Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So in the latest blow to the UK's single handed attempt to fight the "climate crisis", it seems that the rollout of smart meters isn't going so well. Cost so far £13 billion, only 56% take up, millions of them don't work, years behind schedule. In Scotland, after endless delays, the Green/SNP flagship Deposit Return Scheme gets scrapped, costing businesses an estimated £300 million in wasted costs. The UK's absurd foray into extremist globalist eco lunacy is fast unravelling. As usual Net Zero has turned into an opportunity for Big Government, Big Corporates, and the odd chancer who set up an eco business in their spare barn yesterday afternoon, to skim more cash out of the public, and make their lives worse and poorer. " I have a smart meter, it works really well  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So in the latest blow to the UK's single handed attempt to fight the "climate crisis", it seems that the rollout of smart meters isn't going so well. Cost so far £13 billion, only 56% take up, millions of them don't work, years behind schedule. In Scotland, after endless delays, the Green/SNP flagship Deposit Return Scheme gets scrapped, costing businesses an estimated £300 million in wasted costs. The UK's absurd foray into extremist globalist eco lunacy is fast unravelling. As usual Net Zero has turned into an opportunity for Big Government, Big Corporates, and the odd chancer who set up an eco business in their spare barn yesterday afternoon, to skim more cash out of the public, and make their lives worse and poorer. " do no other countries do deposit return schemes ? I always thought they were fairly common... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So in the latest blow to the UK's single handed attempt to fight the "climate crisis", it seems that the rollout of smart meters isn't going so well. Cost so far £13 billion, only 56% take up, millions of them don't work, years behind schedule. In Scotland, after endless delays, the Green/SNP flagship Deposit Return Scheme gets scrapped, costing businesses an estimated £300 million in wasted costs. The UK's absurd foray into extremist globalist eco lunacy is fast unravelling. As usual Net Zero has turned into an opportunity for Big Government, Big Corporates, and the odd chancer who set up an eco business in their spare barn yesterday afternoon, to skim more cash out of the public, and make their lives worse and poorer. do no other countries do deposit return schemes ? I always thought they were fairly common..." They do exist but I wouldn't say common. In Germany 7c on glass bottles and 25c on plastic. Result, very rare to see a discarded one. In Spain no deposit scheme. Result, bottles abandoned all over the place. (although they did have one in Franco's days. Progress Eh!) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you know the real reason for low take up of smart meters? It gives power to the utility company to cut you off remotely at will. Late paying your bill? Struggling?" Target of end 2024 for all homes to have smart meters. RTS meter signal being switched off end march 2024, which will force more households onto smart meters. As noted the companies can remotely easily control supply. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you know the real reason for low take up of smart meters? It gives power to the utility company to cut you off remotely at will. Late paying your bill? Struggling?" I dont think they can just cut you off at will. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle." Do we ‘know’ what the earth can handle? Because climate scientists are probably a fairly reliable source for this, and they *overwhelmingly* think we’re on the brink. I tend to trust experts, but I’m old fashioned like that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never took up a smart meter. To me it's pointless. I dont mind taking my meter reading and submitting it. I know 1 or 2 people who were submitting lower readings. While the cost of gas and electricity was high. Who will do a "catch up" reading when it's lower. A smart meter wouldn't allow this Sadly a great many eco schemes are just a waste of time. much like a kot fo recycling never ends up getting recycled but out in landfills or sent abroad. I'm not entirely sure what people think the disaster will be of climate change. The earth's climate changes, whether its el nino,ice ages, maunder min/max. Life has always "found a way" given the extremes of the eocene era. Indont get the worry. I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle." I don't think that it is "worry" as such. Yes the climate does seem to be changing and I'm sure that human activity is contributing to it. There are many things we can do to clean up our act and I would support many of them. However I would replace worry with hysteria. A hysteria that is being whipped up by hard left anarchists that see it as just another bandwagon to jump on and cause trouble. The main problem is that virtue signalling politicians (of all parties) have jumped on the same bandwagon. What else could cause supposedly intelligent people to think that zero carbon on a small lump of rock in the north Atlantic will change anything on a worldwide scale? Meanwhile we are burdening British industry (what's left of it) with higher and higher costs while at the same time importing what that industry should be making from the worlds biggest polluter. Halo's well and truly polished, jobs and wealth exported, and virtue imported by the ton. Oh! And China laughing all the way to the bank. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never took up a smart meter. To me it's pointless. I dont mind taking my meter reading and submitting it. I know 1 or 2 people who were submitting lower readings. While the cost of gas and electricity was high. Who will do a "catch up" reading when it's lower. A smart meter wouldn't allow this Sadly a great many eco schemes are just a waste of time. much like a kot fo recycling never ends up getting recycled but out in landfills or sent abroad. I'm not entirely sure what people think the disaster will be of climate change. The earth's climate changes, whether its el nino,ice ages, maunder min/max. Life has always "found a way" given the extremes of the eocene era. Indont get the worry. I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. I don't think that it is "worry" as such. Yes the climate does seem to be changing and I'm sure that human activity is contributing to it. There are many things we can do to clean up our act and I would support many of them. However I would replace worry with hysteria. A hysteria that is being whipped up by hard left anarchists that see it as just another bandwagon to jump on and cause trouble. The main problem is that virtue signalling politicians (of all parties) have jumped on the same bandwagon. What else could cause supposedly intelligent people to think that zero carbon on a small lump of rock in the north Atlantic will change anything on a worldwide scale? Meanwhile we are burdening British industry (what's left of it) with higher and higher costs while at the same time importing what that industry should be making from the worlds biggest polluter. Halo's well and truly polished, jobs and wealth exported, and virtue imported by the ton. Oh! And China laughing all the way to the bank. " China is one of the world’s largest investors in renewables. Climate change is a global problem, and it’s unwise to sit around saying ‘we’ll do something about it when they do’ I thought we were meant to be a world leading nation? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. Do we ‘know’ what the earth can handle? Because climate scientists are probably a fairly reliable source for this, and they *overwhelmingly* think we’re on the brink. I tend to trust experts, but I’m old fashioned like that. " That would depend on whether or not those "experts" have an agenda. They've already been caught with their fingers in the till once. False computer models. Who knows what bullshit they are feeding us now? Funding is a very important aspect of "science" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. Do we ‘know’ what the earth can handle? Because climate scientists are probably a fairly reliable source for this, and they *overwhelmingly* think we’re on the brink. I tend to trust experts, but I’m old fashioned like that. That would depend on whether or not those "experts" have an agenda. They've already been caught with their fingers in the till once. False computer models. Who knows what bullshit they are feeding us now? Funding is a very important aspect of "science"" When the science is as aligned as it is with climate change it’s highly unlikely that there’s an agenda. And if there’s science out there that clearly disproves the man-made climate change model, wouldn’t the powerful fossil fuel companies be all over it like a rash? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never took up a smart meter. To me it's pointless. I dont mind taking my meter reading and submitting it. I know 1 or 2 people who were submitting lower readings. While the cost of gas and electricity was high. Who will do a "catch up" reading when it's lower. A smart meter wouldn't allow this Sadly a great many eco schemes are just a waste of time. much like a kot fo recycling never ends up getting recycled but out in landfills or sent abroad. I'm not entirely sure what people think the disaster will be of climate change. The earth's climate changes, whether its el nino,ice ages, maunder min/max. Life has always "found a way" given the extremes of the eocene era. Indont get the worry. I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. I don't think that it is "worry" as such. Yes the climate does seem to be changing and I'm sure that human activity is contributing to it. There are many things we can do to clean up our act and I would support many of them. However I would replace worry with hysteria. A hysteria that is being whipped up by hard left anarchists that see it as just another bandwagon to jump on and cause trouble. The main problem is that virtue signalling politicians (of all parties) have jumped on the same bandwagon. What else could cause supposedly intelligent people to think that zero carbon on a small lump of rock in the north Atlantic will change anything on a worldwide scale? Meanwhile we are burdening British industry (what's left of it) with higher and higher costs while at the same time importing what that industry should be making from the worlds biggest polluter. Halo's well and truly polished, jobs and wealth exported, and virtue imported by the ton. Oh! And China laughing all the way to the bank. China is one of the world’s largest investors in renewables. Climate change is a global problem, and it’s unwise to sit around saying ‘we’ll do something about it when they do’ I thought we were meant to be a world leading nation? " "Do something about it" is one thing. Grinding the economy into the dirt and putting a huge chunk of the population into fuel poverty is a completely different matter. BTW China is also THE biggest investor in coal fired power stations, and as an aside with coal imported from North Korea. Without Chinese coal money NK wouldn't be developing atom bombs. More likely it would be trying to perfect bow and arrow technology. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never took up a smart meter. To me it's pointless. I dont mind taking my meter reading and submitting it. I know 1 or 2 people who were submitting lower readings. While the cost of gas and electricity was high. Who will do a "catch up" reading when it's lower. A smart meter wouldn't allow this Sadly a great many eco schemes are just a waste of time. much like a kot fo recycling never ends up getting recycled but out in landfills or sent abroad. I'm not entirely sure what people think the disaster will be of climate change. The earth's climate changes, whether its el nino,ice ages, maunder min/max. Life has always "found a way" given the extremes of the eocene era. Indont get the worry. I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. I don't think that it is "worry" as such. Yes the climate does seem to be changing and I'm sure that human activity is contributing to it. There are many things we can do to clean up our act and I would support many of them. However I would replace worry with hysteria. A hysteria that is being whipped up by hard left anarchists that see it as just another bandwagon to jump on and cause trouble. The main problem is that virtue signalling politicians (of all parties) have jumped on the same bandwagon. What else could cause supposedly intelligent people to think that zero carbon on a small lump of rock in the north Atlantic will change anything on a worldwide scale? Meanwhile we are burdening British industry (what's left of it) with higher and higher costs while at the same time importing what that industry should be making from the worlds biggest polluter. Halo's well and truly polished, jobs and wealth exported, and virtue imported by the ton. Oh! And China laughing all the way to the bank. China is one of the world’s largest investors in renewables. Climate change is a global problem, and it’s unwise to sit around saying ‘we’ll do something about it when they do’ I thought we were meant to be a world leading nation? " China is one of the 'world's largest investors' in many industries but unfortunately when it comes to energy, it doesn't mean much. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. Do we ‘know’ what the earth can handle? Because climate scientists are probably a fairly reliable source for this, and they *overwhelmingly* think we’re on the brink. I tend to trust experts, but I’m old fashioned like that. That would depend on whether or not those "experts" have an agenda. They've already been caught with their fingers in the till once. False computer models. Who knows what bullshit they are feeding us now? Funding is a very important aspect of "science"" interesting. Can you link to examples of fingers in the till ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never took up a smart meter. To me it's pointless. I dont mind taking my meter reading and submitting it. I know 1 or 2 people who were submitting lower readings. While the cost of gas and electricity was high. Who will do a "catch up" reading when it's lower. A smart meter wouldn't allow this Sadly a great many eco schemes are just a waste of time. much like a kot fo recycling never ends up getting recycled but out in landfills or sent abroad. I'm not entirely sure what people think the disaster will be of climate change. The earth's climate changes, whether its el nino,ice ages, maunder min/max. Life has always "found a way" given the extremes of the eocene era. Indont get the worry. I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. I don't think that it is "worry" as such. Yes the climate does seem to be changing and I'm sure that human activity is contributing to it. There are many things we can do to clean up our act and I would support many of them. However I would replace worry with hysteria. A hysteria that is being whipped up by hard left anarchists that see it as just another bandwagon to jump on and cause trouble. The main problem is that virtue signalling politicians (of all parties) have jumped on the same bandwagon. What else could cause supposedly intelligent people to think that zero carbon on a small lump of rock in the north Atlantic will change anything on a worldwide scale? Meanwhile we are burdening British industry (what's left of it) with higher and higher costs while at the same time importing what that industry should be making from the worlds biggest polluter. Halo's well and truly polished, jobs and wealth exported, and virtue imported by the ton. Oh! And China laughing all the way to the bank. China is one of the world’s largest investors in renewables. Climate change is a global problem, and it’s unwise to sit around saying ‘we’ll do something about it when they do’ I thought we were meant to be a world leading nation? "Do something about it" is one thing. Grinding the economy into the dirt and putting a huge chunk of the population into fuel poverty is a completely different matter. BTW China is also THE biggest investor in coal fired power stations, and as an aside with coal imported from North Korea. Without Chinese coal money NK wouldn't be developing atom bombs. More likely it would be trying to perfect bow and arrow technology." Renewables are the future. Correct investment would do the opposite of grinding the economy into the dirt. It would create wealth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. Do we ‘know’ what the earth can handle? Because climate scientists are probably a fairly reliable source for this, and they *overwhelmingly* think we’re on the brink. I tend to trust experts, but I’m old fashioned like that. That would depend on whether or not those "experts" have an agenda. They've already been caught with their fingers in the till once. False computer models. Who knows what bullshit they are feeding us now? Funding is a very important aspect of "science" interesting. Can you link to examples of fingers in the till ?" Getting the popcorn ready. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never took up a smart meter. To me it's pointless. I dont mind taking my meter reading and submitting it. I know 1 or 2 people who were submitting lower readings. While the cost of gas and electricity was high. Who will do a "catch up" reading when it's lower. A smart meter wouldn't allow this Sadly a great many eco schemes are just a waste of time. much like a kot fo recycling never ends up getting recycled but out in landfills or sent abroad. I'm not entirely sure what people think the disaster will be of climate change. The earth's climate changes, whether its el nino,ice ages, maunder min/max. Life has always "found a way" given the extremes of the eocene era. Indont get the worry. I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. I don't think that it is "worry" as such. Yes the climate does seem to be changing and I'm sure that human activity is contributing to it. There are many things we can do to clean up our act and I would support many of them. However I would replace worry with hysteria. A hysteria that is being whipped up by hard left anarchists that see it as just another bandwagon to jump on and cause trouble. The main problem is that virtue signalling politicians (of all parties) have jumped on the same bandwagon. What else could cause supposedly intelligent people to think that zero carbon on a small lump of rock in the north Atlantic will change anything on a worldwide scale? Meanwhile we are burdening British industry (what's left of it) with higher and higher costs while at the same time importing what that industry should be making from the worlds biggest polluter. Halo's well and truly polished, jobs and wealth exported, and virtue imported by the ton. Oh! And China laughing all the way to the bank. China is one of the world’s largest investors in renewables. Climate change is a global problem, and it’s unwise to sit around saying ‘we’ll do something about it when they do’ I thought we were meant to be a world leading nation? "Do something about it" is one thing. Grinding the economy into the dirt and putting a huge chunk of the population into fuel poverty is a completely different matter. BTW China is also THE biggest investor in coal fired power stations, and as an aside with coal imported from North Korea. Without Chinese coal money NK wouldn't be developing atom bombs. More likely it would be trying to perfect bow and arrow technology. Renewables are the future. Correct investment would do the opposite of grinding the economy into the dirt. It would create wealth." By "investment" you mean spending taxed or borrowed money, at taxpayers' expense. We keep on being told that so-called "green" policies (which are often anything but green) are going to "create wealth" but simply repeating these mantras doesn't actually make them true. I see no sign that any green policies are making me richer. They just seem to be transferring my money to energy companies, car manufacturers, the State etc etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. Do we ‘know’ what the earth can handle? Because climate scientists are probably a fairly reliable source for this, and they *overwhelmingly* think we’re on the brink. I tend to trust experts, but I’m old fashioned like that. That would depend on whether or not those "experts" have an agenda. They've already been caught with their fingers in the till once. False computer models. Who knows what bullshit they are feeding us now? Funding is a very important aspect of "science" When the science is as aligned as it is with climate change it’s highly unlikely that there’s an agenda. And if there’s science out there that clearly disproves the man-made climate change model, wouldn’t the powerful fossil fuel companies be all over it like a rash? " They have no need to. The scientists seem to be doing it for them. The NCAR in the US has already admitted that their computer just isn't powerful enough for accurate predictions. That is the inconvenient truth about science. It can never be "settled" (as one politician famously said) Science by its very nature is to question everything, and those questions are still being asked. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never took up a smart meter. To me it's pointless. I dont mind taking my meter reading and submitting it. I know 1 or 2 people who were submitting lower readings. While the cost of gas and electricity was high. Who will do a "catch up" reading when it's lower. A smart meter wouldn't allow this Sadly a great many eco schemes are just a waste of time. much like a kot fo recycling never ends up getting recycled but out in landfills or sent abroad. I'm not entirely sure what people think the disaster will be of climate change. The earth's climate changes, whether its el nino,ice ages, maunder min/max. Life has always "found a way" given the extremes of the eocene era. Indont get the worry. I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. I don't think that it is "worry" as such. Yes the climate does seem to be changing and I'm sure that human activity is contributing to it. There are many things we can do to clean up our act and I would support many of them. However I would replace worry with hysteria. A hysteria that is being whipped up by hard left anarchists that see it as just another bandwagon to jump on and cause trouble. The main problem is that virtue signalling politicians (of all parties) have jumped on the same bandwagon. What else could cause supposedly intelligent people to think that zero carbon on a small lump of rock in the north Atlantic will change anything on a worldwide scale? Meanwhile we are burdening British industry (what's left of it) with higher and higher costs while at the same time importing what that industry should be making from the worlds biggest polluter. Halo's well and truly polished, jobs and wealth exported, and virtue imported by the ton. Oh! And China laughing all the way to the bank. China is one of the world’s largest investors in renewables. Climate change is a global problem, and it’s unwise to sit around saying ‘we’ll do something about it when they do’ I thought we were meant to be a world leading nation? "Do something about it" is one thing. Grinding the economy into the dirt and putting a huge chunk of the population into fuel poverty is a completely different matter. BTW China is also THE biggest investor in coal fired power stations, and as an aside with coal imported from North Korea. Without Chinese coal money NK wouldn't be developing atom bombs. More likely it would be trying to perfect bow and arrow technology. Renewables are the future. Correct investment would do the opposite of grinding the economy into the dirt. It would create wealth. By "investment" you mean spending taxed or borrowed money, at taxpayers' expense. We keep on being told that so-called "green" policies (which are often anything but green) are going to "create wealth" but simply repeating these mantras doesn't actually make them true. I see no sign that any green policies are making me richer. They just seem to be transferring my money to energy companies, car manufacturers, the State etc etc." I believe I used the word ‘correct’ in there. Let’s look at this objectively - 98% of science is in agreement about climate change, the future is renewable. These are facts. If thee was any doubt about the imminent need for drastic change, would anyone plough any money into that change? And yet investment in said renewables is at an all-time high. Why is that? Are investors in-hoc to the lefties and anarchists? Or do they perhaps realise/accept the future? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. Do we ‘know’ what the earth can handle? Because climate scientists are probably a fairly reliable source for this, and they *overwhelmingly* think we’re on the brink. I tend to trust experts, but I’m old fashioned like that. That would depend on whether or not those "experts" have an agenda. They've already been caught with their fingers in the till once. False computer models. Who knows what bullshit they are feeding us now? Funding is a very important aspect of "science" When the science is as aligned as it is with climate change it’s highly unlikely that there’s an agenda. And if there’s science out there that clearly disproves the man-made climate change model, wouldn’t the powerful fossil fuel companies be all over it like a rash? They have no need to. The scientists seem to be doing it for them. The NCAR in the US has already admitted that their computer just isn't powerful enough for accurate predictions. That is the inconvenient truth about science. It can never be "settled" (as one politician famously said) Science by its very nature is to question everything, and those questions are still being asked." 98% correlation amongst climate science experts. For comparison, there’s more people who believe the earth is flat than deny climate change. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. Do we ‘know’ what the earth can handle? Because climate scientists are probably a fairly reliable source for this, and they *overwhelmingly* think we’re on the brink. I tend to trust experts, but I’m old fashioned like that. That would depend on whether or not those "experts" have an agenda. They've already been caught with their fingers in the till once. False computer models. Who knows what bullshit they are feeding us now? Funding is a very important aspect of "science" interesting. Can you link to examples of fingers in the till ? Getting the popcorn ready. " Link I would have to look for (it was a good few years ago) but a computer model from (I think) Cambridge that the UK government was not only funding but relying on for forecasts was called out as total guesswork. It took a while but they eventually admitted their guilt. It was well reported at the time (10/12 years ago ish) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. Do we ‘know’ what the earth can handle? Because climate scientists are probably a fairly reliable source for this, and they *overwhelmingly* think we’re on the brink. I tend to trust experts, but I’m old fashioned like that. That would depend on whether or not those "experts" have an agenda. They've already been caught with their fingers in the till once. False computer models. Who knows what bullshit they are feeding us now? Funding is a very important aspect of "science" When the science is as aligned as it is with climate change it’s highly unlikely that there’s an agenda. And if there’s science out there that clearly disproves the man-made climate change model, wouldn’t the powerful fossil fuel companies be all over it like a rash? They have no need to. The scientists seem to be doing it for them. The NCAR in the US has already admitted that their computer just isn't powerful enough for accurate predictions. That is the inconvenient truth about science. It can never be "settled" (as one politician famously said) Science by its very nature is to question everything, and those questions are still being asked. 98% correlation amongst climate science experts. For comparison, there’s more people who believe the earth is flat than deny climate change. " Nobody is denying climate change. Least of all me. However I will always question the hysteria and motives of the eco mob. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have a basic thought process on climate change. Recycling is good. Cleaner vehicles are good. Eating less meat is good. Investment in renewables is good. Job creation in new technologies is good. Having a broader range of energy sources is good. All of those things make our environment (locally as well as globally) more pleasant. There’s really no environmental argument about not making changes. There *may* be an economic argument against making changes, but it’s one that will be lost as renewables become the norm. " No real argument with most of that. The only area where we differ is that I think there is a strong economic argument for not doing too much too fast. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. Do we ‘know’ what the earth can handle? Because climate scientists are probably a fairly reliable source for this, and they *overwhelmingly* think we’re on the brink. I tend to trust experts, but I’m old fashioned like that. " Yes we do. The earth has been uo to several degrees hotter than now and supported life easily. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never took up a smart meter. To me it's pointless. I dont mind taking my meter reading and submitting it. I know 1 or 2 people who were submitting lower readings. While the cost of gas and electricity was high. Who will do a "catch up" reading when it's lower. A smart meter wouldn't allow this Sadly a great many eco schemes are just a waste of time. much like a kot fo recycling never ends up getting recycled but out in landfills or sent abroad. I'm not entirely sure what people think the disaster will be of climate change. The earth's climate changes, whether its el nino,ice ages, maunder min/max. Life has always "found a way" given the extremes of the eocene era. Indont get the worry. I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. I don't think that it is "worry" as such. Yes the climate does seem to be changing and I'm sure that human activity is contributing to it. There are many things we can do to clean up our act and I would support many of them. However I would replace worry with hysteria. A hysteria that is being whipped up by hard left anarchists that see it as just another bandwagon to jump on and cause trouble. The main problem is that virtue signalling politicians (of all parties) have jumped on the same bandwagon. What else could cause supposedly intelligent people to think that zero carbon on a small lump of rock in the north Atlantic will change anything on a worldwide scale? Meanwhile we are burdening British industry (what's left of it) with higher and higher costs while at the same time importing what that industry should be making from the worlds biggest polluter. Halo's well and truly polished, jobs and wealth exported, and virtue imported by the ton. Oh! And China laughing all the way to the bank. China is one of the world’s largest investors in renewables. Climate change is a global problem, and it’s unwise to sit around saying ‘we’ll do something about it when they do’ I thought we were meant to be a world leading nation? "Do something about it" is one thing. Grinding the economy into the dirt and putting a huge chunk of the population into fuel poverty is a completely different matter. BTW China is also THE biggest investor in coal fired power stations, and as an aside with coal imported from North Korea. Without Chinese coal money NK wouldn't be developing atom bombs. More likely it would be trying to perfect bow and arrow technology. Renewables are the future. Correct investment would do the opposite of grinding the economy into the dirt. It would create wealth. By "investment" you mean spending taxed or borrowed money, at taxpayers' expense. We keep on being told that so-called "green" policies (which are often anything but green) are going to "create wealth" but simply repeating these mantras doesn't actually make them true. I see no sign that any green policies are making me richer. They just seem to be transferring my money to energy companies, car manufacturers, the State etc etc. I believe I used the word ‘correct’ in there. Let’s look at this objectively - 98% of science is in agreement about climate change, the future is renewable. These are facts. If thee was any doubt about the imminent need for drastic change, would anyone plough any money into that change? And yet investment in said renewables is at an all-time high. Why is that? Are investors in-hoc to the lefties and anarchists? Or do they perhaps realise/accept the future? " O8% of scientists agree. Where is your backing of this claim? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. Do we ‘know’ what the earth can handle? Because climate scientists are probably a fairly reliable source for this, and they *overwhelmingly* think we’re on the brink. I tend to trust experts, but I’m old fashioned like that. Yes we do. The earth has been uo to several degrees hotter than now and supported life easily." other than the heat what were the conditions like ? I don't think many are saying life will die out. But there will be far reaching consequences. Would the current way of living be sustainable? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never took up a smart meter. To me it's pointless. I dont mind taking my meter reading and submitting it. I know 1 or 2 people who were submitting lower readings. While the cost of gas and electricity was high. Who will do a "catch up" reading when it's lower. A smart meter wouldn't allow this Sadly a great many eco schemes are just a waste of time. much like a kot fo recycling never ends up getting recycled but out in landfills or sent abroad. I'm not entirely sure what people think the disaster will be of climate change. The earth's climate changes, whether its el nino,ice ages, maunder min/max. Life has always "found a way" given the extremes of the eocene era. Indont get the worry. I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. I don't think that it is "worry" as such. Yes the climate does seem to be changing and I'm sure that human activity is contributing to it. There are many things we can do to clean up our act and I would support many of them. However I would replace worry with hysteria. A hysteria that is being whipped up by hard left anarchists that see it as just another bandwagon to jump on and cause trouble. The main problem is that virtue signalling politicians (of all parties) have jumped on the same bandwagon. What else could cause supposedly intelligent people to think that zero carbon on a small lump of rock in the north Atlantic will change anything on a worldwide scale? Meanwhile we are burdening British industry (what's left of it) with higher and higher costs while at the same time importing what that industry should be making from the worlds biggest polluter. Halo's well and truly polished, jobs and wealth exported, and virtue imported by the ton. Oh! And China laughing all the way to the bank. China is one of the world’s largest investors in renewables. Climate change is a global problem, and it’s unwise to sit around saying ‘we’ll do something about it when they do’ I thought we were meant to be a world leading nation? "Do something about it" is one thing. Grinding the economy into the dirt and putting a huge chunk of the population into fuel poverty is a completely different matter. BTW China is also THE biggest investor in coal fired power stations, and as an aside with coal imported from North Korea. Without Chinese coal money NK wouldn't be developing atom bombs. More likely it would be trying to perfect bow and arrow technology. Renewables are the future. Correct investment would do the opposite of grinding the economy into the dirt. It would create wealth. By "investment" you mean spending taxed or borrowed money, at taxpayers' expense. We keep on being told that so-called "green" policies (which are often anything but green) are going to "create wealth" but simply repeating these mantras doesn't actually make them true. I see no sign that any green policies are making me richer. They just seem to be transferring my money to energy companies, car manufacturers, the State etc etc. I believe I used the word ‘correct’ in there. Let’s look at this objectively - 98% of science is in agreement about climate change, the future is renewable. These are facts. If thee was any doubt about the imminent need for drastic change, would anyone plough any money into that change? And yet investment in said renewables is at an all-time high. Why is that? Are investors in-hoc to the lefties and anarchists? Or do they perhaps realise/accept the future? " I think you make a leap that a lot of people make, from believing that climate change is man made, to assuming therefore that a particular set of policies automatically flows from that assumption. It's perfectly possible to agree that people have any impact on climate, but not agree on the necessary response to it. The UK government tells me, for example, that I should buy a Tesla to combat climate change. But do I believe that buying a Tesla will impact the climate 1,000 years from now? No I don't. And neither will every person in the UK buying a Tesla impact the climate 1,000 years from now. All it will do is transfer my money to a large car corporation and its Chinese contractors. Which is what much of the climate scam is doing, simply transferring Western money to China. When you talk about wealth creation, the major beneficiary of Net Zero is going to be China, funded in part through its massive use of coal. But fine, if driving a Tesla makes you feel better. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have a basic thought process on climate change. Recycling is good. Cleaner vehicles are good. Eating less meat is good. Investment in renewables is good. Job creation in new technologies is good. Having a broader range of energy sources is good. All of those things make our environment (locally as well as globally) more pleasant. There’s really no environmental argument about not making changes. There *may* be an economic argument against making changes, but it’s one that will be lost as renewables become the norm. No real argument with most of that. The only area where we differ is that I think there is a strong economic argument for not doing too much too fast. " The longer we leave it to take action the more costly it will be for the UK as we get left behind, plays catch up, and for example, stays dependent on the ever increasing prices for fossil fuels. Plus not to mention the need for taking action is pretty urgent to combat climate change. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never took up a smart meter. To me it's pointless. I dont mind taking my meter reading and submitting it. I know 1 or 2 people who were submitting lower readings. While the cost of gas and electricity was high. Who will do a "catch up" reading when it's lower. A smart meter wouldn't allow this Sadly a great many eco schemes are just a waste of time. much like a kot fo recycling never ends up getting recycled but out in landfills or sent abroad. I'm not entirely sure what people think the disaster will be of climate change. The earth's climate changes, whether its el nino,ice ages, maunder min/max. Life has always "found a way" given the extremes of the eocene era. Indont get the worry. I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. I don't think that it is "worry" as such. Yes the climate does seem to be changing and I'm sure that human activity is contributing to it. There are many things we can do to clean up our act and I would support many of them. However I would replace worry with hysteria. A hysteria that is being whipped up by hard left anarchists that see it as just another bandwagon to jump on and cause trouble. The main problem is that virtue signalling politicians (of all parties) have jumped on the same bandwagon. What else could cause supposedly intelligent people to think that zero carbon on a small lump of rock in the north Atlantic will change anything on a worldwide scale? Meanwhile we are burdening British industry (what's left of it) with higher and higher costs while at the same time importing what that industry should be making from the worlds biggest polluter. Halo's well and truly polished, jobs and wealth exported, and virtue imported by the ton. Oh! And China laughing all the way to the bank. China is one of the world’s largest investors in renewables. Climate change is a global problem, and it’s unwise to sit around saying ‘we’ll do something about it when they do’ I thought we were meant to be a world leading nation? "Do something about it" is one thing. Grinding the economy into the dirt and putting a huge chunk of the population into fuel poverty is a completely different matter. BTW China is also THE biggest investor in coal fired power stations, and as an aside with coal imported from North Korea. Without Chinese coal money NK wouldn't be developing atom bombs. More likely it would be trying to perfect bow and arrow technology. Renewables are the future. Correct investment would do the opposite of grinding the economy into the dirt. It would create wealth. By "investment" you mean spending taxed or borrowed money, at taxpayers' expense. We keep on being told that so-called "green" policies (which are often anything but green) are going to "create wealth" but simply repeating these mantras doesn't actually make them true. I see no sign that any green policies are making me richer. They just seem to be transferring my money to energy companies, car manufacturers, the State etc etc. I believe I used the word ‘correct’ in there. Let’s look at this objectively - 98% of science is in agreement about climate change, the future is renewable. These are facts. If thee was any doubt about the imminent need for drastic change, would anyone plough any money into that change? And yet investment in said renewables is at an all-time high. Why is that? Are investors in-hoc to the lefties and anarchists? Or do they perhaps realise/accept the future? O8% of scientists agree. Where is your backing of this claim?" Google is your friend. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. Do we ‘know’ what the earth can handle? Because climate scientists are probably a fairly reliable source for this, and they *overwhelmingly* think we’re on the brink. I tend to trust experts, but I’m old fashioned like that. Yes we do. The earth has been uo to several degrees hotter than now and supported life easily." What about CO2 levels? Because that’s the important thing here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never took up a smart meter. To me it's pointless. I dont mind taking my meter reading and submitting it. I know 1 or 2 people who were submitting lower readings. While the cost of gas and electricity was high. Who will do a "catch up" reading when it's lower. A smart meter wouldn't allow this Sadly a great many eco schemes are just a waste of time. much like a kot fo recycling never ends up getting recycled but out in landfills or sent abroad. I'm not entirely sure what people think the disaster will be of climate change. The earth's climate changes, whether its el nino,ice ages, maunder min/max. Life has always "found a way" given the extremes of the eocene era. Indont get the worry. I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. I don't think that it is "worry" as such. Yes the climate does seem to be changing and I'm sure that human activity is contributing to it. There are many things we can do to clean up our act and I would support many of them. However I would replace worry with hysteria. A hysteria that is being whipped up by hard left anarchists that see it as just another bandwagon to jump on and cause trouble. The main problem is that virtue signalling politicians (of all parties) have jumped on the same bandwagon. What else could cause supposedly intelligent people to think that zero carbon on a small lump of rock in the north Atlantic will change anything on a worldwide scale? Meanwhile we are burdening British industry (what's left of it) with higher and higher costs while at the same time importing what that industry should be making from the worlds biggest polluter. Halo's well and truly polished, jobs and wealth exported, and virtue imported by the ton. Oh! And China laughing all the way to the bank. China is one of the world’s largest investors in renewables. Climate change is a global problem, and it’s unwise to sit around saying ‘we’ll do something about it when they do’ I thought we were meant to be a world leading nation? "Do something about it" is one thing. Grinding the economy into the dirt and putting a huge chunk of the population into fuel poverty is a completely different matter. BTW China is also THE biggest investor in coal fired power stations, and as an aside with coal imported from North Korea. Without Chinese coal money NK wouldn't be developing atom bombs. More likely it would be trying to perfect bow and arrow technology. Renewables are the future. Correct investment would do the opposite of grinding the economy into the dirt. It would create wealth. By "investment" you mean spending taxed or borrowed money, at taxpayers' expense. We keep on being told that so-called "green" policies (which are often anything but green) are going to "create wealth" but simply repeating these mantras doesn't actually make them true. I see no sign that any green policies are making me richer. They just seem to be transferring my money to energy companies, car manufacturers, the State etc etc. I believe I used the word ‘correct’ in there. Let’s look at this objectively - 98% of science is in agreement about climate change, the future is renewable. These are facts. If thee was any doubt about the imminent need for drastic change, would anyone plough any money into that change? And yet investment in said renewables is at an all-time high. Why is that? Are investors in-hoc to the lefties and anarchists? Or do they perhaps realise/accept the future? I think you make a leap that a lot of people make, from believing that climate change is man made, to assuming therefore that a particular set of policies automatically flows from that assumption. It's perfectly possible to agree that people have any impact on climate, but not agree on the necessary response to it. The UK government tells me, for example, that I should buy a Tesla to combat climate change. But do I believe that buying a Tesla will impact the climate 1,000 years from now? No I don't. And neither will every person in the UK buying a Tesla impact the climate 1,000 years from now. All it will do is transfer my money to a large car corporation and its Chinese contractors. Which is what much of the climate scam is doing, simply transferring Western money to China. When you talk about wealth creation, the major beneficiary of Net Zero is going to be China, funded in part through its massive use of coal. But fine, if driving a Tesla makes you feel better." It’s not about buying a Tesla. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never took up a smart meter. To me it's pointless. I dont mind taking my meter reading and submitting it. I know 1 or 2 people who were submitting lower readings. While the cost of gas and electricity was high. Who will do a "catch up" reading when it's lower. A smart meter wouldn't allow this Sadly a great many eco schemes are just a waste of time. much like a kot fo recycling never ends up getting recycled but out in landfills or sent abroad. I'm not entirely sure what people think the disaster will be of climate change. The earth's climate changes, whether its el nino,ice ages, maunder min/max. Life has always "found a way" given the extremes of the eocene era. Indont get the worry. I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. I don't think that it is "worry" as such. Yes the climate does seem to be changing and I'm sure that human activity is contributing to it. There are many things we can do to clean up our act and I would support many of them. However I would replace worry with hysteria. A hysteria that is being whipped up by hard left anarchists that see it as just another bandwagon to jump on and cause trouble. The main problem is that virtue signalling politicians (of all parties) have jumped on the same bandwagon. What else could cause supposedly intelligent people to think that zero carbon on a small lump of rock in the north Atlantic will change anything on a worldwide scale? Meanwhile we are burdening British industry (what's left of it) with higher and higher costs while at the same time importing what that industry should be making from the worlds biggest polluter. Halo's well and truly polished, jobs and wealth exported, and virtue imported by the ton. Oh! And China laughing all the way to the bank. China is one of the world’s largest investors in renewables. Climate change is a global problem, and it’s unwise to sit around saying ‘we’ll do something about it when they do’ I thought we were meant to be a world leading nation? "Do something about it" is one thing. Grinding the economy into the dirt and putting a huge chunk of the population into fuel poverty is a completely different matter. BTW China is also THE biggest investor in coal fired power stations, and as an aside with coal imported from North Korea. Without Chinese coal money NK wouldn't be developing atom bombs. More likely it would be trying to perfect bow and arrow technology. Renewables are the future. Correct investment would do the opposite of grinding the economy into the dirt. It would create wealth. By "investment" you mean spending taxed or borrowed money, at taxpayers' expense. We keep on being told that so-called "green" policies (which are often anything but green) are going to "create wealth" but simply repeating these mantras doesn't actually make them true. I see no sign that any green policies are making me richer. They just seem to be transferring my money to energy companies, car manufacturers, the State etc etc. I believe I used the word ‘correct’ in there. Let’s look at this objectively - 98% of science is in agreement about climate change, the future is renewable. These are facts. If thee was any doubt about the imminent need for drastic change, would anyone plough any money into that change? And yet investment in said renewables is at an all-time high. Why is that? Are investors in-hoc to the lefties and anarchists? Or do they perhaps realise/accept the future? O8% of scientists agree. Where is your backing of this claim? Google is your friend. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024" You definitely fluffed that 98% didn't you 
32.6% endorsed AGW, of that 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never took up a smart meter. To me it's pointless. I dont mind taking my meter reading and submitting it. I know 1 or 2 people who were submitting lower readings. While the cost of gas and electricity was high. Who will do a "catch up" reading when it's lower. A smart meter wouldn't allow this Sadly a great many eco schemes are just a waste of time. much like a kot fo recycling never ends up getting recycled but out in landfills or sent abroad. I'm not entirely sure what people think the disaster will be of climate change. The earth's climate changes, whether its el nino,ice ages, maunder min/max. Life has always "found a way" given the extremes of the eocene era. Indont get the worry. I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. I don't think that it is "worry" as such. Yes the climate does seem to be changing and I'm sure that human activity is contributing to it. There are many things we can do to clean up our act and I would support many of them. However I would replace worry with hysteria. A hysteria that is being whipped up by hard left anarchists that see it as just another bandwagon to jump on and cause trouble. The main problem is that virtue signalling politicians (of all parties) have jumped on the same bandwagon. What else could cause supposedly intelligent people to think that zero carbon on a small lump of rock in the north Atlantic will change anything on a worldwide scale? Meanwhile we are burdening British industry (what's left of it) with higher and higher costs while at the same time importing what that industry should be making from the worlds biggest polluter. Halo's well and truly polished, jobs and wealth exported, and virtue imported by the ton. Oh! And China laughing all the way to the bank. China is one of the world’s largest investors in renewables. Climate change is a global problem, and it’s unwise to sit around saying ‘we’ll do something about it when they do’ I thought we were meant to be a world leading nation? "Do something about it" is one thing. Grinding the economy into the dirt and putting a huge chunk of the population into fuel poverty is a completely different matter. BTW China is also THE biggest investor in coal fired power stations, and as an aside with coal imported from North Korea. Without Chinese coal money NK wouldn't be developing atom bombs. More likely it would be trying to perfect bow and arrow technology. Renewables are the future. Correct investment would do the opposite of grinding the economy into the dirt. It would create wealth. By "investment" you mean spending taxed or borrowed money, at taxpayers' expense. We keep on being told that so-called "green" policies (which are often anything but green) are going to "create wealth" but simply repeating these mantras doesn't actually make them true. I see no sign that any green policies are making me richer. They just seem to be transferring my money to energy companies, car manufacturers, the State etc etc. I believe I used the word ‘correct’ in there. Let’s look at this objectively - 98% of science is in agreement about climate change, the future is renewable. These are facts. If thee was any doubt about the imminent need for drastic change, would anyone plough any money into that change? And yet investment in said renewables is at an all-time high. Why is that? Are investors in-hoc to the lefties and anarchists? Or do they perhaps realise/accept the future? O8% of scientists agree. Where is your backing of this claim? Google is your friend. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 You definitely fluffed that 98% didn't you
32.6% endorsed AGW, of that 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."Ah, speed reading! My bad. I’d like to see Morley’s claim of 0.8% backed up (because it’s nonsense, frankly) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never took up a smart meter. To me it's pointless. I dont mind taking my meter reading and submitting it. I know 1 or 2 people who were submitting lower readings. While the cost of gas and electricity was high. Who will do a "catch up" reading when it's lower. A smart meter wouldn't allow this Sadly a great many eco schemes are just a waste of time. much like a kot fo recycling never ends up getting recycled but out in landfills or sent abroad. I'm not entirely sure what people think the disaster will be of climate change. The earth's climate changes, whether its el nino,ice ages, maunder min/max. Life has always "found a way" given the extremes of the eocene era. Indont get the worry. I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. I don't think that it is "worry" as such. Yes the climate does seem to be changing and I'm sure that human activity is contributing to it. There are many things we can do to clean up our act and I would support many of them. However I would replace worry with hysteria. A hysteria that is being whipped up by hard left anarchists that see it as just another bandwagon to jump on and cause trouble. The main problem is that virtue signalling politicians (of all parties) have jumped on the same bandwagon. What else could cause supposedly intelligent people to think that zero carbon on a small lump of rock in the north Atlantic will change anything on a worldwide scale? Meanwhile we are burdening British industry (what's left of it) with higher and higher costs while at the same time importing what that industry should be making from the worlds biggest polluter. Halo's well and truly polished, jobs and wealth exported, and virtue imported by the ton. Oh! And China laughing all the way to the bank. China is one of the world’s largest investors in renewables. Climate change is a global problem, and it’s unwise to sit around saying ‘we’ll do something about it when they do’ I thought we were meant to be a world leading nation? "Do something about it" is one thing. Grinding the economy into the dirt and putting a huge chunk of the population into fuel poverty is a completely different matter. BTW China is also THE biggest investor in coal fired power stations, and as an aside with coal imported from North Korea. Without Chinese coal money NK wouldn't be developing atom bombs. More likely it would be trying to perfect bow and arrow technology. Renewables are the future. Correct investment would do the opposite of grinding the economy into the dirt. It would create wealth. By "investment" you mean spending taxed or borrowed money, at taxpayers' expense. We keep on being told that so-called "green" policies (which are often anything but green) are going to "create wealth" but simply repeating these mantras doesn't actually make them true. I see no sign that any green policies are making me richer. They just seem to be transferring my money to energy companies, car manufacturers, the State etc etc. I believe I used the word ‘correct’ in there. Let’s look at this objectively - 98% of science is in agreement about climate change, the future is renewable. These are facts. If thee was any doubt about the imminent need for drastic change, would anyone plough any money into that change? And yet investment in said renewables is at an all-time high. Why is that? Are investors in-hoc to the lefties and anarchists? Or do they perhaps realise/accept the future? O8% of scientists agree. Where is your backing of this claim? Google is your friend. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 You definitely fluffed that 98% didn't you
32.6% endorsed AGW, of that 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Ah, speed reading! My bad. I’d like to see Morley’s claim of 0.8% backed up (because it’s nonsense, frankly)
"I don't think he was claiming that. O is below 9 on a keyboard so I'm think typo seeing as he wrote that and asked for you to back it up. I'm sure he'll clear it up though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you know the real reason for low take up of smart meters? It gives power to the utility company to cut you off remotely at will. Late paying your bill? Struggling? I dont think they can just cut you off at will. " There may be legal nuance so perhaps not at will. They can force entry into your property to disconnect you from gas and electric too (the meter is their property not yours). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think you’ll struggle to find anyone who doesn’t want a cleaner, more sustainable environment and huge strides are being made all the time…but what is the cost, and how will it affect Joe Public? The issue I have with apocalyptic predictions is they are always wrong - think the ozone layer, The Maldives being underwater. Next week marks the 5 year anniversary of Greta (I am fully aware she’s not a scientist) telling us that a ‘top scientist ‘ predicts in 5 years humanity would be wiped out. Right now to Joe Public the future looks pretty bleak - they’ll be colder, hungrier and priced out of owning a car or foreign travel. This absurd pursuit of a rapidly approaching net zero date is in danger of seeing us become the first generation to regress in our own development…all while those push it most vehemently have the wealth and resources to live unaffected Personally I’ll keep putting my recycling out every week but I’ll eat what I want when I want it and travel as much as I possibly can until the day I can no longer afford to " The ozone layer was a great example of how to respond to an environmental emergency - it wasn’t a myth. The hole in the ozone is still there, although on track to have ‘healed’ by 2040. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think you’ll struggle to find anyone who doesn’t want a cleaner, more sustainable environment and huge strides are being made all the time…but what is the cost, and how will it affect Joe Public? The issue I have with apocalyptic predictions is they are always wrong - think the ozone layer, The Maldives being underwater. Next week marks the 5 year anniversary of Greta (I am fully aware she’s not a scientist) telling us that a ‘top scientist ‘ predicts in 5 years humanity would be wiped out. Right now to Joe Public the future looks pretty bleak - they’ll be colder, hungrier and priced out of owning a car or foreign travel. This absurd pursuit of a rapidly approaching net zero date is in danger of seeing us become the first generation to regress in our own development…all while those push it most vehemently have the wealth and resources to live unaffected Personally I’ll keep putting my recycling out every week but I’ll eat what I want when I want it and travel as much as I possibly can until the day I can no longer afford to The ozone layer was a great example of how to respond to an environmental emergency - it wasn’t a myth. The hole in the ozone is still there, although on track to have ‘healed’ by 2040." The 'ozone hole' has barely changed and in fact has started to increase again. https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/topics/in-depth/climate-change-mitigation-reducing-emissions/current-state-of-the-ozone-layer#:~:text=The%20largest%20historical%20extent%20of,area%20of%2024.5%20million%20km%C2%B2. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think you’ll struggle to find anyone who doesn’t want a cleaner, more sustainable environment and huge strides are being made all the time…but what is the cost, and how will it affect Joe Public? The issue I have with apocalyptic predictions is they are always wrong - think the ozone layer, The Maldives being underwater. Next week marks the 5 year anniversary of Greta (I am fully aware she’s not a scientist) telling us that a ‘top scientist ‘ predicts in 5 years humanity would be wiped out. Right now to Joe Public the future looks pretty bleak - they’ll be colder, hungrier and priced out of owning a car or foreign travel. This absurd pursuit of a rapidly approaching net zero date is in danger of seeing us become the first generation to regress in our own development…all while those push it most vehemently have the wealth and resources to live unaffected Personally I’ll keep putting my recycling out every week but I’ll eat what I want when I want it and travel as much as I possibly can until the day I can no longer afford to " The ozone layer issue was fixed because we all took action. So it's a bad example to use as in an argument against taking action on climate change. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think you’ll struggle to find anyone who doesn’t want a cleaner, more sustainable environment and huge strides are being made all the time…but what is the cost, and how will it affect Joe Public? The issue I have with apocalyptic predictions is they are always wrong - think the ozone layer, The Maldives being underwater. Next week marks the 5 year anniversary of Greta (I am fully aware she’s not a scientist) telling us that a ‘top scientist ‘ predicts in 5 years humanity would be wiped out. Right now to Joe Public the future looks pretty bleak - they’ll be colder, hungrier and priced out of owning a car or foreign travel. This absurd pursuit of a rapidly approaching net zero date is in danger of seeing us become the first generation to regress in our own development…all while those push it most vehemently have the wealth and resources to live unaffected Personally I’ll keep putting my recycling out every week but I’ll eat what I want when I want it and travel as much as I possibly can until the day I can no longer afford to The ozone layer was a great example of how to respond to an environmental emergency - it wasn’t a myth. The hole in the ozone is still there, although on track to have ‘healed’ by 2040. The 'ozone hole' has barely changed and in fact has started to increase again. https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/topics/in-depth/climate-change-mitigation-reducing-emissions/current-state-of-the-ozone-layer#:~:text=The%20largest%20historical%20extent%20of,area%20of%2024.5%20million%20km%C2%B2." https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/ozone-layer-recovery-track-helping-avoid-global-warming-05degc#:~:text=Chemicals%20%26%20pollution%20action-,Ozone%20layer%20recovery%20is%20on%20track%2C%20helping%20avoid%20global%20warming,efforts%20to%20mitigate%20climate%20change. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. Do we ‘know’ what the earth can handle? Because climate scientists are probably a fairly reliable source for this, and they *overwhelmingly* think we’re on the brink. I tend to trust experts, but I’m old fashioned like that. Yes we do. The earth has been uo to several degrees hotter than now and supported life easily." Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. Do we ‘know’ what the earth can handle? Because climate scientists are probably a fairly reliable source for this, and they *overwhelmingly* think we’re on the brink. I tend to trust experts, but I’m old fashioned like that. Yes we do. The earth has been uo to several degrees hotter than now and supported life easily. Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. " And CO2 is now at its highest level in 800,00 years. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think you’ll struggle to find anyone who doesn’t want a cleaner, more sustainable environment and huge strides are being made all the time…but what is the cost, and how will it affect Joe Public? The issue I have with apocalyptic predictions is they are always wrong - think the ozone layer, The Maldives being underwater. Next week marks the 5 year anniversary of Greta (I am fully aware she’s not a scientist) telling us that a ‘top scientist ‘ predicts in 5 years humanity would be wiped out. Right now to Joe Public the future looks pretty bleak - they’ll be colder, hungrier and priced out of owning a car or foreign travel. This absurd pursuit of a rapidly approaching net zero date is in danger of seeing us become the first generation to regress in our own development…all while those push it most vehemently have the wealth and resources to live unaffected Personally I’ll keep putting my recycling out every week but I’ll eat what I want when I want it and travel as much as I possibly can until the day I can no longer afford to The ozone layer was a great example of how to respond to an environmental emergency - it wasn’t a myth. The hole in the ozone is still there, although on track to have ‘healed’ by 2040. The 'ozone hole' has barely changed and in fact has started to increase again. https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/topics/in-depth/climate-change-mitigation-reducing-emissions/current-state-of-the-ozone-layer#:~:text=The%20largest%20historical%20extent%20of,area%20of%2024.5%20million%20km%C2%B2. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/ozone-layer-recovery-track-helping-avoid-global-warming-05degc#:~:text=Chemicals%20%26%20pollution%20action-,Ozone%20layer%20recovery%20is%20on%20track%2C%20helping%20avoid%20global%20warming,efforts%20to%20mitigate%20climate%20change." 1980 values by 2066. You need to stop 'speed reading' | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. Do we ‘know’ what the earth can handle? Because climate scientists are probably a fairly reliable source for this, and they *overwhelmingly* think we’re on the brink. I tend to trust experts, but I’m old fashioned like that. Yes we do. The earth has been uo to several degrees hotter than now and supported life easily.other than the heat what were the conditions like ? I don't think many are saying life will die out. But there will be far reaching consequences. Would the current way of living be sustainable? " It doesn't matter. The earth has been warmer. More like the tropics. But the earth and life have survived and prospered | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never took up a smart meter. To me it's pointless. I dont mind taking my meter reading and submitting it. I know 1 or 2 people who were submitting lower readings. While the cost of gas and electricity was high. Who will do a "catch up" reading when it's lower. A smart meter wouldn't allow this Sadly a great many eco schemes are just a waste of time. much like a kot fo recycling never ends up getting recycled but out in landfills or sent abroad. I'm not entirely sure what people think the disaster will be of climate change. The earth's climate changes, whether its el nino,ice ages, maunder min/max. Life has always "found a way" given the extremes of the eocene era. Indont get the worry. I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. I don't think that it is "worry" as such. Yes the climate does seem to be changing and I'm sure that human activity is contributing to it. There are many things we can do to clean up our act and I would support many of them. However I would replace worry with hysteria. A hysteria that is being whipped up by hard left anarchists that see it as just another bandwagon to jump on and cause trouble. The main problem is that virtue signalling politicians (of all parties) have jumped on the same bandwagon. What else could cause supposedly intelligent people to think that zero carbon on a small lump of rock in the north Atlantic will change anything on a worldwide scale? Meanwhile we are burdening British industry (what's left of it) with higher and higher costs while at the same time importing what that industry should be making from the worlds biggest polluter. Halo's well and truly polished, jobs and wealth exported, and virtue imported by the ton. Oh! And China laughing all the way to the bank. China is one of the world’s largest investors in renewables. Climate change is a global problem, and it’s unwise to sit around saying ‘we’ll do something about it when they do’ I thought we were meant to be a world leading nation? "Do something about it" is one thing. Grinding the economy into the dirt and putting a huge chunk of the population into fuel poverty is a completely different matter. BTW China is also THE biggest investor in coal fired power stations, and as an aside with coal imported from North Korea. Without Chinese coal money NK wouldn't be developing atom bombs. More likely it would be trying to perfect bow and arrow technology. Renewables are the future. Correct investment would do the opposite of grinding the economy into the dirt. It would create wealth. By "investment" you mean spending taxed or borrowed money, at taxpayers' expense. We keep on being told that so-called "green" policies (which are often anything but green) are going to "create wealth" but simply repeating these mantras doesn't actually make them true. I see no sign that any green policies are making me richer. They just seem to be transferring my money to energy companies, car manufacturers, the State etc etc. I believe I used the word ‘correct’ in there. Let’s look at this objectively - 98% of science is in agreement about climate change, the future is renewable. These are facts. If thee was any doubt about the imminent need for drastic change, would anyone plough any money into that change? And yet investment in said renewables is at an all-time high. Why is that? Are investors in-hoc to the lefties and anarchists? Or do they perhaps realise/accept the future? O8% of scientists agree. Where is your backing of this claim? Google is your friend. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024" Read it first. Ffs. It does t say what you think it does. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think you’ll struggle to find anyone who doesn’t want a cleaner, more sustainable environment and huge strides are being made all the time…but what is the cost, and how will it affect Joe Public? The issue I have with apocalyptic predictions is they are always wrong - think the ozone layer, The Maldives being underwater. Next week marks the 5 year anniversary of Greta (I am fully aware she’s not a scientist) telling us that a ‘top scientist ‘ predicts in 5 years humanity would be wiped out. Right now to Joe Public the future looks pretty bleak - they’ll be colder, hungrier and priced out of owning a car or foreign travel. This absurd pursuit of a rapidly approaching net zero date is in danger of seeing us become the first generation to regress in our own development…all while those push it most vehemently have the wealth and resources to live unaffected Personally I’ll keep putting my recycling out every week but I’ll eat what I want when I want it and travel as much as I possibly can until the day I can no longer afford to The ozone layer was a great example of how to respond to an environmental emergency - it wasn’t a myth. The hole in the ozone is still there, although on track to have ‘healed’ by 2040. The 'ozone hole' has barely changed and in fact has started to increase again. https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/topics/in-depth/climate-change-mitigation-reducing-emissions/current-state-of-the-ozone-layer#:~:text=The%20largest%20historical%20extent%20of,area%20of%2024.5%20million%20km%C2%B2. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/ozone-layer-recovery-track-helping-avoid-global-warming-05degc#:~:text=Chemicals%20%26%20pollution%20action-,Ozone%20layer%20recovery%20is%20on%20track%2C%20helping%20avoid%20global%20warming,efforts%20to%20mitigate%20climate%20change. 1980 values by 2066. You need to stop 'speed reading'" “over the Antarctic, by 2045 over the Arctic and by 2040 for the rest of the world” Did you want to retract your statement about the ozone hole expanding? The link I posted explained the reason for those figures. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never took up a smart meter. To me it's pointless. I dont mind taking my meter reading and submitting it. I know 1 or 2 people who were submitting lower readings. While the cost of gas and electricity was high. Who will do a "catch up" reading when it's lower. A smart meter wouldn't allow this Sadly a great many eco schemes are just a waste of time. much like a kot fo recycling never ends up getting recycled but out in landfills or sent abroad. I'm not entirely sure what people think the disaster will be of climate change. The earth's climate changes, whether its el nino,ice ages, maunder min/max. Life has always "found a way" given the extremes of the eocene era. Indont get the worry. I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. I don't think that it is "worry" as such. Yes the climate does seem to be changing and I'm sure that human activity is contributing to it. There are many things we can do to clean up our act and I would support many of them. However I would replace worry with hysteria. A hysteria that is being whipped up by hard left anarchists that see it as just another bandwagon to jump on and cause trouble. The main problem is that virtue signalling politicians (of all parties) have jumped on the same bandwagon. What else could cause supposedly intelligent people to think that zero carbon on a small lump of rock in the north Atlantic will change anything on a worldwide scale? Meanwhile we are burdening British industry (what's left of it) with higher and higher costs while at the same time importing what that industry should be making from the worlds biggest polluter. Halo's well and truly polished, jobs and wealth exported, and virtue imported by the ton. Oh! And China laughing all the way to the bank. China is one of the world’s largest investors in renewables. Climate change is a global problem, and it’s unwise to sit around saying ‘we’ll do something about it when they do’ I thought we were meant to be a world leading nation? "Do something about it" is one thing. Grinding the economy into the dirt and putting a huge chunk of the population into fuel poverty is a completely different matter. BTW China is also THE biggest investor in coal fired power stations, and as an aside with coal imported from North Korea. Without Chinese coal money NK wouldn't be developing atom bombs. More likely it would be trying to perfect bow and arrow technology. Renewables are the future. Correct investment would do the opposite of grinding the economy into the dirt. It would create wealth. By "investment" you mean spending taxed or borrowed money, at taxpayers' expense. We keep on being told that so-called "green" policies (which are often anything but green) are going to "create wealth" but simply repeating these mantras doesn't actually make them true. I see no sign that any green policies are making me richer. They just seem to be transferring my money to energy companies, car manufacturers, the State etc etc. I believe I used the word ‘correct’ in there. Let’s look at this objectively - 98% of science is in agreement about climate change, the future is renewable. These are facts. If thee was any doubt about the imminent need for drastic change, would anyone plough any money into that change? And yet investment in said renewables is at an all-time high. Why is that? Are investors in-hoc to the lefties and anarchists? Or do they perhaps realise/accept the future? O8% of scientists agree. Where is your backing of this claim? Google is your friend. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 Read it first. Ffs. It does t say what you think it does." Wanna back up your claim, Morley? Also I asked about CO2. Any views on the current levels or the potential impact of that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming 32.6% of submitted papers to this report found that they believed humans were causing global warming " Is that more or less than 0.8%, fella? I said ‘my bad’ - accept I misread. Wanna back your claim up? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think you’ll struggle to find anyone who doesn’t want a cleaner, more sustainable environment and huge strides are being made all the time…but what is the cost, and how will it affect Joe Public? The issue I have with apocalyptic predictions is they are always wrong - think the ozone layer, The Maldives being underwater. Next week marks the 5 year anniversary of Greta (I am fully aware she’s not a scientist) telling us that a ‘top scientist ‘ predicts in 5 years humanity would be wiped out. Right now to Joe Public the future looks pretty bleak - they’ll be colder, hungrier and priced out of owning a car or foreign travel. This absurd pursuit of a rapidly approaching net zero date is in danger of seeing us become the first generation to regress in our own development…all while those push it most vehemently have the wealth and resources to live unaffected Personally I’ll keep putting my recycling out every week but I’ll eat what I want when I want it and travel as much as I possibly can until the day I can no longer afford to The ozone layer was a great example of how to respond to an environmental emergency - it wasn’t a myth. The hole in the ozone is still there, although on track to have ‘healed’ by 2040. The 'ozone hole' has barely changed and in fact has started to increase again. https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/topics/in-depth/climate-change-mitigation-reducing-emissions/current-state-of-the-ozone-layer#:~:text=The%20largest%20historical%20extent%20of,area%20of%2024.5%20million%20km%C2%B2. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/ozone-layer-recovery-track-helping-avoid-global-warming-05degc#:~:text=Chemicals%20%26%20pollution%20action-,Ozone%20layer%20recovery%20is%20on%20track%2C%20helping%20avoid%20global%20warming,efforts%20to%20mitigate%20climate%20change. 1980 values by 2066. You need to stop 'speed reading' “over the Antarctic, by 2045 over the Arctic and by 2040 for the rest of the world” Did you want to retract your statement about the ozone hole expanding? The link I posted explained the reason for those figures." The ozone hole is mostly over Antarctica and that is by 2066, the rest of the world means nothing when we're speaking aboutbit as a whole. Why would I retract, my statement was factual, I provided a source for you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming 32.6% of submitted papers to this report found that they believed humans were causing global warming Is that more or less than 0.8%, fella? I said ‘my bad’ - accept I misread. Wanna back your claim up?" I meant 98% it was a typo which you clearly know. Ad I was asking for bank up to your claim of 98%..fella. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming 32.6% of submitted papers to this report found that they believed humans were causing global warming Is that more or less than 0.8%, fella? I said ‘my bad’ - accept I misread. Wanna back your claim up? I meant 98% it was a typo which you clearly know. Ad I was asking for bank up to your claim of 98%..fella." That's how I read it and already explained, thanks for clearing it up | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming 32.6% of submitted papers to this report found that they believed humans were causing global warming Is that more or less than 0.8%, fella? I said ‘my bad’ - accept I misread. Wanna back your claim up? I meant 98% it was a typo which you clearly know. Ad I was asking for bank up to your claim of 98%..fella." I ‘clearly know’? No, actually I don’t. I accept your typo. Now about CO2… | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Uh oh. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/" Again this doesn't back up your claim | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Uh oh. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/" How many contradictory links are you gonna go through before you get yo one you'd like? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming 32.6% of submitted papers to this report found that they believed humans were causing global warming Is that more or less than 0.8%, fella? I said ‘my bad’ - accept I misread. Wanna back your claim up? I meant 98% it was a typo which you clearly know. Ad I was asking for bank up to your claim of 98%..fella. I ‘clearly know’? No, actually I don’t. I accept your typo. Now about CO2… " Why did you lie about 98% of papers/ scientists agreeing? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Your own link just obliterated your lie" You’re obsessed with calling people liars - I misread, and accepted it. Should I call you a liar for your typo? No, apparently I should ‘clearly know’ that. Ever wonder why you get in so many arguments here, mucker? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never took up a smart meter. To me it's pointless. I dont mind taking my meter reading and submitting it. I know 1 or 2 people who were submitting lower readings. While the cost of gas and electricity was high. Who will do a "catch up" reading when it's lower. A smart meter wouldn't allow this Sadly a great many eco schemes are just a waste of time. much like a kot fo recycling never ends up getting recycled but out in landfills or sent abroad. I'm not entirely sure what people think the disaster will be of climate change. The earth's climate changes, whether its el nino,ice ages, maunder min/max. Life has always "found a way" given the extremes of the eocene era. Indont get the worry. I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. I don't think that it is "worry" as such. Yes the climate does seem to be changing and I'm sure that human activity is contributing to it. There are many things we can do to clean up our act and I would support many of them. However I would replace worry with hysteria. A hysteria that is being whipped up by hard left anarchists that see it as just another bandwagon to jump on and cause trouble. The main problem is that virtue signalling politicians (of all parties) have jumped on the same bandwagon. What else could cause supposedly intelligent people to think that zero carbon on a small lump of rock in the north Atlantic will change anything on a worldwide scale? Meanwhile we are burdening British industry (what's left of it) with higher and higher costs while at the same time importing what that industry should be making from the worlds biggest polluter. Halo's well and truly polished, jobs and wealth exported, and virtue imported by the ton. Oh! And China laughing all the way to the bank. China is one of the world’s largest investors in renewables. Climate change is a global problem, and it’s unwise to sit around saying ‘we’ll do something about it when they do’ I thought we were meant to be a world leading nation? "Do something about it" is one thing. Grinding the economy into the dirt and putting a huge chunk of the population into fuel poverty is a completely different matter. BTW China is also THE biggest investor in coal fired power stations, and as an aside with coal imported from North Korea. Without Chinese coal money NK wouldn't be developing atom bombs. More likely it would be trying to perfect bow and arrow technology. Renewables are the future. Correct investment would do the opposite of grinding the economy into the dirt. It would create wealth. By "investment" you mean spending taxed or borrowed money, at taxpayers' expense. We keep on being told that so-called "green" policies (which are often anything but green) are going to "create wealth" but simply repeating these mantras doesn't actually make them true. I see no sign that any green policies are making me richer. They just seem to be transferring my money to energy companies, car manufacturers, the State etc etc. I believe I used the word ‘correct’ in there. Let’s look at this objectively - 98% of science is in agreement about climate change, the future is renewable. These are facts. If thee was any doubt about the imminent need for drastic change, would anyone plough any money into that change? And yet investment in said renewables is at an all-time high. Why is that? Are investors in-hoc to the lefties and anarchists? Or do they perhaps realise/accept the future? I think you make a leap that a lot of people make, from believing that climate change is man made, to assuming therefore that a particular set of policies automatically flows from that assumption. It's perfectly possible to agree that people have any impact on climate, but not agree on the necessary response to it. The UK government tells me, for example, that I should buy a Tesla to combat climate change. But do I believe that buying a Tesla will impact the climate 1,000 years from now? No I don't. And neither will every person in the UK buying a Tesla impact the climate 1,000 years from now. All it will do is transfer my money to a large car corporation and its Chinese contractors. Which is what much of the climate scam is doing, simply transferring Western money to China. When you talk about wealth creation, the major beneficiary of Net Zero is going to be China, funded in part through its massive use of coal. But fine, if driving a Tesla makes you feel better. It’s not about buying a Tesla. " Well the Thread is actually about smart meters. In your view presumably everyone should just "get with the programme" and have one installed, but clearly: 1. What difference will that make to the climate, and 2. They aren't doing it anyway | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Uh oh. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/ How many contradictory links are you gonna go through before you get yo one you'd like? " He said something completely wrong. And is now scrambling | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never took up a smart meter. To me it's pointless. I dont mind taking my meter reading and submitting it. I know 1 or 2 people who were submitting lower readings. While the cost of gas and electricity was high. Who will do a "catch up" reading when it's lower. A smart meter wouldn't allow this Sadly a great many eco schemes are just a waste of time. much like a kot fo recycling never ends up getting recycled but out in landfills or sent abroad. I'm not entirely sure what people think the disaster will be of climate change. The earth's climate changes, whether its el nino,ice ages, maunder min/max. Life has always "found a way" given the extremes of the eocene era. Indont get the worry. I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. I don't think that it is "worry" as such. Yes the climate does seem to be changing and I'm sure that human activity is contributing to it. There are many things we can do to clean up our act and I would support many of them. However I would replace worry with hysteria. A hysteria that is being whipped up by hard left anarchists that see it as just another bandwagon to jump on and cause trouble. The main problem is that virtue signalling politicians (of all parties) have jumped on the same bandwagon. What else could cause supposedly intelligent people to think that zero carbon on a small lump of rock in the north Atlantic will change anything on a worldwide scale? Meanwhile we are burdening British industry (what's left of it) with higher and higher costs while at the same time importing what that industry should be making from the worlds biggest polluter. Halo's well and truly polished, jobs and wealth exported, and virtue imported by the ton. Oh! And China laughing all the way to the bank. China is one of the world’s largest investors in renewables. Climate change is a global problem, and it’s unwise to sit around saying ‘we’ll do something about it when they do’ I thought we were meant to be a world leading nation? "Do something about it" is one thing. Grinding the economy into the dirt and putting a huge chunk of the population into fuel poverty is a completely different matter. BTW China is also THE biggest investor in coal fired power stations, and as an aside with coal imported from North Korea. Without Chinese coal money NK wouldn't be developing atom bombs. More likely it would be trying to perfect bow and arrow technology. Renewables are the future. Correct investment would do the opposite of grinding the economy into the dirt. It would create wealth. By "investment" you mean spending taxed or borrowed money, at taxpayers' expense. We keep on being told that so-called "green" policies (which are often anything but green) are going to "create wealth" but simply repeating these mantras doesn't actually make them true. I see no sign that any green policies are making me richer. They just seem to be transferring my money to energy companies, car manufacturers, the State etc etc. I believe I used the word ‘correct’ in there. Let’s look at this objectively - 98% of science is in agreement about climate change, the future is renewable. These are facts. If thee was any doubt about the imminent need for drastic change, would anyone plough any money into that change? And yet investment in said renewables is at an all-time high. Why is that? Are investors in-hoc to the lefties and anarchists? Or do they perhaps realise/accept the future? I think you make a leap that a lot of people make, from believing that climate change is man made, to assuming therefore that a particular set of policies automatically flows from that assumption. It's perfectly possible to agree that people have any impact on climate, but not agree on the necessary response to it. The UK government tells me, for example, that I should buy a Tesla to combat climate change. But do I believe that buying a Tesla will impact the climate 1,000 years from now? No I don't. And neither will every person in the UK buying a Tesla impact the climate 1,000 years from now. All it will do is transfer my money to a large car corporation and its Chinese contractors. Which is what much of the climate scam is doing, simply transferring Western money to China. When you talk about wealth creation, the major beneficiary of Net Zero is going to be China, funded in part through its massive use of coal. But fine, if driving a Tesla makes you feel better. It’s not about buying a Tesla. Well the Thread is actually about smart meters. In your view presumably everyone should just "get with the programme" and have one installed, but clearly: 1. What difference will that make to the climate, and 2. They aren't doing it anyway " The thread is called ‘net zero scam’ and conversation evolves naturally, does it not? Why not call the thread ‘smart meters?’ and police anyone who strays from that topic? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you know the real reason for low take up of smart meters? It gives power to the utility company to cut you off remotely at will. Late paying your bill? Struggling? I dont think they can just cut you off at will. There may be legal nuance so perhaps not at will. They can force entry into your property to disconnect you from gas and electric too (the meter is their property not yours)." I think there's a fair few laws that would stop this.didnt British gas just lose a case where they forced entry to peoples homes and changed their metres? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Uh oh. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/ How many contradictory links are you gonna go through before you get yo one you'd like? He said something completely wrong. And is now scrambling" You said something completely wrong as well. But that’s forgivable because everyone should know exactly what you meant to type. I’m done conversing with you here Morley because I’m gonna lose my rag at your obvious double standards. I made a mistake, own up and accept it. You ignore that and want to carry on acting the big man. You do you, boo. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Uh oh. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/ How many contradictory links are you gonna go through before you get yo one you'd like? He said something completely wrong. And is now scrambling You said something completely wrong as well. But that’s forgivable because everyone should know exactly what you meant to type. I’m done conversing with you here Morley because I’m gonna lose my rag at your obvious double standards. I made a mistake, own up and accept it. You ignore that and want to carry on acting the big man. You do you, boo. " Mine was a typo yours was just an outright lie. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Uh oh. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/ How many contradictory links are you gonna go through before you get yo one you'd like? He said something completely wrong. And is now scrambling You said something completely wrong as well. But that’s forgivable because everyone should know exactly what you meant to type. I’m done conversing with you here Morley because I’m gonna lose my rag at your obvious double standards. I made a mistake, own up and accept it. You ignore that and want to carry on acting the big man. You do you, boo. Mine was a typo yours was just an outright lie." I misread. It happens, even to you, mucker. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well." I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you know the real reason for low take up of smart meters? It gives power to the utility company to cut you off remotely at will. Late paying your bill? Struggling? I dont think they can just cut you off at will. There may be legal nuance so perhaps not at will. They can force entry into your property to disconnect you from gas and electric too (the meter is their property not yours). I think there's a fair few laws that would stop this.didnt British gas just lose a case where they forced entry to peoples homes and changed their metres? " Not seen that but quite possibly. They have been doing it though (entering property and disconnecting). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point." I dont think he has 1. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you know the real reason for low take up of smart meters? It gives power to the utility company to cut you off remotely at will. Late paying your bill? Struggling? I dont think they can just cut you off at will. There may be legal nuance so perhaps not at will. They can force entry into your property to disconnect you from gas and electric too (the meter is their property not yours). I think there's a fair few laws that would stop this.didnt British gas just lose a case where they forced entry to peoples homes and changed their metres? Not seen that but quite possibly. They have been doing it though (entering property and disconnecting)." I can't imagine you could just disconnect some ones gas and electricity. There be some very very large rights violations, without going through the courts. I think they got taken to court for forced entry on vulnerable adults to change them to pre payments. But I think they'd struggle to force you onto a prepay metre as a non vulnerable. As they can take the metre away but they can't put a new one on your property but they'd have to disconnect you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point." The point speaks for itself, I’d have thought. Sorry, going a bit Morley there and making assumptions. For the past 800,000 years CO2 had *never* been above 300PPM. And then the Industrial Revolution, and modern living - since then CO2 has risen to 420PPM. In essentially the blink of an eye. But sure. This is fine. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. I dont think he has 1. " On your point earlier about the earth having been hotter before and life surviving... Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. Guess what happened when parts of the Earth got hotter or colder (and therefore less able to support life)...migration. Mass migration to more temperate zones. As per point on another thread, regardless of the cause of climate change (human driven or natural cycle), it will be devastating to the current way of life for many. You will see increased pressure on human migration. So what do we do to handle that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. The point speaks for itself, I’d have thought. Sorry, going a bit Morley there and making assumptions. For the past 800,000 years CO2 had *never* been above 300PPM. And then the Industrial Revolution, and modern living - since then CO2 has risen to 420PPM. In essentially the blink of an eye. But sure. This is fine. " It doesn't speak for itself, no one denies its at the level you say. Who said its fine? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you know the real reason for low take up of smart meters? It gives power to the utility company to cut you off remotely at will. Late paying your bill? Struggling? I dont think they can just cut you off at will. There may be legal nuance so perhaps not at will. They can force entry into your property to disconnect you from gas and electric too (the meter is their property not yours). I think there's a fair few laws that would stop this.didnt British gas just lose a case where they forced entry to peoples homes and changed their metres? Not seen that but quite possibly. They have been doing it though (entering property and disconnecting). I can't imagine you could just disconnect some ones gas and electricity. There be some very very large rights violations, without going through the courts. I think they got taken to court for forced entry on vulnerable adults to change them to pre payments. But I think they'd struggle to force you onto a prepay metre as a non vulnerable. As they can take the metre away but they can't put a new one on your property but they'd have to disconnect you." I don’t know the legalities but surely if someone stopped paying (or couldn’t pay the full amount) a private company has a right to stop providing a service and reclaim their own property? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. The point speaks for itself, I’d have thought. Sorry, going a bit Morley there and making assumptions. For the past 800,000 years CO2 had *never* been above 300PPM. And then the Industrial Revolution, and modern living - since then CO2 has risen to 420PPM. In essentially the blink of an eye. But sure. This is fine. " What percentage of the atmosphere does this represent? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. The point speaks for itself, I’d have thought. Sorry, going a bit Morley there and making assumptions. For the past 800,000 years CO2 had *never* been above 300PPM. And then the Industrial Revolution, and modern living - since then CO2 has risen to 420PPM. In essentially the blink of an eye. But sure. This is fine. It doesn't speak for itself, no one denies its at the level you say. Who said its fine?" Some folk on this very thread. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. The point speaks for itself, I’d have thought. Sorry, going a bit Morley there and making assumptions. For the past 800,000 years CO2 had *never* been above 300PPM. And then the Industrial Revolution, and modern living - since then CO2 has risen to 420PPM. In essentially the blink of an eye. But sure. This is fine. It doesn't speak for itself, no one denies its at the level you say. Who said its fine? Some folk on this very thread. " Aren't those people entitled to their own opinions? At the end of the day if a person says, it won't affect me because I'll be long dead, so be it, that's their choice. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. The point speaks for itself, I’d have thought. Sorry, going a bit Morley there and making assumptions. For the past 800,000 years CO2 had *never* been above 300PPM. And then the Industrial Revolution, and modern living - since then CO2 has risen to 420PPM. In essentially the blink of an eye. But sure. This is fine. What percentage of the atmosphere does this represent? A sizeable enough percentage to affect precision balanced ecosystems." So give me a number then | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. The point speaks for itself, I’d have thought. Sorry, going a bit Morley there and making assumptions. For the past 800,000 years CO2 had *never* been above 300PPM. And then the Industrial Revolution, and modern living - since then CO2 has risen to 420PPM. In essentially the blink of an eye. But sure. This is fine. What percentage of the atmosphere does this represent? " Sorry, deleted because of a typo. A sizeable enough percentage to affect previously balanced ecosystems. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you know the real reason for low take up of smart meters? It gives power to the utility company to cut you off remotely at will. Late paying your bill? Struggling? I dont think they can just cut you off at will. There may be legal nuance so perhaps not at will. They can force entry into your property to disconnect you from gas and electric too (the meter is their property not yours). I think there's a fair few laws that would stop this.didnt British gas just lose a case where they forced entry to peoples homes and changed their metres? Not seen that but quite possibly. They have been doing it though (entering property and disconnecting). I can't imagine you could just disconnect some ones gas and electricity. There be some very very large rights violations, without going through the courts. I think they got taken to court for forced entry on vulnerable adults to change them to pre payments. But I think they'd struggle to force you onto a prepay metre as a non vulnerable. As they can take the metre away but they can't put a new one on your property but they'd have to disconnect you. I don’t know the legalities but surely if someone stopped paying (or couldn’t pay the full amount) a private company has a right to stop providing a service and reclaim their own property?" Not quite. As per a discussion while ago about privatising water. You have a basic right to clean water. It's extremely difficult for companies to cut you off. As with you I am not sure on the legalities of gas and electricity. It won't be as hard as water. But I imagine you will have some strong rights that the company would have to take you to court over. I can't imagine it being as easy as flicking a switch because you haven't paid your bill in 3 months. There's a good bit on national debtline about it. Quite insightful | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. The point speaks for itself, I’d have thought. Sorry, going a bit Morley there and making assumptions. For the past 800,000 years CO2 had *never* been above 300PPM. And then the Industrial Revolution, and modern living - since then CO2 has risen to 420PPM. In essentially the blink of an eye. But sure. This is fine. What percentage of the atmosphere does this represent? " 0.04% | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. The point speaks for itself, I’d have thought. Sorry, going a bit Morley there and making assumptions. For the past 800,000 years CO2 had *never* been above 300PPM. And then the Industrial Revolution, and modern living - since then CO2 has risen to 420PPM. In essentially the blink of an eye. But sure. This is fine. What percentage of the atmosphere does this represent? A sizeable enough percentage to affect precision balanced ecosystems. So give me a number then " It’s around 0.04%. Why? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. Do we ‘know’ what the earth can handle? Because climate scientists are probably a fairly reliable source for this, and they *overwhelmingly* think we’re on the brink. I tend to trust experts, but I’m old fashioned like that. Yes we do. The earth has been uo to several degrees hotter than now and supported life easily. Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. " It's also the speed of the change that's an issue for ecosystems. Before the industrial revolution these swings in global mean temperature were taking tens of thousands of years, and some larger cycles in geological timescales. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. The point speaks for itself, I’d have thought. Sorry, going a bit Morley there and making assumptions. For the past 800,000 years CO2 had *never* been above 300PPM. And then the Industrial Revolution, and modern living - since then CO2 has risen to 420PPM. In essentially the blink of an eye. But sure. This is fine. What percentage of the atmosphere does this represent? A sizeable enough percentage to affect precision balanced ecosystems. So give me a number then It’s around 0.04%. Why?" Context - that’s why | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I never took up a smart meter. To me it's pointless. I dont mind taking my meter reading and submitting it. I know 1 or 2 people who were submitting lower readings. While the cost of gas and electricity was high. Who will do a "catch up" reading when it's lower. A smart meter wouldn't allow this Sadly a great many eco schemes are just a waste of time. much like a kot fo recycling never ends up getting recycled but out in landfills or sent abroad. I'm not entirely sure what people think the disaster will be of climate change. The earth's climate changes, whether its el nino,ice ages, maunder min/max. Life has always "found a way" given the extremes of the eocene era. Indont get the worry. I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. I don't think that it is "worry" as such. Yes the climate does seem to be changing and I'm sure that human activity is contributing to it. There are many things we can do to clean up our act and I would support many of them. However I would replace worry with hysteria. A hysteria that is being whipped up by hard left anarchists that see it as just another bandwagon to jump on and cause trouble. The main problem is that virtue signalling politicians (of all parties) have jumped on the same bandwagon. What else could cause supposedly intelligent people to think that zero carbon on a small lump of rock in the north Atlantic will change anything on a worldwide scale? Meanwhile we are burdening British industry (what's left of it) with higher and higher costs while at the same time importing what that industry should be making from the worlds biggest polluter. Halo's well and truly polished, jobs and wealth exported, and virtue imported by the ton. Oh! And China laughing all the way to the bank. China is one of the world’s largest investors in renewables. Climate change is a global problem, and it’s unwise to sit around saying ‘we’ll do something about it when they do’ I thought we were meant to be a world leading nation? "Do something about it" is one thing. Grinding the economy into the dirt and putting a huge chunk of the population into fuel poverty is a completely different matter. BTW China is also THE biggest investor in coal fired power stations, and as an aside with coal imported from North Korea. Without Chinese coal money NK wouldn't be developing atom bombs. More likely it would be trying to perfect bow and arrow technology. Renewables are the future. Correct investment would do the opposite of grinding the economy into the dirt. It would create wealth. By "investment" you mean spending taxed or borrowed money, at taxpayers' expense. We keep on being told that so-called "green" policies (which are often anything but green) are going to "create wealth" but simply repeating these mantras doesn't actually make them true. I see no sign that any green policies are making me richer. They just seem to be transferring my money to energy companies, car manufacturers, the State etc etc. I believe I used the word ‘correct’ in there. Let’s look at this objectively - 98% of science is in agreement about climate change, the future is renewable. These are facts. If thee was any doubt about the imminent need for drastic change, would anyone plough any money into that change? And yet investment in said renewables is at an all-time high. Why is that? Are investors in-hoc to the lefties and anarchists? Or do they perhaps realise/accept the future? I think you make a leap that a lot of people make, from believing that climate change is man made, to assuming therefore that a particular set of policies automatically flows from that assumption. It's perfectly possible to agree that people have any impact on climate, but not agree on the necessary response to it. The UK government tells me, for example, that I should buy a Tesla to combat climate change. But do I believe that buying a Tesla will impact the climate 1,000 years from now? No I don't. And neither will every person in the UK buying a Tesla impact the climate 1,000 years from now. All it will do is transfer my money to a large car corporation and its Chinese contractors. Which is what much of the climate scam is doing, simply transferring Western money to China. When you talk about wealth creation, the major beneficiary of Net Zero is going to be China, funded in part through its massive use of coal. But fine, if driving a Tesla makes you feel better. It’s not about buying a Tesla. Well the Thread is actually about smart meters. In your view presumably everyone should just "get with the programme" and have one installed, but clearly: 1. What difference will that make to the climate, and 2. They aren't doing it anyway The thread is called ‘net zero scam’ and conversation evolves naturally, does it not? Why not call the thread ‘smart meters?’ and police anyone who strays from that topic?" I'm not trying to "police" anyone. But if I want to talk about Teslas I will. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. The point speaks for itself, I’d have thought. Sorry, going a bit Morley there and making assumptions. For the past 800,000 years CO2 had *never* been above 300PPM. And then the Industrial Revolution, and modern living - since then CO2 has risen to 420PPM. In essentially the blink of an eye. But sure. This is fine. What percentage of the atmosphere does this represent? A sizeable enough percentage to affect precision balanced ecosystems. So give me a number then It’s around 0.04%. Why? Context - that’s why" Why does this help, instead of the more pertinent PPM measurement? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. The point speaks for itself, I’d have thought. Sorry, going a bit Morley there and making assumptions. For the past 800,000 years CO2 had *never* been above 300PPM. And then the Industrial Revolution, and modern living - since then CO2 has risen to 420PPM. In essentially the blink of an eye. But sure. This is fine. What percentage of the atmosphere does this represent? A sizeable enough percentage to affect precision balanced ecosystems. So give me a number then It’s around 0.04%. Why? Context - that’s why" Fair enough. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. The point speaks for itself, I’d have thought. Sorry, going a bit Morley there and making assumptions. For the past 800,000 years CO2 had *never* been above 300PPM. And then the Industrial Revolution, and modern living - since then CO2 has risen to 420PPM. In essentially the blink of an eye. But sure. This is fine. What percentage of the atmosphere does this represent? A sizeable enough percentage to affect precision balanced ecosystems. So give me a number then It’s around 0.04%. Why? Context - that’s why Why does this help, instead of the more pertinent PPM measurement?" Are you genuinely asking why someone should seek some context? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. The point speaks for itself, I’d have thought. Sorry, going a bit Morley there and making assumptions. For the past 800,000 years CO2 had *never* been above 300PPM. And then the Industrial Revolution, and modern living - since then CO2 has risen to 420PPM. In essentially the blink of an eye. But sure. This is fine. What percentage of the atmosphere does this represent? A sizeable enough percentage to affect precision balanced ecosystems. So give me a number then It’s around 0.04%. Why? Context - that’s why Why does this help, instead of the more pertinent PPM measurement? Are you genuinely asking why someone should seek some context?" No, I'm asking why a less pertinent measure of CO2 provided context, because it would appear it's doing the opposite and moving the conversation away from what an increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere does, by making it appear to be insignificant amount. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. The point speaks for itself, I’d have thought. Sorry, going a bit Morley there and making assumptions. For the past 800,000 years CO2 had *never* been above 300PPM. And then the Industrial Revolution, and modern living - since then CO2 has risen to 420PPM. In essentially the blink of an eye. But sure. This is fine. What percentage of the atmosphere does this represent? A sizeable enough percentage to affect precision balanced ecosystems. So give me a number then It’s around 0.04%. Why? Context - that’s why Why does this help, instead of the more pertinent PPM measurement? Are you genuinely asking why someone should seek some context? No, I'm asking why a less pertinent measure of CO2 provided context, because it would appear it's doing the opposite and moving the conversation away from what an increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere does, by making it appear to be insignificant amount. " Well being that you won't feel any light-headedness until 1.5% it could definitely be argued that it is indeed an insignificant amount | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. The point speaks for itself, I’d have thought. Sorry, going a bit Morley there and making assumptions. For the past 800,000 years CO2 had *never* been above 300PPM. And then the Industrial Revolution, and modern living - since then CO2 has risen to 420PPM. In essentially the blink of an eye. But sure. This is fine. What percentage of the atmosphere does this represent? A sizeable enough percentage to affect precision balanced ecosystems. So give me a number then It’s around 0.04%. Why? Context - that’s why Why does this help, instead of the more pertinent PPM measurement? Are you genuinely asking why someone should seek some context? No, I'm asking why a less pertinent measure of CO2 provided context, because it would appear it's doing the opposite and moving the conversation away from what an increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere does, by making it appear to be insignificant amount. Well being that you won't feel any light-headedness until 1.5% it could definitely be argued that it is indeed an insignificant amount" Insignificant to who? Humans? Or the other life who share the planet with us? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. The point speaks for itself, I’d have thought. Sorry, going a bit Morley there and making assumptions. For the past 800,000 years CO2 had *never* been above 300PPM. And then the Industrial Revolution, and modern living - since then CO2 has risen to 420PPM. In essentially the blink of an eye. But sure. This is fine. What percentage of the atmosphere does this represent? A sizeable enough percentage to affect precision balanced ecosystems. So give me a number then It’s around 0.04%. Why? Context - that’s why Why does this help, instead of the more pertinent PPM measurement? Are you genuinely asking why someone should seek some context? No, I'm asking why a less pertinent measure of CO2 provided context, because it would appear it's doing the opposite and moving the conversation away from what an increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere does, by making it appear to be insignificant amount. Well being that you won't feel any light-headedness until 1.5% it could definitely be argued that it is indeed an insignificant amount" Is that 1.5% refering to a temperature increase or a % of the atmosphere made up of CO2? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. Do we ‘know’ what the earth can handle? Because climate scientists are probably a fairly reliable source for this, and they *overwhelmingly* think we’re on the brink. I tend to trust experts, but I’m old fashioned like that. Yes we do. The earth has been uo to several degrees hotter than now and supported life easily. Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. It's also the speed of the change that's an issue for ecosystems. Before the industrial revolution these swings in global mean temperature were taking tens of thousands of years, and some larger cycles in geological timescales." Actually no they weren't. They can take around 100 years. I previously alluded to this re: the maunder minimum etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. The point speaks for itself, I’d have thought. Sorry, going a bit Morley there and making assumptions. For the past 800,000 years CO2 had *never* been above 300PPM. And then the Industrial Revolution, and modern living - since then CO2 has risen to 420PPM. In essentially the blink of an eye. But sure. This is fine. What percentage of the atmosphere does this represent? A sizeable enough percentage to affect precision balanced ecosystems. So give me a number then It’s around 0.04%. Why? Context - that’s why Why does this help, instead of the more pertinent PPM measurement? Are you genuinely asking why someone should seek some context? No, I'm asking why a less pertinent measure of CO2 provided context, because it would appear it's doing the opposite and moving the conversation away from what an increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere does, by making it appear to be insignificant amount. Well being that you won't feel any light-headedness until 1.5% it could definitely be argued that it is indeed an insignificant amount Insignificant to who? Humans? Or the other life who share the planet with us? " To humans, we are the human and and whether you like it or not, we're largely a selfish bunch | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. The point speaks for itself, I’d have thought. Sorry, going a bit Morley there and making assumptions. For the past 800,000 years CO2 had *never* been above 300PPM. And then the Industrial Revolution, and modern living - since then CO2 has risen to 420PPM. In essentially the blink of an eye. But sure. This is fine. What percentage of the atmosphere does this represent? A sizeable enough percentage to affect precision balanced ecosystems. So give me a number then It’s around 0.04%. Why? Context - that’s why Why does this help, instead of the more pertinent PPM measurement? Are you genuinely asking why someone should seek some context? No, I'm asking why a less pertinent measure of CO2 provided context, because it would appear it's doing the opposite and moving the conversation away from what an increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere does, by making it appear to be insignificant amount. Well being that you won't feel any light-headedness until 1.5% it could definitely be argued that it is indeed an insignificant amount Is that 1.5% refering to a temperature increase or a % of the atmosphere made up of CO2?" Atmospheric percentage | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. The point speaks for itself, I’d have thought. Sorry, going a bit Morley there and making assumptions. For the past 800,000 years CO2 had *never* been above 300PPM. And then the Industrial Revolution, and modern living - since then CO2 has risen to 420PPM. In essentially the blink of an eye. But sure. This is fine. What percentage of the atmosphere does this represent? A sizeable enough percentage to affect precision balanced ecosystems. So give me a number then It’s around 0.04%. Why? Context - that’s why Why does this help, instead of the more pertinent PPM measurement? Are you genuinely asking why someone should seek some context? No, I'm asking why a less pertinent measure of CO2 provided context, because it would appear it's doing the opposite and moving the conversation away from what an increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere does, by making it appear to be insignificant amount. Well being that you won't feel any light-headedness until 1.5% it could definitely be argued that it is indeed an insignificant amount Insignificant to who? Humans? Or the other life who share the planet with us? To humans, we are the human and and whether you like it or not, we're largely a selfish bunch" Sadly we are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you know the real reason for low take up of smart meters? It gives power to the utility company to cut you off remotely at will. Late paying your bill? Struggling? I dont think they can just cut you off at will. There may be legal nuance so perhaps not at will. They can force entry into your property to disconnect you from gas and electric too (the meter is their property not yours). I think there's a fair few laws that would stop this.didnt British gas just lose a case where they forced entry to peoples homes and changed their metres? Not seen that but quite possibly. They have been doing it though (entering property and disconnecting). I can't imagine you could just disconnect some ones gas and electricity. There be some very very large rights violations, without going through the courts. I think they got taken to court for forced entry on vulnerable adults to change them to pre payments. But I think they'd struggle to force you onto a prepay metre as a non vulnerable. As they can take the metre away but they can't put a new one on your property but they'd have to disconnect you. I don’t know the legalities but surely if someone stopped paying (or couldn’t pay the full amount) a private company has a right to stop providing a service and reclaim their own property? Not quite. As per a discussion while ago about privatising water. You have a basic right to clean water. It's extremely difficult for companies to cut you off. As with you I am not sure on the legalities of gas and electricity. It won't be as hard as water. But I imagine you will have some strong rights that the company would have to take you to court over. I can't imagine it being as easy as flicking a switch because you haven't paid your bill in 3 months. There's a good bit on national debtline about it. Quite insightful " I would hope they can’t just cut you off! As you say, I don’t think water can be cut off (don’t know why I think that but must have read it somewhere). I note you have ignored the point in previous temperature changes throughout history? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. Do we ‘know’ what the earth can handle? Because climate scientists are probably a fairly reliable source for this, and they *overwhelmingly* think we’re on the brink. I tend to trust experts, but I’m old fashioned like that. Yes we do. The earth has been uo to several degrees hotter than now and supported life easily. Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. It's also the speed of the change that's an issue for ecosystems. Before the industrial revolution these swings in global mean temperature were taking tens of thousands of years, and some larger cycles in geological timescales. Actually no they weren't. They can take around 100 years. I previously alluded to this re: the maunder minimum etc." There is a wiki page called "global temperature record". This is one of many sources of data you can use. It shows a graph of global temperature change over 100s of thousands of years. This is the timescale we're talking about. Change has only happened at this pace that can be measured in 100s of years since the industrial revolution. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you know the real reason for low take up of smart meters? It gives power to the utility company to cut you off remotely at will. Late paying your bill? Struggling? I dont think they can just cut you off at will. There may be legal nuance so perhaps not at will. They can force entry into your property to disconnect you from gas and electric too (the meter is their property not yours). I think there's a fair few laws that would stop this.didnt British gas just lose a case where they forced entry to peoples homes and changed their metres? Not seen that but quite possibly. They have been doing it though (entering property and disconnecting). I can't imagine you could just disconnect some ones gas and electricity. There be some very very large rights violations, without going through the courts. I think they got taken to court for forced entry on vulnerable adults to change them to pre payments. But I think they'd struggle to force you onto a prepay metre as a non vulnerable. As they can take the metre away but they can't put a new one on your property but they'd have to disconnect you. I don’t know the legalities but surely if someone stopped paying (or couldn’t pay the full amount) a private company has a right to stop providing a service and reclaim their own property? Not quite. As per a discussion while ago about privatising water. You have a basic right to clean water. It's extremely difficult for companies to cut you off. As with you I am not sure on the legalities of gas and electricity. It won't be as hard as water. But I imagine you will have some strong rights that the company would have to take you to court over. I can't imagine it being as easy as flicking a switch because you haven't paid your bill in 3 months. There's a good bit on national debtline about it. Quite insightful I would hope they can’t just cut you off! As you say, I don’t think water can be cut off (don’t know why I think that but must have read it somewhere). I note you have ignored the point in previous temperature changes throughout history?" Which point is that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. The point speaks for itself, I’d have thought. Sorry, going a bit Morley there and making assumptions. For the past 800,000 years CO2 had *never* been above 300PPM. And then the Industrial Revolution, and modern living - since then CO2 has risen to 420PPM. In essentially the blink of an eye. But sure. This is fine. What percentage of the atmosphere does this represent? A sizeable enough percentage to affect precision balanced ecosystems. So give me a number then It’s around 0.04%. Why? Context - that’s why Why does this help, instead of the more pertinent PPM measurement? Are you genuinely asking why someone should seek some context? No, I'm asking why a less pertinent measure of CO2 provided context, because it would appear it's doing the opposite and moving the conversation away from what an increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere does, by making it appear to be insignificant amount. Well being that you won't feel any light-headedness until 1.5% it could definitely be argued that it is indeed an insignificant amount Is that 1.5% refering to a temperature increase or a % of the atmosphere made up of CO2? Atmospheric percentage " Can you direct me to the articles? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you know the real reason for low take up of smart meters? It gives power to the utility company to cut you off remotely at will. Late paying your bill? Struggling? I dont think they can just cut you off at will. There may be legal nuance so perhaps not at will. They can force entry into your property to disconnect you from gas and electric too (the meter is their property not yours). I think there's a fair few laws that would stop this.didnt British gas just lose a case where they forced entry to peoples homes and changed their metres? Not seen that but quite possibly. They have been doing it though (entering property and disconnecting). I can't imagine you could just disconnect some ones gas and electricity. There be some very very large rights violations, without going through the courts. I think they got taken to court for forced entry on vulnerable adults to change them to pre payments. But I think they'd struggle to force you onto a prepay metre as a non vulnerable. As they can take the metre away but they can't put a new one on your property but they'd have to disconnect you. I don’t know the legalities but surely if someone stopped paying (or couldn’t pay the full amount) a private company has a right to stop providing a service and reclaim their own property? Not quite. As per a discussion while ago about privatising water. You have a basic right to clean water. It's extremely difficult for companies to cut you off. As with you I am not sure on the legalities of gas and electricity. It won't be as hard as water. But I imagine you will have some strong rights that the company would have to take you to court over. I can't imagine it being as easy as flicking a switch because you haven't paid your bill in 3 months. There's a good bit on national debtline about it. Quite insightful I would hope they can’t just cut you off! As you say, I don’t think water can be cut off (don’t know why I think that but must have read it somewhere). I note you have ignored the point in previous temperature changes throughout history? Which point is that?" Actually my bad you replied to Johnny who had replied to the point when I first made it. However, my point to you was reiterated and you missed it... "On your point earlier about the earth having been hotter before and life surviving... Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. Guess what happened when parts of the Earth got hotter or colder (and therefore less able to support life)...migration. Mass migration to more temperate zones. As per point on another thread, regardless of the cause of climate change (human driven or natural cycle), it will be devastating to the current way of life for many. You will see increased pressure on human migration. So what do we do to handle that?" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. Do we ‘know’ what the earth can handle? Because climate scientists are probably a fairly reliable source for this, and they *overwhelmingly* think we’re on the brink. I tend to trust experts, but I’m old fashioned like that. Yes we do. The earth has been uo to several degrees hotter than now and supported life easily. Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. It's also the speed of the change that's an issue for ecosystems. Before the industrial revolution these swings in global mean temperature were taking tens of thousands of years, and some larger cycles in geological timescales. Actually no they weren't. They can take around 100 years. I previously alluded to this re: the maunder minimum etc. There is a wiki page called "global temperature record". This is one of many sources of data you can use. It shows a graph of global temperature change over 100s of thousands of years. This is the timescale we're talking about. Change has only happened at this pace that can be measured in 100s of years since the industrial revolution. " But you literally can't measure at today's timescales historically. But the mini ice age etc are easily looked up When you're looking at ice cores for temperatures and c02 levels they will be at 10ps of years because of the condensing of ice. 1cm of ice core will contains about 200k years or something of tenp data it can't be further looked into the o ky other effects we have are astrological in the 1500s etc noting temperatures and sun spots...and their findings * maunder minimum ) point to these vast changes happening quickly | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. The point speaks for itself, I’d have thought. Sorry, going a bit Morley there and making assumptions. For the past 800,000 years CO2 had *never* been above 300PPM. And then the Industrial Revolution, and modern living - since then CO2 has risen to 420PPM. In essentially the blink of an eye. But sure. This is fine. What percentage of the atmosphere does this represent? A sizeable enough percentage to affect precision balanced ecosystems. So give me a number then It’s around 0.04%. Why? Context - that’s why Why does this help, instead of the more pertinent PPM measurement? Are you genuinely asking why someone should seek some context? No, I'm asking why a less pertinent measure of CO2 provided context, because it would appear it's doing the opposite and moving the conversation away from what an increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere does, by making it appear to be insignificant amount. Well being that you won't feel any light-headedness until 1.5% it could definitely be argued that it is indeed an insignificant amount Is that 1.5% refering to a temperature increase or a % of the atmosphere made up of CO2? Atmospheric percentage Can you direct me to the articles?" https://www.logico2.com/knowledge-base/co2-risks/ This is one that speaks of 'increased heart rate' I realise its different to what I wrote but it shows the point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. Do we ‘know’ what the earth can handle? Because climate scientists are probably a fairly reliable source for this, and they *overwhelmingly* think we’re on the brink. I tend to trust experts, but I’m old fashioned like that. Yes we do. The earth has been uo to several degrees hotter than now and supported life easily. Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. It's also the speed of the change that's an issue for ecosystems. Before the industrial revolution these swings in global mean temperature were taking tens of thousands of years, and some larger cycles in geological timescales. Actually no they weren't. They can take around 100 years. I previously alluded to this re: the maunder minimum etc. There is a wiki page called "global temperature record". This is one of many sources of data you can use. It shows a graph of global temperature change over 100s of thousands of years. This is the timescale we're talking about. Change has only happened at this pace that can be measured in 100s of years since the industrial revolution. But you literally can't measure at today's timescales historically. But the mini ice age etc are easily looked up When you're looking at ice cores for temperatures and c02 levels they will be at 10ps of years because of the condensing of ice. 1cm of ice core will contains about 200k years or something of tenp data it can't be further looked into the o ky other effects we have are astrological in the 1500s etc noting temperatures and sun spots...and their findings * maunder minimum ) point to these vast changes happening quickly" I don't know where you get this information from. But look up some data and graphs. It will show you the historical temperature changes over time. It's very well established, easily understood science. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. The point speaks for itself, I’d have thought. Sorry, going a bit Morley there and making assumptions. For the past 800,000 years CO2 had *never* been above 300PPM. And then the Industrial Revolution, and modern living - since then CO2 has risen to 420PPM. In essentially the blink of an eye. But sure. This is fine. What percentage of the atmosphere does this represent? A sizeable enough percentage to affect precision balanced ecosystems. So give me a number then It’s around 0.04%. Why? Context - that’s why Why does this help, instead of the more pertinent PPM measurement? Are you genuinely asking why someone should seek some context? No, I'm asking why a less pertinent measure of CO2 provided context, because it would appear it's doing the opposite and moving the conversation away from what an increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere does, by making it appear to be insignificant amount. Well being that you won't feel any light-headedness until 1.5% it could definitely be argued that it is indeed an insignificant amount Is that 1.5% refering to a temperature increase or a % of the atmosphere made up of CO2? Atmospheric percentage Can you direct me to the articles? https://www.logico2.com/knowledge-base/co2-risks/ This is one that speaks of 'increased heart rate' I realise its different to what I wrote but it shows the point." This seems to be an article about the effect of breathing air with an increased level of CO2. Is that right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. Do we ‘know’ what the earth can handle? Because climate scientists are probably a fairly reliable source for this, and they *overwhelmingly* think we’re on the brink. I tend to trust experts, but I’m old fashioned like that. Yes we do. The earth has been uo to several degrees hotter than now and supported life easily. Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. It's also the speed of the change that's an issue for ecosystems. Before the industrial revolution these swings in global mean temperature were taking tens of thousands of years, and some larger cycles in geological timescales. Actually no they weren't. They can take around 100 years. I previously alluded to this re: the maunder minimum etc. There is a wiki page called "global temperature record". This is one of many sources of data you can use. It shows a graph of global temperature change over 100s of thousands of years. This is the timescale we're talking about. Change has only happened at this pace that can be measured in 100s of years since the industrial revolution. But you literally can't measure at today's timescales historically. But the mini ice age etc are easily looked up When you're looking at ice cores for temperatures and c02 levels they will be at 10ps of years because of the condensing of ice. 1cm of ice core will contains about 200k years or something of tenp data it can't be further looked into the o ky other effects we have are astrological in the 1500s etc noting temperatures and sun spots...and their findings * maunder minimum ) point to these vast changes happening quickly I don't know where you get this information from. But look up some data and graphs. It will show you the historical temperature changes over time. It's very well established, easily understood science." Ice core data is incredibly reliable and accurate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. The point speaks for itself, I’d have thought. Sorry, going a bit Morley there and making assumptions. For the past 800,000 years CO2 had *never* been above 300PPM. And then the Industrial Revolution, and modern living - since then CO2 has risen to 420PPM. In essentially the blink of an eye. But sure. This is fine. What percentage of the atmosphere does this represent? A sizeable enough percentage to affect precision balanced ecosystems. So give me a number then It’s around 0.04%. Why? Context - that’s why Why does this help, instead of the more pertinent PPM measurement? Are you genuinely asking why someone should seek some context? No, I'm asking why a less pertinent measure of CO2 provided context, because it would appear it's doing the opposite and moving the conversation away from what an increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere does, by making it appear to be insignificant amount. Well being that you won't feel any light-headedness until 1.5% it could definitely be argued that it is indeed an insignificant amount Is that 1.5% refering to a temperature increase or a % of the atmosphere made up of CO2? Atmospheric percentage Can you direct me to the articles? https://www.logico2.com/knowledge-base/co2-risks/ This is one that speaks of 'increased heart rate' I realise its different to what I wrote but it shows the point. This seems to be an article about the effect of breathing air with an increased level of CO2. Is that right?" Isn't that what you asked for? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. Do we ‘know’ what the earth can handle? Because climate scientists are probably a fairly reliable source for this, and they *overwhelmingly* think we’re on the brink. I tend to trust experts, but I’m old fashioned like that. Yes we do. The earth has been uo to several degrees hotter than now and supported life easily. Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. It's also the speed of the change that's an issue for ecosystems. Before the industrial revolution these swings in global mean temperature were taking tens of thousands of years, and some larger cycles in geological timescales. Actually no they weren't. They can take around 100 years. I previously alluded to this re: the maunder minimum etc. There is a wiki page called "global temperature record". This is one of many sources of data you can use. It shows a graph of global temperature change over 100s of thousands of years. This is the timescale we're talking about. Change has only happened at this pace that can be measured in 100s of years since the industrial revolution. But you literally can't measure at today's timescales historically. But the mini ice age etc are easily looked up When you're looking at ice cores for temperatures and c02 levels they will be at 10ps of years because of the condensing of ice. 1cm of ice core will contains about 200k years or something of tenp data it can't be further looked into the o ky other effects we have are astrological in the 1500s etc noting temperatures and sun spots...and their findings * maunder minimum ) point to these vast changes happening quickly I don't know where you get this information from. But look up some data and graphs. It will show you the historical temperature changes over time. It's very well established, easily understood science." Yes the time on the page you are using is in 100k years and millions of years. The pressure fo the mental weight and sea for sediment cores and ice cores( ice weight) means the further back in history You go for data. The longer the period has to be measured. Because if you have the ice at the top of the sheet flr the first metre it will be the last 10 years or so. But as that ice builds up, it compresses. Much like you standing on snow. That compression for example of 40m years of ice build up means that the deeper ice is compressed to a point where the 1 m sample would represent for example 100k years not the 10 years at the top. This is literally how physics works. It's how Brian Cox described it. It's what you learn in gcse physics. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. Do we ‘know’ what the earth can handle? Because climate scientists are probably a fairly reliable source for this, and they *overwhelmingly* think we’re on the brink. I tend to trust experts, but I’m old fashioned like that. Yes we do. The earth has been uo to several degrees hotter than now and supported life easily. Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. It's also the speed of the change that's an issue for ecosystems. Before the industrial revolution these swings in global mean temperature were taking tens of thousands of years, and some larger cycles in geological timescales. Actually no they weren't. They can take around 100 years. I previously alluded to this re: the maunder minimum etc. There is a wiki page called "global temperature record". This is one of many sources of data you can use. It shows a graph of global temperature change over 100s of thousands of years. This is the timescale we're talking about. Change has only happened at this pace that can be measured in 100s of years since the industrial revolution. But you literally can't measure at today's timescales historically. But the mini ice age etc are easily looked up When you're looking at ice cores for temperatures and c02 levels they will be at 10ps of years because of the condensing of ice. 1cm of ice core will contains about 200k years or something of tenp data it can't be further looked into the o ky other effects we have are astrological in the 1500s etc noting temperatures and sun spots...and their findings * maunder minimum ) point to these vast changes happening quickly I don't know where you get this information from. But look up some data and graphs. It will show you the historical temperature changes over time. It's very well established, easily understood science. Ice core data is incredibly reliable and accurate. " Yes it is. But he doesn't seem tk be understanding that the timescales are what they are because of weight compression. Not because we don't have reliable data and historical written records of temperatures from 500 years ago. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. The point speaks for itself, I’d have thought. Sorry, going a bit Morley there and making assumptions. For the past 800,000 years CO2 had *never* been above 300PPM. And then the Industrial Revolution, and modern living - since then CO2 has risen to 420PPM. In essentially the blink of an eye. But sure. This is fine. What percentage of the atmosphere does this represent? A sizeable enough percentage to affect precision balanced ecosystems. So give me a number then It’s around 0.04%. Why? Context - that’s why Why does this help, instead of the more pertinent PPM measurement? Are you genuinely asking why someone should seek some context? No, I'm asking why a less pertinent measure of CO2 provided context, because it would appear it's doing the opposite and moving the conversation away from what an increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere does, by making it appear to be insignificant amount. Well being that you won't feel any light-headedness until 1.5% it could definitely be argued that it is indeed an insignificant amount Is that 1.5% refering to a temperature increase or a % of the atmosphere made up of CO2? Atmospheric percentage Can you direct me to the articles? https://www.logico2.com/knowledge-base/co2-risks/ This is one that speaks of 'increased heart rate' I realise its different to what I wrote but it shows the point. This seems to be an article about the effect of breathing air with an increased level of CO2. Is that right? Isn't that what you asked for?" Maybe I caused confusion. Sorry I thought we were looking at the increase of CO2 PPM increasing mean global temperature. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. Do we ‘know’ what the earth can handle? Because climate scientists are probably a fairly reliable source for this, and they *overwhelmingly* think we’re on the brink. I tend to trust experts, but I’m old fashioned like that. Yes we do. The earth has been uo to several degrees hotter than now and supported life easily. Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. It's also the speed of the change that's an issue for ecosystems. Before the industrial revolution these swings in global mean temperature were taking tens of thousands of years, and some larger cycles in geological timescales. Actually no they weren't. They can take around 100 years. I previously alluded to this re: the maunder minimum etc. There is a wiki page called "global temperature record". This is one of many sources of data you can use. It shows a graph of global temperature change over 100s of thousands of years. This is the timescale we're talking about. Change has only happened at this pace that can be measured in 100s of years since the industrial revolution. But you literally can't measure at today's timescales historically. But the mini ice age etc are easily looked up When you're looking at ice cores for temperatures and c02 levels they will be at 10ps of years because of the condensing of ice. 1cm of ice core will contains about 200k years or something of tenp data it can't be further looked into the o ky other effects we have are astrological in the 1500s etc noting temperatures and sun spots...and their findings * maunder minimum ) point to these vast changes happening quickly I don't know where you get this information from. But look up some data and graphs. It will show you the historical temperature changes over time. It's very well established, easily understood science. Ice core data is incredibly reliable and accurate. Yes it is. But he doesn't seem tk be understanding that the timescales are what they are because of weight compression. Not because we don't have reliable data and historical written records of temperatures from 500 years ago." You seem to be contradicting yourself. We're talking 100,000 - 800,000 years. And longer back. There is a wealth of information you could choose to look at and learn. The wiki page is just one easy example to direct you to. Still, if you're not interested in understanding it, fair enough. I'll leave you to it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm more worried about sustainability of food supply / overpopulation and war than temperatures increasing 1 or 2 degree that we know the earth can handle. Do we ‘know’ what the earth can handle? Because climate scientists are probably a fairly reliable source for this, and they *overwhelmingly* think we’re on the brink. I tend to trust experts, but I’m old fashioned like that. Yes we do. The earth has been uo to several degrees hotter than now and supported life easily. Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. It's also the speed of the change that's an issue for ecosystems. Before the industrial revolution these swings in global mean temperature were taking tens of thousands of years, and some larger cycles in geological timescales. Actually no they weren't. They can take around 100 years. I previously alluded to this re: the maunder minimum etc. There is a wiki page called "global temperature record". This is one of many sources of data you can use. It shows a graph of global temperature change over 100s of thousands of years. This is the timescale we're talking about. Change has only happened at this pace that can be measured in 100s of years since the industrial revolution. But you literally can't measure at today's timescales historically. But the mini ice age etc are easily looked up When you're looking at ice cores for temperatures and c02 levels they will be at 10ps of years because of the condensing of ice. 1cm of ice core will contains about 200k years or something of tenp data it can't be further looked into the o ky other effects we have are astrological in the 1500s etc noting temperatures and sun spots...and their findings * maunder minimum ) point to these vast changes happening quickly I don't know where you get this information from. But look up some data and graphs. It will show you the historical temperature changes over time. It's very well established, easily understood science. Ice core data is incredibly reliable and accurate. Yes it is. But he doesn't seem tk be understanding that the timescales are what they are because of weight compression. Not because we don't have reliable data and historical written records of temperatures from 500 years ago. You seem to be contradicting yourself. We're talking 100,000 - 800,000 years. And longer back. There is a wealth of information you could choose to look at and learn. The wiki page is just one easy example to direct you to. Still, if you're not interested in understanding it, fair enough. I'll leave you to it." Jesus h christ. This is literally the phsycis and science behind it. It's on the Web page itself...see how over the last 1000 years you can see a MUCH longer and more accurate time scale because the samples being taken at the top depict a larger non compressed range. The deeper down you dig into ANYTHING because of mass and gravity the sampling gets compressed. This is how thing slike diamond are formed because kf immense pressure. That pressure condenses the ice and sediment so 1m of sediment or ice at the top will represent 10 years. 1m of ice or sediment at the bottom represents and average of 100k years. Do you not get how physics works? Look at BAS.AC.UK thr British antacticic survey of the ice cores. The graph there has a side graph of last 100p years ( easily discernable) the it elongates the reminding data over 100k years. Because of how compressions works. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. The point speaks for itself, I’d have thought. Sorry, going a bit Morley there and making assumptions. For the past 800,000 years CO2 had *never* been above 300PPM. And then the Industrial Revolution, and modern living - since then CO2 has risen to 420PPM. In essentially the blink of an eye. But sure. This is fine. What percentage of the atmosphere does this represent? A sizeable enough percentage to affect precision balanced ecosystems. So give me a number then It’s around 0.04%. Why? Context - that’s why Why does this help, instead of the more pertinent PPM measurement? Are you genuinely asking why someone should seek some context? No, I'm asking why a less pertinent measure of CO2 provided context, because it would appear it's doing the opposite and moving the conversation away from what an increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere does, by making it appear to be insignificant amount. Well being that you won't feel any light-headedness until 1.5% it could definitely be argued that it is indeed an insignificant amount Is that 1.5% refering to a temperature increase or a % of the atmosphere made up of CO2? Atmospheric percentage Can you direct me to the articles? https://www.logico2.com/knowledge-base/co2-risks/ This is one that speaks of 'increased heart rate' I realise its different to what I wrote but it shows the point. This seems to be an article about the effect of breathing air with an increased level of CO2. Is that right? Isn't that what you asked for? Maybe I caused confusion. Sorry I thought we were looking at the increase of CO2 PPM increasing mean global temperature." We were, it was then asked about percentage, if your confused it's baceuse you brought about the 'pertinent question' when speaking about atmospheric percentages. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"^^^^^& this is literally GCSE physics you don't understand. " I'll leave you to it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. The point speaks for itself, I’d have thought. Sorry, going a bit Morley there and making assumptions. For the past 800,000 years CO2 had *never* been above 300PPM. And then the Industrial Revolution, and modern living - since then CO2 has risen to 420PPM. In essentially the blink of an eye. But sure. This is fine. What percentage of the atmosphere does this represent? A sizeable enough percentage to affect precision balanced ecosystems. So give me a number then It’s around 0.04%. Why? Context - that’s why Why does this help, instead of the more pertinent PPM measurement? Are you genuinely asking why someone should seek some context? No, I'm asking why a less pertinent measure of CO2 provided context, because it would appear it's doing the opposite and moving the conversation away from what an increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere does, by making it appear to be insignificant amount. Well being that you won't feel any light-headedness until 1.5% it could definitely be argued that it is indeed an insignificant amount Is that 1.5% refering to a temperature increase or a % of the atmosphere made up of CO2? Atmospheric percentage Can you direct me to the articles? https://www.logico2.com/knowledge-base/co2-risks/ This is one that speaks of 'increased heart rate' I realise its different to what I wrote but it shows the point. This seems to be an article about the effect of breathing air with an increased level of CO2. Is that right? Isn't that what you asked for? Maybe I caused confusion. Sorry I thought we were looking at the increase of CO2 PPM increasing mean global temperature. We were, it was then asked about percentage, if your confused it's baceuse you brought about the 'pertinent question' when speaking about atmospheric percentages." Right. So PPM is the pertinent measure when discussing climate change. My point stands. I know nothing about the appropriate measure for the impact on human health of breathing in CO2. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. The point speaks for itself, I’d have thought. Sorry, going a bit Morley there and making assumptions. For the past 800,000 years CO2 had *never* been above 300PPM. And then the Industrial Revolution, and modern living - since then CO2 has risen to 420PPM. In essentially the blink of an eye. But sure. This is fine. What percentage of the atmosphere does this represent? A sizeable enough percentage to affect precision balanced ecosystems. So give me a number then It’s around 0.04%. Why? Context - that’s why Why does this help, instead of the more pertinent PPM measurement? Are you genuinely asking why someone should seek some context? No, I'm asking why a less pertinent measure of CO2 provided context, because it would appear it's doing the opposite and moving the conversation away from what an increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere does, by making it appear to be insignificant amount. Well being that you won't feel any light-headedness until 1.5% it could definitely be argued that it is indeed an insignificant amount Is that 1.5% refering to a temperature increase or a % of the atmosphere made up of CO2? Atmospheric percentage Can you direct me to the articles? https://www.logico2.com/knowledge-base/co2-risks/ This is one that speaks of 'increased heart rate' I realise its different to what I wrote but it shows the point. This seems to be an article about the effect of breathing air with an increased level of CO2. Is that right? Isn't that what you asked for? Maybe I caused confusion. Sorry I thought we were looking at the increase of CO2 PPM increasing mean global temperature. We were, it was then asked about percentage, if your confused it's baceuse you brought about the 'pertinent question' when speaking about atmospheric percentages. Right. So PPM is the pertinent measure when discussing climate change. My point stands. I know nothing about the appropriate measure for the impact on human health of breathing in CO2." Humans can survive 5000 ppm with ease. That's the acceptable level pf the London underground | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. The point speaks for itself, I’d have thought. Sorry, going a bit Morley there and making assumptions. For the past 800,000 years CO2 had *never* been above 300PPM. And then the Industrial Revolution, and modern living - since then CO2 has risen to 420PPM. In essentially the blink of an eye. But sure. This is fine. What percentage of the atmosphere does this represent? A sizeable enough percentage to affect precision balanced ecosystems. So give me a number then It’s around 0.04%. Why? Context - that’s why Why does this help, instead of the more pertinent PPM measurement? Are you genuinely asking why someone should seek some context? No, I'm asking why a less pertinent measure of CO2 provided context, because it would appear it's doing the opposite and moving the conversation away from what an increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere does, by making it appear to be insignificant amount. Well being that you won't feel any light-headedness until 1.5% it could definitely be argued that it is indeed an insignificant amount Is that 1.5% refering to a temperature increase or a % of the atmosphere made up of CO2? Atmospheric percentage Can you direct me to the articles? https://www.logico2.com/knowledge-base/co2-risks/ This is one that speaks of 'increased heart rate' I realise its different to what I wrote but it shows the point. This seems to be an article about the effect of breathing air with an increased level of CO2. Is that right? Isn't that what you asked for? Maybe I caused confusion. Sorry I thought we were looking at the increase of CO2 PPM increasing mean global temperature. We were, it was then asked about percentage, if your confused it's baceuse you brought about the 'pertinent question' when speaking about atmospheric percentages. Right. So PPM is the pertinent measure when discussing climate change. My point stands. I know nothing about the appropriate measure for the impact on human health of breathing in CO2. Humans can survive 5000 ppm with ease. That's the acceptable level pf the London underground " Is this related to climate change? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So Morley now that the CO2 circle jerk is finished... "On your point earlier about the earth having been hotter before and life surviving... Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. Guess what happened when parts of the Earth got hotter or colder (and therefore less able to support life)...migration. Mass migration to more temperate zones. As per point on another thread, regardless of the cause of climate change (human driven or natural cycle), it will be devastating to the current way of life for many. You will see increased pressure on human migration. So what do we do to handle that?"" Now that two notes might understand basic physics. Yes species come and go. Thisnis life, whether its comets, humans, landscape changes, tectonic activity. That's life. Trying to stop evolution is just as poor. Why would we see increased pressure on human migration. Human have managed to live everywhere. Fromt he arctic to the himalayas. Was that it... that was the big question....what do we do when we go from 3ppm to 4ppm? Or if average global temperatures in 10p years increase by a possible 1 c but most likely 0.2c | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So Morley now that the CO2 circle jerk is finished... "On your point earlier about the earth having been hotter before and life surviving... Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. Guess what happened when parts of the Earth got hotter or colder (and therefore less able to support life)...migration. Mass migration to more temperate zones. As per point on another thread, regardless of the cause of climate change (human driven or natural cycle), it will be devastating to the current way of life for many. You will see increased pressure on human migration. So what do we do to handle that?" Now that two notes might understand basic physics. Yes species come and go. Thisnis life, whether its comets, humans, landscape changes, tectonic activity. That's life. Trying to stop evolution is just as poor. Why would we see increased pressure on human migration. Human have managed to live everywhere. Fromt he arctic to the himalayas. Was that it... that was the big question....what do we do when we go from 3ppm to 4ppm? Or if average global temperatures in 10p years increase by a possible 1 c but most likely 0.2c" So you totally deny that climate change will not significantly impact on humanity? You think we will just adapt? I’d agree if the population was perhaps a quarter of what it is and those living in more temperate zones were willing to accept migration but...!!!!! That sounds suspiciously like ostrich syndrome to me! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So Morley now that the CO2 circle jerk is finished... "On your point earlier about the earth having been hotter before and life surviving... Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. Guess what happened when parts of the Earth got hotter or colder (and therefore less able to support life)...migration. Mass migration to more temperate zones. As per point on another thread, regardless of the cause of climate change (human driven or natural cycle), it will be devastating to the current way of life for many. You will see increased pressure on human migration. So what do we do to handle that?" Now that two notes might understand basic physics. Yes species come and go. Thisnis life, whether its comets, humans, landscape changes, tectonic activity. That's life. Trying to stop evolution is just as poor. Why would we see increased pressure on human migration. Human have managed to live everywhere. Fromt he arctic to the himalayas. Was that it... that was the big question....what do we do when we go from 3ppm to 4ppm? Or if average global temperatures in 10p years increase by a possible 1 c but most likely 0.2c" We’d better get a move on with that cellular food, because if climate change continues, we’re going to be scrabbling for sustenance. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So Morley now that the CO2 circle jerk is finished... "On your point earlier about the earth having been hotter before and life surviving... Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. Guess what happened when parts of the Earth got hotter or colder (and therefore less able to support life)...migration. Mass migration to more temperate zones. As per point on another thread, regardless of the cause of climate change (human driven or natural cycle), it will be devastating to the current way of life for many. You will see increased pressure on human migration. So what do we do to handle that?" Now that two notes might understand basic physics. Yes species come and go. Thisnis life, whether its comets, humans, landscape changes, tectonic activity. That's life. Trying to stop evolution is just as poor. Why would we see increased pressure on human migration. Human have managed to live everywhere. Fromt he arctic to the himalayas. Was that it... that was the big question....what do we do when we go from 3ppm to 4ppm? Or if average global temperatures in 10p years increase by a possible 1 c but most likely 0.2c So you totally deny that climate change will not significantly impact on humanity? You think we will just adapt? I’d agree if the population was perhaps a quarter of what it is and those living in more temperate zones were willing to accept migration but...!!!!! That sounds suspiciously like ostrich syndrome to me!" As I said before the biggest worry is sustainability. Letting the population increase and trying to feed it. I am not worried about a severely unlikely 1 degree temp change by 2100. I regarding where these people go on the with and migration. I think you don't realise how big the earth a tuslly is. I'm not entirely sure what you think would be the consequence and which land would be lost. But I dont think suddenly millions of Africans or chinese or Indians will be coming to the UK. So I'm not entirely sure what you're asking or worried about. I have problems with sustainability. I'd rather rlimit human impact on loving environments e.g rainforest. But with regards to global warming. Species adapt, species die. We'd still have the sabre tooth, mammoth etc if this wasn't a natural cycle. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So Morley now that the CO2 circle jerk is finished... "On your point earlier about the earth having been hotter before and life surviving... Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. Guess what happened when parts of the Earth got hotter or colder (and therefore less able to support life)...migration. Mass migration to more temperate zones. As per point on another thread, regardless of the cause of climate change (human driven or natural cycle), it will be devastating to the current way of life for many. You will see increased pressure on human migration. So what do we do to handle that?" Now that two notes might understand basic physics. Yes species come and go. Thisnis life, whether its comets, humans, landscape changes, tectonic activity. That's life. Trying to stop evolution is just as poor. Why would we see increased pressure on human migration. Human have managed to live everywhere. Fromt he arctic to the himalayas. Was that it... that was the big question....what do we do when we go from 3ppm to 4ppm? Or if average global temperatures in 10p years increase by a possible 1 c but most likely 0.2c So you totally deny that climate change will not significantly impact on humanity? You think we will just adapt? I’d agree if the population was perhaps a quarter of what it is and those living in more temperate zones were willing to accept migration but...!!!!! That sounds suspiciously like ostrich syndrome to me! As I said before the biggest worry is sustainability. Letting the population increase and trying to feed it. I am not worried about a severely unlikely 1 degree temp change by 2100. I regarding where these people go on the with and migration. I think you don't realise how big the earth a tuslly is. I'm not entirely sure what you think would be the consequence and which land would be lost. But I dont think suddenly millions of Africans or chinese or Indians will be coming to the UK. So I'm not entirely sure what you're asking or worried about. I have problems with sustainability. I'd rather rlimit human impact on loving environments e.g rainforest. But with regards to global warming. Species adapt, species die. We'd still have the sabre tooth, mammoth etc if this wasn't a natural cycle. " That’s the point - the data strongly suggests it isn’t natural. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So Morley now that the CO2 circle jerk is finished... "On your point earlier about the earth having been hotter before and life surviving... Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. Guess what happened when parts of the Earth got hotter or colder (and therefore less able to support life)...migration. Mass migration to more temperate zones. As per point on another thread, regardless of the cause of climate change (human driven or natural cycle), it will be devastating to the current way of life for many. You will see increased pressure on human migration. So what do we do to handle that?" Now that two notes might understand basic physics. Yes species come and go. Thisnis life, whether its comets, humans, landscape changes, tectonic activity. That's life. Trying to stop evolution is just as poor. Why would we see increased pressure on human migration. Human have managed to live everywhere. Fromt he arctic to the himalayas. Was that it... that was the big question....what do we do when we go from 3ppm to 4ppm? Or if average global temperatures in 10p years increase by a possible 1 c but most likely 0.2c We’d better get a move on with that cellular food, because if climate change continues, we’re going to be scrabbling for sustenance." No problem eating cellular food if it has the proteins and tastes just the same. I'd back it. Means less need for such intensive farming. Then again. I imagine the farmers would want compensation and it would be blamed on brexit harming farmers 
My point economically has always been that innovation and invention is better than remaining static.
We have been able to feed the increasing numbers of people because of.real farm management, fertiliser, pesticides, tractors.
Productivity of farms has gone through the roof in the last 150 years and wil continue to do so.
It'd my stance on life and economics. Why employ 100 people to pick apples every year when a machine can do it for less , better and probably pick more.
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So Morley now that the CO2 circle jerk is finished... "On your point earlier about the earth having been hotter before and life surviving... Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. Guess what happened when parts of the Earth got hotter or colder (and therefore less able to support life)...migration. Mass migration to more temperate zones. As per point on another thread, regardless of the cause of climate change (human driven or natural cycle), it will be devastating to the current way of life for many. You will see increased pressure on human migration. So what do we do to handle that?" Now that two notes might understand basic physics. Yes species come and go. Thisnis life, whether its comets, humans, landscape changes, tectonic activity. That's life. Trying to stop evolution is just as poor. Why would we see increased pressure on human migration. Human have managed to live everywhere. Fromt he arctic to the himalayas. Was that it... that was the big question....what do we do when we go from 3ppm to 4ppm? Or if average global temperatures in 10p years increase by a possible 1 c but most likely 0.2c So you totally deny that climate change will not significantly impact on humanity? You think we will just adapt? I’d agree if the population was perhaps a quarter of what it is and those living in more temperate zones were willing to accept migration but...!!!!! That sounds suspiciously like ostrich syndrome to me! As I said before the biggest worry is sustainability. Letting the population increase and trying to feed it. I am not worried about a severely unlikely 1 degree temp change by 2100. I regarding where these people go on the with and migration. I think you don't realise how big the earth a tuslly is. I'm not entirely sure what you think would be the consequence and which land would be lost. But I dont think suddenly millions of Africans or chinese or Indians will be coming to the UK. So I'm not entirely sure what you're asking or worried about. I have problems with sustainability. I'd rather rlimit human impact on loving environments e.g rainforest. But with regards to global warming. Species adapt, species die. We'd still have the sabre tooth, mammoth etc if this wasn't a natural cycle. That’s the point - the data strongly suggests it isn’t natural. " It doesn't. It literally can't. This was the point on the compression But unless you have the data | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So Morley now that the CO2 circle jerk is finished... "On your point earlier about the earth having been hotter before and life surviving... Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. Guess what happened when parts of the Earth got hotter or colder (and therefore less able to support life)...migration. Mass migration to more temperate zones. As per point on another thread, regardless of the cause of climate change (human driven or natural cycle), it will be devastating to the current way of life for many. You will see increased pressure on human migration. So what do we do to handle that?" Now that two notes might understand basic physics. Yes species come and go. Thisnis life, whether its comets, humans, landscape changes, tectonic activity. That's life. Trying to stop evolution is just as poor. Why would we see increased pressure on human migration. Human have managed to live everywhere. Fromt he arctic to the himalayas. Was that it... that was the big question....what do we do when we go from 3ppm to 4ppm? Or if average global temperatures in 10p years increase by a possible 1 c but most likely 0.2c So you totally deny that climate change will not significantly impact on humanity? You think we will just adapt? I’d agree if the population was perhaps a quarter of what it is and those living in more temperate zones were willing to accept migration but...!!!!! That sounds suspiciously like ostrich syndrome to me! As I said before the biggest worry is sustainability. Letting the population increase and trying to feed it. I am not worried about a severely unlikely 1 degree temp change by 2100. I regarding where these people go on the with and migration. I think you don't realise how big the earth a tuslly is. I'm not entirely sure what you think would be the consequence and which land would be lost. But I dont think suddenly millions of Africans or chinese or Indians will be coming to the UK. So I'm not entirely sure what you're asking or worried about. I have problems with sustainability. I'd rather rlimit human impact on loving environments e.g rainforest. But with regards to global warming. Species adapt, species die. We'd still have the sabre tooth, mammoth etc if this wasn't a natural cycle. That’s the point - the data strongly suggests it isn’t natural. It doesn't. It literally can't. This was the point on the compression But unless you have the data " I trust the experts. I’m not a climate scientist, and nor are you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So Morley now that the CO2 circle jerk is finished... "On your point earlier about the earth having been hotter before and life surviving... Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. Guess what happened when parts of the Earth got hotter or colder (and therefore less able to support life)...migration. Mass migration to more temperate zones. As per point on another thread, regardless of the cause of climate change (human driven or natural cycle), it will be devastating to the current way of life for many. You will see increased pressure on human migration. So what do we do to handle that?" Now that two notes might understand basic physics. Yes species come and go. Thisnis life, whether its comets, humans, landscape changes, tectonic activity. That's life. Trying to stop evolution is just as poor. Why would we see increased pressure on human migration. Human have managed to live everywhere. Fromt he arctic to the himalayas. Was that it... that was the big question....what do we do when we go from 3ppm to 4ppm? Or if average global temperatures in 10p years increase by a possible 1 c but most likely 0.2c So you totally deny that climate change will not significantly impact on humanity? You think we will just adapt? I’d agree if the population was perhaps a quarter of what it is and those living in more temperate zones were willing to accept migration but...!!!!! That sounds suspiciously like ostrich syndrome to me! As I said before the biggest worry is sustainability. Letting the population increase and trying to feed it. I am not worried about a severely unlikely 1 degree temp change by 2100. I regarding where these people go on the with and migration. I think you don't realise how big the earth a tuslly is. I'm not entirely sure what you think would be the consequence and which land would be lost. But I dont think suddenly millions of Africans or chinese or Indians will be coming to the UK. So I'm not entirely sure what you're asking or worried about. I have problems with sustainability. I'd rather rlimit human impact on loving environments e.g rainforest. But with regards to global warming. Species adapt, species die. We'd still have the sabre tooth, mammoth etc if this wasn't a natural cycle. That’s the point - the data strongly suggests it isn’t natural. It doesn't. It literally can't. This was the point on the compression But unless you have the data I trust the experts. I’m not a climate scientist, and nor are you. " No I am not. I saw their footage in gcse physics and I regularly what YouTube channels such as pbs space time, pbs eons. Where they describe what i am relaying to you. You can also read the vostok papers themselves or British antarctic survey etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So Morley now that the CO2 circle jerk is finished... "On your point earlier about the earth having been hotter before and life surviving... Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. Guess what happened when parts of the Earth got hotter or colder (and therefore less able to support life)...migration. Mass migration to more temperate zones. As per point on another thread, regardless of the cause of climate change (human driven or natural cycle), it will be devastating to the current way of life for many. You will see increased pressure on human migration. So what do we do to handle that?" Now that two notes might understand basic physics. Yes species come and go. Thisnis life, whether its comets, humans, landscape changes, tectonic activity. That's life. Trying to stop evolution is just as poor. Why would we see increased pressure on human migration. Human have managed to live everywhere. Fromt he arctic to the himalayas. Was that it... that was the big question....what do we do when we go from 3ppm to 4ppm? Or if average global temperatures in 10p years increase by a possible 1 c but most likely 0.2c So you totally deny that climate change will not significantly impact on humanity? You think we will just adapt? I’d agree if the population was perhaps a quarter of what it is and those living in more temperate zones were willing to accept migration but...!!!!! That sounds suspiciously like ostrich syndrome to me! As I said before the biggest worry is sustainability. Letting the population increase and trying to feed it. I am not worried about a severely unlikely 1 degree temp change by 2100. I regarding where these people go on the with and migration. I think you don't realise how big the earth a tuslly is. I'm not entirely sure what you think would be the consequence and which land would be lost. But I dont think suddenly millions of Africans or chinese or Indians will be coming to the UK. So I'm not entirely sure what you're asking or worried about. I have problems with sustainability. I'd rather rlimit human impact on loving environments e.g rainforest. But with regards to global warming. Species adapt, species die. We'd still have the sabre tooth, mammoth etc if this wasn't a natural cycle. "  you are really patronising aren’t you? Is it any wonder so many people lock horns with you!
As if I don’t know how big the earth truly is!
The human population is already too large. Some scientists have already predicted that the earth cannot sustain a human population over 10bn.
The countries with the highest population growth (generally) are geographically situated in regions that are going to become the least suitable for sustaining human life (lack of water and crops). This WILL cause a migration issue.
Guess where the majority of first world/affluent countries are found? In more temperate zones (that is no coincidence).
So if there are increased migration (immigration) pressures on first world countries what do we do? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So Morley now that the CO2 circle jerk is finished... "On your point earlier about the earth having been hotter before and life surviving... Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. Guess what happened when parts of the Earth got hotter or colder (and therefore less able to support life)...migration. Mass migration to more temperate zones. As per point on another thread, regardless of the cause of climate change (human driven or natural cycle), it will be devastating to the current way of life for many. You will see increased pressure on human migration. So what do we do to handle that?" Now that two notes might understand basic physics. Yes species come and go. Thisnis life, whether its comets, humans, landscape changes, tectonic activity. That's life. Trying to stop evolution is just as poor. Why would we see increased pressure on human migration. Human have managed to live everywhere. Fromt he arctic to the himalayas. Was that it... that was the big question....what do we do when we go from 3ppm to 4ppm? Or if average global temperatures in 10p years increase by a possible 1 c but most likely 0.2c So you totally deny that climate change will not significantly impact on humanity? You think we will just adapt? I’d agree if the population was perhaps a quarter of what it is and those living in more temperate zones were willing to accept migration but...!!!!! That sounds suspiciously like ostrich syndrome to me! As I said before the biggest worry is sustainability. Letting the population increase and trying to feed it. I am not worried about a severely unlikely 1 degree temp change by 2100. I regarding where these people go on the with and migration. I think you don't realise how big the earth a tuslly is. I'm not entirely sure what you think would be the consequence and which land would be lost. But I dont think suddenly millions of Africans or chinese or Indians will be coming to the UK. So I'm not entirely sure what you're asking or worried about. I have problems with sustainability. I'd rather rlimit human impact on loving environments e.g rainforest. But with regards to global warming. Species adapt, species die. We'd still have the sabre tooth, mammoth etc if this wasn't a natural cycle. That’s the point - the data strongly suggests it isn’t natural. It doesn't. It literally can't. This was the point on the compression But unless you have the data I trust the experts. I’m not a climate scientist, and nor are you. No I am not. I saw their footage in gcse physics and I regularly what YouTube channels such as pbs space time, pbs eons. Where they describe what i am relaying to you. You can also read the vostok papers themselves or British antarctic survey etc. " You’re not the only one who watched and reads on this topic. Why do your views differ so greatly from actual climate scientists, if you’re so well versed in the topic? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So Morley now that the CO2 circle jerk is finished... "On your point earlier about the earth having been hotter before and life surviving... Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. Guess what happened when parts of the Earth got hotter or colder (and therefore less able to support life)...migration. Mass migration to more temperate zones. As per point on another thread, regardless of the cause of climate change (human driven or natural cycle), it will be devastating to the current way of life for many. You will see increased pressure on human migration. So what do we do to handle that?" Now that two notes might understand basic physics. Yes species come and go. Thisnis life, whether its comets, humans, landscape changes, tectonic activity. That's life. Trying to stop evolution is just as poor. Why would we see increased pressure on human migration. Human have managed to live everywhere. Fromt he arctic to the himalayas. Was that it... that was the big question....what do we do when we go from 3ppm to 4ppm? Or if average global temperatures in 10p years increase by a possible 1 c but most likely 0.2c So you totally deny that climate change will not significantly impact on humanity? You think we will just adapt? I’d agree if the population was perhaps a quarter of what it is and those living in more temperate zones were willing to accept migration but...!!!!! That sounds suspiciously like ostrich syndrome to me! As I said before the biggest worry is sustainability. Letting the population increase and trying to feed it. I am not worried about a severely unlikely 1 degree temp change by 2100. I regarding where these people go on the with and migration. I think you don't realise how big the earth a tuslly is. I'm not entirely sure what you think would be the consequence and which land would be lost. But I dont think suddenly millions of Africans or chinese or Indians will be coming to the UK. So I'm not entirely sure what you're asking or worried about. I have problems with sustainability. I'd rather rlimit human impact on loving environments e.g rainforest. But with regards to global warming. Species adapt, species die. We'd still have the sabre tooth, mammoth etc if this wasn't a natural cycle. you are really patronising aren’t you? Is it any wonder so many people lock horns with you!
As if I don’t know how big the earth truly is!
The human population is already too large. Some scientists have already predicted that the earth cannot sustain a human population over 10bn.
The countries with the highest population growth (generally) are geographically situated in regions that are going to become the least suitable for sustaining human life (lack of water and crops). This WILL cause a migration issue.
Guess where the majority of first world/affluent countries are found? In more temperate zones (that is no coincidence).
So if there are increased migration (immigration) pressures on first world countries what do we do?"you do realise we aint as civilised as you think,if parts of the world become unlivable and those people start trying to migrate to countries that are still ok govs around the world will stop that with force, there not going to let there own populations suffer and the populations will demand that they stop the migration, when push comes to shove human beings are selfish fuckers and most peoples morals go out the window | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So Morley now that the CO2 circle jerk is finished... "On your point earlier about the earth having been hotter before and life surviving... Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. Guess what happened when parts of the Earth got hotter or colder (and therefore less able to support life)...migration. Mass migration to more temperate zones. As per point on another thread, regardless of the cause of climate change (human driven or natural cycle), it will be devastating to the current way of life for many. You will see increased pressure on human migration. So what do we do to handle that?" Now that two notes might understand basic physics. Yes species come and go. Thisnis life, whether its comets, humans, landscape changes, tectonic activity. That's life. Trying to stop evolution is just as poor. Why would we see increased pressure on human migration. Human have managed to live everywhere. Fromt he arctic to the himalayas. Was that it... that was the big question....what do we do when we go from 3ppm to 4ppm? Or if average global temperatures in 10p years increase by a possible 1 c but most likely 0.2c So you totally deny that climate change will not significantly impact on humanity? You think we will just adapt? I’d agree if the population was perhaps a quarter of what it is and those living in more temperate zones were willing to accept migration but...!!!!! That sounds suspiciously like ostrich syndrome to me! As I said before the biggest worry is sustainability. Letting the population increase and trying to feed it. I am not worried about a severely unlikely 1 degree temp change by 2100. I regarding where these people go on the with and migration. I think you don't realise how big the earth a tuslly is. I'm not entirely sure what you think would be the consequence and which land would be lost. But I dont think suddenly millions of Africans or chinese or Indians will be coming to the UK. So I'm not entirely sure what you're asking or worried about. I have problems with sustainability. I'd rather rlimit human impact on loving environments e.g rainforest. But with regards to global warming. Species adapt, species die. We'd still have the sabre tooth, mammoth etc if this wasn't a natural cycle. That’s the point - the data strongly suggests it isn’t natural. It doesn't. It literally can't. This was the point on the compression But unless you have the data I trust the experts. I’m not a climate scientist, and nor are you. No I am not. I saw their footage in gcse physics and I regularly what YouTube channels such as pbs space time, pbs eons. Where they describe what i am relaying to you. You can also read the vostok papers themselves or British antarctic survey etc. You’re not the only one who watched and reads on this topic. Why do your views differ so greatly from actual climate scientists, if you’re so well versed in the topic?" They don't. I am saying they can infer what they want. They admit in their reports when you're looking a this data it's compresses and an average and they extrapolate what they believe will happen. Bit that's it. It's an extrapolation based on assumptions. I am merely relaying to you what they wrote as their drawbacks. That they see an increase in the co2 in the last 1000 years. But that when they know the earth was hotter over a range of 100k years. They are using an average. Not a maximum minimum range. Of a 1000 year period 500k years ago. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So Morley now that the CO2 circle jerk is finished... "On your point earlier about the earth having been hotter before and life surviving... Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. Guess what happened when parts of the Earth got hotter or colder (and therefore less able to support life)...migration. Mass migration to more temperate zones. As per point on another thread, regardless of the cause of climate change (human driven or natural cycle), it will be devastating to the current way of life for many. You will see increased pressure on human migration. So what do we do to handle that?" Now that two notes might understand basic physics. Yes species come and go. Thisnis life, whether its comets, humans, landscape changes, tectonic activity. That's life. Trying to stop evolution is just as poor. Why would we see increased pressure on human migration. Human have managed to live everywhere. Fromt he arctic to the himalayas. Was that it... that was the big question....what do we do when we go from 3ppm to 4ppm? Or if average global temperatures in 10p years increase by a possible 1 c but most likely 0.2c So you totally deny that climate change will not significantly impact on humanity? You think we will just adapt? I’d agree if the population was perhaps a quarter of what it is and those living in more temperate zones were willing to accept migration but...!!!!! That sounds suspiciously like ostrich syndrome to me! As I said before the biggest worry is sustainability. Letting the population increase and trying to feed it. I am not worried about a severely unlikely 1 degree temp change by 2100. I regarding where these people go on the with and migration. I think you don't realise how big the earth a tuslly is. I'm not entirely sure what you think would be the consequence and which land would be lost. But I dont think suddenly millions of Africans or chinese or Indians will be coming to the UK. So I'm not entirely sure what you're asking or worried about. I have problems with sustainability. I'd rather rlimit human impact on loving environments e.g rainforest. But with regards to global warming. Species adapt, species die. We'd still have the sabre tooth, mammoth etc if this wasn't a natural cycle. you are really patronising aren’t you? Is it any wonder so many people lock horns with you!
