right. Man made global warming is a fallacy. The earth has not even warmed since 2000. Clear your mind and take another look. You're right, I have none. That's why I rely on those that do rather than hunt around the web looking for articles to satisfy a confirmation bias. I think the time to be arguing about whether it is happening is long behind us, now is the time to decide what to do about it and take meaningful action. Monte, that is exactly what 'experts' said in 1970 when they predicted another ice age by the year 2000. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Nov 28, 2022 11:32:30 GMT
You're right, I have none. That's why I rely on those that do rather than hunt around the web looking for articles to satisfy a confirmation bias. I think the time to be arguing about whether it is happening is long behind us, now is the time to decide what to do about it and take meaningful action. Monte, that is exactly what 'experts' said in 1970 when they predicted another ice age by the year 2000. This old chestnut gets brought out regularly Red and I'm frankly a little insulted that you think it will work on me. That was certainly not the consensus amongst climate scientists at the time and I challenge you to find anyone who said ''by 2020''. I think you may have fallen victim to a meme. Understandings of ''Snowball Earth'' were in their infancy in the late '60s and early '70s but now scientists have a much better understanding of Milankovitch cycles and predictions about the arrival of the next ice age are measured in tens of thousands of years not decades. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 28, 2022 11:39:28 GMT
Monte, that is exactly what 'experts' said in 1970 when they predicted another ice age by the year 2000. This old chestnut gets brought out regularly Red and I'm frankly a little insulted that you think it will work on me. That was certainly not the consensus amongst climate scientists at the time and I challenge you to find anyone who said ''by 2020''. I think you may have fallen victim to a meme. Understandings of ''Snowball Earth'' were in their infancy in the late '60s and early '70s but now scientists have a much better understanding of Milankovitch cycles and predictions about the arrival of the next ice age are measured in tens of thousands of years not decades. LOL, Monte it's a little more than a meme.  www.aei.org/carpe-diem/50-years-of-failed-doomsday-eco-pocalyptic-predictions-the-so-called-experts-are-0-50/ |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 28, 2022 11:46:51 GMT
Incidentally, this short video clip, about 12 minutes, is included in the above link I posted but I thought it was worth posting it separately.
Watch the clip, it's very interesting. Of course eco mentalists will as ever put their fingers in their ears and insist it's all rubbish.
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Nov 28, 2022 11:47:11 GMT
Ooo a right wing blog site.
That'll tell those bloody so called climate experts.
|
|
