- Joined
- Dec 24, 2013
- Messages
- 1,497
- Reaction score
- 270
climate change is natural?
- Thread starter binky
- Start date
Help Support Talk Electrician Forum:
That will be this video
I do the nice things too.
AHH the old CO2 argument, probably the best bit of gaslighting the oil and gas industry has ever come up with. Like most of the disinformation, there's some truth in this,but completely ignores the fact CO2 is 50% higher since the industrial revolution and climbing. And yet again it's not a climate scientist presenting this information. Which is like asking your gardener about your cancer diagnosis. To quote this fella :-
LaMalfa has said, "The climate of the globe has been fluctuating since God created it", and that the Book of Genesis disproves the scientific consensus on climate change, which he has called "bad science".[41][42] In 2017, he said, "I don't buy the idea that man-made activity is responsible." In 2018, amid wildfires, LaMalfa said, "I'm not going to quibble here today about whether it's man, or sunspot activity, or magma causing ice shelves to melt." He suggested the wildfires were due to poor land management by state and federal agencies.[43]
Last edited:
Do please watch the first video I posted.
Let's be frank, if you burn billions of tons of coal, billions of barrels if oil and billions of cubic meters of gas every year, it isn't going to make the planet cooler...
Fossil fuels are far from the only cause of the unnatural climate change we are seeing today, but are the biggest cause.
The simple fact is the fossil fuel industries have done a really good job of smearing the climate change science and scientists. Look up Exxon black ops campaign if you are not familiar with it. Couple that with a right wing press that seems to think it's all a woke left wing issue, and you can understand people's comments, so please post considerately and keep all discussions civil.
I do completely agree with your comment, I too find it hard to believe people can't see the obvious weather changes, but we are fighting corporations with very big budgets..
The top and bottom of it is, it is all a load of crap.
As the American bloke says, CO2 has gone up, yes it has, by ONE one HUNDREDTH of one percent, yet all the muppets go on about a climate "emergency" and run around in a panic. They are all just hysterical nutcases..
Yes, just churning out pollution where it can be helped is daft, but primarily, this "climate emergency" is a nutty idea that has been siezed on by governments, promoted by governments, as an excuse to raise tax.
It is no different to how "covid" [which indisputedly did happen] was siezed up by government to reduce services [in all walks of life] in a money making scam. Some people referred to Covid as; "the great reset". I laughed at the time, but turns out that practically speaking, they were spot on..
As the american bloke said, the CO2 content of the atmosphere is 0.04% now, was 0.03% and if they got below 0.02% plant life starts dying off...
You have to laugh at how thick the politicians are with their guesses or 5 or 8 percent. Just shows how they have been brainwashed by the climate change lot too. Did they never go to school??? I can still remember being taught that it was 78% nitrogen, 20% oxygen and 2% trace gases from school about 55 years ago.
Yes the weather changes, it has always changed, that is the way of the world..
As for saying stuff like; "How can you possibly deny the freakish weather patterns and believe man is not a factor" that is no different to people that say in response to any question to which they do not have an answer; "it was god"
If the government REALLY wanted to reduce "pollution" and reduce the stuff that goes into landfill, especially all the plastic stuff, well they could VERY easily reduce this buy a trully massive amount by returning us to 60 years ago when most food came in a paper bag or wrapped in greaseproof paper. Milk came in bottles delivered by an electric vehicle as it happens and the bottles were all returned and reused..
Why do the government not take us back to them days then??? Because there is no money in it for them.. Instead they arrange for hugely expensive "recycling" that really means, simply sending rubbish abroad to China and India.. Lovely thing to do eh??
Tell you what then.. Here is an electrical example for you...
Years ago, it was decreed that the mains voltage be reduced to 230v [whilst the foreigners were supposed to, in some, cases increase theirs] so as to have a uniform "european" voltage or 230v.
Now, the government have SLAVISHLY imposed everything else that came out of the EU, down to jailing people that dared to sell a pound of bananas, but they conspired [and i use the word conspired quite deliberately] to avoid this by changing the tolerance of the supply voltage, so as to ensure there WAS no change to the voltage at all, which, as we all know, remains at 240v.
Why did they do this then?? I will tell you.. Reducing the voltage would INSTANTLY have reduced power consumption by 4% You would think that a government that pretend to be obsessed with all this reducing "energy" consumption, would jump at this, but no... Why not then??