As if I don’t know how big the earth truly is!
The human population is already too large. Some scientists have already predicted that the earth cannot sustain a human population over 10bn.
The countries with the highest population growth (generally) are geographically situated in regions that are going to become the least suitable for sustaining human life (lack of water and crops). This WILL cause a migration issue.
Guess where the majority of first world/affluent countries are found? In more temperate zones (that is no coincidence).
So if there are increased migration (immigration) pressures on first world countries what do we do? you do realise we aint as civilised as you think,if parts of the world become unlivable and those people start trying to migrate to countries that are still ok govs around the world will stop that with force, there not going to let there own populations suffer and the populations will demand that they stop the migration, when push comes to shove human beings are selfish fuckers and most peoples morals go out the window"Why do you think that I think humans are civilised. I agree with what you say but want to hear what Morley has to say. Morley is clearly unconcerned by climate change and has played it down throughout this thread. From all I can see/read, regardless of what is to blame for climate change, it is happening and if will impact on humanity. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So Morley now that the CO2 circle jerk is finished... "On your point earlier about the earth having been hotter before and life surviving... Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. Guess what happened when parts of the Earth got hotter or colder (and therefore less able to support life)...migration. Mass migration to more temperate zones. As per point on another thread, regardless of the cause of climate change (human driven or natural cycle), it will be devastating to the current way of life for many. You will see increased pressure on human migration. So what do we do to handle that?" Now that two notes might understand basic physics. Yes species come and go. Thisnis life, whether its comets, humans, landscape changes, tectonic activity. That's life. Trying to stop evolution is just as poor. Why would we see increased pressure on human migration. Human have managed to live everywhere. Fromt he arctic to the himalayas. Was that it... that was the big question....what do we do when we go from 3ppm to 4ppm? Or if average global temperatures in 10p years increase by a possible 1 c but most likely 0.2c So you totally deny that climate change will not significantly impact on humanity? You think we will just adapt? I’d agree if the population was perhaps a quarter of what it is and those living in more temperate zones were willing to accept migration but...!!!!! That sounds suspiciously like ostrich syndrome to me! As I said before the biggest worry is sustainability. Letting the population increase and trying to feed it. I am not worried about a severely unlikely 1 degree temp change by 2100. I regarding where these people go on the with and migration. I think you don't realise how big the earth a tuslly is. I'm not entirely sure what you think would be the consequence and which land would be lost. But I dont think suddenly millions of Africans or chinese or Indians will be coming to the UK. So I'm not entirely sure what you're asking or worried about. I have problems with sustainability. I'd rather rlimit human impact on loving environments e.g rainforest. But with regards to global warming. Species adapt, species die. We'd still have the sabre tooth, mammoth etc if this wasn't a natural cycle. you are really patronising aren’t you? Is it any wonder so many people lock horns with you!
As if I don’t know how big the earth truly is!
The human population is already too large. Some scientists have already predicted that the earth cannot sustain a human population over 10bn.
The countries with the highest population growth (generally) are geographically situated in regions that are going to become the least suitable for sustaining human life (lack of water and crops). This WILL cause a migration issue.
Guess where the majority of first world/affluent countries are found? In more temperate zones (that is no coincidence).
So if there are increased migration (immigration) pressures on first world countries what do we do? you do realise we aint as civilised as you think,if parts of the world become unlivable and those people start trying to migrate to countries that are still ok govs around the world will stop that with force, there not going to let there own populations suffer and the populations will demand that they stop the migration, when push comes to shove human beings are selfish fuckers and most peoples morals go out the window"Those parts of the world have to become unlovable. I dont think they will. As I said. We have human living in the himalayaswith little food and poor brwatjable air and middle east with temps hitting 50 I dont think this is going to become a children of men type dystopia world because of a drummed up 1 degree temp change on average. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So Morley now that the CO2 circle jerk is finished... "On your point earlier about the earth having been hotter before and life surviving... Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. Guess what happened when parts of the Earth got hotter or colder (and therefore less able to support life)...migration. Mass migration to more temperate zones. As per point on another thread, regardless of the cause of climate change (human driven or natural cycle), it will be devastating to the current way of life for many. You will see increased pressure on human migration. So what do we do to handle that?" Now that two notes might understand basic physics. Yes species come and go. Thisnis life, whether its comets, humans, landscape changes, tectonic activity. That's life. Trying to stop evolution is just as poor. Why would we see increased pressure on human migration. Human have managed to live everywhere. Fromt he arctic to the himalayas. Was that it... that was the big question....what do we do when we go from 3ppm to 4ppm? Or if average global temperatures in 10p years increase by a possible 1 c but most likely 0.2c So you totally deny that climate change will not significantly impact on humanity? You think we will just adapt? I’d agree if the population was perhaps a quarter of what it is and those living in more temperate zones were willing to accept migration but...!!!!! That sounds suspiciously like ostrich syndrome to me! As I said before the biggest worry is sustainability. Letting the population increase and trying to feed it. I am not worried about a severely unlikely 1 degree temp change by 2100. I regarding where these people go on the with and migration. I think you don't realise how big the earth a tuslly is. I'm not entirely sure what you think would be the consequence and which land would be lost. But I dont think suddenly millions of Africans or chinese or Indians will be coming to the UK. So I'm not entirely sure what you're asking or worried about. I have problems with sustainability. I'd rather rlimit human impact on loving environments e.g rainforest. But with regards to global warming. Species adapt, species die. We'd still have the sabre tooth, mammoth etc if this wasn't a natural cycle. you are really patronising aren’t you? Is it any wonder so many people lock horns with you!
As if I don’t know how big the earth truly is!
The human population is already too large. Some scientists have already predicted that the earth cannot sustain a human population over 10bn.
The countries with the highest population growth (generally) are geographically situated in regions that are going to become the least suitable for sustaining human life (lack of water and crops). This WILL cause a migration issue.
Guess where the majority of first world/affluent countries are found? In more temperate zones (that is no coincidence).
So if there are increased migration (immigration) pressures on first world countries what do we do? you do realise we aint as civilised as you think,if parts of the world become unlivable and those people start trying to migrate to countries that are still ok govs around the world will stop that with force, there not going to let there own populations suffer and the populations will demand that they stop the migration, when push comes to shove human beings are selfish fuckers and most peoples morals go out the window
Why do you think that I think humans are civilised. I agree with what you say but want to hear what Morley has to say.
Morley is clearly unconcerned by climate change and has played it down throughout this thread. From all I can see/read, regardless of what is to blame for climate change, it is happening and if will impact on humanity."I think technology in farming and food production will easily outpace it. As it has done for the last 100 years. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So Morley now that the CO2 circle jerk is finished... "On your point earlier about the earth having been hotter before and life surviving... Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. Guess what happened when parts of the Earth got hotter or colder (and therefore less able to support life)...migration. Mass migration to more temperate zones. As per point on another thread, regardless of the cause of climate change (human driven or natural cycle), it will be devastating to the current way of life for many. You will see increased pressure on human migration. So what do we do to handle that?" Now that two notes might understand basic physics. Yes species come and go. Thisnis life, whether its comets, humans, landscape changes, tectonic activity. That's life. Trying to stop evolution is just as poor. Why would we see increased pressure on human migration. Human have managed to live everywhere. Fromt he arctic to the himalayas. Was that it... that was the big question....what do we do when we go from 3ppm to 4ppm? Or if average global temperatures in 10p years increase by a possible 1 c but most likely 0.2c So you totally deny that climate change will not significantly impact on humanity? You think we will just adapt? I’d agree if the population was perhaps a quarter of what it is and those living in more temperate zones were willing to accept migration but...!!!!! That sounds suspiciously like ostrich syndrome to me! As I said before the biggest worry is sustainability. Letting the population increase and trying to feed it. I am not worried about a severely unlikely 1 degree temp change by 2100. I regarding where these people go on the with and migration. I think you don't realise how big the earth a tuslly is. I'm not entirely sure what you think would be the consequence and which land would be lost. But I dont think suddenly millions of Africans or chinese or Indians will be coming to the UK. So I'm not entirely sure what you're asking or worried about. I have problems with sustainability. I'd rather rlimit human impact on loving environments e.g rainforest. But with regards to global warming. Species adapt, species die. We'd still have the sabre tooth, mammoth etc if this wasn't a natural cycle. you are really patronising aren’t you? Is it any wonder so many people lock horns with you!
As if I don’t know how big the earth truly is!
The human population is already too large. Some scientists have already predicted that the earth cannot sustain a human population over 10bn.
The countries with the highest population growth (generally) are geographically situated in regions that are going to become the least suitable for sustaining human life (lack of water and crops). This WILL cause a migration issue.
Guess where the majority of first world/affluent countries are found? In more temperate zones (that is no coincidence).
So if there are increased migration (immigration) pressures on first world countries what do we do? you do realise we aint as civilised as you think,if parts of the world become unlivable and those people start trying to migrate to countries that are still ok govs around the world will stop that with force, there not going to let there own populations suffer and the populations will demand that they stop the migration, when push comes to shove human beings are selfish fuckers and most peoples morals go out the window
Those parts of the world have to become unlovable. I dont think they will.
As I said. We have human living in the himalayaswith little food and poor brwatjable air and middle east with temps hitting 50
I dont think this is going to become a children of men type dystopia world because of a drummed up 1 degree temp change on average.
"This ain’t simply just about temperature though - it’s about ecosystems and the knock-on effect. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So Morley now that the CO2 circle jerk is finished... "On your point earlier about the earth having been hotter before and life surviving... Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. Guess what happened when parts of the Earth got hotter or colder (and therefore less able to support life)...migration. Mass migration to more temperate zones. As per point on another thread, regardless of the cause of climate change (human driven or natural cycle), it will be devastating to the current way of life for many. You will see increased pressure on human migration. So what do we do to handle that?" Now that two notes might understand basic physics. Yes species come and go. Thisnis life, whether its comets, humans, landscape changes, tectonic activity. That's life. Trying to stop evolution is just as poor. Why would we see increased pressure on human migration. Human have managed to live everywhere. Fromt he arctic to the himalayas. Was that it... that was the big question....what do we do when we go from 3ppm to 4ppm? Or if average global temperatures in 10p years increase by a possible 1 c but most likely 0.2c So you totally deny that climate change will not significantly impact on humanity? You think we will just adapt? I’d agree if the population was perhaps a quarter of what it is and those living in more temperate zones were willing to accept migration but...!!!!! That sounds suspiciously like ostrich syndrome to me! As I said before the biggest worry is sustainability. Letting the population increase and trying to feed it. I am not worried about a severely unlikely 1 degree temp change by 2100. I regarding where these people go on the with and migration. I think you don't realise how big the earth a tuslly is. I'm not entirely sure what you think would be the consequence and which land would be lost. But I dont think suddenly millions of Africans or chinese or Indians will be coming to the UK. So I'm not entirely sure what you're asking or worried about. I have problems with sustainability. I'd rather rlimit human impact on loving environments e.g rainforest. But with regards to global warming. Species adapt, species die. We'd still have the sabre tooth, mammoth etc if this wasn't a natural cycle. you are really patronising aren’t you? Is it any wonder so many people lock horns with you!
As if I don’t know how big the earth truly is!
The human population is already too large. Some scientists have already predicted that the earth cannot sustain a human population over 10bn.
The countries with the highest population growth (generally) are geographically situated in regions that are going to become the least suitable for sustaining human life (lack of water and crops). This WILL cause a migration issue.
Guess where the majority of first world/affluent countries are found? In more temperate zones (that is no coincidence).
So if there are increased migration (immigration) pressures on first world countries what do we do? you do realise we aint as civilised as you think,if parts of the world become unlivable and those people start trying to migrate to countries that are still ok govs around the world will stop that with force, there not going to let there own populations suffer and the populations will demand that they stop the migration, when push comes to shove human beings are selfish fuckers and most peoples morals go out the window
Those parts of the world have to become unlovable. I dont think they will.
As I said. We have human living in the himalayaswith little food and poor brwatjable air and middle east with temps hitting 50
I dont think this is going to become a children of men type dystopia world because of a drummed up 1 degree temp change on average.
This ain’t simply just about temperature though - it’s about ecosystems and the knock-on effect."Pick a point and choose 1. The flip flopping becomes annoying. Eco systems change all the time. You get monsoon weather because of plate tectonics creating mountains. .... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So Morley now that the CO2 circle jerk is finished... "On your point earlier about the earth having been hotter before and life surviving... Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. Guess what happened when parts of the Earth got hotter or colder (and therefore less able to support life)...migration. Mass migration to more temperate zones. As per point on another thread, regardless of the cause of climate change (human driven or natural cycle), it will be devastating to the current way of life for many. You will see increased pressure on human migration. So what do we do to handle that?" Now that two notes might understand basic physics. Yes species come and go. Thisnis life, whether its comets, humans, landscape changes, tectonic activity. That's life. Trying to stop evolution is just as poor. Why would we see increased pressure on human migration. Human have managed to live everywhere. Fromt he arctic to the himalayas. Was that it... that was the big question....what do we do when we go from 3ppm to 4ppm? Or if average global temperatures in 10p years increase by a possible 1 c but most likely 0.2c So you totally deny that climate change will not significantly impact on humanity? You think we will just adapt? I’d agree if the population was perhaps a quarter of what it is and those living in more temperate zones were willing to accept migration but...!!!!! That sounds suspiciously like ostrich syndrome to me! As I said before the biggest worry is sustainability. Letting the population increase and trying to feed it. I am not worried about a severely unlikely 1 degree temp change by 2100. I regarding where these people go on the with and migration. I think you don't realise how big the earth a tuslly is. I'm not entirely sure what you think would be the consequence and which land would be lost. But I dont think suddenly millions of Africans or chinese or Indians will be coming to the UK. So I'm not entirely sure what you're asking or worried about. I have problems with sustainability. I'd rather rlimit human impact on loving environments e.g rainforest. But with regards to global warming. Species adapt, species die. We'd still have the sabre tooth, mammoth etc if this wasn't a natural cycle. you are really patronising aren’t you? Is it any wonder so many people lock horns with you!
As if I don’t know how big the earth truly is!
The human population is already too large. Some scientists have already predicted that the earth cannot sustain a human population over 10bn.
The countries with the highest population growth (generally) are geographically situated in regions that are going to become the least suitable for sustaining human life (lack of water and crops). This WILL cause a migration issue.
Guess where the majority of first world/affluent countries are found? In more temperate zones (that is no coincidence).
So if there are increased migration (immigration) pressures on first world countries what do we do? you do realise we aint as civilised as you think,if parts of the world become unlivable and those people start trying to migrate to countries that are still ok govs around the world will stop that with force, there not going to let there own populations suffer and the populations will demand that they stop the migration, when push comes to shove human beings are selfish fuckers and most peoples morals go out the window
Those parts of the world have to become unlovable. I dont think they will.
As I said. We have human living in the himalayaswith little food and poor brwatjable air and middle east with temps hitting 50
I dont think this is going to become a children of men type dystopia world because of a drummed up 1 degree temp change on average.
This ain’t simply just about temperature though - it’s about ecosystems and the knock-on effect.
Pick a point and choose 1.
The flip flopping becomes annoying.
Eco systems change all the time. You get monsoon weather because of plate tectonics creating mountains. ...."It’s not picking and choosing - this stuff is ALL connected. That’s what an ecosystem is. Oceanic acidification as a result of CO2 levels - as I mentioned earlier - The impact on the food chain is potentially devastating. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So Morley now that the CO2 circle jerk is finished... "On your point earlier about the earth having been hotter before and life surviving... Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. Guess what happened when parts of the Earth got hotter or colder (and therefore less able to support life)...migration. Mass migration to more temperate zones. As per point on another thread, regardless of the cause of climate change (human driven or natural cycle), it will be devastating to the current way of life for many. You will see increased pressure on human migration. So what do we do to handle that?" Now that two notes might understand basic physics. Yes species come and go. Thisnis life, whether its comets, humans, landscape changes, tectonic activity. That's life. Trying to stop evolution is just as poor. Why would we see increased pressure on human migration. Human have managed to live everywhere. Fromt he arctic to the himalayas. Was that it... that was the big question....what do we do when we go from 3ppm to 4ppm? Or if average global temperatures in 10p years increase by a possible 1 c but most likely 0.2c So you totally deny that climate change will not significantly impact on humanity? You think we will just adapt? I’d agree if the population was perhaps a quarter of what it is and those living in more temperate zones were willing to accept migration but...!!!!! That sounds suspiciously like ostrich syndrome to me! As I said before the biggest worry is sustainability. Letting the population increase and trying to feed it. I am not worried about a severely unlikely 1 degree temp change by 2100. I regarding where these people go on the with and migration. I think you don't realise how big the earth a tuslly is. I'm not entirely sure what you think would be the consequence and which land would be lost. But I dont think suddenly millions of Africans or chinese or Indians will be coming to the UK. So I'm not entirely sure what you're asking or worried about. I have problems with sustainability. I'd rather rlimit human impact on loving environments e.g rainforest. But with regards to global warming. Species adapt, species die. We'd still have the sabre tooth, mammoth etc if this wasn't a natural cycle. you are really patronising aren’t you? Is it any wonder so many people lock horns with you!
As if I don’t know how big the earth truly is!
The human population is already too large. Some scientists have already predicted that the earth cannot sustain a human population over 10bn.
The countries with the highest population growth (generally) are geographically situated in regions that are going to become the least suitable for sustaining human life (lack of water and crops). This WILL cause a migration issue.
Guess where the majority of first world/affluent countries are found? In more temperate zones (that is no coincidence).
So if there are increased migration (immigration) pressures on first world countries what do we do? you do realise we aint as civilised as you think,if parts of the world become unlivable and those people start trying to migrate to countries that are still ok govs around the world will stop that with force, there not going to let there own populations suffer and the populations will demand that they stop the migration, when push comes to shove human beings are selfish fuckers and most peoples morals go out the window
Those parts of the world have to become unlovable. I dont think they will.
As I said. We have human living in the himalayaswith little food and poor brwatjable air and middle east with temps hitting 50
I dont think this is going to become a children of men type dystopia world because of a drummed up 1 degree temp change on average.
This ain’t simply just about temperature though - it’s about ecosystems and the knock-on effect.
Pick a point and choose 1.
The flip flopping becomes annoying.
Eco systems change all the time. You get monsoon weather because of plate tectonics creating mountains. ....
It’s not picking and choosing - this stuff is ALL connected. That’s what an ecosystem is.
Oceanic acidification as a result of CO2 levels - as I mentioned earlier - The impact on the food chain is potentially devastating."The impact on many things can be devastating. It doesn't me the end of the world and life. What is the acidification impact so far you feel? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So Morley now that the CO2 circle jerk is finished... "On your point earlier about the earth having been hotter before and life surviving... Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. Guess what happened when parts of the Earth got hotter or colder (and therefore less able to support life)...migration. Mass migration to more temperate zones. As per point on another thread, regardless of the cause of climate change (human driven or natural cycle), it will be devastating to the current way of life for many. You will see increased pressure on human migration. So what do we do to handle that?" Now that two notes might understand basic physics. Yes species come and go. Thisnis life, whether its comets, humans, landscape changes, tectonic activity. That's life. Trying to stop evolution is just as poor. Why would we see increased pressure on human migration. Human have managed to live everywhere. Fromt he arctic to the himalayas. Was that it... that was the big question....what do we do when we go from 3ppm to 4ppm? Or if average global temperatures in 10p years increase by a possible 1 c but most likely 0.2c So you totally deny that climate change will not significantly impact on humanity? You think we will just adapt? I’d agree if the population was perhaps a quarter of what it is and those living in more temperate zones were willing to accept migration but...!!!!! That sounds suspiciously like ostrich syndrome to me! As I said before the biggest worry is sustainability. Letting the population increase and trying to feed it. I am not worried about a severely unlikely 1 degree temp change by 2100. I regarding where these people go on the with and migration. I think you don't realise how big the earth a tuslly is. I'm not entirely sure what you think would be the consequence and which land would be lost. But I dont think suddenly millions of Africans or chinese or Indians will be coming to the UK. So I'm not entirely sure what you're asking or worried about. I have problems with sustainability. I'd rather rlimit human impact on loving environments e.g rainforest. But with regards to global warming. Species adapt, species die. We'd still have the sabre tooth, mammoth etc if this wasn't a natural cycle. you are really patronising aren’t you? Is it any wonder so many people lock horns with you!
As if I don’t know how big the earth truly is!
The human population is already too large. Some scientists have already predicted that the earth cannot sustain a human population over 10bn.
The countries with the highest population growth (generally) are geographically situated in regions that are going to become the least suitable for sustaining human life (lack of water and crops). This WILL cause a migration issue.
Guess where the majority of first world/affluent countries are found? In more temperate zones (that is no coincidence).
So if there are increased migration (immigration) pressures on first world countries what do we do? you do realise we aint as civilised as you think,if parts of the world become unlivable and those people start trying to migrate to countries that are still ok govs around the world will stop that with force, there not going to let there own populations suffer and the populations will demand that they stop the migration, when push comes to shove human beings are selfish fuckers and most peoples morals go out the window
Those parts of the world have to become unlovable. I dont think they will.
As I said. We have human living in the himalayaswith little food and poor brwatjable air and middle east with temps hitting 50
I dont think this is going to become a children of men type dystopia world because of a drummed up 1 degree temp change on average.
This ain’t simply just about temperature though - it’s about ecosystems and the knock-on effect.
Pick a point and choose 1.
The flip flopping becomes annoying.
Eco systems change all the time. You get monsoon weather because of plate tectonics creating mountains. ....
It’s not picking and choosing - this stuff is ALL connected. That’s what an ecosystem is.
Oceanic acidification as a result of CO2 levels - as I mentioned earlier - The impact on the food chain is potentially devastating.
The impact on many things can be devastating. It doesn't me the end of the world and life.
What is the acidification impact so far you feel?"No need to feel - it can be seen in reefs and resulting fish levels. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So Morley now that the CO2 circle jerk is finished... "On your point earlier about the earth having been hotter before and life surviving... Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. Guess what happened when parts of the Earth got hotter or colder (and therefore less able to support life)...migration. Mass migration to more temperate zones. As per point on another thread, regardless of the cause of climate change (human driven or natural cycle), it will be devastating to the current way of life for many. You will see increased pressure on human migration. So what do we do to handle that?" Now that two notes might understand basic physics. Yes species come and go. Thisnis life, whether its comets, humans, landscape changes, tectonic activity. That's life. Trying to stop evolution is just as poor. Why would we see increased pressure on human migration. Human have managed to live everywhere. Fromt he arctic to the himalayas. Was that it... that was the big question....what do we do when we go from 3ppm to 4ppm? Or if average global temperatures in 10p years increase by a possible 1 c but most likely 0.2c So you totally deny that climate change will not significantly impact on humanity? You think we will just adapt? I’d agree if the population was perhaps a quarter of what it is and those living in more temperate zones were willing to accept migration but...!!!!! That sounds suspiciously like ostrich syndrome to me! As I said before the biggest worry is sustainability. Letting the population increase and trying to feed it. I am not worried about a severely unlikely 1 degree temp change by 2100. I regarding where these people go on the with and migration. I think you don't realise how big the earth a tuslly is. I'm not entirely sure what you think would be the consequence and which land would be lost. But I dont think suddenly millions of Africans or chinese or Indians will be coming to the UK. So I'm not entirely sure what you're asking or worried about. I have problems with sustainability. I'd rather rlimit human impact on loving environments e.g rainforest. But with regards to global warming. Species adapt, species die. We'd still have the sabre tooth, mammoth etc if this wasn't a natural cycle. you are really patronising aren’t you? Is it any wonder so many people lock horns with you!
