|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 26, 2024 21:43:15 GMT
Wow, I thought we'd got passed Co2's effect on the Earths temperature. Its interesting to meet someone that far back. Without carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, Earth's average temperature would be around -20°C (-4°F) But the effect is held to be logarithmic so increases in CO2 will not result in corresponding significant rises in temperature. The questions that exist, and are often dodged, are are the temperatures we measure on land and sea accurate enough to assume a small rise in temperature to one decimal place on a Fahrenheit scale since 19th century, why have the past models not accurately predicted what has transpired, why do the worldwide records not show any increase in the extreme events that have been predicted for over 30 years now, why has climate science eschewed the scientific method by ignoring any evidence that does not confirm their models? Pertinent questions especially the last one as most counter arguments to any sceptical evidence produced tend to attack the individuals involved, or the funding they receive, or the political affiliations they have, or the consensus that exists that has never been proven yet is still referred to as a fact. We've been here done this. I'm not dong it all again. Every major scientific institution in the world agrees that Co2 increases are increasing warming and that those increases are caused by burning fossil fuels. You are reduced to preaching your misinformation to a tiny group on a forum.  |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Nov 26, 2024 22:05:32 GMT
I thought it was climate change, when you mention weather to a climate change fanatic they usually talk down to you as though you are a half wit and say “weather and climate change are two different things”.  Climate change is caused by Co2, Co2 affects our weather. Glad to help. Climate change is caused by Earths natural evolution.
The Earths axis ..
The Earth's axis wobbles like a spinning top due to the gravitational pull of the Sun and Moon. This causes the North Pole to point to different parts of the sky over thousands of years. Precession affects the timing of seasons and the seasonal differences between hemispheres.
YES we do have climate change, YES Co2 emissions isn't helping the planet, but it is NOT the cause of climate change.
'Climate change' Green taxes is a money making racket that is making individuals/investors extremely wealthy, and to coin a phrase ... 'The great climate con'.
If you think our gas boilers are going to bring about the destruction of this planet then you need your head testing.
It's a tax on the poor, we know it's a con because if they were so concerned about the end of the world why would they be felling so many trees
About 15 billion trees are cut down every year, which is equivalent to the loss of an area of forest the size of a football field every second.
^^ This is what is going to bring about the end of the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 26, 2024 22:37:26 GMT
Myth 1: Clean energy is too expensive
Especially amid a cost of living crisis, there’s a perception that ‘green’ energy is more expensive. But a recent study found that solar and wind energy are now the most affordable sources of new electricity in 82% of the world. Last summer, the government boosted the claim that solar and wind are becoming ever more cheaper than gas, which rose in price substantially following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s most recent projections for Britain state that solar output cost now averages £41 per megawatt hour (MWh) from new projects. For new gas power stations, the equivalent lifetime costs will be close to £114 per MWh. LOL - I've lost count of the number of times I've proven this nonsense wrong  |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 26, 2024 22:44:47 GMT
I reckon it's a good selling point for both the idea of and production of green technology if the first country to industrialise is now able to be one of the leaders in cleaning up its act... why? - what do we get out of it? With luck we sell the technology to other countries. Climate change aside, wind turbines are now producing cheap energy and they don't need a national grid. Very interesting to many areas in Africa. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 26, 2024 22:48:12 GMT
Myth 1: Clean energy is too expensive
Especially amid a cost of living crisis, there’s a perception that ‘green’ energy is more expensive. But a recent study found that solar and wind energy are now the most affordable sources of new electricity in 82% of the world. Last summer, the government boosted the claim that solar and wind are becoming ever more cheaper than gas, which rose in price substantially following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s most recent projections for Britain state that solar output cost now averages £41 per megawatt hour (MWh) from new projects. For new gas power stations, the equivalent lifetime costs will be close to £114 per MWh. LOL - I've lost count of the number of times I've proven this nonsense wrong You and national grid, you sure told them. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 26, 2024 22:50:21 GMT
why? - what do we get out of it? With luck we sell the technology to other countries. Climate change aside, wind turbines are now producing cheap energy and they don't need a national grid. Very interesting to many areas in Africa. So we shut down our existing industries in the vague hope that we might be able to sell technology to customers overseas. Not sure that is going to be of comfort to all those thrown out of work. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 26, 2024 22:53:26 GMT
LOL - I've lost count of the number of times I've proven this nonsense wrong You and national grid, you sure told them. I suggest you read down to the bottom of the page: Originally published in The Guardian
..and then look up the economic qualifications of Chas Newkey-Burden - but if you want to believe him feel free.. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 26, 2024 23:04:34 GMT