I will tell you; Because it would reduce their tax income and reduce the income of their "friends" they sold the power companies to..
Funny how the government, if they are that concerned with "pollution", are not queuing up to go and retrieve all the 45gallon drums of nuclear waste they threw in the sea back then are they?? Not too concerned with retrieving all the plastic from the sea?? Not too concerned about sending rubbish to China etc.. No money in that see...
Meanwhile, people who see sense, are derided as "climate change deniers" in the same way as in the middle ages, people were branded as witches and "non-believers"
Load of quasi religious nutcases..
john..
As the American bloke says, CO2 has gone up, yes it has, by ONE one HUNDREDTH of one percent, yet all the muppets go on about a climate "emergency" and run around in a panic. They are all just hysterical nutcases..
Yes, just churning out pollution where it can be helped is daft, but primarily, this "climate emergency" is a nutty idea that has been siezed on by governments, promoted by governments, as an excuse to raise tax.
It is no different to how "covid" [which indisputedly did happen] was siezed up by government to reduce services [in all walks of life] in a money making scam. Some people referred to Covid as; "the great reset". I laughed at the time, but turns out that practically speaking, they were spot on..
As the american bloke said, the CO2 content of the atmosphere is 0.04% now, was 0.03% and if they got below 0.02% plant life starts dying off...
You have to laugh at how thick the politicians are with their guesses or 5 or 8 percent. Just shows how they have been brainwashed by the climate change lot too. Did they never go to school??? I can still remember being taught that it was 78% nitrogen, 20% oxygen and 2% trace gases from school about 55 years ago.
Yes the weather changes, it has always changed, that is the way of the world..
As for saying stuff like; "How can you possibly deny the freakish weather patterns and believe man is not a factor" that is no different to people that say in response to any question to which they do not have an answer; "it was god"
If the government REALLY wanted to reduce "pollution" and reduce the stuff that goes into landfill, especially all the plastic stuff, well they could VERY easily reduce this buy a trully massive amount by returning us to 60 years ago when most food came in a paper bag or wrapped in greaseproof paper. Milk came in bottles delivered by an electric vehicle as it happens and the bottles were all returned and reused..
Why do the government not take us back to them days then??? Because there is no money in it for them.. Instead they arrange for hugely expensive "recycling" that really means, simply sending rubbish abroad to China and India.. Lovely thing to do eh??
Tell you what then.. Here is an electrical example for you...
Years ago, it was decreed that the mains voltage be reduced to 230v [whilst the foreigners were supposed to, in some, cases increase theirs] so as to have a uniform "european" voltage or 230v.
Now, the government have SLAVISHLY imposed everything else that came out of the EU, down to jailing people that dared to sell a pound of bananas, but they conspired [and i use the word conspired quite deliberately] to avoid this by changing the tolerance of the supply voltage, so as to ensure there WAS no change to the voltage at all, which, as we all know, remains at 240v.
Why did they do this then?? I will tell you.. Reducing the voltage would INSTANTLY have reduced power consumption by 4% You would think that a government that pretend to be obsessed with all this reducing "energy" consumption, would jump at this, but no... Why not then??
I will tell you; Because it would reduce their tax income and reduce the income of their "friends" they sold the power companies to..
Funny how the government, if they are that concerned with "pollution", are not queuing up to go and retrieve all the 45gallon drums of nuclear waste they threw in the sea back then are they?? Not too concerned with retrieving all the plastic from the sea?? Not too concerned about sending rubbish to China etc.. No money in that see...
Meanwhile, people who see sense, are derided as "climate change deniers" in the same way as in the middle ages, people were branded as witches and "non-believers"
Load of quasi religious nutcases..
john..
@apprentice87 the wealthy American made his money from oil, and no doubt still has vested interests in this field, so is probably far more interested in the value of his share holdings than telling the truth - I certainly would not expect an unbiased opinion from him, and as I said earlier why would you listen to him rather than climate scientists who are experts in their field? You wouldn't ask a plumber to fix your electrics....
this short article discusses climate change myths, each point has a link you can click of for greater detail https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
It is correct that higher CO2 can enhance plant growth, but you may have noticed how rising temperatures are increasing flood and fire events over the last few years. Extra rain has the effect of washing nutrients out of the soil, bad for plany growth, and fires clearly do an awful lot of damage, and release massive amounts of CO2. Soot from wild fires is also landing on the artic ice, making it darker, more prone to absorbing sunlight, and hence melting faster, which is of course a major worry for sea level rising. So despite the fact it's only 0.04% CO2 is still double what it sould be and it is impacting climate. I do think this is one of the biggest problems, tiny numbers making huge differences. A bit like the poisons the Russians like to use, tiny amounts cause deaths...