As if I don’t know how big the earth truly is!
The human population is already too large. Some scientists have already predicted that the earth cannot sustain a human population over 10bn.
The countries with the highest population growth (generally) are geographically situated in regions that are going to become the least suitable for sustaining human life (lack of water and crops). This WILL cause a migration issue.
Guess where the majority of first world/affluent countries are found? In more temperate zones (that is no coincidence).
So if there are increased migration (immigration) pressures on first world countries what do we do? you do realise we aint as civilised as you think,if parts of the world become unlivable and those people start trying to migrate to countries that are still ok govs around the world will stop that with force, there not going to let there own populations suffer and the populations will demand that they stop the migration, when push comes to shove human beings are selfish fuckers and most peoples morals go out the window
Those parts of the world have to become unlovable. I dont think they will.
As I said. We have human living in the himalayaswith little food and poor brwatjable air and middle east with temps hitting 50
I dont think this is going to become a children of men type dystopia world because of a drummed up 1 degree temp change on average.
This ain’t simply just about temperature though - it’s about ecosystems and the knock-on effect.
Pick a point and choose 1.
The flip flopping becomes annoying.
Eco systems change all the time. You get monsoon weather because of plate tectonics creating mountains. ....
It’s not picking and choosing - this stuff is ALL connected. That’s what an ecosystem is.
Oceanic acidification as a result of CO2 levels - as I mentioned earlier - The impact on the food chain is potentially devastating.
The impact on many things can be devastating. It doesn't me the end of the world and life.
What is the acidification impact so far you feel?
No need to feel - it can be seen in reefs and resulting fish levels."Climate change exasperates the displacement of people. According to UNHCR, an annual average of 21.5 million people were forcibly displaced each year by weather-related events – such as floods, storms, wildfires and extreme temperatures – between 2008 and 2016. People who want to reduce immigration should be all about reducing their carbon footprint. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So Morley now that the CO2 circle jerk is finished... "On your point earlier about the earth having been hotter before and life surviving... Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. Guess what happened when parts of the Earth got hotter or colder (and therefore less able to support life)...migration. Mass migration to more temperate zones. As per point on another thread, regardless of the cause of climate change (human driven or natural cycle), it will be devastating to the current way of life for many. You will see increased pressure on human migration. So what do we do to handle that?" Now that two notes might understand basic physics. Yes species come and go. Thisnis life, whether its comets, humans, landscape changes, tectonic activity. That's life. Trying to stop evolution is just as poor. Why would we see increased pressure on human migration. Human have managed to live everywhere. Fromt he arctic to the himalayas. Was that it... that was the big question....what do we do when we go from 3ppm to 4ppm? Or if average global temperatures in 10p years increase by a possible 1 c but most likely 0.2c So you totally deny that climate change will not significantly impact on humanity? You think we will just adapt? I’d agree if the population was perhaps a quarter of what it is and those living in more temperate zones were willing to accept migration but...!!!!! That sounds suspiciously like ostrich syndrome to me! As I said before the biggest worry is sustainability. Letting the population increase and trying to feed it. I am not worried about a severely unlikely 1 degree temp change by 2100. I regarding where these people go on the with and migration. I think you don't realise how big the earth a tuslly is. I'm not entirely sure what you think would be the consequence and which land would be lost. But I dont think suddenly millions of Africans or chinese or Indians will be coming to the UK. So I'm not entirely sure what you're asking or worried about. I have problems with sustainability. I'd rather rlimit human impact on loving environments e.g rainforest. But with regards to global warming. Species adapt, species die. We'd still have the sabre tooth, mammoth etc if this wasn't a natural cycle. you are really patronising aren’t you? Is it any wonder so many people lock horns with you!
As if I don’t know how big the earth truly is!
The human population is already too large. Some scientists have already predicted that the earth cannot sustain a human population over 10bn.
The countries with the highest population growth (generally) are geographically situated in regions that are going to become the least suitable for sustaining human life (lack of water and crops). This WILL cause a migration issue.
Guess where the majority of first world/affluent countries are found? In more temperate zones (that is no coincidence).
So if there are increased migration (immigration) pressures on first world countries what do we do? you do realise we aint as civilised as you think,if parts of the world become unlivable and those people start trying to migrate to countries that are still ok govs around the world will stop that with force, there not going to let there own populations suffer and the populations will demand that they stop the migration, when push comes to shove human beings are selfish fuckers and most peoples morals go out the window
Why do you think that I think humans are civilised. I agree with what you say but want to hear what Morley has to say.
Morley is clearly unconcerned by climate change and has played it down throughout this thread. From all I can see/read, regardless of what is to blame for climate change, it is happening and if will impact on humanity."yea it will impact on humanity and we could well dissapear like civilisations before us,then again we may well adapt if not then planet earth will shake us off just like its done in the past and will continue to do in the future, we really aint anything special you know | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. The point speaks for itself, I’d have thought. Sorry, going a bit Morley there and making assumptions. For the past 800,000 years CO2 had *never* been above 300PPM. And then the Industrial Revolution, and modern living - since then CO2 has risen to 420PPM. In essentially the blink of an eye. But sure. This is fine. What percentage of the atmosphere does this represent? A sizeable enough percentage to affect precision balanced ecosystems. So give me a number then It’s around 0.04%. Why? Context - that’s why Why does this help, instead of the more pertinent PPM measurement? Are you genuinely asking why someone should seek some context? No, I'm asking why a less pertinent measure of CO2 provided context, because it would appear it's doing the opposite and moving the conversation away from what an increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere does, by making it appear to be insignificant amount. Well being that you won't feel any light-headedness until 1.5% it could definitely be argued that it is indeed an insignificant amount Is that 1.5% refering to a temperature increase or a % of the atmosphere made up of CO2? Atmospheric percentage Can you direct me to the articles? https://www.logico2.com/knowledge-base/co2-risks/ This is one that speaks of 'increased heart rate' I realise its different to what I wrote but it shows the point. This seems to be an article about the effect of breathing air with an increased level of CO2. Is that right? Isn't that what you asked for? Maybe I caused confusion. Sorry I thought we were looking at the increase of CO2 PPM increasing mean global temperature. We were, it was then asked about percentage, if your confused it's baceuse you brought about the 'pertinent question' when speaking about atmospheric percentages. Right. So PPM is the pertinent measure when discussing climate change. My point stands. I know nothing about the appropriate measure for the impact on human health of breathing in CO2." The % measure for impact on human health is important in context which is why the poster was asking for it. You tried to dismiss that claiming he couldn't argue an 'insignificant amount' because it was pertinent. Then you claimed confusion when you couldn't do so, sorry that didn't work out for you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. The point speaks for itself, I’d have thought. Sorry, going a bit Morley there and making assumptions. For the past 800,000 years CO2 had *never* been above 300PPM. And then the Industrial Revolution, and modern living - since then CO2 has risen to 420PPM. In essentially the blink of an eye. But sure. This is fine. What percentage of the atmosphere does this represent? A sizeable enough percentage to affect precision balanced ecosystems. So give me a number then It’s around 0.04%. Why? Context - that’s why Why does this help, instead of the more pertinent PPM measurement? Are you genuinely asking why someone should seek some context? No, I'm asking why a less pertinent measure of CO2 provided context, because it would appear it's doing the opposite and moving the conversation away from what an increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere does, by making it appear to be insignificant amount. Well being that you won't feel any light-headedness until 1.5% it could definitely be argued that it is indeed an insignificant amount Is that 1.5% refering to a temperature increase or a % of the atmosphere made up of CO2? Atmospheric percentage Can you direct me to the articles? https://www.logico2.com/knowledge-base/co2-risks/ This is one that speaks of 'increased heart rate' I realise its different to what I wrote but it shows the point. This seems to be an article about the effect of breathing air with an increased level of CO2. Is that right? Isn't that what you asked for? Maybe I caused confusion. Sorry I thought we were looking at the increase of CO2 PPM increasing mean global temperature. We were, it was then asked about percentage, if your confused it's baceuse you brought about the 'pertinent question' when speaking about atmospheric percentages. Right. So PPM is the pertinent measure when discussing climate change. My point stands. I know nothing about the appropriate measure for the impact on human health of breathing in CO2. The % measure for impact on human health is important in context which is why the poster was asking for it. You tried to dismiss that claiming he couldn't argue an 'insignificant amount' because it was pertinent. Then you claimed confusion when you couldn't do so, sorry that didn't work out for you. " Should I have said "...pertinent to climate change"? Although I would have thought that was assumed as it is the topic of discussion. Why was my apology for my own confusion inadequate, what else do you need? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And as I say, I’m out - but your refusal to engage in CO2 levels has not gone unnoticed, Morley - presumably because there’s no way to swing it as ‘normal’ Go well. I don't think anyone will deny they're at their highest in 800k years. What's the point though? If you want engagement you should probably make a point. The point speaks for itself, I’d have thought. Sorry, going a bit Morley there and making assumptions. For the past 800,000 years CO2 had *never* been above 300PPM. And then the Industrial Revolution, and modern living - since then CO2 has risen to 420PPM. In essentially the blink of an eye. But sure. This is fine. What percentage of the atmosphere does this represent? A sizeable enough percentage to affect precision balanced ecosystems. So give me a number then It’s around 0.04%. Why? Context - that’s why Why does this help, instead of the more pertinent PPM measurement? Are you genuinely asking why someone should seek some context? No, I'm asking why a less pertinent measure of CO2 provided context, because it would appear it's doing the opposite and moving the conversation away from what an increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere does, by making it appear to be insignificant amount. Well being that you won't feel any light-headedness until 1.5% it could definitely be argued that it is indeed an insignificant amount Is that 1.5% refering to a temperature increase or a % of the atmosphere made up of CO2? Atmospheric percentage Can you direct me to the articles? https://www.logico2.com/knowledge-base/co2-risks/ This is one that speaks of 'increased heart rate' I realise its different to what I wrote but it shows the point. This seems to be an article about the effect of breathing air with an increased level of CO2. Is that right? Isn't that what you asked for? Maybe I caused confusion. Sorry I thought we were looking at the increase of CO2 PPM increasing mean global temperature. We were, it was then asked about percentage, if your confused it's baceuse you brought about the 'pertinent question' when speaking about atmospheric percentages. Right. So PPM is the pertinent measure when discussing climate change. My point stands. I know nothing about the appropriate measure for the impact on human health of breathing in CO2. The % measure for impact on human health is important in context which is why the poster was asking for it. You tried to dismiss that claiming he couldn't argue an 'insignificant amount' because it was pertinent. Then you claimed confusion when you couldn't do so, sorry that didn't work out for you. Should I have said "...pertinent to climate change"? Although I would have thought that was assumed as it is the topic of discussion. Why was my apology for my own confusion inadequate, what else do you need?" I was just trying to help you understand why you got confused. Although you weren't really confused, as I stated above. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Meanwhile Italian electric plane manufacturer Tecnam halts production of its electric plane as it has realised that the batteries need replacing every few hundred flights, making the plane's commercial production economically unviable. More unravelling of the fantasy." How is this related to climate science not being real? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Meanwhile Italian electric plane manufacturer Tecnam halts production of its electric plane as it has realised that the batteries need replacing every few hundred flights, making the plane's commercial production economically unviable. More unravelling of the fantasy. How is this related to climate science not being real?" Maybe you should look at the original post. If you want to start a post on the reality of otherwise of "climate science" feel free, but otherwise stick to the topic. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Meanwhile Italian electric plane manufacturer Tecnam halts production of its electric plane as it has realised that the batteries need replacing every few hundred flights, making the plane's commercial production economically unviable. More unravelling of the fantasy. How is this related to climate science not being real? Maybe you should look at the original post. If you want to start a post on the reality of otherwise of "climate science" feel free, but otherwise stick to the topic." Weren't you getting cross with someone earlier for telling you what you can or can't discuss? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Meanwhile Italian electric plane manufacturer Tecnam halts production of its electric plane as it has realised that the batteries need replacing every few hundred flights, making the plane's commercial production economically unviable. More unravelling of the fantasy." Errr…climate change isn’t fantasy, even if battery planes are presently viable. This isn’t hard to understand. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Meanwhile Italian electric plane manufacturer Tecnam halts production of its electric plane as it has realised that the batteries need replacing every few hundred flights, making the plane's commercial production economically unviable. More unravelling of the fantasy. How is this related to climate science not being real? Maybe you should look at the original post. If you want to start a post on the reality of otherwise of "climate science" feel free, but otherwise stick to the topic. Weren't you getting cross with someone earlier for telling you what you can or can't discuss?" "How is this related to climate science not being real?" I appreciate that your posts are often incoherent but I can only suggest you re-read. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Meanwhile Italian electric plane manufacturer Tecnam halts production of its electric plane as it has realised that the batteries need replacing every few hundred flights, making the plane's commercial production economically unviable. More unravelling of the fantasy. How is this related to climate science not being real? Maybe you should look at the original post. If you want to start a post on the reality of otherwise of "climate science" feel free, but otherwise stick to the topic. Weren't you getting cross with someone earlier for telling you what you can or can't discuss? "How is this related to climate science not being real?" I appreciate that your posts are often incoherent but I can only suggest you re-read." Let's see if we can continue without personal insults? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All the net zero ideas are perfectly reasonable. The problem is the systems in place to actually implement them. We mean specifically our government, box ticking, trough snuffling wankers that they all are." 100% the system exists to serve big corporations like the oil companies. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So Morley now that the CO2 circle jerk is finished... "On your point earlier about the earth having been hotter before and life surviving... Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. Guess what happened when parts of the Earth got hotter or colder (and therefore less able to support life)...migration. Mass migration to more temperate zones. As per point on another thread, regardless of the cause of climate change (human driven or natural cycle), it will be devastating to the current way of life for many. You will see increased pressure on human migration. So what do we do to handle that?" Now that two notes might understand basic physics. Yes species come and go. Thisnis life, whether its comets, humans, landscape changes, tectonic activity. That's life. Trying to stop evolution is just as poor. Why would we see increased pressure on human migration. Human have managed to live everywhere. Fromt he arctic to the himalayas. Was that it... that was the big question....what do we do when we go from 3ppm to 4ppm? Or if average global temperatures in 10p years increase by a possible 1 c but most likely 0.2c So you totally deny that climate change will not significantly impact on humanity? You think we will just adapt? I’d agree if the population was perhaps a quarter of what it is and those living in more temperate zones were willing to accept migration but...!!!!! That sounds suspiciously like ostrich syndrome to me! As I said before the biggest worry is sustainability. Letting the population increase and trying to feed it. I am not worried about a severely unlikely 1 degree temp change by 2100. I regarding where these people go on the with and migration. I think you don't realise how big the earth a tuslly is. I'm not entirely sure what you think would be the consequence and which land would be lost. But I dont think suddenly millions of Africans or chinese or Indians will be coming to the UK. So I'm not entirely sure what you're asking or worried about. I have problems with sustainability. I'd rather rlimit human impact on loving environments e.g rainforest. But with regards to global warming. Species adapt, species die. We'd still have the sabre tooth, mammoth etc if this wasn't a natural cycle. you are really patronising aren’t you? Is it any wonder so many people lock horns with you!
As if I don’t know how big the earth truly is!
The human population is already too large. Some scientists have already predicted that the earth cannot sustain a human population over 10bn.
The countries with the highest population growth (generally) are geographically situated in regions that are going to become the least suitable for sustaining human life (lack of water and crops). This WILL cause a migration issue.
Guess where the majority of first world/affluent countries are found? In more temperate zones (that is no coincidence).
So if there are increased migration (immigration) pressures on first world countries what do we do? you do realise we aint as civilised as you think,if parts of the world become unlivable and those people start trying to migrate to countries that are still ok govs around the world will stop that with force, there not going to let there own populations suffer and the populations will demand that they stop the migration, when push comes to shove human beings are selfish fuckers and most peoples morals go out the window
Those parts of the world have to become unlovable. I dont think they will.
As I said. We have human living in the himalayaswith little food and poor brwatjable air and middle east with temps hitting 50
I dont think this is going to become a children of men type dystopia world because of a drummed up 1 degree temp change on average.
This ain’t simply just about temperature though - it’s about ecosystems and the knock-on effect.
Pick a point and choose 1.
The flip flopping becomes annoying.
Eco systems change all the time. You get monsoon weather because of plate tectonics creating mountains. ....
It’s not picking and choosing - this stuff is ALL connected. That’s what an ecosystem is.
Oceanic acidification as a result of CO2 levels - as I mentioned earlier - The impact on the food chain is potentially devastating.
The impact on many things can be devastating. It doesn't me the end of the world and life.
What is the acidification impact so far you feel?
No need to feel - it can be seen in reefs and resulting fish levels."Can it. Didnt they just diacover that the aussie reef was growing and a brand new reef somewhere? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So Morley now that the CO2 circle jerk is finished... "On your point earlier about the earth having been hotter before and life surviving... Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. Guess what happened when parts of the Earth got hotter or colder (and therefore less able to support life)...migration. Mass migration to more temperate zones. As per point on another thread, regardless of the cause of climate change (human driven or natural cycle), it will be devastating to the current way of life for many. You will see increased pressure on human migration. So what do we do to handle that?" Now that two notes might understand basic physics. Yes species come and go. Thisnis life, whether its comets, humans, landscape changes, tectonic activity. That's life. Trying to stop evolution is just as poor. Why would we see increased pressure on human migration. Human have managed to live everywhere. Fromt he arctic to the himalayas. Was that it... that was the big question....what do we do when we go from 3ppm to 4ppm? Or if average global temperatures in 10p years increase by a possible 1 c but most likely 0.2c So you totally deny that climate change will not significantly impact on humanity? You think we will just adapt? I’d agree if the population was perhaps a quarter of what it is and those living in more temperate zones were willing to accept migration but...!!!!! That sounds suspiciously like ostrich syndrome to me! As I said before the biggest worry is sustainability. Letting the population increase and trying to feed it. I am not worried about a severely unlikely 1 degree temp change by 2100. I regarding where these people go on the with and migration. I think you don't realise how big the earth a tuslly is. I'm not entirely sure what you think would be the consequence and which land would be lost. But I dont think suddenly millions of Africans or chinese or Indians will be coming to the UK. So I'm not entirely sure what you're asking or worried about. I have problems with sustainability. I'd rather rlimit human impact on loving environments e.g rainforest. But with regards to global warming. Species adapt, species die. We'd still have the sabre tooth, mammoth etc if this wasn't a natural cycle. you are really patronising aren’t you? Is it any wonder so many people lock horns with you!
As if I don’t know how big the earth truly is!
The human population is already too large. Some scientists have already predicted that the earth cannot sustain a human population over 10bn.
The countries with the highest population growth (generally) are geographically situated in regions that are going to become the least suitable for sustaining human life (lack of water and crops). This WILL cause a migration issue.
Guess where the majority of first world/affluent countries are found? In more temperate zones (that is no coincidence).
So if there are increased migration (immigration) pressures on first world countries what do we do? you do realise we aint as civilised as you think,if parts of the world become unlivable and those people start trying to migrate to countries that are still ok govs around the world will stop that with force, there not going to let there own populations suffer and the populations will demand that they stop the migration, when push comes to shove human beings are selfish fuckers and most peoples morals go out the window
Those parts of the world have to become unlovable. I dont think they will.
As I said. We have human living in the himalayaswith little food and poor brwatjable air and middle east with temps hitting 50
I dont think this is going to become a children of men type dystopia world because of a drummed up 1 degree temp change on average.
This ain’t simply just about temperature though - it’s about ecosystems and the knock-on effect.
Pick a point and choose 1.
The flip flopping becomes annoying.
Eco systems change all the time. You get monsoon weather because of plate tectonics creating mountains. ....
It’s not picking and choosing - this stuff is ALL connected. That’s what an ecosystem is.
Oceanic acidification as a result of CO2 levels - as I mentioned earlier - The impact on the food chain is potentially devastating.
The impact on many things can be devastating. It doesn't me the end of the world and life.
What is the acidification impact so far you feel?
No need to feel - it can be seen in reefs and resulting fish levels.
Climate change exasperates the displacement of people.
According to UNHCR, an annual average of 21.5 million people were forcibly displaced each year by weather-related events – such as floods, storms, wildfires and extreme temperatures – between 2008 and 2016.
People who want to reduce immigration should be all about reducing their carbon footprint."But as an example. That's not that these events are increasing. Just a high population. We knkw wild fires have decreased SIGNIFICANTLY over the last few decades. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So Morley now that the CO2 circle jerk is finished... "On your point earlier about the earth having been hotter before and life surviving... Apples and pears. Yes the earth has had hot and cold eras. But those changes have resulted in extinctions of species less able to adapt AND the earth has never had to support 8billion humans. Guess what happened when parts of the Earth got hotter or colder (and therefore less able to support life)...migration. Mass migration to more temperate zones. As per point on another thread, regardless of the cause of climate change (human driven or natural cycle), it will be devastating to the current way of life for many. You will see increased pressure on human migration. So what do we do to handle that?" Now that two notes might understand basic physics. Yes species come and go. Thisnis life, whether its comets, humans, landscape changes, tectonic activity. That's life. Trying to stop evolution is just as poor. Why would we see increased pressure on human migration. Human have managed to live everywhere. Fromt he arctic to the himalayas. Was that it... that was the big question....what do we do when we go from 3ppm to 4ppm? Or if average global temperatures in 10p years increase by a possible 1 c but most likely 0.2c So you totally deny that climate change will not significantly impact on humanity? You think we will just adapt? I’d agree if the population was perhaps a quarter of what it is and those living in more temperate zones were willing to accept migration but...!!!!! That sounds suspiciously like ostrich syndrome to me! As I said before the biggest worry is sustainability. Letting the population increase and trying to feed it. I am not worried about a severely unlikely 1 degree temp change by 2100. I regarding where these people go on the with and migration. I think you don't realise how big the earth a tuslly is. I'm not entirely sure what you think would be the consequence and which land would be lost. But I dont think suddenly millions of Africans or chinese or Indians will be coming to the UK. So I'm not entirely sure what you're asking or worried about. I have problems with sustainability. I'd rather rlimit human impact on loving environments e.g rainforest. But with regards to global warming. Species adapt, species die. We'd still have the sabre tooth, mammoth etc if this wasn't a natural cycle. you are really patronising aren’t you? Is it any wonder so many people lock horns with you!
As if I don’t know how big the earth truly is!
The human population is already too large. Some scientists have already predicted that the earth cannot sustain a human population over 10bn.
The countries with the highest population growth (generally) are geographically situated in regions that are going to become the least suitable for sustaining human life (lack of water and crops). This WILL cause a migration issue.
Guess where the majority of first world/affluent countries are found? In more temperate zones (that is no coincidence).
So if there are increased migration (immigration) pressures on first world countries what do we do? you do realise we aint as civilised as you think,if parts of the world become unlivable and those people start trying to migrate to countries that are still ok govs around the world will stop that with force, there not going to let there own populations suffer and the populations will demand that they stop the migration, when push comes to shove human beings are selfish fuckers and most peoples morals go out the window
Those parts of the world have to become unlovable. I dont think they will.
As I said. We have human living in the himalayaswith little food and poor brwatjable air and middle east with temps hitting 50
I dont think this is going to become a children of men type dystopia world because of a drummed up 1 degree temp change on average.
This ain’t simply just about temperature though - it’s about ecosystems and the knock-on effect.
Pick a point and choose 1.
The flip flopping becomes annoying.
Eco systems change all the time. You get monsoon weather because of plate tectonics creating mountains. ....
It’s not picking and choosing - this stuff is ALL connected. That’s what an ecosystem is.
Oceanic acidification as a result of CO2 levels - as I mentioned earlier - The impact on the food chain is potentially devastating.
The impact on many things can be devastating. It doesn't me the end of the world and life.
What is the acidification impact so far you feel?
No need to feel - it can be seen in reefs and resulting fish levels.
Can it. Didnt they just diacover that the aussie reef was growing and a brand new reef somewhere?"https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/is-the-great-barrier-reef-making-a-comeback/ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