But the effect is held to be logarithmic so increases in CO2 will not result in corresponding significant rises in temperature. The questions that exist, and are often dodged, are are the temperatures we measure on land and sea accurate enough to assume a small rise in temperature to one decimal place on a Fahrenheit scale since 19th century, why have the past models not accurately predicted what has transpired, why do the worldwide records not show any increase in the extreme events that have been predicted for over 30 years now, why has climate science eschewed the scientific method by ignoring any evidence that does not confirm their models? Pertinent questions especially the last one as most counter arguments to any sceptical evidence produced tend to attack the individuals involved, or the funding they receive, or the political affiliations they have, or the consensus that exists that has never been proven yet is still referred to as a fact. We've been here done this. I'm not dong it all again. Every major scientific institution in the world agrees that Co2 increases are increasing warming and that those increases are caused by burning fossil fuels. You are reduced to preaching your misinformation to a tiny group on a forum. But you do not do it all again, you do not address points, you point to lots of people think this and therefore it must be; lots of scientists say it is so and therefore it must be. That ignores many facts not least that many scientists say it is not so and in terms of the Scientific Method the supporters of the hypothesis have to show that their hypothesis works in the face of difficult and searching questions and too often it fails. Every major scientific institution in the world points to the IPCC as the source of their acceptance of AGW. In terms of cause and effect it is a strange world where the cause increases after the effect. I quote from David Shelley (*David Shelley gained his PhD from Bristol University and then lectured in geology for nearly 40 years at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, NZ. He was Dean of Postgraduate Studies for 6 years. He is the author of 62 research papers and two textbooks, one on mineralogy, the other on igneous and metamorphic petrology.) The IPCC was set up to investigate the relationship between modern global warming and our CO2 emissions. A reasonable hypothesis is that if CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas, then our emissions may be causing global warming, perhaps dangerously. But if we are doing science, we must also consider the possibility that CO2 is not a potent driver of warming, and that the warming we observe is the result of something else. Unfortunately, the IPCC has become completely obsessed with the idea that CO2 is the potent driver of warming. It quickly rejects any other possibility. Yet a key factor in assessing the potency of CO2 is knowing a value for the so-called climate sensitivity of CO2. A sensitivity of 1 would mean that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would warm Earth by 1 °C (hardly a threat to Earth’s existence), a sensitivity of 6 would mean a warming of 6 °C. Yet even the IPCC admits we still do not know what the sensitivity is. The literature is filled with estimates that range from less than 1 to 6 (figure below). How then can one put any faith in the modelling of climate scientists when one of the most fundamental factors is unknown? Modelling may be a useful adjunct to science, but it is not real science. Science must be based on facts and observations, not predictions based on uncertainties. The fact that there have been innumerable attempts to model future Ts, all giving different answers, and with nearly all of them running hot relative to real observations, means the results of modelling are simply not credible. Yet these models are used by the UN to threaten us with doom and gloom. wattsupwiththat.com/2024/11/02/the-geological-record-of-climate-change-and-why-todays-increase-in-atmospheric-co2-is-the-result-of-global-warming-not-the-cause/ |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 26, 2024 23:06:47 GMT
With luck we sell the technology to other countries. Climate change aside, wind turbines are now producing cheap energy and they don't need a national grid. Very interesting to many areas in Africa. So we shut down our existing industries in the vague hope that we might be able to sell technology to customers overseas. Not sure that is going to be of comfort to all those thrown out of work. Which industries are being shut down for wind turbine technology. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 26, 2024 23:09:11 GMT
We've been here done this. I'm not dong it all again. Every major scientific institution in the world agrees that Co2 increases are increasing warming and that those increases are caused by burning fossil fuels. You are reduced to preaching your misinformation to a tiny group on a forum. But you do not do it all again, you do not address points, you point to lots of people think this and therefore it must be; lots of scientists say it is so and therefore it must be. That ignores many facts not least that many scientists say it is not so and in terms of the Scientific Method the supporters of the hypothesis have to show that their hypothesis works in the face of difficult and searching questions and too often it fails. Every major scientific institution in the world points to the IPCC as the source of their acceptance of AGW. In terms of cause and effect it is a strange world where the cause increases after the effect. I quote from David Shelley (*David Shelley gained his PhD from Bristol University and then lectured in geology for nearly 40 years at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, NZ. He was Dean of Postgraduate Studies for 6 years. He is the author of 62 research papers and two textbooks, one on mineralogy, the other on igneous and metamorphic petrology.) The IPCC was set up to investigate the relationship between modern global warming and our CO2 emissions. A reasonable hypothesis is that if CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas, then our