As for the climate emergency,this forecast fo the effects of temperature is what we are trying/ need to avoid. https://www.wri.org/insights/half-d...ce-climate-impacts-between-15c-and-2c-warming
About 40% of the worlds population lives in areas at risk from sea level rises, imagine the cost of relocating all those cities full of people, it's far far cheaper to go green, as I've said to you before. We are likely to exceed 1.5C rise by 2030, and 2C rise by 2050. (The North and South poles are already at 3C average rise). So not so far away, and the sooner we change the longer we get to make bchanges, and the less it will cost to mitigate the arising issues. This is why XR have been glueing themselves to roads, silly sods
And if we are really stupid, the biggest risk of all is runaway climate change, whereby we trigger the planet to destroy civilisation as we know it. I'm afraid the Wiki link is very dry reading, but note the article from 1902 in the top right corner. This should happen at about 3C rise, forecast for near the end of the century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect.
As for grid volatges, my friend at Western Power basically told me they up the voltages to keep pace with demand because the cables really need replacing but they havn't got the money to do it - sound like every other bit of UK infrastructure since privatisation?
.this short article discusses climate change myths, each point has a link you can click of for greater detail https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
It is correct that higher CO2 can enhance plant growth, but you may have noticed how rising temperatures are increasing flood and fire events over the last few years. Extra rain has the effect of washing nutrients out of the soil, bad for plany growth, and fires clearly do an awful lot of damage, and release massive amounts of CO2. Soot from wild fires is also landing on the artic ice, making it darker, more prone to absorbing sunlight, and hence melting faster, which is of course a major worry for sea level rising. So despite the fact it's only 0.04% CO2 is still double what it sould be and it is impacting climate. I do think this is one of the biggest problems, tiny numbers making huge differences. A bit like the poisons the Russians like to use, tiny amounts cause deaths...
As for the climate emergency,this forecast fo the effects of temperature is what we are trying/ need to avoid. https://www.wri.org/insights/half-d...ce-climate-impacts-between-15c-and-2c-warming
About 40% of the worlds population lives in areas at risk from sea level rises, imagine the cost of relocating all those cities full of people, it's far far cheaper to go green, as I've said to you before. We are likely to exceed 1.5C rise by 2030, and 2C rise by 2050. (The North and South poles are already at 3C average rise). So not so far away, and the sooner we change the longer we get to make bchanges, and the less it will cost to mitigate the arising issues. This is why XR have been glueing themselves to roads, silly sods
And if we are really stupid, the biggest risk of all is runaway climate change, whereby we trigger the planet to destroy civilisation as we know it. I'm afraid the Wiki link is very dry reading, but note the article from 1902 in the top right corner. This should happen at about 3C rise, forecast for near the end of the century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect.
As for grid volatges, my friend at Western Power basically told me they up the voltages to keep pace with demand because the cables really need replacing but they havn't got the money to do it - sound like every other bit of UK infrastructure since privatisation?
Somebody mentions the ice age and they are climate change denier without any debate, really
Over the last 5 billion or so years the earth has had at least 5 ice ages unfortunately there are no detailed records available unlike the last couple of hundred years but it is all down to what suits the driven agenda
Over the years a number of scientists have done research into ice ages but quite clearly they were all wrong or were they unfortunately they didn't leave have any youtube channels and these days would probably not get an audience because their science an research would be suppressed in favour of the revenue generating "new" climate science that seems to ignore any cyclic climate pattern over many hundreds of thousands of years and perceives climate change as totally man and woman made juggernaut that we can reverse
If we had a reverse situation and the planets temperature was dropping how would the current climate science react to that, when the next ice age happens will the planet be populated like it is now
With regard to atmospheric gases the EU was looking to tax companies that use ethylene gas in their production processes for any increase in the level of ethylene gas in the atmosphere. the problem is ethylene is produced naturally by a lot of crops especially apples so a good crop of apples will push the level up but ethylene gas is used in a lot of the fruit ripening processes and once the ripening process is triggered the ethylene gas is vented to the atmosphere so how do you apportion the ethylene gas levels in the atmosphere against a notionally set reference
Yes climate change exists but the science needs to widen it's terms of reference and give us the bigger picture and instead of bullying and discriminating those who question it or want to debate it
What evidence do we absolutely have that reducing this that and the other will check climate temperature change or is it a Canute moment and we cannot really slow or stop climate change
@UNG , all your points have been considered and evaluated by climate scientists as part of a long running argument with the deniers. Google Exxon 'black ops' and then check how many of your sources of information can be traced back to fossil fuel companies. As far back as 1977 Exxon scientists concluded burning fossil fuels was causing global climate change, but then spent a fortune trying to smear their own science because it would affect their profits if we all moved away from fossil fuels....
Out of interest have you looked at any of the videos or other links I've posted?
Out of interest have you looked at any of the videos or other links I've posted?
Hi all
The real problem all scientists have is a suitable sample size for assessment. Whether you are for or against climate change science you need an appropriate sample size to be accurate.
300 years of data just isn’t sufficient to prove conclusively that climate change is happening and is man made.
Did anyone watch the Christmas lectures on channel four many years ago?
Scientists then used ice core samples that went back 100s of thousands of years to analyse trapped air bubble samples and proved that during some periods the CO2 content was much higher than it is today ( I believe the figure was as high as 3%)?
I’m not on either side when it comes to this subject.
Even Brian Cox was very careful when answering this question during an interview when he stated that the CONSENSUS of the majority of scientists agreed it was happening.
CONSENSUS isn’t science.
The real problem all scientists have is a suitable sample size for assessment. Whether you are for or against climate change science you need an appropriate sample size to be accurate.
300 years of data just isn’t sufficient to prove conclusively that climate change is happening and is man made.
Did anyone watch the Christmas lectures on channel four many years ago?
Scientists then used ice core samples that went back 100s of thousands of years to analyse trapped air bubble samples and proved that during some periods the CO2 content was much higher than it is today ( I believe the figure was as high as 3%)?
I’m not on either side when it comes to this subject.
Even Brian Cox was very careful when answering this question during an interview when he stated that the CONSENSUS of the majority of scientists agreed it was happening.
CONSENSUS isn’t science.
Consensus is exasctly how science works when predicting future events, only after predicitions have been made, and events monitored to see how good (or not) the predictions are, can anything be confirmed in science. And if they manage to come up with a formula that is accurate at prediction, confirmed by events, then it becomes a 'law'. If you have ever had, or know someone who has had cancer treatment, they consultants never talk about definete results, but most likely outcomes. Climate change was first assessed as being the result of burning fossil fuels back in 1977, by Exxon, who also coined the phrase 'Greenhouse gases'. They then spent a fortune discrediting their own science for financial gain and generally gaslighting the climate scientists.
Thing is, even if you don't believe it's man made, the simple fact is greener energy is now cheaper than oil and gas, so why not go green?
Incidentally, when CO2 was higher, you would not have wanted to be alive on this planet - have a watch of the first video I posted if you havn't already. It's a bit long, but covers that issue.
And that is exactly my point too. Scientists come up with a theory that may or may not be proven via a sufficient data sample. When talking about the climate of a planet the greater the percentage of the sample the more accurate the predictions are. A ten percent sample is much more accurate than a three percent sample.
Planetary weather is measured in thousands of years and according to these ice core samples the earths weather cycle is or has been for the last million years been 100,000 years.
Using a sample of 300 years is far too small a sample.
Even if you ignore the 100,000 years and use the current cycle of 10,000 years The sample size is still too small at 0.3 of one percent.
Think about the number of theories that have been proven wrong over the years
The earth is flat.
The earth is the centre of the universe.
Diesel engines are cleaner for the environment.
More recently Pluto was a dead rock with no internal activity.
This is why scientists always state that this “may result in” or this “might be the case”.
That is the nature of science. Nothing is proven until the data tells us otherwise.
Ask any space scientists and they will tell you this.
That said I wholeheartedly agree that if alternative resources are available which don’t have potentially harmful consequences we should be using them. I have invested in some of these alternatives myself.
But that can only be when the resources are available at an affordable price to all people and not just the wealthy. The idea that we can all afford to pay out 30k plus for a vehicle to get to and from work or indeed 18k to convert a
Home to a cheaper energy source is unachievable at this moment.
Planetary weather is measured in thousands of years and according to these ice core samples the earths weather cycle is or has been for the last million years been 100,000 years.
Using a sample of 300 years is far too small a sample.