emissions may be causing global warming, perhaps dangerously. But if we are doing science, we must also consider the possibility that CO2 is not a potent driver of warming, and that the warming we observe is the result of something else. Unfortunately, the IPCC has become completely obsessed with the idea that CO2 is the potent driver of warming. It quickly rejects any other possibility. Yet a key factor in assessing the potency of CO2 is knowing a value for the so-called climate sensitivity of CO2. A sensitivity of 1 would mean that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would warm Earth by 1 °C (hardly a threat to Earth’s existence), a sensitivity of 6 would mean a warming of 6 °C. Yet even the IPCC admits we still do not know what the sensitivity is. The literature is filled with estimates that range from less than 1 to 6 (figure below). How then can one put any faith in the modelling of climate scientists when one of the most fundamental factors is unknown? Modelling may be a useful adjunct to science, but it is not real science. Science must be based on facts and observations, not predictions based on uncertainties. The fact that there have been innumerable attempts to model future Ts, all giving different answers, and with nearly all of them running hot relative to real observations, means the results of modelling are simply not credible. Yet these models are used by the UN to threaten us with doom and gloom. wattsupwiththat.com/2024/11/02/the-geological-record-of-climate-change-and-why-todays-increase-in-atmospheric-co2-is-the-result-of-global-warming-not-the-cause/Learn to read. I said I WOULDN'T do it all again, and I wont. You've lost, your misinformation hasn't worked. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 26, 2024 23:17:20 GMT
But you do not do it all again, you do not address points, you point to lots of people think this and therefore it must be; lots of scientists say it is so and therefore it must be. That ignores many facts not least that many scientists say it is not so and in terms of the Scientific Method the supporters of the hypothesis have to show that their hypothesis works in the face of difficult and searching questions and too often it fails. Every major scientific institution in the world points to the IPCC as the source of their acceptance of AGW. In terms of cause and effect it is a strange world where the cause increases after the effect. I quote from David Shelley (*David Shelley gained his PhD from Bristol University and then lectured in geology for nearly 40 years at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, NZ. He was Dean of Postgraduate Studies for 6 years. He is the author of 62 research papers and two textbooks, one on mineralogy, the other on igneous and metamorphic petrology.) The IPCC was set up to investigate the relationship between modern global warming and our CO2 emissions. A reasonable hypothesis is that if CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas, then our emissions may be causing global warming, perhaps dangerously. But if we are doing science, we must also consider the possibility that CO2 is not a potent driver of warming, and that the warming we observe is the result of something else. Unfortunately, the IPCC has become completely obsessed with the idea that CO2 is the potent driver of warming. It quickly rejects any other possibility. Yet a key factor in assessing the potency of CO2 is knowing a value for the so-called climate sensitivity of CO2. A sensitivity of 1 would mean that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would warm Earth by 1 °C (hardly a threat to Earth’s existence), a sensitivity of 6 would mean a warming of 6 °C. Yet even the IPCC admits we still do not know what the sensitivity is. The literature is filled with estimates that range from less than 1 to 6 (figure below). How then can one put any faith in the modelling of climate scientists when one of the most fundamental factors is unknown? Modelling may be a useful adjunct to science, but it is not real science. Science must be based on facts and observations, not predictions based on uncertainties. The fact that there have been innumerable attempts to model future Ts, all giving different answers, and with nearly all of them running hot relative to real observations, means the results of modelling are simply not credible. Yet these models are used by the UN to threaten us with doom and gloom. wattsupwiththat.com/2024/11/02/the-geological-record-of-climate-change-and-why-todays-increase-in-atmospheric-co2-is-the-result-of-global-warming-not-the-cause/Learn to read. I said I WOULDN'T do it all again, and I wont. You've lost, your misinformation hasn't worked. You are the one selling it and quoting it and supporting the demand that we take action because of it and yet take facts and figures that fly in the face of the hypothesis and question its validity as misinformation when it actually quotes and draws information from the data used by the IPCC from whom you take your lead. A very strange way to win over hearts and minds to a fast becoming discredited belief system that demands we effectively self harm in the name of their belief. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Nov 26, 2024 23:25:30 GMT
You believe You believe Ditto regards helping. Wow, I thought we'd got passed Co2's effect on the Earths temperature. Its interesting to meet someone that far back. Without carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, Earth's average temperature would be around -20°C (-4°F) Make a simplistic post get a simplistic reply. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 26, 2024 23:45:31 GMT
I wonder, when this 'research' was carried out, were people asked whether they thought climate change was man made or a naturally recurring feature of life on planet earth. And if climate change is man made, how did man's activities effect the climate during the Roman warm period when the temperature was unusually high for c400 years. At this time the global population was estimated to be c170 million, half that of the US today. So tell me what makes you think climate change is man made?.. |
|