Even if you ignore the 100,000 years and use the current cycle of 10,000 years The sample size is still too small at 0.3 of one percent.
Think about the number of theories that have been proven wrong over the years
The earth is flat.
The earth is the centre of the universe.
Diesel engines are cleaner for the environment.
More recently Pluto was a dead rock with no internal activity.
This is why scientists always state that this “may result in” or this “might be the case”.
That is the nature of science. Nothing is proven until the data tells us otherwise.
Ask any space scientists and they will tell you this.
That said I wholeheartedly agree that if alternative resources are available which don’t have potentially harmful consequences we should be using them. I have invested in some of these alternatives myself.
But that can only be when the resources are available at an affordable price to all people and not just the wealthy. The idea that we can all afford to pay out 30k plus for a vehicle to get to and from work or indeed 18k to convert a
Home to a cheaper energy source is unachievable at this moment.
Ice core samples give us data for 600,000 years. Then there's climate data from fossils and rocks going back millions of years. More recently, there's documented historical writings, and even indicators from paintings - weather effects from the Krakatoa volcano explosion can be seen in Turners paintings, all those rosy skies. We now have hundreds of satellites studying the earth to give us weather data, and computers capable of processing all the information that they gather. So how much data do you want? Link below explains a few things
https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/climate-data-primer/past-climate
Flat earthers - not science led nor earth being the centre of the universe. Scary bit is the increasing number if flat earthers that exist.
Diesels - government (bad) policy.
Pluto - increased scientific study has changed that view point, and it is a long, long way away, so you can forgive them for getting that wrong previously.
Affordability - again government policy needs to reflect the changes needed, like putting in more charge points, building wind turbines or nuclear etc etc. As with everything it will all come down in price, but as the current government seem to have lots of people on the fossil fuel payroll, and pander to the 'it's lefty woke nonsense' brigade, don't expect much to happen soon.
Climate change being man made is basically proven now, exactly what happens at 1/2/3C rise is still up for debate, and it's fair to say we can only really find out the hard way, when it's too late! In my own lifetime the weather has clearly changed a lot in a manner forecast 40 years ago, so we are seeing the first signs of the predictions made back then coming true, and vastly improved computing power, and understanding of climate, means todays predictions are far better than back then. NB The planet will survive either way, but it isn't good for human civlisation, and mitigating the damage will cost a damn site more than going green.
We burn 10 billion tons of fossil fuel every year, it's pretty obvious that's going to warm the planet, same as lighting a fire in your lounge will warm your house, never mind the other sources of climate change like deforestation, pollution, overpopulation and farming practices.
https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/climate-data-primer/past-climate
Flat earthers - not science led nor earth being the centre of the universe. Scary bit is the increasing number if flat earthers that exist.
Diesels - government (bad) policy.
Pluto - increased scientific study has changed that view point, and it is a long, long way away, so you can forgive them for getting that wrong previously.
Affordability - again government policy needs to reflect the changes needed, like putting in more charge points, building wind turbines or nuclear etc etc. As with everything it will all come down in price, but as the current government seem to have lots of people on the fossil fuel payroll, and pander to the 'it's lefty woke nonsense' brigade, don't expect much to happen soon.
Climate change being man made is basically proven now, exactly what happens at 1/2/3C rise is still up for debate, and it's fair to say we can only really find out the hard way, when it's too late! In my own lifetime the weather has clearly changed a lot in a manner forecast 40 years ago, so we are seeing the first signs of the predictions made back then coming true, and vastly improved computing power, and understanding of climate, means todays predictions are far better than back then. NB The planet will survive either way, but it isn't good for human civlisation, and mitigating the damage will cost a damn site more than going green.
We burn 10 billion tons of fossil fuel every year, it's pretty obvious that's going to warm the planet, same as lighting a fire in your lounge will warm your house, never mind the other sources of climate change like deforestation, pollution, overpopulation and farming practices.
Last edited:
Ice core samples from the Antarctic actually go back 800,000 years so it seems we are both wrong on that score.
My point about all of this discussion is to give an alternative view.
You say the historical data from all sources prove man made climate change. I read the article you linked to me with interest but it didn't convince me because The graphs only used data which went back to the mid 1750s? Or am I mis reading them.
The artical merely said how they interpret past measurements or analysed various elements to provide a picture of the weather at a particular moment in time and none of that proves conclusively that man made climate change exists?
It merely indicates that the majority of scientists have interpreted that data in that way.
Having been in the computer industry for some 50 years I know well how good computers are at getting things wrong. Garbage in garbage out comes to mind as a saying well used in the industry and let’s not forget the current Horizon scandal.
Why aren’t there alternative viewpoints.
Do 100% of scientists agree and if not why haven’t we heard from them.
Why is it that all scientists that work for a government have the same viewpoint?
Is there a political agenda to all this ?
While ever one side of the argument is being denied airtime and debate sceptical people like me will assume the worst ?
My point about all of this discussion is to give an alternative view.
You say the historical data from all sources prove man made climate change. I read the article you linked to me with interest but it didn't convince me because The graphs only used data which went back to the mid 1750s? Or am I mis reading them.
The artical merely said how they interpret past measurements or analysed various elements to provide a picture of the weather at a particular moment in time and none of that proves conclusively that man made climate change exists?
It merely indicates that the majority of scientists have interpreted that data in that way.
Having been in the computer industry for some 50 years I know well how good computers are at getting things wrong. Garbage in garbage out comes to mind as a saying well used in the industry and let’s not forget the current Horizon scandal.
Why aren’t there alternative viewpoints.
Do 100% of scientists agree and if not why haven’t we heard from them.
Why is it that all scientists that work for a government have the same viewpoint?
Is there a political agenda to all this ?
While ever one side of the argument is being denied airtime and debate sceptical people like me will assume the worst ?
my memory isn't as good as it used to be
No, not the historical sources, they give evidence for the general trends that be linked to CO2 from core samples, so give evidence for the 'base line' or normal CO2 trends. 1750 is important as that is basically the start of the industrial revolution, and mass burning of fossil fuels such as coal, as well as population starting to grow faster. If you look at the CO2 charts, you will see this correlates with an unnatural rise in CO2 levels, taking us to where we are now, 50% higher than normal. Funny thing is, no one mentions water vapour in the atmosphere, which is also an important part of the greenhouse effect, 1C allows the atmosphere to hold 7% more water vapour, hence the wettest winter since 1903 (dont quote me on that date, but there abouts), which also raises temperatures further, but there's little we can do about that other than reduce global temperatures to reduce water vapour in the atmospehere.
that is just an article about historical climate sources, it's another fave argument that nobody really knows what the climate was like x years ago.
The current concensus is that around 80% are convinced (some quote higher figures) climate change is man made. Some still argue it's natural / or not an issue, but then try to get 80% concensus on some of the discussions on here, there's always someone with a contrary opinion. That's just people
. Most of the denier types are funded by the fossil fuel industry, so get a bigger voice than they truly deserve, and I havn't seen any win an argument yet, so they are slowly being sidelined an ignored, except by conspiracy theory types and right wing press. Even Stephen McIntyre, who caused the whole 'climate gate scandal' has been recorded saying climate change is happening, not sure if anyone has got him to admit it's man made, but then he used to be CEO of an OIl and gas company, so no surprise there then!. Link to climate gate below.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
Yep, to err is human, to foul things up completely needs a computer.
You must also have seen how much better computer modelling has become, and it's continueing to evolve all the time. Wetaher modeeling must be relativeky accurate as you only have to wait a day or two to confirm the predictions.
there have been lots, and they have been proven wrong. This link gives a short version of most of the various arguments https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
they got fed up of argueing with idiots - I'm not joking about that. Here in Plymouth we have a Marine Biology unit, some of the staff I've done work for. They now work on the basis the majortity believe the science, and cant be arsed to continually argue with deniers. It's a waste of their efforts when they could be doing something more useful like planning for the future. Just look how many people still believe the earth is flat, or alien lizards rule the earth...
Not sure they do, you would have to find out who they all are. The arguments have moved on from if it's man made to how to deal with it, and politicians are not scientists, trouble is they suffer from lobbying from fossil fuel industries, and lots of other wealthy types, which skews a lot of things. We do need to be wary of things like Hydrogen, expensive, and Carbon capture, also very expensive, but the sort of tech large corporations are trying to lobby the guv into to spending large amounts of money on.
Everything is political. The right wing hate the idea of state intervention, which climate change requires us to do to make fast enough changes - stops them making money. This is one of my fave arguments, why would you listen to a billionare who doesn't give a damn about you instead of a climate scientist who does? As for the debates, you missed them years ago. Not so much on TV but amoungst scientists and on line. The deniers have had far more airtime than they deserve, purely because of the fossil fuel money feeding them, and just put the solutions back decades, meaning it will all cost more and be a harsher transition.
You can go read some of the arguements if you like, but quite frankly unless you are a climate expert you would not understand some of the things they talk about, and nor do I, same as my customers don't understand BS7671.
There is a very large "consensus" that the only god is Allah. That does not mean that it is true, or that those that would not agree are idiots, misinformed, or "deniers"
john..
john..
BINKY,
You seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about global warming and seem to hold the view that people who disagree are idiots / deniers etc (as can be seen in this thread). For me, I'm not 100% in agreement that it's man made, the video's were certainly thought provoking. If you are a true believer in the science etc, why are you still driving an ICE vehicle and using a log burning stove (IIRC on this)?
You seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about global warming and seem to hold the view that people who disagree are idiots / deniers etc (as can be seen in this thread). For me, I'm not 100% in agreement that it's man made, the video's were certainly thought provoking. If you are a true believer in the science etc, why are you still driving an ICE vehicle and using a log burning stove (IIRC on this)?
Not amongst climate scientists there isn't, and Islam represents only 25% of the world populatio
.If you don't believe what I'm saying, then once again, I challenge you to prove me wrong with climate science to back your viewpoint.
Last edited:
I have not called anyone an idiot, with the amount of fossil fuel sponsored BS that's been floating around for decades, I'm not surprised people have been mislead. That has been the whole point of the black ops campaign. And yes, I do give a **** about the future if the planet.
ICE, an old car is still greener than any new vehicle, plus nowhere to plug it in as I live in a terrace, plus the most efficient thing you can do is walk, cycle or catch a bus, plus I don't have the money! The car hardly gets used, so when it does eventually die we will look an EV then.
Wood, CO2 cycle 40 years, so regarded as carbon neutral, and far better than te open coal fireplaces our house was built with. What I really need is external cladding to improve the thermal properties.
There's also an element of being pragmatic rather than overzealous about the whole issue. As I've said many times before, I ve been following climate change since about 1984, long before the black ops started, and it's plain obvious to me that our western lifestyle is unsustainable. I went into solar for this very reason, and it's why I have freely given do much advice about solar on here. If you respect my knowledge on solar, why not climate change?
However, I've also concluded that **** all will change until it's too late, so I might as well just get on with life...
Mmmm, sorry, I think you did or you inferred that "they got fed up of argueing with idiots"
Thats the kind of problem though, youre banging the drum that we should be doing sometheing / doing more but then say the above statement.
Log burners produce 465 times more toxic air pollution than gas boilers, They’ve been banned from new and refurbished homes in London, More Brits support a ban on log burners than oppose it. Log burners, also known as wood-burning stoves, seem like they should be sustainable – but they’re not, they produce extremely high levels of toxic air pollution, and reduce the number of CO2-reducing trees in the world. The CO2-absorbing powers of these trees can’t be replaced for at least 10 years, and often not for 40 years.
Then do something about it IF youre really troubled where were going.
I absolutely respect your knowledge of solar but I'm unsure of your knowledge on climate change, I feel it's more of an opinion that true first hand knowledge and experience. I suspect that whilst you have had the green aspect of solar in mind, the prime reason is most likely earning potential.I went into solar for this very reason, and it's why I have freely given do much advice about solar on here. If you respect my knowledge on solar, why not climate change?
Necessity is the mother of invention, mankind is bloody clever at sorting issues and this will be no different, we will find a way.
My reply to you previously is a little tongue in cheek to provoke you into action, sorry
J
Gentlemen, you both have an opinion, just don't make it too personal. May be time for a
Last edited:
My personnal circumstances dictate what I have done and how far I've taken it. Trying to make a Victorian terrace house greener is like trying to make a silk purse from a sows ear, and very frustrating!But my house is better than it was when I bough it, and far from ideal. What I really need is cheaper electric to make installing ASHP viable, and that can only really come from government action. However, all that is a side track from the main argument about climate change, so I will say to you also, show me the scientific evidence that climate change is not man made.
NB, it's fair to say I know more about solar, it was my living for 10 years, same as climate scientists know far more about the climate than I do, as it's their job to study such things, like wise medical staff know far more about how my body works etc etc
NB, it's fair to say I know more about solar, it was my living for 10 years, same as climate scientists know far more about the climate than I do, as it's their job to study such things, like wise medical staff know far more about how my body works etc etc
